Populus puts the Tories ahead

A new Populus poll for The Times gives Cameron's Conservatives a 1% lead.  A very slight recovery in LibDem support (compared to last month's poll) appears to have disproportionately hurt the Labour Party.

This is the first time that a Populus poll has put the Tories in the lead.  Mr Cameron has lifted the Tories by about 6% since inheriting the Tory crown at the beginning of December.  Fourteen years of post-Black Wednesday flatlining appears to be over.

For The Times, Peter Riddell suggests that crucial to the Tory recovery is increased support amongst the middle classes (now above 40% for Mr Cameron).

But why is the Conservative Party winning extra support amongst the middle classes (Curtisland)?  I would hope it is because they like Mr Cameron's finely-tuned social conscience.  My fear, however, is that we're winning over middle class opponents of the Iraq war.  The Times' poll also reveals that support for withdrawal from Iraq is highest amongst Conservative supporters (63%).  I hope Michael Gove is concerned at this triumph of these Michael Moore Conservatives?  Their ascendancy really is a scandal and partly reflects the failure of the Conservative leadership to invest any time in explaining the importance of prevailing in Iraq.  Only IDS (the Editor's part-time employer) has made any serious attempt to mount a defence of the Iraq campaign in recent times.  A number of today's newspapers report accusations that Mr Cameron is playing politics with Iraq (see here and here).  The newspapers report Mr Cameron's suggestion that the LibDems and Tories are now on the same page on Iraq as if it were news.  Mr Cameron's "I say to Liberal Democrats everywhere: we’re on the same side now [on Iraq]" actually backdates to 16 December 2005.

Whatever the truth behind the Tory poll recovery Mr Cameron's repositioning has already had a dramatic impact on the Liberal Democrats and it may be beginning to rattle the much more formidable Gordon Brown.  Mr Brown has today attacked Tory suggestions that he is the roadblock to reform and his aides yesterday criticised David Cameron for "plundering" the Chancellor's ideas (on constitutional reform).

Comments

[Chad]

Just as opposing some of Cameron's methods is not opposition to change or modernisation, simply opposition to the proposed solution, the same applies to Iraq.

I would suggest that these 63% of Conservative voters who Cameron appears to be addressing, should not be insulted as "Michael Moore Conservatives" which you define as "being weak in the war on terror" just because you disagree with them.

"Their ascendancy really is a scandal"
Why? Again, just because you disagree.

I call it a return to common sense and it seems I would fall into this emerging majority of conservatives who feel the same.

[Selsdon Man]

The increase in the middle class vote may be due to Cameron's environmentalism. There is no point speculating - we need research and facts.

[Giffin Lorimer]

Good to see the momentum building. The attacks on Cameron by Labour and Lib-Dems simply show that they regard him as a serious threat.

While the Herald took a very partisan stance, the Sun's approach looked more balanced. Ignore the text and read the pictures for the subliminal message: nice picture of positive Dave versus scowling/ranting picture of Comrade Reid.

The Sun's final point contrasted Cameron's openness about his daughter having the MMR jab while Blair has refused to say whether his son has. This should have a very positive impact on any of the Sun's buyers who read the article.

Strangely it didn't mention Brown's statement (though the Telegraph and Times did) that his son had MMR jabs - maybe that's because the Sun's August 10 2004 editorial railed against Blair and Brown's position that family medical information was a private matter.

[Peter Franklin]

I'm not sure one can speak of the 'triumph' or 'ascendancy' of the Michael Moore Conservatives as this would imply that the likes of Rifkind, Clarke etc had achieved positions of power from which to influence Conservative voters. Quite clearly they have not. David Cameron presides over a shadow cabinet of neo-cons.

The real influence on Tory voters is the catastrophically inept US post-invasion strategy coupled with Mr Blair's mendacious pre-invasion PR strategy.

I agree with you about the importance of defeating tyranny -- but such arguments ring hollow all the time that their proponents continue to support the sale of arms to tyrants.

Remember that war is hell and brings great suffering to innocent lives. If we honestly believe that this is a price worth paying for democracy then we should also be willing to sacrifice some of our diplomatic and commericial interests too.

[Ted]

One reason for 63% of conservatives wanting troops back might be the perception that its Mr Blair's War not ours. When Tony defends ongoing troop deployments he seems to be talking to critics in his party rather than the country. We don't believe his reasoning because its tainted by lies, dodgy dossiers, public enquiries.

Daily we hear of car bombs, suicide attacks. We see Shiite Islamic parties closely aligned to Iran in government. US corporations taking huge payments but failing to deliver electricity, water etc.

I am pleased that Saddam's gone, I am pleased that the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, the Shiites and others no longer live in fear of Saddam's forces. I supported the war. I was heartened by the courage of Iraqis to go out and vote in dangerous circumstances.

Where Blair & Bush failed wasn't in going to war but in failure to plan for nation building. The occupation and aftermath have been a disaster and they should face the consequences.

Instead they catch us in the web of continuing support because we recognise we can't just up sticks without building something strong enough to survive our departure. We cannot attack their failures while needing to support them in continuing actions. Increasingly the public are asking if its worth another young squaddie's life to help build a new Iran in Iraq.

We need to move the arguement from "why did we go to war?" - its done, can't be changed - to what can we do to recover from Blair & Bush's incompetent actions today. That means working out if we can support democratic forces in Iraq best by continuing military presence and if so how this can be justified to the British people, within what limits and with what objectives.

[Anatole]

Where has this link come from? I have not seen or heard anything in recent months that gives an impression of moderation from the Tories on the subject of Iraq. I was under the impression that the likes of Gove et al were all firm neo-cons?

[Richard Bailey]

Sorry, Editor,

but it would be a very out of touch leadership that failed to figure out why Conservative voters are so in favour of an Iraq withdrawal. It is called their inate sense of decency, their knowledge that we deliberately provoked and started this war on a false pretext, that the war served no real purpose and thus that it is not worth any of the lives of our Serviceman.
As an ex Army Officer (Highlanders) (NI, Bosnia, Kosovo), the lead press officer at the Hutton Inquiry and a Tory local Govt candidate, I know that Conservatives will be the first to stand up and be counted when a threat is real. They will sacrifice everything when the nation is at risk. But this action is a charade. Even my normal belief that we should clear up any mess we leave does not hold up in the Iraq situation. The Conservatives were wrong to support this ridiculous expedition from the start. We could have stopped it but we lacked leadership.
Conservatives know that there were no WMD in Iraq; they know that Iraq posed no threat beyond its own border; they know that the pensions of the Bush administration are tied up in oil revenues; they know that Iraq was no significant player in the "war on terror"; they know that Blair and Bush had absolutely no post invasion plans and they know that we hit Iraq because we thought we could win.
This is simply not good enough. British blood is worth more than that.

[Gareth]

Despite agreeing strongly with Richard Bailey about both the decision to go to war and our continued presence in Iraq, I disagree that the recent rise in our support is as a result of middle class opponents of the war supporting us.

I think it's much more likely that Cameron's general repositioning of the party in the centre is beginning to pay off, rather than that any single intiative or policy has attracted a swathe of new support.

You need to calm down about the war Ed! Not sure it plays as an issue with many voters either way any more. War fatigue is setting in for sure, but not sufficiently yet for opinion to coalesce around withdrawl.

[Ted]

Richard
Well said.

There were however good geo-political reasons for overthrowing the Iraqi regime. In 2001 it was recognised that three states provided the fuel to the global Jihad; Saudi Arabia, through cash funding to Wahabbi mission activity and Sunni militants, Iran, through support to Palestinian and associated miltants, and Afghanistan as the safe training ground.

We could not go directly to war with Saudi Arabia or Iran - the dependence on the West on middle east oil meant that to secure our economic prosperity we needed to make sure we had security of supply. We could invade Afghanistan and did. So the theory was that the creation of a strong democratic prosperous state in their midst would drive revolutions in Saudi Arabia & Iran destroying the bases for global islamic terrorism. Iraq it was decided would be the state best placed to become this democratic model if we could overthrow Saddam.

There was some validity in this - action against Iraq caused Libya to buckle and change direction, Syria withdrew from the Lebanon under popular pressure, Egypt introduced a small degree of democracy. Sudan is less of a training ground for militants.

However to invade Iraq required an excuse - so we had all the creative evidence of WMDs etc. Then the US led coalition comprehensively failed in occupation. Iran is now more of a threat, and is more likey to influence Iraq than Iraq lead to revolution in Iran. Saudi Arabia has become more circumspect on funding militants but the Wahabbi regime remains strong.

[Chad]

I don't think the poll is in any way suggesting that the rise is because of the war, just that a high proportion of Tory supporters oppose the war.

However, with the party appealling directly to liberals to support the Conservatives, perhaps it should not be surprising that there is a strong consensus of opposition to the war arriving as part of the package.

[malcolm]

I t is difficult Ted to 'move on from the argument from why did we go to war' when the purveyor of the pack of lies that took us there in the first place is our still unrepentant Prime Minister.
I do not approve of ministerial lying at any time but when the lives of so many people have been lost as a result the liar should be made to pay a heavy price.
I think DC is making a fool of himself on this issue.We are not 'as one' with the Lib Dems, they were right and he was wrong.

[wasp]

Editor all the polling data I saw before the war suggested that Conservatives were against it to a greater degree than Labour supporters. I don't think this represents a change.

[Julian H]

We need to draw a sharp distinction between opposition to the Iraq war and opposition to the presence of troops in the region.

The project to remove Saddam Hussein from power clearly did not have a comprehensive solution to dealing with the country following his government's fall. However, the project is irreversibe and now we are left with a country in crisis.

To remove troops without assurances about the country's stability would be even less responsible - thus supporting plans to keep troops in place does not make one pro-War, and equally proposing their withdrawal does not make one anti-War.

Besides, this is all rather tangential - there is no evidence to support the lazy claim that Cameron's poll boost is related to Iraq. To link the two statistics in such a vague manner is bad science.

[Chad]

I have got to agree with Malcolm's last sentence.

It would appear that David Cameron is trying to maintain two completely opposite stances by claiming to be at one with the LibDems over the war in a by-election leaflet, whilst also mantaining that the Tory position has not changed.

Isn't this kind of stark difference in claims in different areas the very accusation that has been thrown at the LibDems before?

At first I read it as Cameron putting up his hands and accepting the LibDem position to be right, taking the flak but cleverly shifting into their popular territory, but by espousing both views at the same time, he looks very untrustworthy indeed.

[Chad]

"To remove troops without assurances about the country's stability would be even less responsible"

Although not well explained by the LibDems on the whole, is not their position not the withdrawal of all troops, just UK and US troops? i.e. Iraq still needs help, and needs foreign troops to help them, but the presence of UK and US troops in part of the problem.

What is irresponsible in saying that Iraq needs help but that it would actually be more of a help if those troops were from other UN countries not the US or UK?

The firm timetable for withdrawal is not for all troops (supporting the claim that insurgent will bide ther time) but just to replace our troops with others who were not part of the original invasion.

[James Hellyer]

Can you tell me which countries will step into the breach, Chad?

[Gareth]

I think the argument on whether we should stay or go is a very finely balanced one. Although viscerally against the war, I tended to the view that we had a duty to stay and sort out the mess we'd made. Now, I tend to the view that our troops serve only as target practice for our opponents and that, far from being peace-makers, our presence actaully inflames the situation.

It's a tough call either way since allowing Iraq to slide into anarchy or, even worse, be taken over by the militants, would be a catastrophic set back for the west.

The fact that we are faced with this appalling dilemma just makes me even more angry at the short-sighted fools who got us into this dreadful mess in the first place.

[Ted]

James - very good point.
Even if we had succeeded in creating the circumstances in which we could hand over to the UN - which we haven't - following the cartoon row European forces are unlikely to be acceptable (and except for old Europe most have troops there already), African Union troops have failed in West Africa & Sudan, S Americans very unlikely to be interested. So its Russia, China, Pakistan or India or an Arab League contigent - a great choice I don't think.

We are in a mess and need to get out of it in a constructive fashion - creating conditions just good enough for the Iraqi police & army. It's their country, their democracy so in the end it's up to them to resolve the problem we so helpfully created through no occupation plan.

[Graham Wild]

I think Chad makes a good point at his first attempt. It doesnt suprise me so many Tories dont back the war anymore. The fact it was based on lies to Paliament and dodgy dossiers id fully expect the average Tory voter (not party member) to be appaulled at our involvement in such a false, lawless war. In which many have lost their lives on all sides, and continue to.

Tho, I dont think Iraq has any bearing on our poll lead. Cameron is ahead in the polls because quite simply he is, at the moment, the countries best hope for the future. People are warming to him and most importantly hes gaining trust and respect, by not faultering and being very bold for the party, leading it not being led by it!

[Tim]

I'll be repeating some of the points already made but I think the introductory piece is worng in several respects.

Firstly, we don't know whether people who were against the war are now supporting us becuase of Cameron's views on Iraq. In fact, with all of Howard's statements over Hutton and being misled, I would say that he made much higher profile attempts to distance himself from Iraq. Cameron, Hague, Fox and Osborne are about as neocon as you're going to get in the Conservative Party.

Secondly, whatever ones views on the war it is perfectly respectable to have opposed it and favour withdrawal of troops without being lumped in with an ignorant, left wing myth maker. There were no WMD, 100 British troops have died, Blair lied to the country, there are now more recruited to the terrorist cause and Iraq has been a mess. In as far as British troops have maintained calm it seems to have been by increasingly giving in to an Islamist agenda in the South. Of course, there are strong arguments for the alternative case but we shouldn't be dismissing those who don't agree with the (revolutionary?) neocon agenda.

Thirdly, do we think we are somehow going to win an election with the votes of those who are pro-war? Even if we got all of these people, it wouldn't be enough. It's like the story John Reid recounts of the man who accused Blair in the 90s of "trying to get Tories to vote for us."

By all means argue for the war but don't alienate those who disagree.

[William Norton]

Selsdon:There is no point speculating - we need research and facts.

But Selsdon: please substantiate this rash change of policy. A complete ban on uninformed speculation would cripple this blog...

Peter Franklin:David Cameron presides over a shadow cabinet of neo-cons.

Does he? It's a serious question, as I really don't know. "Neo-con" may be developing into a catch-all phrase for "pro-Iraq War" - but you wouldn't describe Ann Clwyd MP as a neo-con.

Excluding Cameron there are 24 shadow cabinet members. Of them I'd be surprised if as many as 6 were neo-cons in the strict sense, as opposed to just being pro-war - or, in the case of Howard's shadow cabinet not anti-war - and it's probably nearer 3. There are probably as many anti-war people as pure neo-cons in the shadow cabinet. There are almost certainly more "if I knew then what I knew now" types.

Any one care to speculate on who might be a neo-con?

Anatole:I have not seen or heard anything in recent months that gives an impression of moderation from the Tories on the subject of Iraq.

I think it stems from DC's remark that Lib Dems and Tories now agreed on the war - which at the time sounded like a perfectly sensible remark that, as Ted says, the war's over and we want to build a democratic Iraq: an attempt to take the war out of British politics.

Of course it failed, since the Lib Dems are cut-and-runners. Possibly DC was more interested in being seen to extend an olive branch than having it accepted? Worth a try, and less discreditable than Michael Howard's "now I know Blair lied I'm not sure if I'm still pro-war" spasm.

There have been one or two issues since Christmas - the fisheries repatriation is another - where the idea has got about that DC has somehow executed a U-Turn, where when you investigate the detail, the story doesn't stack up, but there's a deafening silence over confirming the lack of a DC U-Turn. In the case of the fisheries policy, I think this was at first just trouble-making from a certain faction of (non-party) Eurosceptics - but it would be nice to hear a clear cut answer one way or the other. Any one know?

[Selsdon Man]

I predicted this mess in Iraq before the war started. It was clear the dodgy dossier was nonsense when it was published. There were no plans to deal with the predicatable ethnic unrest.

It was sad that our frontbench were duped by Blair's lies. High quality research by experiences and informed advisers would have exposed Blair's lies.

I was also the first on this blog to complaint about extraordinary rendition and the related torture of innocent suspects. My complaints were dismissed or ignored by the Editor and others. Our frontbench has been disgracefuuly silent until recently. At least Andrew Tyrie and Ken Clarke have spoken out.

This blog has ignored the fact that American military has publicly stated that Al Quaeda agents were successful in Iraq's elections.

On that record, I am proud to be a Michael Moore conservative. His expose of the Bush family's connections to the Saudis was stunning. The red carpet treatment of the Bin Ladin family after 9/11 was amazing. I have seen no refutation of Moore's allegations.

At least I don't have the blood of British soldiers, wasted fighting an illegal war, and thousands of innocent Iraqis (including children) on my conscience.

[Chad]

"Can you tell me which countries will step into the breach, Chad?"

Why don't we go to the UN, and agree to pull out US and UK troops if a suitable replacement force can be found.

That way we can show good intent, and if the UN can't deliver a force that is acceptable to Iraq and the middle east, then it will completely blow apart the LibDem argument that we should withdraw as let other troops take our place.

It seems like a win win to me as we will either be able to come home with a more acceptable replacement in our place, or we can show that we are not part of the problem or occupiers, but the only ones willing to step in and help.

[Graham Wild]

Wow, anyone just witness Camerons Bite on PMQs? Vicious exchanges! Excellent!

[Gareth]

Selsdon,

I tend to agree with you but you sound like George Galloway with all this 'Iraqi blood on hands' stuff.

The case against those who got us into this mess is so powerful, it can be put ost strongly without hyperbole. Richard Bailey expressed it more powerfully than I've seen in a long time, above.

The fact that the Iraqi threat was wholly contained and had been for more than a decade. The lack of ANY connection between Saddam and international terrorism. The unreliable intelligence deliberately hyped up to mislead. And, worst of all, the abject failure to plan for the future and the unforgiveable failure to see that Iraq is a loose union of tribes who loathe each other and would tear each other apart at the first opportunity.

It's all so damning that one need only state these facts.

[Editor]

I am happy to agree that the Tory recovery may be unrelated to the Iraq issue. I don't know.

What I'm sure of, however - and very disappointed at - is that the Tory leadership (Michael Howard, in particular) has, for two years and more, taken no responsibility for helping the public to understand the importance of properly completing the Iraq mission.

We were once the established party of national security. Today, nearly two-thirds of our supporters believe that we should withdraw from Iraq and few things would so embolden the terrorists who pose such a threat to Britain's security. As IDS said in the speech to which I referred in the post:

"Bin Laden’s hate-filled followers will know that the west can be terrorised into capitulation. If the reign of terror succeeds in Baghdad who in London, Washington, Tokyo, Paris, Berlin and Canberra could be so naïve to think that they are not next?"

[Selsdon Man]

I have no time for Galloway or the left-wing apologists for Saddam and the Baathists, Gareth. I agree with the rest of your post.

Independent research indicates that thousands more innocent people have been killed since the war started that would have been murdered by Saddam's regime. In fact, the murders almost ceased just before the war, perhaps because of the UN inspectors and the containment strategy.

It is also worth remembering that Donald Rumsfeld sold arms to Saddam during the war with Iran. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Bush wanted to go after the financiers of terrorism - they are in Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 terrorists came from. Saudi Arabians finance extreme Wahabbi mosques in Europe. Different standards are applied to Bush family business interests.

[R UK]

Popularity of Cameron's Conservatives. The Iraq war. Tenuous link - in fact red herring.

The message about Cameron is that he appeals outside traditional conservatives and the 'middle classes'. Someone's trying to confuse the issue.

[Tory T]

Those, like Richard Bailey, in the 'get out now' camp blithely ignore the ghastly consequences of such a move.

Sure, we'd get our troops home - but at the cost of leaving a job half done and then allowing everything we've achieved in Iraq (and that is a hell of a lot) to slide backwards.

But the trump argument for staying is this: it's not Blair's war - it's Britain's war. The consequences for our credibility as a nation if we slinked off with our tails between our legs would be catastrophic. And, make no mistake, that is EXACTLY how it would be seen in the rest of the world. That we are irresolute, that we can be defeated by a war of attrition and by superior willpower. As a nation we would have to live with the negative consequences for decades.

We saw at PMQs that Tory attempts to be opportunistic on Iraq will backfire - whoever authorised the Dunfermline by-election leaflet saying we now agree with the Lib Dems on Iraq should be sacked.

We're in there. We can be really proud at having deposed one of the most truly savage and malignant rulers in the world. We're battling to establish a working democracy and those who are fighting against us are, without exception, scum - Baathist and Jihadist - who want to take the ordinary people of Iraq back to tyranny.

The fruits of success will be considerable. The price of failure would be too high to contemplate.

[Editor]

Selsdon Man: we can debate the rights and wrongs of the initial Iraw war forever - you and I take different views on this issue. Can we not agree, however, that we must finish the job properly, now we've begun it?

[Selsdon Man]

Editor, there is a difference between attack and defence. We are under attack because we invaded Iraq illegally with the US. The Al Quaeda link to Iraq, to justify the war, was a blatant lie - like the Niger enriched uranium story.

We would have been safer if the West had focused on fighting Al Quaeda rather than invading Iraq. The war, according to US intelligence, has increased the Al Queda's numbers. It even has allies who have been recently elected in Iraq.

Britain should concentrate on tackling the terrorists and extremists in this country and leave the US to sort out the mess it got itself and us into.

[Selsdon Man]

I notice that my arguments have not been refuted - the apologists are now merely arguing the case to stay.

The Bush administration lied to get us into the war. We have no moral obligation to stay.

We will have enough on our hands sorting out the mess that the US left behind in Afghanistan.

[Tory T]

I was too polite to Richard Bailey - perhaps because he's ex-forces. Richard - grow up. To trot out the pathetic trope "the pensions of the Bush administration are tied up in oil revenues" is unworthy of a serious Conservative. It's the kind of rancid and juvenile SWP-speak that even most Lib Dems manage to avoid.

Even if you don't support the Bush administration's decision to depose Saddam at least accept that perhaps their motive may have been a national security one. To argue that, in retrospect, it has turned out to be an error of judgement is plausible. To argue that the whole venture was misconceived is acceptable. But to argue that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are motivated by some personal financial interest is utterly pathetic.

[William Norton]

Chad:Why don't we go to the UN, and agree to pull out US and UK troops if a suitable replacement force can be found.
That way we can show good intent, and if the UN can't deliver a force that is acceptable to Iraq and the middle east, then it will completely blow apart the LibDem argument that we should withdraw as let other troops take our place.

Not sure that would work. Clearly, you wouldn't pull out and then see whether a UN force could be formed, so you would have to start those negotiations first. This would have an immediate effect on the authority of the troops in Iraq already - diplomacy on those lines will leak. There is a clear difference between negotiating with other states to send additional supports to a US/UN defence force which is staying put and negotiating over a UN force.

You're likely to just end up with an even bloodier mess that you've got now. Which seems a rather extreme way of scoring a point off the Lib Dems or wanting to shew "good intent". States who regard the Iraq expedition as a neo-imperialist seizure of oil reserves are not going to change their minds and start thinking nice thoughts about us if the troops are pulled out - they're going to make a quick calculation about how many body bags it takes to change US foreign policy.

A UN force would not add anything at this stage. Putting the people who ran the Oil-for-Food programme in charge of security doesn't look a good bet - even assuming they'd want to do it.

[malcolm]

I would agree with that Editor if it can be shown that our troops are achieving anything constructive in Iraq currently.As I understand it there are for various reasons now large parts of the Southern Sector where we have given up patrolling which are wholly or partly under the control of Shia militants.The situation out there is apparently getting worse not better in this respect.
If my information is correct then our troops are risking their lives simply to cover the embarrasment of our political leaders who sanctioned this venture in the first place.

[Ted]

Editor

I agree that premature or hurried withdrawal from Iraq would be seen as capitulation to Sunni miltancy (as Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was presented as a Hamas victory) and would strengthen the miltants throughout the Arab & muslim world.

IDS is right to state that but the alternative is becoming nearly as awful. Continuing military presence drives militancy in Iraq, UK troops increasingly withdrawing to armoured cars, defensible posts, increasing militancy from Nigeria to Indonesia.....

Cameron has the opportunity to present a coherent critique - pleased to see Saddam removed but cost was high, post war occupation hopeless, British Troops put in harms way as a result, need to support Iraqi government but withdrawal of UK troops as soon as practical. UK will continue to support moderate & democratic muslims.

[Selsdon Man]

Tory T - what is the value of Iraqi contracts to the Carlyle Group and Halliburton? Hundreds of millions at least.

Why have the Saudis been treated differently? The Al Quaeda connections have been proven beyond doubt.

[Tory T]

"The Bush administration lied to get us into the war. We have no moral obligation to stay."

Even if you believe it lied, it certainly didn't lie to HMG. Blair was economical with the truth because his backbenchers (some of the most wrong-headed people in the entire country) wouldn't have accepted the war otherwise - in other words Britian would have been held to ransom by socialist hold outs.

Blair should have faced them down but he was too concerned with Labour Party management - so he played down the regime change aspect and played up the WMD aspect. Since both Blair and Bush genuinely thought there WERE WMDs in Iraq it wasn't an exercise in complete dishonesty.

In future - eg Iran - we cannot be held to ransom by the Russians and the Chinese at the UN and we can't be held to ransom by leftist Labour west-haters.

[Selsdon Man]

Well said, Malcolm.

[John Hustings]

"Editor, there is a difference between attack and defence. We are under attack because we invaded Iraq illegally with the US. The Al Quaeda link to Iraq, to justify the war, was a blatant lie - like the Niger enriched uranium story."

I think this is obviously not true. The Jihadists had it in for the West long before the Iraq venture. It is the West which is constantly trying to define Muslim grievances in this way, but those who do so simply haven't understood the nature of the threat facing us.

"We would have been safer if the West had focused on fighting Al Quaeda rather than invading Iraq. The war, according to US intelligence, has increased the Al Queda's numbers. It even has allies who have been recently elected in Iraq."

We *are* fighting "al Qaeda" in Iraq, whatever you might mean by al Qaeda. Too many people seem to think that the terrorist threat is limited to one organisation headed by one man. This is not true. Osama Bin Laden merely gave a huge fillip to wannabe jihadists everywhere, who hate the West and everything it stands for. The point being, we cannot blame ourselves for the war we are in. And trying to make concessions, or finding somewhere where we were at fault would be useless.

The Islamic opposition to the West is not based on any single policy (Iraq, Palestine etc), but over our very existence and the power that we have.

"Britain should concentrate on tackling the terrorists and extremists in this country and leave the US to sort out the mess it got itself and us into."

You're not understanding that the terrorist threat is truly global. Iraq is now about the War on Terror (whatever it might have been originally). Failure in Iraq would inspire terrorists around the world.

The terrorists know that even though we may have better military technology than they have, that mentally we are weak. They are trying to win the war through our media, playing on our insecurities and cowardice. They know we have been softened by our comfortable lives and they have contempt for us because of that. Withdrawal from Iraq would merely reinforce that perception in their eyes.

[Selsdon Man]

The Bush administration lied about Iraq's supposed support of Al Quaeda and the 9/11 atrocity.

[Editor]

I haven't got time to post much now but in terms of winning in Iraq I can only recommend John McCain's analysis.

***

I readily concede that not all those 63% of Conservatives are Michael Moore Conservatives but all those folk on this thread who have talked about Bush's lies and a war for oil and Bush family business interests are echoing everything in Fahrenheit 911.

[John Hustings]

"The Bush administration lied about Iraq's supposed support of Al Quaeda and the 9/11 atrocity."

The Bush administration emphasised the Iraq administration's connections with terrorism, which were real.

[Selsdon Man]

John, I normally agree with your posts.

Please give examples of a jihadist threat to this country before we invaded Iraq. It is a post-invasion phenomenon.

Al Quaeda attacked the US over Afghanistan. It had little or no presence in Iraq before the war according to independent and media reports. It is now stronger as a result of the war.

I agree that the threat is global. We have to focus on national defence.

[Richard]

It might be that Bush and Blair didn't really believe that there were WMDs in Iraq but felt they had to lie because people woudn't understand the genuine reasons for invasion (geo-political strategy etc). Whether this is justifiable of course is another matter.

[Tory T]

Ted's line to cover us fleeing from Iraq - "UK will continue to support moderate & democratic muslims."

Yeah, by running away and leaving them to be butchered by Saddamist thugs. I'm sure we'd be believed in the future.

What is so contemptible is that some of the people here (I'm not talking about out-and-out Little Englanders like Selsdon Man who wouldn't get off his arse even if Iran was on the point of developing a nuclear bomb with delivery capacity) are clearly freaked by the danger and difficulty of our fight in Iraq.

This is an exercise in WILL. If we don't face down the vermin (and I use that term advisedly) they will be so emboldened that we'll be on the back foot for decades. I'm not just talking about the Jihadists like Bin Laden and co. Every anti-democratic, kleptomaniac thug will see that they can do what the hell they like without fear of retribution.

We're not staying in Iraq to cover Blair's arse - we're there to win. Those who say the situation is hopeless don't know what's happening on the ground. 90% of the country is peaceful. Those who are gutless I can forgive - their grandparents were the appeasers of the 1930s - because it's a character flaw but the worst people are those who think they can score a point over Blair. He defeated us in domestic politics so we want to land one on him before he goes. Never mind the cost to Britain's reputation, let alone the incresed risk to us as our enemies become emboldened. Screwing Britian to hurt Blair - that is a moral failure.

[Selsdon Man]

Editor, which allegations in Fahrenheit 9/11 were wrong? I disagree with Michael Moore generally but I have not seen any factual refutations about the Carlyle Group or Halliburton allegations in the film.

I thought we opposed ad hominem attacks on this blog. The term Michael Moore conservative is the sort of false debating technique that was exposed by Madsen Pirie in "The Book of the Fallacy".

Let's focus on the facts. I am willing to change my mind if evidence is provided.

[Selsdon Man]

That is a libelous comment Tory T. Withdraw it or I will take action.

[William Norton]

Selsdon:I notice that my arguments have not been refuted - the apologists are now merely arguing the case to stay.

Possibly because, as we are now in 2006 and not 2003, the discussion has moved on to dealing with the problems of 2006, not 2003? We could, if you like, discuss the legality of Robert the Bruce's accession to the throne of Scotland. That's a good meaty subject.

Selsdon:Editor, there is a difference between attack and defence. We are under attack because we invaded Iraq illegally with the US.

That's a moot point. A respectable argument can be made for the legality of the Iraq War. I accept that it's a minority view, but that's international law for you.

Leaving aside current interpretations, under which I believe the Iraq police action is legal, it would be a mistake to see international law as a static code; it's an evolving doctrine just as, say, the UK law on who can vote or whether slavery is legal evolved over time. As I noted on another thread a few days ago, the development of anti-war provisions in international law has had the effect that nobody fights "wars" (as defined) any more. I haven't noticed the world becoming more peaceful.

Would you say, Selsdon, that applying pre-1918 UK law, Margaret Thatcher was an "illegal prime minister"? Would it add anything to a discussion of Thatcherism if anyone did? Would it change the outcome of the 1979, 1983 or 1987 elections? It is in the nature of international law that it evolves in the absence of a parliament.

I respect Selsdon's views on the morality and legality of the war. But - we are where we are. If moral criteria are the sole determinants of foreign policy (and, Selsdon, do you really want to argue that?) would it be ethical to pull out now? If your argument against Iraq was a pragmatic one (none of our business; distraction etc.) would pulling out with the job half done strengthen the prestige and authority of the anti-terror West?

[Ted]

I don't accept the Fahrenheit 911 analysis nor believe this was a war for oil (as above I think it was the neo-con belief that creating a democratic state in middle east would lead to change in the real enemies of Saudi Arabia or Iran).

I agree with McCain's analysis but do not believe that either Bush or Blair has the political capital left to take his approach nor have we seen from Cheney or Reid any sign of the necessary flexibility of approach to change military policy in Iraq. It'll only get worse until 2009 when hopefully we might have a McCain/Cameron leadership.

Can we really ask another soldier to lay down his life for the present so-called strategy? would you die for it, I wouldn't.

[Tory T]

Selsdon Man says, "Al Quaeda attacked the US over Afghanistan."

You are a blithering idiot. The US attacked Afghanistan AFTER 9/11.

[Tory T]

Set me right, Selsdon Man. If you would be up for a strike on Iran in such circumstances I'll be delighted to withdraw. I'll even throw in an apology to be gracious.

[John Hustings]

"Please give examples of a jihadist threat to this country before we invaded Iraq. It is a post-invasion phenomenon."

There *were* threats to this country before we invaded Iraq. Yes that threat *has* increased since the invasion, largely, I'd say, because of the fillip they have received both from the media attention, and the weakness within the West which this media attention has revealed (we are divided amongst ourselves).

I have always thought that the BBC, the Guardian and other anti-war media outlets (which is most of them) have done more to endanger our safety than Tony Blair ever did.

Retreating like Spain is inadvisable because it merely postpones the threat which is inexorably facing us. It would also demonstrate that violence is effective for terrorists in achieving their aims.

Muslim fundamentalism is a threat we are going to have to confront. It is the big ideological battle of the future. We can't avoid it. We can't say, "this isn't my war", because it's everywhere. Look all around the world and you will see troubled areas where Muslim fundamentalism is involved.

It would be wrong, in my view, to ditch American allies because we fear the backlash of our own Muslim populations. Instead we need to win the battle of ideas. Right now we are losing largely because too many people do not realise that we are at war (in a larger sense than just Iraq). Rather than understand that we are dealing with complete evil -- people against whom our resistance must be absolute -- too many on our own side seek to blame ourselves for everything that happens.

It is a purely Western illness. The terrorists recognise it and are playing on it.

To me Iraq was never about WMD, but a clash of civilisations and ideologies. I happen to believe that the West is on the side of virtue. It is surprising how few people think the same way.

[Victoria Street]

Interesting legal point.
Can someone who persists in remaining anonymous sue for libel?
I would say not, as libel requires damage to reputation, good standing, etc.
What is the reputation of an anonymous person that could be damaged?

[Selsdon Man]

I should have said Iraq rather than Afghanistan.

If Iran demonstrates that it is developing nuclear weapons (or other WMDs), I would support military intervention as a last resort. Iran was always a greater threat to the West than Iraq.

I do not support that the Iraq invasion was motivated by oil. Spreading democracy and removing threats to Israel were also key motivations. I merely point out that Saudi Arabia was treated differently, even preferentially. It is not a democracy and its human rights record is deplorable.

[Tory T]

Excellent point from Mr Hustings: "I have always thought that the BBC, the Guardian and other anti-war media outlets (which is most of them) have done more to endanger our safety than Tony Blair ever did."

The cardinal sin in the face of fascist aggression is to display weakness and irresolution. I really, truly thought we'd won that argument after Munich. Blair, for all his many sins, stepped up to the plate on the key geopolitical issue of his time. The anti-British, anti-Western left - exemplified by the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent - attacked him with savagery because he was meant to be, at heart, one of them. They are vile but far from ineffective and they have done much to undermine our morale and determination. The Jihadists and their de facto allies (Syria, Iran, etc) have taken note.

[James Hellyer]

"Please give examples of a jihadist threat to this country before we invaded Iraq. It is a post-invasion phenomenon."

Will

[James Hellyer]

"Please give examples of a jihadist threat to this country before we invaded Iraq. It is a post-invasion phenomenon."

Will this do, Selsdon?

[Selsdon Man]

James, it would - were it not for this section.

"Afroze returned to India in October 2001. He was arrested in Bombay and charged with “committing depredation on territories at peace with India”.

Mobin Solker, his lawyer, pledged to challenge the conviction, saying: “The confessional statement was taken in custody where Afroze was pressurised and tortured . . . My client, who was pursuing a career in flying, happened to be a Muslim and happened to come back to India not long after September 11.”

Mr Solker said that police from Britain, Australia and the US had been to India to see evidence against Afroze, but had not requested extradition."

Sounds, in the light of recent revelations, that it could be unsafe.

[Selsdon Man]

I hope that Tory T will now accept that I am not a surrendering pacifist.

[Mark Fulford]

"Blair, for all his many sins, stepped up to the plate on the key geopolitical issue of his time."

That is the biggest crock of shit I’ve read all day. You hit this dog so that the other dog learns its lesson? Iraq did not represent the geopolitical issue of his time. It was a manufactured crisis and our invasion has done nothing to stabilise the area or pacify religious fundamentalists in other countries.

[Tory T]

Selsdon Man says: "I hope that Tory T will now accept that I am not a surrendering pacifist."

Never thought you were, SM. But your foolish combination of Fortress Britain fantasising and knee jerk Anti-Americanism makes you a pretty unreliable ally in the very real global struggle this nation is in. As the song goes, "we didn't start the fire" - The bad guys did that, because, to put it very crudely, they've got a crushing inferiority complex about the west.

You might wish it wasn't so. But you can't wish it away.

[AlexW]

I am glad to hear that Editor has retracted the assertion that the 63% of Conservatives who support withdrawal from Iraq are "Michael Moore Conservatives". However, statements like "we were once the established party of national security" seem to imply that the invasion of Iraq has improved our national security. I see no evidence of that. Saddam was a butcher, a bully and a thug, but, in part due to the much-criticised sanctions regime, he was effectively toothless. Yet his military was clearly weak (the war itself demonstrated that aptly), he has no capability of developing WMD, and even if he did so, the Sword of Damocles permanently suspended above him would be acted as sufficient deterrent to prevent him from taking serious actions towards that end.

My concern is that many Conservatives here equate the "tough" solution with the "right" solution. Editor's description of Michael Moore Conservatives as "weak" on the war on terror, and Tory T's belligerent talk of Iran seem cases in point. The "tough" solution might be an air strike on Iran. But it would be misguided. Ahmedinejad is leaching credibility with his outbursts, and the Ayatollah Khatami and his fellow clerics are said to both be a restraining influence and increasingly upset at his extraordinary proclamations. Clearly, as a secular puppet leader given over to gaffes, he has far less authority over Muslims than the theocratic leadership. Inflaming Khatami and his ilk is likely to lead to more fundamentalist extremism, an expansion in action against the West by proxy and a more resolute determination to pursue the nuclear route. The supposed "domino theory" of democracy, at least as regards Iran, was shown to be singularly misguided when Ahmedinejad defeated the (relatively) more moderate Rafsanjani. I wholeheartedly commend Richard Bailey's mindset: Conservatives are not afraid to take the right course when it is tough, but that does not mean taking the tough course when it is not right.

[Tory T]

AlexW offers us an unintentionally brilliant encapsulation of the the 1930s Appeasement mindset, updated for the 21st century:

"Inflaming Khatami and his ilk is likely to lead to more fundamentalist extremism, an expansion in action against the West by proxy and a more resolute determination to pursue the nuclear route."

Hey, be nice to the dangerous nutter - or you'll get the even more dangerous nutter.

Iran is in the grip of a dangerous and reactionary theocracy. We can argue about the best tactics to break it (and I'm certainly open minded about a Ukranian as opposed to an Iraqi solution) but break it we must.

Thank God that, in terms of both military might and intellectual resources, we've got the power to do so.

[RobC]

Editor - this is certainly a hot topic. Perhaps you could run one of your polls to gauge which views prevail. Some interesting qustions could include..

1 Given the information at the time was the then Tory Leader correct in supporting Britain's and USA's invasion of Iraq?

2 In hindsight, knowing what we know now, was the Tory leader correct in supporting the invasion of Iraq?

3 Has the war with Iraq reduced the risk of terrorist attack in the UK?

4 Should Britain withdraw from Iraq immediately, sooner rather than later, etc?

[malcolm]

Tory T,the language you use when attacking Selsdon does you no credit.If his points are so wrong argue the points do not make unjustified attacks on him personally.
If '90% of the country is peaceful' how many more years do think our troops should stay?
You say that 'Saddamist thugs' will butcher ordinary Iraqis if we leave,the liklhood in my opinion is that it would be the Saddamist thugs who would suffer most as they would be slaughtered by Iranian backed Shia militants who are now the real danger for Western interests in Iraq.

[AlexW]

"AlexW offers us an unintentionally brilliant encapsulation of the the 1930s Appeasement mindset, updated for the 21st century:"

The two are not comparable. By the time of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, Hitler had actually acted by 1938 in re-militarising the Rhineland and annexing the Sudetenland and there was compelling evidence that he wished to conquer Europe. A better analogy is the first Gulf War (which I believe was completely justified).

Khamati and co. are certainly dangerous, but have not actually acted directly. Air strikes are merely going to act as a precursor for them.

[AlexW]

The first Gulf War is a better analogy to Hitler, not to the situation in Iran, just to clear up any ambiguity!

[Gareth]

It is preposterous to suggest that Saddam in 2003 was the geopolitical equivalent of Hitler in 1938/39.

Saddam was contained and had been since 1991. His ability to wage an aggressive war had been eliminated. He posed no external threat.

The US and British govts. have also now unequivocally accepted that there were no links whatever between Saddam and Al-Quaeda.

The 'appeasement' insults are therefore risible.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Did somebody say Godwin?

[Richard]

"Did somebody say Godwin?"

Eh?

[Selsdon Man]

Tory T - anti-Americanism? My views on Iraq and Bush are identical to a very good American friend who has an impressive track record as a Republican Party activist and adviser.

He is also a Middle East and Islamic specialist who has worked in in the region for over a decade. He has worked as former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation and political columnist for a leading Washington newspaper. He is, at the personal request of government leaders, in the region now trying to sort out a huge mess.

I suggest that you do not throw insults that you cannot back up.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Eh?"

Godwin's Law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

According to Wikipedia, see link above, once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

[Julian Morrison]

This focus on the Iraq war seems odd to me. Short of a snap election here or a massive reversal of military fortune over there, the issue will be old news by he next election.

[John Hustings]

That wikipedia entry also states:

"Hitler, on a semiotic level, has far too many negative connotations associated with him to be used as a valid comparison to anything but other despotic dictators."

I believe Sadam Hussein was a despotic leader.

[Gareth]

John H,

The Hitler comparison was lamentable. Hitler threatened world domination and was thought to have the means to achieve it. By 2003, Saddam was a tin-pot dictator of whom there are dozens all over the globe.

[Ted]

DVA
Does Godwins Law apply when Blair & Bush used it in descriptions of the real and present danger that Saddam presented to our countries?

But taking cognizance of Godwin

Didn't we learn from the English policy of appeasement to the Danes (Danegeld) that it doesn't deliver peace?

... but there's probably a Harold Godwinson Law about bringing up Sweyn Forkbeard in a blog.

[John Hustings]

"The Hitler comparison was lamentable. Hitler threatened world domination and was thought to have the means to achieve it. By 2003, Saddam was a tin-pot dictator of whom there are dozens all over the globe."

Personally, I am pretty worried about the possibility of world Islamic domination. I don't think it's that impossible a prospect.

You need to realise that the Iraq War is about more than just one man.

[Tory T]

1) I am seeking to compare the threat level of Islamic fundamentalism with Hitler circa. 1933.

2) I believe that Iran is striving mightily to obtain nuclear weapons.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Personally, I am pretty worried about the possibility of world Islamic domination. I don't think it's that impossible a prospect."

World Islamic domination? Are you serious? That kind of doommongery about a great Islamic conspiracy is the sort of nonsense we hear spouted by those brainless idiots in the BNP - not that I am making a personal comparison between you and them.

[Tory T]

Tell you what Daniel, if it wasn't for American military might I'd be very worried. Europoeans are ok at gesture politics (eg - cartoons) but when it comes to doing the serious, hard fighting on the ground they haven't got the willpower.

[John Hustings]

"World Islamic domination? Are you serious? That kind of doommongery about a great Islamic conspiracy is the sort of nonsense we hear spouted by those brainless idiots in the BNP - not that I am making a personal comparison between you and them."

You know, sometimes the BNP are right about things.

[John Hustings]

Just because repugnant people say something, doesn't make it wrong.

And what I am saying isn't limited *only* to the BNP. You will find a wide variety of writers saying the same thing.

[Gareth]

'Islamic world domination'???? 'The hard fighting on the ground'???

Has someone been handing out LSD round here?

[AlexW]

Tory T: You think we should have invaded Germany in 1933? That's certainly a, er, novel position. Most critics of Appeasement cite the failures to intervene after the invasion of Czechoslovakia or the infamous Munich Accord. Others might push it back to the annexation of the Sudetenland. A few may go as far back as the re-militarisation of the Rhineland, and I guess the real hard-core neo-cons could see a reason post the 1935 Nuremberg laws. But attacking a sovereign country because they democratically elect a leader we don't like?

John H: Irrespective of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism (which is, frankly, a little overblown), Saddam was a secular dictator who was a sworn enemy of Iran and radical Islam. How did the invasion, which has seen a dramatic upsurge in Islamist terrorist activity and fundamentalist power in the region, possibly help fight this threat? If any justification can be made, it should be on humanitarian grounds rather than any specious link between Saddam and any notional Islamic threat.

[Gareth]

Well said Alex.

The idea that there is some unity of action and ambition between the various 'Islamic' states is equally absurd. which makes talk of 'Islamic world domination' pretty silly.

[z]

u shd read the weekly standard re saddam / al qaeda links because nobody on here seems to know the facts.

it is reasonable to oppose the war from a position of knowledge but not on the basis of BBC propaganda that has even infected tory activists.

the stuff on bush / bin laden family is not just puerile but even moore has had to concede massive factual blunders in the movie. for "tories" to be repeating it... god help us

[Gareth]

How about enlightening us 'z'? Facts/ arguments etc etc

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Perhaps 'z' can tell us how many WMDs have been found? No need for any exact number, just a rough approximation so that we have a nice round number to work with.

[malcolm]

As far as I'm aware no other reputable news organisation anywhere in the world has made the same claims as those made in the Weekly Standard.
There are many newspapers and magazines who were very pro war in 2003, if the Weekly Standards line had any credence don't you think it would have been reported by others?

[Gareth]

Or the 'links' between Saddam and Al-Quaeda, which even Rumsfeld now admits was rubbish.

[Editor]

I've always been depressed by the whole WMDs discussion. I wouldn't be surprised if WMDs had been taken over the border to Syria but even if there were no existing WMDs the key issue surely was that Saddam could easily have manufactured them. He had the money, the know-how and he had a history of using them. As soon as he had played the UN again and leaders of what became the iraq coalition had given up trying to persuade oil-for-food drenched France and Russia Saddam could have restarted his WMD programme. Saddam was THE WMD and the world is better off without him.

[Ted]

DVA
- Michael Moore isn't a good source. Attacking MM doesn't mean defending WMD lies.
- there might not be a global islamic conspiracy BUT if you look at the objectives of the jihadis; restoration of a caliphate, sharia law across the caliphate, destruction of Isreal, expulsion of kafirs (Westerners but also possibly Christians, Hindus & Buddhists) from islamic countries, revenge for loss of Spain. Plus creation of sharia self governing communities in European countries with objective of bringing them into the caliphate.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

You make some good points Editor, but the fact is that we were told unequivocally that there were WMDs in Iraq and the case for going to war was made on this basis.

I, and many others, supported the decision to go to war for that reason and we have been left looking like chumps now that it has become apparent that we were told a pack of lies.

[Burkean]

There appears to be a massive outbreak of mouse finger ailments on this board. it takes just a couple of mouse clicks to find comprehensive refutations of Michael Moore's polemic.

The political centrists at Spinsanity have one here.

Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute has a long critique here.

Matt Labash, a neocon critic of the Iraq War (yes, there are such things), looks at the film for the Weekly Standard.

Byron York, a conservative not a neocon, looks at the film for National Review.

As for links between Al Qa'eda and Iraq, careful readings of the official reports raise more questions than answers. See, for example, Andrew McCarthy.

Plenty of stuff out there. It doesn't hurt to go looking for it.

[Tory T]

There are some real Appeasers on this site. They are determined to ignore the evidence of their own eyes - "Look here, these musselmen chappies tend to get a little over excited. No need to panic, what?"

The time to act is now not when Iran is nuclear capable.

As for Saddam, he gave sanctuary to Abu Nidal. He teamed up with Al-Ansara. He was perfectly capable of making common cause wih fellow Muslims. Yes he was a secularist, but in the Islamic world, however bitter the internecine strife, there's always room for alliances against the West. That's why we need a radical programme of democratisation, secularisation and, above all, Westernisation. Within 20 years we want the leaders of every Muslim country to subscribe to decent Enlightenment values. If they don't and if they threaten us IN ANY WAY then we should depose them, as we should have deposed Adolf Hitler before he had the chance to plunge the world into global carnage.

A stitch in time...

[Editor]

Yes, DVA, the case was badly made. Too much emphasis was put on WMDs by Blair, in particular, in order to go down the UN route (a route necessitated by the Labour Party's love affair with that heavily compromised institution where the bombers of Grozny and the murderers of Tiananmen Square decide what is ethical). A wider case was made in the US, however.

And were we really lied about WMD as you imply? Or did the intelligence etc people and politicians simply get it wrong? A massive screw-up, I agree, but reasonable given Saddam's history of possession and massive patterns of deception.

***

A welcome post, Burkean. Thank you.

[John Hustings]

"The idea that there is some unity of action and ambition between the various 'Islamic' states is equally absurd. which makes talk of 'Islamic world domination' pretty silly."

I never suggested there was a conspiracy. I just believe that the spread of Islamic fundamentalism (which is rising all the time, whether we choose to recognise it or not) is THE threat of our age. It doesn't matter if it's organised or not.

I don't believe those who are warning about it are "overblowing" the situation.

Islamic fundamentalism is more worrying to me than "climate change".

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"And were we really lied about WMD as you imply? Or did the intelligence etc people and politicians simply get it wrong? A massive screw-up, I agree, but reasonable given Saddam's history of possession and massive patterns of deception."

Reluctant as I am to play the Hans Blix card, if he'd been allowed to do his job, intelligence and politicians wouldn't have had the chance to 'simply get it wrong'.

And to 'simply get it wrong' over an issue as serious as going to war is just as lamentable as lying IMHO.

Besides which, I don't accept the premise that they did 'simply get it wrong' - surely they must have realised that relying on a university essay from several years before was so fishy that, had it been given to Captain Birdseye with a vat of salt and a fistful of chemical additives, he could have made a decent children's meal out of it?

[Editor]

Fair point on the university essay thing, DVA. Ineptitude of the worst kind.

If, like me, you believe that Saddam himself was the WMD then you are glad we didn't wait for Blix to "complete". It may, of course, have been during the Blix process that Saddam's regime moved the WMD across intl borders. Who knows? The bottom line is that WMD or no WMD, regime change was the only way of removing the threat posed by the monster Saddam.