How do I feel after my weekend away? Flat. Don’t get me wrong – it was a fabulous weekend – and I loved every second that I spent with my beloved, but it’s always the same – a crashing low.
However, the weekend started somewhat fraught for me, as I couldn’t find where I’d put my blasted car keys on Friday night. As I was sorting out my overnight bag - and putting things in it, so there wouldn’t be a mad rush to find everything – I put them (my car keys) into the same pocket as my Asthma inhalers – the idea being that I would remember they were there.
That was the theory. In practice? Not a cat in hells chance of that working. I was really stressed out, and ended up having to take my spare car keys, and promising to return home early so that I could find the damned things.
I headed off to the location where I was meeting my beloved, and as per my normal routine, I decided to unpack my toiletries and make things a little easier to find… Only for me to find my blasted car keys. To say that the air went blue was an understatement, and I made a grovelling phone call to Mum to let her know that I’d found my keys. She burst out laughing (which made me feel even worse) and asked me where I’d found them. When I told her, she laughed even more, as I’d been though my bag twice whilst I was at home.
My beloved arrived, and I told him the sorry tale of my car keys – which made him laugh, and made me feel even worse. That feeling lasted practically all day, and I was somewhat subdued for the rest of the day.
Needless to say, this started to fester, and I will admit to starting snap and get somewhat grumpy. This then prompted my beloved to start telling me how he felt. I just listened to what he said, and it reminded me of a Bryan Adams song that I always liked: -
How Do Ya Feel Tonight
Is there anybody out there?
Anyone that's loved in vain
Anyone that feels the same
Is there anybody waiting?
Waiting for a chance to win
Give it up and start again
We all need something new
Something that is true
And someone else to feel it too
I feel so high - no one else would know it
I don't know why I feel the way I do
I can' t let go - and I’m not scared to show it
'Cuz being here feels right
Tell me - how do ya feel tonight?
Is there anybody out there?
Anyone that can't explain
Anyone that feels no pain
Is there anybody dreaming
Dreaming of better day
When everything goes your way
We all need something new
Something that is true
And someone else to feel it too
Someone just like you
I guess sometimes it takes a kick up the tail to make me realise just what I have with my beloved, and I know that whatever happens, we’ll always be there for each other.
Guess I should get on with some work, but to be honest, I’ve got a severe case of TNFI…
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
Madeira Floods.
Posted by
Karen
comments (0)
This comes from the BBC website – I make no apologies for posting it directly – but all I can say is that I pray that the rains stop so that the people of this beautiful island stand a fighting chance to re-build.
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 Briton has died following flash floods on the Portuguese island of Madeira, the Foreign Office has said.
At least 40 people have been killed in the floods, and more than 120 others hurt - a "small number" British.
Heavy rains brought tonnes of mud and stones down the slopes of the island, flooding the streets of the regional capital, Funchal, and other towns.
The island's 2,000 UK tourists have been told they can venture out again after earlier advice to stay indoors.
Foreign Office spokeswoman said the family of the dead Briton had been informed, but added: "We are not able to release any further details at this stage."
There has been widespread damage along the south coast of the island, with roads blocked, phone lines down and many people without water and electricity.
A Portuguese social services spokesman said communication problems were proving very difficult and warned the death toll would "likely increase, given the circumstances of this flood".
Portugal's Prime Minister Jose Socrates, who has visited the island, said he was appalled by the destruction and promised all necessary help.
The Foreign Office said earlier that a "small number" of British nationals had been treated in hospital.
Peter Ramos, of Hospital Cruz de Carvalho, said out of the 120 patients seen on Saturday, three were from the UK.
A woman remained in hospital with multiple injuries, he said, while two men sustained minor injuries and had been discharged.
"Four people in a taxi were hit by floods," he added.
In the UK, families are struggling to contact their relatives in Madeira as many of the phone networks are down.
Martin Hellier, 38, from Yeovil, Somerset, said he was growing increasingly concerned for his parents who live 20 miles (32km) west of Funchal in Ponta Do Sol.
He told the BBC he had heard no news in 24 hours because the phone lines were dead.
"My next course [of action] is to get in touch with the authorities over there and ask them what the conditions are in that particular region," he said.
Mark Costa told the BBC on Sunday he was evacuated from his Funchal apartment because there was no electricity or running water and the underground car park was submerged.
The 30-year-old, from Bicester, Oxfordshire, was visiting his Portuguese parents who were celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary. All three were later relocated to a safer area of the city.
He said most of the water had now drained into the rivers but the roads around Funchal harbour were covered in mud.
"Looking out of the window, they have diverted the water back into the river," he said.
Former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett, who is holidaying on the Atlantic island, said the weather had been "really wild".
"One of the staff here said that in 46 years working in the same place he had never seen seas like it or winds like it, so it obviously has been quite exceptional," she said.
UK travel association Abta said the hotels had been largely unaffected.
Some flights were cancelled and delayed on Saturday, but a spokesman said people due to travel out next week would be unaffected by events.
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 Briton has died following flash floods on the Portuguese island of Madeira, the Foreign Office has said.
At least 40 people have been killed in the floods, and more than 120 others hurt - a "small number" British.
Heavy rains brought tonnes of mud and stones down the slopes of the island, flooding the streets of the regional capital, Funchal, and other towns.
Foreign Office spokeswoman said the family of the dead Briton had been informed, but added: "We are not able to release any further details at this stage."
There has been widespread damage along the south coast of the island, with roads blocked, phone lines down and many people without water and electricity.
A Portuguese social services spokesman said communication problems were proving very difficult and warned the death toll would "likely increase, given the circumstances of this flood".
Portugal's Prime Minister Jose Socrates, who has visited the island, said he was appalled by the destruction and promised all necessary help.
The Foreign Office said earlier that a "small number" of British nationals had been treated in hospital.
Peter Ramos, of Hospital Cruz de Carvalho, said out of the 120 patients seen on Saturday, three were from the UK.
A woman remained in hospital with multiple injuries, he said, while two men sustained minor injuries and had been discharged.
"Four people in a taxi were hit by floods," he added.
In the UK, families are struggling to contact their relatives in Madeira as many of the phone networks are down.
Martin Hellier, 38, from Yeovil, Somerset, said he was growing increasingly concerned for his parents who live 20 miles (32km) west of Funchal in Ponta Do Sol.
He told the BBC he had heard no news in 24 hours because the phone lines were dead.
"My next course [of action] is to get in touch with the authorities over there and ask them what the conditions are in that particular region," he said.
Mark Costa told the BBC on Sunday he was evacuated from his Funchal apartment because there was no electricity or running water and the underground car park was submerged.
The 30-year-old, from Bicester, Oxfordshire, was visiting his Portuguese parents who were celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary. All three were later relocated to a safer area of the city.
He said most of the water had now drained into the rivers but the roads around Funchal harbour were covered in mud.
"Looking out of the window, they have diverted the water back into the river," he said.
Former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett, who is holidaying on the Atlantic island, said the weather had been "really wild".
"One of the staff here said that in 46 years working in the same place he had never seen seas like it or winds like it, so it obviously has been quite exceptional," she said.
UK travel association Abta said the hotels had been largely unaffected.
Some flights were cancelled and delayed on Saturday, but a spokesman said people due to travel out next week would be unaffected by events.
Madeia Facts:
Autonomous region of Portugal with population of around 250,000
Lies just over 480km (300 miles) from West African coast
The European continent is more than 900km (560 miles) away
In an old Brownie camera
Posted by
Karen
comments (0)
Isn't is amazing how a film could last so long in a camera without disintegrating?
Fantastic photos taken 68 years ago. Some of you will have to go to a museum to see what a Brownie camera looked like?
Here is a simple picture of what we are talking about. . .
These photos are absolutely incredible....Read below the first picture and at the end...
Thought you might find these photos very interesting; what quality from 1941.
Pearl Harbor photos found in an old Brownie stored in a foot locker. And just recently taken to be developed.
THESE PHOTOS ARE FROM A SAILOR WHO WAS ON THE USS QUAPAW ATF-11O.
I THINK THEY'RE SPECTACULAR!
On Sunday, December 7th, 1941 the Japanese launched a surprise attack against the U.S. Forces stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. By planning this attack on a Sunday, the Japanese commander Admiral Nagumo, hoped to catch the entire fleet in port. As luck would have it, the Aircraft Carriers and one of the Battleships were not in port. (The USS Enterprise was returning from Wake Island, where it had just delivered some aircraft. The USS Lexington was ferrying aircraft to Midway, and the USS Saratoga and USS Colorado were undergoing repairs in the United States)
In spite of the latest intelligence reports about the missing aircraft carriers (his most important targets), Admiral Nagumo decided to continue the attack with his force of six carriers and 423 aircraft. At a range of 230 miles north of Oahu, he launched the first wave of a two-wave attack.
Beginning at 0600 hours his first wave consisted of 183 fighters and torpedo bombers which struck at the fleet in Pearl Harbor and the airfields in Hickam, Kaneohe and Ewa.
The second strike, launched at 0715 hours, consisted of 167 aircraft, which again struck at the same targets.
At 0753 hours the first wave consisting of 40 Nakajima B5N2 'Kate' torpedo bombers, 51 Aichi D3A1 'Val' dive bombers, 50 high altitude bombers and 43 Zeros struck airfields and Pearl Harbor within the next hour, the second wave arrived and continued the attack.
Casualties
US Army: 218 KIA (killed in action),
364 WIA (wounded in action).
US Navy: 2,008 KIA, 710 WIA.
US MarineCorp: 109 KIA, 69 WIA.
Civilians: 68 KIA, 35 WIA.
TOTAL: 2,403 KIA, 1,178 WIA.
----------------------------
Battleships
USS Arizona (BB-39) - total loss when a bomb hit her magazine.
USS Oklahoma (BB-37) - Total loss when she capsized and sunk in the harbor.
USS California (BB-4 4) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.
USS West Virginia (BB-48) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.
USS Nevada - (BB-36) Beached to prevent sinking. Later repaired.
USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) - Light damage.
USS Maryland (BB-46) - Light damage.
USS Tennessee (BB-43) Light damage.
USS Utah (AG-16) - (former battleship used as a target) - Sunk.
----------------------------
Cruisers
USS New Orleans (CA-32) - Light Damage.
USS San Francisco (CA-38) - Light Damage.
USS Detroit (CL-8) - Light Damage.
USS Raleigh (CL-7) - Heavily damaged but repaired.
USS Helena (CL-50) - Light Damage.
USS Honolulu (CL-48) - Light Damage.
----------------------------
Destroyers
USS Downes (DD-375) - Destroyed. Parts salvaged.
USS Cassin - (DD -3 7 2) Destroyed. Parts salvaged.
USS Shaw (DD-373) - Very heavy damage.
USS Helm (DD-388) - Light Damage.
----------------------------
Minelayer
USS Ogala (CM-4) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.
----------------------------
Seaplane Tender
USS Curtiss (AV-4) - Severely damaged but later repaired.
----------------------------
Repair Ship
USS Vestal (AR-4) - Severely damaged but later repaired.
----------------------------
Harbor Tug
USS Sotoyomo (YT-9) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.
----------------------------
Aircraft
188 Aircraft destroyed (92 USN and 92 U.S. Army Air Corps.)
Fantastic photos taken 68 years ago. Some of you will have to go to a museum to see what a Brownie camera looked like?
Here is a simple picture of what we are talking about. . .
PHOTOS STORED IN AN OLD BROWNIE CAMERA
Thought you might find these photos very interesting; what quality from 1941.
Pearl Harbor photos found in an old Brownie stored in a foot locker. And just recently taken to be developed.
THESE PHOTOS ARE FROM A SAILOR WHO WAS ON THE USS QUAPAW ATF-11O.
I THINK THEY'RE SPECTACULAR!
Pearl Harbor
On Sunday, December 7th, 1941 the Japanese launched a surprise attack against the U.S. Forces stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. By planning this attack on a Sunday, the Japanese commander Admiral Nagumo, hoped to catch the entire fleet in port. As luck would have it, the Aircraft Carriers and one of the Battleships were not in port. (The USS Enterprise was returning from Wake Island, where it had just delivered some aircraft. The USS Lexington was ferrying aircraft to Midway, and the USS Saratoga and USS Colorado were undergoing repairs in the United States)
In spite of the latest intelligence reports about the missing aircraft carriers (his most important targets), Admiral Nagumo decided to continue the attack with his force of six carriers and 423 aircraft. At a range of 230 miles north of Oahu, he launched the first wave of a two-wave attack.
Beginning at 0600 hours his first wave consisted of 183 fighters and torpedo bombers which struck at the fleet in Pearl Harbor and the airfields in Hickam, Kaneohe and Ewa.
The second strike, launched at 0715 hours, consisted of 167 aircraft, which again struck at the same targets.
At 0753 hours the first wave consisting of 40 Nakajima B5N2 'Kate' torpedo bombers, 51 Aichi D3A1 'Val' dive bombers, 50 high altitude bombers and 43 Zeros struck airfields and Pearl Harbor within the next hour, the second wave arrived and continued the attack.
Casualties
US Army: 218 KIA (killed in action),
364 WIA (wounded in action).
US Navy: 2,008 KIA, 710 WIA.
US MarineCorp: 109 KIA, 69 WIA.
Civilians: 68 KIA, 35 WIA.
TOTAL: 2,403 KIA, 1,178 WIA.
----------------------------
Battleships
USS Arizona (BB-39) - total loss when a bomb hit her magazine.
USS Oklahoma (BB-37) - Total loss when she capsized and sunk in the harbor.
USS California (BB-4 4) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.
USS West Virginia (BB-48) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.
USS Nevada - (BB-36) Beached to prevent sinking. Later repaired.
USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) - Light damage.
USS Maryland (BB-46) - Light damage.
USS Tennessee (BB-43) Light damage.
USS Utah (AG-16) - (former battleship used as a target) - Sunk.
----------------------------
Cruisers
USS New Orleans (CA-32) - Light Damage.
USS San Francisco (CA-38) - Light Damage.
USS Detroit (CL-8) - Light Damage.
USS Raleigh (CL-7) - Heavily damaged but repaired.
USS Helena (CL-50) - Light Damage.
USS Honolulu (CL-48) - Light Damage.
----------------------------
Destroyers
USS Downes (DD-375) - Destroyed. Parts salvaged.
USS Cassin - (DD -3 7 2) Destroyed. Parts salvaged.
USS Shaw (DD-373) - Very heavy damage.
USS Helm (DD-388) - Light Damage.
----------------------------
Minelayer
USS Ogala (CM-4) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.
----------------------------
Seaplane Tender
USS Curtiss (AV-4) - Severely damaged but later repaired.
----------------------------
Repair Ship
USS Vestal (AR-4) - Severely damaged but later repaired.
----------------------------
Harbor Tug
USS Sotoyomo (YT-9) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.
----------------------------
Aircraft
188 Aircraft destroyed (92 USN and 92 U.S. Army Air Corps.)
For Sale...
Posted by
Karen
comments (0)
I make no apologies if people have already seen this – it’s made me smile…
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
***************************************************************
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
***************************************************************
FOR SALE - ONE USELESS CAT!
Down with snow!
Posted by
Karen
comments (0)
As you can see, I’m not exactly a fan of snow. I admit it’s very pretty to look at (from the warmth of a building (in this case the playpen)) but it is a damned nuisance when you’ve got plans made for the weekend, or you’ve got to travel home.
The snow, as it’s falling just looks like duck down feathers – all big and fluffy. Which would be fine, but the damned stuff is starting to settle, and that’s the last thing that I want – the roads are bad enough as it is,and I don’t need any snow covering the damned potholes.
Ahhh – good stuff – the snow has turned to rain – let’s hope it stays that way!
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
The snow, as it’s falling just looks like duck down feathers – all big and fluffy. Which would be fine, but the damned stuff is starting to settle, and that’s the last thing that I want – the roads are bad enough as it is,and I don’t need any snow covering the damned potholes.
Ahhh – good stuff – the snow has turned to rain – let’s hope it stays that way!
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
A quieter day…
Posted by
Karen
comments (0)
Well, today is starting better than yesterday – mainly because the phones are a darn sight quieter.
I feel brighter than I did yesterday (that’s not that difficult) as I know that Flame is in good hands, and all I can do is pray. As for us being able to compete again, well that is well and truly in the lap of the Gods, as I don’t know how strong she will be after this, or more to the point, how much her confidence has been damaged by this.
Aside from that, I am now more chilled out – and am looking forward to this weekend. Simply because I am getting a haircut. I decided that I would try and grow my hair again, as I was getting bored with it being short… That was the plan, anyway. The reality is that I’ve changed my mind, as long hair is not really practical – I’m having to use a hairdryer to get it dry enough so that I can leave the house, after I’ve had my shower in the morning, as it’s so cold at the moment.
So, I’ve decided to go back to the three S – Short, Spiky and Stripy – as I’m bored, and it makes life so much easier for me in the morning, and will allow me to show off some of my pretty earrings (including the ones that are the outline of a lizard!) The only drawback is that I’ll get cold ears, but I can overcome that with a hat…
I guess I should call this quits, as I’m supposed to be working…
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
I feel brighter than I did yesterday (that’s not that difficult) as I know that Flame is in good hands, and all I can do is pray. As for us being able to compete again, well that is well and truly in the lap of the Gods, as I don’t know how strong she will be after this, or more to the point, how much her confidence has been damaged by this.
Aside from that, I am now more chilled out – and am looking forward to this weekend. Simply because I am getting a haircut. I decided that I would try and grow my hair again, as I was getting bored with it being short… That was the plan, anyway. The reality is that I’ve changed my mind, as long hair is not really practical – I’m having to use a hairdryer to get it dry enough so that I can leave the house, after I’ve had my shower in the morning, as it’s so cold at the moment.
So, I’ve decided to go back to the three S – Short, Spiky and Stripy – as I’m bored, and it makes life so much easier for me in the morning, and will allow me to show off some of my pretty earrings (including the ones that are the outline of a lizard!) The only drawback is that I’ll get cold ears, but I can overcome that with a hat…
I guess I should call this quits, as I’m supposed to be working…
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
Order aftermath…
Posted by
Karen
comments (0)
I hate customers. Especially ones that think I'm trying to pull the wool over their eyes. As you can see, I'm not a happy person at the moment. The customer whom I spent so much time and energy trying to sort out, as told me to cancel the bloody order, as he thinks I'm lying to him about the tyre.
The phrase “suit your bloody self comes to mind” but at this moment in time, I'm quietly fuming. But all I can do is swallow my fury, and say “C’est la vie” and let him get on with it and think he’s the big man. I’ve got more important things in my life right now – and this doesn’t deserve any more attention.
Time to call this quits - I need some peace and quiet for a while.
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
The phrase “suit your bloody self comes to mind” but at this moment in time, I'm quietly fuming. But all I can do is swallow my fury, and say “C’est la vie” and let him get on with it and think he’s the big man. I’ve got more important things in my life right now – and this doesn’t deserve any more attention.
Time to call this quits - I need some peace and quiet for a while.
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
A stress less day? I'd love one of those!
Posted by
Karen
comments (0)
It’s one of those days that I can really do without. My beloved horse has injured herself some how, and is now being operated on to repair a bone fracture in her nearside hind leg, and an order is causing me severe stress as well.
The horse first. She showed signs of lameness a couple of days ago, and I found a stone that had bruised her foot. I checked her yesterday morning, and she was holding the nearside rear hoof off the ground, and flinched when I went to get hold of her leg to check the foot. Not a good sign. So, me being me, lead her into the box, and got her comfortable (no fighting from her – she must have realised that I was trying to help her!) and called the vet to come out last night, when I could be there to see what the verdict was. I’d already warned him that she was unwilling to let me touch the leg, so he brought his portable x-ray with him…
That was when the bombshell landed. She’d broken the cannon bone, and it needed surgery. Thankfully, my insurance covers such nasty things, so I called my supervisor, explained that I would be late in today due to a personal matter and left it at that.
The horse ambulance arrived at 08:30 this morning, and we got her loaded with the minimum of fuss, and she left for Newmarket, where the operation is to take place today. I’ll be without her for about a week (subject to how the operation goes) and will just have to take it from there as to what happens after that.
Honestly, I'm really wishing that I’d taken today off – I'm starting to get a migraine, and I know full well that its stress induced.
Back when I get 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 horse first. She showed signs of lameness a couple of days ago, and I found a stone that had bruised her foot. I checked her yesterday morning, and she was holding the nearside rear hoof off the ground, and flinched when I went to get hold of her leg to check the foot. Not a good sign. So, me being me, lead her into the box, and got her comfortable (no fighting from her – she must have realised that I was trying to help her!) and called the vet to come out last night, when I could be there to see what the verdict was. I’d already warned him that she was unwilling to let me touch the leg, so he brought his portable x-ray with him…
That was when the bombshell landed. She’d broken the cannon bone, and it needed surgery. Thankfully, my insurance covers such nasty things, so I called my supervisor, explained that I would be late in today due to a personal matter and left it at that.
The horse ambulance arrived at 08:30 this morning, and we got her loaded with the minimum of fuss, and she left for Newmarket, where the operation is to take place today. I’ll be without her for about a week (subject to how the operation goes) and will just have to take it from there as to what happens after that.
Honestly, I'm really wishing that I’d taken today off – I'm starting to get a migraine, and I know full well that its stress induced.
Back when I get 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
A few thoughts on cat baths....by The Cat:
Posted by
Karen
comments (0)
'I don't think I like you anymore.'
'You will pay, as God is my witness, you will pay.'
'Jesus, you call this water warm???'
'But You Said You Loved Me!'
'You Lied !!!!!!'
'E.T. Phone home......quick!'
'No, I'm not your Good Little Kitty anymore.'
'Traction....I'm losing Traction!'
'I want my Mommmmmmyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!'
'No, no, no, no.....NOOOO!!!!'
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 )
Posted by
Karen
comments (0)
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
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)
Posted by
Karen
comments (0)
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
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
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
Another joke
Posted by
Karen
comments (0)
Well, the jokes are coming in thick and fast today, so this is the second one that I’ve decided to post, as it just appealed to my twisted sense of humour…
I make no apologies for it – it’s made me laugh.
Enjoy.
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
***********************************
An old Italian lived alone in New Jersey . He wanted to plant his annual tomato garden, but it was very difficult work, as the ground was hard.
His only son, Vincent, who used to help him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and described his predicament:
Dear Vincent,
I am feeling pretty sad, because it looks like I won't be able to plant my tomato garden this year. I'm just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. I know if you were here my troubles would be over… I know you would be happy to dig the plot for me, like in the old days.
Love, Papa
A few days later he received a letter from his son.
Dear Pop,
Don't dig up that garden. That's where the bodies are buried.
Love,
Vinnie
At 4 a.m. the next morning, FBI agents and local police arrived and dug up the entire area without finding any bodies. They apologized to the old man and left.
That same day the old man received another letter from his son.
Dear Pop,
Go ahead and plant the tomatoes now. That's the best I could do under the circumstances.
Love you,
Vinnie
I make no apologies for it – it’s made me laugh.
Enjoy.
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
***********************************
An old Italian lived alone in New Jersey . He wanted to plant his annual tomato garden, but it was very difficult work, as the ground was hard.
His only son, Vincent, who used to help him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and described his predicament:
Dear Vincent,
I am feeling pretty sad, because it looks like I won't be able to plant my tomato garden this year. I'm just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. I know if you were here my troubles would be over… I know you would be happy to dig the plot for me, like in the old days.
Love, Papa
A few days later he received a letter from his son.
Dear Pop,
Don't dig up that garden. That's where the bodies are buried.
Love,
Vinnie
At 4 a.m. the next morning, FBI agents and local police arrived and dug up the entire area without finding any bodies. They apologized to the old man and left.
That same day the old man received another letter from his son.
Dear Pop,
Go ahead and plant the tomatoes now. That's the best I could do under the circumstances.
Love you,
Vinnie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
