« The Why's beat the When's | Main | Retrospective Pre-appointment hearing shock »

November 25, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


what about our say in the europen super state?

what about getting rid of the regulations that stopped the banks bankrupting us?

what about the enviroment laws that will be forced on us and companies,losing jobs and higher taxes ?

nobody is mentioning in the media about the email hacking scandal at the university of anglia that exposes the lies on global warming. we are treated like mushrooms
"fed c##p and kept in the dark.

where do we participate in democracy?

Paul Flynn

There were 139 Labour MPs who voted against the War and against a three line whip. It's the cabinet who failed to challenge the legality of the war with the exception of Robin Cooke and belatedly Clare Short.
Working against the Afghan War is far more effective in the PLP that shouting from the touch lines as an independent.


paul flynn voted against the war but it didnt make one bit of a difference.

as said in other threads ,he didnt resign or the other politicians and form a party that would respect the people but like the germans in ww2 he just made a little noise ,let them get on with it and now expects us to think he's for the people.

labour and the government joined america in an illegal war against 2 countries for oil and their natural resources.

labour followed america and changed the banking rules allowing banks to cheat and bankrupt countries.

labour didnt give us a vote on the european super state which governs us now.
with unelected people deciding our lives.

next labour will sign us up to an enviromental agreement that will stop growth in this country ,give us more taxes, high unemployment and a new world order.

which has been exposed as a lie in the email hacking scandal at the university of anglia.

do we get a say ? you must be joking.

where do we participate in democracy?

governments like ours are bringing in draconian laws that take away rights and freedoms of people without us having a say.

practically all terrorists that have been arrested
1: they are arrested and put all over the media.
2: they are detained without arrest or charge and legal representation.
3: they are then released without any mention in the news.

who is the real enemy our politicians run by private interests or islamists funded,armed and given intelligence by these politicians.

politicians keep chanting terrorism,911,weapons of mass destruction,bin laden.
the media dont question what they do,they just fan the flames.

an evil exists that threatens every man,woman and child of this great nation.
we must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our home land.

george bush, tony blair , gordon brown
no adolf hitlers speech to the people when he introduced the gestapo.

what proof have you seen that osama bin laden organised and paid for the 911 attacks?
general mahmood ahmed isi director requested omar saheed sheikh to wire $100k to mohammed atta,the so called leader of the 911 terrorists.
no inquiry has ever asked why?

the truth is coming out and hopefully these leaders will be brought to book in a war crimes court.doubt it though.

Gareth Howell

"Saddam's WMD had been dismantled."

The idea that Iraq had WMD was an indirect strategical ploy pulled off by the UK/US govt.
Indirect approach in strategy has been the name of the military game ever since Hiroshima.

Iran has WMD. UK govt has strategic need for control of its BP (30% stake) Basra Oil fields. The oil fields are not and can not be clearly defined due to modern methods of extraction.

The Anglo-Iranian oil fields owned by Burmah Oil until 1968, will never be recovered, much to the chagrine of the husband of a former UK prime minister Mr Thatcher who was a board member of it.

The facts of today's indirect strategy is that Russia provides Iran with nuclear rods, thereby building a very effective political barrier between the Arab League country of Iraq, and the Central Asian/SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) country of Iran.

The evolution of the EU (European Union)constitution means that a unified EU defence policy is emerging, and that NATO's influence will be more marginal.

That may also mean Turkey will become more radicalised through non membership of the EU.

That may be no bad thing, especially if you think that the future is designed with Inernational/supranational government worldwide.

That is my own political ideal, and one that is well worth working towards.

There may well be a domino effect in Central Asian political alliances which will be impossible to hold back, when UK/US troops vacate Afghanistan.

That may be no bad thing.

How many people died in the King's Cross tube bombing?

How many soldiers have died in Afgh?

Is that the calculation the Prime minister makes in arguing for complete commitment to
defeating the "sovereign" terrorism of the world?

Gareth Howell

I listened to PMQ on parliament.tv this evening and my one observation about the competition of the party leaders, is that diction and presentation count for far more than content in such confrontations.

Gordon Brown sounds far more like a "DEAD SHEEP" ie Geoffrey Howe, in his attempts to be
humble than any other politician I can think of before or since, except for one deliberately mumbling back bencher of recent year, who imagined that he would trick people in to thinking he was saying something sensible, by preventing them from hearing it all together. Gordon Brown is not like that and he has got business to do, and he does it.

However well he does do it, he will not help to win a general election for Labor if he does not speak clearly and speaks in to his beard.

Diction and clarity are essential for politicians and party leaders, something which Millibandit has in abundance.

If Milliband can take over in about early February, Labor will win the election hands down. If not, the superior presentation and
spoken form of the opposition leader will win the day.

Humbling and mumbling are not the same thing at all. All Labor supporters should be informed.

Paul Flynn

Many of those, Patrick, who lied about the Iraq are still lying about the war in Afghanistan.
I shall be standing in Newport West as a candidate who opposed both the invasions of Iraq and Helmand. Sadly most people vote of their perceptions of national leaders, but having had a loud independent voice on these profoundly important issue might help.


Your short blog on the Iraq Enquiry got straight to the heart of the matter.
In two days we have had it confirmed that we were lied to about Iraq, not that a lot of us had any doubt about that. I wonder how Lord Goldsmith will fare when his turn comes to justify the legal case for war?
Your point that we only went to war in Iraq because of Conservative votes has not been widely made. I suppose the Conservatives can claim they were lied to – but then if millions of ordinary people could see the flaws, it is a bit rich for them to claim myopia.
Actually I don’t doubt that Governments over the millennia have lied through their teeth - what is the definition of an Ambassador? One who has the privilege of lying for his Country! This Government is one of the first to have their lies, which have cost countless lives, publicly demolished by high ranking, low key civil servants.
Given these exposed lies, the question is why should we believe anything the Government tells us about Afghanistan?
I’m sorry this email is longer than Twitter parameters but I wanted to commend you again on piercing logic and tenacity.


This blog suggests that how an opportunist affects the opinion polls and the beloved party is more important than the war inquiry.

That one Right of centre party will stay in power or be replaced by another one is of little importance to anyone except those that have their careers involved.

What's far more important to the nation is that the liars behind the Iraq war are convicted as such.

Sadly, this will probably all happen again in the future. The very least we can do is expose and prosecute the guilty to at least attempt to never again repeat it.

There was a political party that opposed the war, let's see how they get on?


THis is yet another example of how we are governed. The Government has a belief about the world and acts on this belief. It trys to get scientific real evidence to substantiate this belief and when it can't it makes it up. Eventually the truth comes out showing the belief to be wrong but the damage has already been done.
This is an incredibly dangerous way to govern a country on unsubstantiated beliefs. Its like being ruled by someone who has lost touch with reality.Not only s that but flatly refuses to accept the truth when it is placed in front of them.
The inmates have taken over the asylum

Paul Flynn

This is worrying a Kaytie-Huw alliance. This Iraq Inquiry is powerful stuff

Kay Tie

Oh. My. God.

I agree 100% with everything Huw said.

I am going for a lie-down.


How can they be described as bombshells Paul, since before the invasion we knew that the intelligence did not support the case for war, that Saddam's WMD had been dismantled and that there were no links between Saddam and Al Qa'eda.
What was happening when Britain played good cop and the US played bad cop with the UN security council was obvious to everyone with eyes.
If it did not matter that we knew it then, why will it matter if a number of people pretend to be suddenly finding out now.

Britain played out the role set for it by the US acting as the blade inserted to divide Europe and provide cover through confusion.

Before the invasion there was a lot of talk about appeasement, the pretence being that Saddam was a dangerous and wily opponent who would take advantage of any lack of backbone, in fact it was the US demanding to be appeased and the British who take such pride in having opposed the evil of Nazi Germany rather than doing nothing, this time rather than doing nothing joined with the aggressor and became party to crimes equal to many of the atrocities of the twentieth century.

It is miniscule comfort that the level of atrocities were not on the same level as those of the Nazi's when they have been of the same level as those in Rwanda or Vietnam.

Given that there was a vote in parliament it does not matter much that 169 Labour MP's voted against the war, parliament voted for a war crime and those who voted against who were members of the labour party remained members of the labour party and have helped to keep those architects of war crimes in power.
Even your own election in 2005 Paul helped to keep Tony as PM and now Gordon.

But the people of England, after all the wishes of the people of Wales, NI and Scotland have no real impact on who governs Britain, have a sense of honour and decency and come the next election no doubt every warmongering MP will be put out of office and a party that opposed the war will come in, obviously if the English did not have a sense of honour and decency they'd probably vote for the opposition that wholeheartedly supported the war crime, the tories.


The comments to this entry are closed.