Cabinet minutes

Old news, young fellow. Who cares anymore?
Get on to Ken Clarke's demolition of that puny imbecile who represents Lord Mandelson in the Commons.

"Ministers could also decide to make use of the ministerial veto which was written into FOI legislation as a backstop."

So reading between the lines Nick, are you saying that the GVN is going to take this issue to court and having incurred much taxpayer expense (having already lost 1 appeal) will then invoke this clause if they lose.

If your New Labour chums think this is appropiate, why haven't they got backbone just to use the clause now and save everybody time and expense?

Oh! I forgot, New labour politics isn't about getting tax-payer value or doing the right thing - its about saving our dear leaders skin...!

Election please!

What is the fuss about here, Nick !?

We KNOW that this was in illegal war and that legal advice was 'fixed' to allow it go ahead.

Are we naive enough to think that Gordon Brown will say, 'Ooh, okay, they've got us bang to rights, and I will arrange an interview with Nick Robinson and admit that I and the rest of the cabinet are happy to be appearing soon at a War Crimes trial at The Hague'.."

Let us not hold our breath, eh ?

Why are they always trying to hide something...why for goodness sake?

So their argument that releasing them will impede free and frank discussion - how on earth is tha the case - idiots the lot of them. How on earth can you have a free and frank discussion when something remains hidden under the table...?

Actually I'm not surprised - nothing this oppressive
facsist
lying
deceitful
greedy
grasping
underhand
double standard
champagne charlie
dictatorship
bunch of muppets we are unfortunate enough to call OUR government do any more surprises me anymore.

Call an election.

That bunch cause this country and it's people nothing but embarrasment - day after day....

I vote for the lot of them being sent to the tower - for good.

Hmmm... It was unlikely that these specific cabinet minutes would be released so soon.

Now, back to our shattered economy, our appalling government and our the sleazy Labour party Lords:

Perhaps you can comment on reports that Jack Straw received 'personal gifts' from two of the Labour Lords named in this squalid affair.

Didn't New Labour come to power promising more open government? In fact didn't Gordon Brown say when he took over as PM that he wanted government to be more open?

And they wonder why we don't trust politicians.

D'oh the government against the people
Black on Black no clear colours.

Trust! what trust!this just gets stranger by the day. No fleeting glimpse of where government in general can go from here?

Dear Nick,

Nice to see you back, but no change about this 'open government' then.

More tax payers money will be wasted trying to stop this, just as it has been wasted on the banks.

Xxxxx
ps
Any insight on Ken Clarke's performence in the commons? Good/bad/indifferent/not been told what to print yet????

So, if the Government decide to block the thing they are guilty by default?

If the papers actually do come out under the 30 year rule will these people still be around to be held accountable?

I do think there is a great opportunity with the election of Obama because he has no motive in not releasing any kind of documents which might reflect upon the decision taken here in the UK.

Surely a few easily placed freedom of information requests in the US will helpfully clarify this situation.

Bad news seems to follow Crash around at the moment. Do you get the impression Nick that as much as possible is being shovelled out to clear the decks ready for a cleaner party at the election? The timer is ticking and someone knows

Poor old Blair. The one really decent thing he did, getting rid of yet another Middle Eastern dictator, and he is damned by those who whinge and whine about Human Rights, but in actual fact have their own agendas. Now, it is too late to really excite anybody if facts are released. Brown has created a Pandora's Box filled to the brim with stinking scandals.

Clare Short says there is nothing in them. We need the Cabinet Office Secretaries notes if you what to find out who said what.

Move on.

Has nothing else happened?

Have you heard anyone saying this about adding amendment to legislationon on a tape?

“you'll have to wet my appetite for me to come on board."

Or does your Labour filter block this sort of thing out.

Osbourne discussing a donation he then did not take up and your all over it like a bad rash.

Mandy what was he doing on the yacht?

Mandy how can he afford his New Socialist Mansion?

PortcullisGate the Damien Green raid?

It must take you 10 hours per day searching for a none Labour cockup story. There like a forest in front of you but you choose a Blair story from the past.

The world is disintegrating around you and taking our livelihoods with it. Nick can you not see it?

Nick Robinson's back in the land of the living and so is Derek Barker - they have been on the same "survival course" or are the same person.

30 Years Rule is there for a reason. It's not something the current government made up either.

There's a rule, we should stick to it, and that way we may persuade the Government to stick to their's.

#6

Yes - but they also promised us a vote on the EU Treaty and we didn't get that...

They promise everything - and it's all a lie - after lie after lie.

Problem for them however is that it is all coming crashing down - they are being found out - even before their own voters..

I'll gaurantee - there is already a back bench secret club planning to oust Crash and his Merry band of Front Bench Bandits - jus they don't have the guts yet - half of them are going to retire come next election as they know they'll loose - but they'll hang on and pilfer the tax payers for a little while longer to feather their nests - that we also pay for..

Grasping bunch of liars who are determined to scorch the earth we walk on..

Call an election.

#6 DisgustedOfMitcham2: "Didn't New Labour come to power promising more open government?"

And that's exactly what you've got. Have you just forgotten that it was NL that introduced the FOI Act, which has led to so much information embarassing to the government to be released? Or are you too young to remember (or indeed too old to remember)?

Contrary to most comments on here, which follow their usual skewed pattern, there are good reasons for not disclosing government discussions too near the event, while many of the officials and politicians are still around. Put simply, if people know that their comments/advice are going to be in the public domain they will make every effort to ensure that their recorded views are as anodyne as possible, while the real discussions take place in just the sort of informal environment that led to Blair being (probably correctly) accused of 'sofa government'.

I imagine that Cameron is praying that the government does excercise its veto, so that he has a precedent if/when he faces similar demands in government.

I very much doubt the Government will ever publish these minutes. What is it they keep saying about ID cards, the electronic communications database and all the other myriad intensive, excessive extreme survielence systems?

Oh yes, Nothing to hide, nothing to fear???

This obscenely molevolent malignant, foul, dishonest, slumpage of a maladministration must be put out of our misery.

Election now please.

Well having just read the update from Nick (at 18:09) it is quite clear what the Govt should do...it is rather scathing that their remains a minority in Govt who wish to hide this....


However, they will fight tooth and nail not to disclose that - even if it costs us taxpayers money...just like they fought and fought over FOI on expenses...

I remain insistant that this excuse for a govt are a lying bunch of corrupt muppets.

Labour are wekening day by day - the cracks are becoming chasms and the puss oozing out has a nasty putrid smell...

call an election.

Nick,

to turn round the phrase that is bandied about by government Ministeres when discussing ID cards:

"If they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear!"

Let's publish them and see what happens.

You got away from the sleazy geriatrics in the Lords as quick as you could Nick, didn't you ? Do you honestly think that Brown and his fellow travellers will ever release the cabinet papers on Iraq ? They will delay the release by every and any means they can, the papers may very well even accidentally fall into a shredder or be lost in the back of a taxi for evermore. This government has governed for ten years on the basis of truth not being in the public interest , and this is unlikely to change before time runs out on it's incompetence. When the truth does come out, no doubt there will be plenty of excuses and buck passing with whoever passed away in the meantime taking the blame.

Presumably this is another reason Labour try to cling on in government - if the Tories get in we'll be looking forward to 'war crimes' trials.

No wonder Gordon is prepared to throw Trillions of our money at the wall. Neither he or Tony want to do porridge.

What are they trying to hide? Surely the police should be called to seize all papers relating to this. Only thing this government understands!

Why bring this up now? Is it to deflect from Lord Mandy now preparing to give billions of our pounds to car makers who cannot sell their products? It is clear, plain and simple that there has been some sort of cover up in the events leading up to Blair's illegal war. It has been the general consensus with the British public for a while, and does not need to be brought up again, especially when the government will win the argument and not publish diddly squat!!
I say again, we have an administration hell bent on giving our money away where it shouldn't go, and are preparing to spend more money we have not got on things we do not need( ID cards anyone)!!
Time to bring back the perspective Nick, and stop trying to deflect people away from the real problems that lie ahead. This approach would be more welcome that telling us things we already know!!

It wouldn't be Nick's blog if it wasn't a none story

With all the other stuff pouring out of Crash's bumbling...and the retort from Ken Clarke to Mandy about the car industry loans I'm surprised we haven't had a 3rd blog entry for the day

PMQ's looks like a forgone conclusion tomorrow

No 15, I'm sure the FoI act is one that Gordon the Golem and his cronies deeply regret. It was introduced at a time when the Labour government was going to be "whiter than white". You remember those days, don't you?
As for the "embarrassing things" to be released, the government has fought tooth and nail to prevent the release of such information. Look at the fiasco over this and the on-going fiasco over MPs and expenses.
The FoI Act was bourne of hubris and has ended up being nemesis for Labour.

Huh. Well minutes are just a record of matters discussed and Resolutions made and should not contain personal comment and aside remarks.

When I took them down in shorthand, verbatim, they were really precised down to almost nothing.

Doubt if they will make sensational reading.

#15:

That's a rather strange point of view to suggest that this is "open government".

You may say "if people know that their comments/advice are going to be in the public domain they will make every effort to ensure that their recorded views are as anodyne as possible", but I would say "if people know that their comments/advice are going to be in the public domain they will make every effort to ensure that their recorded views are defensible, reasonable, and legal."

I think #16 and #18 sum this up best:

"If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear."

1

Have to agree.

Great politics and just as it should be

Not fair though that Mandelson can hide behind a peerage to escape Ken Clarke in the commons.

I think it's highly likely that the minutes go "missing" fairly soon or some low ranking civil servant accidently shreads them.

Not that it matters much anyway, as it would appear that most of Blairs decisions were made "sofa government" style, and the evidence presented to support the decisions which had already been made.

Then we have the usual "creep" of events when things do not turn out as expected such as "weapons of mass destruction" becomes "programmes of weapons of mass destruction", which in turn becomes "evidence of programmes of mass destruction".

What I think happened was that George W Bush had decided that he was going to have his war, and Blair wanted to support him. The decision was probably already made long before it got anywhere near the cabinet office, and evidence not supporting this were probably not presented.

@1. I have just watched the reply by Kennenth Clarke to the unelected trade minister's statement to the upper house.

If I were Nick, I would be staying well away from that statement too.

Mandy was absolutely, as you say, demolished.

I did not realise that the badly needed measures announced today were actually the same money announced in September. NO new money. Additionally, the only new action was the formulation of a committee to "look into the car industry!"

That was what was really announced today.

A think-tank to look into the problem and old money going into old, out-dated research into out-dated hybrid cars.

You only need to watch the excellent top-gear programme to know that hydrogen technology is the newest, greenest and best technology and that is where the research SHOULD be going.

No, the minutes will not go missing. They are in a bound book and locked away.

@24, you are correct, but I would go further.

The FOI policy was thought up when labour were in opposition, when they were lying about their intention to be whiter than white. The spin was that it would ensure open Government and labour supporters, like Jimbrant, foolishly fell for that spin. It was nonsense then and it is blatantly ridiculous now...

The FOI was implemented in their first term solely as a means to be able to publish embarrassing stories about the tories in the run up to the 2001 general election, without that pesky 30 year rule from getting in the way.

Yes it was just spin covering political self interest, - NO, REALLY? LABOUR SPINNING OUT OF SELF INTEREST???? SAY IT AINT SO!!!

However, with everything the myopic labour government does, they did not think it through, and now that they have a decent amount of time in power, they have skeletons that they are desperate to hide. So they are backing away from their own policy at light speed and trying everything they can think of for the FOI to NOT apply to them. After all, it was NEVER about open government.

The way they introduced it allowed other things that used to be released as a matter of course to be with-held. People would have to go through the expendsive, slow and painful bureaucracy to get information that they would have got for free, by default previously.

Labour actually used the "open government" spin to hide more information than the tories did, whilst leaking information that would otherwise have remained secret for 30 years. It was not about open government, but purely a political tool to manipulate information for their own ends.

As I called it at the time of its introduction, it would become known as "the freedom to withhold information act."

I am being proved correct. Again!

#29 purpleDogzzz good evening

....I did not realise that the badly needed measures announced today were actually the same money announced in September. NO new money. Additionally, the only new action was the formulation of a committee to "look into the car industry!"....

So true, to a man, (and woman), Gordon Brown and his ministers in their collective entirety have done this time and time again. Emphasis on the number,
xxx billions, simply as a headline grabber, detailed analysis frequently shows it is not new money, simply repackaged from a previous announcement.

I haven't seen Kenneth Clarke shredding Mandelsons lackey earlier today, is there an iPlayer recording or weblink to view it?

This is simply a headline put out by campbell to distract from the scandal of the four labour lords a leaping. The actual story will be unsubstantial.

Call an election !

Nick,

Yet another blog with yet another irrelevant paragraph at the end:

"Incidentally, if the minutes are published some people may be disappointed since by tradition cabinet minutes list the points made around the cabinet table and do not say who made them."

So what you're saying is lay off the government, because there's really nothing to see?

I do fear you may be right, as I bet a pound to a penny that the decisions about the dodgy dossier and whether to go to war weren't taken in cabinet, but elsewhere.

However, the minutes might just shed some light on the processes within government and just when and where these decisions were taken. Which I suspect is why the government is resisting their publication.

To quote a government argument on id cards, 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'

No 32, it's on the report on Mandelson's "aid package" on this very website.

they have as much chance of being published as Gordon Brown taking the blame for the economy....No chance.....!

#32

Here you go...it's great :-)
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7854262.stm

Clarke is one formiddable guy...great voice, great speaker and no one gets the better of him..

Nick,

we must understand the status of the soldiers, in particular they have been following orders. Going to war to bring about regime change I think is illegal under international law. A war of aggression is illegal under international law.

If the officers had not accepted the orders, if they had not passed them down the line to junior officers and then the fighting men then there could have been no British involvement in the war. It is the situation which the allies faced in Germany after WWII, we were following orders, we did as we were told.

The politicians should hang their heads in shame. They should have shown more back bone and asked questions which may well have identified the lies and deceipts. David Kelly paid the price, I don't know how Blair can live with himself. Funny thing is that any other politician who was called a liar would immediately take the accuser to court where evidence could be produced, funny how Blair seems to just accept the accusation.

I don't want to see the minutes of the meetings, what I want to see are the original notes from which the minutes are drafted. I think Blair is a liar, why won't he take me to court, like Robert Maxwell may well have done. As I have said Blair has not personally killed anybody, it is the soldiers who will have to live with the fact that they have possibly killed people based on lies.

Nick, you say:

"Incidentally, if the minutes are published some people may be disappointed since by tradition cabinet minutes list the points made around the cabinet table and do not say who made them"

Even if the minutes were published in full, could we really be confident that they were a true an accurate record? Remember, this is the government that gave us the dodgy dossier....

Nick Robinson haters, why not give up trying to influence him and try this.

Andrew Neil

He is more "balanced", more outraged and has a new topic every day. You wont have to wait 2 hours to see your complaint about moderation times anymore.

Dear Nick,

Glad to see a picture of TB right above your story of peer sleeze.

Shortly before his death, Robin Cook remarked that the House of Lords had moved from the ‘15th-century principle of heredity to the 18th-century principle of patronage’.

Xxxx

#39 T A Griffin (TAG)

To my eternal shame, I didn't register my objection to the illegal war in Iraq, by marching in Glasgow, as I should have - I was waiting in for a new washing machine!

I have probably more respect for your constant stance on this issue than for any other on this blog.

More power to you, sir.

Squirestrat 38

I thank you, I had not seen Ken Clarke's answer to Mandelson either.
Clarke is very impressive indeed.

T. A. Griffin (TAG) 39

I absolutely agree, this was an illegal war and not one that most of the public agreed with. When has it ever been under this Government that what the public think matters at all.

I have the feeling we will never find out the truth, Blair has always covered his tracks well. I would like to know the truth of what really happened to David Kelly, I have never believed it was as simple as portrayed.

I believe it should have been this war that brought this Government down, but it seems it will be the economy, what does this say about society.

I do not blame the soldiers though, I am sure a lot of them did not agree with the war either, they have just got the mind set they must follow orders.

In germany in WWII I think a lot of ordinary soldiers followed orders out of fear.

Dear Nick

About time too, because we already know this was an illegal war, post war intelligence investigations now state this.
Those responsible should be held to account

Dear Nick

About time too, because we already know this was an illegal war, post war intelligence investigations now state this.
Those responsible should be held to account
I have NO doubt that when shove comes to push, politically Brown will have an inquirey because it will stop Blairs iniative to become president of Europe,

call an election

From the various comments made I do not think that the release of these minutes will amount to much. It may shove the war in Iraq back into people's minds.

However I do think the damage here is the message this sends out to the public. More delay and dither and not respecting decisions made by their commisioners. Plenty of decisions get "made on our behalf" by this government and we have to abide by them. Just release them.

This govn are getting more and more out of touch. Take the farce of the ping-pong debate between HoL and HoC on the car bail out plan. Is that democracy?

I am sure that an inspiring journalist could draw together all the strands of the recent erosion of our democratic process into a concise and coherent story. All we seem to get is isolated piecemeal.

Why is that Ken Clarke cant string a sentence together without taking a "RED FACE" Hmmmmm

I dont think he want to be on the front bench with the young guns?

Just to make it a bit easier for you, since nobody here seems able to do original research, if you'd bothered to follow up on my reference to Craig Murray, you'd have seen he's the former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Rector of the University of Dundee who's had about as much of this lot as you have. If you click here you'll see how this thread links back to the previous thread.

Another bloody cover-up!

#48
Look at the wiki entry on Murray as well: that gives a first-level answer to your questions.

Its Wednesday and Ermingate has completely disappeared from the BBC's view and I notice that the BBC has added reference to "cello scrotum" to its news ticker.

Clearly the Beeb has learned a lesson from its over coverage of the Osborne-on-a-boat (non)story.

No doubt next time the some silly Tory does something stupid (or is perceived to have done something stupid), that story too will disappear in two days.

This has new Labour all over it. Create a piece of legislation with a catchy title eg Freedom of Information Act or Human Rights Act, and then when it might actually work against them try and wriggle out of it.

If the government is not bound by both the spirit and letter of this type of legislation it is worthless.

Like much of Blair's programme this is poor legislation that hasn't achieved the high moral goals it set out to.

I suspect that part of the reason for this may be due to:
A huge majority
Poor quality of opposition
An adoring media

The result being that scrutiny has been non existant.

rahere #50.52

Thanks for the links.

My concluding paragraph was a gentle dig at the BBC.

Am I the only one to think that each time a new "issue" arises the BBC correspondents report on it in isolation. Just read this blog entry. This is not always the case but rarely is there any context. What we need is joined up journalism!?!

The odd Panorama etc. is all very well but the majority of the public get the political angle from watching/listening to the news.

Derek Barking: I don't think you can call Brown a "young gun" can you?

He is coming near to bus pass age but hopefully well before that he will disappear up his own sporran.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#56

OCHi, flamepatricia, I guess that's why they call you "big pants"

Now is the red-face on the wrong side?

who know's, Ken does look like he would rather not be on the other side.

Hot....Hot...Hot.

Nick

We don't actually need to see the minutes.

All we have to do is listen to various Government spokesman when they now refer to the conflict in Iraq.

Gone are any references to 'weapons of mass destruction'.

Instead, we now hear that 'we' have successfully removed a dictator and Iraq now enjoys the beginnings of democracy and more equality for women etc.

These are admirable aims I'm sure, but we were not told that these were the reasons we were going to war.

The justification was false, and many Government ministers (Robin Cook and Clare Short for example) knew that the British public was being misled.

In fact, other than readers of the Sun, most of us did at the time.

As others have stated on this blog - more power to TAG for his consistent position on this subject.

Friends, I repeat my post of yesterday in that I'm bored with all this trivia. What is all the fuss about? We all know - correction, have extremely strong suspicions - that the war was based on at best dodgy reasons, at worst on a total 'roll over and get your tummy tickled' approach to our govts relationship with the US.

So what will publishing these notes achieve? Absolutely nothing other than giving us all the opportunity to have an national 'told you so' rant.

I am really more concerned with the fact that my fellow citizens are losing their jobs in the thousands by the day, my finances are being shot to pieces despite years of careful savings and investments by the actions of a bunch of incompetent fools who form the govt, and my pension is now not worth the paper it is not yet written on.

The only way to improve this sooner rather than later is to change the govt, accept that it will take a good few years to get a sense of order back, and to never, ever, vote Labour again.

Rant over

@ 50. Whilst a lot of people on here do not do any real research, I did know who Craig Murray is and I have read much of his work.

Here is a long brain dump, from the top of my head, I apologise for the length of this, but it needs to be written. Please read on...

I also researched UN inspectors, looked up interviews and reports (in the public domain) from intelligence operatives on the ground, from Politicians, bankers, reporters, independent bloggers and NGO's and other actors involved directly and indirectly in the search for WMD.

Oh, I did thevast majority of this extensive research PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq and could only ever come to the conclusion that the invasion was illegal in international law sans a specific resolution authorising force... The existing UN resolutions gave no time-limit, nor automacity to military action. Whilst the inspectors on the ground where getting full co-operation from the Iraq regime (and the inspector's themselves stated many times that they were) and they only had a few months to go, then there was NO legitimacy in launching the invasion.

The French NEVER said that they would veto a second resolution "no matter what". That was another Blair lie. The French said that "SO LONG AS INSPECTORS ARE STILL WORKING IN IRAQ then they would veto a second resolution no matter what" I think that was a reasonable policy.

The UN inspectors were repeatedly given co-ordinates of places where the US/UK intelligence agencies "knew for a fact" (high level confidence) that WMD's, their pre-cursors, programmes, parts or parts thereof would definitely be located. EVERY time there was nothing there. It could be a lab, that had been sealed and not accessed for 13 years, the locks rusted shut. Or it could be a pile of rubble that used to be a factory, or even just a pile of sand. (which would be meticulously excavated to reveal that it was just a pile of sand).

It turned out most of this information was NOT coming from intelligence services at all, but was coming from the whitehouse Iraq group, or the Office of special plans or Rockingham or other agencies outside of the intelligence network that were created to cherry-pick existing intelligence or invent new intelligence that was "fixed around the policy" of invasion, no matter what. The real intelligence services were repeatedly leaking to the media that they could not verify ANY of the claims that where coming in about WMD in Iraq. But each agency was played off against the other. MI6 could not verify the data but were told that CIA could. Meanwhile the CIA could not but were told that the Russian's could, The Russians couldn't but were assured that the Italians could etc etc etc. Mossad was using Chalibi's group of criminals to disseminate false information and feeding all of the different agencies lies.

In spite of these agency games, every single claim of evidence pointing to Iraq's growing stockpile of WMD was empty, and proven false before the invasion.

They could NOT let the inspector's finish the inspections though. Why? Well, the inspectors would have concluded that Iraq had no WMD, then there could not "legally" be an invasion.

The invasion was illegally launched on the back of deliberate lies. The fact that the UK and USA were still pushing the yellowcake from Africa lie after it had been publicly debunked by Hans Blix as a deliberate forgery proves that they were lying and they knew that they were lying. Why else continue to tell what was a known lie? They merely said that they had "more sources" for the story than one forged and then debunked memo. Well it turns out that, that was a lie too.

Why was this not exposed as the blatant lies that it was at the time?

Actually, It was. It was screamed from the rooftops at the time, but ONLY by people in the blogosphere.

These people were written off by the criminally servile mainstream media as wild conspiracy nuts. I wonder why? Could that be because it was all, in reality, an actual, real, live, wild conspiracy? It was, but it was a true one nonetheless.

The media were criminally subservient supine servants to the elite criminals pulling the strings of the neo-con push to war.

I believe that if they had been able to get Tony Blair to debate this issue with Hans Blix, or even Scott Ritter (one of the most eminent experts on Iraq's WMD and one of the inspection chiefs) on prime-time TV on the day before the war vote, then the UK would not have gone to war. The BBC did interview Scott Ritter, at 3:30 AM on talkback, weeks earlier.

Blair was given prime-time to regurgitate repeated lies, un-challenged in any meaningful way.

He lied about the Iraqis throwing out the inspectors in 1998. (The Americans withdrew them) He lied about the properties of the alleged WMD allegedly in Iraq's possession. He was never even asked if the "unaccounted for stocks" would even still be viable as weapons.

It turned out (again, known at the time) that the only stocks that were unaccounted for were due to accounting errors between Iraqis and the UN and the UN and Governments of member states.

Way back at the end of Gulf war 1, Saddam was ordered to disarm. He refused. he made life difficult for the inspectors and he hid stuff. The UN inspection teams found everything he was hiding because of the sophisticated forensic techniques and tools at their disposal. Including the paper-trails from all the supply chain, inside and outside of Iraq. Because of this initial difficulty from Saddam, the UN knew it could not trust him fully, so they decided to "estimate" what the THEORETICAL maximum capacity of Iraq's WMD manufacturing capability was. in other words, They estimated how much stuff Iraq's weapons factories and labs could produce.

Over time this estimate became a fixed actual real amount of weapons according to enemies of Iraq. They never existed in reality.

So the unaccounted for weapons did NOT exist and never ever did exist at all.

BUT, what if they did? would they still be viable? To my knowledge, the media never asked Blair to back up his claims by asking him about the shelf life of these weapons. most of which had a shelf life (if kept in perfect refrigerated conditions) of months. Some only of a few weeks. So even if these non-existent weapons were still to be found, they would have been rendered inert by the laws of physics and chemistry.

So we went to war over non-existent out of date and harmless weapons? No, we went to war for a number of reasons, NONE of them legal.

The real reasons (for there were more than one) I discovered were (in no particular order)

1. Regime change.
2. Bush Juniour's revenge against Saddam's threat to Bush Senior.
3. Saddam selling oil in Euro's instead of Dollars, weakening the petrodollar and risking economic collapse for the US.
4. The oil itself.
5. To remove a risk to Israel.
6. To liberate specific artefacts from the museum in Baghdad and destroy Babylon.
7. Strategic advantage over Iran (getting troops in all the countries surrounding Iran)
8. To send a strong message to Libya, Syria and the "axis of evil" countries

Whilst several of those reasons are understandable and reasonable, (and resulted in Libya changing course) none of them were lawful reasons to invade a sovereign nation.

Tony Blair is a war criminal and should be put on trial in the Hague.

#58

Why is it that you find it neccessary to act in such a juvenile manner...

Is there something wrong with you?

You know - people are generally [polite to you, they may call you crazy or barking because that is the impression you give, but no-one is insulting in the manner you are.

Really, there is no need to behave so juvenile. As someone else pointed out, there are children as young as 4 who show more maturity than you do. If you are the face of Labour on these blogs - it goes a long way to explain what an utter mess your whole party is.

It's sad really but you really cut such a pathetic figure!

All I can see are posters having general good debate - but all your intention seems to be is juvenile flame posting.

@60, I too am concerned at the economic failngs of this government, but I am not going to allow their economic incompetence to overshadow, or let them "get away with" war crimes.

I blame them for BOTH!

#59

Exactly - but the new message they spout out falls pretty flat as why do they not remove Mugabe, who is by all accounts as bad as Saddam.

The reason we went to war was the same as Brown coming to power - it was GWB's turn - he was determined one way or another to finish off what his father started...

Blair, like the suck-up he is dressed up the need for war - but was found out...

Labour do this time and time again.

Labour are simply corrupt through and through...

as for never ever voting labour again, I have never ever voted for them in the past.

However, I will not promise to never vote for them. In 40 years, they may be made up of completely different people with different views and values from today. I doubt it, but it IS possible.

Likewise if the labour party of 40 years ago looked to the party of today, then they would be deeply ashamed of what they have turned into.

The only value that they have retained from those days is rank incompetence.

@ 50. Whilst a lot of people on here do not do any real research, I did know who Craig Murray is and I have read much of his work.

Here is a long brain dump, from the top of my head, I apologise for the length of this, but it needs to be written. Please read on...

I also researched UN inspectors, looked up interviews and reports (in the public domain) from intelligence operatives on the ground, from Politicians, bankers, reporters, independent bloggers and NGO's and other actors involved directly and indirectly in the search for WMD.

Oh, I did the vast majority of this extensive research PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq and could only ever come to the conclusion that the invasion was illegal in international law sans a specific resolution authorising force... The existing UN resolutions gave no time-limit, nor automacity to military action. Whilst the inspectors on the ground where getting full co-operation from the Iraq regime (and the inspector's themselves stated many times that they were) and they only had a few months to go, then there was NO legitimacy in launching the invasion.

The French NEVER said that they would veto a second resolution "no matter what". That was another Blair lie. The French said that "SO LONG AS INSPECTORS ARE STILL WORKING IN IRAQ then they would veto a second resolution no matter what" I think that was a reasonable policy.

The UN inspectors were repeatedly given co-ordinates of places where the US/UK intelligence agencies "knew for a fact" (high level confidence) that WMD's, their pre-cursors, programmes, parts or parts thereof would definitely be located. EVERY time there was nothing there. It could be a lab, that had been sealed and not accessed for 13 years, the locks rusted shut. Or it could be a pile of rubble that used to be a factory, or even just a pile of sand. (which would be meticulously excavated to reveal that it was just a pile of sand).

It turned out most of this information was NOT coming from intelligence services at all, but was coming from the whitehouse Iraq group, or the Office of special plans or Rockingham or other agencies outside of the intelligence network that were created to cherry-pick existing intelligence or invent new intelligence that was "fixed around the policy" of invasion, no matter what. The real intelligence services were repeatedly leaking to the media that they could not verify ANY of the claims that where coming in about WMD in Iraq. But each agency was played off against the other. MI6 could not verify the data but were told that CIA could. Meanwhile the CIA could not but were told that the Russian's could, The Russians couldn't but were assured that the Italians could etc etc etc. America was using Chalibi's group of criminals to disseminate false information and feeding all of the different agencies lies.

In spite of these agency games, every single claim of evidence pointing to Iraq's growing stockpile of WMD was empty, and proven false before the invasion.

They could NOT let the inspector's finish the inspections though. Why? Well, the inspectors would have concluded that Iraq had no WMD, then there could not "legally" be an invasion.

The invasion was illegally launched on the back of deliberate lies. The fact that the UK and USA were still pushing the yellowcake from Africa lie after it had been publicly debunked by Hans Blix as a deliberate forgery proves that they were lying and they knew that they were lying. Why else continue to tell what was a known lie? They merely said that they had "more sources" for the story than one forged and then debunked memo. Well it turns out that, that was a lie too.

Why was this not exposed as the blatant lies that it was at the time?

Actually, It was. It was screamed from the rooftops at the time, but ONLY by people in the blogosphere.

These people were written off by the criminally servile mainstream media as wild conspiracy nuts. I wonder why? Could that be because it was all, in reality, an actual, real, live, wild conspiracy? It was, but it was a true one nonetheless.

The media were criminally subservient supine servants to the elite criminals pulling the strings of the neo-con push to war.

I believe that if they had been able to get Tony Blair to debate this issue with Hans Blix, or even Scott Ritter (one of the most eminent experts on Iraq's WMD and one of the inspection chiefs) on prime-time TV on the day before the war vote, then the UK would not have gone to war. The BBC did interview Scott Ritter, at 3:30 AM on talkback, weeks earlier.

Blair was given prime-time to regurgitate repeated lies, un-challenged in any meaningful way.

He lied about the Iraqis throwing out the inspectors in 1998. (The Americans withdrew them) He lied about the properties of the alleged WMD allegedly in Iraq's possession. He was never even asked if the "unaccounted for stocks" would even still be viable as weapons.

It turned out (again, known at the time) that the only stocks that were unaccounted for were due to accounting errors between Iraqis and the UN and the UN and Governments of member states.

Way back at the end of Gulf war 1, Saddam was ordered to disarm. He refused. he made life difficult for the inspectors and he hid stuff. The UN inspection teams found everything he was hiding because of the sophisticated forensic techniques and tools at their disposal. Including the paper-trails from all the supply chain, inside and outside of Iraq. Because of this initial difficulty from Saddam, the UN knew it could not trust him fully, so they decided to "estimate" what the THEORETICAL maximum capacity of Iraq's WMD manufacturing capability was. in other words, They estimated how much stuff Iraq's weapons factories and labs could produce.

Over time this estimate became a fixed actual real amount of weapons according to enemies of Iraq. They never existed in reality.

So the unaccounted for weapons did NOT exist and never ever did exist at all.

BUT, what if they did? would they still be viable? To my knowledge, the media never asked Blair to back up his claims by asking him about the shelf life of these weapons. most of which had a shelf life (if kept in perfect refrigerated conditions) of months. Some only of a few weeks. So even if these non-existent weapons were still to be found, they would have been rendered inert by the laws of physics and chemistry.

So we went to war over non-existent out of date and harmless weapons? No, we went to war for a number of reasons, NONE of them legal.

The real reasons (for there were more than one) I discovered were (in no particular order)

1. Regime change.
2. Bush Juniour's revenge against Saddam's threat to Bush Senior.
3. Saddam selling oil in Euro's instead of Dollars, weakening the petrodollar and risking economic collapse for the US.
4. The oil itself.
5. To remove a risk to Israel.
6. To liberate specific artefacts from the museum in Baghdad and destroy Babylon.
7. Strategic advantage over Iran (getting troops in all the countries surrounding Iran)
8. To send a strong message to Libya, Syria and the "axis of evil" countries

Whilst several of those reasons are understandable and reasonable, (and resulted in Libya changing course) none of them were lawful reasons to invade a sovereign nation.

Tony Blair is a war criminal and should be put on trial in the Hague.

@ 50. Unless my previous long post is not resurrected from moderator's room 101, I have asked a friend to post it here:

https://ken-hall.blogspot.com/2009/01/friend-asked-me-to-post-this.html

Enjoy.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Just in case my earlier much longer posts are not allowed.

here is a very brief extract.

There was at least 8 different reasons for going to war. NONE of them legal.

1. Regime change.
2. Bush Juniour's revenge against Saddam's threat to Bush Senior.
3. Saddam selling oil in Euro's instead of Dollars, weakening the petrodollar and risking economic collapse for the US.
4. The oil itself.
5. To remove a risk to Israel.
6. To liberate specific artefacts from the museum in Baghdad and destroy Babylon.
7. Strategic advantage over Iran (getting troops in all the countries surrounding Iran)
8. To send a strong message to Libya, Syria and the "axis of evil" countries

Whilst several of those reasons are understandable and reasonable, (and resulted in Libya changing course) none of them were lawful reasons to invade a sovereign nation.

Tony Blair is (in my humble opinion) a war criminal who should be put on trial in the Hague.

OK so my posts, in response to "50. At 08:53am on 28 Jan 2009, rahere wrote:

Just to make it a bit easier for you, since nobody here seems able to do original research, if you'd bothered to follow up on my reference to Craig Murray, you'd have seen he's the former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Rector of the University of Dundee who's had about as much of this lot as you have. If you click here you'll see how this thread links back to the previous thread."
------------------------------------------------

My posts have been moderated. I would appreciate it if someone from the moderators could explain which part of my long post specifically breached the rules and which rule it breached and how and why, as they have not given me this information and I do not believe it was in breach at all.

I merely showed that I had done extensive research, both prior to, and since, the Iraq invasion and explained, off the top of my head, what happened and why and what the reasons for war actually were. None of them being a legally acceptable reason for a war of aggression against another soverign state. I explained the lies and the process of delivering those lies and who was complicit in general terms.

After these posts were moderated away I gave a link to the post on a friends website

that was moderated away too.

So google a blogspot blog by ken-hall and you may be able to read it.

That is if this comment (which abides by the rules) is allowed and published!

#28:

I'm with you on your guess about the minutes going missing. Even if they are locked up somewhere, no doubt someone has a key to them.

Even this government is capable of learning the lessons of history when it suits them. What's the most important lesson from Watergate? Nixon should have burned the tapes.

If Clare Short reckons that there's nothing in the minutes then there probably isn't.

Anyway, no names, no pack drill.

Tea please.

68, Derek, I know you will not understand this, but I am generous and will try nonetheless.

The recovery depends on confidence.

1. Confidence in the markets,
2. Confidence in the banks
3. Confidence in the future direction of the economy by people and businesses.
4. Also confidence in the economic stability, strategy and competence of the government of the day.

Number 4 is required to create 1, 2 and 3.

The current government (by it's incompetent laissez faire regulation of their banking fat-cat friends and masters in the City of London, and massive over regulation and intimidation of ordinary businesses) has destroyed the first 3 and by so doing can never repair the 4th.

Therefore the FIRST step to ending the recession and building a recovery in this instance is to CALL AN ELECTION!

#31 purpleDogzzz: "Labour actually used the "open government" spin to hide more information than the tories did,"

And your evidence for that 'fact' is???

#39 T A Griffin (TAG): "David Kelly paid the price ..."

What, for thinking that the war was necessary, and that the dossier was a generally accurate representation of the available intelligence?

I don't object to people having different opinions to mine, but I don't think that ignoring the need for evidence is a sensible basis for discussion.

As for Clark, I said when he was appointed that it is a pity that we can't see him up against Mandy in the House, especially after seeing the latter's destruction of his Tory critics at the Select Committee last week. They are both class acts when it comes to the hand to hand stuff.

Are the moderators wanting ANY comments published today? They cannot all be in breach of the rules, and I know that one of Dereks was actually a reasonable post. I saw it briefly before it was deleted.

To be clear, it was wrong, but it was reasonable and did NOT break ANY of the rules.

What is up with the moderation today?

The actual minutes of the meeting cannot possibly be worse than my imagined version of events.

That'd be where Tony Blair asks the cabinet whether DPM and aviator sunglasses make him look butch.

Nick. You said.....

Incidentally, if the minutes are published some people may be disappointed since by tradition cabinet minutes list the points made around the cabinet table and do not say who made them.


........................................

I wonder why that is, Nick?

I always thought that to record meetings properly, the Minutes should state what was said and by whom.

Could it be that when the sh*t hits the fan, no cabinet member wants his name next to anything potentially incriminating.....?

It all stinks.

It is a pity that the government do not give the same level of protection to it's own citizens personal records as it does to it's out of date cabinet minutes. Their refusal to hand over these minutes hardly enthuses me with belief whenever Brown or Blair make utterances over the rights or wrongs of invading Iraq.

Have you noticed how both Blair and Brown have aged. Bet the ageing process will speed up even more now.
Time to ship Brown out quickly.
I see McNulty is being kept out of the way, wonder why.

Might want to mention the BBC Open Secrets blog which has dealt with FoI for a long while now.

Brown now looks like The Emperor from Star Wars.

When I watch the news and he comes on, I have taken to humming the imperial march tune.

It's quite fun. Until I remember that the galaxy he occupies isn't far, far away.

Why is it assumed that the PM knows all about economics? In PMQs he arrogantly stands lecturing all and sundry on economics proclaiming to know it all. I think it is a wafer thin veneer born of confidence and nought else. Why do I think this?
1. "No more boom and bust." - if he takes credit for the boom then he must take responsiblity for the bust. If it is a global issue then so was the boom. Either way this does not show any competence just circumstance.
2. He answers all questions on the economy with the same stock of answers. Not only that but these are repeated parrot-fashion by other government members. He rarely answers the actual question and to me this indicates that he does not have the knowledge to form a coherent answer.
3. We do not have a plan to get out of this mess. Running around spouting policies "on the fly" does not inspire confidence. What about the "strings attached" with the first bank bail-out?
4. Questioning the policies = talking down the economy. This is a losers policy. If a business wants a loan for expansion they have to justify it - this is not talking down the business. Just common sense.
5. In PMQs he said to DC that he was not winning the arguement. Whenever I hear this then it means that they have won the arguement. He also got quite nasty and this is always on the answer to the final question. Is this how he runs the government?

I could be wrong. What do I know? However if I make any financial mistakes I sure as hell am made to pay for them.

Be brave Mr Brown. Ignore the polls. Call an election.

#74

no for the lies told by Blair.

Why was he exposed in the way he was?

Why because you find out how much blood there is if you cut your wrists?

Why, because even though his body was found, eventually, have you not read the evidence that a helicopter with heat seeking equipment failed to find the body.

Why did Campbell admit that when he found out about the death of David Kelly did he feel close to committing suicide.

There is so much more about the death of this man that requires further investigation. The truth is out there.

Who cares about these minutes.

If you are still in any doubt that Tony Blair betrayed his country and sacrificed British soldiers to big-up his profile and pay packet in his new county of residence (the USA), you must be stupid!

If he didn't make it clear enough while PM, he certainly has since he left. This man cares nothing for Britain or British politics. Even the despicable Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandleson still care enough to argue their pathetic case to the British public and attempt to involve themselves in our political processes.

Blair doesn't care what the British people think of him, he's used us, lied to us and ruined us and now he's long gone. Without a doubt the most self-serving politician in our history.

#83.

In my opinion you have come to a view and then have interpreted the evidence to justify your initial position. It's something we are all prone to do, especially if the original view is heavily influenced by our emotions. All I will say is that, as an example, you should think about your point regarding Campbell, and try to see that your 'explanation' of his feelings may not be the only, or even the most likely, interpretation.

I think it will be fairly obvious who is saying what.

Tony is the one saying 'Who cares if it's legal let's bomb them, steal their oil and then charge them to fix their country afterwards'.

He's also the one humming along to 'I'm in the money' as everyone leaves.

38 squirestrat
#Clarke is one formiddable guy...great voice, great speaker and no one gets the better of him..

and he didn't want a referendum he thought both treaties were fine, and he wants closer ties with Europe, We labourites love him

64 squierstrat

#Exactly - but the new message they spout out falls pretty flat as why do they not remove Mugabe, who is by all accounts as bad as Saddam.

Has anyone heard of Mugabe gassing his own peaple or invading another country, or causing a war that cost the lives of two million Iranians and Iraqi's, or fire missiles at a nuetral country, or having in his possession tons of nerve and mustard gas. Or for that matter caused the little noticed, but probably one of the worlds worst ecological disasters by setting fire to the oilfields of course he hasn't got any oil fields but do you think he would? and finally has anyone any knowledge of Mugabwe walking into parliament with a revolver and just shooting a number of his representatives.
There is no comparison between the two and thats your answer. He's a evil disgusting dictator but compared to Saddam he's a pussy cat.

SergeantDigby wrote:
Brown now looks like The Emperor from Star Wars.

==============================

Actually, I think he is the Emperor with no clothes.

Brown stands for Loyalty and Discretion.

Somehow I don't think this will be moderated.
Now please send for the men in white

free