Posted on 02/06/2008 1:13:40 PM PST by blam
Prince Andrew angers Palace with US attack
By Andrew Pierce
Last Updated: 2:44am GMT 06/02/2008
The Duke of York has angered the Queen and senior politicians with his extraordinary attack on the White House on the eve of his trade mission to the United States.
Downing Street and the Foreign Office were also dismayed by the timing of his comments so close to the Super Tuesday primaries.
The Duke of York is about to embark on a 10-day mission to the US as British trade envoy
The duke's criticism, in a newspaper interview, of President Bush's post-war strategy for Iraq demolished the protocol that members of the Royal Family refrain from public comment on sensitive international and political issues.
In the interview, timed to mark the start of his 10-day mission to the US in his role as a British trade envoy, he said that there were "occasions when people in the UK would wish that those in responsible positions in the US might listen and learn from our experiences".
The aftermath of the Iraq conflict fuelled a "healthy scepticism" towards what is said in Washington, and a feeling of "why didn't anyone listen to what was said and the advice that was given?"
The remarks caused astonishment in Whitehall. The Prime Minister's official spokesman declined to be drawn but both Downing Street and the Foreign Office were irritated.
A senior Whitehall source said: "The remarks are not just unhelpful but the timing could not be much worse as the Super Tuesday primaries unfold.
"If Iraq had been a big issue in those elections his remarks could have been turned into a major diplomatic incident. He of all people should know that."
The Queen, who always studiously avoids politically sensitive subjects, was unhappy at the controversy, according to royal sources. One said: "Of course he should not have strayed into that area."
Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader who is a member of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said: "These are stormy waters. Prince Andrew would be well advised to steer clear of them. I imagine that the Foreign Office and Number 10 are not best pleased by his intervention."
Mike Gapes, the chairman of the same committee, said: "Members of the Royal Family should not get involved in politically controversial matters. I was very surprised by what he said. I do not know who his advisers are, but he needs new ones."
A White House spokesman declined to comment on the comments by the duke, who served in the Royal Navy for 22 years and was a helicopter pilot during the Falklands conflict.
He described that experience as one that changed him "out of all recognition".
Buckingham Palace confirmed the published quotes in the International Herald Tribune were accurate. "The remarks he made were not meant as a rebuke or an attack," said a spokesman.
The duke was referring indirectly to the criticism made by senior British military figures that the US did not heed advice about the decision to ban Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party and the dismantling of the Iraqi military.
The duke said that because of its imperial history, Britain had experienced much of what the US was going through in Iraq.
"If you are looking at colonialism,... at operations on an international scale,... at understanding each other's culture, understanding how to operate in a military insurgency campaign - we have been through them all," he was quoted as saying.
They need to replace those imposters with the rightful heirs, the House of Wittelsbach.
Always great to hear from an inbred unemployable with a 2 digit IQ. Even Fergie figured out he was a schlub.
I propose a new rule: stories about Randy Andy should require pictures of Koo Stark.
The Queen should give the Prince an enforced two-week time-out selling barbequed pork sandwiches in one of the "no-enter" zones in his country where both Brits and angels fear to tread.
Maybe he'll appreciate a little more what we're doing in the ME to contain the terrorists to that part of the world.
Did I read a little subtle nasty in the last line of the above article? Is Andrew slyly suggesting we should look to the history of England's colonialism for tips on how to run the colonialism being perpetrated by the U.S.?
Leni
Dear Liz,
Kindly housebreak and muzzle your Pit Yorkie.
Thanks bags,
America
Besides, we all know the U.K. is on a steep downward slide into insignificance as it slowly but surely becomes a totally socialist welfare-state operating under heavy Muslim influence that pushes the supine government around on a daily basis. England is pretty much a hopeless case at this point and what the socialist Democrats like Obama and Hillary envision for the U.S.
Some hardly-known British 'royal' (gimme a break) and his dumb comments are hardly going to have much influence, except to put a spotlight on his country's massive failures and it's pathetic obsequious toward Muslims who intend to dominate the British culture before long.
It’s enough to make one’s soul pine for Oliver Cromwell.
Yes, the Middle East is a model of Britain’s colonial past. So I guess the Duke is right on how *not* to do it.
I will respect the UK again when they elect a black King.
?????
Geeee!
What could we learn from the Brits other than how to lose wars and countries.....like they did with the U.S.?
Are American taxpayers gonna be on the hook for this twit's security?
From the link...
Nile Gardiner, of the Heritage Foundation think-tank, said: "His remarks will only undermine the image of the Royal Family in America.
Snort. It can't get any lower as far as I'm concerned.
“There were some other European soldiers who got in a lot of trouble about 60 years ago for ‘following orders’.”
Don’t pull that nazi equivalency crap with me. The Einsatzgruppen and the SS were hardly considered soldiers. The Wehrmacht were, though, and they did not engage in the slaughter of innocents like the EG and SS did (the EG were the murder squads that followed the Wehrmacht into the East; the EG were NOT part of the Wehrmacht, and German generals were very clear that they didn’t want the EG anywhere near the Army. The SS ran the camps, and, again, the Wehrmacht had nothing but contempt for them. Sure there were some Wehrmacht atrocities, just like there are always atrocities; but they are isolated and bring shame and disgust on the regular troops.
If you want to point out an army that routinely practiced atrocities than point to the Japanese in WWII. The German Army was nowhere near as depraved as the Japanese.
“Listen and learn from our experiences”. We did, that’s why we got rid of you and your German ancestors.
**********************
HA! Yes, doesn’t the gene that causes madness run in his genes?
My late husband was a British officer. You never met a tougher wee jock bastard. He did two tours in Basrah, and then went off to Afghanistan. Before that he was in other places, always where there was fighting, and had the scars to show for it.
When his men ran half-marathons in the desert heat, he ran with them... AND HE FINISHED. He wasn't the last one over the finish line either. He went through the forces' toughest training. (From this you may be able to guess what his regiment was.)
He missed every important occasion in our lives, from the kids' graduations, to Christmases, to anniversaries. The only reason he was at our wedding was because he had to be.
I would trade a decade of my life if it meant that I could spend one more year with him. He was the best of men, and we are proud of him. He was proud of the forces.
Too bad that you weren't paying attention when your American schools were teaching you percentages. The Muslim population of the UK totals approximately 1.6 million, about 2.8%. That hardly constitutes their taking us over. British Freepers repeatedly point out the true statistics, but I always see a number of people posting who prefer to hang on to their delusion. It must make some people feel good to be wrong.
Wars are like that. Your enemy always gets a 'vote'. The idea is to be flexible in pursuit of your strategy so as to keep the opponent off-balance. Even when something is working (like The Surge) you have to be ready to shift tactics as soon as circumstances dictate. The side that wins is not mistake free; they just make the fewer critical mistakes.
It's also typical that you fire the generals in charge at the outset while searching for your new strategy. Patton wouldn't have got the opportunity in North Africa if Lloyd Fredendall hadn't made a mess of things at Kasserine Pass. McClellan gives way to a series of generals before Lincoln finds Grant.
Unless, of course, you can show him how you can bring in the Midwest and Mountain states.
You call that dweeb a duke? He ain't no duke.
HERE'S a Duke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.