Deeplyflawedbuttrying's Blog

We all want our political representatives to protect the NHS. They all say they will. I look at what the NHS has given me, and I understand why.

I had free ante-natal care- I had a midwife, visit me at home weekly, due to a history of miscarriages. I had regular scans. I was fully supported in my choice to have a home birth, and then, at the 11th hour, when it was not possible, gave birth in a birthing centre, which was well staffed, and left alone as much as I wanted to be.

I get free contraception. I have never once, had to figure out how to pay for the contraception which means I don’t have to consider having any more children, until I am in a position to care for them.

If my daughter is ill, I have NHS direct, and my free access to my GP, or in worst case scenarios, to an ambulance and whatever medical care she needs, without worrying about money. I have never had to worry about whether or not I had insurance.

So I am grateful to the NHS, and when politicians say they are prepared to protect it- I am glad.

However, it appears to me that protection of the NHS is seen as a commitment to public services.

We have a situation at the moment, where we, as a country, are facing massive public service cuts. While I may have opinions on whether or not this is the best way to tackle a recession, I know that they will be wide ranging, and I know that in many areas, they have already been seen.

THe first place I saw cuts in action, was my local authority. And here is my point.

The budgets for the following, are managed by your local authority. Care for the elderly, social services, which protect our most vulnerable children. The services which are responsible for the corporate parenting of the population of children we have, who are looked after by Local Authorities. Leaving care teams, which manage the transition of these children to adulthood.

I see cuts proposed in local authorities, accepted by people, who believe that local authorities manage little more than their roads, and their rubbish collection.

Your local authorities revenue, in part, comes from payment of council tax. In areas like mine, rising unemployment will already have an impact on the revenue they receive, as the levels of council tax they receive, fall, while rates of housing benefit paid out, rise.

I personally, want to see commitment that public service cuts for the absolute most vulnerable people in our society, are not going to be dressed up as efficiency savings for local authorities.

I want politicians to show that they are aware of what our local authorities do, and ‘ringfencing’ those services and those service users, to protect them.

In Leeds, they are facing massive staff cuts already, at a time when their childrens services is already crumbling. While the reasons for the problems in Leeds Childrens Services are complex, I am fairly sure, that staff cuts are not going to help solve them. I am pragmatic enough to know that discussion needs to be had, about how to cut back public spending, I just don’t see why, the people who are, by definition, the most vulnerable, with the least power, have to pay for this.

I would rather have a discussion about whether or not, I can afford to pay prescription charges, than that.

Next time you are being told that a politician is protecting public services, by supporting the NHS- please ask yourself, what the cuts that they are proposing outside that, mean in your town, and who they actually affect.

Rachel ‘I want a biscuit’

Me. ‘Say please, its not nice to just demand things.’

Rachel ‘Can I please have a biscuit’

Me. ‘No’.

Rachel ‘If I eat one more piece of toast, can I please have a biscuit?’.

Me. ‘Maybe’.

Me(counter offer). ‘One more piece of toast, and half an apple, you can have a biscuit’.

Rachel ‘A chocolate one?’

Me. ‘No’.

Rachel. ‘A pretend chocolate one?(bourbon)’

Me. ‘Yes’.

Rachel ‘Even the crups?’(crusts)

Me. ‘No’.

Rachel ‘Can I have the biscuit on the table to look at, while I am eating the toast?’.

Me- (Slightly impressed by sophisticated means of ensuring that promise is delivered). Yes.

I am now ready to take a leading role in Middle East Peace Negotiations.

I have been subjected to debate, after patronising debate, by politicians in the last weeks, about how ‘we’ go about winning the votes of women, or mothers.

Answer is very simple. By being competent politicians. Not entering into illegal wars. Make sure your response to the economic problems we are having, is a response designed to help the british people, and keep the economy going, and which doesn’t just protect business interests. Protect the public services, that allow us to raise our children.

The fact that I have a uterus, that has been used, has not impaired my cognitive abilities. (Although the exhaustion of trying to balance employment, and my family, in a system clearly not designed for women and mothers, did cause some memory loss). The fact that I am ’sans penis’, does not somehow mean that I need a raft of policies, which treat me as stupid. I don’t want a tax allowance that rewards me for being married, and I would quite like politicians to stop with the insinuation, that if they print the ballots in pink, with a free shoe voucher attached for every vote, somehow I will become engaged with the political process.

You don’t need strategies for female voters. You need to stop treating female voters, as ‘they’- some marginalised section of the population whose heads are too empty, for the complicated machinations of our political system. Maybe when you realise that women are not some marginalised left wing group, and we actually constitute half of the population. The half of the population who just happen to be most likely to be bearing the unpaid caring responsibilities of the nations children, and elderly, in addition to the responsibility of the contributions that we make in our various lives- maybe then you have a hope of ‘reaching out’.

Women are alienated from the political process, not by virtue of posession of a uterus, but for the same reasons that anyone else would be alienated from the political process. Tackle that.

In the meantime, do you mind awfully, if I reject participation in your discussions about how to win ‘female’ voters, and concentrate on the major issues that face the country I live in. If you haven’t yet figured out how to make your policies relevant to half the population , then you probably should look at a different line of work.

When my stepkids were teenagers, as teenagers do, they used to push the boundaries. I once watched one of my stepsons steal a £20 note, from my purse. I challenged him about it, showed him where he had just put the note. He outright denied it. Then was absolutely righteously indignant that I would accuse him of this. Accused me of hating him, because I wasn’t his real mum. Then burst into tears, at the fact that our relationship had broken down to the point, where I would think he would steal.

We grounded him, and took the note back.

On Sunday morning, Alistair Campbell was on the Andrew Marr show. He was asked whether the telling Parliament that there was ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ evidence of WMD,when there wasn’t, was misleading Parliament.

He paused. He was overcome. He took a deep breath. As he exhaled, and fought back tears, talks about ‘how much he has been through’, he then tells us ‘Tony Blair is a deeply honorable man’.

Andrew Marr moved on to another less difficult line of questioning. I recalled stories about crocodiles.

If I had been instrumental in a war that had such a high human cost, I would probably cry. I am not sure how I could live with myself, but Mr.Campbell wasn’t crying for the lives that have been lost. The fact that tears only showed, when he was asked a question he couldn’t answer, speaks volumes. Has Mr.Campbell ever been asked about how he feels about the price the world is paying, and will pay, for this war?

Given the entire justification for this war, has been reduced, on Tony Blairs and Alistair Campbells part- to ‘I believed’, ‘our perception of risk’ and tears, and yet still neither of them has actually managed to provide a justification for the illegal Iraq war, based in fact-facts based on something that Iraq had actually done, I am guessing that these two, quite smart men, are absolutely aware of the lack of justification for their actions.

That must be quite frightening, and give Gordon Browns coming appearance at Chilcot, and given that people are showing that they refuse to confuse Tony Blairs ‘honor’, and their ‘feelings, with a legal justification for war. The public opinion that protected them, at the time they were misleading and bullying Parliament, has dissipated, and the accusation of Parliament being misled, gives everyone a very easy get out clause, so that they can stand up and be honest about the nature of Parliamentary process at the time- I can see why tears may have come.

I do love that he laced the blog post discussing his ‘emotional time’ on the show, (ostensibly about Gordon Brown) with enough comparisons of Tony Blair, and Gordon Browns media skills, that he managed to make an attack, look like like a post of support. Making sure that everyone knew he hadn’t bothered watching the Piers Morgan interview, that bore his own signature, so blatantly. If I were Gordon Brown, I would find a spin doctor who could speak without undermining me.

I love that the only tactics he and Tony Blair have, are the tactics of teenagers, caught with their hand in your purse.

From implying that Andrew Marr may have been somehow harbouring an agenda, by asking him about his clearly evidenced misleading of Parliament. Yeah- outrageous that a journalist might ask that-clear evidence of bias, and conspiracy.

That said, Alistair Campbell never really understood that we were a democracy, and that journalists are supposed to ask questions. That a healthy democracy encourages discussion, and isn’t just about the ‘beliefs’ of one or two men, and that opposition is actually democracy in action, rather than a ‘strategic communications failure‘.

The only newsworthy aspect of this, is that it is yet another occasion, when Mr.Campbell et al, cannot answer basic fundamental questions about the war they orchestrated.

Mr.Campbell, here it is, very very plainly. Your feelings, Tony Blairs honor, don’t make a defence-at some point you are going to have to answer these questions.

Also, while am here, say thanks to Tony for telling the world, that the only thing that changed after 9/11 with regard to Iraq, was his perception of risk. You know what it’s called when your perception of risk changes, even though the risk posed hasn’t. Thats pretty much textbook paranoia. And paranoia, is not justification for war. No matter how honorable the man who is paranoid.

Dear Mr. Cameron.

I read your comments today, regarding the treatment of people, who may seek asylum, as a result of persecution, as a result of their sexuality. Shame you weren’t so up for the rights of gay people, when you voted against Clause 28 being repealed, on the grounds that it played to the

‘fringe agenda… including deeply unpopular moves like repealing Section 28 and allowing the promotion of homosexuality in schools’.

When you were  voting against the right for lesbians to undergo IVF, or for the banning of gay couples from adopting children, you remained consistent. Suddenly, with an election looming, the fringe agenda, is where you are at. Good on you for being able to recognise the magazine the ‘fringe agenda’ read. Shame you apparently think that people who are attracted to people of the same sex, also have stupidity and memory loss.

Still, this policy fits with your immigration aims right? Are these people who are genuinely persecuted, and at risk of death, going to get in, if it means going over the immigration caps that you are imposing.

I suppose it beats the raft of policies to help families, you announced recently. You know the ones where you bring back the married persons tax allowance, to encourage stable families, paying for it by ’streamlining’ Surestart. Where in the same package of policies, your chancellor described what was actually left of the old married persons tax allowance, which is now the family element of working families tax credit, and usually paid, as the married persons tax allowance would be, to high earning families, as wasteful. And then, while announcing a tax benefit for the families most likely to be high earners- you want to look at rates of tax credits, for the rest of the working families, in the country. You managed a policy that simultaneously showed that Tory values, and their narrow definition of a family, are still holding strong. You managed to show economic incompetence, AND you managed to show people just how hard you were willing to hit the poorest, to benefit the considerably more well off. Well done.

Seriously Mr.Cameron. Voters are not morons. Probably not qualified to say this, but actually, I think these things might have had a little bit to do with your slip in the polls….

I feel, as an ex labour voter, I can offer you the benefit of my experience. The country has had one leader, who  showed he was willing to abandon his party values, and beliefs, for power. It didn’t go well. The country learned, maybe you should. You really don’t have that much campaigning time left, and most of your margin is about how much people hate labour. The only thing you have to achieve, is make yourself look more competent than Gordon Brown. That isn’t that hard, yet you do seem to be struggling.

Oh, and Mr.Cameron- you alienate your core support, at your peril.

Yours Sincerely,

Deeplyflawedbutrying.

PS. Thanks for the campaign posters. They have been a joy. You could try this variation of mocking them, it has been the cause of much amusement and timewasting, for me and my friends. Tuckerise it!!

Sharing parenting between two people is hard. That is two adults, with equal responsibility for a child, making decisions. Two people with different perspectives.

Keeping parenting consistent, when there are two of you equally responsible, is a complicated task. It’s more complicated, when you are doing it from seperate houses.

Last week, I booked Rachels immunisation for Swine Flu. I sent her dad the appointment time, and we agreed to take her together. I have to say, I am fairly pro-immunisation. I don’t generally see an immunisation as harmful, and believe they have been tested. I also think that this Swine Flu poses a risk to young children. I definitely heard hesitation in her Dad’s voice.

He rang to say he was really against her having the shot, that it wasn’t necessary. My first instinct, was to do what I do, and show him the error of his logic. But I refrained. This is not an argument about climate change, this is parenting my daughter.

I weighed up the risks and benefits, of this immunisation, and decided the risk wasn’t worth it. Not the risk from the immunisation, but the risk of just assuming, that I am the only parent, with a perspective that is worth anything, with regard to our daughter. The risk of dismissing her father.  I remembered, that she is OURS not mine.

So she isn’t having the immunisation. What she gets instead, is a Dad, who knows that his decisions are as valid as mine, and are respected as such.

If Swine Flu actually breaks out again, we may change our minds. I still think she should have it, but for now, not having the vaccine, has far more benefits for her.

Shame neither of us learned to compromise like that, when we were married.

We have a cafe in Hebden Bridge. Peaches. It’s about to close, mainly because it opened at the start of a recession, and never stood a chance. The owners, a couple for whom opening this cafe, was a retirement dream, are a lovely couple.

They do me, two perfectly poached eggs, on toast, with a slice of bacon, a grilled tomato, and a cup of tea, for £3.85, but more importantly than that- they treat Rachel as a customer in her own right. She has her special yellow cup, and her special yellow plate, and when we go in, she orders her own breakfast, and then pays the bill. Its one of those routines that we have, that we repeat every few days. A week after christmas, we went in and they gave her a Mr.Men Rucksack, and a Dora the Explorer Art set-that apparently Santa left there, and didn’t send to the house.

Today, I am looking after Rachel at her dad’s house. She asked if we could go to the cafe, I said no. ‘The cafe’ is in the next town. So we went to the cafe she goes to with her dad.

We walk in, and the woman behind the counter, says good morning to Rachel, and gives her a hairclip. Which Rachel duly pushes back her fringe with. I feel this has happened before. Rachel is brought ‘her’ special cup, with water in it. I sit there bemused. I haven’t yet ordered.

I ask Rachel what she would like, and before she speaks the waitress explains that they do not sell pancakes at this time of day, then the chef pokes his head out of the kitchen, notes Rachel, and says that it’s fine, because that is what Rachel has. Rachel explains to the woman that  instead of coffee today, she should bring tea, because Mummy doesn’t drink coffee.

I watch, as Rachel and the woman behind the counter go through a routine that I have never seen. A bowl of chocolate spread is brought out, and Rachel sticks her finger in, licks it, tells the woman it is good chocolate. The woman brings out Rachel’s pancakes. In the time we are there, every member of staff comes and says hello to Rachel, picking up conversations they clearly left, last time she was in.

As we leave, Rachel asks for a coin to put in the tip jar, and they all say goodbye, and Rachel says she will see them tomorrow with her Daddy.

This isn’t normal is it? Or maybe this is just the benefit of living in small towns? Either way, it’s nice.

This week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have been coming under a lot of criticism.

Do you know, I found it very strange, sat watching the discussion from the link above.

If you are stupid enough, to disregard a massive body of research, showing that climate change is a very real threat, because within this massive body of research, with hundreds and thousands of scientists, working across the globe, many, on a voluntary basis,  human fallibility, means that there is not a 0%margin of error. Then I suggest you reject every single scientific field, there has ever been, including medicine, quantum physics, and biology.

Dr.Wakefield has been struck off this week, I shall never go to the doctors again. His error, must mean that ALL research is wrong.

Given the level of error, in the shitrags that play up every mistake they can find, within this vast body of research- who cannot seem to get a single newspaper out these days, without lying about something, can I say, I find it quite er…ironic? Laughable? Infuriating? Ridiculous?

Not sure what’s funnier-the attention they give to these occasional errors, and the blatancy of the poor reporting, or the fact that people believe them, and can’t spot a deliberate attempt to undermine the IPCC.

If this is what you think, if you really are that stupid, then I suggest you stop reading this blog, and concentrate really hard, on the multi tasking challenge of breathing, and moving at the same time. I think it may be a while, before you can read without your lips moving.

And I do not know why the fuck Newsnight bothered to take so much of their show, up with this, on the day that Clare Short accused the ex-PM of lying and ignoring democratic process, and taking us into an illegal war. But hey ho, I don’t decide what’s news.

I wish climate change science was bollocks. Then I wouldn’t have to recycle. I fucking hate recycling. And I hate energy saving lightbulbs.

PS. It is not selfish to place my own dislike of recycling, above the other consequences of climate change. Alright?

Mr Blair is asked by Baroness Prasha, why when offered 4 options for the military operations in Iraq, he chose the one which involved the most British troops being vulnerable on the ground. Tony Blair states that we were not obliged to pick the option, which would require the most troops to be made vulnerable, by placing them on the ground- and starts by telling us that he ‘believed’ he was right.

And we have Tony Blairs ‘beliefs’ again.

He talks about the dangers of ‘distancing oneself from America‘ because apparently, once that happens, its a ‘long way back’. His chief of staff had talked about the need to choose the option, with the largest amount of land troops=

‘MoD had advocated the largest package, the large land force option, because they felt this was important to their relations with the US military, and also because they felt it was good for soldiers morale’ . Blair  says that the military preferred to be ‘at the centre of things‘.

I think this in itself, raises questions. What reason did we have, to be at the centre of things? Apart from believing it was right, the military wanting to be in the thick of it, and the US needing to see us contributing and taking a major role? Where is the consideration for British Soldiers(the ones whose names are read out at PM Question Time-every week)?

Clare Short made the point in her evidence, that this meant the UK occupied a very new position, as joint occupying force, with the US, that it probably made Mr. Blair feel important. Given the sheer arrogance, and the weight he has given to his own beliefs, above hundreds of years of democratic process, I am inclined to agree that this seems likely.

Surely, when we are planning the type of military intervention, and sending troops to kill innocent civilians, and to die- then there are other factors which should decide how many troops we send. Like the objectives, like the plan most likely to result in achievement of objectives. The plan which will cost the least lives? You know- the kind of considerations you are fairly sure come into play, when you send thousands of British forces to war.

Not -wanting to be in the thick of it, and appeasing America. Or, as was insinuated, but not overtly stated- the need to have influence?

Blair is proud that Bush ‘left it to us’ to decide the scale of our military intervention, but I suppose if your partner is offering you unconditional support to your aims, then you trust that they will prioritise your needs, over anything else- like soldiers lives, or the need for evidence to justify this.

He says- ‘The reason was to say: here we have this situation,in which we believe there is a threat, America believes
there is a threat, we are going to act jointly’.

Again, he appears to have forgotten that the aim for the Americans was regime change, by military intervention, and that his own Foreign Secretary, had told him that aim was illegal. Please note that he says he ‘believes’ there was a threat- not that there was actually a threat. Evidence given 7 years after a justified conflict, should really contain the statement somewhere that there WAS a threat.

I would like to pause to vomit, at this comment he made, about our armed forces- ‘and the thing that is extraordinary about them and magnificent about them, they are prepared to do the difficult things.’

By difficult, I presume he means lay their lives, on the line, in an illegal war, because they are paid to do so, and their rights as soldiers to refuse to take part in illegal military action, are hardly likely to be enforced…sorry- that was an entirely irrelevant stop, on his part and mine- but as I have friends who have served more than once, in both Afghanistan, and Iraq- who absolutely had to do those ‘difficult’ things- this particular comment made me sick.

At least from this part of Blair’s testimony, we are clear that he has stated openly, what factors came into play, when sending thousands of  British men and women, to kill and die for his ‘belief’.

We left the evidence, at the point where Tony Blair had lied, and dismissed the idea that the meeting at Crawford, was to discuss Iraq-claiming that he offered only public support for tackling Saddam using military action as a last resort- after being very clear- that it was a time in which he was planning militarily, and where every meeting in preparation for Crawford was about that planning.

We move onto the issue, of the nature of our relationship with the US.

Blair told many of his advisors, that our support for the US was conditional-which would make sense. He also told many of his advisors that it wasn’t. I can see problems with offering unconditional support, to a country, who are dead set on a military intervention they know is illegal, to achieve regime change- which they you are aware, and have in writing, has no current legal justification. HOwever, he was apparently lying when he said the support of the US had conditions, and now clarifies that actually, our support of the US was absolutely unconditional.

The fact that he was willing to lie to people regarding the nature of our relationship with the US, is almost as worrying as the idea that we should offer unwavering support to a nation in those circumstances. And there are questions about why.

Christopher Meyers evidence raised a possibility. He stated that Tony Blair had in fact been trying to say ‘yes-BUT’- but the US were roundly ignoring ANY pleas he had for changes in approach. If one partner is refusing to listen to the other, and the other has offered unwavering unconditional support- is that a partnership?

We have TB saying- ‘if it came to military action because there was no way of dealing with this diplomatically, we would be with him, and that was absolutely clear, because, as I had set out publicly, not privately, we had to confront this issue, it could be confronted by a sanctions framework that was effective.’ If the ex- Prime Minster has openly during evidence, stated that he didn’t believe that sanctions would work, if he is completely, and unquestioningly in support of the US policy of regime change, through whatever means necessary, and Tony Blairs advisors are saying that the US was not listening to the UK, then I find it highly unlikely, that in private with Shrub, he was discussing effective sanctions? Or am I just cynical.

Blair soon returns to the choice he felt he ‘had’ to face.(Again no explanation of why now?) You know- the ‘logical’ choice- where they could go ahead with sanctions, support the UN or ALTERNATIVELY use force? The plan that HAD to happen, as a result of a terrorist attack that wasn’t connected to Iraq in any way. Yup-That sounds like saying that Saddam could be confronted by an effective sanctions framework.

Then we come back to*YAWN- ‘What changed after September 11 was that, if necessary, and there was no other way of dealing with this threat, we were going to remove him.” Again, apparently an act not within the control of the Iraqi people, or Saddam HUssein- meant that we had absolutely no other choice but to refuse to give sanctions the chance to work, or the UN inspctions….Shall I just write ‘YAWN’ instead of repeating that illogical justification, to save typing time?

At this point I get quite excited. Because this is the point where Tony Blair tries not to look like Bush’s lapdog. Baroness Prasha refers back to the evidence of Jonathon Powell(he was Chief of Staff at the time) who said that actually, the assumption that we were unconditionally on board with the US, meant that any leverage we had had in discussions, had been reduced.

Then Tony Blair skips back to talking about terrorism. Again, he clearly isn’t aware he is talking about a sovereign state, and not a group of individuals.  He says that his strategic thinking, on Iraq, was that 9/11(yeah, yeah, I know) had brought  about a whole new threat- not of political ideaology, but religious fanatacism, and that he felt the middle east peace process was central to this whole issue.

Iraq were a nation state, and actually one of the states in the middle east, who allowed religious freedom. Saddam was psychotic-but actually, not really signed up to the religious fanaticism of Al Qaeda- although it was clear that attacking Iraq illegally was not exactly going to do anything to tackle a fanaticism, that was arguably not just religious, but a political standpoint, which was justified by the appearance of the US and the UK to be declaring ‘war’ on Islam. Since the invasion, extremism has flourished in Iraq, and worryingly for women, so has Sharia Law.

If you are seeking to tackle extremism, is the best way of going about it, legitimising it, by actually declaring ‘war’,  in the very literal sense of the word-with armies and fucking everything? Terrorists are criminals, not nations. Terrorism doesn’t rely on armies, you don’t tackle terrorism by dropping bombs on markets with civilians-in the same way the terrorists don’t win, by walking into markets wearing their bombs. You declare war on an enemy you won’t define- then you are waging possible war on everyone- and forcing a response. Doesn’t seem like the best basis for tackling ‘extremism’.

If you ’strategic thinking’ on the issue of a war with one country, is an entirely unrelated event- then I think there is a problem.

I also find, given this statement about his view of radical Islam, his openness about the fact that he spoke to the Israelis, at this meeting in Crawford, to be concerning. Especially given George W Bush’s views on Israel and Palestine.

At this point, this does not get explored- because Roderick Lyne wants to ask Mr.Blair about his statement that the ends, and the means of the US were the same- given that the US had a stated aim of regime change through military actions.

Well duh? About time Sir Roderick. Tony Blair says yes that is true, but that the UK was pushing the UN route. HOw does one achieve the end of regime change through military action, and ‘push’ the UN route? Sir Roderick, then astoundingly, almost congratulates Mr.Blair on going for the second UN resolution-even though he has it in a document, that the pursuance of alternative routes, is merely US strategy for garnering international support for military action.

If I could just refer you back to the UK policy section of the Iraq Options 2 document-

”Within our objectives of preserving peace and stability in the Gulf and ensuring energy security, our current objectives towards Iraq are:
* the reintegration of a law-abiding Iraq which does not possess WMD or threaten its neighbours, into the international community. Implicitly this cannot occur with Saddam in power; and
* hence, as the least worst option, we have(Past tense) supported containment of Iraq, by constraining Saddam’s ability to re-arm or build up WMD and to threaten his neighbours.”

Under Sir Rodericks guidance- Blair then tells us that the unwavering support, the unconditional support for US aims, he had, was actually him persuading very hard, that they should go to the UN. Now, given that he has by Jonathon Powells evidence, reduced his leverage with the US- and they didn’t want to go down the UN route, and we have the same Iraq Options document saying-

”A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers advice, non currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade legally very difficult. We should therefore consider a staged approach, establishing international support, building up pressure on Saddam and developing military plans. There is a lead time of about 6 months to a ground offensive.”

Then I think I can hazard a guess at why the US agreed to go down the UN route, at least once….. even if they would be ignored later. THere follows much discussion about why Blair didn’t push Bush on the Middle East peace process, or make it a condition. BUt I don’t think there is much merit, given that Blair has already shown that he was little more than a lapdog, agreeing US bidding, without condition.

Although he helpfully tells us that most arab leaders were well glad to be rid of Saddam-= and this strikes me as odd. If you were in a region like the Middle East, and the US had just declared that a terrorist attack on them, gave them carte blanche to do what they liked, to whichever country- I don’t see how you would be massively happy about an illegal war which deposed a leader the US didn’t like. I would probably be watching my back in those circumstances, not congratulating the UK/US. ALthough I might want to keep them on side…

I am not a middle east expert. I do have a friend who originates from Bahrain, she is from a very wealthy family. When she started dating an american, her mother called her a collaborator, and the absolute horror of her wider family, led her to abandon the relationship fairly quickly. THis is not a traditional family, where any boyfriend would be dissaproved of, and is not in one of the countrys named as part of the axis of evil.

The discussion about whether our support of the US was conditional or not, or whether they listened to us- it is going round in circles to say one thing. The US had an objective- regime change through military intervention. We knew what that plan was. We either agreed with it entirely, or at least agreed that it was the plan we were following. We considered it a ‘joint aim’. The US neither knew, nor cared, whetherour opinions were outside that, and by Tony Blairs own admission were not willing to enter into negotiation over their role in the Middle East Peace Process, nor did they see this as a partnership-unless a partnership is a pairing where one side does what they please, and the other party supports it. Fortunately, Tony Blair ‘believed’ in their position.

The pursuit of  a 2nd resolution, which Sir Rodney all but congratulated Mr.Blair on, does not appear to me, to be an attempt to exhaust diplomatic solutions, the pursual of the 2nd resolution fit entirely  with the UK foreign policy objectives, laid out in the Iraq options 2 document. Just a way of garnering international support, and buying time, before the inevitable military action, which was planned even before either party attended Crawford.