Sunday, 7 February 2010

WAS ROBIN COOK A NULABOUR SHITEBAG OR A MAN OF HONOUR?

ROBIN COOK DELIVERS HIS RESIGNATION SPEECH ON THE SEVENTEENTH OF MARCH, 2001

There is an increasing tendency in this country to accord Robin Cook  some sort of Sainthood.

His former wife Margaret writes today in the Mail on Sunday, whether through belief or financial necessity, I am not sure, but it would be churlish to deny that his resignation from Blair's Government over the Iraq War when he was Leader of the House was anything but honourable.

He finished his resignation speech with the following lines, "The longer I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.  On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.''

How prescient those words sound and how true.  But he was not so honourable on other issues.  Before Labour came into power he had dumped all his Socialist beliefs from Trident to the Unions and all areas in between.  As Foreign Secretary in the new Government from 97-2001, he had bleated that Britain would follow an 'ETHICAL FORIEGN POLICY' which meant that no arms would be sold to countries with dodgy human rights issues either towards their own people or their neighbours.  During this time he sanctioned arms deals with such upright countries as Sierra Leone and Indonesia in total contravention of his own ethical guidelines.


So SHITEBAG or MAN of HONOUR?  Sorry it's SHITEBAG FOR ME!

19 comments:

subrosa said...

Yes he may have changed his opinions over the years DL but when it came to putting lives at risk he stood by his principles.

No I don't think he was a shitebag, although there are plenty of them on all benches.

War is the most important decision any government has to take and I must say I'm impressed by Mrs Cook's article. Well done her.

Mark MacLachlan said...

His role in the kippering of the 1979 devolution bill marked him out as shitebag from the earliest days.

aka Grappin said...

Was he murdered by the nationalists or the CIA?

Who was the mystery man that just happened to be on Ben Stack when Robin Cook had a heart attack and fell? Why has his name never been released?

Was Gaynor Cook an MI5 operative?

Was John Smith murdered by the CIA so they could get their man Blair into position?

Dr kelly?

Is DL a member of Skull and Bones?

HeadsonPoles said...

Man of honour - hmmmm.
I'll just ask his Missus.

Stout Heart said...

Honour as in "honourable member" is not a word that is applicable to any of the current bunch in Parliament.

In the case of the wee red gnomie - to be fair we will never know and he was great fun on the race track so I'll give him the enefit of the doot.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Rosie, I know that you're very keen on writing about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I sometimes wonder if you have some connection to the forces? What was the wee ginger minger's attitude to Kosova when he was I believe, Secretary for Defence? Was he so keen on Muslims' lives or just Iraqes?

Dark Lochnagar said...

Mark. Welcome. Yes there were one or a thousand of the Labour traitors that could hang their heads in shame over that. It's funny, they seem to get dizzy witht the power and trappings of Westminster and their heads get turned by the 'bright lights of London'. I suppose when you've come from a cooncil hoose in West Lothian that can happen.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Grappins, you are putting forward some great conspiracy theories! Let's go there, what do you know? What the fuck's the skull and crossbones and where do I join?

Dark Lochnagar said...

Headson, that's his ex-missus that wrote the article. I don't know what happened to the Floozie that he married subsequently.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Stouters, I beleive there are some 'honourable' members left and funnily enough, I'll give you the name of one and you may think I've lost it. George Galloway. He stood on a point of principle, the Iraq war, he's never taken a penny in expenses. He donates some of his salary. Mind you he probably got a good few bob from his big mate Saddam, who he thought was indefatigable or something like that!

aka Grappin said...

The damned republican Galloway attended 5% of debates and claimed £136k in expenses.

The man is a crook and a fool.

If we didn't have to pay for him he would be quite funny but the price is too great.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Grappins, The lying bastard. He sat on QT on Thursday and said he had nothing to pay back and he was as clean as a whistle. The Scotch fucker. BTW You may not have noticed but the Queeen only goes there once a year for about 35 minutes and she gets paid more than all MPs put together in expenses. How do you answer that?

INCOMING!!!!!!! said...

Both.

Heads up.

Dark Lochnagar said...

INCOMING!!!!! Oh no, you don't get two votes honest or shitebag? I meant to come on to yours BTW to say I'm still wading through that stuff you told me about. It's a bit heavy but interesting. What's your conclusion.

Stout Heart said...

Dear Anglo Darkchar, you are a Republican twit (as Grappin called you); the Queen owns the whole Country – including Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament passed its own legislation in 1689 removing the throne from the Stewarts and handing it to the Hanoverians (a fact that you Jimmies conveniently gloss over); as a result both the English and the Scottish Parliaments confirmed the Royal Families rights of ownership of all the land in the UK.

That’s why the Queen gets a divi from the treasury – it’s the rent on her property. If you say she can’t have it then logic says you must do away with the concept of private property; that’s fine in Scotland where you all live in English paid for Council houses but in the rest of the Country it would be deemed to be unacceptable.

Don’t mix your treasonous republican views with Marxism – even if the queen was no longer Head of State she would still be entitled to rent from her properties.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Stouters, I am no Marxist. I was a member of the Tory party for 10 years during Thatcher's time and that was hard up here so don't give me any of your shite. The Queen will have what the people of Scotland who are sovereign decide to give her. The throne might have been passed to the German twats but only making them King of Scots my friend not King of Scotland. There is a subtle difference which I am sure even your, gin sodden, middle trying to be upper class head can grasp. Don't think you can gang up on me with the new boy, you got short shrift from my loyal readers the last time you tried that.

Stout Heart said...

Oh Arch Dark Anglo, on the 16th of March 1689 the Convention of the Scottish Estate met in the Saxon city of Edinburgh and considered the applications they had received from Jimmy V11 and Willy l l; they were heavily influenced by George Buchanan’s arguments which claim that “monarchy is contractual in nature” and they agreed that as Jimmy had broken the contract, not least by legging it to France, he had forfeited the Throne. The Conventioned then offered the Throne of Scotland to Willy and Maggy.

I don’t enjoy pointing out your historical ignorance on your own blog but do try to buck up a bit; at the moment you are bottom of the class. You should buy a decent history book and start drawing your own conclusions rather than listening to the unwashed romantics in the To’S Inn.

Did you know that Willy was a flaming poofter? That’s one of the reasons he got the Throne – there wasn’t much chance of their being any little Willies in England and there still aren’t!!

Dark Lochnagar said...

Stouters, you must try harder. Monarchs in Scotland are not soveriegn. They are accepted as Monarchs for only as long as the people want them. In other words they can be told to fuck off anytime should there be a referendum to that, asking the question. The Monarchs in England are soverign and there in lies the difference. The Scottish parliament could if it wished get rid of Liz tomorrow after a vote but the British Parliament could not at least the English bits of it. It is exactly the same in Canada and Australia.

Yes, I read somewhere about Willie being a shirtliftr and for that reason he was seen as a stopgap. Your trouble is that the nationality of our Monarchs was Scottish more or less from ancient times up until 1707 but you just had to put up with who invaded you, Romans, French, Scots. It must be difficult being ruled by a foriegner. Oh sorry, I forget about Blair and Brown. Rubbing the salt in a bit there, not intentional!

Now fucking behave yourself or I'll get Cuthulan onto this thread.

Stout Heart said...

As you know I think you are Culthulan anyway; My spies have never seen you both in the TO'S Inn at the same time which is a bit of a giveaway.

I suspect that the Culthulan character, which you have created as a weird mix of John Fordun and the SWP is off swotting up on his Egyptian/Iberian by way of Ireland "roots theory" and that should keep him busy for some time, so you can't frighten me with that one.