September 29th, 2010

Harman’s War Flip-Flop

Yesterday morning the Labour Party was in favour of the war in Iraq because “it was the right thing to do”, yesterday afternoon it turned against the war in Iraq because Red Ed said “it was wrong”. Harriet Harman voted for and argued for the war. Hundreds of British soldiers gave their lives and limbs to liberate Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny. Harman illustrates the Orwellian readiness of professional politicians to say whatever suits them at the time, whatever the price in other’s blood and treasure. At least David Miliband had a principled position…


276 Comments

  1. 1
    Yorkie (with his hand up) says:

    Funny how it’s all smiles and clapping at the Labour cnference after plus one hundred thousand dead in Iraq. Socialism don’t you just love it!

    Like

    • 4
      Mitch says:

      Call me a cynic, but Dave knew this passage was coming and had time to prepare his ‘off-the-cuff’ remarks.

      Harman has no excuses though; cynicism, pure and simple.

      Like

      • 8
        WMD says:

        Anyone stupid enough to support the Iraq catastrophe incapable of having principles.

        Blair, Brown and yes, that includes Cameron too.

        Though there were some honourable conservatives who knew their arse from their elbow and didn’t support the madness.

        Like

        • 9
          Mr Ned says:

          The tories (particularly Cameron, Hague, Fox etc) have stuffed up big time on this when they have stated that even knowing then what they know now, they would still have voted for the invasion. They are knowingly supporting a war crime.

          Like

          • Mitch says:

            Ed would have voted against. Absolutely. A true man of principle. Very brave after the event.

            Like

          • Rat's Arse says:

            I can’t help but agree Mr Ned. Well said.

            Like

          • Batty Hattie Harmanescu says:

            Quite so. Ed Milliband said the war was wrong and it is time to draw line under it. If it was wrong, then surely a line can only be drawn under it when the wrongdoers are brought to book. Why no prosecutions? Why not send Blair to the ICC?

            Like

          • Greychatter says:

            Hind sight is a wonderful thing for the knockers who will criticise every difficult decision politicians have to make at the time.

            Contrast Harriet Harman now aganist the war to suit the current mood of Labour with Conservatives who at least have the guts to stick to their principals.

            How many Labour politicians have resigned over the last three Labour terms in office? How many have even apologised for their mistakes?

            Like

          • Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

            Robin Cook and Claire Short ?

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            What Cook & Short , principles Oh FFS !!!!
            Are u having a laugh.

            Cook resigned as part of a calculated gamble that if the war went tits up it would cost Blair his Job and Cook would be best placed to become PM !!! How the fuck can you not see that ?

            This is the man who was so fecking principled that he dumped his wife by text for his secretary whom he had been shagging for some time. He was an odious obnoxious lying little c unt.

            As for short , she abandoned her child did she not.

            Principled my arse !!

            Like

          • Red Ed - The Union Manchurian candidate says:

            Red Ed is a national security risk

            Like

          • Prince Rupert says:

            Where does this 1 million come from? At the time the police stated 200,000 at the most, and the demo in London was much much smaller than the Countryside Alliance match earlier in the year, with 415,000, stated to be largest protest match in Europe! The 1 million has crept up from 200k to 500k and then 1m, I even heard some left wing nutter saying 2m.

            Like

          • Mr Ned says:

            The 1.2 million was reported at the time. It was much bigger than the countryside alliance march as anyone who was working in the crowd control for both marches would tell you.

            It was measured and counted at several locations along the march route and on the entrances to the rally.

            Like

          • Kinnoc Kiss Cum. says:

            war crime? Stand down off the low pony. We didn’t see Adolp(he) (Ralph) Milibland fighting the Nazis did we? He was probably huddling with the unions with his feet up. I fancy Ed would be holed up in his bunker with a nice cup of cocoa if we had a re-run of WW2.

            Like

          • Nail the war criminals to trees says:

            @Greychatter
            “Hind sight is a wonderful thing”

            One million people marched through London in opposition to the Iraq war, before it happened. This is the largest protest that has ever been in this country.

            Fuck your bollox about hind sight.

            Like

        • 14
          Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

          And some Labour Back benchers

          Like

        • 17
          Bad Al Campbell says:

          It was the 45 minute claim that suckered them all!

          Like

      • 54
        Stuart says:

        Ed voted for the war and last year he voted against an inquiry. Also he voted for ID cards. Hipocracy or what?

        Like

      • 92
        Anonymous says:

        More faces than a town hall clock.

        Like

    • 6
      Mr Ned says:

      If UN resolution 1441 was NOT sufficient justification to go to war, as is now being claimed by Ed and the shadow cabinet, then there was NO OTHER LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INVASION.

      Ed has branded his former cabinet colleagues war criminals.

      When will he follow this up with calls for Blair to be arrested?

      Like

      • 12
        Anonymous says:

        Exactly – if red ed has principles he must push for the prosecution of Brown, Blair and his brother.

        Like

        • 18
          Four-eyed English Genius says:

          Labour politicians, principle?. Does not compute.

          Like

          • Harrimen Harmenescu says:

            I’m just supporting him because I’m a lying, hypocritical, shifty lard arsed bitch.

            Like

          • The 51st State says:

            Cameron still supports it

            Like

          • Splooge says:

            He also supports the BBC

            The man is clearly a buffoon

            Like

          • BBC Controller says:

            This is year 1

            In the great re-write of history, the decision to go to war will be the Tory’s fault.

            “Look”, they will cry, “Call Me Dave still thinks it was the right thing to do – Look how the evil Tory party lied to the nation about the right thing to do…”

            Like

        • 25
          Mr Ned says:

          I do not think that he has thought this through properly…

          The only and very slight legal justification for the invasion was based on lies about Saddam’s non compliance with UN resolution 1441.

          Now Ed is claiming that the invasion should not have happened, and that implies strongly that he believes that 1441 was NOT justification for the invasion.

          There was no other legal justification for the invasion. Saddam was NOT an immediate threat and had not attacked anyone else in 2003. (indeed the draft of the September 2002 dodgy dossier claimed that Saddam was not a threat to us, or indeed her immediate neighbours)

          So baring in mind that Ed’s statement implies that there was not sufficient justification for the invasion, this precludes 1441 entirely, and in the total absence of any other legal authority to launch an invasion against another sovereign nation, then this is a direct admission that the invasion was unlawful and Blair et al should be charged with war crimes!

          When will any member of the media grow the balls to ask Him about this? AND press him on it?

          Like

          • Mr Ned says:

            edit “Saddam was not a threat to us, or indeed her immediate neighbours”

            Should read “Saddam’s Iraq was not a threat to us, or indeed her immediate neighbours”

            Like

          • Rat's Arse says:

            I whole-heartedly agree with you again Mr Ned.

            Like

          • Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

            And now has made Iran a regional superpower

            Like

          • Ed Miliband says:

            I am just trying to agree with Nick, that’s all – I may need them

            Like

          • bergen says:

            Although I doubt if Miliminor will ever see No 10,those words could haunt him if he was faced with an International arrest warrent against his old bosses.

            Still,a man who can carve up his brother and not acknowledge his son is unlikely to worry.His tankie Marxist dad would be proud of him.

            Like

      • 167
        Yuppie says:

        Disagree fundamentally.

        Parliament voted for the war during the “dodgy dossier” debates. They should have known better. Blair should have been impeached for presiding over the dossiers – but that’s it.

        Democracy requires that Parliament is Sovereign.

        Politicians, not lawyers, hold the ultimate responsibility for the security of the country. Think WW2 – the lawyers would have been debating the ins and outs, on £fortune per hour, until the panzers were rolling up Whitehall. ( Robinson’s fence sitting during the run in to Iraq is evidence enough. )

        We, the electorate, have a duty to vote in political leaders who are honest and able enough to discharge that responsibility.

        Like

        • 212
          Unsworth says:

          “We, the electorate, have a duty to vote in political leaders who are honest and able enough to discharge that responsibility.”

          OK then, how do we know?

          Like

          • Mr Ned says:

            It would help a lot if we had a media who was on our side and reported TRUTH about what was going on, instead of behaving like prostitutes and becoming willing acomplices to spreading lies and propaganda required to try to get the public to support an illegal invasion.

            The mainstream media in this country were complicit in the charge to war. They failed the people of this country.

            Like

          • Can't remember my moniker says:

            Nice smile helps many voters?

            Like

          • Yuppie says:

            Well, in the case of Blair, we knew post-Iraq that he was a liar. And lied to start a medium sized war – not something trivial. But we (collectively – not me personally squire) re-elected him.

            If we send that message to the politicos, who can blame them for carrying on the way they do ?

            Like

          • Not-Dimbleby-Paxman says:

            “It would help a lot if we had a media who was on our side”

            Time to fuck the BBC then.

            Like

    • 12
      Anonymous says:

      At that moment he realized what a load of traitorious shitfucks he was gonna leave behind.

      Like

    • 15
      Blair couldn't have done it without the support of the tory fuckwits in opposition at the time says:

      Who also voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Iraq War again ?

      Like

      • 100
        Mr Ned says:

        to repeat what I said in post number 9:

        “The tories (particularly Cameron, Hague, Fox etc) have stuffed up big time on this when they have stated that even knowing then what they know now, they would still have voted for the invasion. They are knowingly supporting a war crime.”

        Like

        • 171
          Senator Bloodn' Gore says:

          No they are supporting troops who, every day, face death. How would you feel as a 19 year-old Squaddie in a barren and hostile land knowing that the Government in whose name you’re trying to kill people didn’t actually support what you’re doing. Cameron and Co., have a duty to support the decision to support the action – they are, however, screwing with the minds of many in my country who hold sway on Capitol Hill by their insistence that UK troops will be leaving, commencing next year.

          Like

          • Mr Ned says:

            Bullshit!

            “No they are supporting troops who, every day, face death. How would you feel as a 19 year-old Squaddie in a barren and hostile land knowing that the Government in whose name you’re trying to kill people didn’t actually support what you’re doing.”

            I did not trust politicians who exploited the dead of 9/11 to lie to justify an invasion, a war of aggression, a crime against peace, the supreme war crime. I was investigating the legal justification and wieghing this against the evidence for that justification at the time, and IF Saddam had retained his WMD, then I would have been in favour of the war and there would NOT be any of this feeling of the war being wrong.

            However, NONE of the evidence the British or the American Governments forwarded at the time to justify the invasion stood up to even the most cursory examination. It was utter bullshit.

            Baring this in mind, I would have applied my legal obligation to refuse an illegal order and been a conscientious objector to the invasion of Iraq. I would have been prepared to stand trial and receive a dishonourable discharge and face a long prison term in support of my beliefs.

            And as for how these troops feel? Do you really care? How do you feel about all the troops who have returned home scarred for life and those who have committed suicide because they now know that they killed innocent people because of their commander in chief LYING to them and sending them to kill or be killed in an illegal and unnecessary war?

            The invasion was a crime against peace, the supreme war crime and all the available evidence supports that.

            Supporting the invasion means supporting and being in favour of this supreme war crime.

            There is a difference between saying, ”

            “we supported it based on the intelligence we were given by the government at the time, but now realise that this intelligence was wrong, and so the basis for the invasion was wrong, so we now call for the arrest and trial of the perpetrators of this supreme war crime and we work with the Iraqi Government to right the wrongs caused by this. We recognise that the intentions of these people was, in their own minds, honourable and they wanted to do the right thing, but that cannot justify the supreme war crime.”

            And saying, “if we knew then what we know now we would still have voted for war” knowing now that there was NO legal justification for the war.

            However, perhaps the tories still do believe that 1441 was justification enough? It wasn’t and the alleged breaches by Iraq were based on provable lies, but they would be retaining a consistent story at least.

            Like

          • Susie says:

            John Major said that having been PM himself and privy to lots of intelligence which couldn’t be discussed in Parliament in his time, he thought Blair was in the same position i.e. knew stuff about Iraq and Saddam which couldn’t be published and had made an informed decision.

            Major said it would never have crossed his mind that a PM would bullshit about intelligence which meant the country went to war. We now know Major was wrong.

            Like

      • 127
        Batty Hattie Harmanescu says:

        Because hey knew, just as Blair knew, that to ignore the US demand to join in the war would mean that the US could pull the plug on us.

        By pulling the plug I mean shutting us out of Echelon, shutting down communications for our armed forces, revoking or denying software licences, the list is endless.

        We are a wholly owned subsidiary of the US, best we remember that.

        Having said that, if Cameron had any balls at all, he would have told them to do their worst. It is inconceivable, that in excess of 1 million people worked out that Iraq was no threat and the dodgy dossier was just that; dodgy. But the Tories with all the resource at their disposal believed the lies.

        The there are those who maintain that the invasion was the right thing to do. Really? This suggests that Iraq is a freedom loving democarcy with a bright future. Think on.

        Like

        • 164
          Susie says:

          So basically our foreign policy is decided by the USA, while our domestic policy is decided by the EU. And just wait when the US and the EU decide to have a scrap over who controls the UK… poor Little Britain.

          When will one of our prime ministers grow a pair?

          Like

      • 150
        Sir Everard Digby says:

        I see,so nothing to do with Blair then -nasty Tories the cause of the problem. Re-writing history again are we?. He had a majority of 246 – He won the war vote by 412 to 149. There were believed to be 83 Labour no votes – still enough Labour yes votes to walk it even if all the Tories had voted against the war.

        Could it be they believed a Prime Minister would not lie to Parliament? Not the only ones taken in were they?

        Like

        • 177
          Senator Bloodn' Gore says:

          There is a historic convention in your Mother of Parliaments that the Opposition support the Governing party in matters of conflict and the declaration of war no matter what their own thoughts on the matter. It has existed for well over 300 years, it is intended to reassure the armed forces that the war that they are obliged to fight is legal and just. Cameron and Co, no matter what their personal convictions were obliged to offer support. It is the remit of any UK Government in this situation to carry their own party which, in this case, they did. If you want to post on political blogs take the trouble to understand the democracy that you live in. In the US all kids are taught the process of Government in school – not that any of the little thugs understand it.

          Like

          • Mr Ned says:

            I was not aware of that convention.

            This makes no difference to the legal status of the invasion.

            Like

          • Susie says:

            He’s right, it has been the convention. Because the Opposition has to trust the PM’s judgment on a matter as important as taking the country to war.

            Until Tony Blair… who’s trashed any trust or confidence which used to exist in the PM’s judgment, probably forever.

            Like

    • 144
      Red Ed Militant - Let's invade private industry says:

      It was all a conspiricy by the computer games industry. Let’s face it, without the Iraq invasion, billions of dollars would not have been spent on them depriving the UK and US governments of millions of tax dollars.

      Like

    • 204
      Harriet, Vicar of Bray says:

      I’m clapping because doing so may help myself and Jack in the future.

      Like

    • 210
      Up sh1t creek says:

      Ah yes, but that’s nothing compared to Hazel Blears describing Labour as a “nasty” party, then getting caught out when she denied she was describing Labour.

      Oops.

      Like

      • 231
        Mr Ned says:

        ROFL!!!

        That is BRILLIANT!!!

        Caught in her own blatant lie!

        Like

        • 248
          Can't remember my moniker says:

          Problem is that it won’t stop her. She does not know any other way and you can tell from her demeanour that she is so high on whatever she is on that not all the fields in Afghanistan could supply it.

          Like

  2. 2
    Mr Ned says:

    International law is very clear on the legal recourse to war.

    IF, as they claim, the war was wrong, it must be unjustifiable, therefore it must also be unlawful.

    They are branding their former colleagues as war criminals. There is no middle ground in law on this.

    When are they going to bee seeking the arrest of Blair et al?

    If they do NOT seek Blair’s arrest, then they do not mean it.

    Like

    • 69
      sockpuppet #4 says:

      you are piddling about with semantics.
      “War crime” has a very strong meaning.

      “not doing what the UN says”, or “declaring war without the right list of reasons” is probably illegal (in whose law books? world governments?), but it hardly fits in the definition of “war crime”.

      Like

      • 110
        Mr Ned says:

        Invasion of a sovereign state without lawful justification is not only a war crime, but is the supreme war crime.

        As for individual war crimes, well check out BBC’s iPlayer.

        If you watched Panorama on Monday you would have seen our military top brass admitting publicly that individual war crimes were committed by our troops in Iraq in 2003.

        You would have seen War crimes being committed on video. You would have seen troops who committed those crimes ADMITTING to committing those war crimes on camera. You would also have seen evidence of the MOD’s attempts to cover-up those war crimes. So war crimes DID undoubtedly take place. The troops admit it, the chain of command admits it. The only person who still denies it, even after being shown the crimes taking place on video, is Geoff Hoon.

        So war crimes have already been proven to have taken place.

        As for the supreme war crime, well I await Blair’s trial with interest.

        Let’s allow the court in the Hague decide that outcome.

        Like

        • 188
          sockpuppet #4 says:

          you’ve got the definition wrong.

          And now you’re shifting to individual soldiers doing low level things that do class as “war crimes”

          Like

          • sockpuppet #4 says:

            Its often useful to step back and say “why am i following this line, is it logical”. Maybe it is, maybe not.

            However, I am mainly accusing Ned of rhetoric and sound-bitery. wonder when I got so irritated by such things.

            Like

      • 129
        bergen says:

        Mr Ned is correct.The making of an illegal war(ie not self defence or not authorised by the UN whether as war or necessary enforcement of UN resolutions) constitutes a war crime and has since 1945.

        Like

        • 257
          Concrete Hammer says:

          When you’re the worlds most powerful industrial and military country you need not overly concern yourself with the opinion of the corrupt talking shop that is the UN.As for the bunch of silk wearing professional overpaid legal bullshitters just sit back and laugh in their face because other then make a little bit of noise they can do absolutely nothing. They have been exposed for what they are bags of taxpayer founded hot air and human rights parasites.     

          Like

    • 75
      Spug says:

      I think Pop Idol is wrong but it don’t make it a war crime
      too many huge leaps in logic

      Like

      • 136
        Mr Ned says:

        International law states a war of aggression IS not only a war-crime, but is THE SUPREME war crime.

        Invading another sovereign country without legal justification is a war of aggression which is the supreme war crime.

        We are signed up to these international laws as we are signitories to the Charter of the United Nations.. Ironically these are part of the SAME international laws which we were trying to use as justification for the invasion in the first place.

        “The relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations mentioned in the RSICC article 5.2 were framed to include the Nuremberg Principles. The specific principle is Principle VI.a “Crimes against peace”, which was based on the provisions of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal that was issued in 1945 and formed the basis for the post World War II war crime trials”

        The invasion of Iraq does count as a “Crime against peace” as defined in the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.

        “In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle 6, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:[8][9]

        (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
        (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). ”

        The invasion of Iraq was utterly unlawful and Ed has admitted it!

        Like

      • 145
        Mr Ned says:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

        Read and learn what constitutes a war of aggression.

        If (as Ed implies) UN resolution 1441 no longer acts as justification for the invasion of another sovereign state, then the invasion constitutes a war of aggression according to the Nuremburg principles as laid out in the United Nations Charter, of which we are a signatory nation and are fully subject to those laws, treaties and agreements. This constitutes a crime against peace, which is the supreme war crime.

        Like

        • 175
          Judge Jeffreys says:

          Well said Mr Ned. If there were any justice Blair and his fellow travellers would be in the dock. But there is little justice today.

          Like

  3. 3
    Ellie Gellard says:

    Dear co-conspiritor,

    Guido Fawkes will be in the ‘Freedom Zone’ at this year’s Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham, and we’d love you to come along and join us.

    The best part is you don’t need to have a conference pass to attend any of the talks or events taking place at the Austin Court venue, and you’ll be able to meet the team, pick up some of our latest literature, and learn about other like-minded think tanks and campaigns.

    It all kicks off at 9am on Monday 4th October and comes to a close on the evening of Tuesday 5th October. There’s a packed programme with lots of interesting topics up for debate, an impressive array of guest speakers, a good mix of stalls and – gladly – plenty of opportunities to socialise.

    Like

    • 132
      unablogger says:

      Blimey, the exact blurb I got from the Taxpayer’s Alliance in an email…must be catching

      Like

    • 162
      Senator Bloodn' Gore says:

      Red Ellie, sorry Bevanite Ellie, when did you change political affiliation? Mixing with Libertarian right wing Tories? Ah well a free trip to glorious Brum is enough to change anyone’s policies. MINI – Band might have done better had the LPC been held in the West Midlands rather than Manchester – more canals than Venice.

      Like

  4. 5

    Milidand D’s position is not principled it is politically positioning.

    Too many long-download ads Guido. I’m off.

    Like

  5. 7

    Harman wouldn’t know what a principle was if it drove up in a limosine.

    http://fxbites.blogspot.com/2010/09/exit-stage-right.html

    Like

  6. 10
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    Come on , We all know that she was bullied into it by Gordon and our Tone and Mossad , Leave the rich bitch alone

    Like

  7. 11
    • 35
      Woof! says:

      Lol, she is the most 2 faced cow imaginable, she was in the Times on Saturday doing a one answer only pop poll and the question was Pretty Woman or Ghost, she said, I cannot pick Pretty Woman as it glamorises the lives of prostitutes, what a dismal mechanical creature she is.

      Like

    • 42
    • 161
      Twunk Watch says:

      I hear that Dromey is trying for the Lab Shad Cab, Woodley et al will then have a mate in attendance, how nice for them!

      Like

      • 252
        Lady Virginia Droit de Seigneur says:

        If Dromey gets into the Shadow Cabinet it will show just how powerful Unite is in this Labour party.

        Anyone who has seen him on TV will know his a tedious no-mark who just mouths what the unions want to hear.

        Plus it is impossible to respect a man who has shagged the two faced hypocrite Harridan Harpie

        Like

  8. 19
    Four-eyed English Genius says:

    Next she will claiming that a woman’s place is in the kitchen after all, and she has always thought that!

    Like

  9. 21
    Ed Miliband says:

    I was and am completely against the invasion of Iraq. I do not support invading any country that may or may not have WMD unless it is in the Middle East and starts with an I and ends with a Q

    Like

    • 178
      Justine says:

      Oooh I’m so excited! Ed’s said he’s going to marry me (he didn’t say whether it’ll be before or after I’ve popped his sprog)… he’s not only the king of the Labour Party, he’s a king of romance too.

      It must have been the £2000 make-over I had done for the conference paid for by the Parteh which prompted him to see me in a new light, he wasn’t bothered either way before…

      It’s wonderful to know he really loves me for myself and not just because of his job.

      Like

  10. 22
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    Look if David M thought it was right and still does then fair play , I disagree with him but at least he is consistant

    Like

  11. 27
    Steve Miliband says:

    Why on earth didn’t Miliband E stand up and be counted if he disagreed with so much that went on when he was in Government?

    Fucking chancer

    Like

    • 40
      BBC excuse-maker-in-chief says:

      Look, will you be told. He had PRIVATE reservations. Get that? Private reservations.

      So private in fact that nobody else knew.

      Like

    • 80
      Mr Ned says:

      He was not an MP in 2003. He did not get a vote. He was a SpAd to Gordon Brown.

      What my contention is, under international law, Ed cannot claim that the war was wrong, or unjustified and yet claim that it was legal. If it was unjustified, then even the argued breach of 1441 did NOT justify the invasion. Without that technical legal justification, then the pre-meditated invasion of another sovereign state is the supreme war crime.

      There is no crime in law anywhere on this planet more serious than the supreme war crime.

      How the hell can you just “draw a line under it and move on”? IF it were even legally (never mind morally) possible to do that, then there is NO CRIME ON EARTH that should be punished either.

      By trying to justify their own colleagues complicity in the supreme war crime, they are also justifying ALL crimes, even their own murders. For an individual murder is less serious in law than the supreme war crime.

      The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

      Are they REALLY justifying their own brutal murders?

      Like

      • 260
        Concrete Hammer says:

        Mr Ned,

        No one is going to be punished for the inasion of Iraq. If the United States says that it was OK and justified then thats the way it is. They are the worlds strongest military and industrial country which means they can basically do what they want and no bunch of corrupt UN numpties can stop them.

        Ultimately Might is Right. The F35 is more poweful then the pen.

        Like

  12. 32
    They're all smug, sneering, Celt cunts at the BBC, 'cept Kuenssberg whom I wish to bum intensely says:

    Another puffed up, ludicrous cu’nt:

    Like

  13. 36
    Jen says:

    God, I’m horny.

    Like

  14. 37
    genghiz the khan says:

    Harriet Harman the first female Vicar of Bray.

    Funnily enough one tax avoiding socialist meets another with a tax avoiding husband.

    http://www.daylife.com/photo/0aQ5fmJ5cL4KE?q=Helle+Thorning-Schmidt+%28politician%29

    Red Ed and Mrs Stephan Kinnock, must have a lot to talk about, one could advise the other on avoiding IHT, whilst the other knows a great deal about non domicled tax rules.

    A pair of useless hypocritcal Hunts.

    Like

  15. 38
    The Court of Public Opinion says:

    Priciples?
    Brave Jack Straw voted for it too – the guy who’s father was so against war he went to jail rather than fight in one: http://tinyurl.com/ygv3pvp
    Jack heroically sat this one out safely pampered back in Blighty though, preferring to send younger gullibles out to pointlessly die in some desert.

    Like

  16. 39
    Doc Trough says:

    Would somebody at Lab10 oblige me by investigating the effects of say, a pint of table salt poured directly upon this creature. I expect there to be a foamin’ and a slimein’ but it would be nice to have confirmation.

    Like

  17. 44
    LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM says:

    Like

  18. 46
    genghiz the khan says:

    What D Miliped really said. “You voted for it, why are you crapping on me?”

    Like

  19. 47
    In my opinion says:

    Harriet Harman is one of the most wretched, despicable, slimy, dishonest, vile, odious, repugnant, loathsome and detestable c-unts on the face of the planet, and I wish her utter agony and misery.

    Like

  20. 51
    They're all smug, sneering, Celt cunts at the BBC, 'cept Kuenssberg whom I wish to bum intensely says:

    Guido, Les Cummings is a real whack job.

    He is claiming/alleging the Police Officer who arrested him (DS Nicola Turton) with two cunstables and took his PC is a personal friend of HandonCock.

    He has also sent a stream of juvenile emails to DS Turton of Fareham Police nobbers.

    Like

  21. 52
    Anonymous says:

    Harriet Harman, QC, MP, added: “And my husband agrees with me.”

    Like

    • 63
      They're all smug, sneering, Celt cunts at the BBC, 'cept Kuenssberg whom I wish to bum intensely says:

      Her husband is a robot

      Like

  22. 56
    Engineer says:

    It’s not really of much value suggesting that things would be done differently in similar circumstances if they were to arise. They won’t arise in that form again – whatever threats to the security of the Realm are current, and may arise in the future, they’ll be in a different form. Even the apparent similarities with the Iran nuclear threat are not close – the geo-political background is significantly different.

    What the electorate needs to know is that a governing Labour party led by Ed Miliband will act in the country’s best interests, including the use of military force if necessary (but only if necessary). Not sure that yesterday’s events told us very much on that score.

    Like

  23. 57
    they knew they were lying so it's a warcrime says:

    Like

    • 199
      Mr Ned says:

      Yup, they lied. Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN was filled with KNOWN lies.

      These shits should be in jail.

      Like

  24. 58
    Tony B Liar says:

    Iraq has made me and my wife, my fat suicidal daughter and my two arrogant talentless sons very rich. Thank you to all the dead soldiers and dead Iraqis.

    Like

    • 79
      Tony B Liar says:

      Look, (pause), the hand of destiny was on my shoulder (not in my back … Ed).

      Never is the field of human conflict have so many lives and limbs been given by so many for so few.

      Like

      • 273
        Tony B Liar says:

        Ok, so, yah, maybe some lives were lost, right? Ok, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives, yah. And, maybe some people were tortured by Americans.

        But, right, at least I’m ritch, you know?

        Like

  25. 64
    Old Nick says:

    Enjoy it while it lasts Tony. I’ve resevered a special place for you.

    Like

  26. 68
    That was nothing to do with her;she was just in the government says:

    Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time and for the wrong reason.Saddam was a nasty peice of work that’s accepted and he killed thousands of his own people but he was not an imminent risk to anybody else.He was contained.If anybody had bothered to ask Hans Blix or other the UN Weapons Inspectors they would have said that his WMD were so much hot air designed to big himself up with his own population and within the region.He was acting as a counterbalance to Iran,the more dangerous country in the region.Al-Q was anathema to the Bathists,There were no Al-Q insurgents in Iraq prior to the invasion by the US and its allies.

    By going into Iraq we made Iran the superpower in the region AND then to compound that stupidity we sat by and allowed the Americans to disband the Iraq Army putting thousands of trained well armed and disgruntled men on the streets ready to act as insurgents;we sat by as the yanks dismantled the Bathist Regime without putting anything in the vacuum created and get rid of thonly effective governtmental structure in the country instead of following the practice we follwed in Nazi Germany after the war i.e. using ex-Nazis initially and then gradually weeding those that were guilty of war crimes out of the system.After liberating Baghdad the Americans just stood by and allowed civil unrest;looting etc to take place.They didn’t seal the borders to stop Iranian agitators and Al-Q terrorist to infiltrate.Instead we got Rumsfield pulling out troops and Bush grandstanding on an Aircraft Carrier.And before we Brits gloat we hardly covered ourselves in glory in Basra either.

    The fact is that the war in Iraq was the biggest UK Foreign Policy mistake since Suez and anyone within the government of the time and that includes Harman who was wholeheartedly in favour to now when it suits wash her hands of that decision is being an hypocrite of the first order. It reminds me of just shortly after WW2 when any german you met was adamant that they weren’t a Nazi and that they had nothing to do with Hitler rising to power,Funny that and here’s me thinking he actually got a majority at the last free elections in 1933

    Like

    • 83
      Mr Ned says:

      Correct, so when is Ed going to call for Blair to be tried for war crimes then?

      Like

    • 109
      (Hideously) White Van Man says:

      good analysis when will we see this in the Guardian or on the BBC?

      Like

    • 203
      Anonymous says:

      Excellent post #68

      I should also add that a terrorist strike similar to 9/11 had been predicted in some works of fiction prior to the event , notably by Tom Clancy in a Novel written in 1996.

      This was widely recognised after 9/11 however the US government despite this failed to recognise another of Clancys “predictions” forming part of the plot in the same book.

      This concerned the assaination of Saddam Hussain and the consequences which followed his removal , which was the rise of Iran who became an even bigger threat without the counterbalance of Iraq.

      The novel is well worth a read its called “Executive Orders”

      Like

  27. 71
    Anonymous says:

    somehow found this on twatter, worth a look

    http://yfrog.com/epwowtpj

    Like

  28. 73
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    Mossad made her do it !

    Like

    • 243
      Mossad says:

      Actually no, it was our new agent MosesEd wot did it. Trouble is being Joo–ish he got all his orders from the old (Labour) testament. He despises the new (labour) testament and their lies and fiction and its adherence to the new God Tone, even those who claimed to support the new prophet like his bruvva. He is in favour of circumsizing all new Labour types once they have a(toned) for their sins. Unfortunately, it was necessary to stab some (new) testament apostles in the back following his damascene conversion and David got his Lot (pillock of salt).

      MosesEd is now hoping that the fodder in the field (unions) vote his fellow Giddy-on-something-ites so he can form a shadowy left government of the future. Among our agents expected to win Seats in the shadow cabinet (Ed should be offering british cars for british workers, the shi-ite – Gordon) are Harridan Harm-man, our internet spy MosheDyane Ab-bot and Carolying Bint.

      Like

  29. 76
    Anonymous says:

    You are a fool if you listen to some one and go to war. Our solders should have requested our MPs who voted for the war to go in the front line.

    Like

  30. 77
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    I dont why but i am feeling a bit of respect for David M

    Like

    • 87
      Respect says:

      Its ok, you’ll get over it when you see his oleaginous perma-smile again. Its his own fault for not challenging Brown when he could have, for assuming that he would win and for trusting an utter sheister like his bruvva.

      Like

      • 99
        Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

        Its ok , I just remebered he signed the Lisbon treaty with Brown , Any little bit of respect i did have has gone .

        Like

  31. 78
    Legal Weasel says:

    The Iraq war may have been wrong, distasteful, even immoral.

    But it was not illegal.

    We had no treaty with Iraq and there is no fully-accepted, international law that is therefore relevant.

    Like

    • 86
      Mr (Red) Ed - The talking Horses' Arse says:

      Harman will suck Mandy’s cock in Hell

      Like

    • 88
      Mr Ned says:

      Only both of our signatures on the UN, rendering us subject to International law, you dipshit!

      Like

    • 111
      Doc Trough says:

      Breached not one, but TWO chapters of the UN charter, to which US and UK are signatories n’est çe pas?

      Like

    • 157
      Mr Ned says:

      War of aggression (Crimes against peace) according to the Nuremberg principles as laid out in the UN Charter:

      In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle 6, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:[8][9]

      (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
      (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

      A war of aggression is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a war crime under the customary international law.

      The Convention for the Definition of Aggression

      On July 3, 1933, the first convention that defined aggression was signed in London by representatives of Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Turkey, USSR, Iran and Afghanistan. It was initiated by Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov in response to threats of use of force by the German government following Hitler’s rise to power.[2] The government of Finland acceded to the convention on January 31, 1934. The convention defined an act of aggression as follows:

      * Declaration of war upon another State.
      * Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.
      * Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.
      * Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State.
      * Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

      If UN Security council resolution 1441 is no longer the justification for the invasion of the sovereign territory of Iraq, then the invasion is a war of aggression, a war against peace, the supreme war crime.

      Like

    • 160
      Batty Hattie Harmanescu says:

      Elizabeth Wilmshurst begs to differ.

      Like

      • 170
        Sarf of the River says:

        It was great watching her give her piece at the fudge inquiry.

        It’s a shame there aren’t more like her.

        Like

  32. 82
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    I wonder if David crosses the floor would the coalition take him ?

    Like

    • 103
      They're all smug, sneering, Celt cunts at the BBC, 'cept Kuenssberg whom I wish to bum intensely says:

      I wonder if you would fuck off you boring cu’nt

      Like

  33. 85
    Voice of Treason says:

    Leave her alone, she was simply clapping with the main audience.
    Iraq was a fucking disaster, an illegal war, a war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, including thousands of children – and for what! A nation that cannot now even produce enough electricity and with Al Queda now waiting in the wings for all troops to go.

    Blair the war crook, the toady of Bush. a fucking pair of self serving millionaires, laughing all the way to their banks.

    Like

    • 107
      They're all smug, sneering, Celt cunts at the BBC, 'cept Kuenssberg whom I wish to bum intensely says:

      These Labourites truly despise those who get in their way.

      Dead Troops, dead Iraqis, Dr Kelly, they all combined to damage their ability to govern the British sheep

      Like

    • 272
      Judge Jeffreys says:

      So what was she fucking clapping for? What were the rest of the lefty Hunts clapping for?

      Fuck them all.

      Like

  34. 90
    statechaos says:

    Just months ago, in the run up to the election , Hattie was talking up Labour’s terrific record after 13 wonderful years in office. Clearly the lady’s hot for turning. Meanwhile Red Ed wrote a crap election manifesto which was all about spending not cuts, planted Gillian Duffy on the campaign trail to put the final nail into Brown’s career, and plotted to use the Iraq war to usurp big brother David. Now we have a Labour party that sound and feels very much like Old Labour. Many of the new generation of Labour MPs are left-wingers such as Trade Unionist Jack Dromey, Hattie’s husband.

    Like

  35. 91
    junior asprin says:

    I bet Harmann has never owned up to a fart

    she is just a vile human being

    Like

    • 96
      tit says:

      Harman is a two faced hypocrite of the first water…add the ‘all women shortlisted’ hubbie to the equation and you have the complete package…. a pair of self serving c’unts

      Like

  36. 93
    Rat's Arse says:

    Iraq was an illegal war by virtue of the fact they had NO legal right to do it. Then Liar said well it was OK because Sadam Hussien was a bad man. I wonder what the bastard would have had to say if another country didn’t like him, so decided to bomb the shite out of us. What really upsets me most however is our dead soldiers, who died for a bloody lie and one man’s utter vanity. Also, he aint done bad out of Iraq has he? Blood money indeed. How I hate him and ALL the Labour bastards.

    Like

  37. 94
    David Miliband says No2AV says:

    The woman is a nasty piece of work. A complete hypocrite who has sold wimmin rights down the river.

    Like

  38. 95
    Voice of Treason says:

    Oh, and don’t forget you fucking morons – Cameron and the Tories supported the war. Just in case you’ve overlooked that!

    Like

    • 97
      Evie Lennon says:

      I have not forgotten it VOT and never will.

      Like

    • 102
      Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

      Yes we know but the T*ries are not flip-flopping over it .

      Like

    • 113
      tit says:

      Given the dossier and the seriousness believed to have been exercised in analysing the detail it would have been unthinkable that an opposition would vote against a government undertaking such as Iraq.

      Cameron would not have supported the war if he had known the shallow nature of the advice but frankly who would have thought any government could have been so singularly inept and machiavellian when it came to war…this most disgusting piece of political manoeuvring by the Labour hierarchy beggars belief.

      Like

      • 169
        Batty Hattie Harmanescu says:

        So now they know the shallow nature of the advice, why are they not going after the perpetrators?

        Hundreds of thousdand of people in the UK worked out well in advance of the invasion that is wa based on a tissue of lies. Cameron, with all the resources at his disposal could not have come to the same conclusion?

        Like

        • 205
          the old Dufflebag says:

          Hundreds of thousands of people knew the dossier was dodge pot…think that is doubtful given the speed it was launched and acted upon..Cameron and the libdems were fed the same package.

          Like

          • Mr Ned says:

            Millions of people at the time had worked out that there was no legal justification for invading Iraq.

            The British and American government had spent many months trying to make a case for the war and they consistently failed. Their lies were exposed at the time as soon as they said them. From Aluminium tubes, to yellowcake from Nigeria to the dodgy dossiers. All were proven to be false before the invasion.

            The American Administration was even prepared to commit a high crime (impeachable offence) and out a serving undercover CIA operation who were tasked with preventing the proliferation of WMD, in order to protect their own lies.

            I shall say that again in another way for clarity. The American administration deliberately hurt their own ability to prevent the proliferation of WMD, by outing Valerie Plame and her team, in order to punish her husband for exposing the administration’s OWN lies about Iraq’s WMDs.

            This is how desperate they were, when they failed to convince the UN security council of the need for an invasion, they invaded anyway, in breach of international law, according to the UN’s own lawyers and their former Secretary General, Kofi Annan, at the time.

            Like

          • Batty Hattie Harmanescu says:

            Remember there were two dodgy dossiers. Even before the first one was published a member of the government was interviewed on the Today program about the late appearance of the document. It was clear from the line of questioning that someone, maybe Andrew Gilligan, had the inside story on this dossier.

            Many people took to the streets to protest after the release of the dodgy dossier and before the invasion. Some may have been pacifists, the vast majority I would suggest, simply did not believe Blair and his dossier.

            Like

    • 119
      Anonymous says:

      Supported Blair’s war you mean?

      Like

    • 138
      Milli-Vanilli says:

      The Tories did not write the dodgy dossier. Sorry, but maybe you liebor idiots would like to blame Maggie for the war she usually gets the blame for everything so why stop now. Get a life, liebor bent us over the table and gave us a good shafting for 13 years and all you liebor lifers want is more of the same. New Labour/New Generation Labour all the same thing as far as I am concerned, local vets unite in Manchester and put them out of their misery.

      Like

      • 176
        The political class can kiss my arse says:

        The Cons voted for it like the robots they are.

        I think there is some sort of unwritten agreement that war issues are given the nod through. That is not a reason to vote for it in the way they did however.

        Sheep have more morals.

        They were all in it together and you know it.

        Like

        • 208
          Mr Ned says:

          A lot of prominent tories voted against the war, Kenneth Clarke included.

          Labour still had a majority of it’s MPs support it based on the lies that Blair told at the time.

          Blair is the one main man who was responsible for our troops being ordered to take part in a crime against peace. Our military commanders were given false legal justification for doing so at the time.

          Like

        • 209
          the old Dufflebag says:

          I fail to see the benefit to the opposition of going to war…the tories were fed the same line as everyone else…45 minutes wmd etc etc. To believe that Blair would present and act upon such hollow constructed intelligence is really quite difficult to understand or believe but he did.

          Like

          • Bliar Bliar pants on fire says:

            Millions up and down the country listened and watched Blair in the run up and didn’t believe him.

            It’s a shame the MPs took the action they did.

            Like

    • 174
      The political class can kiss my arse says:

      Not forgotten and never will be.

      Like

  39. 98
    In my opinion says:

    If I had my way, Harman would be locked in a windowless room with John Prescott after he’s had three vindaloos.

    Like

    • 128
      Anonymous says:

      and some Viagra

      Like

    • 191
      simon r says:

      No – put her in Gordon’s padded cell after you kept him off the pills for a week and given him 50 expressos.

      Make sure there are lots of sharp implements around and footage of Blair meeting Obama on a video loop.

      Like

  40. 106
    In my opinion says:

    I love the sour look on her face. For once, she hasn’t got that horribly smug expression she usually has.

    Like

    • 114
      BillyBob - Ooman Rights Legislation, just a load of bollocks!! says:

      Not the nicest of wimmen, I wonder if she insists on her husband sitting on the loo to have a pee??

      Like

  41. 114
    In Europe and Ruled by Europe... says:

    Milliband D has gone up in my estimations by attacking that two faced old crone Harman.

    Like

    • 118
      BillyBob - Ooman Rights Legislation, just a load of bollocks!! says:

      “two faced old crone” ?? surely you are being too kind !!

      Like

      • 259
        Grumpy Old Man says:

        Notice that Miliband Major and the Badger were supporting their deputy leader by trying not to pee in their pants. no wonder Harriet was applauding Ed last night.

        Like

  42. 117
    Anonymous says:

    So Harriet Harman believes the right thing to do is applaude on the overidding principle that “he is our leader”. Never mind the lives given by our service men and women , forget the horrific injuries many have endured, it is of no consequence that it was her who voted for this all to occur. Harriet Harman has shown herself to be an utter utter utter C UNT !!!!

    Like

    • 123
      BillyBob - Ooman Rights Legislation, just a load of bollocks!! says:

      Come on !! Do you really believe that Ms Harperson or anyone else in Labour, actually gives a toss about our servicemen and women??

      Like

    • 220
      In Europe and Ruled by Europe... says:

      Quite – if Milliband E had announced his opposition to Harman’s Equality Act nonsense, would she still have clapped? I doubt it very much, even though he would still have been the leader. Her clapping during that section of the speech show that she cared not a jot about the implications of her support for the decision to go to war. TWO FACED OLD CRONE.

      Like

  43. 121
    Adios nulab. says:

    We’ve had the Deputy leader of the coalition and country calling it an “illegal war” from the government front bench. We now have the new leader of The Labour Party (the party that took us to war!) saying it was wrong.All those who voted Labour should consider themselves war criminals along with the all those in government that supported it.

    Like

    • 125
      BillyBob - Ooman Rights Legislation, just a load of bollocks!! says:

      There are some of us here that suggested Old Tone was/is a war criminal years ago !!

      Like

    • 211
      Professor Henry Brubaker, Institute for Studies says:

      Does that include those who voted for him in 1997 (like me) or is it just those who Voted in 2005 (not like me)?

      Given a Crystal ball back in 1997 im sure most people would not have voted for Blair, but we didnt have one and the nation was generally tired of 18 years of the tories and the ‘sleaze’ (ha, compare tory sleaze 90’s style to the total excess of the champagne socialsists!). however perhaps by 2001 and certainly in 2005 there was no fucking excuse.

      New labour deserve abject humiliation, prosecution, destruction and possiblly rectal cancer for all they have doe to this nation. Ed Millibands new new labour are just new labour with a slightly different hat on.

      Like

    • 216
      Mr Ned says:

      I am in the clear as I opposed the Iraq war at the time based on the available evidence, and I have never voted labour!

      Like

  44. 124
    Anonymous says:

    Let us pretend the following :

    A Conservative PM instructs HM Ambassador in Washington to get right up Bush’s backside and stay there. A Conservative PM tells Bush “we are with you all the way” and then concocts what our learned friends usually describe as a “tissue of lies”. With an eye to future Dollar earnings (in which he has been brilliantly successful) he then deceives Parliament into joining Bush’s war. Can anyone begin to imagine what would have been the reaction of the entire Labour Party their supporters and their friends in the media?

    Like

    • 131
      BillyBob - Ooman Rights Legislation, just a load of bollocks!! says:

      They would do what they always do, take the opposite stance. They, labour, even failed to support our only legal conflict in recent years, the Falklands War !!

      Like

      • 217
        Mr Ned says:

        The only conflict since the Battle of Britain that actually was fought for the direct defence ON British territory.

        you are right, they opposed it and would have given the Falkland Islands to the Argentinian military dictator.

        Labour have never understood morality or honour!

        Like

  45. 133
    gildedtumbril says:

    Red ed has all the charisma of a box of ladies blotters. What a geek of a creep.
    Any silly bastard who ever votes for his bunch of traitors deserves what they will get. His ‘change’ amounts to a lack of change in one’s pocket. Plus, of course, having to bail out the banksters at fairly frequent intervals.

    Like

    • 143
      Voice of Treason says:

      I take your point but hang on a minute. What charisma has potato face Cameron got? And even worse Clegg for fuck’s sake! We now have three similar looking leaders – men in suits. G** fucking help us!

      Like

      • 255
        Grumpy Old Man says:

        Watch him on major speeches. To paraphrase a certain cinema magnate,”If you can fake Charisma, you’ve got it made.”

        Like

  46. 134
    Voice of Treason says:

    I like the video. You’ve got to give to Hague he knows just how put the knife in with brilliant humour and absolute effectiveness.

    Like

  47. 135
    Jack Dromey says:

    Harriet changed her mind again and swore black was white. Tell me about it Guido, tell me about it.

    Like

    • 140
      BillyBob - Ooman Rights Legislation, just a load of bollocks!! says:

      For f*cks sake, be a man and give ‘er a good slapping !!

      Like

  48. 137
    The most horrific people infecting British politics today says:

    A gallery of absolute grotesques.

    Harriet Harman
    Ed Miliband
    David Miliband
    Mike Hancock
    Dy Yann Fat Bott
    Tim Yeo
    Ed Balls
    Margaret Beckett
    Sadiq Khan
    Keith Vaz
    Oona King
    Yvette Cooper
    Ben Bradshaw
    Liam Byrne
    Caroline Flint
    Hazel Blears
    Caroline Spelman
    Tom Watson
    Dennis Skinner
    John Prescott
    John Bercow
    Gordon Brown

    Like

    • 146
      BillyBob - Ooman Rights Legislation, just a load of bollocks!! says:

      I have to agree with you there, all the odious ‘members’ that make me switch off everytime they come on the box !!

      Like

    • 148
      Voice of Treason says:

      You forgot that cunning c-unt Yeo.

      Like

    • 179
      fuck off muzzies says:

      Am surprised there aren’t more muzzies. They’d sooner stab you in the back than shit on you, especially if you aren’t a fucking muzzie.

      In fact they want to kill non believers.

      Nice bunch.

      Like

    • 226
      In Europe and Ruled by Europe... says:

      Wot, no Diane Abbott?? She who sent her kids to private school because her local schools we not up to scratch, but would so have made a different decision if she had had to make it today following NuLabour investments in education. As if. A true socialist in action.

      Like

  49. 141
    HenryV says:

    I love how all you learned people talk of international law. It is an abstract. Supranational organisations only have transient legitimacy. For example if the French don’t like a piece of EU legislation they ignore it. If the US with world’s best trained and best equipped armed forces wants to ignore the UN they will ignore the UN. Neither supranational organisation has the ability to enforce their rule.

    Like

  50. 151
    Red Ed Militant says:

    We’re all being optimistic together

    Like

  51. 152
    NotW_scumbag says:

    I’m beginning to think guido is actually a bit thick.

    The Iraq war is a strategic disaster, which has greatly strengthened Iran.

    It has also enabled Iraqi religious nutjobs, set back progress in womens’ rights for a generation or more and displaced about 4 million people.

    British troops have died for Blair’s lies, but guido thinks it was worthwhile to get rid of Saddam. What a complete tosser.

    Like

    • 182
      Anonymous says:

      Agreed.

      Like

    • 186
      Anonymous says:

      Agreed

      Like

    • 232
      Groucho says:

      Exactly. Saddam was the only thing keeping the real threat – Iran – in check.

      Like

      • 262
        Grumpy Old Man says:

        FFS!Thank goodness you lot aren’t in charge of the F.O. “Saddam was the only thing keeping the real threat – Iran – in check.” In exactly the way Mussolini kept Hitler in check?
        In the case of Iraq, Tony”snake eyes”Blair lied to the country to get us into an illegal war, and only the Foreign Secretary at that time had the real story and resigned because of it. Everyone else had to trust the PM to tell the truth. BTW, Anyone yet worked out how Saddam managed to “lose” the chemical weapons some of which he had bombarded the Israeli’s with only months earlier? Surely he couldn’t have shoved them across the border to Iran? The Infidel is considered a greater evil than another Muslim, as we have learned to our cost. Such a deal is at least a possibility. Macciavelli and Bismark had much to say about international relations. That would be a good place to start.

        Like

    • 270
      Legion says:

      Agreed

      Like

  52. 156
    JHarriet and Ed defeated David says:

    Facts. Ed is in charge, Harriet is his number two & David is a nobody.

    This came about because Ed talked David out of challenging Gordon and then Ed challenged David having gathered Union backing first. Harriet did not stand for leader as that would have meant losing her deputy leader’s job.

    Politics is a ruthless business and David was not ruthless enough, Harriet and Ed were.

    Like

    • 213
      the old Dufflebag says:

      spot on re harman…she knows if she had run she would have lost and been subsequently rightly consigned to the backwaters…hypocritical two faced c’unt

      Like

  53. 158
    I says:

    Nowt wrong with the Iaq war, it was swift , decisive and little loss of life. Everything wrong with the bloody years that followed.

    Like

    • 187
      Anonymous says:

      In which the war was instrumental in causing!

      Like

      • 222
        Mr Ned says:

        In fact it was designed to cause this mess. It was the intention to “kick the hornet’s nest” and have as many people trying to blow themselves up on the streets of London, Washington, New York, Chicago, etc as possible.

        They were desperately trying to instil as much fear in the population as possible to get them to submit to the biggest theft of ancient rights and liberties ever.

        They underestimated how forgiving the Iraqi people are. Imagine if it had been another country doing to us, or the USA, what we did to Iraq?

        Could you see us just taking those crimes without trying to destroy the attacking country by any means possible?

        Like

  54. 159
    ....has been exiled from Fife because Gordon is back....Shit says:

    Harriet Harmall resigns to take up post as governess to two young brothers….

    Like

  55. 163
    13eastie says:

    MP’s who did not vote for the invasion of Iraq need their heads examining.

    If a belligerent lunatic is brandishing weapons of mass destruction that are able to attack the UK or its allies from the other side of the world in forty-five minutes, I fucking well want somebody to do something about it.

    Like

    • 185
      the last quango in paris says:

      except for he wasn’t, was he? and they all knew that.

      Like

    • 189
      Anonymous says:

      They created the dodgy dossier to justify the unjustifiable you idiot.

      Like

      • 215
        the old Dufflebag says:

        and they didn’t put the dossier together very well either

        Like

      • 266
        13eastie says:

        Anonymong, you are not very bright, are you?

        MP’s have a duty to assume that information presented to them by the Government in the HoC is done so in good faith.

        Sadam’s threat was presented to MP’s as a matter of fact.

        For anyone to ignore such a threat and vote against the invasion was simply to neglect national security.

        Neither the Lib Dems nor any of the other appeasing wimps had any evidence to the contrary. Certainly they have nothing to congratulate themselves about then or now.

        Ditto for anyone posting here.

        The fact that the dossier was a disgraceful and criminal fabrication put together by Campbell is one that could only be known in hindsight.

        Like

    • 198
      Non Sequitur says:

      Diverted attention from the economic crimes being committed at the same time.

      Ramping up asset prices so they could tax us and hose the money away at spurious ideologically driven targets. The belligerent lunatic was also a product of the western neocons.

      Like

    • 202

      >i>’If a belligerent lunatic is brandishing weapons of mass destruction that are able to attack the UK or its allies from the other side of the world in forty-five minutes, I fucking well want somebody to do something about it.’

      We did, we threw him out of Downing Street on the 6th May!

      Like

    • 223
      Mr Ned says:

      You want them to attack Israel then?

      Like

  56. 165
    Outlier says:

    Harman being hypocritical? Quelle surprise! Rather like how she forgot her commitment to the preference for female candidates when her husband decided to stand for a safe seat (or put his own snout in the trough). An odious woman!

    Like

  57. 181
    the last quango in paris says:

    If Ed really does want a ‘new generation’ he should bin her – not for her age but because of the champagne socialism, double standards, all women lists (apart from husband), union supporting, fence sitting, nonsense spouting, agreeing with whomever is in charge, dreadful ability to acknowledge that the death of hundreds of troops and thousands of civilians was a casual mistake which she voted for.

    I made a mistake today – I brought the wrong item at the supermarket – I didn’t vote for an illegal war, slapping the face of the UN, killing thousands of innocents and soldiers, wounding and maiming many more and increasing terrorism in my Country.

    Like

    • 192
      Jock Droney says:

      FFS, don’t do that – I IRON THE CLOTHES AND WASH THE DISHES and I don’t want her interfering in how I do it.

      Like

  58. 184
    oldasiahand says:

    Only decent thing the harridan has done in her life telling the Yank- Israeli loving neocon his days are over, sonny.

    Like

  59. 219
    I hate New Labour says:

    Wasn’t it repulsive how the hateful witch put her fake smile on after being slapped down?

    Like

    • 224
      In Europe and Ruled by Europe... says:

      Very repulsive. No wonder politicians are now almost universally hated and scorned. The real reason of course is that they are no longer politicians with burning convictions and will to make a real difference, just greasy pole climbers who will say or do anything to stay on the politics gravy train. The EU has allowed this culture to flourish unchecked. Britain is overdue a revolution and the likes of Harman deserve to be amongst the first up against the wall.

      Like

    • 229
      The political class can kiss my arse says:

      Yes!

      Like

  60. 228
    Anonymous says:

    on subject of cuts i wonder how england wales and scotland with alex salmond will feel about deputy 1st minister and 1st minister wanting george osbourne to impose larger public sector cuts on them and less on northern ireland? do u know public sector workers in noerthern ireland have got paid much more under new labour over last 13 years?

    Like

    • 263
      Grumpy Old Man says:

      Yeah. It would have been much more expensive to properly compensate the victims of violence, so give them a non-job instead.

      Like

  61. 233
    G. Hekmatyar says:

    So,
    it’s a principled position to say something was right, even if you now believe it was wrong?

    Like

  62. 234
    if you on the breadline u get fucked bt whoever in charge good times or bad says:

    if u lot hate labour why do labour always find a way back into power labour always find a way to reinvent themselves after 1970s voters vowed to never put them back but eg tony blair messiah 1997 labour very convincing in opposition when claiming to be on side of poor but when in power they bad guys. its labour party policy to leave country in a mess but u got to read the fine print

    Like

    • 246
      Itwasthemediawhatwonit says:

      Because some of the electorate are dumb enough to believe these instant reincarnations as EdDidn’tExcel did in his speech. People listen to the media, to speeches, to soundbites. Unhappily in a short time it is possible to project charisma, present lies (unchallenged) and bond to an audience (ie Bliar). Sadly, speeches rarely contain anything but vacuous phrases with absolutely no detail, so you actually don’t know what you are getting. Speeches should be banned, all electioneering supplied in documents which the electorate can study for what they are. Speeches are an anachronism born from an era where there was no internet, duplication and mass media – so the only way you could get your message to more than one or two people was to make a speech and the media still like it like that.

      Eg Millipede yesterday- which areas of spending is he going to reduce and how much? No answer.

      Like

  63. 237
    Athelstan says:

    Oh dear Hattie!

    Silver spoon stuck in gob again.

    All this Socialism stuff, it gets so boring, one can’t quite recall what side we were on last week or (heavens!) even this morning, oh pish and alack!

    Still Ugirlies don’t really matter……And anyway you get to f*** the country in so many deliciously hypocritical ways don’t you dahling.

    It’s so lovely being a neocon labour leftie, so exciting………whoops he’s stopped glottal stopping……..better clap!

    Like

    • 245
      BrotherandSisterhood says:

      I’m surprised she didn’t go for a real socialist, a man of principle, one who was one of the poor who had bettered himself and given his wordly goods and merely accepted the minimum wage, keeping no savings (or those of his poor wife) – step forward A.WedgeofMoneyBenn.

      Like

  64. 242
    history always repeats says:

    1 law for the rich 1 law for the poor 1 law for politicians 1 law for the rest of us a drunk poor man will get flung out of the street from a pub but a rich scroundrel will not get kicked out on his head

    Like

  65. 253
    Voice of Treason says:

    One good thing to come out of this – that smarmy, swarthy bastard Dave Miliband will never be PM. Indeed he’s virtually finished as a credible politician and I’m soooo…. happy!

    His wife can go and fiddle for their supper.

    Like

  66. 275
    Legal Weasel says:

    Oh dear. Just because the Iraq war could be considered a wicked and unspeakable disaster, I’m afraid it doesn’t follow that it was illegal.

    We had no treaty with Iraq.

    The war was perfectly legal.

    Like


Seen Elsewhere

Does Europe Really Want Britain to Quit? | Nick Wood
Immigration Nation | Hopi Sen
Tories Choose Anti-Israel Candidate in Rochester | JC
Osborne’s Daycare Obsession is a Time Bomb | Kathy Gyngell
BBC Marr Pinko Trying to Ban the Queen | Speccie
Eric Hobsbawm: Companion of Dishonour | Standpoint
Guido Party Gossip | Iain Dale
Russell Brand Comes Out as 9/11 Truther | Guardian
Health Revolution is Underway | Fraser Nelson
UKIP Gets Professional | Red Box
Kelly Tolhurst Wins Rochester Open Primary | BBC


VOTER-RECALL
Find out more about PLMR


Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann on Cameron’s refusal to pay the £1.7 billion EU bill by December 1st:

“Well, then he’s gonna pay on December 2nd”



Mycroft says:

Have you read the last bit of Animal Farm?

You know where the animals are looking through the Farmhouse window?

My TV screen was that window at lunch-time today.

Be careful, the sudden self-congratulatory tone, the slightly pudgy outline of indulgence and you become exactly what you should despise.

The jolly face of the Quisling Cameron poses for your camera has mesmerised and deceived you, you who were once not so deceived.

You were no firebrand, you were a damp squib in my opinion, sorry.

You need a damned good kick up the ahse!


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,544 other followers