Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship
|
The
Pentagon and the path to war in Iraq taken by Bush and Blair
April 6,
2002: Blair meets Bush at President's Texas ranch. Bush
says Saddam must be deposed.
June 28, 2002: UK commanders meet American counterparts
in Florida - start planning against Iraq July 16, 2002:
Blair tells MPs in the House: "No decisions have been
taken about military action. July 25, 2002: Blair at news
conference "We're all getting a bit ahead of ourselves
on issue of Iraq" Aug 13, 2002: US Commanders discuss
the possibility of sending of British forces to nearby Turkey.
Aug 21, 2002: Home Secretary David Blunkett say that the
talk of a coming war in Iraq is 'hype'. Aug 29, 2002: George
Bush approves the goals, objectives and strategy of the
battle plan for Iraq. Sep 24, 2002: Downing Street dossier
on WMD threat says Iraq could launch attacks in 45 minutes.
Oct 31, 2002: Full battle plan for invasion of Iraq- code
named 1003V - is issued by the Pentagon. Nov. 8, 2002: UN
1441 tells Saddam to cooperate with inspectors or 'face
serious consequences'. Nov 27 2002: UN weapons inspectors
under Hans Blix arrive in Iraq to commence their inspection.
Dec 8 -17, 2002: US Armed forces hold 'Internal Look', a
dress rehearsal for the invasion of Iraq. Jan 20, 2003:
Britain deploys a force of 30,000 troops to the Gulf Region
- preparing for invasion. Mar 18, 2003: The House of Commons
votes for war against Saddam Hussein.
David Hughes, Political Editor - Daily
Mail, September 30, 2004
|
HOW
BLAIR
U-TURNED
April
10, 2002: House of Commons
"Saddam
Hussein's regime is developing weapons of mass destruction
and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked"
September
24: Foreword to the Government;s first Iraq dossier
"The
assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that
Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological
weapons"
June
4, 2003: House of Commons
"There
are literally thousands of sites. I have no doubt they
will find the clearest evidence of Saddam's weapons of
mass destruction"
July
8: Commons Liaison Cttee
"I
have absolutedly no doubt at all that we'll find evidence
of weapons of mass destruction programmes"
July
14, 2004: Statement on Butler
"I
have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increaslngly
clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have
stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to
deploy"
Sept
26: Breakfast with Frost
"The
intelligence on which we founded our case has turned out
to be wrong"
Sept
28: Labour Conference
"The
evidence about Saddam having actual bilogical and chemical
weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them,
has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept
it"
Sept
29, 2004: BBC interview with John Humphrys
"I
can apologise for the information that we gave that has
turned out subsequently to be wrong, although I maintain
very strongly that it was given in good faith"
Sept.
29, 2004: GMTV Interview
"What
I can say to people is that certain of the information,
not all of it by any means, but certain of it turned out
to be wrong"
|
Howard
declares war on 'liar' Blair
By
David Hughes - Political Editor, Daily Mail, September 30, 2004
Michael
Howard ditched the last vestige of bi-partisanship over Iraq last
night (September 29) and charged Tony Blair with lying to the
British people. It
is the gravest accusation possible against a Prime Minister from
an Oppostion leader and opens the way for all-out war on Mr Blair's
personal integrity at the Tory
Conference
in Bourneouth next week.
As
relations between the party leaders plunged to a new low, Blair
was hit by a second bombshell as a secret Pentagon file reveals
he was planning for war in Iraq at least nine months before MPs
approved military action.
Mr
Howard's attack came in an interview with the New Statesman, in
which hesaid: "Iraq has been the catalyst for the distrust
with which people regard the present government. I think people
hold the view pretty firmly now that they were lied to over Iraq.
I don't think that's the only thing they were lied to about ...
but Iraq is the great catalysit for the loss of trust in the Government."
Asked
whether he believed the British people were lied to, he replied:
"Over Iraq? Yes."
Asked
if Mr Blair lied to them, Mr Howard said: "Yes."
Asked
when he believed the British people were lied to, he replied:
"Notably when he had intelligence, as is set out in full
in the Butler Report, which was hedged with qualifications, caveats,
warnings, which he translated into certainty. That was the unambiguous
evidence that he put to the country."
Lord
Butler's inquiry found that the evidence was 'patchy' and 'sporadic'.
Yet the Prime Minister told MPs it was 'extensive, detailed and
authoritative.'
The
tory leader has repeatedly pressed Mr Blair to justify the way
he handled intelligence in the run up to war. But his attacks
have been tempered because of his own party's support for the
conflict. Now, he believes Mr Blair has had long enough to explain
the gulf between the intelligence assessment and what he told
the country. He plans to make the Premier's credibility a key
issue between now and the General Election expected in the spring.
The
timetable outlined in the Pentagon file can only add to his ammunition.
It shows that British commanders travelled to a war planning conference
in Florida in June 2002, a month before Mr Blair told MPs that
'no decisions' had been taken on military action. It was not until
the following March that the House of Commons gave the go-ahead
for war.The
contents of the secret file were revealed in the Evening Standard
yesterday by Andrew Gilligan, the former BBC reporter at the centre
of the furore over the 'sexed-up' arms dossier. They will fuel
suspicion that Mr Blair had agreed with mr Bush to go to war regardless
of the true nature of the WMD threat. The two men held a crucial
summit at the President's ranch in Texas early in April 2002,
but the leaked file reveals for the first time the full extent
of the contacts. It sets out a chronology of events leading from
the September 11 attacks in 2001 tothe Iraq war and beyond.Entitled
'Operation Iraqi Freedom: Strategic Lessons Learned', it is classified
'Secret/Noforn', meaning it is not to be released to foreign governments.
It details a series of planning meetings and war preparations
before the UN Security Council passed its Resolution 1441 on November
8, 2002, which gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to disarm
or face 'serious consequences'.They included:
*
A planning conference involving the US, Britain and Australia
- the three leading members of the eventual coalition in the war
- on June 28, 2003.*
A discussion between Britain and US commander General Tommy Franks
on August 13, 2002, on the possibility of sending UK forces to
Turkey, oon Iraq's northern border.
*
A US planning order issued on October 7, 2002 for operations on
the 'northern front' - an option which was blocked in the event
by Turkey's refusal to allow coalition troops to attack Iraq from
its territory.
*
The publication of a full battle plan, codenamed 1003V, on October
31, 2002, eight days before Resolution 1441 and a month before
UN inspectors under Hans Blix began their hunt for weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq.On
July 16, 2002, three weeks after the planning conference, Mr Blair
told MPs that there were 'no decisions that
have been taken about military action' in
Iraq. Later in the month, he fended off questions
about Iraq at his regular press conference, saying 'we
are all getting a bit ahead of ourselves on the issue of Iraq'.
While
the military planning was racing ahead, the Government insisted
that the intention was to disarm Saddam, not topple him by military
action. Downing Streeet said yesterday: "The decision to
go to war was not made until March 2003, following the debate
and vote in Parliament. Of course, there is work on a range of
contingencies, but that doesn't mean that decisions have been
taken."
For
the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom,
must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign
Such
defiance of the democratic process and the will of the majority
of we people of the UK, must be exposed by voters as a matter
or urgency, and not just in the two by-elections we have had this
July and the European elections in June 2004. But how can this
be done?
The
most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would
be to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of
Commons and get them to demand it, the loss of their seat to be
a penalty if they did not. All voters in Labour-held constituencies
need to write a letter along these lines to their local Labour
MPs:
|
Dear
Despite
his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year
of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's
'weapons of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair
has admitted, that the threat was non-existent. For that
critical error of judgement and for his gross incompetence
in handling this very important issue, I ask you to take
immediate steps to ensure that Tony Blair does the honourable
thing and resign without delay..
I
would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and
help mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in
Mr Blair which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave
the PM with no option but to resign.
If
I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue
to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances
I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election.
Signed:
|
Simple,
non-violent, protest letters along these lines on a variety of
issues could be the basis for re-vitalising our democracy and
increasing voters' interest and participation in politics. Download
a printable copy of the above letter here.
There
is another way for the voice of the silent majority to be heard,
a voice that made sure broken promises would not only be revealed,
but punished in subsequent elections.
In
the year available before the General Election expected in 2005,
many topics are available as ammunition, each one asking questions.
A weapon for our purpose will be the results of Opinion Polls
in individual constituencies using ICM, NOP, Gallop, Mori
or YouGov.
Questions
suggested for this purpose are listed here.
CAST
YOUR VOTE ON A VARIETY OF OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE.
Current
and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running
for election could share a platform at public forums in every
constituency. They would be presented with the results of
polls on this issue expressed by the majority of voters in that
constituency.
The candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their
Party manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they
intended to represent the will of the majority of local voters.
Local and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged
and the results published on this web site.
Here
is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in
the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective
MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote.
This example deals with the proposed
EU Constitutional Treaty.
Your
letters would end: "If you do not answer
this letter, I shall take it that you intend to follow the Government
line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming General Election.
Or
why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates
in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions
of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).
Download
a printable example of the questionnaire.
It
is high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing
themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives
in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in
their own constituency, even if this means going against their
personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their
case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency,
they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view
of those who elect them.
It
will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters
don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important
subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy.
We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters
do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form
an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of
Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy.
Most
important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their
latent interest and obligation to cast their vote, knowing that
the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance
with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be
the result.
Contact
your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public
forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant
topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005.
You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of
your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject
being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected
by your representative in that assembly.
