h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

**this took me a while to write and it'll appear after the Italics warnings about naming candidates. I think and hope I've not sailed too close to including any: "personal attacks or unsubstantiated criticisms of an individual or individuals." However if it gets yikesed or moderated, I'll be happy to try and alter it to comply with the guidelines.**

Clive.

So to answer Wandering Albertross - post 136.

Ah I see. Well I agree, IMO the cabinet at large, are as culpable as Tony Blair is.

I'll need to go and find the text of Robin Cook's resignation speech to be certain, but working from memory I recall he was dissenting from the interpretation of the intelligence which he concluded did not authorise a case for war.

I think Robin's judgement has become more and more credible as time has worn on. I read in The Independent today, that the JIC, formally headed by one John Scarlet (now elevated to MI5 or 6 - I forget which), has formally withdrawn all the evidence upon which the Iraq Dossier was based (and hence the case on which war was predicated.)

Thsi came because an internal review was prompted by the reporting of the Iraq Survey Group who found NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and the barest element of WMD Programmes to support such weapons. A few missiles that were in breach of regulations imposed after the first gulf war were found but that was about the extent of it. The article quote the JIC review as concluding:

"The Intelligence and security committee says the JIC reviewed the dossier after MI6 began to backtrack on its Iraq intelligence."

On Nuclear Weapons in Iraq: "Iraq was not pursuing a nuclear weapons programme."

On Chemical Weapons production capabilities "this judgement was not substantiated."

On Bio-weapons "Found no evidence that production had been activated."

It continues, the reports based on the intelligence that indicated Saddam might strike with any of the above against, targets such as Neighbouring States, Coalition Forces, Israel or British bases in Cyprus "was subsequently withdrawn."

I trust those quotations are not in breach of any copyright and the full article by Kim Sengupta can be located on page 17 of today’s Independent (08.04.05) I suggest everyone seeks out a copy at the local library since The Independent doesn't post its articles in full online like The Guardian without a fee.

Claire Short is more difficult - she wobbled. I regret she did not stand by her convictions the first time and resign along with Robin Cook thereby doubling the power of the dissent within Cabinet. Instead she allowed another broken promise to pass before she finally decided to go. Since then however she has been a persistent and most vocal critique of the failure of collective cabinet responsibility in Government over the Iraq intelligence. In the last PMQ's (still available to view on BBC News if one must review it) after the "up, down, up, down" pantomime of Michael Howard, we get Question 2 - a direct question to the Prime Minster to explain to parliament whether cabinet debated the attorney general's advice on whether the war would be legal under international law.

The PM avoided the question IMHO another breath-takingly brisk dismissal (naturally). So, yet again, we still don't know - and if the Government has its way - we'll never know what was said by whom and about what, in those offices in the build up to war. However at Claire Short's urging the question has still not gone away - exactly why *did* the AG change his mind over the necessity of securing a second UN resolution explicitly authorising military force against Iraq? Again if memory serves, it was TB's particular failure to obtain this second resolution that finally drove the International Development Secretary to resign. (The post now belongs to Hilary Benn.)

Which after a bit of a preamble brings me to Gordon Brown.

I have to confess I do not know for definite whether Gordon Brown was ever present at these meetings. One would presume so. We know from Robin Cook and Claire Short that they were indeed present but the Butler report specifically highlighted the 'sofa' style of Government that rules under Tony Blair: the lack of minuting, of informality. I suppose it is possible, though I further suspect highly unlikely given the war had to be financed, that Gordon Brown may not have been at all the meetings, nor in position to know the details of the intelligence briefings in the way that Claire Short or Robin Cook claim they were.

Which is of course to presume that if he was there he had ever given any thought to resignation. To answer your question, I do not believe Gordon Brown ever threatened to resign because I suspect he was playing a long-game plan. Is it not the conventional wisdom that he is something of a kingmaker? That is to say make himself King by being in a position to help secure TB just long enough through whatever ails him, so long as he is in a position to then assume the reigns when he goes.

Unlike Robin Cook who was languishing somewhat as leader of the House of Commons (in charge of reform of the House of Lords amongst other things), who could resign his post and gain higher ground in doing so. Gordon Brown on the other hand would not have been in a more credible position if he had resigned over the war. We can judge this from the election strategy on show, which has the economy, and Gordon Brown's stewardship of it, front and centre of Labour’s campaign to woo back the disinterested and the maligned voter.

The political tactics involved in the resignations are as important and illuminating as regards how this country was taken to war in the way that it was, as much as the 180o U-turn on the evidence that supposedly informs the legal ascent.

The criticism levelled at Blair is just and pretty damning however, the blame extends through and beyond the cabinet as well.

>> Claire Short is more difficult - she wobbled....

I thought she had been offered the role of International Development Secretary, or somesuch, with a major part in rebuilding Iraq following the war, and that she left when that was withdrawn. I didn't follow it closely, and maybe wrong.



On another point, it is to the USA's and the UK's credit that they didn't plant evidence. You have no idea how much it hurts me to give them credit for that, but I do have to.

Ben

I would just like to say that I apologise to Paully for my post 124.

It was unfair and posted in anger, and I should know better. I dont actually think he subverted the mod process and was just annoyed and I wanted to lash out.

To Ferrettbadger, Covered in Bees
You not the only one i just logged on and found a post missing and the email saying i'd broken some rules.
The post thats gone didn't seem that different to what i've said at other times ~ oh well just have to keep trying

Good afternoon Clive

I have been reading through the posts om the Iraq war and feel impelled to say that all that you have written mirrors my own feelings, backed by much fact which I just don't have.

Not mentioning names, the war on Iraq is the biggest reason (amongst many) why I will not Vote Neww Labour, now , or at any time in the future. I have been let down by my government, which seems to be able to ignore any uncomfortable facts that it dislikes.

Without your erudition I can only say that I believe that the PM and those in his Cabinet with whom he confided, Knew the shakiness of their ground, and knew that we were being misled into attacking a country which was absolutely no danger to us.

As A result thousands of innocent people have lost their lives and many coalition troops have too.

Unforgivable.

And if the 'real' agenda was regime change, who should now be worrying?

Novo

Ben, I think Blair appealed to Clare Short to stay on as International Development and for to be in charge of rebuiliding Iraq.

She left after hostilities had begun (unlike Cook who resigned beforehand) and on the grounds that the UN were not to be in charge of reconstruction but the U.S-led coalition under the charge of General Jay Garner. (pre Paul Bremmer)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3019983.stm

This post has been removed.

this annoying!

at least they can't stop me voting.....Labour

Some links:

Robin Cook's Resignation Speech

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm

Note in particular, it is the failure to secure the second UN resolution that forces him to resign but he also picks up on the doubts that suround the evidence used to justify the military campaign...

-----------
Here's the link to the now legendary "dodgey" dossier in which in TB's opening introduction he refers to the false claim that Iraq has a 45 minutes operations window to launch attacks. This was inferred to mean he could launch attackus using WMD's in 45 minutes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf (Requires Adobe Acrobat reader to view)

Blair's statement to parliament on the publication of the above dossier of intelligence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2278495.stm

Who got modded? - was it you Red?

ack no - it was me and I think I know why. whoops.

I was only expressing a heartfelt opinion - but I think I see why it feel foul of the guidelines. ah well.

you were moderated for exppressing a heartfelt opinion! We'd better ban s then!!!!!

I thought it was me actually maybe I just hadn't siad anything on here for a while.

I'd replied to novosibirsk.

I think I possibly overstepped the line on "veering towards campaigning"

I mean, I wasn't but if that was it, I can see why its been taken off for inspection. Ho hum - as soon as The Powers That be deign to send me the explanatory email I won;t know for sure.

Carry on. Nothign to see here (literally)

post 147 is no more.

I'll see if I can re-word it and re-post like Ferretbadger has done elsewhere.

I've asked for the Ptb help becuase the email just sasy it was failed doesn't say in relation to what part.

We'll see what happens.

Clive.

I got the same thing ~ so mailed back asking why (not objecting just wanted to know) got reply quite quick but i'm still not quite sure what made the difference
Oh well just keep posting i suppose and hope for the best.
When the election stuff's all over i'd love to see copies of all the removed posts given their own thread.

Interesting Idea.

Would that still be in breach of the rules? - No I suppose not, seeing as the vote can no longer be swayed one way or another after the event.

I did get an explanation - it was what I thought I'm just in the middle of submitting a new version to the feedback team to see if it'll pass the mustard with them.

The Return of Post 147 (Edited for Content & Cleared by H2G2 Feedback)

Hullo Novosibirsk.

(I gather from another thread you are not a h2g2 native, so let me also add - welcome )

Thank you for your kind post. My only aim in this debate has been to
keep alive in my mind what actually happened. It seems so long ago and so much has happened since that its easy to let the details slip away.

It is in my estimation important that all governments are held to
account and it is further my own view that this election is our chance to do so and specifically for the decision they took to go to war.

It is important to me that I show them that wars led in defiance of the law and without remorse are not tolerated in my name and that I do not rewarded them for it.

(my original post was yiksed for appearing to want to sway the votes of others so it is important that I stress that this is only my opinion.)

I welcome the views of anyone who agrees or disagrees with me about
this.

Clive.

This post has been removed.

Seigfried - "The reason I belive Blair hasn't already stepped down is once the fighting begins within a party it takes a while for it to recover so for Blair to step down directly before an election is a gamble. He has said he will step down this time frankly I don't think he will have a choice but would rather retire "gracefully" at the start than be forced aside."

No he won't step aside because he thinks he can win - come the next election and Labour will be looking completely unelectable - he'll stand aside for Gordon 2 weeks before the election, and let him suffer the loss."