Chilcot Enquiry

#2
Watched a little on Sky News ........ mealy mouthed political waffle as per usual.
No sincerity, apart from the usual practised words.

:x
 
#3
Tory blogger Iain Dale said it pretty well:

Summing up Brown's evidence so far: "I wasn't there, I know nothing, nothing to do with me, guv. Honest"
Once again the panel of lightweights has barely penetrated the surface of the issues, allowing him to get away with some quite shocking memory lapses and some blatant lies. They have subjected him to a depth of questioning akin to that of a toddler's paddling pool. This is all one big waste of money!
 
#4
For all his faults, Brown gives the impression of having mastered his subject rather well. He has certainly shown a surprisingly detailed knowledge of dates, places, war aims, peace aims (frustrated by the Americans), tactics and necessary modifications to equipment; even the 'hot and high' requirement for helos operating in Afghanistan.
 
#5
Naval_Gazer said:
For all his faults, Brown gives the impression of having mastered his subject rather well. He has certainly shown a surprisingly detailed knowledge of dates, places, war aims, peace aims (frustrated by the Americans), tactics and necessary modifications to equipment; even the 'hot and high' requirement for helos operating in Afghanistan.
This makes the fact that he seemed to be unable to recall or was unsure of SO MUCH in the build up to war that much more unbelievable! He directed the questioning from the start and was allowed to do so, the inquiry was taken right round the houses and missed their opportunity to ask questions on a number of areas. A total joke!
 
A

angrydoc

Guest
#6
Brown is clever- make no mistake.

What really grips my shit is his insistence on satisfying all UORs. The fact that a UOR is issued infers there is inadequate kit in theatre. So stating you fulfill them all admits there were deficiencies in the first place. Noone has picked up on this yet.

It's hard to know who annoys me more- Brown et al or the Stop the War lunatics who just want us all to have a group hug, pat eachother on the back and say "there there- it'll all be ok".
 
#9
Chilcot inquiry: Sir John Major urges Tony Blair to reveal George Bush conversations - Politics - News - London Evening Standard

Campaigners suspect the former Labour PM committed Britain to going to war before getting the backing of Parliament.But under a deal being negotiated between Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, who was principal private secretary to Mr Blair in No10 in the run-up to the war, and Sir John Chilcot, the information to be disclosed will be limited to “quotes or gists”.

In addition, the inquiry’s use of the material “should not reflect president Bush’s views”. But Sir John Major, who was Prime Minister during the first Gulf War in 1991, said: “It’s a pity that the papers are going to be withheld. “Firstly, they will leave suspicions unresolved and those suspicions will fester and maybe worsen. “Secondly, withholding them is going to be very embarrassing for Mr Blair, not least of course since he brought in the Freedom of Information Act.”
Sir John added that the controversial decision was by the Cabinet Office and the current Coalition Government could not intervene over papers from a previous Labour administration.
Fair points, I think. This is the man who could have supported the eventual Iraq clusterf**ck in '91 but had more sense.
 
#13
The Chilcot enquiry was a British paid for enquiry, funded by the tax payer, WTF have the yanks got to do with it?
Blair was writing private letters to Bush and vice versa so if you're going to publish the letters from a non UK resident you need their agreement and that of their government. Knowing what George the idiot said in public do you really think we're going to be let see his private ramblings. I'm not saying it's right but merely being pragmatic.
 
#14
Blair was writing private letters to Bush and vice versa so if you're going to publish the letters from a non UK resident you need their agreement and that of their government. Knowing what George the idiot said in public do you really think we're going to be let see his private ramblings. I'm not saying it's right but merely being pragmatic.
Well perhaps we should just publish Blairs leeters to Bush, that will make the bstrd squirm
 
#16
Surely, letters written by the PM in his official capacity belong to the state, and are therefore not subject to privacy legislation, so the witch could foxtrot oscar
 
#17
Surely, letters written by the PM in his official capacity belong to the state, and are therefore not subject to privacy legislation, so the witch could foxtrot oscar

It's the content of private letters that are being censored, Blair is too slippery to put any damning evidence in an official letter.
 
#19
Saddam Hussein was a complete bastard who gave dictators a bad name, but it now appears, he was the glue that held Iraq together. Ridding the world of a nasty dictator and bringing democracy and peace to a troubled region were the aims. Only the first part was achieved and 10 years on great swathes of the middle east are in ruins, anarchy reigns and sectarian wars rage.
Mission accomplished????????
 
#20
The results of recent conflicts only enforce my views that Muslim countries can only be successful ruled by hard talking hard ruling dictators.
I know that Muslims are not a race however they act like one and as such only seem to respect absolute power
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads