UK Iraq War Inquiry

[Louis VI the Fat]

Iraq has been a main staple of the Backroom ever since I joined. An inquiry about the Iraq war has started in the UK. Which should make for a natural topic of debate.
Five key questions to be answered

guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 23.26 GMT


1 What assurances did Tony Blair give George Bush about Britain's involvement in the war with Iraq?

The overriding factor that took Britain into war is a crucial secret the Chilcot inquiry could unlock. Key could be what assurances Tony Blair gave George Bush in a series of bilateral meetings, notably at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002. One leaked classified document reveals that two months later, Whitehall officials noted: "When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April, he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change." But asked in July 2002 about whether the government was preparing for military action, Blair told MPs: "No. There are no decisions which have been taken about military action."


2 Was Tony Blair warned by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, and Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, that regime change was not a lawful justification for invasion? And what happened between 7 March and 17 March 2003 to make Goldsmith change his views about the legality of an invasion?

Blair took decisions with a small group of close advisers, described by the Butler review as "sofa government". The role of these advisers, notably Lord Falconer and Lady (Sally) Morgan, in persuading Blair that the invasion was lawful is yet to be resolved. Did the government have to conjure up another reason to invade Iraq, for example the assertion that Saddam refused to give up weapons of mass destruction?


3 Why did the intelligence agencies allow themselves to be used?

Although the review by the former cabinet secretary Lord Butler considered how intelligence was used and abused, it did not fully answer the question of why. Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, told ministers in July 2002 that in the US "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". The Butler review did not pursue this on the grounds that Dearlove was talking about US intelligence agencies, not the British.


4 Did the government delay military preparations?

A crucial question is the extent to which, for political and diplomatic reasons, the government delayed military preparations. Did this lead, as military commanders have said, to a shortage of equipment, including body armour, for British troops and the need to rely on unnecessarily expensive "urgent operational requirements"?


5 What plans were made for Iraq after the invasion?

Bush told Blair in January 2003 he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups" in Iraq after an invasion. But Blair's response is unknown. Cabinet Office officials told ministers in July 2002 that a "postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise".


The UK military leadership has an axe to grind:
Military commanders are expected to tell the inquiry into the Iraq war, which opens on Tuesday, that the invasion was ill-conceived and that preparations were sabotaged by Tony Blair's government's attempts to mislead the public.

They were so shocked by the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the invasion that they believe members of the British and US governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes by breaching the duty outlined in the Geneva convention to safeguard civilians in a conflict, the Guardian has been told.

The lengths the Blair government took to conceal the invasion plan and the extent of military commanders' anger at what they call the government's "appalling" failures emerged as Sir John Chilcot, the inquiry's chairman, promised to produce a "full and insightful" account of how Britain was drawn into the conflict.

Fresh evidence has emerged about how Blair misled MPs by claiming in 2002 that the goal was "disarmament, not regime change". Documents show the government wanted to hide its true intentions by informing only "very small numbers" of officials.There is a political axe to grind too:
Blair had in effect promised George Bush that he would join the US-led invasion when, as late as July 2002, he was denying to MPs that preparations were being made for military action. The leaked documents reveal that "from March 2002 or May at the latest there was a significant possibility of a large-scale British operation".

Documents leaked in 2005 show that, almost a year before the invasion, Blair was privately preparing to commit Britain to war and topple Saddam Hussein, despite warnings from his closest advisers that it was unjustified. They also show how Blair was planning to justify regime change as an objective, despite warnings from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, that the "desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.
The Iraq inquiry will not decide if war was legal or illegal. Sir John Chilcot says he will be asking: was this a wise decision, was it well-taken, was it founded on good advice?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/iraq-war-inquiry

[SwordsMaster]

I suppose to say "What's new?" doesn't contribute much to the debate...

I can, however predict the government's arguments:

"Blair had to keep his mouth shut because military action would need to be swift and include an element of surprise which can be easily ruined when newspapers start talking about it. He could also cite fear of further terror attacks in the UK as another reason to keep plans of aggression secret."

The legal issue could be an interesting one if it can be proved than the UK intelligence agencies stayed out of it completely and there was never any (fabricated or not) evidence of WMDs at Saddam's grubby eager fingertips. This will remove the only self-defence angle Blair has to defend his decision.

That being said, if i'm not mistaken Parliament would have had to approve going to war, which would make them all accomplices.

To add to the hilarity, of course, is the timing of the inquiry. Waiting until Blair could no longer be elected to be EU president (that was his intention, I believe?) was inspired. Why not inquire 6 months into the war? Why not 1 year? Why not after Saddam was captured? Or after the first british casualty?

[Furunculus]

"Why not inquire 6 months into the war? Why not 1 year? Why not after Saddam was captured? Or after the first british casualty?"

Because it was seen as unwise to question a mission while soldiers were dieing to achieve that mission.

The inquiry is a good thing, i look forward to the outcome.

[SwordsMaster]

"Why not inquire 6 months into the war? Why not 1 year? Why not after Saddam was captured? Or after the first british casualty?"

Because it was seen as unwise to question a mission while soldiers were dieing to achieve that mission.

The inquiry is a good thing, i look forward to the outcome.

Are they not dying now?

The country was long overrun after 6 months, and the strategic status was not that different from what it is now.

I do support the inquiry, but I think at this stage it has become theatrics.

[rory_20_uk]

An investigation was undertaken on the Crimean war whilst it was still underway.

The troops do not need a report to tell them the problems. They'd most likely be pleased that it was being looked in to and not just denied / excused.

By the time the report makes its weary way to the public the only thing it will achieve is to help the main protagonists maintain their lucrative lecture circuits by raising the issue all over again. rather like quantum mechanics, trying to see the fault will only end up smearing it thinly over a vast number of people and institutions.

Unless these 5 individuals all of whom have relied on Government for their entire career have decided they want no further honours of juicy jobs (there's always another QUANGO), making enemies of the movers and shakers would be courageous, as Sir Humphrey would say.

In a life and death war which WW2 was the last one that realistically fits the bill I understand that navel gazing can take place after preventing occupation. But other relatively low intensity wars there is no reason why an inquiry can not begin immediately - rather like one has to begin when the police discharge their firearms.

~:smoking:

[Sarmatian]

The Iraq inquiry will not decide if war was legal or illegal. Sir John Chilcot says he will be asking: was this a wise decision, was it well-taken, was it founded on good advice?


So it will be asking bollox questions and answers, provided that questions do get answered, will be meaningless.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They were so shocked by the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the invasion that they believe members of the British and US governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes by breaching the duty outlined in the Geneva convention to safeguard civilians in a conflict, the Guardian has been told.

Ouch.

I think this is a fair dig, unfortunately. While toppling Saddam did not bother me to the extent it has many of the posters in the BR (Note, they're bothered over the need/legality of doing so, not saying they're fans of that thug), I do experience a sense of shame over the negligence displayed by the coalition in the immediate aftermath of taking down Saddam. It's very possible that this behavior wasn't merely ill-thought, but rises to the level of criminal negligence.

[Furunculus]

Ouch.

I think this is a fair dig, unfortunately. While toppling Saddam did not bother me to the extent it has many of the posters in the BR (Note, they're bothered over the need/legality of doing so, not saying they're fans of that thug), I do experience a sense of shame over the negligence displayed by the coalition in the immediate aftermath of taking down Saddam. It's very possible that this behavior wasn't merely ill-thought, but rises to the level of criminal negligence.
been reading about it here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6631711/Iraq-war-files-the-documents-part-one.html

And I agree with the sentiment you express 100%.

[Beskar]

Hah, it is nice that American's stay true to their stereotype.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6634115/Iraq-war-files-British-colonels-scathing-attack-on-arrogant-bureaucratic-Americans.html

Shows big problems in communication between the armed forces.

I liked this quote, though Furunculus will be shaking in a cold-sweat over it.

A: I realise now that I am a European, not an American. We managed to get on better militarily and administratively with our European partners and indeed at times with the Arabs than with the Americans. Europeans chat to each other whereas dialogue is alien to the US military.

[Furunculus]

Hah, it is nice that American's stay true to their stereotype.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6634115/Iraq-war-files-British-colonels-scathing-attack-on-arrogant-bureaucratic-Americans.html

Shows big problems in communication between the armed forces.

I liked this quote, though Furunculus will be shaking in a cold-sweat over it.
One officer who had a conversion in the stress of some awful warfare.

I'll break a sweat when more than 1% of the thousands of officers in her majesty's armed forces admit to feeling the same.

It's a great soundbite, no surprised they used it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I suppose to say "What's new?" doesn't contribute much to the debate...


if i'm not mistaken Parliament would have had to approve going to war, which would make them all accomplices.The Iraq war is by no means a dead horse.


Bliar misled parliament, provided false and incomplete information.



While toppling Saddam did not bother me to the extent it has many of the posters in the BR (Note, they're bothered over the need/legality of doing so, not saying they're fans of that thug), I do experience a sense of shame over the negligence displayed by the coalition in the immediate aftermath of taking down Saddam. It's very possible that this behavior wasn't merely ill-thought, but rises to the level of criminal negligence. The illegality of the war and the disastrous handling of it are closely connected:

- The need for secrecy, to hide intent, prevented proper miltary preparation.
- Secrecy and misleading also prevented proper non-military debate. (What are the goals? What price is society prepared to pay?) An unpopular war is an underfunded war, with low moral.
- Spinning and misinformation created an illusory reality. Go in, destroy WMD, be hailed as liberators, and pull out. This was the idea that was communicated, so this is what the UK and US prepared for. People tend to believe words, words create a reality, and words kill.
- Keeping up of appearances prevented a properly

I say Blair's handling of Iraq created more British deaths than all acts of terorism of British soil combined. By which I do not mean the difference between war and no war, but between politically and militarily properly prepared war, and the one that was fought.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I suppose to say "What's new?" doesn't contribute much to the debate...Why not inquire 6 months into the war? Why not 1 year? Why not after Saddam was captured? Or after the first british casualty?

This will be the fourth inquiry associated with the war. The first one was around a year after the invasion.

The previous three had quite tight constraints. The Chilcott enquiry will be less constrained and ask wider reaching strategic questions that may simply not have been answerable early in the conflict.

Its great flaw is that no-one will be required to give evidence on oath. Added to a lack of judicial and barrister led contributions, it is likely to deliver another whitewash.

The real inquiry will only take place in 30 years, when the papers are released and there is no chance of criminal convictions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are they not dying now?

The country was long overrun after 6 months, and the strategic status was not that different from what it is now.

I do support the inquiry, but I think at this stage it has become theatrics.

Not in Iraq.


Hah, it is nice that American's stay true to their stereotype.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6634115/Iraq-war-files-British-colonels-scathing-attack-on-arrogant-bureaucratic-Americans.html

Shows big problems in communication between the armed forces.

I liked this quote, though Furunculus will be shaking in a cold-sweat over it.

I don't really see why, it's a truism that the Americans are impossible to work with and has been since at least WWII, in Korea British troops suffered hgiher defeats and casualties when attached to American Corps than in similar situations under Commonwealth Command.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The former Director of Public Persecutions, McDonald, lashes out today:


The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage. It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible. Who is any longer naive enough to accept that the then Prime Minister’s mind remained innocently open after his visit to Crawford, Texas? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article6955241.ece


Will the Chilcot inquiry get tough at last, or will the establishment protect their own?


Macdonald said that, with the exceptions of some of the interventions from Sir Roderic Lyne, the questions asked when the Chilcot inquiry has been taking evidence from witnesses have been tame.
"If this is born of a belief that it creates an atmosphere more conducive to truth, it seems naive. The truth doesn't always glide out so compliantly; sometimes it struggles to be heard," Macdonald said.

Many commentators have criticised the fact that all members of the Chilcot team are establishment figures – Chilcot himself is a former permanent secretary – and Macdonald said the inquiry needed to prove its independence.

"In British public life, loyalty and service to power can sometimes count for more to insiders than any tricky questions of wider reputation. It's the regard you are held in by your peers that really counts, so that steadfastness in the face of attack and threatened exposure brings its own rich hierarchy of honour and reward.
"Disloyalty, on the other hand, means a terrible casting out, a rocky and barren Roman exile that few have the courage to endure."
Macdonald said Chilcot and his team needed to tell the truth without fear of offending the Whitehall establishment.

"If Chilcot fails to reveal the truth without fear in this Middle Eastern story of violence and destruction, the inquiry will be held in deserved and withering contempt," Macdonald said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/14/tony-blair-ken-macdonald-deceit

[Furunculus]

and more:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100019818/these-bilious-mandarins-almost-make-you-feel-sorry-for-tony-blair/

What a torrent of bile we’ve had this morning from Sir Ken Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and all of it directed at Tony Blair, the man who appointed him the country’s top prosecutor.Talk about biting the hand that fed you. He brands Blair a “narcissist” for his claim that over Iraq, he did what he thought was right. He accuses the former PM of being “lost in self-aggrandisement” and for good measure adds: “Washington turned his head and he couldn’t resist the stage or the glamour that it gave him.” Blair engaged in an “alarming subterfuge” with George Bush, and then misled the British people into a war they did not want. And for good measure, Macdonald warns the Chilcot inquiry that it will be held in “deserved and withering contempt” if it ends in a “whitewash” by failing to disclose details of a “foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions”. Phew. Has a former public servant ever been more roundly abusive of a former prime minister? Yet Macdonald’s rant is only a rather unsubtle version of a string of recent attacks on Blair by former senior civil servants. Chilcot himself has had his ear bent by several ex-mandarins who have slid the stiletto between Blair’s ribs over Iraq. And a few months back I highlighted the blistering criticism of Blair by four former cabinet secretaries who accused him of systematically undermining cabinet government. While these criticisms are all richly deserved, doesn’t it rather stick in the craw that they are being made now, and not at the time? These abuse-spouting mandarins would have far more credibility if they had spoken out and shared their reservations with the British public when it might have made a difference. Instead, they kept their heads well below the parapet and carried on drawing their handsome salaries. It almost makes you feel sorry for Blair – almost, but not quite.

[KukriKhan]

UK has "The Royal Prerogative" doctrine, yes? Where the sitting Gov't can go to war without the consent of Parliament? But in 2003, they sought a Parliamentary vote anyway re: Iraq? And got the "go-ahead"?

So, the inquiry is not about whether proper procedure was followed, but whether then-PM Blair willfully and purposely LIED to Parliament to obtain a "yes" vote. Do I have that correct?

If so, it's gonna be hard to prove.

Who pays for these inquiries, and what do they cost?

[rory_20_uk]

The Taxpayer pays. The cost is invariably millions as the idea is to stretch it out until all of the figures who are under scrutiny have at the very least got other jobs if not retired. Some Nothern Ireland ones have taken decades.

~:smoking:

[Brenus]

It is not only about Blair lying. It is not only about a war for what?
It is about credibility.
The illegal war on Serbia was illegal but “justified” by a humanitarian potential catastrophe.
It ended on an absolute absurd situation but….
But what is actually the result of this:
I was one who refused to send French Troops to help in an aggression under false pretences. I would have agreed on toppling Saddam Hussein.
For this, French were subjected to an abject campaign because they refused to follow what was obvious lies.
I am afraid that some followed even if they knew it was lies because it was a small price to pay to be in the US pay role and the spoil of the war (contracts).

Not only the liars were lying but also they even conducted a smear campaign against the ones who refuse to swallow their adders (translation from French: avaler des couleuvres).
They dishonoured themselves and their causes, but as well all the other future honourable causes…
Western Democracies were shamed by these and lost all moral superiority the system could have on others.
It did happened before in Croatia when with the active complicity of all the Western Power Croatia did rearmed and ethnically cleansed its rebelled Serbian population but, hey, it was the bad 80 years old babas which were expelled, killed and their houses burned. So it went well…
Chechnya? Georgia? Tibet? Kashmir someone? Russians, Indians and Chinese can now do what they want.

That is what UK and USA didn’t understand when they did finally study the successful French contra-insurrection in Algeria: The French lost the war, because they lost the reason why they were fighting for, to convince the Algerians to stay French. It is what torture, military operations and others side activities do to you….

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

UK has "The Royal Prerogative" doctrine, yes? Where the sitting Gov't can go to war without the consent of Parliament? But in 2003, they sought a Parliamentary vote anyway re: Iraq? And got the "go-ahead"?

So, the inquiry is not about whether proper procedure was followed, but whether then-PM Blair willfully and purposely LIED to Parliament to obtain a "yes" vote. Do I have that correct?

If so, it's gonna be hard to prove.

Who pays for these inquiries, and what do they cost?

Sort of, but you run two risks:

A: Appearing to be a despot.

B: Withholding of royal ascent.

This last one is sticky, the current Queen is a political lame duck, and has been for about 40 years, but she has interneved in the past, as did her father and grandfather.

[econ21]

Sort of, but you run two risks:

A: Appearing to be a despot.


Hasn't the Iraq War created a political consensus that in future the UK will not go to war without a parliamentary vote? Although to be honest, I suspect the issue is less important than it would be in Presidential systems, as UK governments can almost always whip out a majority on such big issues - or they cease to be governments.

[Furunculus]

a surpisingly sane article from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/17/chilcott-inquiry-iraq-blair


Forget it – Blair will never be branded a war criminal

Opponents of the Iraq war are deluded if they think Chilcott will find the allied intervention was illegal

Consider the response of liberal Europeans to the last 40 years of Iraqi history. From 1968, an authentically fascist state confronted them, complete with the supreme leader, the unremitting reign of terror, the gassing of ethnic minorities and the unprovoked wars of conquest. America and Britain had, to their shame, been complicit in the oppression, but in 2003 they overthrew the tyrant thinking that he still possessed the weapons he used against the Kurds and the Iranians. He didn't and the occupation turned into a disaster as the followers of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Ruhollah Khomeini began a campaign of mass sectarian killing.

Anyone who believed what Europeans said about their determination to make amends for Nazism and communism would have expected a principled response. However much they loathed Bush and Blair, surely they would have offered unreserved support for Arabs and Kurds struggling to escape totalitarianism. The British bore a heavy responsibility, as our army was effectively defeated in Basra. With too few troops to fight, it allowed clerical death squads to take over the city. British commanders had to suffer the humiliation of seeing the American and reconstituted Iraqi forces charge in to stop the violence they could not control.

And yet mainstream public opinion has never been interested in offering solidarity to the victims of Ba'athism and Islamism. Instead of talking about what happened to Iraq either before or after the invasion, it has remained stuck in the groove of spring 2003, endlessly scratching the record for a conspiratorial explanation for Britain's decision to invade.

We are now enduring our fifth Iraq inquiry. Tribunals have called Alastair Campbell so many times he could imitate Sherman McCoy in The Bonfire of the Vanities and declare: "I am a career defendant. I now dress for jail, even though I haven't been convicted of any crime." They do not seem to know it but if they hold inquiries until the crack of doom, the war's opponents will never convict him or the Labour leadership. Their central allegation that the second Iraq war was "illegal" is unsustainable and not only because no competent court has validated it.

I am growing old and grey waiting for John Humphrys or Jon Snow to show a spark of journalistic life and ask Nick Clegg, Philippe Sands and all the rest of them the simple question: "What do you mean by an 'illegal war'?"

However vigorously they seek to parse UN resolution 1,441, the use of "illegal" demonstrates that Tony Blair's lawyerly critics believe that the Ba'athist regime, which was guilty of genocide and under UN sanctions, remained Iraq's legitimate government, entitled by law to treat the country as its private prison.

After the war, not even Saddam's business partner Jacques Chirac went so far as to say that the Ba'athists should have their "illegally" stolen country restored to them. The UN, instead, recognised the occupation and the democratic government that followed and lost some of its bravest workers in the struggle for a freer country.

The inability to accept that a policy they honestly opposed still had moral virtues is producing levels of dementia unusually high even by the standards of British public life.

Last week, the media convinced themselves that Campbell made an astonishing admission to the Chilcott inquiry when he said that Blair had sent Bush notes saying that he would support removing Saddam by force if America could not remove him any other way.

Much of the supposed exclusive had been "revealed" in the Campbell diaries, published as long ago as 2007, but the venerable age of the scoop did not matter because it supported the dominant narrative that Blair was determined to go war come what may. I am sure you can spot the difficulty with the conspiracy theory. Blair was not a dictator and could not commit British troops to battle on a whim. But his opponents are trying to get round it by maintaining that he won the support of the cabinet and Parliament by lying to them.

As someone who approved of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein at the time, and still does, I suppose it's not my place help them out. But the polemicist in me is offended by the gaucheness of their efforts. As a matter of low tactics as much as high principle, they ought to know that you never level an accusation you can't substantiate because you make life too easy for your targets when you do.

No one who opposed John Major claimed he was lying when he said that taking the pound out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism was in Britain's best interests. We confined ourselves to the truthful charge that he had made a monumental policy blunder.

Go beyond alleging the same about Blair and he will reply that he personally interviewed intelligence sources, knew the bloody history of Ba'athism backwards and in any case was not prepared to take risks with WMDs after the 9/11 atrocities the intelligence services never saw coming. The best his opponents are likely to get from the Chilcott inquiry is a mild condemnation of the former PM for relying on flimsy evidence (although I hope and expect it to be tougher about the calamitous occupation of Basra).

The fifth disappointment in a row will drive them closer to the edge. Sir Oliver Miles, former ambassador to Libya, has already predicted that the inquiry will be open to accusations of "whitewash" because two members of the Chilcott panel are Jews. He's not alone. I have had an allegedly left-wing journalist say the same to me. Once, he would never have allowed Jew obsessions to infect his thinking. Now, his battered mind was wide open to racial fantasies.

The mental deformations appeasement brings should not be underestimated. People don't just placate their enemies, but become them by adopting their ideological mannerisms and foibles. For years, we've had the notion that democracies are the "root cause" of every Islamist atrocity accepted in polite society. You must now prepare yourself for the return of the Jewish conspiracy theory to supposedly honourable discourse. Indeed, if you look around, you will find it is already there.

i commend the author on his article, almost enough to make me consider reading the Guardian regularly.

[Beskar]

a surpisingly sane article from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/17/chilcott-inquiry-iraq-blair

i commend the author on his article, almost enough to make me consider reading the Guardian regularly.

It is a good paper, far better than the Daily Mail and its kin.

Independent is argubly superior in quality, but nevertheless, Guardian is one of the good ones.

[Furunculus]

It is a good paper, far better than the Daily Mail and its kin.

Independent is argubly superior in quality, but nevertheless, Guardian is one of the good ones.

are you talking about tabloids in the same sentence as broad sheets?

what is the daily mail and its kin, never can remember which was left and which was right out of it and the mirror?

re: the guardian - polly toynbee and the great moonbat make my teeth grate.

re: the independant - there positioning themselves as the environmental paper is great marketing, but shoddy news.

[Kralizec]

In related news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8453305.stm

[al Roumi]

are you talking about tabloids in the same sentence as broad sheets?


Given that a regrettable majority of the electorate get their "news" from them, i think you do kind of have to consider them...


what is the daily mail and its kin, never can remember which was left and which was right out of it and the mirror?

AFAIK (I am absolutely not admitting to reading them! :beam:) the daily mail is (rabidly) right wing and the mirror left (probably with a good ol' soupcon of xenophobia and a dash of protectionism).

[Furunculus]

fair enough, seems odd to compare the guardian to the mail tho.............?

cheers, never read either so have no idea.

[al Roumi]

fair enough, seems odd to compare the guardian to the mail tho.............?

lol, you should try reading them side by side. I don't think you can find 2 more diammetricaly opposed political views.

[Kadagar_AV]

lol, you should try reading them side by side. I don't think you can find 2 more diammetricaly opposed political views.

New to the backroom, mate?

[al Roumi]

New to the backroom, mate?

You're right, this forum can be worse, much worse...