[Closed] Brown at the Chilcott Enquiry.

Come on - it was never going to be anything but a whitewash - that was clear from the start.

Come on - it was never going to be anything but a whitewash - that was clear from the start.

Can't argue that point mate.

But why do we have to put up with it?

This is a typical reason why so many people are sick of the current state of our Government

We don't tyger-there's an election in 8 weeks.

Remember the tory party supported the war.

Remember the tory party supported the war.

That's a tricky one. If you were an MP and were presented with that 'dodgy' dossier by the PM, categorically stating that we were under imminent threat-what would you have done Jerry? That's what makes Blair, Campbell and the rest of The Cabinets crime so awful in my opinion. The Tories were guilty of under scrutiny though, that's for sure.

I think a lot of people are "tired" of the lack of choice and integrity.

I think a lot of people are "tired" of the lack of choice and integrity

Amen to that.

>Remember the tory party supported the war.

They were lied to by the government if you remember.

Stevie - it was clear to me it wa a load of bollox at the time - as it was to many folk. Labour outmanoeuvred the tory party over it by forcing them the choice of " weak on terrorism" or supporting the war.

Short knew it was Bollox, Cook did, Chisholm did. I am sure many others. It was clearly bollox but the tories wanted to be gung ho about it and Blair was on a crusade

the Tory party voted with the will of the Cabinet on what was sold as a nationally important policy. It would take the kind of extreme fanatical politics that our middle of the road system prevents to create an opportunity for the primary opposition party to seriously consider voting down the government of the day on such a major political issue.

The tory party were not the government that brought the matter to parliament. With little invofmation than that which was government controlled to go on, there was no real room for political opposition.

Im most frustrated with the Chilcot enquiry for not having a decent legally trained independent member of the committee to provide proper scrutinised cross examination and rebuttal.

Stevie - it was clear to me it wa a load of bollox at the time

I was still in the army until just before the war started. We [i]knew[/i] we were 100% going in 6 months prior to invasion. We also [i]knew[/i] that the intel was being manipulated. Browns assertion today that up until 24 hours before Shock & Awe started that we were looking for a diplomatic solution was a total and utter LIE. As was the whole dirty, disastrous affair.

...his under funding of the military that caused many, many deaths

😕 Under 200 deaths in over 6 years of war doesn't sound a lot to me - specially considering the other side lost 10s of thousands. How many deaths would you have expected ?

Stoner, c'mon, you know perfectly well that if the tories were in power, we'd be in this war to the same degree, probably more so.

I am not actually convinced of that west kipper. I think it was Blairs misguided crusade in support of Bush. Without UK support its not certain that the invasion would have gone ahead and its not clear someone less deluded would have followed bush

I am not actually convinced of that west kipper.

Me neither. I'm not convinced that [i]anyone[/i] could have done more than Blair when he went round the world trying to drum up support for Bush's War - not even Thatcher. And she would almost certainly have listened to the concern of her generals, rather than let the Yanks decide everything.

Brown and Blair are fing lying wers.
How you can defend the indefensable is tragic.

Under 200 deaths in over 6 years of war doesn't sound a lot to me - specially considering the other side lost 10s of thousands. How many deaths would you have expected ?

At least 38 of our lads died because of the lack of proper vehicles alone Ernie, leading them to have to use 40 year old Snatches. Plus more that died because of the lack of choppers. Everyone of those lads' blood is on Browns hands.

I was in a very similar situation as stevie.
Saif serea 2 (Oman) was definately for a reason.
An old mate of mine was asked of his specialist team could perform a certain task even before that.

What we need at the election is for everyone to turn up at the polling station, then spoil their vote by writing 'I do not choose any of the above' on their ballot papers.

Would show how sick we are of theatrical politics with no substance.

However, many people still think that their vote will count for something without realising they are just perpetuating a farce with no real choice to legitamise those who want to protect their power.

Protecting their power d.b.?
What power?
It always strikes me how little power British politicians have in the face of the markets, the banks, multinationals.
My own suspicion is that Blair/Brown were point blank TOLD that Britain was getting involved.
The Americans probably giving us a secret ultimatum.

lib dems voted against it when presented with the same dodgy dossier

do you think anyone in parliament wasnt aware we had already commited our troops months in advance?

remeber the attitude of the govmnt after 9/11 it was innevitable and i doubt the torries would have denied it either

their anti war stance is why ive voted lib dem in every election since

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030318/debtext/30318-47.htm

Everyone of those lads' blood is on Browns hands.

I think blaming the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the way the war went is a bit much. The blood of [i]all[/i] who died in Iraq is most firmly on the hands of Bush and Blair.

[i]Then[/i] it's on their cronies, such as defence secretaries Hoon, and Rumsfeld with his smart-arse idea of Invasion/Occupation "Light".

Although I'm sure that all the "Blairites" would love you to blame Brown for Blair's **** ups.

Protecting their rewards would be more accurate I suppose, kipper.

All seem to do quite well with directorships and consultancies when they finish.

Something I should clarify... I do think the reasons we're involved are more murky than than 'protecting Britain from terrorism/ fighting a second crusade for democracy', but in no way do I think that Blair/Brown should be excused for their lack of backbone.
If theres one single reason I'll probably never vote Labour again, this war is it.
Luckily, the party that is likely to get my vote was scathing about the war from the start.

Did anyone really think the enquiry would have revealed any truths? I didn't - it's a whitewash. IMO Blair sgould be tried as a war criminal - in an unbiased court, but don't know where you would get that! Brown, lie all the others, will have been well-briefed and well-rehearsed. As said above, there should skilled cross exam from a competent barrister (who isn't hoping for a knighthood)

I think blaming the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the way the war went is a bit much. The blood of all who died in Iraq is most firmly on the hands of Bush and Blair

Agreed about Dubya and his poodle but we lost men unnecessarily in Iraq and Afghanistan solely because of Browns penny pinching. Two ex heads of the Defence Staff have today backed that up. Brown penny pinched, lads died, their blood is on his grubby mitts..

I'm not too sure what peoples expectations of this inquiry are?
The broad facts and lies were known before the inquiry, and it's not a court of prosecution, so I don't really get the whitewash assertions.
I've never been a proponent of the war, but I think people are being somewhat naive if they thought anyone was going to break down under any form of examination and say "It's a fair cop gov, you've got me banged to rights."
If you want to make your voice heard then vote libdem, green, or any other party that actively declared this was madness before we embarked on it.

we lost men unnecessarily in Iraq and Afghanistan solely because of Browns penny pinching. Two ex heads of the Defence Staff have today backed that up.

Well that's hardly surprising - is it ? ....... when was the last time in history that heads of the Defence Staff were satisfied that they had all the resources they wanted ?

The reality is that defence isn't some sort of bottomless pit to which an endless supply of money can simply be pour down.

As it is we spend obscene amounts on defence (I was use the term "defence" loosely - the Iraq adventure was a politically motivated war which had nothing at all to do with the defence of the United Kingdom) As an example, the cost of the replacement for Trident has been estimated at around £100 billion. Now if we didn't bother with spending £100 billion on weapons which the government assure us we will never use, it would go a long way in clearing the UK's £178 billion debt.

Yeah I'm sure that despite fighting an enemy which had no heavy artillery, no helicopters, no drone unmanned aircraft (and not even any helmets btw) Britain had spent [i]even more[/i] than the £1 billion a year it spent in Iraq, then maybe a few lives might have been saved. But the Defence Staff needs to cope with what they have got - not what they would like to have.

Do you not think that perhaps at least 38 people have died in Britain during the last 6 years because the NHS did not have funds for vital life-saving equipment or expensive drugs ?

I opposed the Iraq war for a multitude of reasons. Amongst them were the costs involved - both in financial terms, and in lives. Yes, travelling in a occupied foreign land with a hostile population is always likely to be a very risky business. And if it didn't turn out to be the "cakewalk" which the Yanks promised us it would be, then the responsibility for that hardly lies with Gordon Brown.

It lies with the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld's pre and post invasion plans. The pre-invasion plans, born from an arrogance fuelled by a misguided sense of US superiority, plus the belief that Iraq after years of crippling sanctions and almost daily bombings would be too weak to resist (Iraq was attacked for being weak - not because it posed a threat) that the invasion could be low cost and would require minimal resources.

And the disastrous post-invasion plans which included the abolition of the Iraqi army and the de-Ba'athification of the civil service, leading to the complete breakdown of civil order. Into this vacuum to restore law and order, as US and British troops sat back doing nothing (apart from defending the Oil Ministry) stepped the clerics. Radical clerics such as Moqtada Sadr, who with weapons from disaffected ex-Iraqi soldiers, was able to form the Mehdi Army militia.

If the streets of Basra were not safe for British soldiers then it had far more to do with Blair's pathetic grovelling to the Pentagon, than anything to do with Gordon Brown. To blame Gordon Brown is a cop out. And imo, a myth instigated by Blairites. If Blair didn't like the figures which his chancellor was providing then he should have sacked him, and replaced him with someone else. The buck stopped with Blair - not Brown.

Well said Ernie. Absolutely true and well thought out.

Well said Ernie. Absolutely true and well thought out.

Iraq adventure was a politically motivated war which had nothing at all to do with the defence of the United Kingdom

war has been and always will be "[i]politics by other means[/i]"

£100 bilion? lazy figures, where did you get yours from?

cost of the replacement for Trident has been estimated at around £100 billion

Do you not think that perhaps at least 38 people have died in Britain during the last 6 years because the NHS did not have funds for vital life-saving equipment or expensive drugs ?

And if it didn't turn out to be the "cakewalk" which the Yanks promised us it would be, then the responsibility for that hardly lies with Gordon Brown.

But the Defence Staff needs to cope with what they have got - not what they would like to have.

To blame Gordon Brown is a cop out. And imo, a myth instigated by Blairites. If Blair didn't like the figures which his chancellor was providing then he should have sacked him, and replaced him with someone else. The buck stopped with Blair - not Brown.

The reality is that defence isn't some sort of bottomless pit to which an endless supply of money can simply be pour down.

Yeah I'm sure that despite fighting an enemy which had no heavy artillery, no helicopters, no drone unmanned aircraft (and not even any helmets btw)

plus the belief that Iraq after years of crippling sanctions and almost daily bombings would be too weak to resist

It lies with the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld's pre and [b]post [/b]invasion plans.

Many places you are wrong there big and daft - the biggest and daftest of which is

it was that's why so few people died and it was over so quickly

You mean not many white boys - those Arabs just don't count do they.

1/10 - must try harder

Yeah I'm sure that despite fighting an enemy which had no heavy artillery, no helicopters, no drone unmanned aircraft (and not even any helmets btw) Britain had spent even more than the £1 billion a year it spent in Iraq, then maybe a few lives might have been saved.

I think that's what's called an asymmetric war and one that isnt exactly that a rare occurrence in recent years. Protecting the lives of coalition troops is not the same as killing lots of ill-equipped the oppo.

But the Defence Staff needs to cope with what they have got - not what they would like to have.

In the circumstance of a forced war of defence I'd agree. BUT in the case of an elective war of imperialism then the context changes and the military covenant obliges (morally not legally) the government to fund defence to the extent required by the terms of the expedition that they initiated.

Stoner, spot on.

But the Defence Staff needs to cope with what they have got - not what they would like to have.

Ernie, wrong.

we weren't scaled for two ops of that size; if the government expected us to perform its will, it should fund appropriately, simples.

I can assure you that the govt haven't funded us adequately for well over a decade. The difference is that in 2001 we committed to Afghanistan whilst supporting the UN resolutions in Iraq. As soon as 2003 hit us, with the invasion, we were well and truly bankrupt.

And its not going to get better; I suspect we will have a major re-focus of our global military role. Our commitments will reduce to reflect our nation's dwindling global impact.

Stoner +1, Well said.

Do you not think that perhaps at least 38 people have died in Britain during the last 6 years because the NHS did not have funds for vital life-saving equipment or expensive drugs ?

But the [s]Defence Staff[/s] NHS needs to cope with what they have got - not what they would like to have.

I complained about my local district councillor recently.

He was involved in funding a private company who now want to develop an area in the National Park behind my house. He backed a bogus motion at a parish council meeting which in very short order turned out to be in favour of this same company's planning application. I can prove he knew the motion was bogus from a previous letter he sought and obtained from a legal expert. I wrote criticising him and he threatened me with legal action then stated in writing that my criticism was invalid because he had missed that part of that particular meeting because he'd been at a full district council meeting that evening. He demanded I retract my letter.

I did some digging and there was no District Council Meeting that evening at all. I spoke to people who had been at the parish council meeting and looked up the full minutes. He was there. He was lying to me.

The Standards Board Assessment Committee agreed there was a "Despcrepency" but refused to do anything about it. Would it surprise you to know that they were his fellow politicians, one of whom was of the same party and a longtime aquaintance of his?

And who provided us with the rules under which this man gets away with malfeasance and lying? .............. politicians of course.............who else?

Gordon Brown and the Big Descrepency!!!!!!!

There is cancerous rot from top to bottom.

That's a tricky one. If you were an MP and were presented with that 'dodgy' dossier by the PM, categorically stating that we were under imminent threat-what would you have done Jerry? That's what makes Blair, Campbell and the rest of The Cabinets crime so awful in my opinion. The Tories were guilty of under scrutiny though, that's for sure.

Although the dodgy dossier was ripped apart in the media to such an extent that even without that information we had later, almost 50% of the public were anti-war. Oh and something like insane like 5% of the country came out to protest against the war. If they didn't smell a rat when half the bloody country did, they were either doing scummy political manoeuvring, or are very stupid.

Joe

big_n_daft - thank you for your comprehensive critique of my post. I liked the way you presented it - contradicting each and every point I made in a 'school-yard taunting' sort of style 😀

Despite the fact that it is undoubtedly as futile as arguing with a stroppy and hormonal schoolboy who likes to pretend that he doesn't understand what the grown-ups are telling him, I feel strangely drawn to respond......

.

There is a fundamental difference between fighting a war of naked aggression in pursuit of a political agenda, and fighting to defend a sovereign territory against foreign invasion. That is the difference between a legal, and an illegal war. And why the United Nations was set up after WW2.........but I'm sure you already knew that.

"[i]£100 bilion? lazy figures, where did you get yours from?[/i]"

Well you got yours from an article which is over 3 years old - are you not aware that the estimated costs of such things escalate ?

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/nucleardefence/New-Trident-39could-cost-UK.5661833.jp

Still, even [i]'your'[/i] figure of £65bn still [u]completely[/u] backs up my claim that, quote : [i]"it would go a long way in clearing the UK's £178 billion debt"[/i]

And of course Gordon Brown bares a responsibility for the Iraq war. But so also, do all those who supported the war, including the majority of Tory MPs - to single out Gordon Brown as even more responsible for the blood of British soldiers than Blair, is absurd.

"[i]if he had threatened to resign we wouldn't have gone, he was part of the collective descision to go[/i]"

You know that's complete nonsense. Robin Cook [i]actually[/i] resigned from the Cabinet over the Iraq war - it made not an iota of difference. And as former Foreign Secretary with detailed knowledge of the brief, Cook had considerably more clout than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On international relations concerning treaties and wars, Chancellors of the Exchequer are hugely unimportant.

What would have had enormous pressure on Blair during the run-up to war, would have been if Her Majesty's Opposition had voted against war - their failure to do so, gave him the green light. The combined pressure of parliamentary opposition and widespread public opposition (biggest demonstrations in British history) would have made things [i]very[/i] difficult for Blair.

Stoner, c'mon, you know perfectly well that if the tories were in power, we'd be in this war to the same degree, probably more so.

I am not actually convinced of that west kipper. I think it was Blairs misguided crusade in support of Bush. Without UK support its not certain that the invasion would have gone ahead and its not clear someone less deluded would have followed bush

I think you do the Tories a great disservice there TJ.

The trident replacement will be procured in one form or another, whatever the cost, it has more to do with international standing than as a last resort weapon these days.

I suspect that it's more to do with personal political motivation that so many here disagree with the invasion of Iraq and not out of their sense of morality.

We are returning to History. Better get used to it.

My opposition to the Iraq invasions are most certainly moral. A million dead and a country ruined - for what? Life expectancy even excluding violence down vastly, equality gone, hungry people, massive child mortality, far more extemists recruited, global security made worse. Its an absolute disaster and has destroyed any moral authority we had in teh world an dsplit the international community.

It is a crime of the worst sort..

Is an absolute disgrace

I expected it to be so for you TJ. Others are just using it to bash the current Governments over the head with, would they do the same if either of the two other parties were in power?

Its an absolute disaster and has destroyed any moral authority we had in teh world an dsplit the international community.

It depends on how you define disaster. As I said before, we are returning to history.

I don't understand what you mean by that. I define disaster by the deaths and the misery caused. Progress to me is judged on increasing hppiness and thus an almighty ****up like this that has caused death disease and misery for millions is a disaster.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8572372.stm ]Error? Or was it "misleading the enquiry"?[/url]

Error? Or was it "misleading the enquiry"?

No idea. But apparently :

[i]He said defence spending had risen from £21bn in 1997 to around £40bn this year and "grows every year in cash terms".

But he said: "Because of operational fluctuations in the way the money is spent, expenditure has risen in cash terms every year, in real terms it is 12% higher, but I do accept that in one or two years defence expenditure did not rise in real terms." [/i]

So defence spending is now almost double to what it was when the Tories were last in government then ? He ought to be ashamed. [i]Not[/i] that it didn't go up in real terms for three years out of the last thirteen, but that a Labour warmongering government should be wasting so much money on something which brings so little benefit to the British people, and so much death and misery to others.

Generally we leave that sort of stuff to the Tories 😐

yeah the torries have a strong tradition of shafting the forces yet seem to be the soldiers party of choice? thatcher was about to tear the navy apart until argentina invaded the malvinas

on a similar note
it really depresses me that the arms trade is such an important part of our economy

one of the only profitable bits of maufacturing we have left is for building things that make people die in horrible ways

we should be frickin ashamed

actual statements at the inquiry

I think that this is the gravest decision of all, to make a decision to go to war. I believe we made the right decision for the right reasons, because the international community had for years asked Saddam Hussein to abide by international law and the international obligations that he had accepted. 14 resolutions were passed by the United Nations, and, at the end of the day, it was impossible to persuade him that he should abide by international law.

so I think he is still bought into the "cause"

In the end, you have got to reach an agreement and in 2002, 2004, 2007 -- which are the main spending reviews -- these were agreed settlements between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury. And these were settlements based on, in the first place, a 1.2 per cent real terms rise in expenditure, and the second a 1.4 per cent real terms per year rise in expenditure, and in the third, 1.5 per cent. So there was a rising profile of expenditure for the Ministry of Defence, and on top of that all the Iraqi expenditure and Afghanistan expenditure was being met.

So the Iraqi expenditure was being met, [b]but at the same time the defence budget was rising in real terms every year[/b].

subsequent "one or two" is now three years of declining spend

nice way to manage a well pubicised TV appearance

More Labour lies (c) TJ.

What would have had enormous pressure on Blair during the run-up to war, would have been if Her Majesty's Opposition had voted against war - their failure to do so, gave him the green light. The combined pressure of parliamentary opposition and widespread public opposition (biggest demonstrations in British history) would have made things very difficult for Blair.

So its all the Tory's fault eh Ernie.

Lets start with who was actually governing the country- the cabinet. If Brown or Straw had stood up to Blair and threatened to resign, or actually resigned that would have made Blair's life far more difficult. Lets keep the majority of the blame there before moving on to the opposition who I agree should have know the dodgy dossier was a croc.

So its all the Tory's fault eh Ernie.

Well I don't know how I managed to say that ! ! .........can you C&P and underline the bit where I make that claim ?

Obviously it is not all the Tories fault. And I thought that I had made it absolutely crystal clear where I thought responsibility most lay.

Or are you saying that, quote :

[i]"The blood of all who died in Iraq is most firmly on the hands of Bush and Blair."[/i]

and :

[i]"The buck stopped with Blair"[/i]

......is a bit ambiguous ? And you are not too sure whether or not I am blaming the former Labour Prime Minister ?

Responsibility for the Iraq war lies, first and foremost, with Tony Blair. Then all the MPs who so enthusiastically supported him - including all the Tory MPs who voted for war.

There was no justification whatsoever for the Tory Party to give Tony Blair full, uncritical, and unconditional, support for his drive to war - and his arrogant contempt for the UN, Hans Blick, and non-military solutions. Nor letting him have such an easy ride.

Had the Tory Party done what it [i]should have done[/i], then Blair would have had a [i]much[/i] greater struggle in committing Britain to war. Indeed he had an extremely powerful trump card when he was able to gallivant round the world on his warmongering duties, arguing quite correctly, "even the opposition in the UK fully supports me".

Only a fool or a Tory, would argue that the Tories bear no responsibility for the Iraq war.

And yes, of course Brown and Straw should have resigned - and so should have any other half decent politician in the government. But it is nonsense to claim that their resignations alone would have stopped Blair. The resignations of Cook and Short prove that to be a false claim. And in the case of Cook who was a formidable politician and real heavyweight, his resignation didn't even slow the pace in the drive to war, let alone stall it.

Only a fool or a Tory, would argue that the Tories bear no responsibility for the Iraq war.

of course you ignore the obvious information asymetry, briefings tampered with by Alistair Campbell vs direct meetings with senior spooks. In the balance of things they were duped and skillfully manipulated.

The evidence that we had - I met the intelligence services on a number of occasions during the course of 2002 and early 2003, and - in addition to my discussions in the Cabinet and in addition to my discussions with Tony Blair himself - I was given information by the intelligence services which led me to believe that Iraq was a threat that had to be dealt with by the actions of the international community.

I'm sure Dave or George were sat next to him at the briefing, NOT. and before you pin it all on the spooks

Intelligence is a guide but it cannot be the only means by which you make decisions.

but even with hindsight

I think that this is the gravest decision of all, to make a decision to go to war. [b]I believe we made the right decision for the right reasons[/b], because the international community had for years asked Saddam Hussein to abide by international law and the international obligations that he had accepted. 14 resolutions were passed by the United Nations, and, at the end of the day, it was impossible to persuade him that he should abide by international law.

more amusement here:

big and daft - If I and millions of others could see it was baloney then the tories could as well. they were wakly leda nd didn't want to be seen as weak on terrorism - so were easy to lead into voting for the war - hardly a dissenting voice on the tory side and IIRC without the tory votes there were enough labour rebels to prevent a vote being passed in parliament.

So yes - while Blair holds the main responsibility, the checks and balances of our parliament failed and the tories were responsible for that by being gullible fools.

In the balance of things they were duped and skillfully manipulated.

So big_n_daft, you think it is perfectly reasonable, and to be expected, that the Tories should believe whatever a Labour government tells them ? ! 😀

It was clear from the start that neither Bush nor Blair believed for a moment, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. And the clue to what weapons of mass destruction actually do, is in the name - they are designed to kill tens of thousand of people. The possible death of tens of thousand of military personal would have spelt political suicide for either men.

I shall always remember the reaction of Bush and the White House when Iraq agreed to allow UN inspectors into the country. You would have thought that after endless demands by Bush and Blair that Iraq allow UN inspectors in or face war, the White House would have been in a jubilant and celebratory mood when they finally agreed - not so. In fact it was a mood of utter gloom and despondency. It clearly was the last thing they wanted.

And it was this obscene haste to go to war before the UN inspectors had completed their work which was the real give-away. Blair never claimed that Iraq had just acquired weapons of mass destruction, he always claimed that they had possessed them for years. So clearly there was no great rush. And yet Blair was not prepared to listen to Hans Blix when he said he had just weeks left to complete his inspections - not months.

Going to war before the UN had completed it's inspections was obviously absolutely imperative to Blair - does that sound like a man convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ?

Then of course there was the claim :

[b]"Intelligence also indicates that from forward-deployed storage sites, chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes." [/b]

So if Blair [i]actually believed[/i] that there were chemical and biological weapons which could be launched within an hour, he presumably thought that it would be necessary for the war to be over in say, half an hour ? Or was he expecting there to be thousands upon thousands dead ? I think he might have explored all other avenues before committing Britain to war, if he had actually believed all that bollox.

Blair never believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - that's why he was so keen to go to war. And why it had to be done before the UN had completed it's work.

And there was no reason at all for the Tories to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction either. If they did, why were they prepared to risk the deaths of thousands of British personnel before all other alternatives had been exhausted ?

Interestingly, the Tories chose to completely ignore the advice of Robin Cook (despite the fact that as a foreign secretary and cabinet member he had access to precisely the same information as Blair) when he claimed that Iraq posed no threat.

.

.......the tories were responsible for that by being gullible fools.

I don't think that you can describe the Tories "gullible fools" TJ - they're not. The Tories supported the war because they will always support the interests of the rich and powerful (in this case the US petroleum industry) over the interests of ordinary British working people - it's what Tories do.

And of course it is inconceivable that the Tories would not throw their weight behind an extreme right-wing neo-liberal US president. Specially as they like to pretend that this mythical "Special" relationship actually exists.

Britain doesn't need New Labour [i]or[/i] Old Tories. What it needs right now is a government committed to the twin social-democratic values of peace and social justice.

Interestingly, the [s]Tories[/s] [b]labour cabinet including GB[/b] chose to completely ignore the advice of Robin Cook (despite the fact that as a foreign secretary and cabinet member he had access to precisely the same information as Blair) when he claimed that Iraq posed no threat.

the difference between us on this point is that I don't believe the Americans cared about WH/IDS/MH/DC and their crew as they had just lost two elections and were reduced to a small pool of "talent" and a rump of MP's who were small minded idiots more worried about their duck houses/ second home flipping. Essentially they were the Lib Dem's in better suits and treated accordingly. It's very easy to trap a tory party into supporting military action in oppostion because as soon as they get wind it's going to happen anyway they feel obligated to "support it" in order to support the military from which they draw some support and MP's. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of their core values and Blair and Campbell knew it.

As stated above the information asymetry was significant and the manipulation of information passed to the public and the Tories in private significant. I think it's easy for people who were aways opposed to the war to blame everyone who didn't in the same way as Bush and Blair. What is interesting is it seems to be only one UK politician in office who still thinks it was a good idea

I think that this is the gravest decision of all, to make a decision to go to war. I believe we made the right decision for the right reasons, because the international community had for years asked Saddam Hussein to abide by international law and the international obligations that he had accepted. 14 resolutions were passed by the United Nations, and, at the end of the day, it was impossible to persuade him that he should abide by international law.

just to cause more debate

[s]Tories[/s][b]Mandelsson[/b] supported the war because [s]they[/s] [b]he[/b] will always support the interests of the rich and powerful (in this case the US petroleum industry) over the interests of ordinary British working people - it's what [s]Tories[/s] [b]Mandelsson[/b] do-es.

Interestingly, [s]the Tories[/s] [b]labour cabinet including GB[/b] chose to completely ignore the advice of Robin Cook (despite the fact that as a foreign secretary and cabinet member he had access to precisely the same information as Blair) when he claimed that Iraq posed no threat.

[s]Tories[/s][b]Mandelsson[/b] supported the war because they he will always support the interests of the rich and powerful (in this case the US petroleum industry) over the interests of ordinary British working people - it's what [s]Tories[/s] [b]Mandelsson[/b] do-es.

.

Well done big_n_daft ...... you appear to have discovered that there is little difference between New Labour and the Tories.

When were you struck by this staggering revelation ?