Claire Short

Alain Quay

Annoys me. Voted for the war, resigned when it went sour,
and when Blair et al are on the ropes in the current enquiry, finally
puts the boot in. Always tries to present herself as more principled than others,
but only is after checking which way the wind is blowing.

disgruntledgoat

Clare Short must've had 7 different versions of what happened within the Government in 2001-03.

GiantMike

Agree with the OP. When Robin Cook resigned she shamefully kept quiet about her reservations about the war. There is no point having a moral stance if you don't use it when it matters. Anybody can be brave after the event, but it takes guts and courage to stand up for your beliefs.

I think she has made herself look weak and flexible even when faced by a weak argument. Had she had the guts, like Robin Cook, to resign then the war may not have happened, or at least there may have been a UN resolution and a 'legal war' with more UN involvement.

teagar

She said what the public want to hear didn't she?

People want to hear it was all corrupt and all Blair's fault. She did that.


What I do find odd is that, on the one hand, people criticise Blair for not admitting he might have been wrong, for sticking to his initial principles and not given an inch, and on the other, have a pop at Claire Short for changing her opinion of the war as it was conducted.

Can't have it both ways.

She's got an axe to grind no doubt, but whether that's a result of a disagreement with the poltical system Blair used, which many agree is an issue (that's principally what the Chillot inquiry is about), or whether it's more personal, is what's important.

GiantMike

teagar wrote:

What I do find odd is that, on the one hand, people criticise Blair for not admitting he might have been wrong, for sticking to his initial principles and not given an inch, and on the other, have a pop at Claire Short for changing her opinion of the war as it was conducted.

Can't have it both ways.

But she said that she always knew the war was wrong and was persuaded to vote for it. I don't think she said she changed her opinion of the war after the event. Rather she now feels that, as an independent MP, she is free to say 'I told you all along it was wrong and you never listened' to shaft Tony. She should have shafted him in 2002/3 by resigning, but for some reason she was too weak to. Party pressure, probably.

teagar

GiantMike wrote:

teagar wrote:

What I do find odd is that, on the one hand, people criticise Blair for not admitting he might have been wrong, for sticking to his initial principles and not given an inch, and on the other, have a pop at Claire Short for changing her opinion of the war as it was conducted.

Can't have it both ways.

But she said that she always knew the war was wrong and was persuaded to vote for it. I don't think she said she changed her opinion of the war after the event. Rather she now feels that, as an independent MP, she is free to say 'I told you all along it was wrong and you never listened' to shaft Tony. She should have shafted him in 2002/3 by resigning, but for some reason she was too weak to. Party pressure, probably.

Fair enough.

Did she vote for the war?

GiantMike

Yep. Voted for it, even though she says she knew it was wrong.

I believe everybody in the Cabinet voted for it, it would have been a condition of remaining in the Cabinet.

dilemna

Can't abide her. Shameful attention seeking shallow opportunist who neither had the guts of Robin Cook to resign or the principals of Tony Blair however wrong with hindsight those are now being shown to be.

Porgy

It amuses me to read that people think tony blair has got any principles.

Claire short is a coward and I hate her for that - but she does have principles. Blair's bottom line is money and power.

teagar

GiantMike wrote:

Yep. Voted for it, even though she says she knew it was wrong.

I believe everybody in the Cabinet voted for it, it would have been a condition of remaining in the Cabinet.

Was that mentioned in the Chillot inquiry then? I'd have thought that that was exactly what they were trying to find out?

They're looking at the process with which the decision to war came - and what lessons can be learned from that.

disgruntledgoat

teagar wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Yep. Voted for it, even though she says she knew it was wrong.

I believe everybody in the Cabinet voted for it, it would have been a condition of remaining in the Cabinet.

Was that mentioned in the Chillot inquiry then? I'd have thought that that was exactly what they were trying to find out?

They're looking at the process with which the decision to war came - and what lessons can be learned from that.

Problem being, Blair was running his government by a series of lunches and informal chats at that point. Divide and Rule and all that. If htere are no Sir Humphrey types to take minutes, then any inquiry as to the decision making process is limited to individuals recollection and understanding of conversations they weren't neccesarily party to.

Which probably explains why Gus McDonnell hasn't been called as Senior Cabinet Secretary over the last 13 years.

As for Clare Short's principles Porgy, if you can tell me what they are (besides what's best for Clare Short at any given moment), I should be grateful.

-spider-

Pity Robin Cook is not around to give evidence. I'm sure many would like to know more about his view regarding the war.

Like him or loathe him - he stood by his principles. Wish more politicians were like that.

teagar

-spider- wrote:

Pity Robin Cook is not around to give evidence. I'm sure many would like to know more about his view regarding the war.

Like him or loathe him - he stood by his principles. Wish more politicians were like that.

Erm, Blair is?

Just because you don't agree with his principles doesn't mean he isn't sticking to them!

Alain Quay

My view is kind of controversial, but I stand by it.

I believe Blair went into Iraq because, horrified by 9/11 and
the failed Middle eastern states that spawned it,
and after two wars with Saddam but him still threatening the
west - in words and intention anway - the UK government
wanted rid of Saddam. Naive perhaps but they wanted a despot removed and a
democratic Iraq to take root, to be a model for neighbouring Middle Eastern
countries, most of which are undemocratic and by virtue of this
fermenting terrorism.

Of course far too few coalition troops were used in Iraq, it lacked
global legitimacy and total anarchy ensued; Saddam loyalists, Iran and AlQuaida
caused mischief and much, much civilian bloodshed, and the
war was pretty disastrous.

Tony Blair is tainted by Iraq, but were his intentions about oil and wealth?
I would say they were more about siding with what was then the only superpower
in the world , the US, to try and reshape the global order, for the sake of avoiding bigger,
future wars. There is no doubt Saddam would be threatening us right now.
Remember his parades of babies' coffins, while he built palace after palace
for himself and his family? Good riddance to all that.

term1te

I was supposed to have a meeting with Claire Short once. She didn't turn up, but did send apologies.

Have to say I agree with most of Alain's post above. I can imagine Blair thinking that Iraq needed to be nipped in the bud before it got out of hand. It didn't work, but history shows that sitting by whilst despots flex their muscles often leads to a worse outcome in the long run. What if chamberlain hadn't acquiesced to the German annexation of the Sudetenland, but then there wasn't any oil on Moravia.

GiantMike

Alain Quay wrote:

There is no doubt Saddam would be threatening us right now.

Personally, I think there's a lot of doubt. What would the threat be? WMD? Unlikely because none were found. State-sponsored terrorism? Unlikely, because he had too much to lose. Saddam brutalised sections of his own country, tried it on with Iran and Kuwait and was an all-round cnut, BUT, he has never threatened Europe, his Armed Forces were poorly equipped for modern warfare and he was always looking over his shoulder at the next assassination attempt. The world is a better place without him, but that's not the reason we went to war. The war was justified by the highly-exaggerated threat he posed to UK interests.

France has WMDs. Italy has WMDs. Pakistan has WMDs. None of these countries have the intention to attack us. Did Saddam? He was an arsehole but not a credible threat. 9/11 was born in Saudi Arabia and conducted by non-Iraqis and funded by Al Qaeda.

Porgy

teagar wrote:

-spider- wrote:

Pity Robin Cook is not around to give evidence. I'm sure many would like to know more about his view regarding the war.

Like him or loathe him - he stood by his principles. Wish more politicians were like that.

Erm, Blair is?

Just because you don't agree with his principles doesn't mean he isn't sticking to them!

i'd be interested to know what Blair's principles are - in 15 years he's never so much as hinted that he even has any.

Porgy

Term1te wrote:

I was supposed to have a meeting with Claire Short once. She didn't turn up, but did send apologies.

Have to say I agree with most of Alain's post above. I can imagine Blair thinking that Iraq needed to be nipped in the bud before it got out of hand. It didn't work, but history shows that sitting by whilst despots flex their muscles often leads to a worse outcome in the long run. What if chamberlain hadn't acquiesced to the German annexation of the Sudetenland, but then there wasn't any oil on Moravia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Homer J

On a more important topic, didn't she try to get page 3 banned :evil:

Stone Glider

@Term1te, there wasn't any oil in Moravia but Hitler got his hands on a first class industrial complex of enormous wealth. What GB got out of Munich was time. Look on the date of so many barracks, hangars and dockyard buildings and you will see 1939. The scales fell away at Munich, Chamberlain knew GB and the Empire were unready but they began placing orders for military equipment & resources that could not be fulfilled for years. IMO Chamberlain was a singularly poor war leader but he was an able administrator and an honest man.

Not something that, I fear, applies to Mr Blair.

GavH

I could never quite understand why she was even allowed in the cabinet. Her uncle owns a bar in Crossmaglen. He and the cousins are card carrying republicans who've got associations to (but no actual proof of involvement with) members of PIRA. We wouldn't have let her in the army but she gets a job in the cabinet? Baffles me.

teagar

GavH wrote:

I could never quite understand why she was even allowed in the cabinet. Her uncle owns a bar in Crossmaglen. He and the cousins are card carrying republicans who've got associations to (but no actual proof of involvement with) members of PIRA. We wouldn't have let her in the army but she gets a job in the cabinet? Baffles me.

I'm sure the security vetting services had it covered.

From my experience of the vetting people they have all that stuff well under control.

-spider-

teagar wrote:

-spider- wrote:

Pity Robin Cook is not around to give evidence. I'm sure many would like to know more about his view regarding the war.

Like him or loathe him - he stood by his principles. Wish more politicians were like that.

Erm, Blair is?

Just because you don't agree with his principles doesn't mean he isn't sticking to them!

Well, teagar. You seem pretty confident that Blair is telling the truth. Many others doubt this. He was in charge when the 'dodgy dossier' was approved as a key element in the argument for invasion. So either he was not being completely truthful or he was misled by someone. If the former my point stands (in relation to Blair), if the latter then serious work needs to be done to indentify who thought that the dossier should be used.

At work if I use something to argue a case I have to be damn sure of my facts - why was Blair not?

I agree that he is standing by his convictions (Saddam had to be removed) but to imply he is an honest politician because of this is clearly nonsense.

Note: I also think that Saddam should have been removed.

GiantMike

-spider- wrote:

teagar wrote:

Just because you don't agree with his principles doesn't mean he isn't sticking to them!

Well, teagar. You seem pretty confident that Blair is telling the truth.

I think that's the crux to all this. There is THE truth and there's BLAIR's truth. Blair is doing a Clinton, defining his own rules on right and wrong, in his head, and answering questions without letting us know what his own rules are.

Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" quote is true if you define 'sexual relations' in some wacky way that others would disagree with. He never said what he understood by 'sexual relations' but I'm sure it's very different to mine.

Blair has stated that he believed the war was legal and justified. It wasn't to me, but it was according to Blair's own mental agenda.