4 Comments »

1. This Mrs Short, isn’t she the one who said that the war in Eyerack could not go ahead unless she, and she alone, was to be put in complete control of the inhumanitarian catastrophe which was bound to ensue ? And isn’t she the one who eventually and pointlessly resigned over the war at a time which caused the least possible embarrassment to the young warmonger Blair? And isn’t she the one who, ever since, has been trying to flog conscience-stricken memoirs to any old rag that’ll give her a few quid? What does she know ? And who cares? I’d rather eat a depleted uranium sandwich than pay attention to that old phony. God bless page three.

   Comment by Tasty Macfadden — 21 Oct 2005 on 5:25 pm | Link

2. This Mrs Short, isn’t she the one who said that the war in Eyerack could not go ahead unless she, and she alone, was to be put in complete control of the inhumanitarian catastrophe which was bound to ensue ? And isn’t she the one who eventually and pointlessly resigned over the war at a time which caused the least possible embarrassment to the young warmonger Blair? And isn’t she the one who, ever since, has been trying to flog conscience-stricken memoirs to any old rag that’ll give her a few quid? What does she know ? And who cares? I’d rather eat a depleted uranium sandwich than pay attention to that old phony. God bless page three.

   Comment by Tasty Macfadden — 21 Oct 2005 on 5:27 pm | Link

3. "the PMOS said that the fact of the matter was that there had been a vote before Iraq"

   True; what the PMOS failed to remind everyone at the same time was that the reasons given for sending the troops in the first place were based on lies, as has since been established. That fact invalidates any vote, the real results of which can never now be known.

   "As both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary had said on the record in the past that no government would want to put itself in a position, that could not be foreseen at the moment, where action had to take place very quickly and it could not react quickly without giving an enemy, in those unforeseen circumstances"

   Unfortunately, both the PM and the FS have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with such responsibility. The ongoing farce that is Iraq every day proves that quite amply. Whilst I agree it is not ideal, I do believe there needs to be at least temporary measures to limit the ability of criminals like Bliar to send troops into harms way on the basis of lies – especially outright and blatant lies which many of us predicted beforehand and watched with horror as they unfolded for real. Sadly, I know that isn’t going to happen; we are currently watching the start of the same process all over again, but this time with Iran.

   It is unfortunate that it should be Claire Short who introduces such a bill; maybe it’s because of her relatively high profile that it’s her pushing it.

   "…and robbed itself of the element of surprise"

   Ummm, hang about. Why would we ever need the element of surprise militarily? Who are we planning on attacking? That’s about the only time you need an element of surprise in warfare. Unforeseen circumstances? Don’t make me laugh. The only unforseen circumstances any supposedly diplomatic country should be talking about as far as it’s military is concerned is being attacked, or a natural disaster. And in either of those there is no fear of Parliament ever NOT voting for the deployment of troops. What other possible unforeseen circumstances could there possibly be apart from the "need" to attack someone to control their oil supply?

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 21 Oct 2005 on 9:37 pm | Link

4. Depends who’s doing the ‘forseeing’. Most of the wars of the last 100 years were entirely forseen. But there’s none so ‘visually needy’ as those who do not wish to (for)see.

   Setting aside the basis of the invasion of Iraq, can the PMOS provide a single instance from – let’s say, the 19th Century onwards – where Parliament has not previously authorised any war. And can he tell us of any example where this may actually have been necessary?

   What this amounts to is a personal desire on the part of Blair to be able to declare war on anyone without first receiving the endorsement of Parliament. Mind you, as he is the Prime Minister who has involved this country in more wars than any of his predecessors, I’m surprised that he even bothers with this charade. Let alone in getting his henchmen to provide phony dossiers and justifications for his lies to the nation.

   Blair and his colleagues are entirely discredited. They inhabit a moral vacuum of their own making. Away with them all, they are liars and self-serving scoundrels unfit to lead this great nation!

   Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 22 Oct 2005 on 4:44 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.