The Iraq Troop Numbers Game

An announcement over UK troops numbers in Iraq, expected soon, should be treated with a pinch of salt. The BBC's Nick Robinson, is reporting, quite correctly, that a timetable for withdrawal may be made by the end of the year, with an announcement possibly later this month. 

Such an announcement is nothing new and is widely known in Westminster, Washington, Baghdad and Basra.

After all, the UN mandate for US and UK forces occupying Iraq, runs out at the end of the year and it wouldn't do to have an illegal invasion followed by an illegal occupation. 

News agency, Reuters is on the ground in Baghdad, not embedded with the troops and their political analysis is quite clear. 

"Iraq's national security adviser on Tuesday (yesterday) said Iraq would not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it included dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces."

Bush needs a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq for his legacy and as the presidential election campaign gets into full swing in the autumn.

Last time Brown made an Iraq troop announcement, he did it by suddenly popping up in Iraq during the election-that-never-was. That announcement turned out to be a lot of hot air. 

As noted here on a number of occasions, Brown faces a tough call to do something about troops in Iraq from both the trade unions who he meets later this month for cash and ahead of September's Labour Party conference. 

But there are strong historic and strategic reasons for keeping a UK military base somewhere near the oil supply routes in southern Iraq. 

There'll be an announcement on troop numbers possibly as soon as next week ahead of Glasgow East, but don't expect an announcement of withdrawals from Iraq, just a vague timetable already set by the Pentagon. 

But Iraq is not the real problem anymore. The real problem is in Afghanistan where escalating troop numbers are turning that into the new Vietnam.

If Brown announced a clear pull-out of UK forces in Iraq, he could be home and dry with the Labour Party, probably the country and could even weather the political storm ahead. But that would take a bold, decisive politician. 

Read More...

Brown's Iraq Gibberish Dupes Public

Brown came up with more gibberish today as he finally got round to telling parliament what he had already announced on his carefully staged whistle-stop tour of Iraq to capture the headlines. Much of the media toed the Downing Street line with troop withdrawals spun as Brown's decision. The Orange Party doubts the public are so gullible.

Brown threw out Tory and LibDem calls for an immediate Iraq inquiry as he simply repeated the timetable for withdrawal to MPs, now old news as Brown has already declared everything but 'mission accomplished' to the BBC. 

Does the government really believe we are a bunch of fools to be taken in by all the lies, spin and deceit? 

The troop withdrawal has been spun as a decision of Brown's own making, when it is nothing of the sort. 

The Orange Party has repeatedly pointed out that the UN mandate for foreign troop occupation in Iraq expires at the end of this month. The withdrawal timetable is being fixed by Washington and Baghdad. 

It was the Iraqi council of ministers who only agreed a new resolution on Tuesday to allow UK operational troops to stay until the end of July.

To say a few hundred troops will remain in Iraq for "training and mentoring duties" is deceitful. Operational forces will be stationed at and around the historical base in southern Iraq to guard the Gulf oil supply routes. 

The BBC was alone in leading with Brown's troop announcement on yesterday's evening news. Both ITV and C4 news saw through the sham and rightly chose the Woolies closure tied in with unemployment. 

Not being straight with the public over Iraq is clearly an inherited genetic defect for Brown and his New Labour heirs to Blair. 

Any reputation Brown had as another pretty straight sort of guy was thrown out of the window last year, with an act of blatant political opportunism, popping up in Basra to announce a troop reduction that never was, followed by a snap election that never was, all to wrong-foot the Tories. 

Yesterday and today to MPs, Brown repeated the deceit that troop withdrawal was possible because of the "success of the UK's mission in improving security to Iraq, training Iraqi troops and police, reducing violence around Basra and helping reconstruction - tasks which would be completed by the end of May. People can be proud that Iraq is a far better place than it was five years ago."

Those words will come back to haunt him. And paying tribute to the 178 troop deaths is an insult to the huge numbers of troops wounded and the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

Holed up at a heavily defended base at Basra airport forced to watch on while US forces cleared up the mess is hardly a triumph. But the mission in Iraq must end in triumph, regardless of the truth. So we have to sit back and suffer more spin. 

The Iraq war was Blair's criminal legacy. But Brown was there and helped rubber-stamp that illegal and immoral war. He should share that blame and responsibility. 

Brown has repeatedly used the get-out clause, citing that the time for an inquiry will come after the end of 'active military operations'. But even then any remit would be tightly drawn up by the government. 

Parliament approved the war based on the lie of WMDs, not regime change. No UK parliament would have given approval to invade another sovereign state, simply to topple a dictator. 

The illegality of the war would be the only question for an inquiry to address but that would re-open a whole can of worms and put into sharp focus the bloody, mad hopeless war in Afghanistan, now escalating on Brown's watch as he too develops Blair's 'taste for war'. 

Read More...

Out Of Iraq And Into Afghan Fire

Reports of UK troop withdrawals from Iraq in the coming months, is an ominous sign of the impending escalation in Bush and Blair's legacy of the increasingly hopeless war in Afghanistan. 

But Iraq is not the real problem. The real problem is in Afghanistan, which is rapidly turning into the new Vietnam.

In June, it was clear a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq may be made by the end of the year, paving the way for over-stretched troops to be switched to Afghanistan. 

The announcement is nothing new and this timetable has already been set by Washington.

The UN mandate for US forces occupying Iraq runs out at the end of the year and an illegal occupation is not an option. Iraq will strike a security deal with the US and the UK but only if this includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces.

A usual MoD spokesman is quoted as saying: “As a key Coalition partner, the US is intimately involved with the development of our future plans.”

Bush needs a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq for his legacy and the presidential election campaign.

Brown needs the withdrawal to try to rid New Labour of the Blair legacy in the run up to the next General Election. He faces a call to do something about troops in Iraq ahead of September's Labour Party conference and he needs to save face after popping up in Basra during the election-that-never-was and raising false hopes of troops withdrawals.

The UK still has more than 4,000 troops holed up near Basra after striking a deal with the local militia not to interfere. The UK has traditionally and historically kept a base in Southern Iraq and that will not change. It will just be smaller. 

Former infantry commander, Col Tim Collins, is reported in the Telegraph as saying for Britain to win back the respect and trust of the Americans after the “defeat” in Basra, it would need to “step up to the mark” in Afghanistan."

And that US 'special relationship' lies at the heart of the matter. 

Read More...

Obama Backs Down On Iraq Troop Pledge

Obama loving liberal Americans have been sent in a tizz as the shine starts to fade on their Chosen One and his election pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq has turned out to be a damp squib. War-mongering Bush is being replaced by Obama and his shameful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That leaves a bitter taste for those taken in by the hype. 

Over here, C4 News, the BBC and Guardian must be having kittens trying to justify the watered down turnaround. No doubt they'll swallow the line from the White House spin.

Obama has announced the withdrawal of some US troops in Iraq by August 2010, leaving a massive army of around 50,000 Marines and soldiers out of the 142,000 troops at present occupying the country and calling the shots. 

The occupation army will stay in Iraq after that date to "advise Iraqi forces and protect American interests." They will remain until December 31, 2011, the date on which the Bush administration had already agreed to withdraw all troops under a pact with Iraq.

And that sits very uneasy with Obama's election promise that he would completely pull out troops within 16 months of taking the job.

Democrats are not happy that the troop withdrawal is being watered down. Even speaker Nancy Pelosi said 50,000 troops seemed too many for a residual force and needed to be justified.

Yet in the crazy world of Obama hype and doublespeak, the Republicans are lovin' it and McCain is Obama's new best friend. 

Here our own foreign secretary, David Miliband, who has been visiting Iraq, said he found a "real yearning... for Iraqis to run their own affairs, to make their own mistakes but also to make their own progress". 

For once the Orange Party completely agrees with this overgrown schoolboy.

Iraq is being kept under the thumb by a multi billion pound private army of security 'consultants' and massive US bribes to militia groups to switch sides in return for the Yankee dollar. 

50,000 is a hell of a lot of US troops to be fighting an illegal war in a country desperately wanting to make a start on its own destiny, regardless of the fractious in-fighting that's bound to happen as Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds align, realign and square up to each other. 

Earlier this month, Obama ordered  up to 17,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan to support a new surge in that bloody, hopeless and unwinnable war. That's all starting to sound suspiciously like the despised foreign policies of the Bush years. 

Obama has now taken ownership of these wars. Afghanistan is his new Vietnam.

Here the government never had the guts to stand up to Bush and Blair will be forever branded as his poodle. 

As the timetable in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to be dictated by the White House, it's looking increasingly likely Brown will just become the poodle in Obama's wars. But just because Obama thinks it's right, doesn't make it right.

The dreadful lessons and legacies of that Bush and Blair partnership are set to repeat themselves, unless Brown can stop himself firmly embroiling this country in shameful US foreign policy.

Read More...

Man Of Straw Blocks Iraq's Dirty Secrets

Dirty secrets behind Blair's lies and deceit over the illegal Iraq War could be covered-up behind a wall of secrecy for years to come if justice secretary puppet, Jack Straw, gets his way, after blocking publication of minutes of key cabinet meetings held in the 2003 run-up to the war.

The cabinet meetings expose one of the most shameful episodes of Blair's premiership and now look set to be confined to the 30 years cabinet rule, despite the Information Tribunal stressing that disclosure of the Iraq material would not necessarily set a precedent.

Straw claims the release of the information would do "serious damage" to cabinet government and outweighed public interest needs. The only interest it serves is for those round the cabinet table at the time, including the now prime minister.

The government has built up a wall of secrecy over the release of the cabinet meeting minutes which centre on the attorney general's legal advice on whether the invasion was allowed under international law.  

Tories have backed the cabinet cover-up despite repeatedly calling for a full-scale inquiry into the Iraq war with many people still angry about the deceits and cover-ups. 

But the release of the cabinet minutes would reopen controversy over the then attorney general Lord Goldsmith's legal advice.

On March 17 on the eve of war, Lord Goldsmith's opinion, unequivocally saying military action was legal, was presented to cabinet, MPs and the military and published.

But, after reports that he had changed his mind as the planned invasion approached, the initial lengthy advice given to Blair earlier on 7 March was leaked and published.

That advice raised a number of questions and concerns about the possible legality of military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution and was never shown to the cabinet.

The Orange Party has no doubt. The cabinet minutes should be released as a matter of utmost public interest even if it does mean hanging out some dirty washing in public. Those around the cabinet table who took these decisions should be held to account. 

But it is the dirty secrets of the 'sexed up' dodgy dossier which would prove most damaging and that's still well under wraps. 

At the end of the day everyone knows Blair was lying through his polished political teeth. And if he could get away with one porky, then Saddam's elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction would be a piece of cake. 

The "sexed-up" dossier, with its now de-bunked '45 minutes weapons of mass destruction' claim, was published in 2002 as parliament returned and Blair needed the dossier to boost his case for the Iraq invasion. 

Intelligence chief, John Scarlett, who was in charge of the dossier, allowed changes to be inserted by Downing Street spin doctor, Alastair Campbell. 

Campbell's Diaries reveal how he reacted furiously to a report by Andrew Gilligan on the BBC Today programme, implying that he had inserted a key claim in the dossier stating weapons could be launched in 45 minutes. 

Ministry of Defence weapons expert, Dr David Kelly, who met Gilligan to discuss the dossier, was found dead in Oxfordshire, following a witch hunt by the government for Gilligan's source.

The Hutton Inquiry whitewash into Kelly's death found that Campbell proposed a number of changes to the dossier before its publication, some of which were accepted.

The cabinet office has yet to lift the lid on that Iraq "sexed-up" dodgy dossier, after the information commissioner's request to release the documents. But after today's cabinet minutes veto by Straw, don't hold your breath. 

Read More...

Battle Lines Drawn Over Afghanistan

The hopeless and unwinnable war in Afghanistan is under fire again, as the government prepares to spin its way out of the Iraq frying-pan and into the Afghanistan fire. It is no coincidence that foreign secretary, David Miliband writes in today's Sunday Times with a weak case for keeping troops in Afghanistan, while new defence secretary, John Hutton, makes a "surprise visit" to Iraq. 

The UN mandate for US-UK led occupation of Iraq runs out at the end of the year. And the timetable for withdrawal has already been agreed by Baghdad and Washington, as part of Bush's legacy. 

The troop numbers game still has to be played out though, as the government here continues to use the Iraq troop numbers as a political tool. Brown's sudden appearance in Iraq during last year's election that never was, with a troop withdrawal announcement that never was, still leaves a bitter taste.

Miliband in the Sunday Times begins with the classic schoolboy device so beloved of spinners to capture an argument. 

"Christina Lamb is an excellent journalist. But...". He then goes on to try to rationalise why UK troops will continue to be sent to the killing fields of the new Vietnam. 

Lamb, a seasoned corespondent, made a powerful case for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan "What a Bloody Hopeless War" in last week's Sunday Times, backed up today by Simon Jenkins, once a lone voice, in what is called today this "mad war" in Afghanistan.

If Miliband had stuck with just praising Lamb as "an excellent journalist" and stopped there, he would have been right and his case for war demolished. 

The Orange Party has made no secret of its distaste for the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, warning back in July, that this was a war that could never be won and was developing into the new Vietnam. 

Fighting a Bush-Blair war on two fronts will go down as one of the most expensive and politically disastrous follies of recent decades and the most outrageous loss of life and human suffering since pompous generals and politicians ordered Tommy over the trenches at the Somme.

Troops will be withdrawn from Iraq, leaving a small historically traditional base, to that tightly controlled timetable, to coincide with when the government feels it will give them the best political advantage. 

Switching troops to Afghanistan will continue to escalate, until ministers stop copying Blair and his "taste for war". 

Read More...

Who Killed Dr David Kelly?

The official 'suicide' of government weapons expert, Dr David Kelly, has been called into question by a group of doctors hoping to overturn the controversial verdict and a new documentary which sheds fresh light on the mysterious death of the scientist whose body was found in Oxfordshire woods six years ago this week.

Kelly's death came just days after he was at the centre of a government witch-hunt for the source of embarrassing leaks over now discredited Iraq weapons of mass destruction.

The Hutton Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding his death and the controversial suicide ruling led The Independent to clear its entire front page with one giant word - WHITEWASH.

The death in 2003 prompted reporters to ask prime minister Blair the chilling question whether he had "blood on his hands" as Kelly's apparent suicide came days after he was grilled in the commons and exposed as the source of a BBC news report questioning the "sexed up dossier" on Iraq’s alleged WMDs.

Now the circumstances surrounding Kelly's death are set to return to haunt the government in a two pronged attack by leading doctors who question the suicide verdict and US television investigators who claim Kelly was writing a book exposing the murky world of anthrax and “suicides” of five government germ warfare scientists from around the world.

Many have long argued Kelly's death wasn't suicide with the more likely explanation that he was murdered by enemies in the course of his work as a weapons inspector.

The Orange Party doesn't believe government agents were part of a dastardly assassination plot. More likely part of a bungled botched-up attempt to cover-up his death as an apparent suicide.

LibDem MP Norman Baker in a forensic investigation for his book The Strange Death Of David Kelly reaches a similar startling conclusion putting him at odds with Blair's spin doctor Campbell, and his part in the 'dodgy dossier' that was used to justify the Iraq invasion.

Claims that this had been "sexed up" sent Campbell into a spin, waging a fierce campaign against the BBC, eventually leading to Kelly's death.

The 90-minute documentary, Anthrax War, by investigative journalist Bob Coen already aired on Canadian public television, claims Kelly's death may have been linked to the secret world of germ warfare research and adds to the calls for a full and proper inquest into Kelly's death.

The film exposes Kelly's links with Dr Walter Basson and his notorious work for the South African apartheid regime using chemical and biological weapons research to ethnically cleanse the black population.

The assassination scenario is strengthened by revelations that a team of 13 specialist doctors who worked closely with Baker have compiled a detailed medical dossier that rejects the Hutton conclusion that Kelly died from loss of blood. Those revelations in the Mail on Sunday also claim they think it is highly likely he was assassinated.

Reports in today's Sunday Express reveal Kelly, an expert in biological warfare and a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, was writing a highly damaging book before his mysterious death.

That was due to reveal the claim that he'd warned Blair that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction as well as lifting the lid on the scandal of his own secret dealings in germ warfare with the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Following his death, Kelly's computers were seized and many involved in probing the mystery of Kelly's death, including Baker, have also found material on their computer had disappeared.

Critics have long regarded the Hutton report as a 'whitewash'. Blair remains acutely sensitive to the accusation that he has 'blood on his hands' over the scientist's death.

The only official verdict came from the Blair commissioned Hutton Inquiry, which concluded that Kelly died from loss of blood after cutting his wrist with a blunt gardening knife.

In a highly unusual move, a coroner's inquest into the scientist's death was suspended before it could begin by order of the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, which is now set to be challenged by the doctors.

The Hutton Inquiry included the chilling testimony from a former British ambassador who quotes Kelly as having said, “I will probably be found dead in the woods” if Iraq were invaded.

Anthrax War which will be screened privately in London on July 17, the sixth anniversary of Kelly’s death, includes this extract which centres on the biological weapons expert following an anthrax scare after 9/11.

Read More...

Iraq Inquiry Stitch-Up Then Whitewash

Any pretence of a born-again Brown has been blown out of the water with the lies, deceits and cover-ups over the illegal Iraq war set to continue. A secret stitched-up inquiry will treat people like mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed on shit.

Philip Cooper, whose son Jamie was the youngest soldier seriously injured in Iraq, told the Observer yesterday: "Ministers should not treat us like us mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed on shit".

But that's exactly what has happened, as Brown's grandstanding talk of "reforming politics" and transparency have been revealed as cheap words and a hollow sham.

An inquiry into the disgrace of a war is set to take a full year until after the general election before the public are any the wiser. Leaving only a festering reminder of a fag-end government. Crucially it will not have powers to subpoena witnesses under oath.

Now once again a bunch of faceless cronies will be locked behind closed doors in secret while the public is kept in the dark waiting for another whitewash.

The shameful legacy of events leading to war has left many with blood on their hands, not least a disgraced two-faced ex-prime minister Blair and his "taste for war". A bloody six-year battle which left 179 UK servicemen and women dead and God only knows how many innocent Iraqi men, women and children.

But as chancellor, Brown not only supported the deceit but also authorised the war which cost taxpayers around £6.5 billion and an endless loss of lives on all sides.

Still unresolved is the squalid part played by New Labour chief spin doctor Alistair Campbell over sexed-up dossiers and invisible Weapons of Mass Destruction and the death of government scientist Dr David Kelly. The whitewash of the Hutton inquiry still sticks in many people's throats and looks set to continue.

But at the heart is the still raw anguish of the families of brave servicemen and women whose loved ones were sent to a bloody war ill-equipped and duped into the Iraq killing fields on the back of a pack of lies and deceit.

Announcing the new inquiry Brown said its structure would be similar to the Franks inquiry into the 1982 Falklands war, which was held behind closed doors and branded a "whitewash" by the then Labour opposition.

That is no justification for keeping this inquiry secret.

Few are under any illusions. The events leading up to the Iraq war and its awful aftermath was undoubtedly the worst policy mistake made by any UK government since Suez. Its dreadful legacy still fresh in many people's minds.

At issue is the legality and how the wool was pulled over everyone's eyes. Regime change and overthrowing Saddam's rotten regime was not the issue and wouldn't stand up to international legal scrutiny.

Instead it is the smokescreen of WMDs which will be buried under the new smokescreen of secrecy.

The legality of a war based on the discredited claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which could be used within 45 minutes, a sexed-up dossier, a cabinet which hardly discussed Blair's war and a parliament which was conned with lies, lies and more lies. A BBC and a then campaigning Daily Mirror (opposite) which put brave heads above the parapet.

True Labour 'rebel' MPs have been let down and were expecting more than this sham. LibDems are disgusted.

Leader Nick Clegg has already said if Brown holds it all or partly in secret and kicks the eventual report into the long grass, "it will be a betrayal of all those families who lost children serving in Iraq. They need answers, not another Whitehall stitch-up."

The least Brown could have done was to throw open a new inquiry to the public and in particular families of soldiers who died. To hide behind the smokescreen of secrecy is an insult.

An inquiry of some sorts has always been on the cards. The whole shameful episode needs the disinfectant of the public spotlight. It's the timing too which is galling.

Using the inquiry as part of a personal political fight-back and to curry favour with true Labour backbenchers is playing a dirty little trick which fools no-one.

Only last year the government stalled Tory attempts to force a public inquiry. In February justice secretary Jack Straw vetoed publication of minutes of cabinet meetings discussing the legality of the war.

Just what is the point of an inquiry behind closed doors? No family, no MP with a heart or a conscience would be happy with that. They have already been lied to by the government. The time for lying should be over.

If the expenses scandal taught Brown and MPs anything is should have been that now is the time for honesty and open government.

Today's stitched-up secret inquiry with a whitewash outcome in a year's time just puts the clocks back to the bad old days of New Labour lies, deceit and spin.

Top/Middle picture: Private Eye. Bottom picture: Daily Mirror 2003

Read More...

Brown Wipes Blood Off Hands For Chilcot

Penny-pinching Brown comes under the starry-eyed gaze of the Iraq stitch-up as families demand to know why loved ones were sent to their deaths without proper equipment. Brown is set to snuggle up to Chilcot pals with denial written on his face and blood on his hands.

Warmongering Blair faced stage-managed Chilcot sham trials with smiles and "no regrets". No-one is taken in by Brown's grin after stitching up Chilcot with his placemen.

But families hoping the Chilcot whitewash will grill Brown are set to be disappointed. The canny politician is a dab hand at ducking responsibility, droning on with denials and reeling off meaningless tractor stats to fudge the facts.

Bunkered Brown has been forced to come out of hiding gambling he's nothing to lose this side of the election. Families expecting a last chance to hear the truth about the worst foreign policy disaster in recent times will be faced with a dodgy attempt to rewrite history.

But Brown cannot escape being a top member of Blair's war cabinet who helped push through the war. Going along with the plan to dupe parliament and people over an illegal war on the back of a pack of lies. And as chancellor he held the purse strings, holding back vital cash for equipment and kit for a war which happened on his treasury watch.

Whilst Blair was busy preparing to join pal Bush in Iraq, Brown was busy slashing the defence budget and starving the armed forces of funds.

Chilcot witnesses, including ex-defence secretary, Hoon, have accused the treasury of 'penny-pinching' over the Iraq war. Ex-top MoD civil servant, Tebbit, told how Brown "guillotined" military spending six months after the invasion.

Equipment shortages forced on the military as well as useless kit, such as the Snatch Land Rover dubbed “mobile coffins”, were a direct result of budget cuts. Troops were sent to war without enough transport helicopters, driven around in Land Rovers vulnerable to roadside bombs and suicide bomb attacks.

Time and again inquests have heard the sorry plight of troops sent to their deaths with a woeful lack of kit and equipment. This week an inquest into the deaths in a Snatch heard how troops believed vehicles were unsuitable but were told to make do.

The Times and Telegraph make a splash with ex-army chiefs gunning for Brown. Ex-defence chief, Guthrie, tells The Times a failure to properly fund the armed forces while Brown was chancellor has "undoubtedly cost the lives of soldiers."

The Telegraph reveals former special forces chief, Lamb, has warned the SAS are inadequately equipped with only basic equipment due to underfunding.

Thirty-six servicemen and one servicewoman were killed while on patrol in Snatch Land Rovers. Now families of troops killed in poorly protected Land Rovers are urging the Iraq inquiry to challenge Brown on his funding.

Why did Brown jeopardise soldiers’ lives by cutting funding and forcing them to travel in the unsuitable vehicles? Why were frontline soldiers' complaints not acted on?

Hand-picked Chilcot stooges, working to a tight Downing Street remit with plenty of wiggle room, say that the purpose of the inquiry is 'not to apportion blame'. But the more deception, lies, incompetence and dishonesty is revealed, the clearer it becomes that someone must be held accountable for the tragic number of avoidable deaths.

Sickening photo-ops of Brown PR stunts with troops are hard to stomach. Families deserve better than the sham of a Chilcot whitewash and the weasel words of a penny-pinching chancellor. It was Brown who supported the illegal war with one bloody hand while slashing the defence budget with the other.

The families of the dead have a right to the truth about an illegal war fought in their name. It is the verdict of those families on Brown's performance which will be most telling.

The deaths of all soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan is as much on the conscience of Brown as it is on Blair. Both are left with blood on their hands. Voters will now decide whether to back Brown's morally criminal government which put cheap politics above the safety of the armed forces.

Read More...