A polished performance today from Jimmy Brown, the influence of Campbell was all too obvious though. Constant sound bites, not a straight answer in site and marshmallow questioning from a panel that may as well have included Piers Morgan added to a bit of a sham.
Why wasn't he quizzed on the real issues- his under funding of the military that caused many, many deaths and worse-our ignonimous defeat and humiliating surrender of Basra to the Shiite Militia death squads that ran amok until the Americans re-invaded the city? The whole enquiry is pretty pointless in my opinion unless they are going to sharpen their knives.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Brown at the Chilcott Enquiry.
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Come on - it was never going to be anything but a whitewash - that was clear from the start.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Come on - it was never going to be anything but a whitewash - that was clear from the start.
Can't argue that point mate.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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
Posted 2 years ago # -
We don't tyger-there's an election in 8 weeks.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Remember the tory party supported the war.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think a lot of people are "tired" of the lack of choice and integrity.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think a lot of people are "tired" of the lack of choice and integrity
Amen to that.
Posted 2 years ago # -
>Remember the tory party supported the war.
They were lied to by the government if you remember.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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 knew we were 100% going in 6 months prior to invasion. We also knew 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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
...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 ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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
Posted 2 years ago # -
I am not actually convinced of that west kipper.
Me neither. I'm not convinced that anyone 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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Brown and Blair are f***ing lying w***ers.
How you can defend the indefensable is tragic.Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.Posted 2 years ago # -
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
Posted 2 years ago # -
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 all who died in Iraq is most firmly on the hands of Bush and Blair.
Then 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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Protecting their rewards would be more accurate I suppose, kipper.
All seem to do quite well with directorships and consultancies when they finish.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.Posted 2 years ago # -
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)
Posted 2 years ago # -
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..
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.Posted 2 years ago # -
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 even more 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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well said Ernie. Absolutely true and well thought out.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well said Ernie. Absolutely true and well thought out.
don't think soIraq 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 "politics by other means"
£100 bilion? lazy figures, where did you get yours from?
cost of the replacement for Trident has been estimated at around £100 billion
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-replacement-costs-put-at-16365bn-over-30-years-427149.htmlDo 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 ?
you will save more by ditching final salary pensions in the NHS (oops that will upset TJ)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.
if he had threatened to resign we wouldn't have gone, he was part of the collective descision to goBut the Defence Staff needs to cope with what they have got - not what they would like to have.
they should put that on the recruitment posters. If you want to send people to get shot at you need to pay and equip them appropriately. Just like we do for all the civil servants who get "danger" money to go out thereTo 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.
PMSL no cabinet government for Labour then, if Brown didn't want to be part of the the decision to go he should have said so. Bunkering down in no 11 pretending to support the war is no way to absolve yourself of the collective responsibilityThe reality is that defence isn't some sort of bottomless pit to which an endless supply of money can simply be pour down.
not a bottomless pit, but what both Iraq and Afganistan have shown is that if you try and penny pinch you fail, you need to put in the proper resources to make the difference AKA he massive surges in both theatresYeah 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)
neither did the IRA, INLA etc easy to shift them wasn't itplus the belief that Iraq after years of crippling sanctions and almost daily bombings would be too weak to resist
it was that's why so few people died and it was over so quicklyIt lies with the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld's pre and post invasion plans.
they had a post invasion plan?Posted 2 years ago # -
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
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
