Go Clare Short Go - Chilcot Enquiry

Listening to Clare Short's evidence to the Chilcot Enquiry this morning has got to be excruciating for Labour and Blair in particular. Clare is not pulling any punches and seems, if anything, that she is out to tell it the way it was, warts and all. Who do we believe? Blair, Campbell, Goldsmith and Straw - all who have to defend their actions - or do we believe Short who resigned over the conflict and has nothing to lose? I'm sure Clare has an axe to grind, but I can't help feeling that she is telling us the truth.

Here are a few lines from her evidence:

"We asked for a briefing... This just didn't come and didn't come."

"It became clear there was some sort of block on communications."

She told the Iraq inquiry the cabinet had not been a "decision-making body" and called Parliament a "rubber stamp".

Clare is still giving evidence live, and you can watch it by clicking HERE.

Even The Mirror turns against Gordon Brown.

Gordon Brown has achieved something I thought he was incapable of. He has managed to alienate the one newspaper that has shown blind (and mindless) loyalty to him and his Government - The Mirror.

The straw that broke the camel's back for The Mirror, looks to be yesterday's announcement of a sham enquiry into the Iraq war.

The Mirror's Jason Beattie wrote:

Gordon Brown sparked furious claims of a whitewash yesterday after ruling the inquiry into the Iraq War would be held in private.

The long-awaited probe will be conducted by hand-picked grandees and will not report until after the next election.

And amazingly, Downing St admitted the toothless investigation would not even demand witnesses give evidence by law, and that its aim was not to "apportion blame".

The probe provoked fury among relatives of 179 troops who died and cries of "fix" from the opposition.

Even the the ridiculously pro-labour "Voice of the Mirror" has a go at Brown:

To hold the inquiry into the Iraq war in secret is another spectacular own goal by the Prime Minister.

Gordon Brown has missed a valuable opportunity to begin the slow and painful process of rebuilding public confidence in politics.

We were cajoled and coerced into the most controversial of conflicts on what was at best reckless disinformation, at worst a blatant lie.

This war triggered the biggest demonstrations in recent history. So to handpick four knights and a baroness to peruse documents behind closed doors is an insult, a charade to inflame contempt instead of healing wounds.

Faith in politicians was eroded by the Iraq invasion, and fell off a cliff over MPs' expenses. Mr Brown yesterday fuelled the cynicism.

We are still waiting for that full public inquiry into the Iraq war.

Is this the first sign of a split between Brown and The Mirror? Have they finally had enough of Brown's outrageous lies and deceit?

Disgusting hate of our soldiers returning to Luton from Iraq.

Click to enlarge.

This disgusting piece of trash was sent to me by Sue of the Muffled Vociferation blog. It was pushed through her friend's letter box in Luton. Is this really the country we are living in? I don't normally get involved with stories about Muslims as I think there are far too many raving loonies going over the top about them. However, on this occasion I think that something needs to be done. I would like to believe that this leaflet does not represent the vast majority of decent Muslims living in Luton.

UPDATE: Around 20 Islamic protesters hurled abuse at the soldiers as they marched through Luton. Full story HERE

Iraq Cabinet minutes to be released - Shredders are go!

From Ananova:

The Government has been ordered to release the minutes of crucial 2003 Cabinet meetings where the invasion of Iraq was discussed.

The Information Tribunal upheld a decision by the Information Commissioner that details of the sessions on March 13 and 17 should be disclosed.

The meetings considered the highly controversial issue of whether the invasion was allowed under international law.

Oh dear, is that the sound of shredders firing up that I hear?

Breaking News: Gordon Brown narrowly escapes attack on Iraq visit.

According to news sources coming out of Iraq, Gordon Brown escaped several "very determined" attempts on his life during his recent visit to Iraq. It is reported that the Prime Minister came under attack from small arms fire, rockets and mortars. An MOD spokesman said that the PM was extremely lucky to survive such a vicious and sustained assault.

The five former defence chiefs who criticised Gordon Brown over his funding of our Armed Forces, and his appointment of "two jobs Browne" issued the following statement:

"The fact that Gordon Brown has escaped Iraq unscathed only reinforces our opinion that the weapons issued to British forces fighting in Iraq are not fit for purpose."

I know that I've posted this before, but it seemed like a good time to post it again.

Gordon Brown - More faces than Big Ben's clock tower. (Troop withdrawal from Iraq)

Speaking from Iraq today, Gordon Brown said: "It is certainly our intention that we reduce troop numbers, but I am not going to give an artificial timetable at the moment."

Since when did it become Brown's policy not to give an artificial timetable?

In 2007 at a joint press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad, Brown said: ''By Christmas, 1,000 of our troops can be brought back to the U.K. They have acted with great courage and bravery.'' As we learned shortly afterwards, Brown's statement was about as artificial as it gets.

I think Liam Fox described the situation quite well:

"Does this man have no shame? Once you read the small print you realise we are back to the same old spin. Five hundred of these troops have already been announced and 270 are back in the UK. "This is a cynical exploitation of our Armed Forces by a prime minister who puts the Labour Party's interests before the national interest."

As Iain Dale points out, Brown doesn't want to give an artificial timetable because: "there's not an election in the offing now, is there?"

Gordon Brown escapes attack on Iraq visit.

According to news sources coming out of Iraq, Gordon Brown escaped several "very determined" attempts on his life during his recent visit to Iraq. It is reported that the Prime Minister came under attack from small arms fire, rockets and mortars. An MOD spokesman said that the PM was extremely lucky to survive such a vicious and sustained assault.

The five former defence chiefs who criticised Gordon Brown over his funding of our Armed Forces, and his appointment of two jobs Browne issued the following statement:

"The fact that Gordon Brown has escaped Iraq unscathed only reinforces our opinion that the weapons issued to British forces fighting in Iraq are not fit for purpose."

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Turkish Parliament OK possilble strike on Kurdish Rebels.

Though the US have called for restraint the Turkish parliament has given the go ahead for military action against Kurdish separatists. This is not going to be good news in an already unstable area. Let's hope that Turkey do not go ahead with any major operation.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Gordon Brown don't mess with the SAS. (Iraq Speech)

I've just finished watching one of the best critiques of a politician's speech that I have ever seen on BBC News 24. Ben, formally of the SAS has just gone into a massive rant about what he calls Brown's spin on the situation in Iraq. He basically rubbished everything Brown had to say and said that Brown was only following American orders. This will be very damaging to Gordon Brown, and I hope the BBC repeat Ben's reaction several times tonight.

Former Itn Political Editor Michael Brunson attacks Gordon Brown.

Former Itn Political Editor Michael Brunson is not at all happy with Gordon Brown. In today's Sunday Mirror he attacks Brown for his "TROOP TRICK":

Gordon Brown's utterly cynical decision to fly to Iraq last week had me spitting tacks. I thought this Prime Minister had turned over a new leaf, staying out of sight until he had something important to say or do. Yet this was spin and news management of the worst kind - a cheap shot to try to steal the Tories' thunder during their conference. When Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly parroted the official line on BBC's Question Time that Gordon needed to inform himself of the situation on the ground ahead of his Commons statement on Iraq tomorrow, she was quite rightly greeted with hoots of derision from the audience and every other one of her fellow panellists, and made to look very stupid. So cut it out, Gordon.

You can read the full story by clicking HERE.

David Miliband, you say it best when you say nothing at all.

In his speech yesterday, David Miliband referred to Tony Blairs foreign policy saying: "The lesson is that it's not good enough to have good intentions." The gist of little David's speech was to "move on" from Blair's poor foreign policy (the one he and most other labour MPs supported) and implement a "second wave" .

Now I would like to tell you what this second wave entails, but seeing as David did not tell the conference, I can't tell you. He reiterated the importance of our relationship with the US, while offering nothing new in the way of policy towards Iraq or Afghanistan.

Gordon Brown muddied the waters further by declaring that any future decisions to go to war would have to go before parliament. This is the worst form of spin from Gordon Brown yet! There was a parliamentary vote to go to war with Iraq. In 2003 a motion supporting the use of UK forces in Iraq was passed in parliament by a massive majority of 412 to 149. Gordon's new party are trying to tell us that all of Britain's problems are down to Tony Blair. Well they were in cabinet, they were advising, they were voting and if you asked them at the time they fully supported Tony's foreign policy.

Miliband voted for the Iraq war but is now trying to deflect the blame by saying that he initially had reservations about it. If you look at Miliband's voting record on the They work for you website, you will see what a pack of lies this man is trying to push on the voters. He voted very strongly for the Iraq war and he voted strongly against investigating the Iraq war. Oh, and just so you know who you are dealing with, David Miliband has never voted on a transparent Parliament.

Tony Blair's legacy? - Gordon Brown's scapegoat.

British Troops to be out of Iraq by Christmas?

The US commander in Baghdad, Gen David Petraeus has told the Royal United Services Institute in London that British troops could be out of Iraq “later this fall or in the winter”. The general said that British troops are possibly only weeks away from handing over responsibility for security in Basra province to Iraqi forces.

It is thought that our troops will withdraw into a "over watch" position in which they will be able to provide support to Iraqi forces if it is deemed necessary. The General hinted that a reduced number of British troops could be based in Kuwait to carrying out the over-watch role.

Mr Crocker, an Arabic-speaking Middle East specialist told the Telegraph: “A stable, secure Iraq and a democratic Iraq that is an ally in the war on terror and does not threaten its neighbours is, in my judgement, attainable. It will not be quick, it will not be easy. There will be setbacks along the way. As difficult as our current course may be, in my judgement the alternative would be considerably worse.”

This looks like a positive move and a chance that there could be a brighter future for Iraq.

Iraqi interpreters - Does Gordon Brown understand them at last?

It looks like Gordon Brown is going to do something about a terrible decision made by the Home Office. They had insisted that 91 Iraqi interpreters would have to apply for asylum in the normal way - registering when they arrive in the UK.

Iraqi interpreter ***** ************, who worked with our forces for three years said: "I put my whole life in danger. I didn't imagine it was going to be like this. I didn't imagine the British government is going to abandon me like this." Mr ***********was turned away from the British embassy in Damascus when he asked them for asylum.

Defence Secretary Des Browne said: "People who do interpreting work believe themselves to be particularly more vulnerable than other people do. That's why the prime minister has made it clear that we will review how best to carry out our duty of care to these people."

Lets hope that Gordon does do the decent thing and shows the world that the UK values its friends and allies. We are getting a bad reputation of using people (Gurkhas) and then leaving them to rot.

There is an E-Petition on the No.10 site http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Iraqi-Employees/

A good decision by the Army not to send Prince Harry to Iraq

I think Prince Harry, being a member of the Armed Forces should go to war and if he should be killed in that war, then so be it. HOWEVER, I do not think he should commit suicide in the name of duty.

On a battle field he could blend in with the rest of the army. Patrolling the streets of Iraq where a bounty has been put on his head and photographs of him have been distributed, he cannot hope blend in. It would not be safe for him or anyone near him, especially as the Iraqi Security Forces he would have to work with are known to be infiltrated by insurgent agents.

If the Army had sent him to Iraq he would have been extremely lucky not to get himself or his men killed.

UPDATE:

The future of Prince Harry's military career is being considered by the Army today. The question being: is anywhere going to be safe for the Prince and his men to operate? While the media are reporting Harry's deployments, he will always have a target painted on his back. The only way to reduce any risk to the Prince and allow him to serve his country as he wishes, is to have a full media blackout on his movements. At the moment any insurgent that would like to claim the considerable bounty on Harry's head is fully aware of what he looks like, when he would arrive, where he would have been working and even what vehicle he would have been patrolling in. As one of my readers commented: "It would be a Turkey shoot".

Unfortunately, even a full Media blackout will not stop those who want to know Harry's whereabouts finding out. I do not think Harry can be deployed to any conflict zone where he is going to be expected and hunted like a trophy animal.

Save the Navy Petition- The Prime Minister's Response

Details of petition:

"The MoD is planning to mothball almost half the Navy's 44 warships to cut costs. This money has been wasted, amongst other things, on a war in Iraq we can never win and that should never have been started. The government misled the public and the house to justify it and now we are paying a heavy price. The RN frigates are among the most potent weapons we have. When this is done who will be left to stop illegal immigrants from landing on our shores? Who will seek out and capture drug runners? Who will retake the Falklands when Argentina decides to invade again? As it is we already have 13 warships it would take 18 months to get into action. Act now and sign this petition, for these decisions have almost certainly already been taken. Support the Navy, once these ships are scrapped or sold we will never replace them. Britannia will no longer rule the waves."

The PM's Response

The Government has no plans to reduce the size of the Royal Navy, to withdraw warships from operational service earlier than scheduled, or to place warships in 'mothballs'.

Far from making cuts, the Government is investing heavily in the construction of new warships for the Royal Navy. We are introducing the new and highly capable Type 45 Destroyers, the first two of which have already been launched. We are building the advanced and powerful Astute class nuclear attack submarines, of which three are now on order. Above all, we are buying two new aircraft carriers which will be the largest ships ever built for the Royal Navy and which will provide the UK with the most powerful carrier force outside the USA. The Navy has also recently taken delivery of new amphibious assault and support ships which are vastly more capable than the ships they replaced.

It is wrong to imply that the costs of operations in Iraq and elsewhere are being met at the expense of the Navy. The additional costs of these operations do not fall to the defence budget, but are met from the Treasury reserve.

Only one Royal Navy ship, HMS Invincible, is being held in a state of readiness from which it would require up to eighteen months to return to operational service. She is being held in this state of readiness prior to her final withdrawal from service, as scheduled, in 2010, by which time she will be over 30 years old. The Navy has no plans to place any other ships in such a state of readiness.

If this turns out to be true it's good news for the Navy.

You wouldn't wish it on a Journalist - 100 Killed in 2006.

Johann Fritz, director of the International Press Institute has called 2006 the "most savage and brutal" year on record for journalists with 100 media professionals killed across the world. Mr Fritz described it as a “war on journalism”. Journalists were killed in 24 nations last year, 46 of the 100 died reporting the conflict in Iraq.

The IPI claims that in almost all cases, the deaths were targeted killings.

Russian investigative journalist and fierce Kremlin critic Anna Politkovskaya is the 13th Russian journalist believed to have been murdered for her work since President Vladimir Putin took power in 2000. Anna was shot dead on October 7 in the entrance to her Moscow apartment building, making her the 43rd Russian journalist to be murdered since 1997.

Full Story HERE

Should the government increase Defence spending rather than enforce cuts?

The Army

Former British Army commander General Sir Michael Rose has said our soldiers are suffering "considerable and quite unnecessary risk" following cuts Tony Blair has forced on defence spending.
Sir Michael said: "In the past six years, the prime minister has presided over a near-catastrophic decline in defence spending. For fighting insurgencies such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq we need rather large numbers of soldiers on the ground, proper protection and tactical mobility, including helicopters. In return for being prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, our servicemen and women should expect to be better supported by the country than they have been."
But he praised President Bush saying he "put his money where his mouth was" by giving resources and support to his troops.
An MoD spokesman said: "Defence spending has been steadily increasing. Last year alone we spent more than £700m on improvements to service housing, announced the introduction of a new £2,240 operational bonus and invested millions more in new equipment, including body armour and armoured vehicles."

The Navy

Six destroyers and frigates and two other vessels are expected to be mothballed, to save more than £250m.
Defence sources have disclosed that the armed forces have been told to save more than £250m this year, and £1 billion by April 2008.
The MoD will also cancel the last two of the eight Type-45 destroyers the navy was supposed to get to replace the 15 major ships cut in 2004.
Conservative defence spokesman, Julian Lewis, said the fresh cuts were “absolutely devastating stuff” and that cutting the number of Type-45 destroyers would be “catastrophic”.
“You can’t have a navy without ships. This government is absolutely hell-bent on the destruction of the Royal Navy.”
In the 19th century, the Royal Navy was as large as the seven next biggest navies combined. At the start of the 20th century the Royal Navy remained twice as large as the US and German navies.
But the 2004 cuts reduced it to its smallest since before Trafalgar in 1805, and there are suggestions that Portsmouth Naval base may close as the Navy now requires only two major bases.

Q. With our armed forces being deployed in greater numbers to ever increasing theatres, should the government increase spending rather than enforce cuts?

Click: HERE to view the results.

(The results are archived by the British Library)

Is it time to start a major push towards Nuclear Energy?

Back in November of last year I held the following referendum vote on this site:

A legally binding target to reduce long-term carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by the year 2050 has been set. The bill will establish a "Carbon Committee" to make sure targets are met. However the bill makes no reference to annual CO2 reductions targets. Opposition parties and environmentalists deem CO2 reductions necessary to tackle global warming.
The Queen told MPs and peers: "My government will publish a bill on climate change as part of its policy to protect the environment, consistent with the need to secure long-term energy supplies."
David Cameron said he was delighted to hear the proposals in the Queen's Speech. "I hope it will be a proper bill and not a watered down bill. Government has got to give a lead by setting a proper framework." That must mean an independent body with annual targets and an annual report from government on its progress."
The prime minister responded by pointing out that the UK was set to lose about 15% of its electricity generation capacity as existing nuclear power plants reached the end of their operating lives.
"We need to put nuclear power back on the agenda and at least replace the nuclear energy we will lose. Without it, we will not be able to meet either our objectives on climate change or our objectives on energy security."

Should we invest in new nuclear power stations?

The results were:

Yes 84% No 16% Do not know 0%

With the current political climate in the Middle East and Russia, surely now is the time to invest heavily in Nuclear Energy. There is an Energy War going on and we are losing it. As long as we are dependant on Fossil fuels we will not have energy security and we will be at the mercy of foreign governments. Industry should be put on a war footing, not to build weapons but to build a new energy infrastructure. At the same time money should be poured into the advancement of alternative (wind, wave, solar etc) forms of energy. With a firm and secure nuclear energy supply we would be in a position to phase in alternative forms of energy as the technology advances.
The money that we have spent fighting the war in Iraq to secure our oil supply could have been spent on nuclear energy here without loss of life. There are those who are against nuclear energy but also believe that Fossil fuels are causing untold damage to the environment. Nuclear energy could be seen as a secure and clean stop gap to environmentally friendly forms of energy. Legislation could be brought in to ensure nuclear energy is replaced as soon as is possible, thus removing the fear of having a long term reliance upon it.

There is no doubt that if relations with foreign governments decline further, causing a restriction in our fuel supply, this country will be crippled.

Update: Today's Independent Article - Is thorium the answer to our energy crisis?

Blair says NO to Iraq withdrawal

Tony Blair has rejected Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell's call for UK troops to start a five-month "staged withdrawal" in May, with all British forces clear of Iraq by the end of October.
Mr Blair told the Commons such an "arbitrary timetable" was unworkable.

Mr Blair added: "our forces are there under a United Nations resolution, with the full support of the government of Iraq. Pulling out now would send the most disastrous signal to the people of Iraq".

Sir Menzies, speaking at prime minister's questions, said: "If he feels so strongly, he should come to debate these issues. There is nothing more important." The Prime Minister's official spokesman said it was "not the practice for Mr Blair to lead foreign affairs debates. He has made a commitment to the Commons to make a statement when Operation Sinbad is finished and assessed. That will be the appropriate point."

The total number of UK troops killed in operations in Iraq has risen to 130 after a soldier was killed by a roadside bomb while on patrol in Basra on 21 January. According to UN estimates, 34,000 Iraqis had been killed in 2006 alone.

Q. Should UK troops start a five-month staged withdrawal in May?

To view the results go to:

http://dailyreferendum.co.uk/

Ours is not to wonder why, ours is just to do or die?

The Army
Former British Army commander General Sir Michael Rose has said our soldiers are suffering "considerable and quite unnecessary risk" following cuts Tony Blair has forced on defence spending.
Sir Michael said: "In the past six years, the prime minister has presided over a near-catastrophic decline in defence spending. For fighting insurgencies such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq we need rather large numbers of soldiers on the ground, proper protection and tactical mobility, including helicopters. In return for being prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, our servicemen and women should expect to be better supported by the country than they have been."
But he praised President Bush saying he "put his money where his mouth was" by giving resources and support to his troops.
An MoD spokesman said: "Defence spending has been steadily increasing. Last year alone we spent more than £700m on improvements to service housing, announced the introduction of a new £2,240 operational bonus and invested millions more in new equipment, including body armour and armoured vehicles."
The Navy
Six destroyers and frigates and two other vessels are expected to be mothballed, to save more than £250m.
Defence sources have disclosed that the armed forces have been told to save more than £250m this year, and £1 billion by April 2008.
The MoD will also cancel the last two of the eight Type-45 destroyers the navy was supposed to get to replace the 15 major ships cut in 2004.
Conservative defence spokesman, Julian Lewis, said the fresh cuts were “absolutely devastating stuff” and that cutting the number of Type-45 destroyers would be “catastrophic”.
“You can’t have a navy without ships. This government is absolutely hell-bent on the destruction of the Royal Navy.”
In the 19th century, the Royal Navy was as large as the seven next biggest navies combined. At the start of the 20th century the Royal Navy remained twice as large as the US and German navies.
But the 2004 cuts reduced it to its smallest since before Trafalgar in 1805, and there are suggestions that Portsmouth Naval base may close as the Navy now requires only two major bases.

Q. With our armed forces being deployed in greater numbers to ever increasing theatres, should the government increase spending rather than enforce cuts?

To vote go to:

http://dailyreferendum.co.uk/