Clegg Calls Iraq Invasion ‘Illegal’ At PMQs
Sky News Online
by Ruth Barnett and Miranda Richardson
July 21, 2010
Why is Jack Straw smiling?Nick Clegg has taken Prime Minister’s Questions for the first time but raised eyebrows by calling the invasion of Iraq "illegal" at the dispatch box. The Deputy Prime Minister replaced David Cameron at the Commons session because the Prime Minister was away in the United States. In an exchange with Jack Straw, who represented the opposition, Mr Clegg said: "Perhaps one day you could account for your role in the most disastrous decision of all, which is the illegal invasion of Iraq."
The coalition Government has not expressed a view on the legality or otherwise of the Iraq conflict.A Downing Street spokesman: The remark prompted questions over whether, as he was standing in for the Prime Minister, he was speaking on his behalf. Mr Cameron and the Conservative frontbench voted for the war. But the Deputy Prime Minister’s spokesman said Mr Clegg was expressing his own "long-held view" about the legality of the war and would wait for the results of official Chilcot inquiry…
Some Brits don’t mince words. It is, of course, a very good point. In the first round of the Chilcot Inquiry’s public hearings, Jack Straw and Tony Blair were silver tongued, but it was apparent that they were giving a very carefully constructed version of what went on – "truth-like" rather than "truth-ful."
In an earlier post based on the British Press accounting, I mentioned the testimony of Carne Ross [who I claimed looked like Clark Kent]. Mr. Ross was a UK Diplomat assigned to the UN who resigned over misgivings about the legality of the Iraq War. He has been an outspoken critic of Mr. Blair. His testimony to the Butler Committee was released only after a battle [Diplomat’s Suppressed Document Lays Bare the Lies behind Iraq War].
I went back and read his Statement to the Chilcot Committee and watched his testimony. He’s an intense, outspoken man but his testimony was, in my opinion, brilliant. I’ll add him to my list of Heros in the lead-up to the Iraq War. He begins by acknowledging a fallen hero, Dr. David Kelly, a casualty of the War in Iraq:
Before offering my testimony, I would like to pay tribute to a man who should have been here to give his account. His testimony would have been authoritative, rigorous and honest, for these were his qualities. At the UK Mission in New York, we relied considerably on David Kelly as one of the few experts able to interpret and convey, with a scientist’s discipline and objectivity, the complex and uncertain picture of Iraq’s WMD. I hope that this inquiry will do all it can to restore the values which David’s work exemplified.
While the interview began with a contentious set of exchanges, I thought the Committee did a good job of letting Mr. Ross have his say. He had come to say that "the Emperor had no clothes" and he got it said. I recommend watching his testimony [better that a Masterpiece Mystery Theater]. Here’s his bottom line, which to me is an unassailable truth:
THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to finish, because time is pretty much our enemy – I think all I want to ask is whether, given your very full statement and what we have been able to discuss this afternoon, is there anything that you would like of real significance to add that hasn’t been covered either in the statement or in what we have heard from you this afternoon?
CARNE ROSS: I think the thing that I felt was important – I mean, I put – spilt quite a lot of ink on the Iraq subject, as I’m sure you are aware, and the thing I felt I really wanted to get to grips with this afternoon was the alternative to military action, that there was no deliberate discussion of available alternatives to military action in advance of the 2003 invasion. There is no record of that discussion, no official has referred to it, no minister has talked about it, and that seems to be to be a very egregious absence in this history that, some point, a government, before going to war, should stop and ask itself "Are there available alternatives?" and, as my testimony makes clear, there was an available alternative. All that argument about tightening sanctions and stopping illegal breaches to me amounted to a very viable, robust, alternative to military action that would have had the possible effect of undermining the Saddam regime and certainly would have prevented any major rearmament. Indeed, our assessment was that major rearmament was not in any case happening. The fact that that deliberation, that consideration of alternatives did not take place is, to me, a disgrace and it should be remarked upon.
Heros of the Realm in the Iraq War
It was an "illegal war." Jack Straw did play a part in it. Dr. Kelly was telling the truth. – the dossiers were "sexed-up." Viable alternatives to military action were not seriously considered. The truth is now regularly being spoken in the UK. Here in the US, we’re not yet really talking about it…
We’re not talking about it because no one in power wants to deal with the awful truth. I think Obama and his crew just feel it would be too disruptive and would derail all the other important legislation that needs to get passed — more than can be handled as it is. They think it would be political suicide.
I think that is a mistake. Much of the reason everything is so fucked up is the same kind of attitude pervading our whole government. We go for the quick fix rather than the long-term change that is so vital. We don’t fight the opposition because we’re trying to get what little shred of support that might be eked out by compromise. Add to that a sense of corruption infecting even the “idealistic” administration of Obama — because he is effectively perpetuating the coverup of the illegalities of the Bush administration.
Exactly! Nick Clegg was hardly being brash to engage Jack Straw in that way. He was simply saying the truth out loud [recall that Jack Straw was the Foreign Secretary who rebuffed the legal advice that a UN second resolution would be required to make the war “legal”]. And while Carne Ross is something of an odd duck, he was the UK UN Diplomat who called bullshit when the Bush/Blair trajectory became clear – that they didn’t care if the war was legal, they just wanted to fight. He, in fact, was making your point – the quick fix would turn into the long disaster.
… there was no deliberate discussion of available alternatives to military action in advance of the 2003 invasion… The fact that that deliberation, that consideration of alternatives did not take place is, to me, a disgrace and it should be remarked upon. Likewise, as you say, Obama has lost his reputation for being a person of integrity [even though that is what he is] by avoiding this issue. He didn’t need to fight the battle himself, but it sure “should be remarked upon.” I think that he must be afraid that the first black president shouldn’t make nasty. He and his advisers got that one very wrong.
I hadn’t yet reached your big point, however, “— because he is effectively perpetuating the coverup of the illegalities of the Bush administration.” That is dead on and probably accounts for the torpor in his constituency [like in me]. Thanks for that…