20 Years Ago Today - Iraq WMD Report

[Keith_M]

On 24th September, 2002, Tony Blair released his government's report claiming Iraq had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', and that Iraq was attempting to source Uranium from Africa, in an attempt to create Nuclear Weapons.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/24/iraq.speeches

The claims were repeated by George W Bush the following January and they were used as a reason for the US and the UK to invade Iraq...

...leading to the deaths of an estimated 400,000 people, and the long term destabilization of that area of the Middle East.


The report was later proven to have been a total exaggeration of Iraq's capabilities, especially the claim that they had the capacity to attack the UK 'in 45 minutes', and the 'evidence' given of the attempts to obtain Uranium were later proven to be completely fraudulent.

See The Chilcot Report (The Iraq Enquiry)

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/ (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36721645)


Incidentally, Iraq had agreed roughly one week earlier to a proposal by the UN to allow a UN delegation to directly inspect it's weapons capabilities... a proposal which the US and UK rejected.

[Glory Lurker]

And legitimised war to achieve regime change.

[hibsbollah]

The facts speak for themselves. The Iraqi people might get an apology in say, 250 years of post imperial denial. But it removed any moral legitimacy the west might have claimed over more obviously tyrannical regimes.

[Mibbes Aye]

On 24th September, 2002, Tony Blair released his government's report claiming Iraq had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', and that Iraq was attempting to source Uranium from Africa, in an attempt to create Nuclear Weapons.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/24/iraq.speeches

The claims were repeated by George W Bush the following January and they were used as a reason for the US and the UK to invade Iraq...

...leading to the deaths of an estimated 400,000 people, and the long term destabilization of that area of the Middle East.


The report was later proven to have been a total exaggeration of Iraq's capabilities, especially the claim that they had the capacity to attack the UK 'in 45 minutes', and the 'evidence' given of the attempts to obtain Uranium were later proven to be completely fraudulent.

See The Chilcot Report (The Iraq Enquiry)

(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36721645)http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/


Incidentally, Iraq had agreed roughly one week earlier to a proposal by the UN to allow a UN delegation to directly inspect it's weapons capabilities... a proposal which the US and UK rejected.

The report didn't claim Iraq had the means to attck the UK with WMD in 45 minutes. That's simply untrue.

To my mind there are lots of spurious claims and downright lies all ahound this murky affair and this is one of them, I'm afraid.

[Just Alf]

The report didn't claim Iraq had the means to attck the UK with WMD in 45 minutes. That's simply untrue.

To my mind there are lots of spurious claims and downright lies all ahound this murky affair and this is one of them, I'm afraid.Yup, we (the UK) have a lot to answer for in this whole thing but we need to be careful about folks, possibly deliberately, over egging things with "untruths" which ends up having the effect that if one thing is a lie, people who just look at whats reported in headlines etc maybe think other bits are as well.... :-(

[WhileTheChief..]

British interests in Cyprus was the claim at the time I think, not the British Isles.

Mistake they made was citing WMD.

William Hague said we should be going in to dispose of Saddam, which at least was honest.

[Ozyhibby]

A lot of the trouble we are currently experiencing can be traced back to that stupid war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Remember, the first excuse for the invasion of Iraq was their involvement in 9/11. When that was disproven, they moved to excuse number two: WMD, in defiance of UN sanctions. When they didn't materialise, they moved to excuse three: the invasion was all along a mission to liberate Iraq from tyranny i.e., regime change, which is, well, illegal. Somewhere around 1.5 million killed, though it's impossible to know for sure.

[Mibbes Aye]

Oh well, thanks for the correction, the 400,000 deaths were all justified, then.

The UK and US were absolutely determined to invade and were willing to use any excuse, no matter how spurious, to do so.

That's a bit of a leap isn't it?

[SChibs]

Couldnt have Saddam making traction with the proposed African Dollar which would challenge the US Dollar

[Kato]

British interests in Cyprus was the claim at the time I think, not the British Isles.

Mistake they made was citing WMD.

William Hague said we should be going in to dispose of Saddam, which at least was honest.

That is correct. The headlines in the rags smudged the report to make it seem like the UK, but it was "British interests" Cyprus.

The whole thing stank at the time. Robin Cook the only high up in New Labour to say anything.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Remember, the first excuse for the invasion of Iraq was their involvement in 9/11. When that was disproven, they moved to excuse number two: WMD, in defiance of UN sanctions. When they didn't materialise, they moved to excuse three: the invasion was all along a mission to liberate Iraq from tyranny i.e., regime change, which is, well, illegal. Somewhere around 1.5 million killed, though it's impossible to know for sure.Military industrial complex.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

Remember, the first excuse for the invasion of Iraq was their involvement in 9/11. When that was disproven, they moved to excuse number two: WMD, in defiance of UN sanctions. When they didn't materialise, they moved to excuse three: the invasion was all along a mission to liberate Iraq from tyranny i.e., regime change, which is, well, illegal. Somewhere around 1.5 million killed, though it's impossible to know for sure.


:agree:


I used the 400k figure, as that's pretty much the only one that isn't argued with, but it was probably a lot more than that.

Incidentally, Iraq did indeed have chemical and other weapons, but the inquiry points out that the number of weapons they had was nothing special in comparison to any other country in the region, or that there was any reason to suspect that they intended to use them to attack 'western interests'.

The sheer number of those weapons claimed by the US/UK was utter nonsense, as was proven by the fact that they were nowhere to be found after the invasion was complete. That's when they started with the claims about having hid them in Libya.


Yeah, cos that's what you would do with military weapons when your country was invaded. You wouldn't use them to defend yourself against the invaders, you'd hide them in a neighbouring country..

:rolleyes:

[Keith_M]

20 Years Ago Today

November 18th 2002,


After the Iraqi regime finally agrees to unrestricted access, UN Weapons Inspectors arrive in Iraq...much to the dismay of the US.

[BroxburnHibee]

Bumping this as I've just listened to the first part of the latest Rest is Politics which focused on the build up to the Iraq war.

Rory Stewart made a good job of grilling Campbell on his and Blairs role.

Confirmed what we all knew - America (especially Cheney and Rumsfeld) wanted their war no matter what. Blair wanted the UN resolutions but couldn't do it.

2nd episode is about the aftermath.

[Ozyhibby]

Bumping this as I've just listened to the first part of the latest Rest is Politics which focused on the build up to the Iraq war.

Rory Stewart made a good job of grilling Campbell on his and Blairs role.

Confirmed what we all knew - America (especially Cheney and Rumsfeld) wanted their war no matter what. Blair wanted the UN resolutions but couldn't do it.

2nd episode is about the aftermath.

That was a really good listen. The effects of that war are still being felt today. I like Campbell and I like Blair but will never forgive them for Iraq.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

Three days to go until the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

That's when Blair, Bush and others invaded an independent, sovereign nation, causing the deaths of (depending on the source) an estimated 450,000 people, and destabilized large areas of the Middle East for decades.

The UK produced Irag 'dossier', used to justify this invasion, was a tissue of lies and exaggerations.

[Mibbes Aye]

Three days to go until the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

That's when Blair, Bush and others invaded an independent, sovereign nation, causing the deaths of (depending on the source) an estimated 450,000 people, and destabilized large areas of the Middle East for decades.

The UK produced Irag 'dossier', used to justify this invasion, was a tissue of lies and exaggerations.

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war, maybe for balance you could also mention that the ‘independent sovereign nation’ you describe had invaded the independent sovereign nation of Kuwait ten years earlier and invaded the independent sovereign nation of Iran ten years before that, with well over a million casualties. And freely used chemical weapons in the latter as well as against its own Kurdish population and its own Marsh Arab population.

No one really marks the Iraqi invasion of Iran (or Kuwait) though, do they? Or the use of chemical weapons against Saddam’s own civilians.

[The Tubs]

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war, maybe for balance you could also mention that the ‘independent sovereign nation’ you describe had invaded the independent sovereign nation of Kuwait ten years earlier and invaded the independent sovereign nation of Iran ten years before that, with well over a million casualties. And freely used chemical weapons in the latter as well as against its own Kurdish population and its own Marsh Arab population.

No one really marks the Iraqi invasion of Iran (or Kuwait) though, do they? Or the use of chemical weapons against Saddam’s own civilians.

You sound like Putin. Any number of wrongs don’t make a right. This is all the more noteworthy on the day that Putin’s rightfully issued arrest warrant is undermined by the fact that they were never issued for Bush and Blair. We’re still paying for this disturbance to the post (cold?) war order today.

[Mibbes Aye]

You sound like Putin. Any number of wrongs don’t make a right. This is all the more noteworthy on the day that Putin’s rightfully issued arrest warrant is undermined by the fact that they were never issued for Bush and Blair. We’re still paying for this disturbance to the post (cold?) war order today.

Who was suggesting two wrongs make a right? I was highlighting that calling Saddam-era Iraq an ‘independent sovereign nation’ sounds like the equivocation that your Corbyns of this world used about Putin (since you dragged Vlad into it).

[The Tubs]

Who was suggesting two wrongs make a right? I was highlighting that calling Saddam-era Iraq an ‘independent sovereign nation’ sounds like the equivocation that your Corbyns of this world used about Putin (since you dragged Vlad into it).

Then why mention Hussein’s crimes? It sounds like an attempt at justification to me.

Unfortunately, regardless of what someone like Corbyn might say, the ICC has been undermined and people like Putin do take advantage of the Iraq war to justify their actions, And millions, or even billions, sympathize with their arguments.

[The Tubs]

Further to this discussion, here’s a comment from the FT article on the arrest warrant that may be relevant:

A post for the Whataboutary today's announcement will generate.

According to https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/russia-crime-and-punishment-illegal-war-in-ukraine, the war crime of aggression can only be charged against those countries who have signed up to the ICC. Neither Russia or US have.

A special tribunal for the war crime of aggression is needed to prosecute for that, which the Ukrainians are lobbying for and for which they have received widespread support.

The ICC does however have power to prosecute crimes against humanity and genocide, committed in countries which have signed up to the ICC. Ukraine has signed up. That, I think, is why the ICC prosecutes Russia for this crime, but not the US/UK for Iraq war.

Any alleged war crimes in Iraq, say torture in Abu Grabhi, weren't likely or provable to be mandated by Bush or Blair. There is probably though strong documentary evidence, and TV according to Guardian live blog, that Putin has approved of the child deportations, which is a prosecutable war crime in Ukraine.



The point is that Iraq will be used by those who want to commit such crimes. The whataboutery is inevitable.

[Mibbes Aye]

Then why mention Hussein’s crimes? It sounds like an attempt at justification to me

I started my post by saying “Putting aside the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war...”. As for how you choose to interpret or misinterpret it, that’s on you.

As for the ICC and arrest warrants for Blair, please! Interestingly it was set up during Blair’s period in office. Anyway, the ICC, as they stated themselves, could not prosecute as there were no grounds within their remit to do so.

Out of interest, I seem to remember Blair authorised military operations in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, without much in the way of legal cover, before Iraq. Do you think he should be prosecuted for them too?

[Mibbes Aye]

Further to this discussion, here’s a comment from the FT article on the arrest warrant that may be relevant:

A post for the Whataboutary today's announcement will generate.

According to https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/russia-crime-and-punishment-illegal-war-in-ukraine, the war crime of aggression can only be charged against those countries who have signed up to the ICC. Neither Russia or US have.

A special tribunal for the war crime of aggression is needed to prosecute for that, which the Ukrainians are lobbying for and for which they have received widespread support.

The ICC does however have power to prosecute crimes against humanity and genocide, committed in countries which have signed up to the ICC. Ukraine has signed up. That, I think, is why the ICC prosecutes Russia for this crime, but not the US/UK for Iraq war.

Any alleged war crimes in Iraq, say torture in Abu Grabhi, weren't likely or provable to be mandated by Bush or Blair. There is probably though strong documentary evidence, and TV according to Guardian live blog, that Putin has approved of the child deportations, which is a prosecutable war crime in Ukraine.



The point is that Iraq will be used by those who want to commit such crimes. The whataboutery is inevitable.

To be honest, it was you who brought Putin into it, no one else did, nor was going to, I suspect.

[neil7908]

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war, maybe for balance you could also mention that the ‘independent sovereign nation’ you describe had invaded the independent sovereign nation of Kuwait ten years earlier and invaded the independent sovereign nation of Iran ten years before that, with well over a million casualties. And freely used chemical weapons in the latter as well as against its own Kurdish population and its own Marsh Arab population.

No one really marks the Iraqi invasion of Iran (or Kuwait) though, do they? Or the use of chemical weapons against Saddam’s own civilians.

I'm sure plenty in Iraq or Iran will mark the anniversary of the the incidents you note in the last paragraph. But in the UK, these weren't ever claimed as reasons for invasion, and we had no role in them so I think it's understandable surely that we focus on the bit in their history that we are very much responsible for.

Is Ozzy said above, Blair and Labour did a lot of good in their time but this was a truly disgraceful, criminal war. I truly believe it set the stage for the likes of Trump and Boris to lie so openly and brazenly to the public, with the lesson from Iraq that there was no blowback for doing so.

Oh and the sneering tone in other posts about Corbyn is quite amusing given this thread - he called this 100% right of course.

[Ozyhibby]

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war, maybe for balance you could also mention that the ‘independent sovereign nation’ you describe had invaded the independent sovereign nation of Kuwait ten years earlier and invaded the independent sovereign nation of Iran ten years before that, with well over a million casualties. And freely used chemical weapons in the latter as well as against its own Kurdish population and its own Marsh Arab population.

No one really marks the Iraqi invasion of Iran (or Kuwait) though, do they? Or the use of chemical weapons against Saddam’s own civilians.

I think it’s right that we hold ourselves to a higher standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I'm sure plenty in Iraq or Iran will mark the anniversary of the the incidents you note in the last paragraph. But in the UK, these weren't ever claimed as reasons for invasion, and we had no role in them so I think it's understandable surely that we focus on the bit in their history that we are very much responsible for.

Is Ozzy said above, Blair and Labour did a lot of good in their time but this was a truly disgraceful, criminal war. I truly believe it set the stage for the likes of Trump and Boris to lie so openly and brazenly to the public, with the lesson from Iraq that there was no blowback for doing so.

Oh and the sneering tone in other posts about Corbyn is quite amusing given this thread - he called this 100% right of course.

The fall out from the Iraq war is massive. For a start, Putin began invading other countries almost immediately afterwards. We are still dealing with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

To be honest, it was you who brought Putin into it, no one else did, nor was going to, I suspect.

I would. It’s very relevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/17/the-guardian-view-on-iraq-20-years-on-the-costs-of-war?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

I started my post by saying “Putting aside the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war...”. As for how you choose to interpret or misinterpret it, that’s on you.

As for the ICC and arrest warrants for Blair, please! Interestingly it was set up during Blair’s period in office. Anyway, the ICC, as they stated themselves, could not prosecute as there were no grounds within their remit to do so.

Out of interest, I seem to remember Blair authorised military operations in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, without much in the way of legal cover, before Iraq. Do you think he should be prosecuted for them too?

Yes he should have he is clearly a war criminal and should be in jail which definitely created the environment for years or Tory control. Have never voted Labour since.

[JimBHibees]

Three days to go until the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

That's when Blair, Bush and others invaded an independent, sovereign nation, causing the deaths of (depending on the source) an estimated 450,000 people, and destabilized large areas of the Middle East for decades.

The UK produced Irag 'dossier', used to justify this invasion, was a tissue of lies and exaggerations.

Absolutely scandalous period of Uk history and from a labour government too.

[Smartie]

I'm sure plenty in Iraq or Iran will mark the anniversary of the the incidents you note in the last paragraph. But in the UK, these weren't ever claimed as reasons for invasion, and we had no role in them so I think it's understandable surely that we focus on the bit in their history that we are very much responsible for.

Is Ozzy said above, Blair and Labour did a lot of good in their time but this was a truly disgraceful, criminal war. I truly believe it set the stage for the likes of Trump and Boris to lie so openly and brazenly to the public, with the lesson from Iraq that there was no blowback for doing so.

Oh and the sneering tone in other posts about Corbyn is quite amusing given this thread - he called this 100% right of course.

The thing about your last paragraph is that it is impossible to say, only to speculate, that had we done something different then where would we be today? All we know are the consequences of the actions we took.

I listened to the Campbell and Stewart podcasts and found them fascinating. I quite like the pair of them together anyway but the different perspectives they could bring through real, lived experiences of the events and consequences of that war were truly fascinating. Some of the stuff about the dynamics of the communication and decision making of Bush and the American military was really interesting, given I’d always thought Bush to be the hawkish one.

In many ways I’d say I was a bit won over by Campbell’s argument. I’ve got the benefit of 20 years of hindsight so I wouldn’t say I agree with him but more than before at least I understand the reasons behind their decisions. The what ifs - what if Saddam Hussein had WMD’s, Blair had information to suggest he did but chose not to act on it then they were used in a terror act? It sounds ridiculous now, but only with hindsight they were not able to benefit from at the time.

And who knows what Saddam Hussein might have got up to over the past 20 years, given what he’d got up to over the previous 30?

Anyway, I’d recommend listening to the podcasts to anyone who is interested in the subject, presumably everyone posting here. I think we all quietly fantasise about what it would be like to be PM, President or the Hibs manager and take big decisions where success can lead to true glory. The real truth is that there is an ugly underside to it where some hideous situations can arise that you need to deal with and tbh, f*** that.

[Ozyhibby]

The thing about your last paragraph is that it is impossible to say, only to speculate, that had we done something different then where would we be today? All we know are the consequences of the actions we took.

I listened to the Campbell and Stewart podcasts and found them fascinating. I quite like the pair of them together anyway but the different perspectives they could bring through real, lived experiences of the events and consequences of that war were truly fascinating. Some of the stuff about the dynamics of the communication and decision making of Bush and the American military was really interesting, given I’d always thought Bush to be the hawkish one.

In many ways I’d say I was a bit won over by Campbell’s argument. I’ve got the benefit of 20 years of hindsight so I wouldn’t say I agree with him but more than before at least I understand the reasons behind their decisions. The what ifs - what if Saddam Hussein had WMD’s, Blair had information to suggest he did but chose not to act on it then they were used in a terror act? It sounds ridiculous now, but only with hindsight they were not able to benefit from at the time.

And who knows what Saddam Hussein might have got up to over the past 20 years, given what he’d got up to over the previous 30?

Anyway, I’d recommend listening to the podcasts to anyone who is interested in the subject, presumably everyone posting here. I think we all quietly fantasise about what it would be like to be PM, President or the Hibs manager and take big decisions where success can lead to true glory. The real truth is that there is an ugly underside to it where some hideous situations can arise that you need to deal with and tbh, f*** that.

I found it disingenuous when he was saying they didn’t foresee Iran getting involved. That was well and truly discussed many times in the lead up and was totally ignored by the govt. I found myself disliking him all over again listening to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

The thing about your last paragraph is that it is impossible to say, only to speculate, that had we done something different then where would we be today? All we know are the consequences of the actions we took.

I listened to the Campbell and Stewart podcasts and found them fascinating. I quite like the pair of them together anyway but the different perspectives they could bring through real, lived experiences of the events and consequences of that war were truly fascinating. Some of the stuff about the dynamics of the communication and decision making of Bush and the American military was really interesting, given I’d always thought Bush to be the hawkish one.

In many ways I’d say I was a bit won over by Campbell’s argument. I’ve got the benefit of 20 years of hindsight so I wouldn’t say I agree with him but more than before at least I understand the reasons behind their decisions. The what ifs - what if Saddam Hussein had WMD’s, Blair had information to suggest he did but chose not to act on it then they were used in a terror act? It sounds ridiculous now, but only with hindsight they were not able to benefit from at the time.

And who knows what Saddam Hussein might have got up to over the past 20 years, given what he’d got up to over the previous 30?

Anyway, I’d recommend listening to the podcasts to anyone who is interested in the subject, presumably everyone posting here. I think we all quietly fantasise about what it would be like to be PM, President or the Hibs manager and take big decisions where success can lead to true glory. The real truth is that there is an ugly underside to it where some hideous situations can arise that you need to deal with and tbh, f*** that.

I will give it a listen but I'll be honest, we've had an independent enquiry and loads of reporting on the reasons for the war. And I simply don't believe the narrative of Blair and Campbell on WMDs. Ultimately they went to war on the basis of a totally bogus claim. Its pretty clear to me that war was happening, and the WMD stuff was them scrambling for a reason.

There are loads of rogue states (North Korea anyone) that have WMDs but we haven't given them a sniff.

There is no doubt in my mind they joined the war simply to stick with Bush and the US, and totally underestimated what would happen post war.

For me, its next to Brexit as the biggest political con/blunder in my life. And like Brexit, the architects of it will never have to really answer for their crimes, and just keeping peddling a false narrative to wash their hands of the blood on them

[neil7908]

Armando Iannucci says it better than I ever could (naturally):

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/18/thick-of-it-iraq-war-anger-truth-tony-blair-power

[JimBHibees]

Armando Iannucci says it better than I ever could (naturally):

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/18/thick-of-it-iraq-war-anger-truth-tony-blair-power

Good article another good one here

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/18/tony-blair-son-gordon-death-iraq-inquiry

[Keith_M]

Robin Cook's resignation speech was quite a moving experience and being willing to resign on a matter of principle is something you very rarely see with career politicians.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/17/robin-cook-stop-iraq-war-speech



On another note: Yes, of course the war between Iran and Iraq was also a horrendous experience (as were many others) but I defend my right to call out the country that I actually live in for manufacturing evidence to invade a foreign nation, and for their part in destabilising the Middle East and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

I also defend my right to criticise the hypocrisy of such nations, and the idiocy of certain other countries that blank out the fact that they are the worst offenders when it comes to illegal wars, 'police actions' and undermining other governments by stealth.

[Mibbes Aye]

Robin Cook's resignation speech was quite a moving experience and being willing to resign on a matter of principle is something you very rarely see with career politicians.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/17/robin-cook-stop-iraq-war-speech



On another note: Yes, of course the war between Iran and Iraq was also a horrendous experience (as were many others) but I defend my right to call out the country that I actually live in for manufacturing evidence to invade a foreign nation, and for their part in destabilising the Middle East and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

I also defend my right to criticise the hypocrisy of such nations, and the idiocy of certain other countries that blank out the fact that they are the worst offenders when it comes to illegal wars, 'police actions' and undermining other governments by stealth.

I don’t think anyone is attacking any of your rights, so I wouldn’t worry too much about defending them.

What evidence was manufactured by the U.K.?

[hibsbollah]

Robin Cook's resignation speech was quite a moving experience and being willing to resign on a matter of principle is something you very rarely see with career politicians.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/17/robin-cook-stop-iraq-war-speech



On another note: Yes, of course the war between Iran and Iraq was also a horrendous experience (as were many others) but I defend my right to call out the country that I actually live in for manufacturing evidence to invade a foreign nation, and for their part in destabilising the Middle East and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

I also defend my right to criticise the hypocrisy of such nations, and the idiocy of certain other countries that blank out the fact that they are the worst offenders when it comes to illegal wars, 'police actions' and undermining other governments by stealth.

The remarkable thing about Cooks speech is not only the political bravery of a major player on the chessboard of the time with a lot to lose, but the prescience of him, as he wasn’t actually aware of how flimsy the evidence of WMD actually was. If politicians were, it would never have been allowed. Concocted evidence that led to illegal deaths that has shaped our world for the worse for twenty years and will continue to do so.

[Mibbes Aye]

The remarkable thing about Cooks speech is not only the political bravery of a major player on the chessboard of the time with a lot to lose, but the prescience of him, as he wasn’t actually aware of how flimsy the evidence of WMD actually was. If politicians were, it would never have been allowed. Concocted evidence that led to illegal deaths that has shaped our world for the worse for twenty years and will continue to do so.

Cook wasn’t a major player on the chessboard at the time, he had been shunted to Leader of the House long before his speech.

As for the evidence, I think he said himself that it was open to different interpretations. He chose his and disagreed with those who chose others, that’s fair enough.

i was not in favour of the war. But I am also not in favour of the sanctimony, ignorance, self-indulgence and bandwagon-jumping that typifies a fair number of the critics.

There are too many ‘uncomfortable truths’ ignored amid all the hand-wringing. For example, New Labour’s very first Cabinet meeting in May 1997 was half-given over to a briefing and discussion about the threat of WMDs in Iraq, Cook heavily involved being ForSec at the time.

[hibsbollah]

Cook wasn’t a major player on the chessboard at the time, he had been shunted to Leader of the House long before his speech.

As for the evidence, I think he said himself that it was open to different interpretations. He chose his and disagreed with those who chose others, that’s fair enough.

i was not in favour of the war. But I am also not in favour of the sanctimony, ignorance, self-indulgence and bandwagon-jumping that typifies a fair number of the critics.

There are too many ‘uncomfortable truths’ ignored amid all the hand-wringing. For example, New Labour’s very first Cabinet meeting in May 1997 was half-given over to a briefing and discussion about the threat of WMDs in Iraq, Cook heavily involved being ForSec at the time.

Did he say that? I have no idea. If he said it at the time of his speech, the take that there were ‘different interpretations’ is understandable, since the proof that there were no WMDs and the evidence was fabricated wasn’t yet available.

Your ‘uncomfortable truth’ example isn’t particularly uncomfortable I wouldn’t have thought, the fact that it was discussed at cabinet and at some point thought to be a threat in 1997 doesn’t really overturn the key facts.

There is plenty of sanctimony and self indulgence around, you’re right about that. I’m particularly amused by Alistair Campbells ‘rewriting history’ testimony being treated like coming from an impartial witness.

Cook was Foreign Sec until 2001 and although not holding one of the key ministries was definitely a political heavyweight and a major player on the chessboard at the time. I remember watching it live and the political reaction was one of shock, not far off that which followed Geoffrey Howes savaging of Thatcher.

[Betty Boop]

https://youtu.be/POByi9h6qjg

'Killing Kelly' a documentary about the strange death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly who was found dead in the woods.

[Mibbes Aye]

Did he say that? I have no idea. If he said it at the time of his speech, the take that there were ‘different interpretations’ is understandable, since the proof that there were no WMDs and the evidence was fabricated wasn’t yet available.

Your ‘uncomfortable truth’ example isn’t particularly uncomfortable I wouldn’t have thought, the fact that it was discussed at cabinet and at some point thought to be a threat in 1997 doesn’t really overturn the key facts.

There is plenty of sanctimony and self indulgence around, you’re right about that. I’m particularly amused by Alistair Campbells ‘rewriting history’ testimony being treated like coming from an impartial witness.

Cook was Foreign Sec until 2001 and although not holding one of the key ministries was definitely a political heavyweight and a major player on the chessboard at the time. I remember watching it live and the political reaction was one of shock, not far off that which followed Geoffrey Howes savaging of Thatcher.

Cook was out. He was basically given the choice of Leader of the House or out the Cabinet. And it was nothing to do with Iraq either, he was a casualty of the internal war between the Blairites and Brownites at the time, most especially around the Euro. Which his hagiography-penning spad in the link contributed to.

As for Howe, his speech precipitated the fall of Thatcher a couple of weeks later. Cook didn’t even precipitate the resignation of Clare Short. I think you also neglect to mention that Cook was at pains to voice his support for TB throughout, praising him for his huge efforts in trying to achieve the second resolution etc. Quite different, really.

Anyway I don’t wish to appear down on Cook, he was outstanding on the Scott Inquiry and served the party well in modernising under Kinnock.

[hibsbollah]

Cook was out. He was basically given the choice of Leader of the House or out the Cabinet. And it was nothing to do with Iraq either, he was a casualty of the internal war between the Blairites and Brownites at the time, most especially around the Euro. Which his hagiography-penning spad in the link contributed to.

As for Howe, his speech precipitated the fall of Thatcher a couple of weeks later. Cook didn’t even precipitate the resignation of Clare Short. I think you also neglect to mention that Cook was at pains to voice his support for TB throughout, praising him for his huge efforts in trying to achieve the second resolution etc. Quite different, really.

Anyway I don’t wish to appear down on Cook, he was outstanding on the Scott Inquiry and served the party well in modernising under Kinnock.

I’m describing Cook’s gravitas and recognizability, not necessarily the importance of his cabinet position at that time. He was a big beast and his career was far from ‘over’. What an odd thing to say.

You’ve also misunderstood or perhaps just misread. I described the political REACTION to the speech and compared it to Howes. I am well aware it had less political IMPACT than Howes, which is a very different thing.

Being ‘down on’ Cook would certainly be odd and unwise. And any objective assessment of his career would put his resignation speech at the zenith. His role in Kinnocks shadow cabinet, not really comparable.

[Mibbes Aye]

I’m describing Cook’s gravitas and recognizability, not necessarily the importance of his cabinet position at that time. He was a big beast and his career was far from ‘over’. What an odd thing to say.

You’ve also misunderstood or perhaps just misread. I described the political REACTION to the speech and compared it to Howes. I am well aware it had less political IMPACT than Howes, which is a very different thing.

Being ‘down on’ Cook would certainly be odd and unwise. And any objective assessment of his career would put his resignation speech at the zenith. His role in Kinnocks shadow cabinet, not really comparable.

It was widely expected that Cook (and wrongly) Short were about to resign, so it wasn’t a shock. Unless you mean how loyal he was when speaking about Blair which probably surprised some :greengrin

His speech itself has become some sort of totem for those who still think Blair should be dragged before the ICC, which suggests maybe they misunderstood or misread it?

As for his best work, definitely Scott. He and his team were forensic and flawless, and ultimately merciless. Glory days in the mid-90s, when Blair, Brown and Cook would disdainfully rip apart the Government front benches, weren’t they? As for Kinnock, I didn’t mention Cook’s work on his shadow portfolio, I was talking about his work within the party, helping to move on those who needed moved on. It was far from all his work but overall it was priceless.

[neil7908]

Cook wasn’t a major player on the chessboard at the time, he had been shunted to Leader of the House long before his speech.

As for the evidence, I think he said himself that it was open to different interpretations. He chose his and disagreed with those who chose others, that’s fair enough.

i was not in favour of the war. But I am also not in favour of the sanctimony, ignorance, self-indulgence and bandwagon-jumping that typifies a fair number of the critics.

There are too many ‘uncomfortable truths’ ignored amid all the hand-wringing. For example, New Labour’s very first Cabinet meeting in May 1997 was half-given over to a briefing and discussion about the threat of WMDs in Iraq, Cook heavily involved being ForSec at the time.

Funny, "sanctimony, ignorance, self-indulgence and bandwagon-jumping" sounds exactly the approach Blair and co took in dragging us to war. And the difference between them and their opponents is that got it disastrously wrong. Like hundreds of thousands of dead, billions of pounds wasted kind of wrong.

[Mibbes Aye]

Funny, "sanctimony, ignorance, self-indulgence and bandwagon-jumping" sounds exactly the approach Blair and co took in dragging us to war. And the difference between them and their opponents is that got it disastrously wrong. Like hundreds of thousands of dead, billions of pounds wasted kind of wrong.

I actually agree that Blair could be described as sanctimonious, especially to begin with. He also had a tendency to be dogmatic. Firmness in leadership can be very positive, but he often seemed to seek out the political fights.

As I said earlier, I wasn’t in favour of the war. The loss of life was horrendous. The premeditated greed and plunder by businesses like Haliburton, so tied in to Cheney and others, was especially egregious - essentially monetising destruction, delivered with the full force of the world’s most powerful military.

I also have trouble however with the laziness of some of Blair’s critics. Lots of “Boo! War criminal! Send him to The Hague! Lapdog of GWB!” etc etc. A large part of what Blair sought to do on the foreign stage was set out very early in his premiership. There was little in the way of negative comment or backlash then. Funnily enough I think that doctrine was probably popular, given the time and context. I had mixed feelings about it for good reasons but it was easy to feel conflicted about that, given some of the events of the 1990s prior to him taking office.

[Santa Cruz]

https://youtu.be/POByi9h6qjg

'Killing Kelly' a documentary about the strange death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly who was found dead in the woods.

I've not watched your link. Aside from the huge loss of innocent civilian lives along with the armed force losses, this was possibly the saddest story. From what I mind at the tme, he was an honest man, subjected to smears, who couldn't live with the consequences of being tainted as perceived to have been as dishonest as people in more senior positions.

Then what his family was subjected to with conspiracy theories he was murdered which they said they didn't believe but it must have played on their minds once that seed was planted, then told the file on his death would remain classified until they had died to spare distress. The only right thing that happened was releasing the file sooner, confirming the family's own beliefs he had taken his life, which would have finally gave them peace of mind. I stopped voting Labour for a couple of elections out of disgust.

[hibsbollah]

It was widely expected that Cook (and wrongly) Short were about to resign, so it wasn’t a shock. Unless you mean how loyal he was when speaking about Blair which probably surprised some :greengrin

His speech itself has become some sort of totem for those who still think Blair should be dragged before the ICC, which suggests maybe they misunderstood or misread it?

As for his best work, definitely Scott. He and his team were forensic and flawless, and ultimately merciless. Glory days in the mid-90s, when Blair, Brown and Cook would disdainfully rip apart the Government front benches, weren’t they? As for Kinnock, I didn’t mention Cook’s work on his shadow portfolio, I was talking about his work within the party, helping to move on those who needed moved on. It was far from all his work but overall it was priceless.

I think that those who admire the speech do so because it was precisely the opposite of the venal, self serving behaviour that we expect from the political class. Despite what you’re trying to argue, Cook was a heavyweight politician from the centre ground, who put his morality before his career and his party. It really isn’t terribly complicated, it was an act of someone who knew how much stock the Mandelson/Gould project put in unswerving loyalty to centralised power and went his own way regardless.

[archie]

Whatever you think of the issue, I'm struck by the sheer calibre of Scottish MPs at that time. Not everybody of course, but thinking of John Smith, Gordon Brown, Tam Dayell, Robin Cook and so on.

[Smartie]

Whatever you think of the issue, I'm struck by the sheer calibre of Scottish MPs at that time. Not everybody of course, but thinking of John Smith, Gordon Brown, Tam Dayell, Robin Cook and so on.

Proper heavyweights, everywhere.

It really was quite incredible, especially considering the amount of time they spent in opposition rather than in government.

The decline from there really has been quite alarming, although I'd say the same is true of the standard of politician throughout the UK.

[Santa Cruz]

Proper heavyweights, everywhere.

It really was quite incredible, especially considering the amount of time they spent in opposition rather than in government.

The decline from there really has been quite alarming, although I'd say the same is true of the standard of politician throughout the UK.

Totally agree. Would also add Donald Dewar to Archie's list.

[Mibbes Aye]

Whatever you think of the issue, I'm struck by the sheer calibre of Scottish MPs at that time. Not everybody of course, but thinking of John Smith, Gordon Brown, Tam Dayell, Robin Cook and so on.

Although not in the league of Blair and Brown, John Reid was very highly thought of, probably to his detriment as he was moved from department to department as a ‘fixer’ and ‘reformer’. It seems implausible now to imagine a MP for a Scottish seat being Health Secretary and Home Secretary in a post-devolution UK Cabinet.

If you were to plot out the proportion of Cabinet posts held by Scottish MPs between 1997 and 2010, it was wildly disproportionate to the general population .

[Ozyhibby]

The reluctance of any of these Scottish heavyweights (dewar excepted) to come to the Scottish Parliament is what opened the door for the SNP. That and the Iraq war. Salmond (also slow to realise) spotted the opportunity their absence provided. It sent a signal to the Scottish people that Labour did not think the parliament important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

The reluctance of any of these Scottish heavyweights (dewar excepted) to come to the Scottish Parliament is what opened the door for the SNP. That and the Iraq war. Salmond (also slow to realise) spotted the opportunity their absence provided. It sent a signal to the Scottish people that Labour did not think the parliament important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I should add Salmond to the list. He was highly effective at spotting opportunity and grabbing it. It was sometimes really cynical, but effective. The repeal of section 28/2a is a prime example. Unprincipled but it paid dividends.

[Mibbes Aye]

The reluctance of any of these Scottish heavyweights (dewar excepted) to come to the Scottish Parliament is what opened the door for the SNP. That and the Iraq war. Salmond (also slow to realise) spotted the opportunity their absence provided. It sent a signal to the Scottish people that Labour did not think the parliament important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think all or practically all those Scottish Labour Cabinet members had Commons seats before devolution. Seems a bit unfair to expect them to stop representing the people who voted for them to be their MP

[Mibbes Aye]

I think that those who admire the speech do so because it was precisely the opposite of the venal, self serving behaviour that we expect from the political class. Despite what you’re trying to argue, Cook was a heavyweight politician from the centre ground, who put his morality before his career and his party. It really isn’t terribly complicated, it was an act of someone who knew how much stock the Mandelson/Gould project put in unswerving loyalty to centralised power and went his own way regardless.

I think one overwrought hagiography was more than ample for me. No need for a second, especially if it is going to be mythologising.

Cook was demoted, everyone knew that. Just like everyone knew he wanted to succeed Bevin as longest-serving Labour ForSec, he made no secret of that.

He had made mistakes at the FCO though and he was also unfortunate in his European positioning. Though as far as Mandelson goes, they were practically on the same page re the Euro. So it was nothing about morality at all really.

It was the Leader of the House or nothing in terms of his career. And even taking the Leader’s post led to huge frustration when he was stymied on the mechanics of Lords reform.

[hibsbollah]

I think one overwrought hagiography was more than ample for me. No need for a second, especially if it is going to be mythologising.

Cook was demoted, everyone knew that. Just like everyone knew he wanted to succeed Bevin as longest-serving Labour ForSec, he made no secret of that.

He had made mistakes at the FCO though and he was also unfortunate in his European positioning. Though as far as Mandelson goes, they were practically on the same page re the Euro. So it was nothing about morality at all really.

It was the Leader of the House or nothing in terms of his career. And even taking the Leader’s post led to huge frustration when he was stymied on the mechanics of Lords reform.

‘Overwrought hagiography?’ :faf:

That’s hardly what I was doing, but I think you know that perfectly well. The only myth making going on is your implication that Cook was some sort of washed-up has been. ‘He made mistakes in the FCO’. ‘He wanted to be there as long as Bevin’. What are the relevance of these things? Facts need to have a point or that’s all they are.

You don’t have to explain recent history to others like you were the only one with the mental fortitude to comprehend it. Some of us were there at the time and were watching.

[archie]

‘Overwrought hagiography?’ :faf:

That’s hardly what I was doing, but I think you know that perfectly well. The only myth making going on is your implication that Cook was some sort of washed-up has been. ‘He made mistakes in the FCO’. ‘He wanted to be there as long as Bevin’. What are the relevance of these things? Facts need to have a point or that’s all they are.

You don’t have to explain recent history to others like you were the only one with the mental fortitude to comprehend it. Some of us were there at the time and were watching.

I think the assessment of Cook is harsh. To my mind he articulated views that a lot of Labour supporters had. I guess for me the question is where do we go with this? I think it really important to acknowledge the anniversary and, to ensure lessons are learned. I do wonder if some commentators are trying to draw a line between the second Iraq war and Labour now. I think that is pretty cynical.

[Ozyhibby]

I think all or practically all those Scottish Labour Cabinet members had Commons seats before devolution. Seems a bit unfair to expect them to stop representing the people who voted for them to be their MP

I’m not judging, just saying that Labour should have been looking to get their top people in the Scottish Parliament. The fact is, these people saw it as 2nd division at the time. So did Salmond. When he did realise, Labour were too slow to respond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

‘Overwrought hagiography?’ :faf:

That’s hardly what I was doing, but I think you know that perfectly well. The only myth making going on is your implication that Cook was some sort of washed-up has been. ‘He made mistakes in the FCO’. ‘He wanted to be there as long as Bevin’. What are the relevance of these things? Facts need to have a point or that’s all they are.

You don’t have to explain recent history to others like you were the only one with the mental fortitude to comprehend it. Some of us were there at the time and were watching.

I’m afraid that overwrought hagiography was exactly what was going on when you first described him as a major player on the chessboard at the time. He was, of course, not. And he wasn’t gifted with ‘prescience’ to any great degree in this regard either. His fundamental issue was around unilateral action. I note that you can’t acknowledge how praising he was of Blair

He was very frustrated at being moved from the Foreign Office, massively so. It came as a real shock to him and he was also unhappy at being stymied as LOTH. All relevant in shaping his worldview and his sense of his future.

Of course he was also insecure and thin-skinned. I can’t imagine why the ‘thin-skinned’ seems familiar.

[Mibbes Aye]

I’m not judging, just saying that Labour should have been looking to get their top people in the Scottish Parliament. The fact is, these people saw it as 2nd division at the time. So did Salmond. When he did realise, Labour were too slow to respond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s outrageous and incredibly disrespectful to Jack McConnell :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

That’s outrageous and incredibly disrespectful to Jack McConnell :greengrin

Fair point. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

I’m afraid that overwrought hagiography was exactly what was going on when you first described him as a major player on the chessboard at the time. He was, of course, not. And he wasn’t gifted with ‘prescience’ to any great degree in this regard either. His fundamental issue was around unilateral action. I note that you can’t acknowledge how praising he was of Blair

He was very frustrated at being moved from the Foreign Office, massively so. It came as a real shock to him and he was also unhappy at being stymied as LOTH. All relevant in shaping his worldview and his sense of his future.

Of course he was also insecure and thin-skinned. I can’t imagine why the ‘thin-skinned’ seems familiar.

I think it’s idiotic to suggest he wasn’t a major player. You can continue to say that if you like, it doesn’t make it true, it just makes me more convinced that you really don’t follow politics that closely. You are right about one thing, i did like him, as a man and a politician. He was particularly good at dealing with smug, pompous self righteous types who think they have all the answers.

[archie]

I think it’s idiotic to suggest he wasn’t a major player. You can continue to say that if you like, it doesn’t make it true, it just makes me more convinced that you really don’t follow politics that closely. You are right about one thing, i did like him, as a man and a politician. He was particularly good at dealing with smug, pompous self righteous types who think they have all the answers.
I worked beside people from West Lothian who weren't particularly political, but adored him. They were also genuinely heartbroken when he split from his wife.

[Ozyhibby]

The thing about the Iraq war was that you didn’t have to be a pacifist to think it was a terrible idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

The thing about the Iraq war was that you didn’t have to be a pacifist to think it was a terrible idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very true. Colin Powell who reached the highest rank in the US Military before becoming a politician, advocated for negotiations over military action, said it should only ever be used as a last resort. He knew better than most politicians from his active service how senseless it was killing innocent civilians and military personnel when using other avenues could avoid that. He was fed false information by the intelligence services which he believed to be true, he made a judgement based on that info which he took responsibility for and eventually resigned. I always felt he would have made a great POTUS and with him in that job the world would have been a safer place. I read his autobiography years ago, it was a good read.

[Mibbes Aye]

I think it’s idiotic to suggest he wasn’t a major player. You can continue to say that if you like, it doesn’t make it true, it just makes me more convinced that you really don’t follow politics that closely. You are right about one thing, i did like him, as a man and a politician. He was particularly good at dealing with smug, pompous self righteous types who think they have all the answers.

You can’t help personalising stuff can you?

I have no issue with Cook being described as intelligent, honourable etc etc.

But this all started with me pointing out you were incorrect to describe him as a major player at the time. He was out of the picture when it came to the process in 2002 and then 2003.

His speech was important to a lot of people but it wasn’t made from a position of being able to change anything. He accepted that, not everyone else can, evidently.

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/politics-weekly-uk/id136697472?i=1000604599464

Half way through listening to this and it’s a really good listen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

You can’t help personalising stuff can you?


I’m not sure to what you are referring. Perhaps you are being a little thin-skinned?

[Smartie]

I worked beside people from West Lothian who weren't particularly political, but adored him. They were also genuinely heartbroken when he split from his wife.

My Dad went to him with a problem in the 70s when he represented central Edinburgh and couldn't speak highly enough of the man, he helped him massively.

I've had one or two issues over the years that I've asked my Dad about and he has suggested going to my MP. It's not really something I would ever really think of doing, I'm more of a "suffer in silence" type but my Dad was very heartened by that whole experience.

I wish I could remember what it was about.

[hibsbollah]

The thing about the Iraq war was that you didn’t have to be a pacifist to think it was a terrible idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed.

Personally I did support the premise behind West’s intervention in Serbia, because there seemed to be ‘just cause’ at that time. Many friends disagreed with me and we still disagree about it to this day. I’m not a pacifist, I respect the genuinely held beliefs of those who are. In the final assessment of course it’s all just academic discussion among folk who aren’t directly impacted by the awful realities of war. I doubt whether the civilians of Basra or Srebrenica or Ukraine really care what position Scottish people in a pub or a message board
are taking. As a basic humanitarian premise, I believe war should always be avoided whenever that’s achievable.

[cabbageandribs1875]

exactly Mr Monbiot, lets not forget wee Gogsy Broon :agree: How many of those calling for Putin’s arrest were complicit in the illegal invasion of Iraq? | George Monbiot | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/20/putin-arrest-illegal-invasion-iraq-gordon-brown-condoleezza-rice-alastair-campbell-russia)

[archie]

Very true. Colin Powell who reached the highest rank in the US Military before becoming a politician, advocated for negotiations over military action, said it should only ever be used as a last resort. He knew better than most politicians from his active service how senseless it was killing innocent civilians and military personnel when using other avenues could avoid that. He was fed false information by the intelligence services which he believed to be true, he made a judgement based on that info which he took responsibility for and eventually resigned. I always felt he would have made a great POTUS and with him in that job the world would have been a safer place. I read his autobiography years ago, it was a good read.

Was he born in the US?

[archie]

Agreed.

Personally I did support the premise behind West’s intervention in Serbia, because there seemed to be ‘just cause’ at that time. Many friends disagreed with me and we still disagree about it to this day. I’m not a pacifist, I respect the genuinely held beliefs of those who are. In the final assessment of course it’s all just academic discussion among folk who aren’t directly impacted by the awful realities of war. I doubt whether the civilians of Basra or Srebrenica or Ukraine really care what position Scottish people in a pub or a message board
are taking. As a basic humanitarian premise, I believe war should always be avoided whenever that’s achievable.

I couldn't agree more.

[Santa Cruz]

Was he born in the US?

Yeah, afaik. Why do you ask?

[hibsbollah]

exactly Mr Monbiot, lets not forget wee Gogsy Broon :agree: How many of those calling for Putin’s arrest were complicit in the illegal invasion of Iraq? | George Monbiot | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/20/putin-arrest-illegal-invasion-iraq-gordon-brown-condoleezza-rice-alastair-campbell-russia)

Alastair Campbell as ‘the nations agony uncle’ made me laugh. Monbiots not wrong; no lunchtime tv sofa is safe from Campbells pontificating while lounging.

[archie]

Yeah, afaik. Why do you ask?

Because I didn't know if he had been born in the West Indies. If so he couldn't be POTUS.

[Santa Cruz]

Because I didn't know if he had been born in the West Indies. If so he couldn't be POTUS.

New York. Just checked, you had me doubting myself.

[archie]

New York. Just checked, you had me doubting myself.

Thanks. I remember a Desert Island Discs where he talked about his heritage and how Americans pronounced his name wrong.