Blair admits to misleading the British public over Iraq

paul holdstock

i would have thought that misleading parliament, and the people of the country into a probably illegal war,
was not only a war crime, on the basis of aggression, but also treason.
let us hope this charlatan, and his cronies, are dragged through the relevant courts, and punished most severely,
if only to make some small amends to all those killed/maimed by their malfeasance.

Holly ......

Tony Blair....the straight kinda guy eh?
Now troucing around the globe spouting 'his truth' to anyone who pays enough.
His choice of partner is perfect.The thing can 'never have enough money'.Just about sums these two freaks.
There offspring must be so proud. To have a liar for a father and a greedy, money loving mother.
Wait until you get to the gates....YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER FOR YOUR DEEDS ON EARTH.
How people can compare David Cameron to Tony Blair just floors me sometimes.
Worlds apart.

Marksany

Bliar; he's a bit like King Cnut

David Boothroyd

There isn't anything new here. Tony Blair was always quite clear that he wanted to remove Saddam Hussein and Baathism from Iraq, but that the legal justification was Iraqi non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions on chemical and biological weapons.

Had Iraq complied with the resolutions (which it didn't) there would have been no legal justification for war, and the UK would not have participated. Tony Blair would still have thought it right to remove the tyrannical régime in Iraq but would have lacked any legal authority to intervene.

All this was clear at the time, before military action commenced. Blair neither wilfully misled the British public nor has he admitted doing so.

Hysteria

meanwhile, in the present day, the Western economic system is about to throw itself over a clif.........

Dennis Churchill

“Because it proves that Blair willfully misled the British public into the war. “
I always thought that Blair was at heart a Junior barrister, so does a barrister “wilfully mislead” a jury when he presents a case?
Blair presented his “Client’s” case to parliament. The objective was to eliminate Iraq as a major regional power. The destruction of the Iraqi army and political infrastructure, the failure to plan for the aftermath was not a mistake but a way of achieving this aim.

JR MacClure

"The truth, which he should have told us all along, is that he decided Saddam should go...."

So just deciding that someone "should go" overthrowing another country'd government. Just hope it isn't yours next time. And your country where a million people die as a result. Though funny that no one seems that eager to decide that the equally (or more) repressive governments of North Korea or a number of others "should go".

One wonders why. I assume it wasn't ALL for Haliburton's bottom line. Or was it?

Andrew Cadman

It shows the contempt this arrogant, vain and superficial man had for us all.

Surely he can be jailed for lying us into war?

At least lets sequester his ill-gotten assets that he made on the broken bodies of so many. Indeed, many of us think it was the opportunity to become a 'name' in the United States and the future wealth that entails that really motivated him all along.

May Blair burn in hell.

Rob C

He's right in the sense that regime change was needed, but it was absolutely wrong to deceive parliament and the people about the motive and objective. The hasty and devious way he sought approval and the absolute absence of post-war planning undoubtedly cost lives - both of Iraqis and UK troops - and for that he is culpable. War is too often necessary and we should not look to engage in conflicts in which we have no direct concern. If we were looking to liberate Iraq from a dictator then that should have been a UN decision not a UK/US one. The fact that Blair lied should come as no surprise however, as most of his term was eclipsed by manipulation/spin of the 'full facts' on many other issues too.

London Calling

Why does this matter? Because it proves that Blair used propaganda to take Great Britain to war, as did the Nazis when they invaded Poland in WW2. We are a Democracy the corner stone of which is Liberty and Justice… that’s why it matters.

The Chilcot inquiry has put Blair in a corner, and he cannot wriggle out, so he’s changing his story. So who cares if there wasn’t any WMD, Saddam needed to be overthrown Blair now bleeps. In that case why not go to War with Iran, North Korea,
Zimbabwe? Take your pick, there’s plenty of dictators to choose from.

If Tony Blair goes to the confession box it will go something like this…

Forgive me Father for I have sinned
I got caught out on all the spin
I give to you my precious time
The cost of which is £9.99
Give me the courage
To smile on through
With gritted teeth
I’ll face the few

Amen

100,00 Hail Mary’s and 100,00 Our fathers…

walworth

So - at what point did Blair decide that the UK was no longer bound by Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter?

revolution

Regime change illegal under UN rules?
Where are the lawyers and judges who can get Blair to face trial for his part in a war declared illegal by the UN SECRETARY GENERAL?

Walworth

So at what point, and following what legal advice, did Blair decide that the UK was no longer bound by Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter? This reads:-

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Lady Amelia

Follow the money.....

who benefited from the war
who lost?

And I thought it was a war crime to go to war unless the sovereignty of your nation is under threat. Its not Chilcot that man needs, its the witness box and a cell at the Hague tribunal.

Colin

Has he been arrested yet?

Fergus Pickering

No of course he doesn't give a shit about lying. After all it wasn't by any means the only lie he told us. Alistair Campbell was hired to tell lies. Blair and Brown both consider that any lie will do in orderto get what they want. That's the way they are. That's the way Labour is. New Labour/Old Labour, it doesn't matter. The Ancient Romans used to drag such peole by a hook and then throw them in the Tiber. They knew their onions, did the Ancient Romans.

Nicholas

Even this is being carefully spun. Blair wanted this for his own ego to imitate Thatcher's Falklands moment, completely missing the point that was a war in response to aggression.

How this diabolical party has been allowed to remain in power over us for almost 13 years baffles me. Are the British so lost in mediocrity and apathy, so inured to deceit and corruption that the vile conniving of these cod-communists is taken in stride and accepted? Is the collective voice of disgust just thousands of indignant keyboard tattoos lost in the twitter of the commentariat rather than a great roar of anger? What have we become? Christ, in the centuries when the penalties and the risks were serious and grim the British had not lost the spirit to stand up, defiant and shout in the face of the ogre. Now what are we become?

Beer Moth

David Boothroyd.

Thank you for your accurate and level-headed summary - an oasis of rationality amongst so much hysteria.

Saltirethinking

Not yet Colin, but one day he will be.

Dennis Sewell

All this hysterical talk of criminality and arrest is misplaced.

Under our constitution - with its convention of Royal Prerogative - Blair was under no obligation to obtain the consent of the people or Parliament before going to war.

Effectively, the Prime Minister could make this decision alone.

Whether he misled the public or Parliament or not is beside the point. He didn't require their backing. Blair was fully entitled to do what he liked, and then throw himself on the mercy of the electorate.

In 2005 Blair did submit himself for re-election at a General Election. By this time the WMD position was clear. He won the election anyway. He is untouchable. Whatever this inquiry finds, there is no comeback. For better or for worse, that's our constitution.

King Prawn

Fraser,

You are now believing all the anti-war hype. Saying that he would like Saddam to be removed is a bit different from saying that we would have gone to war in 2003 without the WMD threat.

In that Chicago speech of 1999 he signalled that Saddam and Milosevic were two tyrants that had to be dealt with.

Milosevic was not removed by the West invading Serbian was he?

Dennis Churchill

Nicholas
Mr.Neather told you what we were meant to become and how.
We have become a fragmented society of “Communities” each one concerned about its parochial interests.
As for our political class, do you think it healthy we have been examining the economic projections looking for deceit? When did we take on the Soviet Tractor Production mindset to government statistics?
As for Blair and Labour when did he or Brown act in our interests? Was it in our interests to give away part of our EU rebate? Was it in our interests to sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum? The list goes on.
As long as Foreign Aid is ring fenced: I would hate India’s space programme to run out of money.

Snowman

Nicholas @ 8.53: How this diabolical party has been allowed to remain in power over us for almost 13 years baffles me.

The people were bought by the flow of money, most of it cheap and easy than ever before.

anne allan

But it was all right because he had God on his side.
How much time has Blair spent in the confession box since his conversion?

R King

Thats it then...... he's confessed!

Lockup the war criminal.

Marbury

David Boothroyd is quite right, and since he articulates the key point perfectly, I won't add anything else, except that it's a surprise to see Fraser write the kind of overheated and irrational "Bliar" stuff one might expect to see on Comment Is Free.

Housekeeper

Move along, please. Nothing to see here.

Jane18

I listened to your comment on TV earlier today and I thought you tried to mislead the viewer. A reminder that all Western nations thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. You omitted this fact.

My interpretation of a part of his interview that has been published differs from yours. He seemed to be saying that after twelve years of UN resolutions, the use of chemical weapons on his own people and the threat to the region he would still have thought it right to have removed Saddam. Surely most people would agree with that? I do think we should await the full interview before we rush to judgement. I am sick and tired of journalists selecting phrases from statements in pursuit of their own bias.

John David Barnett

Shouldn't it be "levelled"? (1st para).

Tiberius

Blair wanted Parliamentary authority to go to war with a majority of the PLP behind him. To win the vote only with Tory support would have been politically difficult for him.

His great deceit was to lie to the PLP about the extent of the threat Saddam presented. That the lie infiltrated the public and the rest of Parliament probably didn't register as a truth inconvenient or otherwise to the Used Vacuum Cleaner Salesman.

Pete-s

Having watched the current inquiry, their lack at asking the telling questions has only shown what a whitewash it is. The Bliar confession is a setup for the main interview.

oldtimer

Blair`s behaviour in this, and other, matters reminds me of the saying: "If you can fake sincerity, you`ve got it made".

Whatever Blair may, or may not, have said about his intentions at other times or places, it was his statement to the HoC and his foreword to the dodgy dossier that was decisive in persuading the HoC and many of the public (including me) to support the decision to go to war.

His deception is plain and clear.

Simon Stephenson

"Why does this matter? Because it proves that Blair willfully misled the British public into the war."

No, Fraser. With respect, this is not why this matters. Blair's commitment to honesty is a trivial matter compared to the investigation of the political processes that led to a decision seen by many as being both savagely immoral and intellectually primitive. What matters is that we are allowed to understand the true intention and ideology behind the decision to invade Iraq, and the intellectual quality of the consideration that went into all the potential consequences of going ahead with it.

It's just no good Blair, or any of the other war supporters, merely asserting that the decision was the "right" one. Naturally, to them, it was the "right" decision at the time, otherwise they wouldn't have made it. What it is important that the public hear is:-

1. How much the post-invasion bloodbath and political, economic and social destruction in Iraq was figured into the pre-war deliberations? How much did Blair, at the time, think it was the "right" decision even taking into account these consequences?

2. How much of the actual post-invasion carnage was not taken into account in pre-invasion deliberations? Moreover, is it reasonable to conclude that the non-inclusion of some of the downsides was due to accepting best advice, and not in any way through favouring lesser advice that had the attraction of supporting a decision already made?

It's quite important, don't you think, if our political process has evolved into one capable of making crass and dangerous decisions, that we do everything we can to become aware of it?

Dennis Churchill

Nicholas

Mr.Neather told you what we were meant to become and how.

We have become a fragmented society of "Communities" each one concerned about its parochial interests.

As for our political class, do you think it healthy we have been examining the economic projections looking for deceit? When did we take on the Soviet Tractor Production mindset to government statistics?

As for Blair and Labour when did he or Brown act in our interests? Was it in our interests to give away part of our EU rebate? Was it in our interests to sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum? The list goes on.

As long as Foreign Aid is ring fenced: I would hate India’s space programme to run out of money.

Alex

I must say, this is beautifully timed Tony.

Straight after the disasterous PBR, when the media should be slamming your friends Gordon and Ali for Labour's economic incompetance.

Nice one.

Jim G

To pull the wool over the eyes of the enemy is the respossibility of generals ; to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate because you can is arrogance !

djw2009

Mr Nelson, I love your English accent, but you slipped up on the grammar in this article.

"he said that if Saddam would have disarmed then the war would have been averted"

would have? would have? If Saddam HAD disarmed...

I hate to see poor English extend its grasp on the national consciousness.

djw2009

Well, you say comments are automatic but clearly they are not. Is my last comment stuck in moderation?

John David Barnett

Blair did not deliberately mislead the public. He makes no such admission.

Attila (Hungary)

A statesman - like Blair - can lead a military campaign against a tyrant with public consent.
He did his job well and was not responsible for other leaders' mistakes.
It reminds me the U.S. Army song:
"He has died for those oppressed...
Leaving her his last request:
'Put silver wings on my son's chest'..."

saltirethinking

Mr Barnett ........ that will be for the Courts to decide.

Jeremy

djw2009:

"Mr Nelson, I love your English accent..."

He hasn't got an English accent. He's got a Scottish accent - a rather well-modulated Scottish brogue.

John David Barnett:

"Blair did not deliberately mislead the public. He makes no such admission."

Deliberately misleading the public, and admitting that you have done so, are two completely different things. It is clear that Blair misled both the public and the House of Commons. But he has yet to admit to having done so.

Tankus

WAR CRIMES AND A JURY please.

And in the Hague, as the British establishment and legal system and not be trusted to be just .

Dixon

The invasion was in 2003. Er...SIX years ago. How has it suddenly become "eight years".

The real reason for the invasion was always, and obviously, to remove a threat to our oil-supplies from neighbouring states. Anyone who really thought about it at the time could understand that...including those who decry the "deception" involved in not stating this openly. Such people no doubt often understood this but continued to shout "foul" for their own political reasons.

The deception is really a reflection on the degree to which governments are today hostage to the pacifistic media influence on opinion in a largely pacifist society. In former generations the need for such deception was not a factor. Eden didnt need to deceive anyone as to the reason for the Suez action.

Ultimately, if anyone makes a mockery of our democracy, it is as much the media and journalists as politicians.

Ken P

Blair is not a bit like King Cnut/Canute. The King learned that his flattering courtiers claimed he was "So great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back". Blair thought he was so great, and the flattery of the Bush Administration led him to believe he could ignore the views of UN and his own people. Canute was not only a religious man, but also a clever politician, who knew his limitations - even if his courtiers did not. Blair might have been a great politician but he didn't know his limitations.
Canute had his throne carried to the seashore and sat on it as the tide came in, commanding the waves to advance no further. When they didn't, he had made his point that, though the deeds of kings might appear 'great' in the minds of men, they were as nothing in the face of God's power.
Blair, on the other hand, put two fingers up to his people and their representatives and has been half-drowned in a tsunami of public disgust. Though deeds might have appeared great to George Bush and the American public, but to the British he is nothing but a poodle, who probably hasn't dared fetch the Congressional Medal of Honour thrown at him by his master GW Bush.

Emily Phillips

Tony Blair is a sanctimonious liar. He had the audacity to take this country to war, on the basis of his own private ideas, that he shared only with God. He is a fantasist and a bully. He should be tried for war crimes.

djw2009

Jeremy, I haven't heard Mr Nelson on the television speaking any other language than "English", so I referred to it as his "English accent"--the accent that he uses when he speaks the English accent. It is very charming indeed.

roger

This all shows George Galloway in a different light.

denis cooper

In earlier times a case like this would have been dealt with through impeachment:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-02666.pdf

"Impeachment is therefore the exercise of the law of parliament. As noted by the 1976 edition of Erskine May, ‘the Commons, as a great representative inquest of the nation, first find the crime and then, as prosecutors, support their charge before the Lords, exercising at once the functions of a high court of justice and of a jury, try and also adjudicate upon the charge preferred.’"

And there was an attempt to initiate impeachment proceedings against Blair, with a motion tabled on November 25th 2004:

"That a select committee of not more than 13 Members be appointed to investigate and to report to the House on the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to the war against Iraq and in particular to consider

(a) the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group that in March 2003 Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction and had been essentially free of them since the mid 1990s,

(b) the Prime Minister’s acknowledgement that he was wrong when in and before March 2003 he asserted that Iraq was then in possession of chemical or biological weapons or was then engaged in active efforts to develop nuclear weapons or was thereby a current or serious threat to the UK national interest or that possession of WMD then enabled Iraq to inflict real damage upon the region and the stability of the world,

(c) the opinions of the Secretary General of the United Nations that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was unlawful, and

(d) whether there exist sufficient grounds to impeach the Prime Minister on charges of gross misconduct in his advocacy of the case for war against Iraq and his conduct of policy in connection with that war; and

That the Committee shall within 48 days of its appointment report to this House such resolutions, articles of impeachment or other recommendations as it shall think fit."

But of course that got nowhere, and even if that Committee had been formed it would probably have been dominated by Labour MPs and would have found no grounds for impeachment, and even if that Committee had recommended impeachment the Labour majority in the Commons would have stopped it; and nor would Cameron as Prime Minister be prepared to see a fellow political leader like Blair impeached or indeed pursued in any other way, because he wouldn't want to set any kind of precedent which might later be used against him.

Occasional Ostrich

Nicholas
December 12th, 2009 8:53am

They'd have been out in 2005, if the Tories hadn't been such mugs as to foul themselves by sitting in the same nest.

Jeremy

djw2009:

'...I referred to it as his "English accent"--the accent that he uses when he speaks the English accent....'

That makes a lot of sense.

Fraser speaks English with a Scottish accent. I hope that is both clear and simple enough for you to understand.

Do you, by any chance, hail from Disneyworld?

logdon

djw2009
December 12th, 2009 1:13pm

Could have been worse. Much worse.

'Would of' being the one our illiterate youth spout out at every ill advised venture into writing.

denis cooper

In earlier times a case like this would have been dealt with through impeachment:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-02666.pdf

"Impeachment is therefore the exercise of the law of parliament. As noted by the 1976 edition of Erskine May, ‘the Commons, as a great representative inquest of the nation, first find the crime and then, as prosecutors, support their charge before the Lords, exercising at once the functions of a high court of justice and of a jury, try and also adjudicate upon the charge preferred.’"

And there was an attempt to initiate impeachment proceedings against Blair, with a motion tabled on November 25th 2004:

"That a select committee of not more than 13 Members be appointed to investigate and to report to the House on the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to the war against Iraq and in particular to consider

(a) the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group that in March 2003 Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction and had been essentially free of them since the mid 1990s,

(b) the Prime Minister’s acknowledgement that he was wrong when in and before March 2003 he asserted that Iraq was then in possession of chemical or biological weapons or was then engaged in active efforts to develop nuclear weapons or was thereby a current or serious threat to the UK national interest or that possession of WMD then enabled Iraq to inflict real damage upon the region and the stability of the world,

(c) the opinions of the Secretary General of the United Nations that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was unlawful, and

(d) whether there exist sufficient grounds to impeach the Prime Minister on charges of gross misconduct in his advocacy of the case for war against Iraq and his conduct of policy in connection with that war; and

That the Committee shall within 48 days of its appointment report to this House such resolutions, articles of impeachment or other recommendations as it shall think fit."

But of course that got nowhere, and even if that Committee had been formed it would probably have been dominated by Labour MPs and would have found no grounds for impeachment, and even if that Committee had recommended impeachment the Labour majority in the Commons would have stopped it; and nor would Cameron as Prime Minister be prepared to see a fellow political leader like Blair impeached or indeed pursued in any other way, because he wouldn't want to set any kind of precedent which might later be used against him.

Michael Booth

djw2009

Fraser does indeed speak English, but with a genteel Scottish accent.

Percy

Nothing will come of the Chilcot enquiry and sadly Mr Tony won’t end up in a court of law, but I take great comfort in one thing; Brand Blair is being well and truly trashed, he’s the Tiger Woods of the world political stage. Not only will there be no President Tony of Europe but they’ll now be no other big international job either; he’s gone from medals in America and prayers with President Obama to asking people for money to have their photo taken with him and is now hauling his sorry venal arse around Azerbaijan and holding important meetings with Prince Andrew. He may have become as rich as Croesus and it doesn’t undo the enormous damage this mountebank has done but his demise as something on the world stage and the damage done to his ego should be celebrated. But the big question still remains; will he still hang out with Barry Gibb on holiday?

Jeremy

Michael Booth:

"Fraser does indeed speak English, but with a genteel Scottish accent."

Genteel...is that near Govan?

hadrian

It is one thing to wage a defensive war which surely qualifies as a just war but it is quite another to justify war on the grounds that it removes tyrants. On that score we would be waging almost permanent and ubiquitous warfare. The world, alas, is full of tyrants but they must present very pressing danger before we are justified in taking pre-emtive action on them. Loathsome though Saddam was, I think few of us believe he qualfied for such removal. And when one considers the current batch of oppressive dictators waging war on their 'own' people it seems very odd we are not being consistent in militarily taking them out too. And, in the end, is it really the case the invaded nation, let alone region, is any the more secure for our actions? Bush was wrong and Blair just as bad.

Steve Nesich

Tony Blair actually knew? Shocking.

Merlyn

Just as we are also being misled now on the 'war against climate change', we are being misled in every sphere of public governance.

It seems that a little drop of truth is enough to deceive us.

It is time to no longer 'put your trust in princes'... it is time to put our trust in our own intuitive sense of right and wrong.

Frank P

hadrian (11.6pm)

As we old sparkers used to put it, when disagreeing .... O|O

'Few of us' my arse, don't dare extrapolate your own cowardice and myopia on the rest of 'us'. You need to get out more.

Blair was a disaster for Britain, just as his successor is; but he did what he had to do with regard to Hussein, his brutal progeny and his extended Ba-athist blood family of evil thugs! And so did Bush 43 - at the outset. Unfortunately both he and Bush got squeamish thereafter and bowed to pacifist and liberal pressure; then failed to follow through properly until the job was thoroughly done - just like Bush 41. Shock and Awe suddenly became prevarication and pussyfooting. Both the Septics and the Brits should have kicked all the left leaning hacks out of the war zone and waged war as it should be waged - tooth and claw until the enemy is crushed and sues for peace, vide Japan 1945.

What a generation of wankers we have spawned.

Let me quote a little essay I read recently on the original Hadrian:

"Despite his own great stature as a military administrator, Hadrian's reign was marked by a general lack of major military conflicts, apart from the Second Roman-Jewish War. He surrendered Trajan's conquests in Mesopotamia, considering them to be indefensible."

Quite! Your hero was a silver-spoon-in-mouth, coward too. Not to mention being as queer as a nine-bob-note!

Percy

As I've said before I am very grateful that I don't live in a world run by Frank P.

Beer Moth

hadrian.

We can't do everything that we need to, therefore we prioritise. Saddam was top of the list and we confronted him. Would you want him back?

Percy

Tony Blair did what he had to do, and the future will need more of our leaders to do the same thing. Frank P would sort things out during a make and mend, I'm sure.

David Bouvier

What worries me is that Fraser article suggest a lack of basic analytical capability in interpreting Blair's statements. Blair has a track record of lawyerly hair-splitting but this does not require anything more than basic English.

I may want to do something, but lack an appropriate opportunity or authority. Wanting to own a Aston Martin does not make me a car thief.

Do we really believe Churchill and FDR did not have views on when and how to enter WWII that were more complex and politically astute than the formal sequence of events that happened?

Is choosing the time and place for a war that you believe will come sooner or later, and being prepared for it, a war crime or basically political and military strategy?

My recollection is that the polls were mostly pro-war, about 2:1, later switched to 1:2 when no actual stocks of WMDs were found, and that the only issue is the tactics used to brow beat the Labour backbenchers in going a long with a vote that Parliament would have supported anyway, and which was not legally required.

If you are against the war, why not argue it was wrong. Arguing it is illegal based on your personal and rather over-heated interpretation of law is silly. Blair clearly wanted the legitimacy of a SC resolution, but cease-fire violations arising from the gulf war would I believe in theory provide a perfectly good causus belli anyway.

That Saddam was too worried about the Iranians or looking weak to admit he had got rid of WMD stocks is his miscalculation. That the ISG reported efforts to preserve the capability to re-create a WMD programme after sanctions were removed is not widely reported. That weapons stocks could simply have been exported to Syria or hidden in a desert cache that was never found has never been answered.

djw2009

Dear people, Mr Nelson speaks nice English with a genteel Scottish accent, as has been pointed out.

What was the point of my original post? Can anyone guess? Does anyone realise it was to comment on the use of the conditional instead of the subjunctive in a sentence in the original article? People have a gift for failing to grasp the main point and talking about something else. Mr Nelson could speak Zulu with a Timbuktu accent, but that is not the point I was making in my post. Try scanning an article and then doing a précis of it to see if you have grasped the main points. And then go back to the original article and read it again and see whether you got the main points right. My main point was not Mr Nelson's accent -- although I was surprised that someone so well-spoken should fall prey to the "if it WOULD OF happened" variety of poor grammar. Can anyone guess what the main point of this comment is?

Frank P

Unfortunately I have to live in a world partially peopled by Percys and Hadrians who now consider themselves to be a 'vast majority', God help us.

And why should any individual 'run the world'? We need to stop megalomaniacs trying, which is why Boosh and his cohort Blair had Saddam whacked. Good on 'em!

Unfortunately we have two other megalomaniacs - O'Barmy and Flash Gordon who reckon they should be allowed to run the world, now; not to mention Armydinnerjacket; Usama bin laden; George Soros and various other assorted Leftist ideologues who think they should too.

You won't have to suffer me for much longer Perce, and in the meantime I have no interest in running anything - I've already done my little bit; but unless somebody with balls bigger than peanuts in the West gets a grip of these scabby a-holes, soonest, and wrenches their dirty mitts from the levers of power, they will destroy our nation and Western Civilisation beyond recognition. It is already looking very strange indeed, Percy, but then I lost my rose tinted specs when I was about 18 - many, many years ago.

Ian Westbrook

"Bliar; he's a bit like King Cnut"

there's more than one typo in that sentence...

Kevin Williamson

These proceedings have revealed just how poorly the Blair government planned their war effort. Now, I've just read this interview with an Iraqi MP named Ayad Jamal Aldin. He says that Iran was involved in kidnapping Peter Moore. More disturbingly, he accuses the US of collaborating with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard general there and that they know the Iranians will take over when we all leave. If this is already determined, why are we still there? I'm glad some Iraqi politicians at least have the courage to tell the truth about what this so called "coalition of the willing" is really up to