‘At first it seemed like Armistice Day…..The resemblance soon passed, but it is peace, however high the price and whoever has had to pay it’
It might seem churlish to express any doubts about the Munich agreement, given this tremendous outpouring of gratitude and relief. But doubts there are. Of course, having accepted, under enormous pressure, the terms of an agreement dismembering their country that they were not party to, the Czechs are none too happy about it: there have been massive protests in the streets of Prague.
The BBC has gone from hero worship of Ed Miliband after the vote on Syria to painting him a potential villain of the piece….or peace.
‘How many people are going to die now Ed Miliband has put the brakes on taking action over Syria?’
But such difficult questions seem beyond Victoria Derbyshire who let Labour’s Chuka Umunna spout a stream of hypocritical dross without challenge (10:40)….this is not so much ‘bias’ just outright bad journalism, a lack of awareness of issues, what is being said and what that means in the context of other events….and she misses out on a big hit against Labour and its hypocrisy in the vote on Syria.
It is reported that the government granted an export license for dual use chemicals that could be used to produce chemical weapons….these chemicals were not at the time banned by the EU for export.
The full details are as yet unknown, needless to say Labour are shouting loudly claiming the Government is being hypocritical for possibly allowing the export of such materials…..‘It beggars belief…reckless and negligent….the government has serious questions to answer.’
The ever bright and ‘with it’ Chuka told us that this was outrageous. He tells us that the Joint Intelligence Committee had provided intelligence which proved that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons in the past….and that the production of these weapons may have been enabled by the government if the export had gone ahead…which it hadn’t.
Whoa …whoa there fella…..hang on…the JIC provided proof that chemical weapons had been used…which you now accept as ‘proof”?
Only a couple of days ago Labour was demanding ‘compelling evidence’ of chemical weapons being used…and denying there was any…on which basis they refused to vote even for the approval of the principle of military action.
So now Labour accepts chemical weapons were used and it has been proved.
Derbyshire didn’t pick that up at all…..surely a major point of interest for any journalist looking for a ‘scoop’?
The whole basis of Labour’s ‘principled’ stance in the vote was that there was no real evidence. But it seems there was…..or good enough for them to accept it now when politically convenient.
Labour may claim it was looking solely at the use of chemical weapons on the 21st August but why is that different from its use before that?
Labour’s amendment to the vote stated that this qualification should be added to the government motion:
This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.
The JIC said the regime used chemical weapons 14 times previous to the 21st August…..why does Labour think that only the attack on the 21st August is the ‘red line’ that should precipitate action…but only if ‘proven’ to be by the regime?
Labour didn’t believe the JIC last week, why has it suddenly changed its mind?
After all this sounds pretty compelling to me, probably 100% certain of regime use of CW, and ‘highly likely’ it was the regime on the 21st August:
We have assessed previously that the Syrian regime used lethal CW on 14 occasions from 2012. This judgement was made with the highest possible level of certainty following an exhaustive review by the Joint Intelligence Organisation of intelligence reports plus diplomatic and open sources.
We think that there have been other attacks although we do not have the same degree of confidence in the evidence. A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been established.
There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition. The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility.
Against that background, the JIC concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the CW attacks on 21 August.
And note this…Miliband will also have been privy to the actual intelligence and not just the letter:
Some of this intelligence is highly sensitive but you have had access to it all.
5Live ‘Bringing you all the breaking news’