Monday, November 20, 2006

the pro-war leadership of the Republican party

Simon points to this from a debate in the UK Parliament, October 31 (i.e. prior to the US election).
Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) (Lab): The situation in which we find ourselves in Iraq is serious and worsening, and the House of Commons has not given the matter adequate consideration. I was one of the Members of the House who voted against the war before it was launched in March 2003. We were wrong to go to war when we did. To be justified, military action must be absolutely the last resort, when all other options have been exhausted. The military action was launched in the name of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, but the alternatives to war to achieve that aim had not been exhausted. The House will remember that the United Nations weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq before they had had the opportunity to complete their work.

Not only was the war unjustified, but it lacked the support of the international community. Having failed to get the support of the UN Security Council for a resolution authorising war, the US and UK went ahead and invaded anyway...

As time has passed, those who support the invasion and occupation of Iraq have developed new and intriguing justifications for doing so, but none of them hold water. In recent months proponents of the war have argued that al-Qaeda was a force in Iraq prior to invasion, and that one of the justifications for invasion was to take on al-Qaeda in Iraq. That is just not true. In recent months it has been suggested that we had to go into Iraq because the US went in. That reflects an unsatisfactory analysis of the role of the UK in the world today...

...It is possible, as has been said, that some movement is taking place in the United States. Popular support for the US presence in Iraq is very low. The Vice-President, Dick Cheney, said yesterday that al-Qaeda is timing attacks to influence the mid-term elections. To me the fact that he said such a thing is an indication of the desperation in the pro-war leadership of the Republican party. Obviously, it is my profound hope that the outcome of the elections will lead to a real reappraisal of the situation in Iraq...
bolded emphasis mine.

remarkably, that statement appears online in only 3 places: the official record, and at simon's place.

simon has more from the hearings here and here

1 comment:

Simon said...

The political tide is turning over here. All the opposition parties are united in withdrawing their support for the war. The ruling Labour party in the main always vote along partisan lines but even here it is plain to see the strength of feeling in many of their own dissenters words. Politics here has had a disquieting politeness, where few will criticise their own leadership. But it is plain to see that Parliament as a whole is fed up to the back teeth with the executive decision-making process, and the way that the US has had an (extra-marital?) effect on this. Blair won't budge on his principles, despite the fact that all can see the error of his judgement. His days are now numbered and he considers his place in history. I think he would prefer to be forced to resign over the cash-for-honours affair, something that will soon be consigned to the dustbin of political history, rather than be forced to face up to the overwhelming truths and his own personal policy failings about Iraq.

(The They Work For You website, which can be found via Luke's google link above, is an enormously powerful tool. Not many know about it, but it offers a hitherto unavailable search and research mechanism into all that goes on at Westminster, especially as you can be e-mailed immediately upon mention of any search term or reference by person or subject. Thoroughly recommended. Go on - try it out. Just type something like 'Cheney' in box No 2...)