- Mr Brown said that he had been unaware of key questions surrounding the legality of the invasion, the intelligence used to justify the war publicly and Mr Blair’s secret “pledge” to join the United States in military action.
- ... the Prime Minister admitted he had been unaware of a number of controversial issues.
- Mr Brown acknowledged that he had not been present at a number of key meetings held by Mr Blair in the build-up to the invasion in March 2003.
- He said he did not see a Cabinet Office “options paper” in March 2002 which included the possibility of invading Iraq. The paper was prepared ahead of Mr Blair’s meeting at President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.
- Mr Brown said he was also unaware of a series of highly confidential letters from Mr Blair to President Bush in which the Prime Minister is said to have “pledged” that Britain would join in the military action.
- Mr Brown also did not know that of Lord Goldsmith’s late change of view on the legality of the war. The Attorney-General had said in early 2003 that the invasion would be unlawful but told the Cabinet just days before the war that it would be legal.
- He was also unaware of doubts about evidence obtained by MI6 that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), including concerns from his Cabinet colleague Robin Cook, who was the only minister to resign over the war.
- “I do not recall a conversation with Robin about the intelligence. He may have mentioned that at the Cabinet, I cannot recall.”
The Prime Minister told the BBC: “I was appalled by what I saw - I was appalled by some of things I saw happening that I knew nothing about.”
Again.
A politico who tries to take credit for the good bits and claims "wasn't me" for the bad bits cannot be a surprise. The real worry is that they all appear to be the same blue, red or yellow.
ReplyDeleteI am convinced that we need a "New election" box on all ballot papers so if New election wins a new election is called and none of the previous candidates can stand. On election night I suspect there would be a lot of career politicos with that shocked 'Oh shit, I've lost' look that Mr Portillo did so very well.
Not a surprise, perhaps, but it's the way he does it all the friggin' time. He's the Prime Minister - if something like that is going on, he damn well ought to know. If he doesn't, then he's not sufficiently aware of what is going on around him to be in charge.
ReplyDeleteHe's developing a track record for saying, in effect, "this is bad thing, I agree, but I didn't know anything about it, so you can't blame me". For a shop-floor worker, that's fairly acceptable. For the MD, no.
I like the idea of 'none of the above' on a ballot form, triggering a re-run. It might mean that some ordinary people have a chance to break the party stranglehold on the election process. It would also remove the 'voter apathy' excuse that so many politicians use to justify legislating our rights and freedoms away based on less than 20% of the population's support.
The full 'cunning plan' is to fine people (say 50 quid added to tax or knocked off benefits to make it fair and cheaply collected) for not voting (ideally hypothecated to fund residential care/ enhanced pensions over 75 etc) and then have the 'New Election' box. Rotten heck it would be fun.
ReplyDeleteDon't the Ozzies already do this, without the 'new election' box? I mean fine people for not voting? All the hassle and none of the fun.
ReplyDeleteYes, I could see myself ticking a box marked 'none of these cretins are worth the value of the paper in the voting slip, and I wish to see a new list full of real, honest people who know what a day's work looks like and won't steal my money to fund their pet obsessions'.
Yep. Could do that.