Do you think he's telling the truth?
2006-10-10 23:35:39 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Hmm, you're all right
Going to the vote
2006-10-12 05:35:21 · update #1
Dunno if I believe him, but whether that stated reason is the true reason he backed the Iraqi invasion or not, it shows a sore lack of political courage if he actually disagreed with the invasion. It's possible that, like many US congressman, he was just following popular opinion at the time, much of which affected by bush and Blair's over-inflated assertions of the threat posed by Iraq.
2006-10-10 23:42:47 · answer #1 · answered by R.Me 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.I don't think this is the truth.As this story is from David Blunkett.................
Gordon Brown only gave his backing to military action in Iraq at the "11th hour", the memoirs of former home secretary David Blunkett is set to reveal.
David Blunkett is know to also lie,to save his "skin",remember? As he is backing Gordon Brown as "New Labour Leader" when Blair steps down,theres nothing to say he's not lying now,to aid Brown along!! I think there is a job offer going somewhere!!!!
2006-10-11 07:49:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The constitutional principle is once the cabinet (the executive) has voted on a policy the minority must publicly back the majority decision. It is the issue therefore as to whether the cabinet ever voted on the decision. Blair in power has tended to take the decisions for the executive on his own.
2006-10-11 07:27:33 · answer #3 · answered by georgieporgie2005uk 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do we think WHO is telling the truth...??? It was Blunkett who said that about Brown - and sure I believe him.
Hey! - it was obvious to everyone in 2003 that Blair was lying through his teeth - he was determined to back G.W.Bush with British troops no matter what the British people wanted. That's why Bliar simply couldn't afford to have Brown oppose the war
so he must have threatened to sack him.
2006-10-11 09:56:49 · answer #4 · answered by TruthHurts 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well if he had any balls, and any faith in his own convictions, and if this is the case - he should have followed the ickle scottish ginger foriegn minister out, when he resigned.
Tony Blair would have been completely isolated politically.
You can never underestimate how much the power of Browns loyalty achieved in sustaining Blair, through this thing.
It is unforgivable and disgraceful if he did it too preserve - his own political career.
2006-10-11 06:52:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with lome, if labour get in next time it will be a disaster, there are issue's with immigration, National Health, Iraq, defence and so on. every time labour makes a decision it means loss of life and chaos
2006-10-11 09:52:17 · answer #6 · answered by Redmonk 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Everything you hear about Labour in power seems to be a farce whatever you believe.
2006-10-11 09:06:33 · answer #7 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋