Home > Walter Wolfgang: ’We have been lied to about the war. I dared to speak the (...)

Walter Wolfgang: ’We have been lied to about the war. I dared to speak the truth’

by Open-Publishing - Friday 30 September 2005
17 comments

Edito Wars and conflicts Parties International Governments UK

By Walter Wolfgang

My case is not important. But what happened to me when I was ejected from the Labour conference - simply for a one-word protest during Jack Straw’s speech this week - tells us there is something deeply wrong with the culture of our Government under Tony Blair.

We have been lied to about the war. But not only that. The party has been manipulated so that it has not been allowed to discuss the issue properly.

Indeed, the Labour leaders have got so nervous of criticism that when I shouted the single word "nonsense"- when the Foreign Secretary sought to paper over the issue with smooth words - party officials sent the bouncers in. Even one word of criticism, it seems, was too much.

I had not intended to heckle, much less to make myself the centre of national attention and a debate about whether free speech still exists in the modern Labour Party. But Jack Straw spoke such nonsense - about Iraq, and about Kosovo - that it pushed me over the edge.

I could have said a lot more than that one word. I could have said that we should not have marched into Iraq at all. I could have said we were lied to about the war. But one word was enough. Even so I could not believe that stewards were bearing down on me just because I dared to speak the truth.

Tony Blair is the worst leader the Labour Party has ever had, Ramsay Macdonald included. Mr Blair’s instincts are basically those of a Tory. He picked up this cause from the Americans without even analysing it. I suspect that he is too theatrical even to realise that he is lying.

There was no justification for the conflict in Iraq. It isn’t only that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The war was simply unnecessary. It was done in support of the United States.

It has brought us to a turning point in history. When I was a child living in Germany in the late 1930s, with relatives who died in the concentration camps, things were very frightening. But the policy of the American government today frightens me too. And so does the attitude of the British Government.

Power corrupts, it is said, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. This is increasingly clear in our post-Cold War era. There is today only one superpower and therefore that superpower has to be restrained by the good advice of its allies. But what Tony Blair has done is the opposite. He has confirmed the prejudices of George Bush, making it much harder for a superpower to get out of its bad habits. We made a mistake by invading Iraq and we should recognise that. Now we have got to leave. Our continued presence in Iraq is part of the problem. It cannot be part of the solution. What has happened in Basra illustrates the mess we have got ourselves in. The situation is difficult enough without us making it more so. The best thing is to confine troops to barracks and having done so bring them home as soon as possible.

The hard truth is that the British people know that. The public - and the Labour Party in particular - are becoming increasingly convinced that we made a mistake going to war against Iraq. And that we are making an even bigger mistake in staying there. That is why some people at the conference this week lost their cool with my single word of criticism.

The party chairman Ian McCartney apologised to me afterwards. He invited me and Steve Forrest - the chap who was also thrown out for telling the bouncers to leave me alone - for a meal with him at the House of Commons some time. That was kind of him and I am happy to draw a line under the incident so far as I am personally concerned.

But the issue for the party is far from resolved. It was foolish to have a foreign policy session at a conference in which the most important issues we face - Iraq and whether we are going to have more nuclear weapons - were barely discussed.

Party leaders have increasingly controlled conference over the last few years. We used to have a very inclusive culture in the party. But New Labour has damaged that. We must reclaim it before it is too late.

Walter Wolfgang: The peace campaigner

The man who was shaped by living in shadow of the Nazis

From Hitler’s persecution of his race to the Vietnam War, from the atom bomb to the invasion of Iraq, Walter Wolfgang has spent seven decades opposing every threat he sees to civilised society.

Unsurprisingly, the pensioner, who as a Jewish teenager returned twice to Nazi Germany from the safety of Britain, was yesterday in no mood to be cowed by the "toughies" who dragged him yesterday from the Labour Party conference.

Friends of the 82-year-old retired accountant described him as a painstakingly polite man who nonetheless has "fire in his belly" when he perceives injustice, cruelty or just plain political stupidity.

He is a founding member of Britain’s anti-nuclear movement and a veteran of five decades of anti-war protests, including a Sixties demonstration outside the American embassy in London when he was arrested.

John Cox, the vice-chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, who has known Mr Wolfgang for almost 50 years, said: "Walter is not the sort who would want to be on the podium - he is an activist rather than a leader. But he has passionately held and defended the same principles all the time I’ve known him and he will speak up when he sees something that is wrong."

It is a steadfastness that has its roots in the Holocaust. Between 1937 and 1939, Mr Wolfgang returned to Frankfurt after his parents, Hermann and Erna, had sent him to London to flee the threat of Hitler.

It was only when his father was interned by the Nazis and he was himself briefly detained, that he and his family fled to the safety - and liberty - of Britain.

The family settled in Richmond and in 1943 moved to the flat where has lived ever since. But other relatives fell foul of the Holocaust. An aunt died in Auschwitz. He said: "I went back against the advice of a lot of people. I went there on holiday several times. When I went back there in 1938, I was held there for just a few hours and nearly did not get out again."

Cahal Milmo, Ben Russell and Terri Judd

My case is not important. But what happened to me when I was ejected from the Labour conference - simply for a one-word protest during Jack Straw’s speech this week - tells us there is something deeply wrong with the culture of our Government under Tony Blair.

We have been lied to about the war. But not only that. The party has been manipulated so that it has not been allowed to discuss the issue properly.

Indeed, the Labour leaders have got so nervous of criticism that when I shouted the single word "nonsense"- when the Foreign Secretary sought to paper over the issue with smooth words - party officials sent the bouncers in. Even one word of criticism, it seems, was too much.

I had not intended to heckle, much less to make myself the centre of national attention and a debate about whether free speech still exists in the modern Labour Party. But Jack Straw spoke such nonsense - about Iraq, and about Kosovo - that it pushed me over the edge.

I could have said a lot more than that one word. I could have said that we should not have marched into Iraq at all. I could have said we were lied to about the war. But one word was enough. Even so I could not believe that stewards were bearing down on me just because I dared to speak the truth.

Tony Blair is the worst leader the Labour Party has ever had, Ramsay Macdonald included. Mr Blair’s instincts are basically those of a Tory. He picked up this cause from the Americans without even analysing it. I suspect that he is too theatrical even to realise that he is lying.

There was no justification for the conflict in Iraq. It isn’t only that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The war was simply unnecessary. It was done in support of the United States.

It has brought us to a turning point in history. When I was a child living in Germany in the late 1930s, with relatives who died in the concentration camps, things were very frightening. But the policy of the American government today frightens me too. And so does the attitude of the British Government.

Power corrupts, it is said, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. This is increasingly clear in our post-Cold War era. There is today only one superpower and therefore that superpower has to be restrained by the good advice of its allies. But what Tony Blair has done is the opposite. He has confirmed the prejudices of George Bush, making it much harder for a superpower to get out of its bad habits. We made a mistake by invading Iraq and we should recognise that. Now we have got to leave. Our continued presence in Iraq is part of the problem. It cannot be part of the solution. What has happened in Basra illustrates the mess we have got ourselves in. The situation is difficult enough without us making it more so. The best thing is to confine troops to barracks and having done so bring them home as soon as possible.

The hard truth is that the British people know that. The public - and the Labour Party in particular - are becoming increasingly convinced that we made a mistake going to war against Iraq. And that we are making an even bigger mistake in staying there. That is why some people at the conference this week lost their cool with my single word of criticism.

The party chairman Ian McCartney apologised to me afterwards. He invited me and Steve Forrest - the chap who was also thrown out for telling the bouncers to leave me alone - for a meal with him at the House of Commons some time. That was kind of him and I am happy to draw a line under the incident so far as I am personally concerned.

But the issue for the party is far from resolved. It was foolish to have a foreign policy session at a conference in which the most important issues we face - Iraq and whether we are going to have more nuclear weapons - were barely discussed.

Party leaders have increasingly controlled conference over the last few years. We used to have a very inclusive culture in the party. But New Labour has damaged that. We must reclaim it before it is too late.

Walter Wolfgang: The peace campaigner

The man who was shaped by living in shadow of the Nazis

From Hitler’s persecution of his race to the Vietnam War, from the atom bomb to the invasion of Iraq, Walter Wolfgang has spent seven decades opposing every threat he sees to civilised society.

Unsurprisingly, the pensioner, who as a Jewish teenager returned twice to Nazi Germany from the safety of Britain, was yesterday in no mood to be cowed by the "toughies" who dragged him yesterday from the Labour Party conference.

Friends of the 82-year-old retired accountant described him as a painstakingly polite man who nonetheless has "fire in his belly" when he perceives injustice, cruelty or just plain political stupidity.

He is a founding member of Britain’s anti-nuclear movement and a veteran of five decades of anti-war protests, including a Sixties demonstration outside the American embassy in London when he was arrested.

John Cox, the vice-chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, who has known Mr Wolfgang for almost 50 years, said: "Walter is not the sort who would want to be on the podium - he is an activist rather than a leader. But he has passionately held and defended the same principles all the time I’ve known him and he will speak up when he sees something that is wrong."

It is a steadfastness that has its roots in the Holocaust. Between 1937 and 1939, Mr Wolfgang returned to Frankfurt after his parents, Hermann and Erna, had sent him to London to flee the threat of Hitler.

It was only when his father was interned by the Nazis and he was himself briefly detained, that he and his family fled to the safety - and liberty - of Britain.

The family settled in Richmond and in 1943 moved to the flat where has lived ever since. But other relatives fell foul of the Holocaust. An aunt died in Auschwitz. He said: "I went back against the advice of a lot of people. I went there on holiday several times. When I went back there in 1938, I was held there for just a few hours and nearly did not get out again."

Cahal Milmo, Ben Russell and Terri Judd

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article316115.ece

Forum posts

  • A hero for our times.

    On Blair, am I the only one who thinks he’s been blackmailed by the Bushes and Straws of the world? His actions. his facial expressions, and his attitudes don’t add up for me.

    I believe he came on board regarding Iraq after a private visit to the Crawford pretend farm.

    • the fact of the matter is, irregardless of all the b. s. spewed out by the politicians, it’s economics! people in power that rule parliments, congresses, juntas you name it. it does not matter! until moneyed entities are barred from political contributions WE, THE COMMON PEOPLE, WILL BE SCREWED AND TATTOOED, AS WE SAY IN THE NAVY.

    • Other than the fact that there is no such word as irregardless, its seems to me that the society you are describing is a capitalist one.
      If this is the case, then I can only conclude you prefer a different type of economic structure or system.
      How will baring Bill Gates and the few hundred people who have amassed a controlling share in the American economy change anything simply by barring them for contributing to political parties?
      cheers, jt

    • Sorry professor....the word irregardless is in the dictionary....as a nonstandard use of the adv.,adj. regardless........

    • "I believe he came on board regarding Iraq after a private visit to the Crawford pretend farm."

      Its amazing what wonders a few suit cases full of cash and promises of good positions after "you’re" out of office will do.....it has been rumored that Blair has been promised a position with Carlyle, daddy Bu$h’s conglomerate, once he leaves office.

      Carlyle is a world wide corrupt conglomerate that is absorbing other corporations in order to monopolize essential resources like energy, water, food, and minerals, they are a very scary bunch due to the fact that they are also a major player in the military industrial complex.....all of Ike Eisenhowers worst predictions are now coming true.

    • Not having an American dictionary I will now file it in my list of non standard uses.
      Thanks 72/19 but do you know what 4/158 is talking about.
      cheers, jt

    • Thanks I’m aware of where he is coming from, but my question is can this problem be dealt with, within the Capitalist system.
      What do you think. ?
      You probably know, Ike’s first draft of his famous MIC contained the mention of Congressional, which was left out for being...to politically sensitive ?...or truthful..? (MICC) do you know why or how this happened.?
      cheers, jt

    • I don’t think the problem is as much capitalism as corporations.

      A corporation is an artificial individual which, in some ways, is treated as a person under US law. A corporation has great power and, as such, can be a force for good or evil. The problem is that a corporation has no human sensibilities or emotions. It cannot feel fear or guilt. It has no morals and no conscience. For that, one must rely on its officers and the Board.

      There are two general theories of corporate management. One is that one should try to earn as much money as possible for the stockholders and the other is that one should act responsibly. In
      the long run, the objectives are the same, since acting responsibly generally leads to sustainable growth which, in turn, leads to sustained increases in wealth. At any rate, there seems to be no
      significant difference between the long-run performance of companies that employ either philosophy.

      However, in recent years, there has been pressure from stockholders to achieve short-term profitability at the expense of long term growth. This strategy is based on the plan of buying a stock, having a rapid, but not sustainable, growth and then selling that stock before the negative impact of that strategy kicks in. This has led to a number of detrimental effects, including a shift of compensation from those actually creating wealth to stockholders and corporate officers, as well as some spectacular corporation failures.

      One might argue that this is a feature of capitalism, but it is not a necessary feature. What to do about it? Well, that is a very good question for which there is no clear answer. However, I do feel an answer is out there somewhere.

      What I find interesting, and somewhat disturbing, about this is that the British way of dealing with politics is known for its willingness to grill public officials. It is something we certainly could use more of here in the US. This event leads me to believe that the Brits might just be picking up some bad habits from President Bush and his supporters.

      John Mullen

    • Yes, he is saying that until we have a supreme court willing to revisit the ruling that bribe money given to candidates in the form of "campaign donations" are considered legal under the 1st ammendment that covers "free Speech", or in other words, the bribe money being used then for advertising or other political message media makes the money a form of speech....I know it seems irrational because they are trying to stretch free speech to include campaign donations being one in the same....Its really just a way to allow bribery. But the supreme court is corrupt also they all play from the same stacked rules book.

      Until money is no longer considered a form of speech we are all screwed.

    • So the right word is fascist not capitalist.

    • Thank you for your response ,opinions and in identifying possible corporate malfeasance as a main culprit in a capitalist state.
      If as you say there is little measurable difference in out comes between short term and long term responsible investment strategies than it would seem that hit and run, slash and burn tactics would be preferable.
      I may be naive but a I’ve always considered capitalism to be about two essential ingredients, competition and greed.
      Governments I see simply as a referee to minimise extremes and keep the system operative while assuring a modicum of a living standard and sustainability for the majority of its nations citizens.( (perhaps customers may be a more familiar description)
      When I look at the increasing disparity between the rich and poor , in wealth and in numbers...
      When I see that one and a half million subsistence farmers have been displaced in Mexico(NAFTA) primarily because of the welfare money given to corporate agribusiness in the US in the form of subsidies..
      When the same practise in Europe provides a subsidy for a cow which exceeds the $2.00 a day rate which millions of people in the ’third word’ try to survive on...
      When the CIA reports HIV/Aids as the number 1 threat facing the ’first world’ (terrorism is fourth)
      and US aid is withheld for organizations discussing condoms, birth control, or family planning...
      I fail to understand the policies of the World Bank and WTO in reviewing past performance when projected benefits have been mostly illusionary or non existent to the supposed recipients...
      I won’t go on, you know what forest I’m lost in..I’m just looking at the trees one at a time...
      It was Margaret Thacher that expedited Ronald Regan into neoliberalism and its many negative consequences in particular for the third world...imagine privatizing water in South Africa...
      You are correct public officials are grilled in the UK and when Mr. Galloway came to Washington he demonstrated the drama and theatrics of this type of discourse. It has great entertainment value and attracts the politically uninformed, but I’ve seen few qualitative changes in policy, procedures or God forbid ethics in either the UK or the US. ( I’m not from either country so my knowledge may be suspect...as an outsider objectivity might be an asset as well)
      I don’t believe its possible to differentiate between Corporations and Capitalism.
      I too am looking out there for solutions as well, will I discover a black hole or.....

      "Poverty is the greatest terror" (Gandhi.)

      I wish we could color code this to Extreme, and get "The Commander In Chief" of the "worlds only remaining superpower" into a conservative compassion mode, and really take on real terror.

      cheers, jt.

    • Governments do not JUST referee...the one in the US is behind almost all crime and money scams.

  • It isn’t coincidence that you nominate Blair as the worst leader of your country. I feel exactly the same way about George W. Bush, and for the identical reasons. Bush is a habitual liar. He and Tony decided to make war before they found a good pretext to do it. Then they trumped up a pretext by beating war drums day and night about WMDs, aluminum tubes, Yellow cake, biological labs, mushroom clouds, and a host of other prevarications which the True Believers of their parties accepted as Gospel Truth. The entire occupation, destruction and death, with the consequent sacrifice of our perfectly good soldiers for the sake of lies, is abhorrent, unconscionable and worthy only of scoundrels.

    NONSENSE is a very mild term for what Bush and Blair have done and are still doing. LYING is perhaps a more exact term, but the egomania of both people forbids them acknowledging any such strategy.

    Both Blair and Bush approach criticism in exactly the same way: denigrate the criticizer, use dirty tricks to obfuscate the issue, give "moral" sermons, talk about freedom and democracy but mean stealth, violence and death to the opposition.
    Peter fredsib

    • Peter I noted your comment that both these chaps are heavy on morality.

      Tony Blair is the most religiously devoted PM in England since Gladstone, that’s going back a bit.
      As a High Anglican he has been told not to take communion in his wife’s church (Roman Catholic, where his children are adherents and attend school)
      This would be embarrassing in the PM role, particularly his job relationship with The Royals- The Queen as Defender of the Faith.
      I suspect he will join (be reborn) the Roman Catholic Church on cessation of government duties

      On the other hand its amusing GWG was raised an Episcopalian (Anglicanism- American style.)
      Having been reborn, passed through fire and brimstone, prattling about religion is an essential part of his conversion duties.

      Blair more cleverly slips his morality and righteousness between his political pontificating with greater stealth.

      Prayer and discussion of the Carlyle group would go well with a Texas breakfast on The Dude’s reconverted pig farm.

      After that, whispers of Empires past and present might waffle over the sage brush.

      In short they are both Christian zealots of the first order.

      cheers, jt

  • PSST...a little chicken-hawk told me that he might have connections to al-qaeda...that’s a mask he’s wearing, it’s actually Bin Laden’s #3 in command!

    Check his leg, IT COULD BE ZARQAWI HIMSELF!

    Now can we invade Iran? Pretty please? I’ll throw in Syria as a bonus!

    booga-booga-booga

    anim_rumsfeld.gif

    • Crackhead Bush here. Yes, 911 was a inside job 3,000 head of cattle were snuffed out SURPRISE heheheheh also there seems to be a lot of pent up frustration from the herd. Well fear not we have a lot of FEMA camps thru-out the US, JUST FOR YOU, to thin the herd so to speak. hehehehehehe The constitution FORGET ABOUT IT it will go into the shredder. Also you brain surgens out there should realize that all of you are being recorded in a national data base for your lack of support and for that you get the grand prize one way tickets to the closest FEMA camp in your area TATA hehehewhehehhehhehehehhehehe

    • oh buy the way avian flue "it’s ours" and will kill MILLIONS hehehehehehehe