Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Thursday, April 28, 2005

    MPs would not have voted for war, if they had seen the legal advice

    A number of MPs, if they had seen the attorney general's advice on the legality of invading Iraq most likely would not have voted the way they did. Just 2 weeks after that 7th March summary, when it was clear there would be no second resolution, the attorney general's legal advice changed. Labour Party MPs will be furious at being misled on this issue, and the public should also be furious. From the Guardian:

    Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats' deputy leader, himself a lawyer, told Channel 4 News: "We must now have a full account of his [the attorney general's] reasoning and what happened in that period. "Who did he meet? What influences were brought to bear upon him? What minutes, if any, were exchanged between him and the prime minister and other members of the government?" Peter Brierley, whose 29-year-old son, Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley, died in an accident shortly after the war began, joined the ranks of those calling for the prime minister's resignation. He told Channel 4 News: "[The advice] seems to say that going to war was illegal and I can't see that Tony Blair has any choice now but to stand down."
    See all recent "A Logical Voice" posts


    At 4/28/2005 04:45:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    So what ?
    Cop out, hindsight is always perfect.

    At 4/29/2005 05:49:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    But in the case of the Iraq war, the foresight was all that was needed. Anyone who bothered to actually look into the issue of WMD in Iraq knew that the claims did not measure up to reality before the invasion.

    The truth was already available.

    At 5/01/2005 05:17:00 pm, Blogger DJEB said...

    Running away from the thread when you are proven wrong? Cop out.

    At 5/03/2005 04:55:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Three references from a site with an axe to grind do not constitute proof of anything much, just another set of interpretations.

    I seem to remember that pre-invasion discussions in the UN Security Council weren't about the existence of WMD, that was a given, only about what to do about it.

    At 5/03/2005 05:42:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    I notice that you have done a grand total of zero to show that anything cited by Dr. Rangwala is false.

    As for the politics inside the UN Security Council and General Assembly,as Dr. Rangwala has pointed out, any nation, despite what they declared publicly, that went to the trouble to look into the facts in the case - and they surely did - would have known before the war that then only possibility for WMD capability could have been a small stockpile of mustard agent that appeared to have been unilaterally destroyed, but could not be fully accounted for.

    At 5/05/2005 04:52:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    And we are still waiting for counter evidence...

    At 7/04/2005 05:51:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    And still waiting...


    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home