Blairs ethics

Porgy

toontra wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Why not an opinion piece? It's hard to prove a negative - but it does show that I'm not alone in thinking the Lib Dems were pathetic, and therefore not making it up.

OK, so you share your views with one other person. How cosy! As for the "pathetic" Lib-Dems, maybe a bit more "pathetic" analysis and debate in 2002-3, as they repeatedly called for, would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Maybe standing up with those who were voting with their feet instead of leaving it all far too late and then betraying the anti-war coalition after the invasion by agreeing with the war-mongering government.

The Lib Dems were determined to appear to be oppoising the war without actually doing so and then claimed they were in opposition all along. Your own stance shows me to be entirely correct.

btw - i'm going to look at your so-called evidence tomorrow when i have some time...but the google search i did - very similar to yours - brought very little of any substance up. While I'm posting relevant parts of the articles i found you expect me to trawl through Google again.

Porgy

toontra wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Why not an opinion piece? It's hard to prove a negative - but it does show that I'm not alone in thinking the Lib Dems were pathetic, and therefore not making it up.

OK, so you share your views with one other person. How cosy! As for the "pathetic" Lib-Dems, maybe a bit more "pathetic" analysis and debate in 2002-3, as they repeatedly called for, would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

An opinion piece in the Liberals own Guardian no less. :roll:

toontra

Porgy wrote:

toontra wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I'm struggling to find any evidence that the Lib Dems opposed the invasion of Afghanistan - only a bit about Simon Hughes joining in with the general hysteria of the times.

OK, you're wasting everyone's time here now. Who said anything about Afghanistan!!??

Ah - so it's OK to support the illegal invasion of Afghanistan - but not Iraq?

If you can't see how they're tied up then you're pathetic like the party you support.

BTW - you're wasting my time here - I have work to do, and want to go home.

You're tedious like all whining spineless Liberals are.

Personal insults are usually frowned upon in civilised forums. I'll let others judge.

If you think you can start posting a bunch of downright lies, be unable to substantiate them, then change tack half way through and finally resort to a spew of insulting remarks then don't be surprised if no-one takes you seriously.

deptfordmarmoset

I can't remember what the LibDem's position on Afghanistan was/is but I certainly remember their clear opposition to the Iraq war as toontra says.

In fact, at the last general election, the Lib Dems reiterated their position over the war and my local MP, Joan Ruddock, issued a curious denial of agreeing with the war (whilst being a minister !?!) in a last-minute hand-delivered leaflet. I say curious because she was effectively saying to the electorate vote for me and Labour because I voted against the government and Labour. She was having her ministerial cake and eating it.

Porgy

toontra wrote:

Porgy wrote:

toontra wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I'm struggling to find any evidence that the Lib Dems opposed the invasion of Afghanistan - only a bit about Simon Hughes joining in with the general hysteria of the times.

OK, you're wasting everyone's time here now. Who said anything about Afghanistan!!??

Ah - so it's OK to support the illegal invasion of Afghanistan - but not Iraq?

If you can't see how they're tied up then you're pathetic like the party you support.

BTW - you're wasting my time here - I have work to do, and want to go home.

You're tedious like all whining spineless Liberals are.

Personal insults are usually frowned upon in civilised forums. I'll let others judge.

If you think you can start posting a bunch of downright lies, be unable to substantiate them, then change tack half way through and finally resort to a spew of insulting remarks then don't be surprised if no-one takes you seriously.

I said you were tedious - but you said i was telling lies.

oh no!

Porgy

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I can't remember what the LibDem's position on Afghanistan was/is but I certainly remember their clear opposition to the Iraq war as toontra says.

In fact, at the last general election, the Lib Dems reiterated their position over the war and my local MP, Joan Ruddock, issued a curious denial of agreeing with the war (whilst being a minister !?!) in a last-minute hand-delivered leaflet. I say curious because she was effectively saying to the electorate vote for me and Labour because I voted against the government and Labour. She was having her ministerial cake and eating it.

Have a read of the articles I pulled up then and explain to me why a respected Guardian columnist thought their opposition was weak, and why did Kennedy refuse to oppose the war virtually the day it started. I don;t remember the anti-war coalition flip flopping like that.

Porgy

toontra wrote:

If you think you can start posting a bunch of downright lies, be unable to substantiate them, then change tack half way through and finally resort to a spew of insulting remarks then don't be surprised if no-one takes you seriously.

Maybe I should join the Lib Dems

and accusing someone of lying isn't insulting? :roll:

Porgy

Anyway - got to go home now - but I'll leave you with the following words from Sir Menzies Campbell - soon to be Lib Dem leader - in September 2002 - you can find a record of this in Hansard:
"We can also agree that he [Saddam Hussein] most certainly has chemical and biological weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information we either knew or should have been willing to assume."

deptfordmarmoset

Porgy wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I can't remember what the LibDem's position on Afghanistan was/is but I certainly remember their clear opposition to the Iraq war as toontra says.

In fact, at the last general election, the Lib Dems reiterated their position over the war and my local MP, Joan Ruddock, issued a curious denial of agreeing with the war (whilst being a minister !?!) in a last-minute hand-delivered leaflet. I say curious because she was effectively saying to the electorate vote for me and Labour because I voted against the government and Labour. She was having her ministerial cake and eating it.

Have a read of the articles I pulled up then and explain to me why a respected Guardian columnist thought their opposition was weak, and why did Kennedy refuse to oppose the war virtually the day it started. I don;t remember the anti-war coalition flip flopping like that.

Fair enough, Porgy, the LibDems were in a weak position, failed to win the case (regardless of whether they were right or not) and at precisely the moment when war broke out, as a British party representing a British electorate - ok. the smallest minority of 3 minorities - they had to support the British servicemen and women caught up in it. I don't think of it as flip-flopping though - to me (and obviously it's only a personal view) it was principled to start with but once they'd failed to win the argument they had to be pragmatic as the situation developed.

toontra

That's certainly part of the picture deptfordmarmoset. Lib Dems had been saying for months that war could be avoided OR the UN approval gained if it could be established if there actually were WMD's - especially Menzies Campbell (L-D foreign affairs spokesman), who was making these statements to the media on a daily basis in the early months of 2003.

On the eve of war the Lib Dems were arguing for more time for Hans Blix to complete his inspections (by that stage he'd been given full access by Saddam) which within a few short weeks would have concluded one way or the other if there were WMD's in Iraq. This went to a vote in Parliament on 18th March 2003. Lib Dem MPs voted 100% for the delay (and also to try and get the second UN resolution), along with around 150 Labour rebels.

This was all they could do under the circumstances, and they came damn close to carrying the amendment, which could quite possibly have avoided the calamitous war. For anyone to say they didn't oppose the war is frankly ridiculous.

John Stevenson

Enough with the name-calling.

Heated debate is one thing, personal abuse quite another.

-spider-

John Stevenson wrote:

Enough with the name-calling.

Heated debate is one thing, personal abuse quite another.

Couldn't agree more.

Politics and the administration of Government is extremely complex (I say this as an someone who studied this). It will take years to find out the real truth of this matter. Even the Chilcott enquiry will not arrive at any final conclusion (watch this space). What we, as mere voters, get to know is a simplistic view carefully spun by someone who is, in all probability, being "economical with the truth" (where did that phrase come from?). It is then edited by some journalist to prove a point, or make a story, or something else.

As ever in these events - history will be the judge. In the meantime we could, and should, continue the debate - with respect to the others sides point of view. Lets not descend into the House of Commons.

Cressers

And what would happen, even if the inquiry did prove that Blair was recklessly negligent?

Absolutely nothing.

toontra

John Stevenson wrote:

Enough with the name-calling.

Heated debate is one thing, personal abuse quite another.

Thanks John. Personal abuse should be kept out of any decent forum.

As to Blair's culpability and likely punishment, the fact that he is the current middle-east peace envoy (oh, the irony!) and almost landed the top job in Europe says it all.

John Stevenson

toontra wrote:

Thanks John. Personal abuse should be kept out of any decent forum.

Yep. And this one

Porgy

Is it OK to immediately blunder into a forum and accuse someone of lying?

So far I've managed to show that what said in my first post - the one that toontra said were lies - is absolutely correct.

Also - I merely accused Toontra of being tedious after he accused me of wasting his time and being a liar.

First off - Toontra - I would like an apology

Secondly - you need to be a bit less sensitive

Porgy

toontra wrote:

This was all they could do under the circumstances, and they came damn close to carrying the amendment, which could quite possibly have avoided the calamitous war. For anyone to say they didn't oppose the war is frankly ridiculous.

They didn't oppose the war they merely stated under what conditions they would find war acceptable and then when those conditions were not met they supported the war anyway.

After the invasion there were a series of resignations from the Labour ranks - notably Robin Cook - but the Lib Dems actually spoke against Cook at this point.

Toontra - for me to continue this argument and for you to have any credibility can I see some evidence from you that what you say is true - so far you've posted up a link to a Google search which you expect me to trawl through - I'd rather see you choose the evidence that you think makes me a liar.

Porgy

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Fair enough, Porgy, the LibDems were in a weak position, failed to win the case (regardless of whether they were right or not) and at precisely the moment when war broke out, as a British party representing a British electorate - ok. the smallest minority of 3 minorities - they had to support the British servicemen and women caught up in it. I don't think of it as flip-flopping though - to me (and obviously it's only a personal view) it was principled to start with but once they'd failed to win the argument they had to be pragmatic as the situation developed.

The Lib Dems stood apart from the anti-war movement in that they took the position that the war would be acceptable if it gained UN support, wheras the anti-war movement considered that the reasons given for going to war were spurious - including CIA and neo-con lies - and bullying tactics were used to ride roughshod over opposition - therfore even with UN support the war would lack legitimacy.

And then when all the conditions that they set were NOT met - they supported the war anyway - all this time Labour figures were showing their oppostion to Blair by resigning and the Lib Dems took the extrememly odd and convoluted position of not supporting the war but supporting the armed forces then angaged in what the Lib Dems clearly admitted was an illegal invasion of a sovereign conutry for spurious reasons.

Kennedy even stated on the record that the Lib Dems were not anti-war.

Some prominent figures within the Lib Dem ranks supported the spurious American lies - see quotes above.

Kennedy stated when he attended the peace rally that he was there in a personal capacity and not representing the Lib Dems.

And this little gem from the Guardian again:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreigna ... 97,00.html

apparent split within Nato over Iraq.
The row within Nato, which threatens to derail US plans for a military invasion of Iraq, flared yesterday when France, Germany and Belgium blocked a move to send Nato missile batteries to defend Turkey in the event of a war.
In an emergency answer the armed forces minister, Adam Ingram, tried to defend Tony Blair's handling of both Nato and the US administration for nearly an hour.
But Conservatives shouted "shame" as Mr Ingram reported to MPs on the affair, angered that the secretary of state for defence, Geoff Hoon, was not in the chamber to answer questions.
However, some Tories and many Labour backbenchers applauded France and Germany's sceptical stance.
The former Labour shadow foreign minister, Gerald Kaufman, described Donald Rumsfeld, the American secretary of state for defence, as "like a bull in a china shop".
Labour's leading anti-war campaigner, Jeremy Corbyn, said the French position "reflects a desire for peace rather than war", but …
And here’s the clincher…
Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, made the Lib Dem line clearer by saying "France and Germany have made their point and should back down now".



I could go on - I have plenty of evidence - but at the moment I'm waiting for something from Toontra.

markwalker

Porgy wrote:

Is it OK to immediately blunder into a forum and accuse someone of lying?

So far I've managed to show that what said in my first post - the one that toontra said were lies - is absolutely correct.

Also - I merely accused Toontra of being tedious after he accused me of wasting his time and being a liar.

First off - Toontra - I would like an apology

Secondly - you need to be a bit less sensitive

lmao ickle porgys sensitive

toontra

As you aren't prepared to read (or at any rate digest and respond properly to) any of my posts so far then I'll make this my last on the subject.

On 18th March 2003 every single Lib Dem MP voted for an amendment to the Iraq war bill which would have delayed the invasion until Blix had finished his inspection (establishing presence of WMD's) or a second UN resolution was passed. If the amendment had carried this would have effectively postponed the war and quite possibly prevented it altogether.

That was all any political party could have done under the circumstances, and a damn sight more that any other major UK party (a few notable Labour MP's aside). What else to you expect politicians to do - form a human shield before the advancing allied troops? As I don't like banging my head against a brick wall I'll leave it there.

markwalker

toontra wrote:

As you aren't prepared to read (or at any rate digest and respond properly to) any of my posts so far then I'll make this my last on the subject.

On 18th March 2003 every single Lib Dem MP voted for an amendment to the Iraq war bill which would have delayed the invasion until Blix had finished his inspection (establishing presence of WMD's) or a second UN resolution was passed. If the amendment had carried this would have effectively postponed the war and quite possibly prevented it altogether.

That was all any political party could have done under the circumstances, and a damn sight more that any other major UK party (a few notable Labour MP's aside). What else to you expect politicians to do - form a human shield before the advancing allied troops? As I don't like banging my head against a brick wall I'll leave it there.

+1

Porgy

toontra wrote:

On 18th March 2003 every single Lib Dem MP voted for an amendment to the Iraq war bill which would have delayed the invasion until Blix had finished his inspection (establishing presence of WMD's) or a second UN resolution was passed. If the amendment had carried this would have effectively postponed the war and quite possibly prevented it altogether.

In fact it wasn't a vote against the war - it was a vote for an amendment to a government motion for war.

And it included the words "but in the event that hostilites do commence, pledges its support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides."

Yeah - that's a really strong statement against the war. Lib dems sitting on the fence as usual - they made a weak stance against the war and then put in this weasle worded caveat.

Are you ready to apologise for calling me a liar yet?

Porgy

markwalker wrote:

toontra wrote:

As you aren't prepared to read (or at any rate digest and respond properly to) any of my posts so far then I'll make this my last on the subject.

On 18th March 2003 every single Lib Dem MP voted for an amendment to the Iraq war bill which would have delayed the invasion until Blix had finished his inspection (establishing presence of WMD's) or a second UN resolution was passed. If the amendment had carried this would have effectively postponed the war and quite possibly prevented it altogether.

That was all any political party could have done under the circumstances, and a damn sight more that any other major UK party (a few notable Labour MP's aside). What else to you expect politicians to do - form a human shield before the advancing allied troops? As I don't like banging my head against a brick wall I'll leave it there.

+1

Mark Walker agrees with you - fabulous

Porgy

toontra wrote:

As you aren't prepared to read (or at any rate digest and respond properly to) any of my posts so far then I'll make this my last on the subject.

I have replied to all your points. You however have so far failed to cite a single piece of evidence in support of your argument.

I have to assume that from this statment I've started hitting home with my points and you are taking the only way out that Lib dems know - wrigglng out on a technicality.

Porgy

toontra wrote:

That was all any political party could have done under the circumstances, and a damn sight more that any other major UK party (a few notable Labour MP's aside). What else to you expect politicians to do - form a human shield before the advancing allied troops? As I don't like banging my head against a brick wall I'll leave it there.

Labour back benches and even many Tories did far more than the Lib Dems - who failed even to state their unequivocal support for the anti-war demonstrators who represented the majority of the British public.

Kennedy had to appear under the caveat that he was acting in a personal capacity only.

They never at any point said they were against the war.

And after the illegal invasion began they failed to support the labour back benchers who continued to oppose the war.

Porgy

Toontra - you managed to ignore this when i posted it just now - an article from the Guardian prior to the invasion showing how weak - or non-existent - the Lib Dems stance against the war was:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreigna ... 97,00.html

apparent split within Nato over Iraq.
The row within Nato, which threatens to derail US plans for a military invasion of Iraq, flared yesterday when France, Germany and Belgium blocked a move to send Nato missile batteries to defend Turkey in the event of a war.
In an emergency answer the armed forces minister, Adam Ingram, tried to defend Tony Blair's handling of both Nato and the US administration for nearly an hour.
But Conservatives shouted "shame" as Mr Ingram reported to MPs on the affair, angered that the secretary of state for defence, Geoff Hoon, was not in the chamber to answer questions.
However, some Tories and many Labour backbenchers applauded France and Germany's sceptical stance.
The former Labour shadow foreign minister, Gerald Kaufman, described Donald Rumsfeld, the American secretary of state for defence, as "like a bull in a china shop".
Labour's leading anti-war campaigner, Jeremy Corbyn, said the French position "reflects a desire for peace rather than war", but …
And here’s the clincher…
Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, made the Lib Dem line clearer by saying "France and Germany have made their point and should back down now".

Porgy

toontra wrote:

OK, I'll humour you. Here's one of thousands of references to the LIB-Dem opposition to the war - the first on a Google search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats
Extract: "..they opposed British participation in the War in Iraq and supported the withdrawal of troops from the country."
As I say, you can find this stuff all over the net, so even if you've been blinking for the past 8 years you have no excuse for such ignorance.
If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be interested to see it.

OK then - since you humoured me - i'll humour you. I've looked at your "evidence" and frankly it's laughable. You cite Wikipedia:
1. there is absolutely no detail in the article - it merely reiterates the commonly held and carefully nurtured misapprehension that the Lib Dems opposed nthe war.
2.Wikipedia is hardly considered a reliable source for evidence, at best it can lead you to evidence, but is hardly evidence in and of itself.

This stuff is all over the net - most of it is on Lib Dem sites or blogs.


I have produced plenty of evidence and I think you should be addressing it.

Porgy

Here's my original post - the one Toontra called lies

porgy wrote:

The Lib Dems pulled an odd sort of balancing act - largely avoiding coming out against the war though opposing on more specific issues - such as unreliable intelligence, etc.

Then once our involvement had been decalred any Lib Dem who opposed the war was effectively silenced.

So in the end it's hard to say what the Lib Dem thought - but for sure they lacked balls to state their position overtly.

My first line was broadly correct in that the Lib Dems stopped short of out and out opposition to the war, focusing instead on technicalities and conditions laid down under which they would support a war. None of those conditions were met, but they supported the war anyway, once the invasion was underway. Since the war has ended they have stepped up oppositon again and now attempt to give the impression that they maintained an opposing stance throughout - they clearly didn't.

My second line was entirely true as you have already conceded, though you ask what more could they have done, and I have pointed out that they could have supported the majority of the public who were against the war, stated their opposition to the war and maintained this position throughout the illegal invasion, and supported the Labour and Tory rebels who did not concede their positions to Blair, and many Labour figures resigned their posts.

Finally I stated an opinion - and I stand by this - the Lib Dems lacked balls, as they always do when it comes to the crunch. I am shocked to find a number of Lib Dems who actually supported the Bush position though - and stated so. Even I didn't think they sank that low.

So Toontra - where are you? Afraid of a proper debate? You may go far in the Lib Dems then.

Porgy

toontra wrote:

As you aren't prepared to read (or at any rate digest and respond properly to) any of my posts so far then I'll make this my last on the subject.

On 18th March 2003 every single Lib Dem MP voted for an amendment to the Iraq war bill which would have delayed the invasion until Blix had finished his inspection (establishing presence of WMD's) or a second UN resolution was passed. If the amendment had carried this would have effectively postponed the war and quite possibly prevented it altogether.

That was all any political party could have done under the circumstances, and a damn sight more that any other major UK party (a few notable Labour MP's aside). What else to you expect politicians to do - form a human shield before the advancing allied troops? As I don't like banging my head against a brick wall I'll leave it there.

Hey Toontra - I still want an apology for being called a liar!!

I think your decision to support the Lib Dems because of their stance on the war is midguided at best.

Lib Dems have always sat on the fence over any issue - at once wanting to pretend to be on the left and on the right, but succeeding at neither.

People who support the Lib Dems reallydo not want to achieve anything, rather they enjoy the cut and thrust of debate, and happy to take either side it seems.

As a campaigning party they are worse than useless becasue they give the impression that someone is doing something while actually doing abslultely nothing.

Therefore Lib Dems are spineless. Criticise them and they whine about their so-called track record.

And then when cornered they run off with their tail between their legs claiming that the other person was being rotten to them.



oh and please come back - I still have some more evidence to produce - I want you to explain that Emma Nicholson speech where she completely agrees with the neo-con line that Saddam Hussein had WOMDs and that the war was just and legal.

-spider-

Give up Porgy.

You won the argument hands down. He ain't going to apologise - he's a LibDem after all.