justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But
the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
According to the then Foreign Secretary, "Bush has made up his mind to take military action.... But the case was thin."
Ultimately, of course, it didn't matter. Who needs evidence, when you can make it up?
M. P. Marshall-Andrews then spoke words that will never be heard in the U.S. Congress:
The real point of the debate, and of any inquiry that may be held, is not to learn lessons so that we don not make mistakes again. That is one reason, but I want an inquiry to be held into the Iraq war because I wand those responsible to be brought to the book and to justice. If necessary, they should be brought to international justice, but I want us to be the ones who bring them to it.
At this point, Conservative Party member, Humphrey Malins, of Woking, joined in:
I support the honorable and learned gentleman's argument with all the strength that I can muster, but may I remind him gently that some Opposition Members at the time took the view that he is expressing? I was one of those who resigned as a shadow Minister because of the illegal war. Does he agree that, when we look back at our parliamentary lives, we may well regard the decision to go to war with Iraq as the worst and most horrible decision that this Parliament has made?
Labourite Marshall-Andrews would heartily agree, and he would add:
Indeed, beside that decision, all our other achievements and deficiencies -- and there have been many of both--pale into insignificance. The circumstances and repercussions of what we did then have swept well past Iraq. As Tacitus noted, one victory can create a thousand enemies, and that is precisely what happened.
These are some of just a few voices in the Parliament of the junior partner in the Iraq debacle.
When should we expect such voices in the U.S. Congress?
2025?
--(c) '08 maj
{Source: Labour & Trade Union Review, (No. 187: May 2008), pp.4-5. [www.ltireview.com].
1 | 2
