Resigned but not resigning

Hard to understand the strategy behind all this but in fairness to Hague he would have had military advice on this. He is right to take the rap but one has to question what advice he was given. Hague does not seem like someone to take that sort of rash action, so I would guess there is more to this story than he is letting on.

Oops! - Fiasco of the day.

Baseball cap boy sends SAS to a war torn country. Too many to be a peaceful mission, not enough to be able to fight. No one sure whether it is covert or overt. No secure comms so everything is on tape in Tripoli. No one thought of sending a Libyan national in the first instance so it all remained deniable. etc, etc, etc.

Best comment I've heard: at least it all ended in farce rather than tragedy.

Anyone would think the country was being run by a bunch of public schoolboys with no experience of the real world let alone running a country.


It's a great time to laugh at the tories.

I think William Hague is old schhol - never complain and never explain. Should be more of it. Sniping with hindsight on the public results of such a risky business is not helpful and deserves no comment.

jon112dk

'Anyone would think the country was being run by a bunch of public schoolboys with no experience of the real world let alone running a country'

They might do were in not for the fact the William Hague didn't go to a public school.

It's a great time to laugh at jon112dk.

Hague - Failed party leader working for a failing Prime Minister.

1. At 5:02pm on 07 Mar 2011, meninwhitecoats wrote:
Hard to understand the strategy behind all this but in fairness to Hague he would have had military advice on this. He is right to take the rap but one has to question what advice he was given. Hague does not seem like someone to take that sort of rash action, so I would guess there is more to this story than he is letting on.

========================================================

Precisely. In the short period this coalition has been in power Cameron has been ruthless when things go pear shaped often letting the minister responsible to hang out to dry. It is far from clear which side is going to win in Libya so sounding out the rebels at this stage is a bit risky if Gaddafi does cling on as past oil contracts can be easily torn up.

In general the west's stance on these uprisings is very muddled - no action and silence is sometimes the only way.

Another day, another farce...

I'm not really a Hague or Conservative supporter but anyone who believes there wasn't more going on here and military leaders didn't request this is naive. One mission has gone slightly wrong but at the guidence of our foreign office and leaders on the ground in warzones hundreds of unreported successful missions take place all the time. Time to get off Hagues back over this one, get back to suporting our troops and let them do their job.

'If he is beginning to compare the stress of being foreign secretary with being the first Tory leader to face a triumphant Tony Blair the government has a problem.'

Hardly. I would have thought with so much happening in the middle east right now being foreign secratary would be about the most stressfull job going.

Some special forces they were.
Captured by civilians.

Reminds one of that other glorious chapter when 15 RN personnel were captured by the Iranians in 2007. With the added embarrassment of one of them blubbing when spoken to harshly by his captors.

And we hope to conquer Afghanistan.

They land at 2:00 hours by helicopter armed to the teeth with fake identities and a variety of currencies,miss their rendezvous and end up in the wrong hands.

"The Times" comment this morning was they could have gone by taxi from the ship,it was only two miles.The British ambassador in temporary exile pleads for their release and they leave on HMS Cumberland. Humiliating cir5cumstances for an elite arm of our forces.

We have taken sides,democracy,rule of law,human rights. Good ideals and worth fighting to preserve,but there is also national interest worth fighting to preserve and we have no idea of the outcome of the Arab Spring.

If Quaddaffi can hold off, or better still defeat the insurgency in Libya it will encourage other reactionary regimes.The west is dependent for oil supplies on Saudi Arabia,a stable regime is in our interest.If the kingdom fell to rebellious Shia in the Eastern provinces there is no guaruntee they would supply us in the same way as before.They need to export yes,but are more likely, under Iranian influence,to use oil as a weapon as happened after the Yom Kippur War.

Keep out of it,keep off.Hoard your power, don`t dissipate it in futile gestures.

I don't believe a word of it. The event is most likely staged managed to permit the transfer of some vital equipment. It has to be assumed none of the weapons carried by these Special Forces were returned by the rebels. Indeed, did they keep the helicopter? If I was one of Benghazi's top brass I would think at least one helicopter essential to get me out at the last minute. That is to say even if or when Gaddafi takes back Benghazi and puts down the rebellion, there will remain a government in exile. The anti-Gaddafi rebels are lucky Britain has a relatively new government, not needing to seek re-election any time soon. If international law makes it impossible to supply the rebels directly, our special forces could not be better employed repeatedly messing things up and very accidentally letting all their kit fall into rebel hands.

"Ring the doorbell"? Whose doorbell would that be then? Gaddafi lives in a tent in different locations nightly, no doorbell there then! The real problem is Douglas Alexander himself. He's done nothing but moan since he was thrown out of government and hasn't uttered one single policy alternative to the present government. Put a sock in it until you can come up with a plausible alternative!

Just William! my oh my isn't it unfair when people in foreign lands take exception to you landing helicopters full of trained killers in their country in the dead of night.
those libyans are just to sensitive, aren't they william?

still why change course now? the tories have managed to get schools to take them to court, had their communities minister and home secretary chastised and deemed to be operating illeagally, rushed a plane load of arms dealers round the middle east before sanctions kicked in, had their leader mention Margaret Thatcher as someone who championed freedom (Read Gen Pinochet) and seriously upset a people fighting for their lives and democracy.
crack on!

I disagree with the Tories on a fundamental level about a lot of things, however, I did not expect them to make such a visible hash of Defence and Foreign Affairs from a process angle.

This criticism is not of policy, but of general acumen. Can it simply be that they lack the talent and ability needed to run any government effectively? (even one which I disagree with?)

They seem to be failing to function as a Government on the most basic of levels: There are huge numbers of consultations washing around, they have injected uncertainty into the expected delivery of even the most basic public services and they continue to roll out pointless ideological claptrap about localism and big society - they are acting like they are still on the election trail.

But events are sweeping them away, and the messages they fought the election on are mantras, not actual policy.

The quicker they start dealing with the world as it is, and not as they pretended it should be to fight the election, the better.

@ tangolition. No 12
quote:"Indeed, did they keep the helicopter? If I was one of Benghazi's top brass I would think at least one helicopter essential to get me out at the last minute."

I think they sneaked in 6 nimrods, a retired aircraft carrier WITH harrier jets and 25000 redundant UK forces too.

You might have though that the Coalition would have learnt from some of Tony Blairs' ill-advised foriegn adventures

But no, it is a case of 'Who Blairs, sins'.

Whats more, the chopper has been confiscated by the Libyan Opposition.

That reduces our projection of air power, such are our reduced capabilities in the military sphere.

When will these politicians understand that we don't run an empire anymore and can no longer go around the world kicking other countries butts.

It would be humiliating but the British Government do not represent this Englishman in any way, shape or form, which is some comfort.

It seems to be the Nixon defence' I take full responsibilty but it was not my fault. Another example of how those who tell us to be responsible never admit responsiblity.

William Hague deployed the SAS or SBS during the last week, in Benghazi, in Britain's national interest and the only criticism made of his decision to authorise the operation is coming from the same zero integrity liars who are responsible for:

1) Using the SAS to train Gaddafi's evil security machine
2) Lied about Gaddafi's rehab and gave the despot creedance at the UN
3) Continued making claims about Gaddafi's rehab as induced by New Labour when he has been trying to procure a massive defence programme with Russia
4) Arms and armanents, British police training of Libyan forces, roles played by British Universities etc etc.

Those who have Libyan blood on their hands from their family friend chums called Gaddafi - should know much better than to launch a feeble politicised attack on William Hague who was clearly acting in the British national interest with a humanitarian mission to establish contact with Libyan people; even if the mission is clouded with some confusion. An Iraq style inquiry will probably not be necessary.

However, the real questions about 'bungling in Libya' (and as worthy of being asked in another major Inquiry) should be be asked of Blair, Brown, Millibands, Mandelson, Holyrood, et al and lies and misinformation spun by Alexander... and their bizarre associations with the Libyan despots.

Perhaps the attitude of the Libyan rebels to the British SAS/SBS might have been better had New labour not used them to help train Gaddafi's killing machine.

Also, I don't think I'm getting value for money here from my TV and radio licence ... the BBC have been very soft on the role of New Labour here. The USA have been openly critical of New Labour's shameful courtship with the Gaddafi's ... and this can now only make the British effort to assist much harder and perhaps Britain are trying too hard and should step back and take a more propotional international role in lieu of the 'New Labour despot hugging misadventure'.

M. Campbell also had some 'statesman like' but sickeningly opportunistic words in parliament today - although if you're ever stuck in a foreign country with your life being threatened and Campbell has anything to do with your potential rescue ... forget it ... Say your prayers!

Surely this is another "Black Swan" event - no one thought it would turn out like it did .........

I followed the advice. I take responsibility.

Some quotes may have helped there. For clarity.

And speaking of quotes, some media seem to have got excited by those from here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12665575

Ministers accused of 'serial bungling' over Libya

Seems they were not so keen to read on to get to this:

Labour has accused the government of "serial bungling"

Which, I would submit, paints a rather different picture on most, er, 'reports'.

Since when is the national broadcaster meant to be serving Her Majesty's loyal opposition's petty party interest over and above the elected government, especially as regards a still vague operation, albeit one not seemingly handled very well.

As to whose door such operational detail gets landed at I will await until more is known. Unlike the BBC, which seems to enjoy a bit too much freedom to knee-jerk editorialise 'for effect'.

'Mr Alexander, shadow foreign secretary, said: "I believe I speak for many ..'

A belief held by the BBC, no doubt. As to whether borne out in fact, the BBC seems untroubled. Channeling Mr. Alexander's views uncritically becoming somewhat of a trend in certian quarters.

It sounds like a rare old cock up, to be sure, but possibly with decent intentions.

The Labour Party and the BBC however seem more keen on fomenting distrust at home, only with the basest of intent.

Such opportunism, compounded by knee-jerk armchair generalties by too many, shows our MSM up for the shallow shadow of what it used to be, now a servant not of the country's public, but only ratings or agendas.

We probably do not have the full picture as it is not clear exactly why these special forces were in Libya in the first place. Diplomatic mission covers a multitude. No one died, the officers are no longer in Libya and yes Hague should take the rap for the bodged mission whatever it was. This has been hyped up so much by the press and you cannot even blame a slow news today. Hundreds, maybe thousands of libyans being killed, the New Zealand earthquake and the riots in Saudi but the BBC want to concentrate on a failed special mission which looks a little embarrassing to the government. Time to remove the BBC licence fee as this organisation is nothing but a wing of the Labour party.

bryhers says:
> The west is dependent for oil supplies on....etc.
But it is oil-rich countries who depend on selling their oil who are dependent. Consuming countries have other sources of wealth and goods and services to exchange. All the oil in the world has to be sold, it is sold on the world market, to those who can refine it, process it and turn it many uses. If the US stops wasting it that would help of course, but the myth that they invade countries for the oil needs busting. Stability of some sort in oil-producing countries is necessary for them, not for us in any one country at any one time.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Much, much more to this than is immediately apparent. So, not much for the media to get its teeth into, apart from what they've been thrown.
Prince Andrew, though, eh? A much easier target - and he can't even hit back! I bet he'd like to.

4. At 5:21pm on 07 Mar 2011, jobsagoodin

Yes, a grammar school boy instead, real salt of the earth. Apparently after grammar school and Oxford he was a 'management consultant' - wow, how does that work? Never had a job in your life but you can tell real businessmen how to run their business? I'm sure it was not any kind of a scam for rich tories to support him while they prepped him for office.

You don't say whether you think he is doing a good job?

So far we have the no fly zone that didn't fly. The rescue that took so long it would have been quicker to walk home. Now the great SAS farce.

... and how about the biggest fiasco - openly backing the rebels just as they are about to lose. Next big oil contract ... will gadaffi give it to the disunited kingdom or china ... so difficult to tell.

Nick, Mr Hague now tells us he authorised this "small British diplomatic team". After they were captured in Libya, it was reported by the BBC and elsewhere that as well as carrying weapons, the team were also carrying false passports.

In March last year, Hague gave his full support to the then Home Secretary David Miliband for taking action against Israel for allegedly using false passports, although this was never proved. Hague said in the House of Commons "We cannot permit the cloning of, interference with or misuse of British passports by another State".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDeVzHVKRwg

If Hague's 'diplomatic team' were indeed carrying false passports as reported, it seems rather hypocritical don't you think?

21. JunkkMale

It is incredible what a sea change in morality and beliefs has taken place on the Opposition front bench. Is it possible they've all had brain wipes?

#19 post of the day, you should take over from NR

19. At 6:23pm on 07 Mar 2011, nautonier

Tories on a humanitarian mission? Ho, ho, ho.

He's backing the rebels because he thinks they will be the next government and grateful when it comes to dishing out contracts to his rich chums. Lets see if he's right. If he got it wrong then he's cost the country billons let alone the constant humiliation with his daily fiascos.

Meanwhile cameron can carry on with his grovelling in china, kuwait, saudi arabia etc - presumably that is all 'humanitarian' as well.

#22 its the heart of the labour party no a wing

I wonder how must liecense money get recylced to the labour party ?

bet that get bounced

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

#27 good point about the false passports.hague is playing a game ,its called " running the uks foreign policy". what are we doing meddling in libya affairs anyway? whats it got to do with us?.we cant even run this country properly let alone libya.

Two reasons this governbment is acting the way it is, both undoubtedly ordered by Cameron. First , a PR need to look like they are on the front foot after a series of bungles , including Hague making comments about Gadaffis whereabouts based only on gossip, Cameron being in Egypt selling weapons to a week old regime when British nationals have been in mortal danger in the country next door for over a week, Clegg being on his holidays apparantly forgetting that he might be in charge and have to take a lead in something, promoting a no fly zone then backtracking etc etc. Secondly, a PR need to look towards America and say , were no soft touch Mr President, do you think WE would have handed the Lockerbie bomber back. Cameron though is more inept than anyone dared to imagine and everything he touches at the moment goes belly up. Statesman ? More like a man in a state. Go before you cause some real damage.

Oh dear, what a truly British farce & certainly not the SAS’s finest hour.

I do remember singing Willy’s praises regarding his caution over the Libya situation in a previous Nicky blog a few days ago.
Perhaps I should have been a little more cautious myself in my presumptions……my bad.

PS: How can they be so sure that the Rebels are going to win in Libya; I'm right next door & knowbody knows what is going on let alone take bets.

This lot put together are twice as bad as Brown's berks were. Perhaps those 6 armed men were our whole army after the cuts and it was an attempted invaision. Seriously WHEN are we going to get a competent government? I think the guy in fancy dress at the by-elections has more savvy than this bunch of jokers.

30. At 6:59pm on 07 Mar 2011, jon112dk wrote:

19. At 6:23pm on 07 Mar 2011, nautonier

Tories on a humanitarian mission? Ho, ho, ho.

He's backing the rebels because he thinks they will be the next government and grateful when it comes to dishing out contracts to his rich chums. Lets see if he's right. If he got it wrong then he's cost the country billons let alone the constant humiliation with his daily fiascos.

......................

'New Labour's Libyan despot hugging misadventure'... What was their mission?
The Coalition govt is surely cleaning up another new Labour mess here

#30 you forgot the gaddaffi exodus to venezuela.

"VAGUE HAGUE" was truly awful in the commons today. Just when he thought the SAS had got the government out of a sticky spot last week, this happens. Hague still has no coherent foreign policy and no full explanation of the cock up which will fuel further speculation. Not very clever even by the coalition's standards. https://bit.ly/gukprN

Come on be serious *22 and *32 if the Beeb were part of the Labour Party or funding them as you say wouldn't the Beeb be the first to have cuts by the butcher of Britain!

I know it's boring to say so, but the Condems must park their arrogance and stop thinking they can solve Libya's problems with James Bond and the SAS. Life is not a video game, you numpties!

Nautonier @19
If William Hague deserves any credit it would be for admitting responsibility and for not attempting to wriggle by blaming it on former governments. You could learn something from that.

Our SAS saved by diplomat - what the hell is going on with our country?

Makes me think that we have already outsourced our diplomatic and military services of this country. But there again the PM recently hinted that foreign office diplomats were only there to further british business interests, from this affair seems he was correct in that assumption, seems they aren't quite up to it yet.

Ever since he stood up at the party conference as a kid, you could tell Hague was an idiot. He has done nothing to dissuade anybody since. He's basically failed at everything he's done.

Let's not kid ourselves: If The Coalition Government seriously disapporved of William Hague's actions, William would be gone, a political embarassment to be seen or heard never more.
William Hague may be the scapegoat for the covert SAS mission, but that's about all.
William didn't do himself much good when he defended himself thusly: He insisted the helicopter was carrying a "diplomatic" mission which suffered from a "serious misunderstanding". (He may be referring to the helicopter.)
Sir Menzies Campbell wasn't buying this farce. He called the operation "ill conceived, poorly planned and embarrassingly executed".
What" he asked, "is the secretary of state going to do to restore the reputation of the United Kingdom in the Middle East?"
The British People, at least those who noticed the ill-conceived foreign operation, will feel entitled to an explanation. Afterall, it was also William Hague who suggested that Colonel Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela.
Mr. Hague's response: "We have led the way at the UN Security Council and drafted the resolution." Well, there's not a lot of consolation in that, is there?
Six or seven SAS soldiers, who were reportedly carrying passports from FOUR DIFFERENT countries as well as guns and ammunition, were "captured" over the weekend. They were captured & searched by rebel soldiers after their helicopter landed. The soldiers were accompanied by a mid-ranking MI6 officer. They put down near the town of Khandra.
Britain's ambassador to Libya, Richard Northern, was then forced to plead for the troops to be freed. His attempts to secure their release were broadcast on Libyan state television. How very public!
Dig thi becausse we all need a chuckle -
Mr Northern told rebel officials: "We sent ahead... a small group to find if there was a hotel, if everything was working, if there was somewhere we could stay and work."
The rebel spokesman replied: "They made a big mistake coming with a helicopter, I think, in an open area. So the people, they noticed that there are some people coming from the sky. The investigation is continuing..."
Meanwhile, former Jordanian Foreign Minister, Abdelilah Al-Khatib has been appointed the UN's special envoy to Libya in a bid to make contact with Col Gaddafi, address humanitarian concerns, and do whatever else he can within the United Nations' mandate.
Col Gaddafi welcomes Al-Kahatub; Col Gaddafi welcomes a full investigation. Col Gaddafo maintains that he is loved by his people, The Libyan People; he maintains the rebels are foreign elements assisting in this so-called revolt.

Ministers accused of 'serial bungling' over Libya

Seems they were not so keen to read on to get to this:

Labour has accused the government of "serial bungling"

Which, I would submit, paints a rather different picture on most, er, 'reports'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As apologies go this is pretty good but fails at the final hurdle. At least it does if your contention is that it has only been the Labour opposition (plus the 'biased' BBC) that has characterised several aspects of the Libyan situation as bungled. Unless you've been somewhere with no access to television or newspapers for a couple of weeks I think you would find it hard to substantiate such a position.

39. At 7:19pm on 07 Mar 2011, nautonier wrote:

'New Labour's Libyan despot hugging misadventure'... What was their mission?
The Coalition govt is surely cleaning up another new Labour mess here
=======================

You'd need to ask labour about that - I'm not a supporter so I won't be apologising for them.

As regard the tories cleaning up another labour mess - they seem to be doing about as good a job with this one as they are with the economy.

We have libya in civil war, thousands dead, the disunited kingdom alied with what increasingly looks like the losing side, lord snooty promoting violent uprising accross the mid east so we end up with petrol at £2/litre, fiasco after fiasco so we look like chumps etc etc

Just like the econonomy it sounds like option (d) - labour left a mess and the tories are busy making it worse.

Go on then ....


does anyone think Hague is doing a good job?

44. At 7:28pm on 07 Mar 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:

Nautonier @19
If William Hague deserves any credit it would be for admitting responsibility and for not attempting to wriggle by blaming it on former governments. You could learn something from that.

............

I have done so ... I've said what he could have said but did not say because he is better than his accusers

I don't believe any of this story. Something stinks here!

I would like to be prepared for some of the backlash. Which countries have we now also offended by forging their passports? We should be told.

Thank goodness fror HMS Cumberland. Pity she and her three sister-ships are about to be scrapped...........

..........we must be mad.

I dont suppose we will ever know what the real reason for this mission was.

They were dressed in black and swooped in by helicopter. Perhaps they were delivering Milk Tray?

The British Government needs to do what it needs to do, but if it's OK for Hague's men to carry false passports in the line of duty as reported, then he may want to reconsider his words last year condemning Israel (based on unproven allegations).

My comments were not offensive dishonest or malign in any way yet were removed. OK lts try it another way - will the Break Britain Company accept that Blair rubbing noses with Gadaffi was just a tad more offensive and far mor newsworthy that Robinson's glib attempt to discredit WH?

Oh dear I just realised the BBC (see proper letters above) behaves just like the autocratic dictatorship it really is. Total Censorship - Big Brother - where is your ministry of Love? Off to R101 with me...I agree with all comments here about diverting licence fees to support Labour - as in free advertising for the cause...

43. At 7:26pm on 07 Mar 2011, MikeS wrote:

I know it's boring to say so, but the Condems must park their arrogance and stop thinking they can solve Libya's problems with James Bond and the SAS. Life is not a video game, you numpties!
..........

Yeah ... perhaps the Condems should follow 'New Labour's Libyan despot hugging misadventure' instead?
A useful role, at last, for Menzies Campbell?

Well No.19, I watched the whole of the Hague statement on the BBC's Parliament channel and it fell just short of an apology. He does his party, and his government, no good at all contacting Libya's opposition in such a way. They have said on several occasions that they do not want interference from the west. Gadaffi will use this incident as political ammunition.

Hague's mistake was pointed out to him, not only by the Opposition, but by members of almost every party in parliament. Meaning to do the right thing is not enough when you're in government.

Poor old Mr hague. I think hes probably a nice enough bloke, but I wouldn’t give him the responsibility to run a bath let alone the foreign office. This coalition is an utter shambles. More u-turns already than the last labour govt over its entire term in office. Also ive noticed how they propose outrageous policies and then at the last minute they soften/reduce it ever so slightly in order to give the impression its not as bad as first thought. What your left with is......................outrageous policies just the same. Anyway some good news. A liberal democrat mp has suggested a taxpayer windfall from the bailed out banks. Perhaps hes hoping to be the only lib dem mp elected at the next election. Of course the banks/bankers wont go for it, and lets face it they seem to be our countries untouchables, our commanders and thiefs.

The military advise on military matters. If the aim was to make diplomatic contact why consult the military. If they wanted to make diplomatic contact I cannot see that arriving unannounced with armed guards was going to lead to a successful mission. Next time I want to see my MP I will climb in through the window with a couple of ex-squaddies. As I can't believe that William Hague is that stupid, I must assume that there was some other purpose for the SAS party or that he was covering for someone.

50. At 7:42pm on 07 Mar 2011, jon112dk wrote:

39. At 7:19pm on 07 Mar 2011, nautonier wrote:

'New Labour's Libyan despot hugging misadventure'... What was their mission?
The Coalition govt is surely cleaning up another new Labour mess here
=======================

You'd need to ask labour about that - I'm not a supporter so I won't be apologising for them.

As regard the tories cleaning up another labour mess - they seem to be doing about as good a job with this one as they are with the economy.

We have libya in civil war, thousands dead, the disunited kingdom alied with what increasingly looks like the losing side, lord snooty promoting violent uprising accross the mid east so we end up with petrol at £2/litre, fiasco after fiasco so we look like chumps etc etc

Just like the econonomy it sounds like option (d) - labour left a mess and the tories are busy making it worse.
..............
You are so funny ... after new Labour things may continue getting worse for many years to come ... because of the scale of their damage as including 'Libya.'

At 7:45pm on 07 Mar 2011, nautonier wrote:
44. At 7:28pm on 07 Mar 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:

Nautonier @19
If William Hague deserves any credit it would be for admitting responsibility and for not attempting to wriggle by blaming it on former governments. You could learn something from that.

............

I have done so ... I've said what he could have said but did not say because he is better than his accusers
----------------------------------------------------------------
You are fully entitled to your view. But I prefer the one exemplified by William Hague that you cannot both accept responsibility and blame it on someone else at the same time. A rare show of integrety by a politician that is to be welcomed. He has used the 'it's all Labours fault' line on other occasions but thankfully not on this occassion.

All these experts jumping on to the Bandwagon

It may not have been a particularly good idea and given we do not know the advice and circumstances surrounding this it is premature to jump to conclusions.

What would Ming Cambell or wee Dougie know about the workings of the SAS been in them have they?

Thought not

So why see fit to make claims it was poorly executed ? they got caught these things happen, they pull of many other Operations successfully that we dont get to hear about

I would rather have ONE SAS man one my side than 10 Uncle Mings or a 100 wee Dougies

I agree with Comment 1 by meninwhitecoats to a certain extent as I was going to post a similar comment, other than the bit about the latter that 'Hague does not seem like someone to take that sort of rash action’...... which I will tend to disagree with. In fact, he has shown otherwise when he stated at a press conference when the Libyan crisis first broke out that Col Gaddafi was on his way to Venezuela when he could have kept his mouth shut or refused to get drawn into answering the question rather than wanting to prove that he had vital information about events that were still unfolding. That wasn't very diplomatic and tactful for a Foreign Secretary even if that is what you have been advised. Perhaps, he isn't suited for the post and maybe better in another role.

Why did Blair send British troops to Sierra leone ... Britain was very lucky there ... that could have very eaily have turned into a major British disaster with massive British and other casualties ... absolutely no UK national interest case there ... that was a pure mercenary interfering misadventure ... and given the global embarassment that 'New Labour's Libyan despot hugging misadventure' has caused, which has effectively ended the UK's 'special relationship' with its closest ally, the USA ... The Coalition govt ideas of trying to help free the Libyan people may actually make some amends for the criminal behaviour of New Labour in propping someone who now looks like the next Saddam Husein.

New Labour's Libyan despot huggers have very short memories ... D. Milliband included. Calling Labour ... 'despot huggers... liars and hypocrites' is like calling the Gaddafis 'evil despotic murdering tyrants' ... They actually do seem to enjoy the accolade and media coverage - No wonder they all got on so well!

Nautonier @62
"You are so funny ... after new Labour things may continue getting worse for many years to come ... because of the scale of their damage as including 'Libya.'"
------------------------------------------------------------
OK, hand on heart, you believe that the foreign policy of the Coalition will be above board, honest, straightforward and moral for the next 4 years? Dave has already said that it operate in the UKs best interests which put him firmly in the Blair camp.
Also if you can blame everything on the previous Labour government then presumably they can blame everything on the previous 18 years of Tory Government? Alternatively if its Labours fault for the economic crisis because they were in control at the time how come the Coalition's bungles aren't their fault when they are in power?
You're in a hole. Stop digging!

. At 6:24pm on 07 Mar 2011, Strictly Pickled wrote:
"Surely this is another "Black Swan" event - no one thought it would turn out like it did ........."

Surely not,black swan`s are unpredictable,this was wholly predictable given the people involved.The chaotic evacuation of British nationals,the flight to Venezuala of Mr.Quaddafi as imagined by Mr.Hague fresh from Hogwarts,the attempt to rescue reputations with a no fly zone the following Monday,slapped down by Robert Gates on Tuesday,the abortive SAS mission to Benghazi, with shots to the world of the superannuated Cumberland limping out of port as a symbol of national humiliation.

That was no black swan,they`re out of their depth and they show it.

62. At 8:02pm on 07 Mar 2011, nautonier
You are so funny ... after new Labour things may continue getting worse for many years to come ... because of the scale of their damage as including 'Libya.'
=====================================

Libya currently in civil war. From a humanitarian point of view gadaffi is still opressing AND thousands are dead. From a harsh, commercial point of view we are earning nothing from libya and the effects of this on oil prices are crippling us.

Not exactly a good outcome.

Which of these has made things worse ....

(a) labour doing business with gadaffi?

(b) cameron cheerleading and supporting violent revolution in Tunisia and Egypt?

63. At 8:07pm on 07 Mar 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:

At 7:45pm on 07 Mar 2011, nautonier wrote:
44. At 7:28pm on 07 Mar 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:

Nautonier @19
If William Hague deserves any credit it would be for admitting responsibility and for not attempting to wriggle by blaming it on former governments. You could learn something from that.

............

I have done so ... I've said what he could have said but did not say because he is better than his accusers
----------------------------------------------------------------
You are fully entitled to your view. But I prefer the one exemplified by William Hague that you cannot both accept responsibility and blame it on someone else at the same time. A rare show of integrety by a politician that is to be welcomed. He has used the 'it's all Labours fault' line on other occasions but thankfully not on this occassion.

..................

I think you've 'split one on William's crown' with that post.

#56..milk tray ..showing your age there a bit!!! menzies campbell looks like hes been glued together and is hanging by strings, god is he the best we can come up with!!! honestly gaddaffi must be laughing his head off with the rag bag opposition we can provide. also who are the rebels? hague or the libyans?

The daft thing is from the BBC perspective; is that the alleged incident is not even a resigning incident for WH ... if New Labour ministers had been in the habit of resigning for stuff like this ... the Labour govt would have been completely snuffed out by August 1997.

Seriously, this is amateur hour. Benghazi is crawling with international journalists who just drove over the Egyptian border into Libya. How hard would it be to send a covert agent that way? In these times of economic hardship, belt tightening and austerity it would certainly be cheaper than flying in a helicopter gunship with ultra cool SBS bodyguards armed to the teeth but not allowed to fire their weapons and so becoming easy meat for their capters. Not stealthy, not secretive, not covert, not cheap. Just a bloody national humiliation.

Can this government do anything competently? William Hague is taking the flak and if he is truly to blame then he should go. A diplomatic fiasco.

OK ... I've changed my mind and David Cameron and William Hague should both apologise on behalf of Britain to the Libyan people ...

For what New Labour have done to the Libyan people in their dealings with the despotic Gaddafi's!

Nautonier @66
"New Labour's Libyan despot huggers have very short memories ..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary, I bet they remember very well the support offered to Saddam in the Conservative years. Circumstances change and foreign policy changes with them. You know it makes sense.

Louis R: Vancouver.

"The enforcement of a comprehensive no fly zone over Libya; logistical support to Libyan protesters; and humanitarian assistance for the 10s of thousands of foreign nationals attempting to leave Libya are types of assistance that, in the short term- the west is unarguably obligated to provide.... but a longer term "constructive assistance" strategy for not only Libya but also the wider region plainly needs to be part of any response by the United Kingdom, Canada, the U.S. and their allies to the Middle East's peoples in their brave struggles to bring about positive changes within their countries and to improve the lives of all peoples in this far too-long troubled region..."


The obligation of the British government is to pursue the British national interest.In addition ,and because of our values, we should offer humanitarian assistance to any side in the conflict.We have no business siding with the rebels,or with the government.Democracy,human rights and the rule of law are our values,despite their slogans,we have no idea what kind of state the rebels will end up with if they win.

Pakistan has democracy and the rule of law, but show it`s possible to be democratic without being liberal.Otherwise why the blasphemy laws which give death sentences for non-believers and legitimize the murder of Christians?

The neocon argument of making the world safe for liberal democracy may weaken traditional elites,who for all their shortcomings deliver the oil at affordable prices and prevent Iran having an undue influence.Their unfortunate habit of permitting terrorism beyond their borders should no longer be tolerated if they want our support.

69. At 8:28pm on 07 Mar 2011, jon112dk wrote:

62. At 8:02pm on 07 Mar 2011, nautonier
You are so funny ... after new Labour things may continue getting worse for many years to come ... because of the scale of their damage as including 'Libya.'
=====================================

Libya currently in civil war. From a humanitarian point of view gadaffi is still opressing AND thousands are dead. From a harsh, commercial point of view we are earning nothing from libya and the effects of this on oil prices are crippling us.

Not exactly a good outcome.

Which of these has made things worse ....

(a) labour doing business with gadaffi?

(b) cameron cheerleading and supporting violent revolution in Tunisia and Egypt?

.............

Errr ... I suppose it depends on whether one is in favour of despots mudering innocent civilians?

Do they even talk to NATO or the US anymore? The Cameron government looks more inept everyday.

Good evening Mr Robinson,

In military operations, the plan doesn’t survive first contact with the enemy.

What actually happens “on the ground” often bears very little resemblance to what is reported “in the press”.

Douglas Alexander? Menzies Campbell? As they were probably not involved in any of the operational planning, they are probably just as ignorant of the true nature of this operation as the rest of us. Why do you give any credibility to their comments?

Billy Hague has taken responsibility for something that has gone wrong on his watch. Fair enough, I can respect a man who admits his mistakes, even if I do not always agree with his opinions / politics. We all learn from our mistakes, do we not?

Your triumphant Mr Blair, on the other hand, is still in denial mode for what went wrong on his watch. Perhaps he doesn’t make mistakes? Perhaps he doesn’t learn!

51. jon112dk wrote:

'Go on then ....
does anyone think Hague is doing a good job?'

Absolutely jon.

He's making a good fist of continuing the FO legacy bequeathed to him.
Extra-ordinary rendition, blind eye to torture, ill-advised and illegal invasions.. fair enough a bungled escape attempt isn't quite in the same league, but give him time, he's still new to the job. I have every confidence he'll live up to expectations.

Never mind Willy’s apologies, who’s going to pay for the replacement chopper that the Rebels have confiscated?

The Tax payer can’t afford these shenanigan’s chaps; where’s the austerity?

Nautonier @ 70
BTW what do you mean by 'split one on William's crown'? Have never come across this and can't find any reference to the expression on the web.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

73. At 8:42pm on 07 Mar 2011, Fredsastar wrote:

Seriously, this is amateur hour. Benghazi is crawling with international journalists who just drove over the Egyptian border into Libya. How hard would it be to send a covert agent that way? In these times of economic hardship, belt tightening and austerity it would certainly be cheaper than flying in a helicopter gunship with ultra cool SBS bodyguards armed to the teeth but not allowed to fire their weapons and so becoming easy meat for their capters. Not stealthy, not secretive, not covert, not cheap. Just a bloody national humiliation.

Can this government do anything competently? William Hague is taking the flak and if he is truly to blame then he should go. A diplomatic fiasco.

................

Sounds like some would have been happier if the SAS /SBS had deployed their cliche stun grenades and murdered half the town! The SAS 'surrendering peacefully' is not what Gaddafi presumably paid for in having the SAS train his bodyguards?

'They' would only get caught like this this if under orders to do this as a possible likely outcome in the operational planning ... that is why so many are seriously misreading this situation and the favourable outcome ... thank goodness that the soldiers involved had the good sense to follow their orders and co-operate and not make something out of nothing.

I don't know which TV programmes you are watching but every time I watch the TV there is one or more Libyans asking for help

Nautonier (multiple Posts)

Got to admire you, your tenacity in defending the indefensible is second to none!

But frankly you sound a tad ridiculous!

Even the most thick skinned Tory Apologist like yourself must surely recognise how inept this has been handled, don't you, I mean really you must?

Every aspect of the last few weeks has been utterly embarrassing or haven't you noticed?

Just deflecting attention onto Blairs expedient foreign policies of 7 years ago just doesn't wash because no one was complaining at the time, just like it was expedient for Thatcher to let the murderes of Yvonne Fletcher leave the country. Foreign policy judgements often look bad in hindsight when circumstances have changed.

But sheer incompetence looks bad even in the present tense.

But hey, don't let that stop you posting, you're a great laugh.

Nautonier @72
"if New Labour ministers had been in the habit of resigning for stuff like this ... the Labour govt would have been completely snuffed out by August 1997."
-----------------------------------------------------------
You could be right on this one. Thankfully you have solved the conumdrum yourself in earlier posts. They survived because they blamed it all on their predecessors. When will politicians learn!

69. jon112dk wrote:

'Which of these has made things worse ....

(a) labour doing business with gadaffi?
(b) cameron cheerleading and supporting violent revolution in Tunisia and Egypt?'

Isn't (b) overthrowing an undemocratic oppressive regime? Like overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan? Or Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
In which case I'd have thought you'd be four-square behind 'snooty'.

Bit all over the shop aren't you?

At 8:45pm on 07 Mar 2011, nautonier wrote:
OK ... I've changed my mind and David Cameron and William Hague should both apologise on behalf of Britain to the Libyan people ...

For what New Labour have done to the Libyan people in their dealings with the despotic Gaddafi's!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Good we're making progress. Now you're half right. Add apologies for their (the Coalition's) own 'mishandling' and we can wrap the discussion up and I can offer you a hand to get you out of that hole. Deal?

75. At 8:46pm on 07 Mar 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:

Nautonier @66
"New Labour's Libyan despot huggers have very short memories ..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary, I bet they remember very well the support offered to Saddam in the Conservative years. Circumstances change and foreign policy changes with them. You know it makes sense.
..............
If you have got something worth telling ... then tell us about it!

23. At 6:44pm on 07 Mar 2011, James Baring wrote:
bryhers says:
> The west is dependent for oil supplies on....etc.
"But it is oil-rich countries who depend on selling their oil who are dependent. Consuming countries have other sources of wealth and goods and services to exchange. All the oil in the world has to be sold, it is sold on the world market, to those who can refine it, process it and turn it many uses. If the US stops wasting it that would help of course, but the myth that they invade countries for the oil needs busting. Stability of some sort in oil-producing countries is necessary for them, not for us in any one country at any one time."

No problem with the gist of that,have said as much myself.Sure,oil producing states need to sell their oil,but they don`t need to sell it to us at a price that`s affordable.Compared to the highly diverse western oil market,Opec is a relatively cohesive group of producers, able to influence prices and use oil as a weapon.Opec did that in 1973 after the Yom Kippur war as revenge for US support for Israel,they could do so again for a variety of reasons,imagined,unimagined and yet to come.

That`s why we should not appear to take sides,nor get involved unless our vital supplies are threatened and then reluctantly.Give humanitarian aid impartially,non democrats bleed as much as democrats.Stay cool.

85. At 9:04pm on 07 Mar 2011, Eatonrifle wrote:

Nautonier (multiple Posts)

Got to admire you, your tenacity in defending the indefensible is second to none!

But frankly you sound a tad ridiculous!

Even the most thick skinned Tory Apologist like yourself must surely recognise how inept this has been handled, don't you, I mean really you must?

Every aspect of the last few weeks has been utterly embarrassing or haven't you noticed?

Just deflecting attention onto Blairs expedient foreign policies of 7 years ago just doesn't wash because no one was complaining at the time, just like it was expedient for Thatcher to let the murderes of Yvonne Fletcher leave the country. Foreign policy judgements often look bad in hindsight when circumstances have changed.

But sheer incompetence looks bad even in the present tense.

But hey, don't let that stop you posting, you're a great laugh.

..............

Well you're a bigger laugh because if could write as much as you and have nowt to say or add to the debate ... I really would give up

Isn't it a mess?

Goodness knows why the Foreign Office and MoD officials thought that a clandestine operation would do better than simply having folk walk into a fairly friendly and safe part of the world.

Goodness knows why they'd think that the UK government should support one side in a civil war.

On the other hand, Goodness knows why Blair, Brown and Co decided that Gadaffi was the sort of bloke "They could do business with"...

But no doubt that T. Blair (the sun-tan kid, friend of - and recipient of hospitality from - Berlusconi; the Middle East rapprochement wunderkid), will have plenty of ammunition for his book about "How I toppled the awful governments I supported for years".....

It's just so sick.

I simply wonder when Prince Andrew, Duke of York, will be sent to tell the despotic rulers of Saudi Arabia that they - including the 5,000 princes and their families - should simply ride away into the sunset.

After all, he has the contacts. Which Blair and Brown encouraged him to use...

A decade of silence from the New Labour brigade would be useful. It will take that long to count the amount of the deficit they left for our children.

The current mob is making a pig's ear of things, but at least they haven't taken out the responsible bankers and shot them - which Brown never had the courage to do, because he depended on them to fund tax take at a rediculous level based on a glaringly obvious financial bubble.

At least it was obvious to "ordinary folk". But NOT Brown or Balls, because they chose NOT to see it. Indeed the "bubble" was a good thing, because it allowed that tax on house purchases to keep growing, while money was being sprayed into the purchasing side of the equation.

SICK.

In the interim, Brown encouraged the PPP or PFI stuff to explode, which means we have schools and hospitals we don't own with long term service contracts we don't need, which will mean that in education and medecine, folk will have to dump staff or services because they are committed to rediculous contract commitments for 20+ years. (I understand that some Brown PPP schools have already lost their direct function and have had to be filled with other students as a stop-gap to make it look as though they were really needed in the first place.)

Brown/Balls/Cooper formed a wonderful trio. Brown became the "Saviour of the World's banking system" by following BoE ideas and recommendations - very late... Because HIS FSA hadn't a clue and severely underestimated the the size of the make-up-the-money bail-out, because they were a useless bunch encouraged to follow his principles of "light touch" regulation. Which really meant he wanted tax-take to spray about.

I'm surprised that the UK population is so tolerant of political garbage.

Hey, Ho.
Our children will pay for the older generation's inadequacies.

C'est la vie.

HIS - Gordon Brown's - FSA creation didn't have a clue about what was happening inside the banks. Just a disgrace.

76. bryhers

'The neocon argument of making the world safe for liberal democracy may weaken traditional elites,who for all their shortcomings deliver the oil at affordable prices and prevent Iran having an undue influence.Their unfortunate habit of permitting terrorism beyond their borders should no longer be tolerated if they want our support.'


bryers, who are you referring to specifically in that last sentence?

69 jon112dk

Which of these has made things worse ....

(a) labour doing business with gadaffi?

(b) cameron cheerleading and supporting violent revolution in Tunisia and Egypt?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One of the things that struck me about Tunisia and Egypt was how little violence was involved in getting rid of the regimes.

Nautonier @77
Errr ... I suppose it depends on whether one is in favour of despots mudering innocent civilians?
----------------------------------------------------
A good question. I wonder what the answer would be for governments red or blue? A mixed record I'd think. Still digging?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

88. At 9:10pm on 07 Mar 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:

At 8:45pm on 07 Mar 2011, nautonier wrote:
OK ... I've changed my mind and David Cameron and William Hague should both apologise on behalf of Britain to the Libyan people ...

For what New Labour have done to the Libyan people in their dealings with the despotic Gaddafi's!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Good we're making progress. Now you're half right. Add apologies for their (the Coalition's) own 'mishandling' and we can wrap the discussion up and I can offer you a hand to get you out of that hole. Deal?
....
No deal ... New Labour have 'broken the scales'

Ref Datvires Page 3
Never complain and never explain,should be more of it.
With all respect Datvires,that attitude is a recipe for stagnation
and residivism,not helpful when the events reported are so very very
serious.
If the West steps foot on Libyan soil militarily,after all that has
transpired in Aphganistan and Iraq then shame on our polititions and
military planners.A miscalculation of such monumental dimensions, would
have been perpetrated by supposedly right minded professionals, on the Libyan people and our underfunded,ill equipped and undermanned forces,
it beggars belief.
Currently, certain spheres of the Arab world consider the West,as
Public Enemy No1, with no credibility whatsoever, because of our
involvement in Aphganistan and oil rich Iraq.
As Libya is oil rich, people in the region, are obviously going to believe that any military involvement by the West in Libya is because
of their oil,not for any humanitarian needs,otherwise why does the West
not get involved in Chad,Congo,Zimbabwe or any of half a dozen other nations.Such involvement by the West,in all likelyhood,will unite any
number of disparate forces behind Gaddaffi and possibly extinguish
any advances the pro reform movements have gained;Gaddaffi would be
perceived as the lesser of two evils and people in the region would come to their own conclusions.
There may well be another agenda here and that is why this UK
government is pushing so hard for getting involved.The Cameron-Clegg ConDem alliance, knowing, how terminally unpopular
they have become, are attempting the turnaround that Thatcher achieved
after she had battled Argentina in the Falklands.Either way,its a cynical
and very disturbing example of further events to come,God help us.

Making Wee Doogie Alexander look even half-competent is a pretty bad move from anyone. Never thought it would be Hague of all people.

Squeaky bum time for the idiots in Mission Incomprehensible 6 who thought this was a good idea.

They clearly must have gone to Oxbridge.

The FO make a complete and utter pigs ear of something is not news. They have been consistently doing that for 75 years. (Hitler, Prague, peace in our time)

That Hague states simply that he takes responsibility is fine.

I remember some Labour home secretary stating that the home office was not fit for purpose.

I know that the HM Treasury has no idea about taxation.

Not exactly designed to encourage confidence in our civil service is it