Politics OnLine UK
Uploaded: 11 October 2004
Intentions speak louder than war.
Or, as Jack Straw put it, referring to the Iraq Survey Group report, the report shows that the threat from Saddam "in terms of his intentions ... [was] even starker than we have seen before".
It's amazing! I am fast concluding that we would be politically better served if we got a bunch of pigs and dropped them in a vat of oil, at least it would be a damned sight easier to get hold of them than anything from our politicians today.
So Saddam had an intention to produce WMD at some point in the future. Really? When? And what would his intentions be then? Attack the rest of the world, America, Britain?
I suppose it isn't surprising really that our politicians would ascribe dubious motives to anyone producing WMD, or with a desire to produce them, after all by what standards should we judge others other than by our own?
Hewlett Apologizes for Iraq.
Here it is, ""I certainly want to say that all of us, from the PM down, all of us who were involved in making an incredibly difficult decision are very sorry and do apologise for the fact that that information was wrong, but I don't think we were wrong to go in."
What's she apologizing for if she didn't think we were wrong to go in? Isn't that somewhat the point? If we were right to go in then no apology is required. It's just that little problem that none of the moral or ethical issues or the physical facts support such a view.
The invasion of Iraq was a defining moment in history, it changed everything. It was the politics of might and power over reason, justice, law and morality.
It was a pig in a poke, the price for which we are all going to be paying for a very long time to come.
© Keith Lindsay-Cameron 2004