Voting for truth

Why the Labour rebels will be right.

"That this House believes that there should be a select committee of seven honourable Members, being members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath."

Above is probably the single most important motion of this parliament.  Should it succeed, most probably with the support of the Conservatives, Parliament will debate in full, the actions by the government in the build-up to military intervention in the state of Iraq.

The Conservatives are actually demanding a broad investigation, similar to the Franks enquiry, which delved into the actions surrounding the Falklands War.  It's worth mentioning that the Franks enquiry was carried out after the war, however it must also be said that the Falklands conflict lasted little more than 2-months.

It's no secret that my blog is a Labour leaning blog.  I used to be a member of the party, and it was on the issue of Iraq that I wrote to the party to end my membership.  No issue is more central to my blog's existence than Iraq.  And so, on the very issue where I broke ranks with the party, I implore those Labour MP's who share my outrage and shame, that a Labour government would follow the most rightwing American administration in living memory into an unnecessary war, to vote in favour of this motion.

I do not know for sure if parliament was misled.  I do not know for sure if the cabinet were spineless in their cross-examining of the evidence.  I would however like to know all that is unknown and unclear.  Iraq has seriously damaged Labour, and nothing in the past decade has done more to tear at the social fabric of our fragile society.  

It is no surprise that the government will echo Republican dog-whistle rhetoric to prevent a defeat.  They claim our enemies are looking for a weakness and that an enquiry will undermine our troops.  This is nonsense.  If our troops are fighting an unjust war, instigated on deceit and lies, then they should know.  A quick browse onto the military forums proves they are as outraged as we are.  They should know.  We should know.

If you voted for the war, not is time to launder your conscience.  Do not allow this opportunity to pass.  Carpe Diem.


Display: Sort:

Re: Voting for truth (#1)

Hasn't there already been investigations into this?

What a pathetic waste of time.

Re: Voting for truth (#2)

Maybe we all should cut and run when the decisions get tough!

Re: Voting for truth (#3)

We're not the democrats!

Re: Voting for truth (#4)

if all decisions were taken in the right way, the government shouldn't have nothing to fear, should they?

Re: Voting for truth (#5)

If all decisions were taken the right way we'd be superhuman.

Re: Voting for truth (#6)

Yes, but hasn't that already been ascertained
in previous investigations?

Re: Voting for truth (#7)

Were you all given a number?

Re: Voting for truth (#8)

Well said!  I do not share your views on the decision to go to war (I supported intervention at the time, and accept the consequences of doing so).  However, I also believe that there is a need to understand more clearly how we got here, and what we could do better in future.  I do not see our military involvement ending any time soon - even if the majority of troops pull out, this will run on without a 'formal' end date.  So putting a review off until it's 'over' is disingenuous.

Supporters of the Government should not be put off from voting for this motion. In fact, there is a case for getting this out the way before Brown is saddled with the legacy of Iraq.

Re: Voting for truth (#12)

Every Labour member needs to search his/her conscience and vote with their head. By voting for the enquiry we can put an end to this fiasco, pull the troops out and get down to winning the next election. The Tories and Lib Dems are in the same sorry boat as the rest of us and cannot make capital out of withdrawal; but they can if we remain. It is the moment when Britain suddenly woke up and realised that it is no longer a world power and must throw in its lot with Europe and act in concert with Europe in future. A common European Foreign policy and Defence Policy.

Re: Voting for truth (#9)

Hasn't there already been investigations into this?
~ Loz

Er no, what investigation would that be?

Maybe we all should cut and run when the decisions get tough! ~ bornin84

I have read through my article several times, and yet I can't find the part where I advocate 'cutting and running.'

We're not the democrats!
 ~ Loz

Oh, so we identify ourselves with the Republicans now do we?  Crikey Labour has changed.  Bush before Clinton...

If all decisions were taken the right way we'd be superhuman. ~ bornin84

Have you actually read what you wrote?  One does not need to be 'superhuman' to follow the law and established protocol.  'Telling the truth' is now considered superhuman...

I notice none of you offer a coherent argument for the Iraq War.  Saps.

Re: Voting for truth (#16)

I'm sorry, my comment about 'cutting and running' was about leaving the Labour Party over Iraq, not just leaving Iraq! We don't all agree with everything a Labour Government has ever done, even everything a Labour Party has done, let alone other individual members, or even ourselves, but I cannot ever imagine leaving the Labour Party!

I supported the war and like everyone racked my conscience over it! But in the end I thought it was morally unjusterfiable to stand by and leave a dictator in power who was persecuting his people. Sure mistakes were made in the invasion and its aftermath, right up until today and they'll still probably be made tomorrow and the day after too! But hey, if you support something in principle, you can't run and hide after the outcome. I'm still glad Saddam Hussain isn't in power anymore and wish we could do more about other such leaders round the world.

I don't believe i was misled into my opinion on the war, and cannot accept that any MP could possibly feel they were misled either. I believe there was a moral case and the war was justified.

Re: Voting for truth (#17)

'Er no, what investigation would that be?'

Two, the butler report and parts of hutton.

'Oh, so we identify ourselves with the Republicans now do we?  Crikey Labour has changed.  Bush before Clinton...'

On the issue of the WOT I most certainly do.

'I notice none of you offer a coherent argument for the Iraq War.  Saps.'

Removing saddam hussein from power. One of the most brutal dictators in the history of the human race.

Re: Voting for truth (#20)

He may have been a murderous swine but at least he kept the country from falling into anarchy, and some sense of security. What the West fails to understand is you cannot export democracy and impose it on a people. Democracy is an evolutionary process, it has to grow over generations. Sometimes you need to settle for authoritarian rule. This is what the Arabs respect. Saddam wasn't the worst dictator or the last; there have been worse.

Re: Voting for truth (#21)

Swatantra, you may just possibly be a true visionary!

When the next generations learn about middle eastern history, it may well be that history teachers point out that the most peaceful and successful (or least dangerous and unsuccessful at least) period in Iraqi history was the two decades under Saddam, and that before and after then it was civil war and chaos all the way.

Re: Voting for truth (#25)

I suppose Mussolini was a great leader, because he made the trains run on time.  And Hitler wasn't so bad because deaths under his pre-war regime were a lot less compared to the genocide perpetrated after we declared war on him.

Bonkers.

Re: Voting for truth (#22)

Two, the butler report and parts of hutton.

Neither dealt with the information leading up to the war.  They were deliberately narrow.  Also neither was parliamentary.  I thought we had a parliamentary system, not a Presidential one.

Removing saddam hussein from power. One of the most brutal dictators in the history of the human race. ?

Hmmm.  Replace a rudderless dictator with utter chaos (you do realise why he let us believe he had WMD - he was so weak at home he needed to ensure his political enemies within Iraq thought he had them).  A situation every Arab scholar in the foreign office, not to mention Tom Friedman, warned would lead to civil war.

Also how many political prisoners do our friends in Beijing kill every year?  Why are our morals so ambiguous?  Also, when he was killing Kurds he was an ally.  Rummy was visiting Baghdad while he gassing our new allies.  How things change.

Re: Voting for truth (#33)

'Neither dealt with the information leading up to the war.'

Actually both did:

Butler was more critical of the government and the intelligence although it certainly didn't substantiate the ridiculous claims of the 'bliar' gang.

Hutton for example found the pre war dossier was not 'sexed up' and more or less put the blame onto the intel community.

'Hmmm.  Replace a rudderless dictator with utter chaos'

A rudderless dictator responsible for the death of over 2 million people. Yes thank you.

'he was so weak at home'

I'm sure his strong opponents in the meat grinders concur with your assessment.

Even so, if he needed to 'pretend' why on earth would he then decide to give no credible proof of the destruction of his programme with the most powerful military on his doorstep?

'Also how many political prisoners do our friends in Beijing kill every year?  Why are our morals so ambiguous?'

I agree with your point, they disgust me personally equally.

'Rummy was visiting Baghdad while he gassing our new allies.  How things change.'

Followed by chirac and saddam. Some things never change.

Re: Voting for truth (#27)

Loz,

From Jenkin's in today's Guardian:

"Britain has seen no indictment of the pre-invasion mendacity or the lack of post-invasion planning. The Commons has not cross-examined returning generals or diplomats with anything but cringing deference. Occasional hearings by the defence and foreign affairs committees have yielded only pat repetitions of the official line. British MPs enjoy themselves in Basra palace, where they congratulate the army on behaving better than the US. But frank military assessment must be gleaned from gossip, seminars, websites and the occasional general cutting loose on television."

Oh dear, oh deary me...

Re: Voting for truth (#34)

'Britain has seen no indictment of the pre-invasion mendacity or the lack of post-invasion planning'

No the post invasion planning (which btw was in AMERICAN HANDS) not ours, but certainly as hutton and butler prove, the former 'claim' is false.

Re: Voting for truth (#10)

totally agree, the only reason Blair doesn't want a debate is because it'll show how screwed up we've made Iraq, Oh yes, and because Bush has a firm grip on his scrote

Re: Voting for truth (#18)

Nonsense. Blair has debated it the last 3 years or so.

And I'm sure bush is really controlling domestic british political debate. Sure.

Re: Voting for truth (#23)

Absolutely he is.

Blair admitted himself he wouldn't debate it while elections were being held in the states.

Re: Voting for truth (#35)

'Blair admitted himself he wouldn't debate it while elections were being held in the states'

Not heard that myself, but hey you could surprise me.

Re: Voting for truth (#11)

Totally agree, this should be awfully good fun seeing SNP, PC, rebel Labour MPs and the Tories coming toghether in an unholy alliance to support what is in fact a very worthy cause.

Re: Voting for truth (#13)

What a waste of public money after all the other enquiries that we have had.  We all know what went wrong and no doubt when the conflict ends there will be a further enquiry (similar to that of the Falklands)to assist in future conflicts.  As partner to a former military officer, I am pleased that he is no longer a serving officer.  Appalling to think that a parliament who authorised war is now calling for an enquiry at this stage.  Posturing - for political purpose and totally disregarding the feelings of those serving in Iraq at this time.

Re: Voting for truth (#14)

If our armed forces and thick skinned professional enough to do their job as they always do then I dont see how on earth they will care about an inquiry into the failures of government.

Did anyone else feel sick at Dick Cheney's comments today? He alleged that the upsurge in violence in Iraq is Al Qaeda trying to influence the US midterm!

We must resist that drift to mindless "patriotism" and maintain the essential British values of open, democratic and accountable parliamentary democracy. These values do not get suspended because we are engaged in military operations around the globe. Its a false choice.

Re: Voting for truth (#19)

I don't think cheneys comments were accurate, the upsurge has more to do with ramadan than us mid terms.

Re: Voting for truth (#24)

Loz

Well, these are your allies in the WOT.

How are we doing with that WOT?  Are terrorists being defeated or are they controlling Baghdad?  Why are the Republicans, that you consider your political ally, losing votes on the WOT at home.  Maybe it was the state dept. report, which said that US policies are leading directly to more terrorists?

Your arguments would have more weight, if they didn't undermine your goals.  There is no evidence, whatsoever, to suggest that invading Iraq has help fighting global terrorism, but there is much to say it has damaged our struggle.

Re: Voting for truth (#36)

'How are we doing with that WOT?  Are terrorists being defeated or are they controlling Baghdad?'

The terrorists thankfully are not controlling baghdad. They are being defeated day be day. Nobody ever said it was going to be an easy struggle.

Surely the fact the very same sort of islamo facists that carried out the largest terrorist attack in history are fighting to take control of iraq should make us even more determined to defeat them?

'Why are the Republicans, that you consider your political ally, losing votes on the WOT at home.  Maybe it was the state dept. report, which said that US policies are leading directly to more terrorists?'

The same report also said that defeating them in iraq would be a massive blow to global terrorism.

Anway, they are losing votes because people obviously don't like the violence, which is understandable.

Do you think it would be so bad if US troops weren't dying by the dozens monthly?

'is no evidence, whatsoever, to suggest that invading Iraq has help fighting global terrorism, but there is much to say it has damaged our struggle.'

No there isn't, you are correct, but that aside, whatever the difference of opinion on the invasion itself, surely it is a sensible policy to confront the terrorists and defeat them in iraq, a battle ground osama bin laden himself has claimed to be key in the struggle?

Re: Voting for truth (#26)

Cost of another enquiry (based on Hutton) - £1.68m
Cost of the Iraq War so far (UK only) - £4.5bn

Put another way, an enquiry would cost about the same as nine hours' worth of UK military expenditure in Iraq.

So now where's the waste of public money?

Re: Voting for truth (#15)

The government won the vote by a majority of 25

Re: Voting for truth (#28)

Which was a shame really. Ruined my evening.

Re: Voting for truth (#29)

Whilat I was and continue to be veherment opponebt of the Iraq War, I don'r think that now ids the right time to conduct a review of what happened as we are still in the malestrom and objectivity would be hard to come by.

Rather than a seven man "review", I would be in a favour a a full blown Royal Commission with the power to supenoa withnesess and documentation, and with the teeth to bring those responsible to full accountability.

We should promise this in our next Manifesto which would have the dual purpose of making sure the Brown Administration is distanced (as far as this is possible, but it's about perceptions)but seen to be doing something. Cynical?Maybe but we need to ensure Iraq isn't the issue that tips the election decisivly away from us.

Lots of intersting arguments have been put forward and make for good reading

In addition a Review now would damage already fragile Military morale.

Re: Voting for truth (#30)

Now is not the time?

What difference does time make?  Many enquiries were undertook during WW2.  This is smokescreen, nothing more.

Re: Voting for truth (#31)

In addition a Review now would damage already fragile Military morale.

Actually, it's the troops who are demanding it.  Check the forums linked to in the main post.  Let's not talk for the troops, they can speak for themselves.

Re: Voting for truth (#32)

My comment re morale comes based on a coversation with the partner of a guy seving his third tour is Basra.

Re: replying to previous comment (#39)

Cheers, but I'm feeling fine thanks

:)

Re: replying to previous comment (#40)

...still fine ;)