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.
I’m sorry I never had the opportunity to meet him. Sadly, I have yet to meet a British officer of your husbands type. I hope that’s just due to bad timing and pure coincidence.
You said he was proud of the forces. He had every right to be! They are tough professional fantastic soldiers. I wish that every British and American officer was of the caliber (calibre for you?) that you state he was. Unfortunately PC has corrupted every nook and cranny of even the most stalwart conservative organizations in both our nations.
thank you
He was the best of the breed. You wouldn't have forgot him.
Sadly, I have yet to meet a British officer of your husbands type. I hope that’s just due to bad timing and pure coincidence.
Must be. My grandfather would have been one, as well as my uncles. My father-in-law (his father), and my husband's colleagues, though none were as physically tough as my husband. That was a result of his training.
Before we were married, he informed me that HM, the Queen, came first in his loyalties. By that he meant country and duty came before family. He was a career soldier, and I understood.
You said he was proud of the forces. He had every right to be! They are tough professional fantastic soldiers. I wish that every British and American officer was of the caliber (calibre for you?) that you state he was.
Tough, AND intelligent. He spoke a number of languages, including Dari, Pashto, and Farsi.
Unfortunately PC has corrupted every nook and cranny of even the most stalwart conservative organizations in both our nations.
Well, he was very conservative. He respected his men. He was devoted to them, and some of them were loyal British Muslims who enlisted to serve their Queen, and in doing so put themselves in harm's way. He was conservative, but his thinking wasn't hidebound.
Military spouses don't usually describe the situation in those words. But think about it: isn't that what every military spouse does? And these days, the ones left behind are not all women.
Everything to thank.
We are free with all of our rights because of what you, your husband, and your family have helped to do.
I understand that you went into the marriage knowing the possibilities.
The world and your kids will be better for his service and your hard work.
Oh, I dont know...
How to build the greatest empire in history, that lasted 300 years and made Britain THE superpower on Earth for most of that time?.
How to defeat counter-insurgencies, which Britain did continuously for almost 30 years after ww2: Malaya, Kenya, Aden, Cyprus, South Arabia, the Radfan, Mirbat, Borneo, Sarawak (not to mention the later defeat of the IRA)
How to run countries and their infrastructure (see example 1)...
How to hand over countries without extremist ideologies taking over the new nations (which Britain did with its empire, defeating the various Communist and Nationalist terrorists and guerillas on THREE continents and almost a dozen countries, Malaya POST-independence actually REQUESTED that British forces stay and crush the Communist terror gangs, and Britain did so, from 1957 to 1960)
Are you THAT ignorant of history?...
Poofters?.
Why?. Because some have ‘posh’ upper class or very middle class accents?.
You HAVE had limited dealings with British officers, as just as many are from solid, non poofy, non effete middle class and even working class backgrounds.
You go the politicians correct though.....lol
How ironic.
Andrew may be a useless taxpayer’s vampire, but he actually fought in a war.
UNLIKE the ‘great’ John Wayne,who did everything to avoid service.
Go out and get a real job.
Brits, conservative and otherwise, don't see thoughtful criticism (whether wrong or right) as undermining the country's foreign policy. Criticism of policy or what an individual sees as faulty decision-making isn't the same as backing or even aiding the enemy. (I know most here will disagree with me on this.)
Right now, I’m reading a biography of the Duchess of Windsor, formerly Wallis Simpson. Before and during World War II, the Windsors were very pro-Nazi, and engaged in a number of downright treasonous activities.
Wallis Simpson wasn't British and she wasn't a Windsor. She was an American. Like many Americans, including the greatest American hero of the time, Charles Lindburgh, she was pro-Nazi in those years leading to the war. In the US, such sympathies were quite common, especially amongst the upper classes.
As you say, the Duke of Windsor was a Nazi sympathiser, as were a small number of aristos. The Duke resented his family for not accepting his wife, even to the point of their not receiving her. His rather lukewarm sympathies may have been in reaction to that, choosing to follow his wife's beliefs and taking the opposite political point to that of his family. He wasn't a strong man, or a particularly bright one.
The notorious Cliveden Set, an allegedly pro-Nazi 1930s right-wing, an upper class group of prominent and politically influential (mostly) British individuals were in the circle of Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor. The group's name comes from Cliveden, Lady Astor's stately home in Buckinghamshire where the group often gathered. Nancy Astor was an American, born Nancy Witcher Langhorne in 1879 in Danville, Virginia.
Many toffs on both sides of the ocean were pro-Nazi in the pre-war years, but the Windsors never were.
Yeah, flying a helicopter towing a radar target so that anti-ship missiles would be 'attracted' to him instead of his carrier. That took brass ones.
Oh, The Grand old Duke of York
he had ten thousand men
He marched them up to the top of the hill
And he marched them down again.
When they were up, they were up
And when they were down, they were down
And when they were only halfway up
They were neither up nor down.
If they’re so darn few of your population, then why , pray tell, is your government bending over forward to accommodate them? Since they are doing so, why does the other 95+% put up with that crap and keep voting in Labor?
“”Andrew may be a useless taxpayer’s vampire, but he actually fought in a war.
UNLIKE the ‘great’ John Wayne,who did everything to avoid service.””
Wrong. He was rejected from service due to poor eyesight. He attempted to join twice.
Sorry, but John Wayne’s injuries are a myth.
Historian Garry Wills has shredded much of them in his 1990’s bio of Wayne.And the BBC did an interesting documentary on Wayne in 2001 which uncovered evidence that he stayed in Mexico post-PH, and lobbied his studio to get himself a deferment. Errol Flynn also did the same in Dec/early Jan 42.
As to injuries, the reason was supposed to be his back, which Wills proves was perfectly fine. And studio medical forms both Wills and the BBC uncovered show his eyes and everything else to be fine.
You ask a good question, and I have no really good answer. Maybe it makes them feel important.
The British Muslims I know aren't in the least offended by someone wearing a cross, or Christmas celebrations and lights, or Easter sweets. Most of them don't want special accommodation. They don't need it any more than British or American Orthodox Jews require special accommodation.
Liberals and conservatives both hate it whenever these daft officials come up with over-the-top ideas based on their notions of perceived sensibilities as felt by minority communities. It isn't as much a Labour 'thing' as it is the invention of Tony Blair and his sycophants, invented to demonstrate their ultra-sensitivity.
Of course, there are those people I call 'the mouthpieces', the loudmouth radicals, Muslims who are the British equivalent of your Al Sharpton (back when he was ranting, before he went mainstream). That lot get the attention of the media far beyond their influence in the community, though they do have their followers. In truth, the radical POV has nothing to do with the moderate beliefs of the Muslim community in general, like the bloke who owns the local chippie, or the chemist, or the radiologist. Those people have lives to live, and only want to get on with things.
Perhaps the best thing I can say is that your political leadership there is unworthy of the troops, sailors, etc that serve them.
...on the eve of his trade mission to the United States... 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?" ...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." ...Mike Gapes, the chairman of the [foreign affairs select 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." ...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.
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.