‘We could not stand by as Colonel Gaddafi murdered his own people..…That’s why I said to the Prime Minister that it was right to take part in this international action…backed by the UN mandate…not a mandate for regime change…and that is the basis on which we are acting’ Ed Miliband 2011
Just to back up David on Miliband’s comments on Libya blaming Cameron for deaths of migrants.
Miliband fully backed the UN mandated mission to bomb Libya which was intended to protect the civilians from Gaddafi’s attack…he talked of rebuilding Libya but only of a Libya that was peaceful…not as we find it now in a civil war where reconstruction is all but impossible…does he now back boots on the ground as the only real solution? If not what does he suggest? As he said “The [UN] resolution is about our responsibility to protect the Libyan people—no more, no less…. we cannot afford mission creep” I doubt very much that he backed further military action…in other words if Cameron had wanted to take further military action (and is that just the UK?…impossible) to stabilise Libya post Gaddafi Miliband wouldn’t have backed him….so his position now is hypocritical to say the least.
Guido has checked and Miliband has only mentioned Libya once in a press release since 2013….. ‘It is inconceivable that Miliband’s Blair-booing Labour Party would have voted to put the troops on the ground needed to bolster any post-conflict settlement and restore order. Vague empty words about planning are worthless and Miliband’s blocking of a decisive Western intervention (“standing up to Obama”) in Syria only added to the refugee crisis in the region. Labour’s lack of support for boots on the ground – as advocated by Tony Blair – added to the regional chaos.’
Curious here how there is little outrage from the Left about Miliband’s comments…surely on a scale much more offensive than Fallon’s comment that Miliband had stabbed his brother in the back…..despite everybody knowing and admitting he had.
Listening to the Today programme and the BBC’s Norman Smith gave us the benefit of his thoughts on the matter….rather than a critique of Miliband it turned out to be an attack on the Tories claiming they are opportunistically using this to attack Miliband!…I paraphrase…
This is not about policy but about character…Miliband’s….the Tories are saying this shows Miliband not fit to be Prime Minister.
Miliband’s comments were seized on by the Conservatives…a classic election row…maybe Labour should have worded the accusation more carefully to avoid the charge that Cameron bears some direct responsibility.
Worded it more carefully?…you can bet they fully intended to create the impression that Cameron is responsible for the deaths in the Med….it is quite clear it has been carefully worded to accuse Cameron of failing Libya and hence helping to cause the migration that results in so many deaths:
‘In Libya, Labour supported military action to avoid the slaughter Gaddafi threatened in Benghazi. But since the action, the failure of post conflict planning has become obvious. David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya’s political culture and institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own.
What we have seen in Libya is that when tensions over power and resource began to emerge, they simply reinforced deep seated ideological and ethnic fault lines in the country, meaning the hopes of the revolutionary uprisings quickly began to unravel. The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated.
It should have been avoided. And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle.’
At least Nick Robinson recognises it for what it is…a Labour smear…a manufactured row..
Libya : Labour say PM “walked away” but this is manufactured row. Tories say outrageous to claim “in part, directly responsible” for tragedy
Remember Gaddafi, when he was alive, warned of the mass migration heading towards Europe…so not something created by Cameron’s (and other’s) intervention in Libya…the problem already existed.
Miliband is getting exactly what he wanted, headlines that smear Cameron….and the BBC is at the forefront of providing him witht that…
Miliband attacks ‘UK failure’ on Libya
Ed Miliband is to accuse David Cameron and other world leaders of failing to “stand by” Libya, contributing in part to the crisis in the Mediterranean.
The Labour leader, who backed UK military action in Libya in 2011, will criticise “failures in post-conflict planning” and say the current refugee situation should have been anticipated.
Note that comment about Miliband backing military action in 2011 in Libya……so what did he then do to ensure Libya didn’t become a failed state? What were his ideas and input on ‘post conflict planning’? Remind me BBC. Why not ask him?
This is what he said in 2011….
‘We could not stand by as Colonel Gaddafi murdered his own people..…That’s why I said to the PM that it was right to take part in this international action…backed by the UN mandate…not a mandate for regime change…and that is the basis on which we are acting’
It seems he had little to say about reconstruction in Libya in 2011 even as Cameron spoke of Libyan reconstruction….
“If we had not acted, we would have been spending recent months not talking about the progress of our action in Libya but wringing our hands over the slaughter in Benghazi, as we did after Bosnia,” he said.
This is what Cameron said at the time..
David Cameron told Parliament that the UK’s “full diplomatic presence” was moving back to the capital, but he also sounded a note of caution.
The prime minister said it was vital that Libya was re-constructed by its own people, rather than foreign governments and agencies taking charge.
Libya is “fully capable of paying for its own reconstruction”, Mr Cameron told the House of Commons.
“Of course there is a role for foreign advice, help and support. But we don’t want to see an army of foreign consultants driving around in 4x4s giving the impression this is something done to the Libyans, rather than done by them.”
Following the unfreezing of Libyan assets, he also confirmed that RAF aircraft had flown in “hundreds of millions of dinars of Libyan banknotes” to the country.
Last week, a summit in Paris agreed to release £9bn ($15bn) in withheld assets to help the country’s economy to function properly.
Miliband was absolutely behind Cameron, or rather the UN, and fully discussed the issues with him concerning this UN mission…
Edward Miliband: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has huge expertise in this area and he makes an important point. This is a very important moment for multilateralism because a UN resolution has been passed without opposition at the Security Council. This is a real test of the international community and its ability to carry through not just our intentions but the intentions and values of the United Nations. He is completely right about that.
I was talking about proportionality, which is the third test of the responsibility to protect. It is right to say that our targeting strategy and that of our allies—this is something that the Prime Minister and I have discussed.
It is hard to define success at this point, except to say that we have a clear UN resolution before us on the protection of the Libyan people, and that we must seek to implement that resolution. That is the best criterion for success that we have, for now. No doubt the Government will want to build on that as the campaign unfolds.
That takes me on to the third part of my speech, which is about not just defining the mission but ensuring that there is clarity as it moves forward. There are a number of questions and challenges that the Government must seek to answer in the days ahead. In particular, there are four areas that require clarity: clarity about the forces and command structure involved; clarity about the mandate; clarity about our role in it and the limits; and most difficult of all, clarity about the endgame.
We must be clear about the mandate of the UN resolution. We all want to see Colonel Gaddafi gone, and the Prime Minister repeated that today. None of us, however, should be under any illusions or in any doubt about the terms of what was agreed. The resolution is about our responsibility to protect the Libyan people—no more, no less.
The House should be clear about the degree of difficulty of what we are attempting in securing a coalition from beyond western powers to support intervention in another, north African, state, so we cannot afford mission creep, and that includes in our public pronouncements.
As the Prime Minister said, in principle it must be for the Libyan people to determine the shape of their future.
The resolution is clear that this is not about an army of occupation. The Prime Minister said on Friday that it was not about boots on the ground.
The argument that we do not know the precise sequence of events that will unfold is not a good argument for inaction.
It is essential that both we and multilateral institutions prepare for the peace, whatever form that might take. Indeed, alongside the responsibility to protect is the responsibility to rebuild. I am sure that is something that the Government will be urgently undertaking. It is imperative that they do.
So what since that speech in 2011 did Miliband do to ensure that the government helped to rebuild Libya after having backed so assiduously the bombing campaign and having said…’As the Prime Minister said, in principle it must be for the Libyan people to determine the shape of their future.’
Miliband of course had no idea that Libya would turn in on itself and make reconstruction almost impossible, and so why does he now insist Cameron should have been blessed with this particular insight?…so when he talks of rebuilding Libya it has to be seen in the context that he meant a ‘peaceful’ Libya….has he since made any statements about how to deal with the violence in Libya or how to rebuild Libya whilst it is going in? Does he support boots on the ground which is the only real solution?
Let’s hear it…let’s hear the BBC ask the question.
Millie Dowler Syndrome here.
For Labour to claim ANY moral mandate about ANYTHING really takes the falafel!
IRAQ!!!!?…need I say more?
David Kellys blood on Alistair Campbells spats and scrip?
Noted some UKIP person get slated for referring to the dead in the Med as being Labours floating voters.
Turns out to be true…now if only Labour actually HAD any engineers or bridge builders in ANY of their unions( that DID used to make things, but now bury the dead at mid-Staffs under a blizzard of paper( can`t risk dirty hands or paper cuts now can we?)-then Labour could lash the bloated bodies together and make a pontoon-festooned with Labour leaflets and rainbow wristbands.
Boy-there is NO level to which Labour and the BBC won`t sink in order to get their rainbow revolutionaries into SOME kind of patchwork kilt.
And if they won`t sink-they`ll ram raid any decent efforts to stick to truth.
Smears and sneers-hope to God the Tories win a landslide, shit as they are…
That is about the quandary the country is facing…
Is it better to have a bucket of shit (the tories) or a bucket of shit all over the kitchen floor (new labour)?
We get the governments we deserve, I fear.
As we saw in Iraq, intervention always turns into regime change.
Only a politician could imagine that this was not the case.
I think Milliband is clutching at straws with this. He has nothing to offer on the economy, so he is just trying to claim what is really a faux moral high ground on any issue he can drag up. There is certainly a lot of that about at the moment!
‘Labour say… but this is manufactured row’
Credit for the recognition, and analysis.
But when the BBC carry ‘Ed will accuse…’ as a headline in complement and before this admission that a row is being manufactured and promoted, seems that left hand and lefter hand are not really in sync.
Couldn’t all the Libyans come here?
We could have a combined airline voucher, UK citizenship application, housing voucher and Labour party postal vote application form available online so the administration costs would be minimal!
Perhaps offer a free TV licence too!
Of course they can, as long as they promise to vote Labour in 2015.
In two weeks time we will know what the shortfall is for a Labour majority so they will then be able to determine how many they need to let in to address that shortfall.
If there is a mission creep it is Miliband.
No, not all of you might agree, but it’s worth remembering how Miliband ‘gamed’ the Syria issue (something he seems to be particularly proud of).
In the run up to the vote on intervention to protect the people of Aleppo, Miliband sought assurances from Cameron that any action designed to stop Assad killing his people would;
– Be subject to the agreement of the international community
– Be subject to a second vote in Parliament
– There would be no boots on the ground
Cameron agreed to all of these demands and was entitled to expect Miliband’s support for what was a humanitarian intervention.
Miliband, though, seeing some opposition from the government benches couldn’t help himself. He saw an opportunity to show-boat and give Cameron one in the eye. He reneged on what had been agreed and ‘Stabbed Cameron and the Syrian people in the back’, taking his party through the ‘no’ lobby.
The result of Miliband’s siding with Assad and Putin (that tells you where Miliband’s emotions lie) and, ‘Hell yeah’, ‘standing up to Obama’ were the deaths of tens of thousands of men women and children at the hands of Assad’s shells, mortars, barrel bombs and chemical weapons.
ALL FOR THE SAKE OF A ‘NO FLY ZONE’ or safe havens. All for the sake of Miliband’s narcissism.
Miliband has blood on HIS hands. His audacity knows no bounds – there is nothing he will not say to get into power.
Can we expect the BBC to challenge him? NO.
BTW: I heard with growing frustration and anger yet another one-sided piece for Norman Smith, on this, this morning. It is time the BBC removed him from its election coverage. He cannot be trusted to offer balance.
According to Dan Hodges the real reason Miliband voted against the intervention in Syria was to appease his restive backbenchers who were threatening to rebel and vote against the motion. Fearing embarrassment and being unable to control his own MPs, he voted against the motion despite Cameron bowing to ALL of Miliband’s demands. So not so much “strong principled leadership” according to his own account when interviewed by Paxman, but a cowardly cave-in to his own backbanchers. Miliband’s a disgusting liar as well as an opportunist.
Not only did he dance on Millie Dowler’s grave to score cheap political points, he now uses the tragic deaths of 800 migrants for his own narrow electoral purposes. A vile, disgusting chancer who has no moral right to be leader to be a toilet cleaner never mind being Prime Minister.
I used the word ‘sly’ to describe Miliband some weeks ago. I’m pleased to see others, including Hodges, use the same word, because that’s exactly what he is
Add ‘despicable’.
More letters, but I’m erring on ‘two-faced, devious little NaughtieMarr’ more.
In 2011, the UN security council voted for military intervention in Libya. The UK along with 17 other countries struck military targets with PGMs in which to level the playing field. Following up on that the British stated that they would train the new Libyan army to Western standards, unfortunately the soldiers sent over to the Uk, found our basic training far too hard, and instead rioted, and went on a rape rampage across Cambridge. The UK 3 years after saying it would help sent them all home. However the bBC signed off this chapter by allowing the Libyans to play the ..victimcard.
The Libyan army rapes in Cambridge. The bbc decided that support of Muslim “victims” in the shape of their proto army was more important than the rapes of local women………and men. Have they ever felt the need to support such behaviour before ? I’ll have to read up some history.
In reality this is Libya now (see link below), making money to be picked up by so called ‘humanitarian’ aid rescue that will ensure a continuation of the crisis. It’s a little publicised war with our outside Europe neighbours who see Europe as a ‘soft touch’ and ‘ripe for the picking’, greatest home goal is the UK land of Labour inspired Social benefits of entitlements for all. Its the same daft EU that does not allow any racial discrimination, in a war time situation, its madness. We are at war, and we will be at war for most of this century when the EU will simply collapse of funding its own social idealism.
http://www.th-eu-nit.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45526:libya-group-says-it-will-confront-any-eu-strikes-against-people-smugglers&catid=59:eu-external-policy&Itemid=85
OK I repeat the asking the BBC doesn’t
If the Libyan structure and institutions were capable of governing that country , what does Milliband , and Camoron and Clegg , want those structures and institutions do to the Africans pouring over its borders ?
Stop them
Intern them
Or allow them to go up to the coast and get on boats ?
Offer them a ham sandwich and a beer.
If they refuse, send them back to the Sharia-compliant state of their choice.
Very interesting to read the Comments on the BBC article.
One poster says this could well be Ed Miliband’s “Neil Kinnock” moment.
Here are the top comments so far:
“Posted by baz blackpool:;
Great with the gift of hindsight.. and from a man who supported it in the first place…some might say hypocritical”. ^354
“Posted by Ozymandias;
A bit rich coming from someone who leads a party that took us to war numerous times during their term in office!”. ^352
“Posted by Jim;
Miliband is not fit to be our Prime Minister. He’s a disgrace”. ^352
“Posted by Cornish Trebs;
The hypocrisy from Miliband is totally mind blowing, trying to score cheap political points from the mouths of dead children!”. ^309
” Posted by SunElectric;
So is this Ed Miliband being the Statesman? Disgraceful”. ^294
Looks like it’s back-firing on the BBC and Labour!.
Sorry… just saw this having just duplicated on the other thread.
Worth it, though.
Be interesting when the plug is pulled.
BBC still using this story as top news on their website.
As INBBC knows-
“Ed Miliband thinks Libya’s failure is so obvious he’s barely mentioned it until now”
By Isabel Hardman.
[Concluding excerpt]:
“After Ed Miliband talked about long-term support for the Libyan government on 5 September 2011, his own party can’t seem to find any mention of post-conflict planning by its own leadership in 2012, 2013, or 2014.”
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/ed-miliband-thinks-libyas-failure-is-so-obvious-hes-barely-mentioned-it-until-now/
What an unlovely bunch these politicians are. I would not have intervened in Iraq, Libya, Syria or any where. After 9/11 a punitve and massive raid on the Taliban in Afghanistan was necessary. After that the West should have left the whole bunch well alone.
For Labour Party-supporting, BBC-NUJ branches-
” Hypocrite Miliband’s politics of the gutter ”
By DAILY MAIL COMMENT.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3054730/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Hypocrite-Miliband-s-politics-gutter.html
Like Labour’s comments re the Falklands in 1983:
Maggie “glories in slaughter” – Denis Healey.
Questioner in audience to Neil Kinnock:
“It showed that our Prime Minister had guts. ”
Kinnock’s retort:
“Well it’s a pity our solders had to leave theirs on the battlefield of Goose Green.”
The Labour Party and sick humour are natural partners.
It’s a pity the then leader of the so called party of the people, the socialists, decided to support the fascist scum of a third world tin pot dictatorship which drugged their own socialists, put them in planes, flew them out over the South Atlantic and threw them out in chains to drown rather than support the British prime minister, the British forces and the inprisioned locals. I mean it was a difficult decision was it not comrades ? The modern day comrades likewise find it easier to make capital out of others blood than offer support for required action.