I was misled into voting for the war .....So were many other MPs; now Blair has been fatally damaged
by Geraldine Smith
Observing the prime minister making his statement on the Butler report in the Commons on Wednesday, it was difficult to believe that I was watching a man respond to a document that catalogued a host of shortcomings in his government's management and presentation of the case for war with Iraq. The report had exposed the laissez-faire approach to cabinet government adopted by the prime minister; cabinet members who had collective responsibility for government policy were not provided with the relevant papers in advance of meetings but were orally briefed on Iraq at unscripted meetings - a practice that should surely be unacceptable to the members of any parish council, let alone the cabinet.
The report had laid bare the paucity of intelligence relating to Iraq's purported arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. It had called into question the reliability of the intelligence, particularly that emanating from human sources. Much of this could either not be validated at all or was hearsay.
And, most damming of all, the report had concluded that the failure to make clear in the September dossier the limitations of the intelligence relating to Iraq's WMD gave it unwarranted credence and was a serious mistake. The degree of certainty expressed by the prime minister about the threat that Iraq posed in the foreword of the dossier undoubtedly exacerbated the distortion of the intelligence.
Lord Butler's report had revealed that parliament, the people and the press had all been misled. They had not been lied to, they had just not been told the whole truth.
Faced with all of this, I had expected the prime minister to be tense and nervous when he took his place at the despatch box. On the contrary, he was relaxed and confident. He quickly got into his stride: "The dossier of September 2002 did not reach any startling or radical conclusion. It said, in effect, what had been said for several years based not just on intelligence, but on frequent UN and international reports... We published the dossier in response to the enormous parliamentary and press clamour. It was not... the case for war, but it was the case for enforcing the United Nations' will. In retrospect, it has achieved a fame it never achieved at the time."
It was at that moment that I realised why the prime minister was so relaxed. He just didn't get it! He didn't see the significance of what Butler had revealed. He told us that he had acted in good faith and out of conviction, and that he took full responsibility for the mistakes made. He really thought that the issue of trust could now be laid to rest. Even when the leader of the opposition invited him to explain why parliament and the public were misled, the penny didn't drop. He simply went into his prime minister's questions routine and went on the attack.
He didn't seem to realise that politicians and journalists know that they were misled out of political expediency rather than good faith or conviction. And they are not going to let the matter rest.
The prime minister would have not got parliament to agree to commit British troops to the war with Iraq if the true nature of the intelligence was known. So he deliberately hyped it up and constantly articulated the apocalyptic consequences of terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction. I abhor the use of violence in all its forms. It runs contrary to my moral, intellectual and religious beliefs, and I find the appalling carnage and destruction that occurs during a war almost too horrific to contemplate. Yet because I was convinced that Iraq did possess chemical and biological weapons and had to be disarmed, and that Saddam would not hesitate to use them or supply them to terrorist organisations, I voted for the war. And there is absolutely no doubt that this same fear was the deciding factor for many MPs who supported the war. In light of the Butler report and the doubt it cast on whether or not Iraq had any usable weapons of mass destruction, I feel that I was deceived into voting for a war I was morally opposed to.
Of rather more importance is how the public feel about the revelations in the Butler report. I am sure the prime minister will come to realise that the people of this country will not make a distinction between being lied to and being misled by omission. All that will concern them is that they have been deceived and they will be rightly angry about it.
I believe the prime minister is fatally damaged. The time has come for his friends to advise him to go with honour and dignity at a time of his choosing. The alternative is to wait until his enemies drag him down or the electorate makes the decision for him.
---------- ----------- ------------
-Geraldine Smith is the Labour MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale
smithg@parliament.uk
-------- ------------- -------------
Published on Saturday July 17, 2004 in The Guardian
URL:http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1263450,00.html
Observing the prime minister making his statement on the Butler report in the Commons on Wednesday, it was difficult to believe that I was watching a man respond to a document that catalogued a host of shortcomings in his government's management and presentation of the case for war with Iraq. The report had exposed the laissez-faire approach to cabinet government adopted by the prime minister; cabinet members who had collective responsibility for government policy were not provided with the relevant papers in advance of meetings but were orally briefed on Iraq at unscripted meetings - a practice that should surely be unacceptable to the members of any parish council, let alone the cabinet.
The report had laid bare the paucity of intelligence relating to Iraq's purported arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. It had called into question the reliability of the intelligence, particularly that emanating from human sources. Much of this could either not be validated at all or was hearsay.
And, most damming of all, the report had concluded that the failure to make clear in the September dossier the limitations of the intelligence relating to Iraq's WMD gave it unwarranted credence and was a serious mistake. The degree of certainty expressed by the prime minister about the threat that Iraq posed in the foreword of the dossier undoubtedly exacerbated the distortion of the intelligence.
Lord Butler's report had revealed that parliament, the people and the press had all been misled. They had not been lied to, they had just not been told the whole truth.
Faced with all of this, I had expected the prime minister to be tense and nervous when he took his place at the despatch box. On the contrary, he was relaxed and confident. He quickly got into his stride: "The dossier of September 2002 did not reach any startling or radical conclusion. It said, in effect, what had been said for several years based not just on intelligence, but on frequent UN and international reports... We published the dossier in response to the enormous parliamentary and press clamour. It was not... the case for war, but it was the case for enforcing the United Nations' will. In retrospect, it has achieved a fame it never achieved at the time."
It was at that moment that I realised why the prime minister was so relaxed. He just didn't get it! He didn't see the significance of what Butler had revealed. He told us that he had acted in good faith and out of conviction, and that he took full responsibility for the mistakes made. He really thought that the issue of trust could now be laid to rest. Even when the leader of the opposition invited him to explain why parliament and the public were misled, the penny didn't drop. He simply went into his prime minister's questions routine and went on the attack.
He didn't seem to realise that politicians and journalists know that they were misled out of political expediency rather than good faith or conviction. And they are not going to let the matter rest.
The prime minister would have not got parliament to agree to commit British troops to the war with Iraq if the true nature of the intelligence was known. So he deliberately hyped it up and constantly articulated the apocalyptic consequences of terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction. I abhor the use of violence in all its forms. It runs contrary to my moral, intellectual and religious beliefs, and I find the appalling carnage and destruction that occurs during a war almost too horrific to contemplate. Yet because I was convinced that Iraq did possess chemical and biological weapons and had to be disarmed, and that Saddam would not hesitate to use them or supply them to terrorist organisations, I voted for the war. And there is absolutely no doubt that this same fear was the deciding factor for many MPs who supported the war. In light of the Butler report and the doubt it cast on whether or not Iraq had any usable weapons of mass destruction, I feel that I was deceived into voting for a war I was morally opposed to.
Of rather more importance is how the public feel about the revelations in the Butler report. I am sure the prime minister will come to realise that the people of this country will not make a distinction between being lied to and being misled by omission. All that will concern them is that they have been deceived and they will be rightly angry about it.
I believe the prime minister is fatally damaged. The time has come for his friends to advise him to go with honour and dignity at a time of his choosing. The alternative is to wait until his enemies drag him down or the electorate makes the decision for him.
---------- ----------- ------------
-Geraldine Smith is the Labour MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale
smithg@parliament.uk
-------- ------------- -------------
Published on Saturday July 17, 2004 in The Guardian
URL:http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1263450,00.html
posted by ডঃ নুরুল ইসলাম মনজুর | 8:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home