PDA

View Full Version : General Sir Michael Rose calls for Tony Blair's Impeachment


Epsilon minus
8th Jan 2006, 18:08
This morning on BBC Breakfast news (Sunday 08JAN06) Tim Walker (Mandrake column) claimed that a sunday newspaper was running a story regarding General Sir Michael Rose who was requesting the impeachment of Tony Blair for misleading the nation into war with Iraq. Did anybody see it this morning?
I have searched the net and the UK daily's web site to see if I can find the story without success. Strange :confused:
If this is true then this is a big story if one of Blair's generals calls for his impeachment. I believe the General is right as does a famous QC who was planning to do the same.

Yellow Sun
8th Jan 2006, 18:13
It was in The Mail On Sunday

No I don't buy it, the company gives it away.

I agree with the General.

YS

airborne_artist
8th Jan 2006, 18:15
http://news.google.co.uk gives several stories about this

Navaleye
8th Jan 2006, 19:13
No such process under UK law as far as I remember. Maybe the legal fraternity can advise further. Cue Pr00ne...

Compressorstall
8th Jan 2006, 19:28
Isn't the rush to war often caused by vanity?

soddim
8th Jan 2006, 19:30
But, unless the punishment for impeachment is hanging, the slippery b***er would bounce back anyway - just like Mandy and Blunk.

Compressorstall
8th Jan 2006, 19:38
Somebody far cleverer than me once said that wars should be terrible lest we enjoy them too much - unfortunately that is only the case if you have to go to them.:uhoh:

pr00ne
8th Jan 2006, 21:12
The real issue here is that Tony Blair did not declare "War" on anyone, he simply committed the UK armed forces to a certain act that was loosely based on UN mandates.

I think you would also have to include the Chiefs of Staff, the Defence Minister, the leader of the loyal opposition, the legal advisors to the PM, and Cabinet as well, if you were to try something like this.

"Impeachment" as such does not exist as such in the UK but you could certainly have a number of MPs put forward a Commons motion of impeachment, not that I think this would get anywhere, wasn't it tried last summer?

MerryDown
8th Jan 2006, 21:39
I am fairly certain "Impeachment" is a US term, not one used or written in any statute in the UK....................


So surely unlikely, But will stand corrected.



Merry

Archimedes
8th Jan 2006, 21:47
Warren Hastings, the Governor of India (in pre-Mutiny/pre-Viceroy days) was impeached even before the United States had a President to impeach...

An individual can be impeached by Parliament for 'High crimes and misdemeanours', with the Commons calling for impeachment and the trial taking place before the Lords. However, the parliamentary website says:

However since 1805 parliamentary procedure has changed. The Cabinet is responsible for the actions of Ministers and Ministers are accountable to Parliament. Their work is scrutinised and they are questioned regularly by Parliament. There is therefore no need for impeachment. - although I confess that I can't quite see the logic behind this: being accountable to parliament via being questionned isn't the same thing as being up before their Lordships for high crimes and misdemeanours...

miles offtarget
9th Jan 2006, 08:06
Hello All,

Just to add my two rupees worth, it's big news here in India and is on the cover of the Times of India this morning. As is Straw's declaration that we have almost won... and you lot will be home in a matter of months.

Phew...that's a relief, having PVR'd in 1999 and been out of the loop since, I thought you chaps had been having a hard time of it over there. Anyway, glad that my taxes are being put to good use.

Cheers,

MoT

( In between jobs and so backpacking from Delhi to Amritsar this month, start working at a low cost airline near you in Feb !)

Python21
9th Jan 2006, 08:48
Sir Michael repeated his views live on the Radio Four Today show this morning and I agree with his every word.

A2QFI
9th Jan 2006, 09:32
History is not my strong point but I am sure that a British politician called Warren Hastings was 'impeached' something to do with alleged misconduct (of an administrative kind!) in India SFAIK.

Quote here from a legal book sale site

"Trials, especially of the famous or infamous, from the 18th and 19th centuries such as Warren Hastings’ impeachment, are keenly sought after, commanding prices from £100-£500."

Epsilon minus
9th Jan 2006, 17:05
Damn
I missed the General this morning. I would have been very interested to hear what he had to say. Maybe I can get a transcript from somewhere or better still maybe someone can post it on this thread.
In my opinion this story is massive a with enormous implications for the nation and the armed forces. We were all duped into war with Iraq and for that the PM is accountable to the nation and its laws.
None of it was right from the very begining with Colin Powell and bogus phone taps played to the UN, plagiarised thesises by MI5, and the 45 minute WMD claim by Straw and Blair to the H of C and the effective rubbishing of Hans Blix's observations.
The general's comments may also have had some influence on Blair's TV appearance yesterday where he name checked his successor twice. Is he about to do a runner?
The plot sickens.
EM

pulse1
9th Jan 2006, 17:14
Epsilon minus says "In my opinion this story is massive a with enormous implications for the nation and the armed forces."

And yet it doesn't seem to be picked up by the TV news on any of the channels I have seen. Presumably this is because they don't have any pictures to show us.

Epsilon minus
9th Jan 2006, 17:25
www.bbc.co.uk/news
Quote "General Sir Michael said he would not have led troops into a war he believed was wrong." Unquote
Has this ever ever been heard of before. I am staggered. Read on.



Mail on Sunday
09/01/06 - News section
Call to impeach Blair over Iraq war
Tony Blair should be impeached over the Iraq war, a former senior soldier said.
General Sir Michael Rose, former UN commander in Bosnia, said the Prime Minister had to be held to account.
"Certainly from a soldier's perspective there can't be any more serious decision taken by a prime minister than declaring war," he said.
"And then to go to war on what turns out to be false grounds is something that no one should be allowed to walk away from."
General Sir Michael told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Mr Blair's actions were "somewhere in between" getting the politics wrong and actually acting illegally.
"The politics was wrong, that he rarely declared what his ultimate aims were, as far as we can see, in terms of harping continually on weapons of mass destruction when actually he probably had some other strategy in mind.
"And secondly, the consequences of that war have been quite disastrous both for the people of Iraq and also for the west in terms of our wider interests in the war against global terror."
The general accepted Parliament had endorsed the war, but he said that was because the Prime Minister had stressed the weapons of mass destruction argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find this story at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=373530&in_page_id=1770
©2006 Associated New Media

BBC R4 Today program 09/01/06

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi?redirect=fs.stm&news=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=4594774 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi?redirect=fs.stm&news=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=4594774)

Flatus Veteranus
9th Jan 2006, 17:36
pulse 1

I heard the piece in "Today" and have listened during the day for any follow-up. Nix! I think this is due, less to the lack of pictures, but to the diminished stature of the armed services and their chiefs in the esteem of the great unwashed and the media. In fact no one gives a XXXX for the views of some retired old fart of a general. Now, if he had been a private soldier (or an NCO or junior officer) and complained of the inadequacy of his weapons and equipment, he would have caused a bit of a stir. It might have been more effective if CDS (or even CDI) had resigned when the "dodgy dossier" was published.

Epsilon minus
9th Jan 2006, 17:40
Oh come on Flatus, that's just plain cynical and you knowit. This is huge, hotter than hell.
This is a political paradox. It's really bad for Blair and really good for democracy. This must spell the end for 'Teflon Tone'

An Teallach
9th Jan 2006, 17:52
E-
You are kidding, aren't you? Teflon Tone relies on the fact that by Thursday, if you were to ask the dumbed-down 'man in the street' (including many in the Armed Forces) who Michael Rose is: The reply would probably be 'Is he in celebrity big brother?'

3 slips and a gully
9th Jan 2006, 18:03
BBC News Online: Impeach Blair over Iraq - General (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4594216.stm)

JessTheDog
9th Jan 2006, 19:19
Bliar can be impeached, by the House of Lords, but the motion must be instigated in the House of Commons.

The general's comments are most welcome and are reflective of the changed relationship between the Armed Forces and the government.

If the UK decides to take on Iran/Syria/Iraq again in the limited time he has left, then I believe this changed relationship will be very conspicuous, with resignations of commissions under the following circumstances:

a. if any case for war whatsoever is presented by Bliar;

b. if his successor attempts to go to war without both a parliamentary vote (no lies dressed up as intelligence) and the full disclosure of the legal advice of the Attorney General (and any associated discussions).

I suspect the spooks would revolt as well rather than have their name ruined by association with propaganda dressed up as intelligence and, as the cases of Katherine Gun and the two Labour MPs who leaked information to the Democratic Party demonstrate, the OSA is not the guarantee against embarrassment it once was.

Watch the phoney war in Afghanistan pick up momentum...mission creep ahead!

SirPeterHardingsLovechild
9th Jan 2006, 19:35
The Mail on Sunday article which started this off is by Martin Bell and is a preview/plug of his documentary - 'Iraq: The Failure of War' on Channel 4 at 7.30pm on Friday 13th Jan.
It includes contributions from General Sir Rupert Smith and Denis Healey (who was a beachmaster at Anzio).

Yarpy
9th Jan 2006, 20:33
Isn't it just a little creepy what low coverage this story has?

How many of you would agree that Blair has political control of major newspaers?:suspect:

Tartan Giant
9th Jan 2006, 22:30
No matter what BLIAr does, like the devil, he gets away with it!
Slippery is not the word for this swine - he should have been in chains and rotting in The Tower of London long ago.

Even MP's can't lever the devious devil out of office!

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29437&SESSION=875

EDM 1088
CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY IN RELATION TO THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ22.11.2005

Hogg, Douglas
That this House believes that there should be a select committee of seven honourable Members, being members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ref the war in Iraq - and let's not mince words - it is a war, it was illegal and BLIAr should pay dearly.

TG

pr00ne
9th Jan 2006, 22:57
Yarpy,

Don't be ridiculous, have you read the major newspapers coverage of Blair?

"Political control of major papers" Get real man.


This story will go nowhere because it will run out of steam, it has nowhere to go.

Blair did not declare war-fact.

Yarpy
10th Jan 2006, 05:40
:suspect: So, by default we can assumme that:

a. Alistair Campbells relationship with the press was just to facilitate as much news as possible.

b. 10 Downing Street never does a deal with a newspaper mogul as to which stories get prominence and those that don't.

Blair is a master patrician; when he topples an awful lot of very top people - industry and government - topple with him. When a distinguished figure like Gen. Rose sticks the knife in it must be like another drip from a cold tap down Blairs neck. I would be very surprised if 10 Downing Street did not try to exert pressure, where they can, to divert the story.

I wouldn't be surprised if they lit a few fires round Westminster over the next week to avert the publics gaze.

In short, pr00ne, I disagree with your position.
:(

ORAC
10th Jan 2006, 06:07
Interesting leader in the Grauniad - not a supporter of Blair or the war:

Leader - Tuesday January 10, 2006 - The Guardian
When a general strikes

General Sir Michael Rose's call for the prime minister to be impeached over Iraq comes in the same week that the head of the Spanish army has threatened to defy Spain's socialist government by using his forces to prevent Catalonia achieving greater autonomy. Sir Michael is a retired soldier and General José Mena Aguido a serving one (though he is now under arrest), yet both events remind us that the boundaries between democracy and the military are inescapably sensitive. There is much to support in Sir Michael's views on Iraq: that the war was a massively serious act, that it has had dire consequences for Iraq itself and the war on terror, and that Tony Blair got the politics horribly wrong. But the significance of Sir Michael's expression of view - and his comment that he would not lead his troops into a war he considers to be wrong - goes well beyond any embarrassment it causes Mr Blair or any cheer it may bring to his critics.

Iraq was a striking example of the seriously changed nature of 21st-century warfare. Those changes include the reliance on professional not conscript forces, the likely subordination of British to US or allied objectives, the continuation of "normal" life at home while wars occur, and the real-time reporting of the conflict from both sides of the battle lines. Another crucial change, again illustrated by Iraq, is that modern wars need modern legitimacy. In practice they can only take place with democratic support. To fight a modern war, governments must make and win a sometimes highly divisive argument among their citizens.

That is why, for instance, there is such lively debate about giving MPs, not the government, the final say in whether to go to war. But if civil society as a whole is now entitled to a say about a war, why not the military? Traditionally, of course, the military is the ultimate disciplined service. But a war that divides the nation is also likely to divide the military. Sir Michael was himself a divisive soldier during his Balkan war years. Many would say, on the basis of his record there, that he is not the ideal arbiter of when to stand firm in the face of tyrants and when not to do so. But the current Spanish example - to say nothing of Spain's history - is a reminder of the danger that can follow from allowing the military to make its own judgments about the actions of an elected government. If nothing else, Sir Michael's intervention dramatises the need for further thought about whether military views, and perhaps conflicting military views, should be more publicly aired as part of a modern democratic process.

PPRuNeUser0139
10th Jan 2006, 07:29
You are kidding, aren't you? Teflon Tone relies on the fact that by Thursday, if you were to ask the dumbed-down 'man in the street' (including many in the Armed Forces) who Michael Rose is: The reply would probably be 'Is he in celebrity big brother?'

I saw a couple of minutes of Large Male Sibling (OK, Big Brother) this a.m. as it was about George Galloway. When he confessed to being an MP some bimbette in the house with him apparently said to him - "Does that mean you work in the big room wiv the green seats..?"

Ah yes, the Great British Public...

Epsilon minus
10th Jan 2006, 07:42
Orac
Thank you for your post. Fine words which form the basis of a good philosphical arguement, however in simpler terms, coup d'etat would cover a lot of what you say.
This is slightly straying off track but nonetheless interesting.
Mr Proone Sir.
What on earth makes you believe : Don't be ridiculous, have you read the major newspapers coverage of Blair?
"Political control of major papers" Get real man.
So what's the D notice committee all about then? Has a D notice been issued to stiffle this story? If you honestly think that Mr Blair would not use every means at his disposal to deflect criticism of him or his policies, then this is a credulity which doesn't flatter you.
You also said This story will go nowhere because it will run out of steam, it has nowhere to go.
Blair did not declare war-fact.
This is correct, however he did mislead the Hof C into authorising the use of force to (attempt) achieve his political aims the consequences of which are yet to be realised. He did appoint Lord Clutton (partisan Lord) to endorse the legality of the whole thing. Did he write Clutton's remit, the terms of reference? Probably he made everything else up!
In this country, when a General declares that he would defy a request to send his troops to war, this is a very very serious matter.
EM

pulse1
10th Jan 2006, 08:05
I wonder if Sir Michael will be called as an expert witness in the CM of the RAF doctor who refused to go to Iraq. That would probably give the story somewhere to go.

pr00ne
10th Jan 2006, 08:16
Yarpy,

The evidence is before your very own eyes-in the NEWSPAPERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Show me ONE pro-Blair editorial.

Without exception they are all currently on Blair’s back, effectively calling him a dead man walking and playing up for all its worth a split between Blair and Gordon Brown.

The majority of the UK written media was opposed to the war in Iraq prior to UK forces being committed and is now very much highlighting all the difficulties being experienced over there daily.

Where is Alastair Campbell now?

Epsilon minus,

D Notice? don’t make me laugh!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s no good trying to persuade ME that Blair mislead the nation into war, I was and always have been expressly opposed to the war in Iraq and think it wrong in every possible way, but there is NOT the conspiracy you imagine here.

Epsilon minus
10th Jan 2006, 09:44
Proone
I was and always have been expressly opposed to the war in Iraq and think it wrong in every possible way, but there is NOT the conspiracy you imagine here

Thank you for that. Having checked my present state of consciousness I can assure you that I am not imagining (mores the pity) a conspiracy and General Rose's views on the matter support this.
Let me ask you one question though; had Mr Blair not resorted to duplicitous means to gain the assent of parliament to send troops to fight in Iraq; would we be there now?

pr00ne
10th Jan 2006, 10:09
Epsilon,

Has it ever occurred to you that the guy just got it hopelessly and terribly wrong?
WHY would he have gone to the lengths he did? IF he had some other agenda then why wasn't it the reason he used. Do you think he WANTED to make himself a terribly unpopular PM and to have his own party turn on him? Do you think he WANTED to go down in history as the PM that took the UK to war over a series of mistakes?

ShyTorque
10th Jan 2006, 10:24
Either way, Blair needs to take full responsibility for the apalling debacle he has allowed to happen. When he brings our troops home, is he going to arrange for a ticker-tape celebration? Or will it be more like when the USA saw the return of it's Vietnam veterans? Let's hope whoever succeeds him will ensure our society looks after them as they surely deserve, because considering his past record, I can't see him doing it. I can't even see him staying in the UK in his retirement. :(

soddim
10th Jan 2006, 13:46
At the moment Teflon Tony appears more interested in bringing retribution to our Chavs' yoblets than owning up to his own misdemeanors. He did a pretty good job with the power washer on the graffiti though, so perhaps there is a job for him if they ever get him out of No 10.

Yarpy
10th Jan 2006, 18:27
To quote myself:
I would be very surprised if 10 Downing Street did not try to exert pressure, where they can, to divert the story.

So, this week Bliar launches his 'respect' agenda and we learn, contentiously, that the law now allows people to be thrown out of their own homes, without recourse to trial, for being bad neighbours.
The press are all on to this one and will probably let the story of Gen Rose slip.
Advantage Tony and no new balls.:yuk:

Epsilon minus
10th Jan 2006, 21:24
Proone
Has it ever occurred to you that the guy just got it hopelessly and terribly wrong?
Is this a mitigation plea?
You haven't answered my question. If the PM had not have hoodwinked parliament would we have sent troops to fight in Iraq ???

Michael Bell MP, Michael Mansfield QC, General Rose. Stand up and be counted please. The PM cannot be allowed to get away with what he has done.

pr00ne
10th Jan 2006, 22:00
Epsilon minus,

How the bloody hell should I know?

If anyone wants to take down the PM on this then they would have to take down the Cabinet, the Chiefs of the Defence Staff, the leader of the opposition, the heads of the Security services and the top legal bods in the Gov't, do you REALLY think that is in the least bit practicable or is actually going to happen?

The UK did not act alone, so you would have to go after the equivalent folk in the US, and in Italy, and Spain and Australia, and Poland and so it goes on.

I speak as a Barrister when I say that this has not one iota of a chance of succeeding, I speak as pr00ne when I say I wish it did.

BEagle
10th Jan 2006, 22:13
"At the moment Teflon Tony appears more interested in bringing retribution to our Chavs' yoblets than owning up"

And the very best of luck to him! Much as I dislike him, at least he's doing something about these nasty little $ods who cause so many problems. But weird-beard trendy-lefty schoolteachers of the 1970s, bleeding heart liberal political correctos and nanny state policies have all been to blame, as of course has 1980s Thatcher-greed mentality.

Impeach Blair over Iraq? Fat chance.

Yarpy
11th Jan 2006, 06:17
they would have to take down the Cabinet, the Chiefs of the Defence Staff, the leader of the opposition, the heads of the Security services and the top legal bods in the Gov't,
Excepting Cameron, one assumes these people are old flatmates and cronies carefully appointed for their sympathy with Bliar. Their heads roll if Bliar goes so they are perhaps less likely to resign on principle.
If Cameron sneaks into a power vacuum in the centre ground then this country has no opposition. The managed society will be fully upon us with a choice of three centrist parties. If you disagree with a major issue you will have nowhere to go.

tornadoken
11th Jan 2006, 13:25
Enough already! Give a hearing to the defence. This media harangue, ignored by voters in US/UK Nov/04, May/05, presumes a Lie: the Lie is the Lie. There was none.
Each leader in the Coalition of the Willing gave a lead cause for taking him down:Howard in Oz made a link to Bali, Bush to 9/11. Lord knows what the Ukrainian said, or the Pole, Spaniard, Italian. Of the causes presented to UK Parliament,one included a potential Threat to RAF Akrotiri if he chose to spool up his Scuds - which is a 45min. exercise from positioning them at desired launch site. We were also told that he had gassed his own people. Where's the Lie here? We were told that we did not know how far he had progresssed in extending that capability. Lie? That maybe he had NBC capable of reaching beyond his borders. Lie?
Yes, it was worth the bones of our Grenadiers to stop him at a time and place of our choosing. Yes it's all to do with oil - try living - or blogging - without it. It's not price, or profit, it's straight market availability. Who here remembers being Dutch in 1973 when our sane friend the Shah told Netherlands that regretfully they must shiver and expire for he would not sell his oil to a Govt. of whose Foreign Policy he disapproved. If at any one time supply were cut from Iran+Iraq+Saudi, we would all be hostage. That's what al-Qaida is all about.

JessTheDog
11th Jan 2006, 18:17
The threat to Cyprus was risible. I recall sitting in the feeder at Strike and laughing over this dossier claim with colleagues, particularly later when the word was put about that NBC kit was being withdrawn from Cyprus in the runup to operations.

Anyone with even a basic grasp of the SCUD missile and the Iraqi attempts to upgrade it would spot that the Cyprus claim was absolute nonsense.

If anyone wants to take down the PM on this then they would have to take down the Cabinet, the Chiefs of the Defence Staff, the leader of the opposition, the heads of the Security services and the top legal bods in the Gov't, do you REALLY think that is in the least bit practicable or is actually going to happen?


It all points back to Bliar, who decided (on the basis of divine insight presumably) that there was a WMD threat and told the attorney general to write the legal opinion accordingly. Likewise, the Chiefs of Staff are fireproof as are the head spooks (with the exception of the JIC boss), as are the legal staff of the Foreign Office (including Elizabeth Wilmshurst who resigned).

Bliar can be impeached, although under current circumstances it is unlikely as it depends upon a Commons majority to proceed to the Lords. Another possible avenue is maladministration - failure to disclose the full advice of the attorney general to Cabinet, etc...

I doubt anything will happen at the moment. If pressure mounts on Iran, then things will get interesting. There is no conceivable way that Bliar will be trusted if he promotes military action - watch for many resignations among the services, and in government and public life and a massive public backlash.

trotts
11th Jan 2006, 19:39
Folks,
This is an interesting debate which seems to reflect pretty well both sides British public opinion.

However, General Rose obliquely highlights another interesting point - that of the poor sods tasked by the Goverment to carry out the dirty deed itself. As a Flight Commander of a Sqn in the war, I carried out, on a completely informal basis, my own survey of the opinions of the crews and support personnel I was deployed with. I ended up with the impression that, while everyone thought the moustachio'd monster deserved a kicking and should be dealt with, only about 30% of us thought that we should be there to do that job, at that time, with those justifications and with no exit-strategy whatsoever. Most were deeply sceptical about the given reasons for risking our lives and most believed, rightly as it turned out, that we were opening a can of worms.

I had major doubts about the legal basis for the war, and thought long and hard about it. I tried to discuss the matter with my Sqn Boss, who more or less avoided the issue, I suspect because he agreed with me at least in part. I was left with the dilemma of deciding whether to carry out orders based on a false premise, which i doubted myself, would leave me a war criminal. I realise this sounds dramatic, but i guess war is to those who think about it. Three years on next March 19th, I still don't know if I'm a war criminal and literally loathe the PM for putting me and my troops in that position. I went and did the job for the next couple of months, thoroughly enjoyed it and found it the most rewarding experience of my career professionally. However, I'm still not sure that the award I received in recognition of my actions are not a wee bit tainted by the stain of illegitimacy.

Awesome fun though, invading somewhere!

Trotts

Epsilon minus
11th Jan 2006, 19:48
trotts
Frankly an amazing post. The fact that you considered and undertook a poll of people's thoughts as to the legality of the whole thing is incredible and shows that you held, and probably still hold, the same concerns as the General.
I hope the rest of your flight all got back safely.
Thanks
EM

3 slips and a gully
11th Jan 2006, 23:26
More comments on Iraq, specifically the US performance, from a serving one star.... UK officer slams US Iraq tactics (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4603136.stm)

Flatus Veteranus
13th Jan 2006, 16:28
Epsilon Minus

It seems that I may not be quite so cynical as you suggest; nor am I alone in holding the vapourings of retired Generals in something less than awe. It also appears that the recent demand by Sir Michael Rose for Blair’s impeachment has not shaken the Establishment sufficiently to excite a D Notice. I quote verbatim yesterday’s (Thursday’s) “Thunderer” column in The Times.

0 ROSE, THOU ART SICK


“General Sir Michael Rose, former commander of the UN protection force in Bosnia, is an angry man. In The Guardian, and a Channel 4 documentary made by the former war correspondent Martin Bell, he calls for Tony Blair's impeachment over the Iraq war. Sir Michael believes this "would prevent politicians treating quite so carelessly the subject of taking a country into war". Had he still been a serving officer, he would "certainly'* have resigned his commission, to try to persuade MPs to "think twice about what they were doing".

Perhaps Mr Bell recalls his 1996 judgment of Sir Michael's service in Bosnia: "By the time he left, there was little muscular or robust about the force he led, or his leadership of it”. Sir Michael's performance caused the greatest rift in transatlantic relations since Suez. That record does not invalidate his criticisms now. But Sir Michael's judgment of the impact of his hypothetical resignation indicates a rare confidence in the way others see him.

Sir Michael argues, conventionally, that the Government misled the Commons over Iraq's WMD. He also practises a conventional omission. Nowhere does he refer to 9/11. Those attacks inevitably changed policymakers' perception of strategic risk. The foundations of postwar security policy — deterrence and containment — had been undermined in a morning.

Sir Michael holds Mr Blair responsible for not testing flawed intelligence. He gives no advice on how to do that beyond waiting till the intelligence is confirmed or refuted. That was the route Sir Michael chose in 1994 when he disastrously played down reports that Gorazde was about to fall. No prime minister can afford to be so mistaken.

Saddam welcomed 9/11 and sought a WMD capability in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions. Intelligence about current capabilities was wrong, but Iraq did possess dual-use facilities that, according to Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group, could quickly have produced chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism, and remained the most likely route by which Islamist groups could obtain WMD. How to weigh those factors was a political judgment, not a perfidious wangle.

The military mind in politics, from Cromwell to Douglas MacArthur and beyond, is notoriously insensitive to uncertainty. His advice should be treated with the respect due to him.”

Oliver Kamm, “Thunderer”, The Times 12 January 2006.

I do not go all the way with Mr Kamm in the exculpation of Blair. I believe that the Butler Report, in the parts I read either in the press or online (and making allowance for Lord Butler’s “Mandarinese”), whilst clearing the PM of outright lying, showed that the “Dodgy Dossier” was deliberately intended to deceive Parliament and the public. The report included damning comparisons between the original intelligence assessments by WMD experts and the wording of the final published “dossier”. The latter certainly deceived me into supporting the war initially, but I doubt whether the evidence would be sufficiently compelling to support impeachment proceedings (were these legally available).

Epsilon minus
13th Jan 2006, 18:13
Flatus Veteranus
You said:
The latter certainly deceived me into supporting the war initially
It didn't convince me. Nor did the phoney claims that war was being contemplated to save the Iraqi people - what a load of nonsense that turned out to be -
It was the sad death of Dr Kelly - no mention of him, to date , in this thread -hounded to his death by the MOD, that indicated to me that there was and is a smoking gun hidden at 10 downing street. I want the person that pulled the trigger exposed and dealt with either by the law or more probably the media. The families of lost British service men and women are owed the truth.
EM
we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.Ephesians chap. 6 v.12

JessTheDog
13th Jan 2006, 19:53
I ran a discussion on the morality, legality and national interest of the Iraq War in summer 2003 as part of the MoI course at Halton.

The split at the time was roughly 60%/40% for and against military action, and most of the class were both well-informed and cynical about WMD and the US stance.

The reason for the majority in favour was, I believe, because quite a few of the class had served in the Balkans and had seen the end results of inaction.

I suspect the split is now reversed, particularly post Hutton and Butler, and the abject failure of the occupation.

Flatus Veteranus
14th Jan 2006, 17:23
Epsilon Minus

The death of Dr Kelly was indeed sad. But I confess that, at the time, I was shocked that an Intelligence Officer should be having cosy lunches with "the Media" and briefing them without authority. But I was more shocked by the antics of senior officials in MOD who, from the emails revealed by Hutton/Butler, were attempting to muzzle their own desk-level experts who were most sceptical about the "Dodgy Dossier".

I agree that the "45 minute" WMD threat was risible, but I gave much weight (call me credulous if you like) to the theat of Iraqi stocks of chemical and biological agents which could leak to existing delivery systems - ie, suicidal terrorists either linked to Al Q'aida or of similar persuasion. The UN inspectors never ruled them out. In retrospect (from my viewpoint) we should have given them more time. Cheers!

kaikohe76
20th Jan 2006, 19:39
- Bring the troops (lads & lassies) back from Iraq without delay

- Then if we must have our armed forces deployed somewhere in the world, let them go to Zimbabwe & sort out (no holds barred) that nasty little ****e Mugabe.

pr00ne
21st Jan 2006, 00:19
kaikohe76,

Yeah right, real sensible!

Your first proposal would be impractical and totally irresponsible

Your second proposal would be impractical, irresponsible and totally illegal.

BEagle
21st Jan 2006, 07:24
"Your second proposal would be .........and totally illegal."

Since when did that stop Bliar having another war?

pr00ne
21st Jan 2006, 10:50
BEagle,

True, true..................................

Stafford
21st Jan 2006, 10:58
Proone
Illegal yes, but very welcome respite from all those suffering at the hands of this pocket Hitler. Racist of us in the extreme to take no action, presumably on the basis that this is how we expect Sub saharan African leaders and their people to behave ? :E
As for the clamour to impeach Blair, well I wonder what the motivation is - another book in the offing mayhaps ? Not that Blair is my best example of a perfect politician, but he is better than, say, Mugabe ?

pr00ne
21st Jan 2006, 14:40
Stafford,

Welcome? By whom? Have you learnt NOTHING from the invasion of Iraq? Saddam Hussein was far worse than Mugabe yet just look at what the invasion to “liberate” his oppressed population has led to? Do you think Zimbabwe would be any different? Topple Mugabe by intervention of foreign military action and how do you think the various tribal factions in country will react, how do you think the dozens of African nations would react?

Racist? Really, how do you work that out? There are oppressed and suppressed populations all over the world, why are you not clammering for a British military invasion of Burma, or Cuba, or China?

Stafford
21st Jan 2006, 15:06
Oh Dear, the usual Proone pontificating lecture !:rolleyes:

Racist in the sense that we seem to accept rampant corruption and tyrannical behaviour from them since that is "basically their culture" ??

Can you honestly believe that the Zimbabwean people would not love to see the back of him ?

Apparently, he can get away with murder on the basis that it would be meddlesome of us to intervene. Why does South Africa not step in to get rid of him ? Perhaps because they are just as bad ?

Anyway, do you not agree that the sight of Saddam in the dock is a welcome one and an example to be followed wherever possible ?

kaikohe76
21st Jan 2006, 17:28
Everyone please be assured,I had no wish at all to `stir up` emotions, with my earlier post re the our troops in Iraq & their theoretical deployment to Zimbabwe. My comments were & remain, my own personal opinion only, `prOOne` please have the courtesy to take note of this, thanks old chap!

I am of the opinion & always have been, that our servicemen & women are undertaking a very difficult task in Iraq & conducting themselves superbly under the arduous conditions out there. I would still venture to suggest however, at some stage Mugabe will still have to be dealt with& who do you really think in the end will be given this most unpleasant task?

I appreciate that this overall subject, includes people with very strongly held views from all corners of the arguement, who, unlike myself have been directly involved with military action under fire. My own military service for HMQ of 13 years, was spent in the air & despite the odd `hairy` moment, I would freely admit I got off rather lightly throughout.

At least Sir Michael Rose, as a very senior military officer is speaking out openly, perhaps it would help if a few more of his colleagues started to follow his lead & publicly said what they really think.

Thank you

Epsilon minus
1st Feb 2006, 09:43
Daily Telegraph Wednesday February 01 2006
Front Page: Sacrifice (re death of Cpl Gordon Pritchard) 100 British serviceman to be killed in Iraq
Page 4 (full page) Iraq
Page 5 (Full page) Iraq
Page 6 (Full page) Iraq
Page 16 Roll call of the Fallen
Page 17 Roll Call of the Fallen
Page 20 More on Iraq
Page 21 Editorial Iraq
So will the big guns of the press force Blair to be held accountable and establish if our entry into this war was illegal?
Also rather co-incidental that on the day of bad news for the government that Jack Straw comes out with this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4669046.stm

air pig
1st Feb 2006, 18:44
The only people who can hold Bliar to account is the House of Commons. Not a realistic proposition is it. Just like the Crown Prosecution Service verdict of not having a realistic probility of conviction.

Would anybody expect turkeys to vote for Christmas, no didn't think so.
One day the War Crimes tribunal in the Hague may charge him with war crimes, something on the lines of Waging Agressive War as happened at Nurmeberg in 1945-6.

SASless
1st Feb 2006, 18:54
Kaik...and others suggesting going to Zimbabwe...

What is different about Mad Bob/Zimbabwe and Saddam Hussein/Iraq?

If one cannot support Coalition actions in Iraq then I fail to see how any action in Zimbabwe can be justified at all.

The British Government opposed the Smith Regime and UDI...enforced sanctions and thus set in motion what has happened. I want you to point out to me the differences between what some of you see as the UK having some sort of "right" to interfere in Mad Bob's turf now?

You seem to have loads of agro about going into Iraq ....what is different here pray tell.

(Mind you ....I would be willing to take a posting to do just that if given an opportunity!)

Epsilon minus
2nd Feb 2006, 08:46
Air Pig
The only people who can hold Bliar to account is the House of Commons
Not so. The Prime Minister is accountable to you and I (assuming you are eligible to vote in this country). My MP was conned into supporting Mr Blair's war desires and you think that the PM should be able to carry on as if nothing is wrong. Try telling that to the relatives of the 100 :}
EM

air pig
2nd Feb 2006, 10:22
To actually hold the PM accountable, it must be done either through the House of Commons acting as a court or the Hague Tribunal. Do you meerly wish to make him unemployed on his pension scheme. To defeat him at an election is easy but then he will take the option by convention that former PMs are elevated to the House of Lords as a Peer.

He will still be able to make more money than you or I ever will, but if tried and found guilty, he could be made to forfeit assests as a fine in conjunction to a term of imprisonment.

No monetary punishment can ever bring back those fallen, but could be used to aid those injured, and act as an example to others who undertake foolish and possibly illeagal actions.

RayDarr
2nd Feb 2006, 12:29
It is unlikely that Blair will ever have to answer for his actions on the war. He has skillfully muddied the waters, and finding enough evidence against him will not be possible. The bum did not work his way up the greasy pole of politics without learing something.
Given that, it sickens me to see Blair and his ministers being surrounded by grinning soldiers etc when ever he/they visit Iraq. If we feel so bad about the government, then stay away when they visit your unit. Find an essential duty to be on, or go sick but dont be there to shake their hands and provide them with the photo op they are looking for. Now, this is easier said than done, and it is likely that worried seniors may order you to attend. OK, obey orders, but I can stand infront of someone, be polite yet make it perfectly clear I think he is a pile of s**t not fit to be part of the human race. That makes much better pictures for the press, and shows the people at home what we rearly think of him. Try it, and watch the ba*****s squirm.

Epsilon minus
2nd Feb 2006, 12:46
We should append a poll to this thread along the lines
1) Do you think Tony Blair led this country into war with Iraq illegally?
2) Should Tony Blair be impeached as per General Sir Michael Rose's request?

Moderators, is this possible?
EM

air pig
2nd Feb 2006, 16:00
Hi RayDarr.


Just look at the pictures taken with troops in the presence of certain politicians, only those close to the camera smile, I suspect under orders, look either side and you get a different reaction.

Pity these individuals are not taken on a foot patorl in the more shall we say challenging areas and see if they still smile. They do say adrenaline is brown.

Politicians, only one cure shoot most of the feckers, unfortunately a waste of ammunition.

This goverment has a major problem in that 99% of its MPs have never served in the military and indeed have attacked the military, so therefore have no conception of war, conflict and the results inflicted on others by their actions and decisions. Whilst people may attack Margret Thatcher, she did have Ministers and MPs who had seen action and the results of action and could therefore tell her what the effects would be. This current bunch have only seen action on demo's, in bars and having sit ins and working in the public sector where danger is somewhat limited to a lack of tea in the morning.

Its is easy to say go on, rather harder to say come on, especially when going into danger. Remember 7th July when everyone else ran from danger look who ran towards it, with no thought for themselves, no politicians killed in the crush to help.

Once again politicians, shoot the :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: or any anything else to get rid of the majority.

RayDarr
2nd Feb 2006, 22:30
I don't have much regard for Thatcher either, as I blame her policy for the Falkland War. The decision to remove HMS Endurance convinced the Argentines that we would not oppose an invasion. When it happened, Thatcher had no choice to regain the islands or loose face - and the next election. Result, lots of dead Brits, and lots more dead Argentines. She may have had some ex military people around her, but didn't listen.
I don't care for polititions of whatever hue, they all tend to get you killed.
All that apart, I do agree with most of your point of view.
Chin Chin. Off for another Pimms

Epsilon minus
4th Mar 2006, 08:40
president Blair struggled with his conscience when making the decision to go to war with Iraq. More probable is that having duped some of the nation and the majority of MP's he was more concerned with saving his own skin if the real truth ever became public. So he passed the decision over to God. He is right in that God will judge him for what he did and I hope he gets his just deserves.

Independent

Blair: 'God will be my judge on Iraq'
By Andy McSmith
Published: 04 March 2006
Tony Blair has proclaimed that God will judge whether he was right to send British troops to Iraq, echoing statements from his ally George Bush.

Contradicting warnings from advisers not to mix politics and religion, the Prime Minister said that his interest in politics sprang from his Christianity and its "values and philosophy" had guided him in public life.

Explaining how he managed to live with the decision to go to war in Iraq, Mr Blair replied: "If you have faith about these things then you realise that judgement is made by other people. If you believe in God,it's made by God as well." His remarks, made in an interview to be shown on ITV's Parkinson show tonight, invite comparison with President Bush, a born-again Christian, who has made a virtue of bringing religion into politics. But they also carry the risk of inflaming opinion in the Arab world, where the term "crusader" is commonly used to condemn Christian leaders who meddle in the Middle East.

It is also exactly the sort of comment he has been repeatedly urged not to make for domestic purposes, because of the risk that a sceptical British public will react badly to politicians who appear to be "preaching". Mr Blair was instructed by his former dictator of communications, Alastair Campbell: "We don't do God."

As well as invoking God as the final judge of the Iraq war, Mr Blair also explained how his religious and political beliefs came to him simultaneously. "There were people at university who got me into politics. I kind of got into religion, politics, at the same time, in a way. And until the age of about 20 I really wasn't very interested in politics at all," he told Michael Parkinson. "That's how I got interested in it."

He refused to accept a description of himself as a "Christian socialist" - but only because the phrase contained the "s" word. "It's a long time since anyone used the word socialist about me," he said.

He agreed that his politics could be described as Christian "in terms of the values and the philosophy". He also confirmed that religion illuminates his politics. "If you have a religious belief, it does - but it's probably best not to take it too far," he said.

Roger Bacon, who has been trying unsuccessfully to meet Tony Blair since his son, Major Matthew Bacon, 34, was killed in Iraq, said last night: "This would explain why he won't see the parents. How can he speak to us when God told him to send the troops out to Iraq so our sons could be killed?"

And Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon was killed in Basra in 2004, said she was "quite disgusted" at the comments made by the Prime Minister. The Military Families Against the War campaigner said: "How can he say he is a Christian? A Christian would never put people out there to be killed.

"A good Christian wouldn't be for this war. I'm actually quite disgusted by the comments. It's a joke."

During his eight-year premiership, the only decisions that have caused Mr Blair sleepless nights have been those that involved taking the UK to war, he said. But he added: "The only way you can take a decision like that is to try to do the right thing, according to your conscience. And, for the rest of it, you leave it to the judgement that history will make."

Mr Blair refused to say whether he had prayed for guidance on whether to send British troops into Iraq - which has cost the lives of 103 British troops, 2,300 US soldiers, and up to 30,000 Iraqis, with many thousands maimed or injured, in a conflict which has claimed more lives since the fall of Baghdad than the war itself.

There have been persistent reports that Mr Blair joined the President in prayer for God's guidance at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in 2002, at the summit at which many people believe a secret decision was reached to invade Iraq.

The claim was made in a book by the Christian author Stephen Mansfield, who said he had heard it from White House officials. It was later backed up by a writer on Time magazine, David Aikman.

Mr Bush once told Palestinian leaders: "God would tell me, 'George, go end the tyranny in Iraq' and I did."

Mr Blair's Cabinet includes several deeply committed Christians, such as Ruth Kelly, the Education Secretary, who is a Roman Catholic, and the Chief Whip, Hilary Armstrong - but they rarely break the injunction not to mix religion and politics publicly.

Tony Blair has proclaimed that God will judge whether he was right to send British troops to Iraq, echoing statements from his ally George Bush.

Contradicting warnings from advisers not to mix politics and religion, the Prime Minister said that his interest in politics sprang from his Christianity and its "values and philosophy" had guided him in public life.

Explaining how he managed to live with the decision to go to war in Iraq, Mr Blair replied: "If you have faith about these things then you realise that judgement is made by other people. If you believe in God,it's made by God as well." His remarks, made in an interview to be shown on ITV's Parkinson show tonight, invite comparison with President Bush, a born-again Christian, who has made a virtue of bringing religion into politics. But they also carry the risk of inflaming opinion in the Arab world, where the term "crusader" is commonly used to condemn Christian leaders who meddle in the Middle East.

It is also exactly the sort of comment he has been repeatedly urged not to make for domestic purposes, because of the risk that a sceptical British public will react badly to politicians who appear to be "preaching". Mr Blair was instructed by his former director of communications, Alastair Campbell: "We don't do God."

As well as invoking God as the final judge of the Iraq war, Mr Blair also explained how his religious and political beliefs came to him simultaneously. "There were people at university who got me into politics. I kind of got into religion, politics, at the same time, in a way. And until the age of about 20 I really wasn't very interested in politics at all," he told Michael Parkinson. "That's how I got interested in it."

He refused to accept a description of himself as a "Christian socialist" - but only because the phrase contained the "s" word. "It's a long time since anyone used the word socialist about me," he said.

He agreed that his politics could be described as Christian "in terms of the values and the philosophy". He also confirmed that religion illuminates his politics. "If you have a religious belief, it does - but it's probably best not to take it too far," he said.
Roger Bacon, who has been trying unsuccessfully to meet Tony Blair since his son, Major Matthew Bacon, 34, was killed in Iraq, said last night: "This would explain why he won't see the parents. How can he speak to us when God told him to send the troops out to Iraq so our sons could be killed?"

And Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon was killed in Basra in 2004, said she was "quite disgusted" at the comments made by the Prime Minister. The Military Families Against the War campaigner said: "How can he say he is a Christian? A Christian would never put people out there to be killed.

"A good Christian wouldn't be for this war. I'm actually quite disgusted by the comments. It's a joke."

During his eight-year premiership, the only decisions that have caused Mr Blair sleepless nights have been those that involved taking the UK to war, he said. But he added: "The only way you can take a decision like that is to try to do the right thing, according to your conscience. And, for the rest of it, you leave it to the judgement that history will make."

Mr Blair refused to say whether he had prayed for guidance on whether to send British troops into Iraq - which has cost the lives of 103 British troops, 2,300 US soldiers, and up to 30,000 Iraqis, with many thousands maimed or injured, in a conflict which has claimed more lives since the fall of Baghdad than the war itself.

There have been persistent reports that Mr Blair joined the President in prayer for God's guidance at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in 2002, at the summit at which many people believe a secret decision was reached to invade Iraq.

The claim was made in a book by the Christian author Stephen Mansfield, who said he had heard it from White House officials. It was later backed up by a writer on Time magazine, David Aikman.

Mr Bush once told Palestinian leaders: "God would tell me, 'George, go end the tyranny in Iraq' and I did."

Mr Blair's Cabinet includes several deeply committed Christians, such as Ruth Kelly, the Education Secretary, who is a Roman Catholic, and the Chief Whip, Hilary Armstrong - but they rarely break the injunction not to mix religion and politics publicly.

Tigs2
4th Mar 2006, 10:06
Epsilon Minus
I really believe that your post above (which is double pasted i think) needs to be in a thread of its own as this is going to cause lots and lots of comment (You may as well start it before someone else does). Dont know if this is the right place, or maybe it is?:confused: Dunno.

To me this is the ultimate cop-out and its going to cause a lot of trouble. Bush and Blair are trying to get rid of Islamic Fundamentalists yet they are both turning out to be Christian Fundamentalists - Scary time!:eek:

Epsilon minus
4th Mar 2006, 10:31
Tigs
You're right about the double pasting, God knows how that happened?
OK I'll start another thread. I think the military forum is the right place for this discussion.
Thanks
EM

Tigs2
4th Mar 2006, 15:30
Thanks Epsilon
Sorry i didnt make myself clear therefore you misunderstood, The military forum is definitly the right place, just think it needed more than the Sir M Rose thread. See youve changed it thanks. Cant wait for Parky tonight.