More on Wiki Leaks...

This was a cartoon from a news web site that I stumbled across, and I thought it summed up the current hysteria really well...


Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

*********************************************************************************

Wikileaks...

This website has been in the news rather a lot just recently, because it's self-styled "editor-in-chief" Julian Assange, has taken it upon himself to publish confidential documents from the US government.

A lot of this stuff has been little more than private gossip from diplomats, and is of no real interest to people (apart from the people that the diplomats have been less than complimentary about) , but revealing things that could cause real problems for governments and military alike is not on.

Now I am all in favour of free speech - and will do my utmost to defend it (and freely admit that I applauded Wikileaks for the details that they released about the atrocities in Iraq) but things such as:

Fears that terrorists may acquire Pakistani nuclear material

Several Arab leaders urged attack on Iran over nuclear issue

US instructs spying on key UN officials

China's changing ties with North Korea

Yemen approved US strikes on militants

Personal and embarrassing comments on world leaders

Afghan leader Hamid Karzai freed dangerous detainees

Russia is a "virtual mafia state" with widespread corruption and bribery

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "paranoid and weak"

The extent of corruption in Afghanistan

Chinese leadership 'hacked Google'

A list of key global facilities the US says are vital to its national security

should not have been released. I've just covered the very vague topics that the documents cover, as I really and truly do not believe that the should have been put up on the web for all to read. I wouldn't be surprised if the US government asked for this man to be extradited to the US to face possible terrorism and / or espionage charges.

Ah well, guess I should call this quits - it's nearly the end of my lunch break.

Back when I get the chance

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

New equality rights in workplace come into force

This was brought to my attention as I was driving into work this morning. As per normal, I was listening to Radio 4 when John Humphries announced this news. So, as soon as I got home this evening, I decided to do some digging, and came across this news article on the BBC website.

I’ve posted it in full, and as normal, I’ll put my thoughts at the end.


Karen

*************************************************************************

New rules aimed at banning discrimination by employers, covering areas such as age, disability and pay, have come into force.

Everyone is protected by the Law

The Equality Act covers many workplace areas and draws nine separate pieces of legislation into a single Act. 
Equalities Minister Theresa May says it will now be easier for firms to comply with anti-discrimination rules.

However, some business groups argued the new legislation will impose a heavy burden on employers.

'Challenging times'

The new law restricts the circumstances in which employers can ask job applicants questions about disability or health prior to offering them a position, making it more difficult for disabled people to be unfairly screened out.

"In these challenging economic times it's more important than ever for employers to make the most of all the talent available," said Ms May.

There are also new powers for employment tribunals.

The Act will also stop employers using pay secrecy clauses to prevent employees discussing their own pay, which means men and women can compare pay.

But the Act will not make employers reveal how much they pay men compared with women, as had been planned by the Labour government.

Some campaigners argued that this revision undermined the new legislation.

"Rowing back on the requirement for big business to publish and take action on any differences in pay between men and women employees is tantamount to endorsing the shocking gender pay gap," said Ceri Goddard, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, which campaigns for gender equality.

Employees will also now be able to file discrimination claims on two grounds, rather than one. For example, under the previous rules, a woman from an ethnic minority could not file a claim on counts of both gender and race discrimination - an employment tribunal would have to consider the claims separately.

Under the new rules, an employee can file claims on two counts, but no more.

Business cost

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said: "Everyone is protected by the new law.

"It [the Act] covers age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex (meaning gender) and sexual orientation.

"Under the act people are not allowed to discriminate, harass or victimise another person because they belong to a group that the Act protects, they are thought to belong to one of those groups or are associated with someone who does."

But some business groups argued that the new rules place an extra burden on companies at a time when they are still trying to recover from the recession.

"Businesses are really concerned," Abigail Morris from the British Chambers of Commerce told the BBC.

"The government's own impact assessment shows that this is going to cost £190m just for businesses to understand the legislation, and this at a time when we really need them to be concentrating on creating private sector jobs and driving economic recovery."

During the summer there were some concerns about the new rules expressed by shipping companies.

Some claimed the laws could force them to quit the UK because they would have to pay UK rates to foreign-based seafarers who do not have the burden of British living costs.

**************************************************************************

Now I don’t have anything against the idea of equality – in fact, I’m all for it, as I personally find it revolting that someone can be persecuted for their race and sexual preference.

But this strikes me as being an act that has been taken too far. Why do I say this? Simple. If someone overhears a joke in the office, that they don’t approve of / find personally offensive, then they have the option of making a complaint to an industrial tribunal – even though the comment or joke might not have been aimed specifically at them.

So, that means that it will be almost impossible to have a laugh and a joke with friends in the office, for fear that someone will find an innocent remark offensive, even though it wasn’t aimed at them.

In the end, I feel that the only people who will profit from this are the solicitors and barristers who will represent the litigants, and the rest of us will lose out. I can see this resulting in a loss of the most prized part of our culture – the freedom of speech and expression. And all because of this foolish act.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

A miracle on Downing Street

Who said that miracles don’t occur? Just look at the one that has happened in UK politics this morning. The Conservatives & the Liberal Democrats have formed a coalition government – the first time since 1930 that such a thing has occurred.

David Cameron becomes the new PM, with Nick Clegg (the Liberal Democrat leader) becoming the deputy PM, with the various cabinet posts and other government jobs being shared by the two parties.

All I can do now, is just sit back and watch what happens, but if I’m honest, I doubt very much that it can be worse for me than the last 13 years have been.

Back later, if I get the chance.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

After the election, now the real politics come into view

Well, the country has voted, and declared a hung parliament. Not the sort of hanging that I would have liked (I doubt if there are enough lampposts in Whitehall for that) but one that means no party go enough votes to form a government.

So, it looks like Labour is going to cling on, in the vain hope that they can form a so-called rainbow coalition of the small parties in an attempt to keep the Conservatives out. On the other side, you have the Conservatives talking to the Liberal Democrats in an attempt to form a coalition to remove Labour.

I know that Gordon Brown, as the incumbent Prime Minster has the right to try and get some form of government sorted out, and if that falls flat on its’ face, then the leader of the opposition (David Cameron) gets to have a go.

It’s enough to make your head spin, and people are wondering why they bothered to vote, if the current government is determined to cling onto power by any means possible, and the other parties are looking to link up with each other.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and to be honest the sooner they get this sorted out, the sooner life can return to normal!

Ah well, time to call this quits – I want to get some peace and quiet!

Back when I get the chance.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

The phrase “Whoops” comes to mind…

This is from the BBC website – as per normal, I’ll put my thoughts / opinions at the end of the piece.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most
*************************************

Gordon Brown 'bigoted woman' comment caught on tape

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been caught on microphone describing a voter he had just spoken to in Rochdale as a "bigoted woman".

Sixty-five-year-old Gillian Duffy had challenged Mr Brown on a number of issues including immigration and crime.

As he got into his car, he was still wearing a broadcast microphone and was heard to say "that was a disaster".

Mr Brown later phoned Mrs Duffy to apologise after the tape was played to him during a BBC Radio 2 interview.

After listening to the recording, with his forehead resting on his hand, he said: "I do apologise if I've said anything that has been hurtful."

The comments were made after the conversation with Mrs Duffy ended with him complimenting her and her family.

As he went to get into his car, Mr Brown told her: "Very nice to meet you, very nice to meet you."

But off camera, but not realising he still had a Sky News microphone pinned to his shirt, he was heard to tell an aide: "That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous..."

Asked what she had said, he is heard to reply: "Ugh everything! She's just a sort of bigoted woman that said she used to be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous. I don't know why Sue brought her up towards me."

Mrs Duffy, a widow, said after hearing of Mr Brown's comments: "I'm very upset. He's an educated person. Why has he come out with words like that?

"He's supposed to be leading the country and he's calling an ordinary woman who's come up and asked questions that most people would ask him... It's going to be tax, tax, tax for another 20 years to get out of this national debt, and he's calling me a bigot."

She had earlier told reporters she was a lifelong Labour voter and described Mr Brown as being "very nice".

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said it was a disaster for the prime minister because it showed the gap between his public face and private face.

"For those of us who have known Gordon Brown for many years, what we have seen is no huge surprise. He has got better and better at handling himself in public, but quite often he flares up in private, expresses frustration," he said.

Nick Robinson added that the irony was that if his comments had not been picked up, it would have been a lively election exchange which would have been seen to do him credit.

Speaking on Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show, Mr Brown said: "Of course I apologise if I've said anything that's been offensive and I would never put myself in a position where I would want to say anything like that about a woman I'd met.

"I blame myself for what is done, but you've got to remember that this was me being helpful to the broadcasters, with my microphone on, rushing into the car because I had to get to another appointment and they have chosen to play my private conversation. These things can happen, I apologise profusely to the lady concerned."

Gordon Brown has since telephoned Mrs Duffy to personally apologise for the comments, telling her he was very sorry and said she "is a good woman".

When asked did this in any way make up for the comments she said "no - absolutely not".

'Resilience'

A spokesman for the prime minister said: "Mr Brown has apologised to Mrs Duffy personally by phone. He does not think that she is bigoted. He was letting off steam in the car after a difficult conversation.

"But this is exactly the sort of conversation that is important in an election campaign and which he will continue to have with voters."

The Conservatives said Mr Brown's comments spoke for themselves.

Shadow chancellor George Osborne said: "That's the thing about general elections, they do reveal the truth about people."

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said: "You should always try to answer the questions as best you can. He has been recorded saying what he has said and will have to answer for that."

Chancellor Alistair Darling said Mr Brown's apology was profuse and he was well aware he should not have made the comments.

"The election campaign will be decided not just on individuals but what the party stands for. There are big issues at stake. Gordon is a man of considerable strength, considerable resilience and considerable substance," he said.

"I hope people will judge him in the round. The fact we are coming out of this recession is down to him in no small part."

*************************************

I’m sorry, but I think this may well have sunk the Labour campaign. Ok – maybe sunk is a bit harsh, but it has certainly been hit below the waterline. I mean, talk about an own goal of monumental proportions.

The worst part is, that this voter is (or should that be was) a lifelong labour supporter, and if Gordon Brown reacts like that to someone like her, then I dread to think what he says about non-labour supporters.

Needless to say, I think this has just handed the election to the opposition, as most reasonable people will be disgusted with his comments – I know I am, especially as this buffoon wishes to represent the UK at international level. If he gets voted back in, then the reputation (and credibility) of the UK will take a real hit.

K.

Bored with the election

According to the BBC Election website, there are 22 days to go before the election. I'm getting fed up already, but I am going to vote – that way, I have the right to complain later this year if things aren’t going as I’d hoped for.

And it’s not just me getting fed up with this damned election coverage. Practically everyone that you speak to is fed up with the election at the moment. I appreciate that it is important to understand what the various parties are promising, and how they are going to deal with the issues that are important to people. However, there is such a thing as saturation point.

You turn on the news, and the first ten or more minutes are taken up with the squabbles that the manifesto launches have spawned, followed by the “talking heads” trying to make it sound interesting (and justify the fact that they have a job with the various news organisations!)

Needless to say, it’s getting to the point where I won’t watch the news on the TV, as I am getting really fed up. It boils down to a choice (as far as I can see) of Tory, Tory Lite and Others. The only difference that I can see between Labour & Conservative on some points, is the colour of the rosette that the slimy creature (sorry prospective MP) wears when they come sliming around, asking for you to vote for them.

Again, that’s another sore point for me. You only get to see your MP when there is an election in the offing, and they need to get you to vote for them, so that they can get back on the gravy train.

Now I'm not saying that all politicians are like that – just the majority of them. I know that they hold “surgeries” where they appear to take your concerns seriously (at least while you’re in their office) but how much do they actually do when they get back to Westminster from the rest of the county?

Someone needs to remind these people that there is more to life than the playpen that is Westminster, and that the rest of the UK wants this election over and done with, so that we can get back on with our lives!

Ah well, guess I should get on with some w*rk, instead of blogging…

Back later if I get the chance.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Something that made me grin

It’s not often that a party election poster makes me smile (or even laugh out loud) – most of them cause me to grit my teeth, and wish the damned election was over and done with. But these two posters did make me smile – the second one more than the first:

This struck a chord with me - not because I support the Labour party (I'm not even sure that I support the Conservative party if I'm honest) - it's just because in the early part of the 1980s, the Audi Quattro was the car to have. Every petrol head wanted one – I had a poster of the Quattro in full “flight” when it was rallying:

So, seeing these two posters did bring a smile to my face, if only for the memories that the car itself brought back to me.

Ah well, guess I should call this quits - I've got to start thinking about getting dinner sorted.

Back later (if I get the chance)

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Cider drinking: What's the a-peel?

This comes straight from the BBC website – I’ll put my comments at the end.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

************************
The government has whacked a big increase on cider duty, but what is it about the apple-based beverage that excites such strong passions from drinkers?

Cider is going to cost more. Duty rates will increase by 10% above inflation and it's going to have fans spluttering into their scrumpy.

Recent years have been good to cider drinkers and the industry that goes with it. The marketing drive carried out by Irish brand Magners in the mid-2000s changed everything.

Marketing people called it the "cider-over-ice" effect, and the adverts conjured up images of hazy summer days spent with photogenic friends in Grade I-listed country pubs. Sales rocketed, doubling across the UK between 2004 and 2008, according to the Welsh Perry and Cider Society.

But cider has a dark side, craft producer Roy Bailey of Lambourn Valley notes.  "There are a lot of 'industrial' high strength ciders not greatly connected to apples," he says. "These are the ones people get from supermarkets and get drunk in parks."

Such brews are a fixture on park benches in many areas of the country as well as providing a rite of passage for underage drinkers.

Gateway drink

So it's perhaps not surprising that a disproportionate tax on cider might seem like a good idea to those in power. Indeed cider with a strength over 7.5% will have its duty increased by even more than the 10% above inflation on ordinary strength cider.

CIDER FACTS
Romans said to have brewed alcohol from apples

Came to England after the Norman conquest

Made from apples that are crushed to press out the juice, which ferments spontaneously

Cider that is made by traditional methods - allowed to ferment naturally - is called scrumpy, from a word meaning small and shrivelled

"From 1 September 2010, the technical definition of cider will be changed to ensure products that more closely resemble made-wines [the strongest varieties] are taxed appropriately," the Budget Report says. "The industry has a very clear choice - it can either see this extra duty imposed or it can choose to reduce the alcoholic strength of its ciders," a Treasury Official told Reuters.

As a producer of fewer than 70 hectolitres of cider a year, Roy Bailey is in any case small enough to be exempt from duty under special rules. But he is still worried on the impact on other bigger craft producers.

"Most producers of craft cider are very civilised. People don't drink craft cider to get smashed," says Mr Bailey.  "Cider has greatly improved - it isn't just a rough farm drink. These people make quality products. Cider like this is really as good as wine. It's not a pub drink. More a drink to savour with a meal."

Yet for some cider struggles to shake off its stigma as a gateway drink to the grown-up world of alcohol. Sweet and fizzy, some varieties at least are as close in taste to a can of pop as they are to a delicately-brewed ale.

But that's a generalisation that takes no account of the wide range of ciders on the market, says Jan Gale, of cider pub the Coronation Tap in Bristol.

In-cider dealing

"It's quite sophisticated. It's not all rough, scrumpy cider for country folk," she says, batting away suggestions it's merely a drink for childish palates.

"It's sweet, dry, cloudy, carbonated, all sorts. It's a personal choice."

Fellow enthusiast, Richard Knibbs, rhapsodises about the simple pleasures of a pint.

"A really dry cider sets your tongue on fire. It's a different experience than beer," says Mr Knibbs, owner of Ye Olde Cider Bar in Newton Abbot, Devon, since 1973. "With bottled single-variety apple ciders, you get lovely, lovely flavour. Beers don't have the same lingering taste of a really nice cider".

Despite its explicit dedication to preserving traditional beer, the Campaign for Real Ale (Camra) also has a watching brief over the fortunes of cider.

It is understandably irked by the Treasury's sudden interest in the brew and is demanding government action to support and protect "small real cider producers".

"Hitting small real cider producers with this hike will cause irreparable damage to one of the nation's most historic craft industries," says Camra's chief executive Mike Benner. "The government must introduce a relief package to support the UK's small cider producers."

The British Beer and Pub Association has also indicated its annoyance at all of the rises on duty.

But perhaps the most alarming opposition came in the form of a statement released to news agencies by West Country folk group The Wurzels, known for their hit, I Am A Cider Drinker.

It read: "We are all very upset that scrumpy cider, being one of the few pleasures that we cherish down here on the farm in the West Country, is being hit by such a tax rise."

And while the groups music may struggle for mainstream appeal these days - they haven't troubled the top 40 in more than 30 years - their cider sentiments will doubtless have more popular appeal.

************************************************
Great. Another one of life's pleasures is to be taxed out of existance. I’m not one of these “binge drinkers” – in fact, it can take me about three days to drink a bottle of cider.

So, because the tax is due to hit on Sunday, I’m going to stock up tomorrow and make to most of my cider – regardless of what this “Big Brother” set up thinks.

Back later, if I get the chance.

K.

A non-event budget…

Well, our “beloved” chancellor has given the budget – and given that the election is a matter of weeks away (the date has yet to be confirmed, but most commentators are fairly sure that it will be May 6th) the budget was full of non- surprises – barring one.

I’ve taken the main points (i.e. the bits that affect me and my family) from the BBC website, and put my own comments below.

Fuel, Cigarettes & Alcohol Duties

3p fuel duty rise to be phased in, in three stages between April and January 2011 rather than in one go next month.

This kicks in on April 1st (rather appropriate), with further rises planned for October 1st and January 2011. I get the impression that the government panicked at the thought of 32 million fuming drivers voting in the election…

Cider duty to rise by 10% above inflation from midnight on Sunday.
Wine, beer and spirit duties to rise by 2% from midnight on Sunday and further 2% rise planned for two years from 2013.

Tobacco duty up 1% from midnight on Sunday and by 2% in real terms each year until 2014

As if this government hasn’t done enough to kill the pubs already. This will be almost the final nail in the coffin of the local pub. I guess that they (the government) are trying to hit the drinkers as the smokers are giving up.


Help for Business

£385m to maintain road network

Start repairing some bloody pot-holes! I thought that was what my road theft (sorry – road fund) licence was for!

Other Taxes & Allowances:

Limits on Individual Savings Accounts to rise in line with inflation
No changes to VAT or income tax planned
Inheritance tax threshold frozen for four years

Hmmm – talk about stealing the oppostion’s thunder. The Tories have been talking about inheritance tax for the past three years or so… The VAT has been left alone, because it caused more trouble than it was really worth and didn’t bring in as much money as was anticipated. Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs) at the moment are almost worthless, as the bank rate sucks if you’re a saver (it’s 0.5%) – good if you have a mortgage though…

Ah well, guess I should call this quits – I’m supposed to be w*rking, not blogging.

Back later, if I get the chance.


Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Blair on trial. I wish. (Part 2 )

This continues from the previous post, where Tony Blair is giving evidence to the Iraq War enquiry.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

***********************************

1409 Mr Blair says he tried one "last-ditch chance" to get a UN solution, by defining more clearly the definition of a breach of the UN's will in terms of WMDs.

Right. But only because he would be able to plead that in his defence.

1412 As the war approached President Bush told Mr Blair that, if going into Iraq was too difficult, he would understand if the UK did not get involved, the inquiry hears. It was a "tough situation", Mr Blair adds.

So tough that he still went ahead and supported his little buddy.

1413 Mr Blair says he "genuinely hoped" the UN path would work.

If that was the case, why didn’t he try harder to get the agreement?

1416 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair confirms that George Bush was willing to go it alone in Iraq if it was "too difficult" for Britain but the former PM says his judgement - a word he's used often - was that the alliance with America was important and he had been down a UN path that he had hoped would work and had done everything he could to avoid this "tough choice" - and that the military agreed "if we were going to be part of this we should be whole hearted".

Yeah, but he didn’t, and the war went ahead regardless of what anyone said.

1416 The aftermath of the invasion was "the most difficult part", Mr Blair says, adding that to have kept out of this would have been wrong.

No, wrong was going into Iraq in the first place without the UN mandate.

1420 Sir Roderic Lyne moves on to the issue of the legality of the war, which has been such a focus of previous hearings this week. He is summarising what was said previously, allowing Mr Blair to interject if he disagrees at any point.

1425 Mr Blair says he is happy with the summary of legal issues so far. So Sir Roderic continues with his narrative of the way the debate over legality of the war went in the run-up to war.

1423 Sir Roderic Lyne says there was "consistent and united advice" from Foreign Office lawyers that fresh UN authorisation would have been needed to make the use of force against Iraq lawful. However, resolution 1441, which was passed by the UN, was not "crystal clear". Up until February 2003 the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, said that a further decision by the Security Council was required, he adds.

1428 Sir Roderic Lyne says that Lord Goldsmith said later that Resolution 1441 was compatible "in principle" with authorising force, but, if the matter came before a court, he was not confident this would work. He had, "to a degree", parted opinion with the Foreign Office lawyers, he adds. Lord Goldsmith was asked for a "yes or no" decision. By 13 March, he had decided that "on balance" there was a lawful basis for use of force without having to go beyond Resolution 1441. But this required a determination that Iraq was "in further material breach" of its obligations. Lord Goldsmith said he had asked Mr Blair to say this and Mr Blair had done so. This gave the "green light" for action, Sir Roderic says

1434 Mr Blair says Sir Roderic's was a "fair summary of the legal background". He adds that Resolution 1441 declared Saddam was in breach of the UN's demands.

In other words, he can’t argue with the facts. Makes a nice change…

1436 Mr Blair says he was given a Foreign Office paper on 8 March 2002 setting out legal terms for action against Iraq. Military action had been taken against Saddam in 1993 and 1998, he adds. The legal advice made it important to go down the UN route, Mr Blair tells the inquiry. The government was a "long way" from a decision, so the attorney general was not brought in at that point.

Doesn’t alter the fact that he didn’t ask for advice on the legality of the war…

1436 Sir Roderic Lyne says it seems the attorney general rarely discussed the issue of Iraq with Mr Blair, particularly in 2002. Mr Blair says Lord Goldsmith had been "closely involved" but did not attend cabinet until the decision was to be taken. That was the usual practice, he said. However, he added that Lord Goldsmith was giving his advice to the prime minister and ministers, Mr Blair says.

Even if advice was given, it was ignored, or more to the point, bent to make it fit with the desired purpose.

1438 Once discussions about action in Iraq began with the Americans, Mr Blair says he was sure by March 2002 that it was important to go via the UN route.

If that was the case, why wasn’t everything done to gain this resolution?

1441 Resolution 1441 was adopted by the UN in November 2002. By early 2003 the armed forces had been instructed to prepare for action, Sir Roderic Lyne says. He asks whether it would have been useful to have the attorney general's advice. Mr Blair says if Lord Goldsmith had said action against Iraq was unlawful, it would not have happened. Mr Blair says the government knew its options. It had not received formal advice, but Lord Goldsmith had made clear his opinion.

And that opinion was ignored, along with the advice, as it didn’t give the answer that was wanted.

1444 Mr Blair says he was "well aware" that Lord Goldsmith was saying that a second UN resolution was needed. Saddam made a "material breach" of the existing Resolution 1441, he added. There was "at least as powerful an argument" in favour of just one, rather than two, resolutions, he adds.

But that didn’t stop the planning for the invasion, even though it would have been illegal under international law.

1447 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair confirms military preparations were under way even before the 'first' UN resolution -1441- was passed but makes it clear ultimately no action would have taken without legal cover for it

Typical of Blair – he just wanted to go along with what Shrub wanted.

1449 The "spirit" of Resolution 1441 was that Saddam would get one final chance, Mr Blair says. Otherwise "that's it", he adds. A further resolution would have been politically preferable, Mr Blair says.

Never mind politically preferable – it would have been better for everyone if this second resolution had been obtained. That way, a cohesive plan for the aftermath would have been in place.

1450 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair sidesteps the question of what he said if anything to the Attorney General between 7th and 13th March 2003 when the Attorney General's advice "'evolved"' - in other words when Lord Goldsmith ditched caveats and gave the green light for military action.

Bit close to the truth? Maybe he realised just what he was getting into at long last – but I doubt it.

1452 Sir Roderic Lyne suggests it was a "considerable relief" when Lord Goldsmith offered different advice, on 13 March 2003. Mr Blair says he did so because of the Hans Blix evidence suggesting Saddam had not complied with Resolution 1441. But Sir Roderic says this was contrary to many international lawyers' opinions. Mr Blair says all countries which took military action believed they had a legal reason for doing so.

Crap. It just meant that the Attorney General caved in to political pressure, and started toeing the line that Blair and Shrub wanted him to.

1456 Sir Roderic Lyne asks Mr Blair how convinced he was that the UK had a strong legal case after Lord Goldsmith's advice. Mr Blair says Lord Goldsmith would not have reached his opinion "unless he believed it". The attorney general had not said he would not have won a court case with such a point, merely that it was arguable either way, Mr Blair says. On this advice, the former PM says he decided "to go forward".

No – it means that Lord Goldsmith lost his backbone, and gave the answers that Blair and co wanted to hear – not what was needed.

1500 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Asked if he felt there was a strong legal case for war, Tony Blair said the Attorney General had to come to a decision which in the end, he did. Throughout this session Tony Blair been keen to stress Lord Goldsmith’s "top rank" experience as a lawyer, his integrity and his desire to give advice whether required or not - in other words, he has sought distance himself from suggestions that he or his officials could have leant on the attorney general to water down legal objections to war. But the question of what Tony Blair said to Lord Goldsmith in the crucial week of 7-13 March wasn't hotly pursued.

Rubbish. Lord Goldsmith was leaned on by his “political masters” and just bleated out whatever they wanted to hear – in this case, that there was no requirement for the UN resolution.

1504 The defence spending review of 1997 stated that the military should be given sufficient time for planning actions, panel member Baroness Prashar says. Mr Blair says that on Iraq, for a time, the government was worried about making planning too visible and "triggering an assumption" of invasion. He repeats that, in October 2002, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said: "We really need to get on with this." Army chief General Sir Mike Jackson had been clear that the forces would be ready, Mr Blair says.

The military would have been ready, regardless of what Geoff Hoon said – that’s their job.

1508 There was visible preparation later, but in mid-2002 there was a concern that people did not start to think an invasion was inevitable, Mr Blair says. And "it really wasn't", he adds

Funny – he’s pretty much admitted to being committed to the invasion, so how can he say that the invasion wasn’t inevitable?

1510 After a very brief set of questions on military preparation, Mr Blair is asked about planning for the war's aftermath. There was an "immense amount" of this, he tells the panel. The "real problem" was that some wrong eventualities were prepared for. The focus was on humanitarian outcomes, which averted a disaster. But the oil fields were not burned and chemical and biological weapons not used.

The Iraqis burnt the Kuwaiti oil fields during their retreat in 1990, but Saddam wasn’t daft enough to damage something that he could use to get money into the country… Humanitarian concerns? What about the ordinary people who suffered after the invasion, as the insurgency took hold, and they were being killed along with our service personnel?

1511 One of the planning assumptions, Mr Blair says, was that there would be a functioning Iraqi civil service below the top level. But dealing with a "semi-fascist state" like Iraq makes that assumption wrong, he adds. It was necessary to rebuild the civil infrastructure from nothing, as it was a "completely broken system".

True – if you weren’t a member of the Baath party, then you weren’t allowed to be part of the government. But the trouble was, not everyone was a committed party member…

1513 The risks and resources required were weighed up and the UK "could not walk away from the people of Iraq" after the war, Mr Blair says. Bu the UK would have done some things differently in hindsight, he adds.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but until someone invents a time machine, you’re screwed.

1516 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: There's been a lot of debate about whether troops were properly equipped for action and whether enough planning had been done - and whether Gordon Brown as chancellor was properly resourcing the troops. Tony Blair attempts to take the political sting out of this early on by saying that it was up to the military to judge if they were prepared and that he as PM "never refused a request for money and equipment".

That may be the case, but what about the required investment in decent kit, and making sure that there was enough for everyone?

1522 Mr Blair again says the UK did not plan for the absence of a functioning Iraqi civil service. He adds that "people did not think al-Qaeda and Iran would play the role that they did". The latter influences nearly caused the mission to fail, Mr Blair says. These are the same forces confronted as in Afghanistan, he adds.

What a surprise – there was no plan for the absence of a functioning civil service, That was apparent from the outset – all these plans for fighting, but nothing to help with the aftermath.

1524 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair is very reluctant to admit to mistakes in planning for the aftermath. The key mistake for him was to assume there would still be a functioning Iraqi civil service after the invasion but said that another potential problem - sectarian violence - was tackled swiftly when Shia, Sunnis and Kurds were quickly brought together. The subsequent problems are blamed on the influence of Iran – a pretty constant bête noire for Tony Blair today - and al-Qaeda.

What a surprise – Blair doesn’t like admitting he was wrong. Guess that comes with the territory of being a politician...

1527 Mr Blair says states like Iraq under Saddam are repressive and secretive. The question for other countries is whether it is necessary and possible to engage in such places, he adds. Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcott calls another break, with questioning expected to recommence at about 1550 GMT.

Ok – Iraq wasn’t the most open place, but I still don’t see the reason why we needed to invade Iraq.

1546 Mr Blair says the plan was that the aftermath would not require as many troops as the conflict itself. The issue in southern Iraq was not the number of troops, but how reconstruction could get going while, fairly early on, there were groups opposed to this.

Whoops – someone didn’t do their homework… The Shia sect of Islam is predominant in Iraq – and it was only Saddam's iron fist that kept a lid on things…

1549 Saddam was toppled very quickly but the allies found the situation was different to that which had been expected, Mr Blair says. Another assumption, that Iran would not be provocative, also started to change, with its backing for the Mehdi Army of Moqtada al Sadr, he adds.

Like Iran wouldn’t miss the chance to stir things up. Technically, the Iran-Iraq war was only ever on a cease-fire – no peace treaty / agreement was ever signed.

1553 On funding for aid and redevelopment, Mr Blair says extra money was agreed with the Treasury in March 2003. Iraq was the "key country" for the Department for International Development in 2003-04, he adds. The problem, which became clearer, "was not a lack of resources, but a lack of security".

Which anyone with an ounce of common sense could have seen happening, as Iraq is such a mix of cultures. It was only Saddam’s ruthless control that kept a lid on things.

1556 There was "much discussion" of the Shia-Sunni issue, Mr Blair says. But people did not believe al-Qaeda and Iran would have a destabilising influence. The Iraqi people were not in favour of violence or sectarianism, he says.

No, because it wasn’t in their interest. But a tiny (but well armed) minority had other ideas, and decided to stir things up, to cause trouble for the US and the UK.

1558 The UK tried to "reach out" to Iran, but one of the "most disappointing" aspects of the mission was that the country became a major destabilising influence in Iraq, Mr Blair adds.

Iran wouldn’t spit on either Shrub or Blair if they were on fire – they’d be more likely to pour crude oil on them to help the fire, so appealing to them wasn’t really a smart move…

1600 The government asked for an assessment on Iran's likely attitude for an invasion of Iraq, Mr Blair says. The evidence was it would have a "watching brief" and "be pleased" to get rid of Saddam.

Wouldn’t you be pleased to get rid of someone who did so much damage to your military in an eight year war?

1602 Returning to his "twenty ten" point, Tony Blair says that if Saddam had been left in power he has "little doubt" that Iraq would now be "competing" with Iran on nuclear weapons and in support of terrorist groups.

Open to debate again – Saddam would have only supported the terrorist groups if it had suited his agenda.

1604 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair launches another verbal attack on Iran - this time, for deliberately trying to destabilise post-war Iraq but Sir Roderic Lyne, the most dogged of Mr Blair's inquisitors, wonders why this wasn't anticipated. Tony Blair says the advice - presumably the intelligence - suggested that Iran would be glad to see the back of Saddam and would be "amenable" to the new Iraq

Anyone could have foreseen this happening – Iran for years has wanted to challenge the Sunni rule in the Middle East, and Saddam was an impediment to this happening. It’s highly unlikely that Iran wouldn’t have taken the opportunity to make sure that it was a Shia led government that came into power in post-Saddam Iraq.

1609 On the disbanding of the Iraqi army by the US, Mr Blair says he is "not sure" about the policy. It would have been "sensible" for the Americans to have a discussion about it.

It looks like the US have a lot to answer for in some respects – as their forward planning seems non-existent.

1612 Panel member Sir Lawrence Freedman says WMDs were not found and this was the "headline for most people". He asks when Mr Blair thought this was likely to be the case. During 2004 it became "difficult to sustain" the possibility WMDs might turn up, he answers.

There was never any chance of turning up the WMDs, as there was no political will, from either the US or the UK to assist with the inspections, and put pressure on Saddam to facilitate the inspections.

1614 The force required to remove a regime is "one function", but there will have to be nation-building afterwards, Mr Blair says. This may require more or different types of forces, he adds.

Regime change. That was the ultimate end, but no-one seemed to give any thought to the reconstruction side of things…

1616 Mr Blair says the "very purpose" of the people the UK ended up fighting in Iraq was to stop reconstruction. In such circumstances "you don't move to peace-keeping" straightaway, because "your enemy is trying to kill you".

True – but it was because the people who were part of the insurgency thought that the US and UK had invaded their country. Technically, we had done so.

1622 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair says the problem wasn't the pace of reconstruction in post-war Iraq but security - although he also implicitly admits that more attention would have to be paid to "nation building" if a similar situation were to exist in future.

Hindsight again.

1625 It was bound to take a "certain amount of time" to win the battle of creating stability in Iraq, Mr Blair says.

Yeah – talking to the people first might have helped – they might not have felt so angry about the invasion once the euphoria of getting rid of Saddam and his murderous regime faded.

1631 On the deaths of Iraqi civilians since the war, Mr Blair says the coalition forces were not the ones doing the killing. It was terrorists and sectarians, "deliberately" trying to end the stabilisation process. These were "precisely the same people we were trying to fight everywhere". People in southern Iraq are now better off than under Saddam and have hope of a better future, Mr Blair says. Panel member Sir Lawrence Freedman says that claim is up for debate.

Agreed – the coalition personnel were not doing the killing – but if they hadn’t been there, then the bombs wouldn’t have been going off near their bases.

1632 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: The inquiry takes a more emotive turn with Sir Lawrence pointing to the growing civilian death toll after the invasion. Tony Blair passionately argues that this is the fault of the terrorists. But the inquiry are interested in whether coalition troops could do more to protect people and opponents of the war would blame the invasion for unleashing the violence.

Whatever the pros and cons of this argument, there is only so much that the military can do to protect the civilian population, as they were limited by both numvers and equipment. It’s a case of chicken and egg – without the troops, there would have been little violence and Saddam still in power, but with them, Saddam was removed but the violence kicked off.

1635 Mr Blair says there was not a "cavalier" attitude to planning for the aftermath of the war. But, however much you plan and whatever forces you have, al-Qaeda and Iran would have made the task difficult. This was no reason to "back away", Mr Blair says. Nobody would want to go back to the days of no hope, opportunity or freedom, he adds.

That’s a bit of a joke, the whole aftermath planning smacks of a cavalier attitude – as in “things will sort themselves out”

1641 Mr Blair says the "key players" in the UK government were in close contact as planning for the war developed.

In close contact? What with? A brick wall?

1643 The cabinet had 25 pre-invasion discussions, Mr Blair says. There was a "constant interaction", he adds. Members of the cabinet did not feel they were not involved, even Robin Cook, who eventually resigned over the war, Mr Blair says.

Robin Cook was the only member of the government who had the courage of his convictions, and resigned as a matter of principal, as he opposed the invasion.

1651 The cabinet was focused on political issues at the time of making decisions on whether to go to war, Mr Blair says. Even Robin Cook, who quit over the war, said it was necessary to get a second UN resolution for such reasons, he adds

So why didn’t he listen? Or was he too taken with the idea of regime change, as proposed by his buddy, Shrub?

1653 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair is keen to rebut the allegation that he led entirely from the front on invading Iraq and that though his colleagues may have been behind him, they were a long way behind. He says there were 25 discussions on Iraq at cabinet meetings - and that most of the cabinet agreed with him, but could challenge if they wish (and as the late Robin Cook did) - and there was an "immense amount" going on in Clare Short's International Development Department; implicitly he's saying she shares responsibility for decisions though she resigned after the conflict. It had been suggested that Tony Blair had kept some senior colleagues out of the loop on key decisions. He suggests Clare Short was involved in post war planning discussions well before the war itself began.

Talk about trying to wriggle out of the blame. By blaming Clare Short, it takes the heat off of him, and makes him look slightly less culpable.

1655 There could have been a major legal debate about military action in Kosovo in the late 1990s but there was not, because it was not such a politically divisive issue as Iraq, Mr Blair says.


Kosovo, unlike Iraq, had UN sanctioning, so there is no comparison between the two.

1656 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair ends the questioning on post-war planning with his customary defiant and robust tone - he seems more assured here than on the dense questioning on the legality of the conflict earlier. He says there was no "cavalier" attitude taken to planning the aftermath of war and that - as with Afghanistan - you have to be prepared for the long haul

Strange – that doesn’t seem apparent at the moment – the lack of planning is criminal.

1703 Inquiry chairman Sir John Chico says the "liberators" of Iraq soon came to be resented. He asks whether the people of Iraq thought the invasion and subsequent efforts worthwhile. Mr Blair says it is "too early" to say whether Iraqi democracy will function effectively and take root, although there are "hopeful signs". Income per head has risen, money is being spent on infrastructure, he adds. It was a "very, very difficult fight" and that the UK will be better prepared and educated if it takes part in future nation-building exercises

We shouldn’t have been in this position in the first place! The coalition was resented the minute the euphoria of Saddam’s overthrow wore off, and the bombs started exploding in the market places, killing not only the troops, but civilians as well.

1705 Mr Blair says child mortality has fallen in Iraq because of the change of regime - 50,000 fewer young children dying each year he says. The majority of Iraqis would overwhelmingly say the situation is preferable to that under Saddam, he adds.

True – there is no more state sanctioned murder to remove rivals to power. But equally, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the coalition out of their country.

1708 Mr Blair is asked about the anger felt towards him over the Iraq war, and whether he has regrets. He replies that he had to take the decision for war and there is "not a single day" when he does not think about it. He adds that, had he left Saddam in power, the circumstances for dealing with him would be worse. Mr Blair says he is "sorry" the war was divisive, but the UK's security is better without Saddam and his sons in power. He feels responsibility but not regret for removing Saddam Hussein. As the session comes to an end he says he believes "the world is safer as a result" of the Iraq war.

The UK’s security has improved without Saddam? What planet is he on? It’s worse since he helped Shrub remove Saddam, and things won’t improve until we get out of Iraq.

*****************************

All this enquiry has done so far, is proven that Blair is a liar, who was more intent of posing and trying to impress his little friend Shrub. At the end of this, I can’t see any answers worth their paper being produced. If I’m wrong, then I will cheerfully post a retraction of this particular comment on my blog, but I doubt I’ll have to do that.

Guess I should log off and head for home – it is a Friday night after all…

Back when I get the chance.

Karen

Blair on trial. I wish. (Part 1)

As I explained in an earlier post, I’ve decided to follow this enquiry today (as my work allows) as I feel that this needs airing, and I have chosen selected highlights, This will be followed in two parts – the morning session, and the afternoon session.

Again, as is my prerogative. I make no apologies for the views that are in italics – they are mine, and mine alone.


Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

***********************************

This quote is straight from the BBC website Iraq War Enquiry - Live Feed

This is the big one. Tony Blair, the prime minister who took Britain to war in Iraq in 2003, is to face six hours of questioning about his role. The five members of the Iraq inquiry will ask him about the build-up to the invasion, the conduct of the war and the planning and execution of its aftermath. There will be particular interest in the legality - or otherwise - of the war and the discussions between the US and Britain before troops were sent in without a second United Nations resolution. Also expect questions about the claim that Saddam Hussein was developing "weapons of mass destruction”

Today will be the start of the ‘interrogation’ of a certain T Blair, over his decision to take the UK into an illegal war. Ok – I don’t have a problem admitting that Saddam was no angel – far from it. What bugs me is the fact that our service men & women have been killed for a pointless (and immoral) war.

0949 Mr Blair says the effectiveness of sanctions before 9/11 was eroding. He adds that he has gone back through his speeches during this period. From 1997 to 2001 Mr Blair says the sanctions in place on Iraq weren't the "top priority". If 9/11 had not happened, the assessment of Saddam would not have been the same. The UK and US view changed "dramatically" at this point, Mr Blair says.

Yeah – Shrub (I mean Bush Jnr) wanted to go one better than daddy, and knock out Saddam.

0952 Sir Roderic Lyne says Saddam was not involved in 9/11 or with al-Qaeda. Mr Blair responds that 9/11 changed perceptions.

What perceptions? Iraq was a threat in 1990 – sanctions pretty much made sure that Saddam & Iraq were a spent force by 9/11.

1005 Mr Blair says he was "never short" of people challenging him during this period, including cabinet ministers Robin Cook and Clare Short. But the Iraq options paper was not specifically discussed at cabinet, he tells the inquiry.

Would have been nice if he’d listened to the voices of dissent, instead of riding roughshod over people. And what happened to full and frank discussions?

1007 The "downside" arguments were about the risks of military involvement and to relationships with the Arab world and others, Mr Blair says. The "full range" of views were received, but "the trouble was, we had to make a decision".

Make a decision? To do what? Act as Shrub’s pet? And I notice that he still took no notice of other peoples views – it was almost as if it was all about what HE wanted.

1013 Sir Roderic Lyne asks whether the removal of regimes had become a "valid objective" of UK policy by 1999. "No," Mr Blair replies. WMDs were the "key issue" in Iraq, he adds.

Yet the UN inspection teams found no evidence after the 1990 war to say that there were any WMDs left – the allies had bombed the areas that were known to house SCUDS and other weapons.

1015 Saddam's regime, which had used chemical weapons on some of its own people, was a "bigger threat" than many others, Mr Blair says.

No-one disputes that he gassed his own people – and he used chemical weapons against Iran during that war as well.

1017 A prime minister must take an assessment of risk, Mr Blair says. Pre-9/11 Saddam had been a "monster" but the UK had to "make best". Afterwards, that changed, he adds. Rogue states cannot be allowed to develop or proliferate WMDs, Mr Blair argues.

Agreed. But Iraq was in no position to get anything truly nasty, as the sanctions pretty much wiped out his ability to trade for anything that could be used.

1029 Mr Blair says he and former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw agreed the UK would try to get a UN resolution. He adds that it was important to put together a coalition on Iraq. The UN route was important as he "didn't want America to feel it had no option but to do it alone".

Yeah – but that didn’t stop Shrub though. He was determined to get his own way, and remove Saddam.

1030 The only commitment at Crawford, in spring 2002, was to deal with Saddam, Mr Blair says. He and Mr Bush agreed on this, but the method of doing so was "open".

See previous comment.

1039 It was clear that, if it came to military action to deal with WMDs, the UK would be "with" the US, Mr Blair says. Force was "always an option", he tells the panel.

As I said – Shrub wanted to go one better and remove Saddam from power.

1041 Back to the Crawford ranch meeting. Sir Roderic Lyne asks whether the US and UK disagreed on the means of tackling WMDs, with the UK preferring the UN route. Mr Blair says that Mr Bush had agreed that "if the UN route worked; it worked".

Like Shrub was really willing to wait for the UN to give the go-ahead for the use of force to tackle the alleged WMDs.

1050 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Again Tony Blair refutes the "poodle" charge which has dogged him. He says that President Bush would have adjusted their policy of regime change if weapons inspections worked and if the UN route had worked. The term 'UN route' is ambiguous though - some believe the UN route meant disarmament without war, others that it simply meant more explicit and widespread backing for military action. Of course ultimately it led to neither.

‘Nuff said.


1113 Mr Blair says military action possibilities were discussed at that Crawford meeting with President Bush in April 2002.

What a surprise. Shrub was never going to wait for the UN to agree to his plans to topple Saddam.

1117 Mr Blair says that, if it was right to conduct a military campaign, it was right for Britain to be involved. It was best, in such a case, to be "right alongside" the US. If war is thought to be right, the UK "should be prepared to play our part fully", Mr Blair adds.

As what? Something to support Shrub in his favourite pastime – and help distract attention from the problems at home. But this should only have been agreed to with the UN sanctioning any action.

1124 Saddam had used WMDs and "definitely had them", Mr Blair says. It would have required much evidence to put the supposed programme to develop more WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) into doubt, he adds.

No-one is disputing that Saddam had used WMDs – but where were they when the UN inspection team was there after the 1990 Gulf war?

1126 Mr Blair says the "link" between Saddam and al-Qaeda - which previous inquiries have suggested did not exist - was that highly suppressed and failing states become "porous" and easier for terror groups to infiltrate. The link between this problem and failing states having WMDs could make them more dangerous, he tells the panel.

Ok – I agree Iraq wasn’t the most stable of countries, but I think that even Saddam would have noticed al-Qaeda coming into Iraq…

1134 On to the September 2002 dossier, claiming Saddam had WMDs he could mobilise within 45 minutes of giving an order. Mr Blair says this was to do with short-range chemical munitions. The words later took on "far greater significance", he adds.

Mobilise in 45 minutes? That’s if the things even existed, which I very much doubt.

1141 Dealing with intelligence evidence, Mr Blair says he believed it when he said in his foreword to the 2002 dossier that it was "beyond doubt" that Saddam had continued to produce biological and chemical weapons.

Beyond doubt? Why weren’t they found then, or more to the point, why didn’t any of the defectors allude to them?

1154 Panel member Sir Roderic Lyne asks whether intelligence in late 2002 was suggesting the WMD threat was growing. It was, Mr Blair says. It was not known at the time that evidence of mobile weapons production facilities - which would have allowed Saddam to evade inspections - was wrong, he adds.

At last. He’s admitted to being wrong about something. Just a pity that he didn’t think more like this when the question of going to war was first mentioned.

1155 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: A significant exchange between Sir Lawrence and Tony Blair. The former PM says it is justifiable to say intelligence on Iraq was "beyond doubt" because he prefaces the phrase in the foreword of the September dossier with the word "I believe" and he says he genuinely believed it… that was, in effect his reading of the intelligence and he "couldn't understand how anyone could come to a different view".

Justifiable intelligence? Where? Never mind that he “believed” that the evidence was beyond doubt – other people, including the late Dr Kelly were raising doubts about the validity of the evidence.

1157 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: At least a partial admission from Tony Blair that the use of intelligence could have been bettered handled. Tony Blair argues that the now controversial 45 minute claim on Saddam's ability to have WMD ready for use in the September 2002 dossier took on much more significance subsequently than at the time. But Sir Lawrence Freedman is concerned even at the time that the claim was too general and not specific enough. Tony Blair admits with hindsight that it would have been better to have corrected this at the time but again makes clear that there is no truth in the allegation that Downing St used the information knowing it to be probably wrong.

Of course he’s not going to admit he got it wrong – there would be even more pressure to indict him as a war criminal if he said he got it wrong.

1201 On presentation of the UK's Iraq policy in 2002, Mr Blair says there had been no decision on military action but it was a possibility. The "problem" was that people were writing that the UK had decided. If he had said military planning was in place, this could make such a course of action "irreversible", he adds.

It was. It’s just that he didn’t want to admit that he’d committed the UK to an illegal war.

1202 Towards the end of October 2002, the then Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, asked Mr Blair to discuss military planning in more detail, he says. Most of this had to be "under the radar" but did not always stay there, he tells the panel.

Under the radar? Only because he didn’t want people realising that he was acting as Shrub’s poodle.

1205 On going to the UN, says the difficulty was that Resolution 1441 was "strong", but there was an "unresolved issue". Some countries wanted to have a decision for action only with a specific UN mandate. Mr Blair took the view that that was not necessary but he thought a new resolution would make the situation easier politically.

Agreed – plus the war would have been seen as legal, and no-one would have objected so much, as there would have been a proper plan to re-build things after the war.

1207 Backing away from Saddam in the run-up to war would have sent a "bad message" for the rest of the world, the former PM says.

Ok – agreed on that, but the war should have been sanctioned by the UN, and there wouldn’t have been so many protests.

1213 Mr Blair is asked whether military planning set the terms of diplomatic debate. There was no doubt Saddam was in breach of UN conditions, he tells the inquiry. There was time enough to get another resolution, but France and Russia moved to another position, Mr Blair says.

Yes – they wanted more time for the inspections to work, rather than rushing headlong into a war.

1224 Saddam was in a "game-playing" situation with the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, Mr Blair says. As troops began to build up, the Iraqi leader started to give more cooperation. Mr Blix was not "enthusiastic" about interviewing Iraqi scientists, as they, or their families, could be killed.

No-one is disputing the fact that Saddam used terror to keep people in line – it was one of the most disgusting things about his regime.

1225 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair makes an important distinction between Saddam and Col Gaddafi, who dismantled Libya's WMD programme under international scrutiny. The former PM is implicitly arguing that it doesn't really matter if Saddam had WMD - the fact that, unlike Libya, he did not co-operate, concealed documents, and restricted access to scientists means that he was in breach of his obligations to the UN and could not be trusted not to resurrect a weapons programme even if one wasn't in the end active at that time - that the UN was into a "game playing scenario" with Saddam.

Add into that, Gaddafi paid “blood money” to the Lockerbie victims, and has quite a large oil reserve… Hmmm I wonder if oil had anything to do with the determination to get rid of Saddam… Surely not.

1227 Mr Blair says he was "confused" as to what Mr Blix was trying to say in February 2003. On one page of his briefing, he says Iraq has made a commitment to allow interviews but there was a reluctance to follow through. Sometimes it is important not to ask the "March 2003 question" but the "2010 question", Mr Blair says. It is at least arguable that Saddam was a threat and if he had been left in place for several more years, with oil at $100 a barrel, he would have had the intent and the means to act, and the UK and its allies would have "lost our nerve", he argues.

Ahhh – now the truth comes out. Oil. Never mind the WMDs – oil is FAR more important.

1229 Mr Blair says he worked for a UN resolution "until the last moment".

Liar.

1234 Mr Blair says he tried to find a way, with Mr Blix, to move on, constructing tests for Saddam's regime, including interviewing Iraqi scientists outside the country.

Like Saddam would have agreed to that, and Blair knows that – he’s just looking to protect his own skin.

1235 The UK was "trying desperately" to get a way of going ahead with the UN, Mr Blair says. However, it became "very clear" that France and Russia's position on agreeing to any resolution had changed.

France and Russia wanted to exhaust all options, before going to war, unlike Shrub and his pet.

1240 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Although no weapons of mass destruction were found following the war but Tony Blair says the findings of the Iraq Survey Group that Saddam had the means and "know how" to restart a weapons programme justifies action.

Maybe he did have the means and the know how to restart things, but I doubt somehow that Saddam would have been that stupid, given his past history with the US.

1241 Asked whether he urged President Bush to give more time to reach a UN resolution, Mr Blair says that Saddam had not cooperated before. Mr Blair says that, if a resolution could be put together, Mr Bush was in favour, but there was not the time.

No, because they didn’t want to make time. If they had been serious about the UN resolution, they would have found a way to get things sorted out.

Back at 14:00, when this resumes.


Karen

Explanation of the Iraq War Enquiry.

I make no apology for this – I’ve copied it straight from the BBC website, as I feel that it sums up this enquiry correctly, and will explain what my later posts are about.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most


*******************

The key points of the Iraq war inquiry explained

Tony Blair is appearing at the Iraq Inquiry in the most high-profile
session since proceedings began three months ago.

What is the remit of the inquiry?

It is looking at events between 2001 and 2009, covering the decision to go to war, whether troops were properly prepared, how the conflict was conducted and what planning there was for its aftermath. Ministers say the terms of reference are unprecedented in their breadth while inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot says he will not shirk from apportioning blame where he sees fit. 179 British service personnel were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died over the period, though estimates vary considerably.

Who has given evidence so far?

During the first two months, the inquiry heard from senior diplomats, civil servants and military commanders involved in the build-up to war, the military campaign itself and the aftermath. Among those giving evidence were Sir Christopher Meyer, UK ambassador to the United States between 1997 and 2003, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK's ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the Iraq invasion, Admiral Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff between 2001 and 2003 and Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee at the time. In recent weeks, the inquiry has heard from ministers and other senior figures at No 10 such as former foreign secretary Jack Straw and No 10 communications director Alastair Campbell. It has also taken evidence from a Foreign Office lawyer who quit in protest at the war and from Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general who advised ministers that the war was lawful.

What are witnesses being asked about?

Areas covered early on included the development of UK policy towards Iraq between 2001 and 2003 and UK-US relations over the period. There has been scrutiny of the intelligence available on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and its influence on decisions taken by ministers as well as events at the UN in the run-up to war, including the negotiation of UN resolution 1441. This gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to disarm and co-operate with weapons inspectors or face "serious consequences". There has also been significant focus on the legal arguments surrounding the war and whether it was justified without explicit UN authorisation.

Are witnesses testifying on oath?

No they are not, leading some to question the merits of the inquiry. However, all those appearing have been asked to sign a piece of paper saying they gave a "full and truthful" account of events. There is also controversy over the powers of the panel. There are no judges nor QCs on the body, leading many to question whether it has the expertise to question whether the war was legal. But the panel says it will call on relevant legal advice where needed.

What are proving to be the controversial points?

Critics of the Iraq war argue the Bush administration had effectively decided to remove Saddam Hussein by force by the middle of 2002, that the UK was aware of this and had offered its support. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has always denied this but Sir Christopher Meyer, the UK's man in Washington at the time, highlighted in his evidence a private meeting between the two men in April 2002, after which Mr Blair began to talk publicly about regime change. Sir David Manning said Mr Blair signalled his intention to back regime change but urged President Bush to get UN authorisation for it. Alastair Campbell said Mr Blair wrote private notes to President Bush during 2002 suggesting the UK would ultimately take part in military action if diplomatic efforts failed. These have not been published.

What will Tony Blair be asked about?

The former prime minister is facing six hours of questioning in the first public scrutiny of his record over Iraq. Mr Blair is set to be asked whether he gave any private assurances to President Bush that he would support military action come what may and whether he approved of US policy of regime change. He is also likely to be asked about comments he made in December appearing to suggest he would have backed military action even if he had known Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. There will also be detailed questions about why he said there was no doubt Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

When is Gordon Brown appearing?

The inquiry initially said the prime minister and other ministers with ongoing responsibility for Iraq would appear after the election. However, after pressure from the opposition, Mr Brown made clear he would be willing to appear at any time. As a result, Sir John Chilcot has asked him to appear next month and Mr Brown has said he is "happy" to do so.

How did the inquiry begin

The inquiry officially began in July. Sir John and the four other panel members met some of the families of the 179 UK personnel killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 as well as former and current serving personnel. During the meetings, several relatives of those killed criticised the decision to go to war, saying the British people had been lied to about the threat posed by Iraq. Sir John and his fellow panel members also spent weeks examining thousands of relevant documents from across government. However, there has been criticism that some documents have not been declassified, meaning that although the inquiry can view them they cannot be made public.

Can the public see the hearings?

Sir John has said it is "essential" that as much of the inquiry as possible is held in public. Gordon Brown was heavily criticised for initially suggesting it would mainly take place in private, for national security reasons. In what critics said was an embarrassing U-turn, he later said it was up to Sir John to decide how it should proceed. Hearings are taking place in public unless there are compelling reasons of national security not to do so. Currently there has been just one private session with General Sir John Reith, the commander who oversaw the invasion.

This is not the first inquiry into Iraq, is it?

No. There have already been four separate inquiries into aspects of the Iraq conflict. In 2003, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and the joint Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee both looked into the intelligence used to justify the war. The Hutton inquiry, in January 2004, examined the circumstances surrounding the death of scientist and weapons adviser Dr David Kelly. The Butler inquiry, in July 2004, looked once again at the intelligence which was used to justify the war.

How long will the latest probe take?

Due to the number of hearings planned and the number of documents to be considered, the Inquiry says it may not publish its findings before 2011. The opposition is angry it will not report before the general election, which must be held by June.

Breaking News

I've just recieved a breaking news text from the BBC (good service - means I get kept up to date with major news sories whilst I'm away from my PC or TV)

American President Barak Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Err - forgive me for being dumb - but what for?  The offical blurb states that it's for (and I quote)

"His extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples"

Ok - I can agee with that seniment, but surely, it would have made more sense to wait and see how things pan out, and then give him the award.  But, maybe that's just me being cynical - I've seen the hype that a new politican can create (just look back at 1997 when a certain T. Blair took office here in the UK) and the resulting aftermath when the population realised that they may well have made a bad mistake...  Only we've taken 12 years to realise ours!  At least the Americans get a chance every 4 years to correct their mistakes...

Ah well, guess  I should call this quits - I'm supposed to be working, not blogging.

Back later...

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Hello - the PM's in the area - there must be an election coming up....

I guess the title of this entry sums up how I feel. It's funny (in an ironic kind of way) that the minute the PM realizes that Rover has gone into administration, both he and the Chancellor make an appearance in Birmingham, promising to do everything they can to help Rover.

Call me cynical if you like, but it stinks when you think about it. If the PM had been so concerned about Rover (and all the other companies that have been / are currently struggling), then why didn't he do something to help out? But no, there wasn't an election imminent, so it appeared to be a case of 'Sod it. I don't need to worry - I've got months before I need to look like I'm doing anything.'

Now the election has been called for 05 May 2005, the PM has suddenly realized that there are an awful lot of people who are rather upset with his government, and now have the power to kick them out.

And before I get comments about this being an anti-Labour post - I'm aiming at all the major parties - Tory, Labor and to a certain extent, Lib Dem - even though I do agree with Charles Kennedy's comment that the Government should have acted sooner.

Ok - I know that it sounds like I'm determined to kick the government, and yes - I am. Simply because since this lot came to power in 1997, things have, as far as my family is concerned, taken a turn for the worst.

Firstly, they introduced tuition fees for students - despite the fact that most, if not all of the labor top brass enjoyed a free education - i.e. one without tuition fees of £3000 (or more if the top 20 or so universities get their way!), meaning that I cannot return to some kind of further education without paying excessive financial penalties. On top of that, the Chancellor upped the income tax that middle earners like my late father got clobbered with.

Just to add insult to injury, the very people who are supposed to help out, have the temerity to tell my Mum that the widow's benefit is only payable for 52 weeks - and when she queries it, is told by some snotty, faceless person at the benefits agency, that this is explained on the form that she filled in, just after we lost Dad.

Thanks a lot. It just makes me wonder what the use was, of Dad paying all that National Insurance over the years - including the time that he was overseas, and paid class 2 contribution, in order to keep his state pension entitlement.

Guess I should call time on this entry - I'm getting serious about politics - something that I never normally do!

Back when I've cooled off.

Karen.

Don't let the b'stards get you down

Getting bored of US politics

Before I get hoards of complaints about this - it was sent to me by an American e-mail friend! And given the current state of American politics, I felt this was rather appropriate!

After numerous rounds of "We don't even know if Osama is still alive", Osama himself decided to send George W. a letter in his own handwriting to let him know he was still in the game. Bush opened the letter and it appeared to contain a coded message:

370HSSV 0773H.

Bush was baffled, so he typed it out and emailed it to Colin Powell.

Colin and his aides had no clue either so they sent it to the CIA. No one could solve it so it went to the NSA and then to MIT and NASA and the Secret Service.

Eventually they asked Britain's MI6 for help. They cabled the White House: "Tell the President he is looking at the message upside down."

To be honest, I've had enough of politics to last a lifetime. All we seem to get is lies, lies and excuses, and the British Prime Minster (a certain T. Blair) seems to be more interested in saving his skin for a third term in office, than in answering a straight question, and explaining why he dragged Britain into George W. Bush's war.

And I get the feeling that 'Shrub' was determined to go one better then Bush Snr - and take out Saddam. And no - I'm not one of Saddam's supporters. I just feel that there had to be a better way of removing him, and that the task should have been completed back in 1990 - during the First Gulf war, when the allies had the backing of the Arab world.

Time to call it quits - nearly time to escape.

Possibly back later...

Karen.
Do spiders scream when they see a big fat hairy human in the bath?