Letter to Mr Straw

[Bazeye]

Dear Sir,

So you have refused to publish the cabinet minutes re the Iraq war because it would be "a risk and cause serious damage to the Government
and the damage caused would far outweigh the public benefit".
Well, release them Mr Straw, and we the public can make our own minds up instead of you doing it for us. What have you got to hide?
And as for the £170 000s worth of taxpayers money youve spent on tarting up your HQ, well we wont even go down that road.

[ShelleyCowie]

Ok....well i would never like a letter from u. lol

But you are quite right. What are they hiding? :confused

[Kenn]

" Publish and be damned."

[brokencross]

Strange thing politics isn't it.

As Home Secretary Jack Straw was instrumental in introducing the FOI act as part of New Labours "open and transparent Government".

As Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was at, and I presume heavily involved in the key cabinet meetings in the run up to the war where the legality of war was discussed and the decision to go to war was eventually taken.

As Justice Secretary Jack Straw has now vetoed the FOI and a tribunal's request to release the minutes of the key cabinet meetings in the run up to the war decision. His reason "Releasing the papers would do "serious damage" to cabinet government, he said, and outweighed public interest needs."

We already know the original legal advice given to Tony Blair on March 7 2003 showed doubts over the legality of going to war without a further UN resolution. However this original advice was not shared with the cabinet, instead the "revised" advice of March 17, which did not mention the original legal doubts was shown to the cabinet. The war started March 20 2003.

"Releasing the papers would do "serious damage" to cabinet government, he said, and outweighed public interest needs." Come on Mr Straw we are not stupid. Your Government is already seriously damaged. You are just trying to hide the facts.

[Alan]

I'm not going to pretend I paid this subject more than a passing glance, but I gather that the Conservatives agree with his decision. If both Labour and the Conservatives agree then I'm happy enough to assume there are decent reasons. Also, what good could it do? We now need to focus on the withdrawal of British servicemen, and the sooner the better. Dragging up the past will solve nothing, and will only serve in giving people some more crap to whine about.

[Bazeye]

I'm not going to pretend I paid this subject more than a passing glance, but I gather that the Conservatives agree with his decision. If both Labour and the Conservatives agree then I'm happy enough to assume there are decent reasons. Also, what good could it do? We now need to focus on the withdrawal of British servicemen, and the sooner the better. Dragging up the past will solve nothing, and will only serve in giving people some more crap to whine about.

Thats why theyre probably not releasing the details because it will prove to everybody what we already know .That the war was illegal and so the British servicemen shouldnt have gone there in the first place.

[Alan]

Yes, I agree. But so what? It was illegal. We know that. But we can't undo it, unless Ctrl + Z works he as well as on Microsoft Word 2007. (I should get paid for this advertising). So now we just need to focus on getting as many of them out as possible, with as few more casualties as possible.

Don't forget the past, but for now just put it on the back burner. It wont get them out quicker.

[Melancholy Man]

Yes, I agree. But so what? It was illegal. We know that.

Actually, we don't. Saddam Hussein was in repeated violations of binding U.N. resolutions post-1993 and had demonstrated his desire to pursue C.B.N. programmes both before (as well as using them in combat and civil capacities) and after agreeing to dismantle them.

The greatest problem I have with the fixation on legality is that a corollary is would be that the failure of the Iraqi population to rise up and successfully overthrow the old buzzard is their fault, and that they would not be deserving of Western assistance to do so.

But, was the war right? That's a different matter. Then again, it's been over for almost six years. Time to move on.

[Alan]

It is certainly time to move on. I legality is going to be a matter of debate for years, but I suppose what gets most peoples back up is that we said we were going WMD hunting, and there turned out to not be any. That would be like going fox hunting and not being allowed to actually fox hunt... Wait a second...

[Melancholy Man]

we said we were going WMD hunting,

Again, no. Here (http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page3088) is the transcript of Tony Blair's speech to Parliament on the case for war. Please point to where the presence of W.M.D. is a pre-requisite.

What I love about attempts to dismiss the case due to failure in finding them is that one of the proffered arguments is that only six year old, and decayed material was found. You mean, from five years after Saddam had been required to cease production?

[Alan]

OK. I'm guilty. I only read the headlines from the Sun newspaper... I don't, I only buy that for my dog. (...)

[JAWS]

The simple truth is that Saddam Hussein had played the game of Brinksmanship and got away with it for decades.
He tried playing the game once too often and lost.

With respect to the release of the Cabinet Minutes the problem is that if those particular minutes are released it then sets a president which would lead to constant demands for such Minutes to be released.

The effect of that would be that all decision making would be done elsewhere and all that would happen in the Cabinet Meetings would be that nobody would speak put of turn. All decisions would simply go through on the nod with no relevant discussion taking place there. No politician is going to deliberately risk speaking out of turn if he/she knows full well that the fact is likely to be made public as soon as somebody asks for the record of it.

The comical thing is the only people getting steamed up about the issue are certain people in this Country who hope for some narrow political advantage from it. Those who relish the thought that they will see Bush and Blair dragged before the International Court in the Hague to be tried as War Criminals might just as well search for the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, it ain’t going to happen.
Whilst they are still clinging to that fantasy the rest of the World has simply moved on to other things and are obviously not going to suddenly fall over themselves to get all steamed up about the issue.

[brokencross]

The effect of that would be that all decision making would be done elsewhere and all that would happen in the Cabinet Meetings would be that nobody would speak put of turn. All decisions would simply go through on the nod with no relevant discussion taking place there.
It was already happening. President Blair saw to that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3895921.stm

[Melancholy Man]

Agreed with Jaws.


Those who relish the thought that they will see Bush and Blair dragged before the International Court in the Hague to be tried as War Criminals might just as well search for the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, it ain’t going to happen.See also Brian Haw who commenced Camp Litterbug two years before the invasion, as a "protest" against the U.N. sanctions (which were sufficient for the Iraqi population as long as Saddam Hussein didn't embezzle and withhold funds) after watching broadcasts from the less-than-transparent Miariam Appeal in which a financially dubious Scottish M.P. was involved.

Then, when he gets his professed wish, and the old buzzard is removed and Iraqis have a glimpse of democracy for the first time in decades, he *continues* protesting against the government they've voted for!

From his Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Haw) entry, we see someone who, as a 21 year old with just basic theology classes, thought himself qualified to mediate in Norn Ireland. Twenty years later he goes to Cambodia with an idea of doing similar. Another 20 years on, after disrupting a premier public place in London and attempting to frustrate others' expression of free-speech by using a megaphone, he imagines that Londoners would be receptive to his running for mayor. There is also the intriguing uncited claim, "however, the family found themselves victims of anti-social behaviour, and Haw's attempt to stop it by presenting a dossier to the Crown Prosecution Service led to its getting worse".

In short, he comes across as irrational and compulsive and potentially aggressive, with an overinflated sense of his own importance. That he was voted Most Inspiring Political Figure on the Channel Four 2007 Political Awards points to a loose morality in the body politic which explains why so many smart and urbane anti-war types incline towards Hamas or Hezbollah or fail to support those fighting nihilistic monsters in Iraq and Afghanistan because they also committed the sin of allying with America and Britain.

[brokencross]

I know it is the Mail and I know Claire Short can be a loose cannon but surely she can't say this without it being true.

It does add fuel to the "release the minutes" lobby, considering the enormity of the "decision" being made. If we were railroaded into war by a Bush and Blair alliance, without the safety net of the checks and balances of any decision being scrutinised in depth by the cabinet; the public should know the truth!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1158148/REVEALED-There-Cabinet-debate-run-war-says-Short-Government-refuses-release-minutes.html

[Ricco]

Ok....well i would never like a letter from u. lol

But you are quite right. What are they hiding? :confused

They are obviously hiding the fact that they have lied to us... again! When are we going to be done with this gov't that has lied to us repeatedly about health (eggs, beef, red wine, etc), wars such as Iraq, gov't expenditure, state of the economy.... och, the list goes on and on. [disgust]

[Melancholy Man]

I know it is the Mail and I know Claire Short can be a loose cannon but surely she can't say this without it being true.

Right back at her appearance in government politics, Claire Short demonstrated (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/145423.stm) a stunning insensitivity, blithe assumption that people could only be grateful for her superior wisdom and contempt of the lower classes/races.

My word, did she not like being a minister! Remember those shots of her strolling onto the stage, scarf delicately tossed over her shoulder and young male flunkies in her tow?

During the run up to the invasion of Iraq, when Robin Cook did something alien to her - demonstrated principle and forewent his then position of authority and immediately gratification - she thought she could stay and that Blair would continue to lap it up despite her consistent attacks on him. She misjudged, and eventually demonstrated a glimmer of self-awareness by jumping before she was pushed (cf. the speed with which Hilary Benn was brought in to replace her).

However, rather than admit to her spectacular failure of judgement - when he snuffed it, Cook was on his way to being readmitted - she has leapt fully into the abyss. See this (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070227/halltext/70227h0001.htm) disgraceful defence of the Syrian Baathist dictatorship which should, alone, disqualify her for life in daring to claim concern for oppressed foreigners:


The President lived for a long time in the UK. He is a charming and open man who, for a long time, was not going to be President and therefore took on the style of an ordinary western citizen. He is very popular in his country because he does not have a grandiose or fine-living style. He is keen to deliver significant reform in Syria, to open up the country and to improve the economic opportunities of the people, but he made it clear that the situation in the region made that difficult. Shortly after he took over, there was what has been called a “Damascus spring”—a sort of opening up. It is difficult to continue such reforms when there is such bitter division all around and organised extreme Islamist groups in the region.To some extent, it is to be expected that politicians have monstrous egos with the attendant desire to breeze through an ever increasing popular career path. Given her comments over Montserrat, however, she comes across as having been born a century too late. Far better to have been at the helm of Empire, telling those pesky natives that they didn't deserve the same rights and freedoms that she takes for granted.

Add to that her now hanging around only like-minded parties, away from any criticism, she, as Baldwin almost said, wishes the benefit of influence without the requirement of responsibility: that is a courtesan. Awful, awful woman.