h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Clive - ref Iraq - "I am livid about this. The Tories incidentally are as much to blame and I am not voting for them either!"

The Tories also voted on what TB said - had it been true it would have been a valid concern (though not sufficient to start a war in my opinion) They supported what was the information they had - they - like the Labour party - were lied to.

Only one or two people seem to have had the nerve to doubt the PM's word - Robin Cooke (amazingly) and Charles Kennedy (and the majority of the population of Britain it seems)

Ben - "I think we are right to question his judgement in - for example - his determination to interpret intelligence which the intelligence community itself said was ambiguous in the most expedient political light, and as also demonstrated in the cynicism of the thinking "They'll forget it was illegal once we've one it"."

I recall his "History will justify our decision" statement - scared the pants off me.

Hiya McKay.

The Government dossiers and disinformation may indeed have deceived a lot of people in the Labour Party and elsewhere. My principle objection to those including the Tories who now cry foul and say "we were duped!" is that, as you say, a number of people *did* find cause to be sceptical of the Government and *were* continually doubtful of the PM's assurances, which have now proven to be utterly discredited.

I feel kind of sorry for the tories after a fashion, it was a judgement they had to make one way or the other and the pity is that they chose to back disarming someone who didn't have anything to be dissarmed of. So its a hole they've dug themselves into and I don't think they are very credible to try and claw back some sort of moral highground after the event.
Where they can attack the governemnt of course is in approaching the question of trust - they shout as loud as they can about trust, but I do not side with them in saying "vote Tory, I was duped too."

I wasn't, and I'm not going to vote into office those who say they were.

----------
I've said in other posts I feel the tories were complicit in the vote for war, I've also agreed they may have been duped. let me explore that a little and show that if they were duped, it is because they were receptive to the message that the government wanted to give out - thatSaddam was a threat and had to be dealt with.

I've gone to the trouble of hunting down a transcript from a Newsnight debate with good old Iain Duncan Smith (remember him?), who was in charge of the Tories during the build up to war.

Note, that he's convinced that Saddam poses a threat and going to war is our chance to deal with him. He prevaricates over whether he'd support a vote for war if a second UN resolution was not sought (and in the event of course it was not.) I concluded then and I believe now that he was spoiling for a fight as much as Blair was when as the largest party in opposition, he should have been a breake on Government, he should have been urging caution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/2825777.stm


Furthermore, I think this was typical of much of the Tory Party, as this article from The Record notes regarding the vote on starting war with Iraq:

"Tony Blair [...] found support from the Tories"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2939277.stm

In this interview John Reid is positively ebuilent that "four out of every five Labour MPs supported the vote to go to war. and goes on, adding: "Out of 91 ministers, 88 supported the Government."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2865343.stm

If I damn the Tories, then I will damn Labour as well. Parliament voted with a majority to support the action to go to war.

There were 139 Labour Rebels that night - but Parliament still voted with a majority. Which means that the two largest parties, Labour and Tory voted for war, as the vote could not have been carried in favour otherwise.

I'll see if I can track down the voting record on the vote to go to war. I'm interested now to know exactly what the distribution of votes was between parties.

If I'm lucky it'll list the invividual MP's names and constiuancies and then everyone here can know if their local MP voted with the Government or against them.

Well this link to Parliamentary records all to do with Iraq looks like a minefield of useful information for the future...

http://www.parliament.uk/useful/sp_iraq.cfm#division

Ah-ha! The lists of the division lobbies. Wherein are records of the text of the Government motions to war, the ammendments the tabled (arguing the case was not proven), the figures on how the house divided (both ammendments were defeated) and finally lists according to Government motion and ammendments which MP's voted which way.

Glee.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/SNSG%2D02109.pdf (requires Adobe Acrobat to view)

If you don't know the name of your local MP, the BBC will help you find it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/default.stm


If anyone is interested, ths is the text of the Government's motion on he 18th of March 2003 which marks the start of war.

"That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th

February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441;

recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range

missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council

Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes

that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not

co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the

weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply

and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive

mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite

sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not

proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one

Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its

intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the

opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply

and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in

material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has

revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must

uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution

1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the

decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should

use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons

of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women

of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; in the

event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the

United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that

would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of

humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN

sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of

all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an

appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a

representative government which upholds human rights and the rule

of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of

the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and

lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for

the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's

Government in actively working for peace between Israel and

Palestine."



Ask yourself, if Iraq had no weapons as was not therefore in material breach, was the authority to use force at all justified?

QUOTE

I think we are right to question his judgement in - for example - his determination to interpret intelligence which the intelligence community itself said was ambiguous in the most expedient political light, and as also demonstrated in the cynicism of the thinking "They'll forget it was illegal once we've one it"

END QUOTE

I recently watched the documentary film "The Fog of War" about the US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who was in that position under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, meaning Vietnam. He was very candid in the interviews, and chillingly agreed with a WWII Air Force general (LeMay?) who said that if the US lost WWII, he and others would be tried as war criminals. This was in the context of the fire bombing of dozens of Japanese cities, similar to the Dresden fire bombing in Germany. (Hitler was reportedly outraged by Dresden, but of course what he tried to do to London ...) There are clearly no remaining rules to war, and as always, the winners write the history.

I saw that documentary too.

I thought Macnamara's most insightful observation (for me at any rate) was when he said they had missunderstood the nature of the conflict they were fighting.

America he argued viewed Vietnam though the prism of fighting communism, the Vietmanese saw their struggle as primarily a civil war. I shan't bother belabouring the parallels with the insurrgency in Iraq, I should think they are pretty obvious...

Clive - "I've gone to the trouble of hunting down a transcript from a Newsnight debate with good old Iain Duncan Smith (remember him?), who was in charge of the Tories during the build up to war."

Yes, I agree that they were keen for the war, though I think you'll find further hedging on the 2nd UN resolution later.

I was trying to say that whilst they were misled as much as the rest of us, it seems that most of us allowed our intelligence to intercept the messages from our gonads. Though having said that I don't recall many people saying "Oh no we shouldn't go to war." at the time - though obviously I must be mis-remembering as nowadays the entire population was against the war.

Speaking personally I didn't think the case was proven then, in light of everything that has transpired since, even though we are now in a more stable era in Iraq, I still think the original decision to go to war was flawed and should not have gone through the way that it did.

Despite the numerous investigations into the intelligence the war was based on, none of the politicans have had to face responsibility for the vote they took part in, and I've been waiting for this election to be called so I can register my disgust.

To take the Tories specifically to task, I distrust the "we were misslead" chant. They are in elected opposition, that is simply not good enough! With a parliamentary Labour party with as large a majority as TB has, they are the only brake on Government we have outside of the Lords (as the ping pong of anti-terror legislation admirably proved.) The vote to go to war was exclusively held in the Commons. If the Tories did not "allow their intelligence to intercept the message from their gonads" then more fool them.

As for Labour, the statistical breakdown of the division list I posted above makes clear. On the 18th of march 2003, two-thirds of the Labour Party voted against the ammendment which said the case for war had not yet been proven. (Defeating the large back-bench rebellion of Labour MP's. In this they had a helping hand from the Tories who 85% of whom voted to reject the ammendment.)

And on the vote to go to war itself, 90% of the Tory party voted in favour of the motion as did 62% of the Labour party.
For the Ammendment The Lib Dems vote 100% for, no abstentions, no votes cast against. On the motion to War they voted with 53 MP's , 98% against the motion with 1 abstention.

This is why I can conscionably only vote for them as they were the only party, however futile the effort, to vote against a Government determined by hook or by crook to take us to war.

I'm not expecting to sway anyone from their point of view, I am only intending to clearly express my own for what its worth.

Clive

An interesting and thoughtful man, McNamara. He was also a prime mover in the Apollo missions. I must get hold of a decent biography sometime.

B

I'm seriosuly tempted to buy the latest edition of Dr Strangelove on DVD. I already own a copy but McNamara has a commentary reel on the latest edition.

**McNamara commentry on Dr Strangelove** as a film geek with an interest in politics and history I find that almost irresistable (However I am also broke which is why I've not gone and bought it already!)

As a voice in the wilderness, may i just say that my local medical centre has improved out of all recognition since Labour have been in. It's for people with certain medical conditions which I don't really want to go into...(the tories ran it into the ground) I just wanted to put my two penny worth in on some subject other than Iraq as a remider that TB is not the incarnate for some of us who are quite vulnerable in hidden ways that you won't read about in newspapers.

I agree, though as I said before I don't think TB knowligly led us into an illegal war though he should have asked more questions about the information. People don't chellenge information they want to be true.

Why don't you just rename this thread.........TB and the war in Iraq?

Sorry. Just didn't want to sound ;ike I'd given up. I know that is pathetic.

This post has been removed.

Good afternoon Clive,

You have posted some interesting stuff on Iraq! I know some want to move on, but this IS an issue and it should not be allowed to drify away as TBwould wish.

I must say that at the time the war was started I wsa persuaded that it was right, thoug a bit disturbed that Hans Blix wasn,t allowe more time. However, realising that 'time' is of the essence, I supported the invasion. I am ashamed of it now...

I couldn't know then what we know now, I believed (as I used to believe) TB, and that we were under a threat ourselves, I was MISLED.
Perhaps I am too gullible, perhaps the Tories, fed the same diet of misrepresentation were too gullible. perhaps they are equally guilty, but in my book TB must take the responsibility for what he said, what he didn't say , and for taking his party, the Tory party and the rest of us into an unjustifiable war.

Because of those who died I cannot forget that.

Novo

This post has been removed.

"I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it"

sorry - couldn't resist.

Well its nice to know I'm not alone.

TB's shame should not be allowed to slide down the agenda I quite, quite agree. However, that said, for fear of dominating The Forum over this - *is* there anything else anyone would like to debate?

because I can keep this up forever.

Did Pixel break the House Rules?

Can't say I noticed.

Guess thats why I'm just a humble researcher and not a Mod!