Those who want to watch Gordon Brown's appearance before the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war will have to enter a ballot.
He will appear before the inquiry in early March.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Monday, February 08, 2010
Defined By Iraq
Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's former spin doctor, had a minor "emotional" moment on the Andrew Marr show yesterday when questioned about Iraq.
Campbell needed some moments pause in order to compose himself.
In his view Blair is "a totally honourable man".
Later Cambpell complained to Sky News about having to talk about Iraq:
"I did get quite upset with Andrew [Marr] this morning. I feel sometimes we are treated in this media bubble... like somehow you are devoid of humanity – you don't really have feelings, you don't really care about things.
I know how much I care about it, I know how much Tony Blair cares about it."
What did he expect?
Campbell's and Blair's lives will be forever defined by Iraq, nothing they ever do in the future will ever free them from that millstone around their necks.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Smeargate
Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador in the US, has given Tony Blair a very publicy drubbing in an interview with The Independent.
Sir Christopher says that Blair, and his closest advisers, have used their evidence to the Iraq inquiry to smear those criticising the decision to taken Britain to war.
He noted that "turning on opposition was the modus operandi of the Blair administration".
"You turn on dissent, you distort the argument, you claim the other person has said something they never said, and then you seek to discredit it.
It's not only me that has had some of this.
It is their modus operandi.
Smear and smokescreen."
Sir Christopher was also not impressed with Blair's obsession with invading Iran:
"Blair's strategic approach to his evidence seemed to be a kind of double or quits.
In other words, it was to say no regrets, I'd do it again, and by the way if I was Prime Minister I'd do Iran also.
It's nonsense about Iran.
The strategic beneficiary of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq has been Iran. It has enhanced the position of Iran in the region, there is no doubt about it at all.”
The fact that Blair has entrenched the idea that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were cut from the same cloth was extraordinary.
We've always known that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and didn't like al-Qaeda."
Sir Christopher uses the polite phrase "sub-contracted" wrt Blair allowing Bush to make the decision about war, ie he is saying that Blair had in effect become a poodle of Bush.
It is a pity that all the now so very vocal critics of the war, who were in positions of power during the run up to war, did not speak up and come forward at the time.
Sir Christopher says that Blair, and his closest advisers, have used their evidence to the Iraq inquiry to smear those criticising the decision to taken Britain to war.
He noted that "turning on opposition was the modus operandi of the Blair administration".
"You turn on dissent, you distort the argument, you claim the other person has said something they never said, and then you seek to discredit it.
It's not only me that has had some of this.
It is their modus operandi.
Smear and smokescreen."
Sir Christopher was also not impressed with Blair's obsession with invading Iran:
"Blair's strategic approach to his evidence seemed to be a kind of double or quits.
In other words, it was to say no regrets, I'd do it again, and by the way if I was Prime Minister I'd do Iran also.
It's nonsense about Iran.
The strategic beneficiary of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq has been Iran. It has enhanced the position of Iran in the region, there is no doubt about it at all.”
The fact that Blair has entrenched the idea that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were cut from the same cloth was extraordinary.
We've always known that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and didn't like al-Qaeda."
Sir Christopher uses the polite phrase "sub-contracted" wrt Blair allowing Bush to make the decision about war, ie he is saying that Blair had in effect become a poodle of Bush.
It is a pity that all the now so very vocal critics of the war, who were in positions of power during the run up to war, did not speak up and come forward at the time.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Pants on Fire
It seems that Tony Blair's hopes of trying to put Iraq behind him, have been quashed once again.
Sir John Chilcot is to recall Blair to reappear before the inquiry into Iraq. Apparently there are some questions over Blair's testimony, when he appeared at the inquiry last week, conflicting with that given by other witnesses such as Lord Goldsmith and Lord Boyce.
Blair will go to his grave being hounded for his decision to go to war.
That is the price he will pay for believing that the war was "just" from a religious standpoint.
Sir John Chilcot is to recall Blair to reappear before the inquiry into Iraq. Apparently there are some questions over Blair's testimony, when he appeared at the inquiry last week, conflicting with that given by other witnesses such as Lord Goldsmith and Lord Boyce.
Blair will go to his grave being hounded for his decision to go to war.
That is the price he will pay for believing that the war was "just" from a religious standpoint.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Cabinet Misled
Unsurprisingly Claire Short, during her appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war, pulled no punches when it came to trying to put the boot into Tony Blair.
She said that Blair "and his mates" decided war was necessary, and "everything was done on a wing and a prayer".
That seems to be a pretty fair assessment.
She didn't have many kind words for the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, either:
"I think he misled the cabinet. He certainly misled me, but people let it through."
Her "principled" stand is somewhat let down by the fact that she stayed in the cabinet after the war had started, relying on the promise by Blair that she would have a major role in the reconstruction of Iraq.
As we know, the reconstruction has been a bodged job (to put it mildly). However, even if it had been a beacon of success, it seems a strange stance to take to happily stand by whilst a country is being bombed to smithereens merely on the promise of being allowed to rebuild it again.
She said that Blair "and his mates" decided war was necessary, and "everything was done on a wing and a prayer".
That seems to be a pretty fair assessment.
She didn't have many kind words for the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, either:
"I think he misled the cabinet. He certainly misled me, but people let it through."
Her "principled" stand is somewhat let down by the fact that she stayed in the cabinet after the war had started, relying on the promise by Blair that she would have a major role in the reconstruction of Iraq.
As we know, the reconstruction has been a bodged job (to put it mildly). However, even if it had been a beacon of success, it seems a strange stance to take to happily stand by whilst a country is being bombed to smithereens merely on the promise of being allowed to rebuild it again.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Blair's Fanaticism
Tony Blair has started to give evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.
What is striking, to me at least, is that he displays the same degree of fanaticism as the terrorists he sought to fight.
"..Those of us who dealt with terrorism by the IRA [knew] their terrorism was directed towards political purposes, it was within a framework you could understand. That completely changed from that moment – Iran, Libya, North Korea, Iraq ... All of this had to be brought to an end..."
It seems to me that had the Iraq invasion been a "success", then the US and UK would have happily wandered the globe regime changing (and starting wars) at will.
I well recall Blair giving a speech a few years ago in which he said that Afghanistan had become a "crucible" in the fight against terror.
All very well, but did the people who live in that country ask for it to be turned into a crucible?
Sadly fanaticism occurs in "democracies", not just dictatorships.
What is striking, to me at least, is that he displays the same degree of fanaticism as the terrorists he sought to fight.
"..Those of us who dealt with terrorism by the IRA [knew] their terrorism was directed towards political purposes, it was within a framework you could understand. That completely changed from that moment – Iran, Libya, North Korea, Iraq ... All of this had to be brought to an end..."
It seems to me that had the Iraq invasion been a "success", then the US and UK would have happily wandered the globe regime changing (and starting wars) at will.
I well recall Blair giving a speech a few years ago in which he said that Afghanistan had become a "crucible" in the fight against terror.
All very well, but did the people who live in that country ask for it to be turned into a crucible?
Sadly fanaticism occurs in "democracies", not just dictatorships.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Gagging
It seems that the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war is operating with at least one hand tied behind its back.
During yesterday's questioning of Lord Goldsmith (the government's attorney general at the time of the Iraq war) it emerged that the government has not sanctioned the release of documents that show how Lord Goldsmith's legal advice changed.
Neither Sir John Chilcot nor Lord Goldsmith were particularly happy that they could not refer to these secret memos.
An inquiry that is hampered in this way, will produce a result of very little substance.
That of course is exactly what Gordon Brown wanted when he sanctioned the inquiry.
During yesterday's questioning of Lord Goldsmith (the government's attorney general at the time of the Iraq war) it emerged that the government has not sanctioned the release of documents that show how Lord Goldsmith's legal advice changed.
Neither Sir John Chilcot nor Lord Goldsmith were particularly happy that they could not refer to these secret memos.
An inquiry that is hampered in this way, will produce a result of very little substance.
That of course is exactly what Gordon Brown wanted when he sanctioned the inquiry.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The Bleedin' Obvious
Lord Goldsmith, Labour's attorney general at the time of the Iraq war, has told the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war that he believed that there was no immediate threat from Saddam Hussein that justified the use of force.
It was obvious at the time to all and sundry, even those who were not top flight lawyers, that Saddam posed no credible immediate threat.
Goldsmith then went on to say that, in his view, regime change was not a legitimate basis for the invasion.
Then why did he materially alter his legal advice in the run up to war, and perform a U turn?
It was obvious at the time to all and sundry, even those who were not top flight lawyers, that Saddam posed no credible immediate threat.
Goldsmith then went on to say that, in his view, regime change was not a legitimate basis for the invasion.
Then why did he materially alter his legal advice in the run up to war, and perform a U turn?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
No Legal Basis
Sir Michael Wood, the most senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office at the time of the Iraq invasion, told the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war that he disagreed with the advice of Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, that military intervention was lawful.
In a written statement he said:
"I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law."
Sir Michael also wrote to Jack Straw on January 24 2003 outlining his concerns with comments Straw made to then-US vice president Dick Cheney in Washington.
Straw told Cheney that Britain would "prefer" a second resolution, but it would be "OK" if they tried and failed to get one "a la Kosovo".
Sir Michael wrote:
"I hope there is no doubt in anyone's mind that, without a further decision of the Council, and absent extraordinary circumstances of which at present there is no sign, the UK cannot lawfully use force against Iraq to ensure compliance with its Security Council WMD resolution."
Straw rejected the advice, on the basis the international law was very vague.
The government of the day was looking for ways to justify and enact a decision that it had already been made. The alleged "vagueness" of international law gave them what they thought to be a hook onto which to hang their arguments, albeit ever so tenuous.
In a written statement he said:
"I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law."
Sir Michael also wrote to Jack Straw on January 24 2003 outlining his concerns with comments Straw made to then-US vice president Dick Cheney in Washington.
Straw told Cheney that Britain would "prefer" a second resolution, but it would be "OK" if they tried and failed to get one "a la Kosovo".
Sir Michael wrote:
"I hope there is no doubt in anyone's mind that, without a further decision of the Council, and absent extraordinary circumstances of which at present there is no sign, the UK cannot lawfully use force against Iraq to ensure compliance with its Security Council WMD resolution."
Straw rejected the advice, on the basis the international law was very vague.
The government of the day was looking for ways to justify and enact a decision that it had already been made. The alleged "vagueness" of international law gave them what they thought to be a hook onto which to hang their arguments, albeit ever so tenuous.
Chemical Ali Executed
Ali Hassan al-Majid, aka "Chemical Ali", has been executed by hanging, an Iraqi government spokesman has announced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)