At PMQs Ming Campbell questions Cameron's Iraq credibility

David Cameron challenged Tony Blair on Iraq policy at PMQs.  The Tory leader accused Mr Blair of saying one thing about Iraq while General Sir Richard Dannatt was saying another.  A little later in PMQs Ming Campbell expressed his disappointment at David Cameron.  "I can't help making the point that complaints about the Government's Iraq policy would be more acceptable from those who opposed the policy in the first place," the LibDem leader said.  Sir Menzies went on to say that Britain should leave Iraq or radically change strategy.

Tony Blair was uncompromising in his position.  He said that it would be disastrous to withdraw from Iraq "before the job is done."  No quarter would be given, he said, in standing with moderates in Afghanistan and Iraq against the extremists.  He continued:

"If we desert the Iraqi Government now, at the very time when they are building up the forces, so that the Iraqi forces can take over security, (it) would be a gross dereliction of our duty to them."

David Cameron went on to warn that scrapping the Post Office card accounts could deal a "fatal blow" to rural and other sub-post offices.  Prime Minister Tony Blair said that "all options" except more government subsidy were on the table in the Government's controversial review.  See related BBC report.

Comments

[Adam]

I think Blair's right on this one. If we were to leave they'd be a bloodbath on a massive scale. The Iraqi government needs to build up its forces quickly and take control gradually but regardless of what we do, the whole thing is an absolute mess.

[The Morningstar]

So Ming can't understand that while you may agree with a principle you might not agree with it's practice?

The conservatives may on the whole have agreed with the war but that doesn't mean they have to like the tactics, strategies or complete failure to plan properly for what happens afterwards.

[Domino]

No Ming is right on this.

Cameron is surrounded by so many neo cons that if he attempts to score points on this issue he will just look like a prize opportunist.

He just about got away with it today but if he keeps pushing at this it will rebound in his face spectaularly.

This is one issue where you can't get away with style and no substance.

[Geoff]

This is one issue where you can't get away with style and no substance.

No, if you are LibDem this one of so many issues where you can make it up as you go along and no-one cares except a few gullible housewife-voters in the southwest because LD are just a bucket for protest votes.

[Richard Weatherill]

"Cameron is surrounded by so many neo cons"

I wish! ;-)

[Jon Gale]

Tony Blair is partly right. If we pull out now there will be a bloodbath.

But we cant stay there for ever. We should listen to General Danatt and should have a plan to pull our troops out by a stated date in a couple of years time. If we have a set date it doesn't look like we are forced out by the insurgency but are leaving on our own terms.

A couple more years would make it 5 years in total. If we cant stabilise the country in 5 years we cant do it at all.

[Mike Christie]

I have to disagree with Ming the Meaningless. It is one thing to agree that military action is a correct course of action in one set of circumstances, but when circumstances change beyond recognition a different plan of action may be called for.

Cameron should simply quote Keynes.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?"

The Conservatives supported sending troops to Iraq based on the facts at the time. Had we known the US had no idea what to do after they'd pulled down the statue and the minor fact that the WMDs were a figment of imagination we may well have come to a different conclusion.

It always strikes me as odd that the world at large are so quick to criticise politicians for changing their mind. Surely it is better to change one's mind when proved wrong than carry on regardless.

[Overtaxed]

Post Offices - frankly the direct subsidy should be zero - i.e. the same amount the average village pub or newsagent receives - and they are no less "hubs of the local community" than the P.O.

[George Hinton]

So St Toni of B-Liar wants us to stay and see the job through in Iraq, when BushBaby is being told by his military and Think Tanks that it is time to get out, as success cannot be guaranteed and casualties are rising.
You have the Army Chief pointing out the obvious, that our continued presence exacerbates the situation and attracts militants like moths to a flame.
Who is out of step when all the above is put together.
Clearly, because Toni's little lad hasn't made any committment to the country and joined the army, daddy can be tough and speak the rhetoric, knowing that it is other sons and daughters who will be killed and maimed and injured, not his.
As for Ming, i'm sure his brain has atrophied. When you are wrong, when you have been conned, you re-appraise your options and stance. You do not blindly support the other party like their own spineless nomenklatura, you see the light.
Clearly Ming has lost the plot or has been offered a peerage for his continued support to the NuLab cause.
Viva la revolucion!

[Chad]

Mike,

Yes, that is what Michael Howard did, but Cameron has restated that he believes it was still the right thing to do, so he has confirmed that even with the benefit of hindsight, he is still pro the Iraq war which he voted for.

[Chad]

..I find it odd and telling, that particularly as Cameron is seeking to woo LibDems, he did not pick this 'easy option' of using the 'if I knew then what I know now' approach, and can only conclude that such a u-turn would cause unease with hise neocon advisors like Gove.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Who cares what T Blair says any more? DC is possibly posturing. Being attacked by Ming is probably "like being savaged by a dead sheep".

I'd go with what General D said and get the troops out ASAP.

Yes, the current bloodbath will continue, but it's not OUR bloodbath any more, it's THEIR bloodbath. Surely not even the Iraqis can go on killing each other for ever. Won't it die down in a few years?

[arthur]

Cameron will only make a fool of himself over Iraq, he supported it, he never questioned it, he's stuck with it. If Cameron tries to u-turn on this, then he will look like Neville Chamberlain waving his piece of white paper.

[Shaun]

I feel that the Tory comments on the whole General's statement was very disappointing. They should have condemned the constitutional breach and, unless Tory policy has suddenly and silently changed, disagreed with the content too. As it is they chose a more popular route perhaps but one that seems to me dishonest, unpleasant and opportunistic.

[TomTom]

I'd go with what General D said and get the troops out ASAP.

which of course is NOT what he said at all......but never mind

[Patsy Sergeant]

In Soviet Russia (and outside it) people used to make a study of the actual phraseology of the leaders speeches, and indeed the precise placing of said leaders when standing at an official 'do', as it all had precise significance.

On the ITV News today Daisy MacAndrew pointed out that Blairs exact wording when referring to withdrawal from Iraq, were different, today, from previously, unfortunately I didn't write down what she said, and have now forgotten the precise wording. But I think it is unlikely that a man with as legalistic and agile a mind as Mr. Blair, would NOT change words in a crucial comment on Iraq during PMQ's in a casual manner!

[ratbag]

When Overtaxed says "Post Offices - frankly the direct subsidy should be zero - i.e. the same amount the average village pub or newsagent receives - and they are no less "hubs of the local community" than the P.O." I think he is missing the point that the Rural Post Office generally IS the local newsagent and general store. . (Whoever heard of a Rural Newsagent anyway?) There's the owner of one today saying his business is half one and half the other and neither would exist separately. And the elderly deprived of any means of shopping or getting money or stamps can go hang. They'll be dead soon anyway.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Perhaps I should have said that I think it UNLIKELY that Mr. Blair WOULD change words in a crucial comment on Iraq during PMQ's in a CASUAL manner!

[Serf]

Why does Ming waste his questions on Iraq all the time, when the NHS is falling to pieces, education is a nightmare and the streets are crawling with murderers and terrorists?

Me thinks it shows the paucity of his ambitions, as he prefers to play to the existing Lib Dem gallery rather than challenge on a subject that floating voters might care more about.

[Mark Wadsworth]

TomTom according to the BBC, General D said troops should "get out some time soon". I admit I am simplifying here and used "ASAP", and some of what he said was not specific (does soon mean weeks, months or years?) but I doubt that Sir Richard is going to give us any more details.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Why does Ming waste his questions on Iraq all the time, when the NHS is falling to pieces, education is a nightmare and the streets are crawling with murderers and terrorists?"

It's all he knows how to do. His early attempts at raising non-foreign affairs subjects were all disastrous, so he's steered well clear since then.

[John Hustings]

It is to be remembered that the Lib Dems did not oppose the war. They opposed invasion without a 2nd resolution from the UN. Why getting the approval of China and Russia would've made a "wrong" war "right" I don't know.

[Chad]

John,
The point was that resolution 1441 was passed unanimously only because it contained "no automaticity" for war.

So the final resolution was only approved on the understanding that it would require another one to approve war.

This was subsequently ignored.

[John Hustings]

I'm not seeing the relevancy of your point Chad.

[Chad]

John,
You questioned why they needed the approval of China and Russia before going to war - and I replied that it was because they had all agreed that this would be the procedure to be followed, and that is why the resolution was passed unopposed.

[John Hustings]

Doesn't change my point that the Lib Dems are not an "anti-war" party; they would've *supported* invasion if China and Russia had given the green light. Maybe this is persuasive enough for you, but for most "anti-war" people, they are against the war because they thought it was wrong fundamentally, not because of some legalistic issue.

[Stuart Raven]

"The Conservatives supported sending troops to Iraq based on the facts at the time. Had we known the US had no idea what to do after they'd pulled down the statue and the minor fact that the WMDs were a figment of imagination we may well have come to a different conclusion"

Is that so?

Couldn't just be that since the Tory leadership changed the party is less interested in principle and more interested in grabbing votes.

Could it?

[David Belchamber]

PMQs: I hate to say it but I felt that Ming was more effective than DC at today's PMQs on Iraq.
Given the very positive lead provided by Sir Richard Dannatt, DC should have been much more incisive.
He could point out that the Tories supported the war because they believed the PM of the day when he asserted that "Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which were capable of being deployed - against British interests - in 45 minutes".
Had that assertion been true, the war would have been justifiable but the intelligence was wrong, Bush and Blair didn't let Hans Blix stay in Iraq longer and Blair was so hell bent on having his "Falklands moment" that he didn't prevail upon Bush to wait longer. Robin Cook and others saw through it and did the honourable thing at the time.
Even then it might still have worked after the war had the USA stuck to the original intention of leaving the infrastructure largely intact and working with the Iraqi military and police but Bremer and Rumsfeldt soon went back on that and the country then descended into civil war.
Bush got us into the war and then made an exit strategy very difficult.
We "kicked the door in" in Iraq and our troops should leave ASAP. We "were invited in" in Afganistan where our troops should stay and be substantially reinforced - and properly equipped.
Can we not hear DC say something along these lines and suggest a proper exit strategy for our troops in Iraq?

[Mike Christie]

Chad, you make a fair point.

However, even if Cameron feels that with hindsight going into Iraq was right, that still doesn't stop him from deciding that the situation has changed enough since the invasion that our continued presence isn't in our best interest.

Ming's shot was still naive. Support for the war in principle does not invalidate criticism of the execution and strategy.

It is not hypocritical to support the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam, but point out now that our presence may be counter-productive to our goal of having a stable democracy in Iraq.

We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Bush and Blair's grand 'plan' (in the loosest possible sense of the word) to re-make Iraq is clearly failing.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the initial decision to invade, we have to do what is best now, in the current situation. All Ming's bleating about the original decision doesn't make any difference to what's best now.

[Stuart Raven]

It's remotely possible that Blair was motivated by some kind of perverted principle when he joined Bush's War. Likewise IDS when he backed him.

I don't believe for one second that Kameron is motivated by anything other than a lust for popularity.

And can't you just see PM Brown tuumpting him by "bringing the boys home" a la Nixon?

It loks like the Yanks are lining up their exit strategy already so it shouldn't be so difficult for us when the time comes.

[Ted]

I thought while listening that DC missed an open goal but after reflection he has boxed Blair into a tight corner. Blair has given hostages to fortune in doggedly defending a strategy his generals (and possibly the US) don't support. I would have liked a truly democratic & peaceful Iraq but that's not going to happen so now its what can we do to minimise the fallout. IDS lined us up behind the armed forces and Blair - Cameron is keeping us with the armed forces but distancing from the failed politicians.

Ming's point seemed to me that of someone who realises the debate has moved on but like a child keeps piping up in the background "I was here first" as the bigger kids move in - sad but inconsequential ongoing. He missed the point anyway - DC didn't directly question Blair's strategy, he associated the questions with Dannatt, who Blair had claimed he was in agreement with and opened up the differences. I think DC is playing a 2 or 3 PMQ game and Blair knows it - DC did this with Afghanistan earlier in the year, coming back each week with a different delivery slowly exposing the weaknesses.

[Michael McGowan]

Cameron should point to Ming that he is only following in the footsteps of a much more august Liberal: Lloyd George in 1940. Having supported the UK's entry into the SWW, Lloyd George then supported the campaign to replace Chamberlain with Churchill once it became clear that the leadership he had backed to enter the War were not running it properly.

[Sally Rideout Baker]

"It's remotely possible that Blair was motivated by some kind of perverted principle when he joined Bush's War. Likewise IDS when he backed him."

This is not my recollection. The case the CIA had built up against Saddam was overwhelming. Blair overrode Dr Kelly our own weapons inspector who tried to get the truth over with leaks to the press. IDS meanwhile was fighting his own battle with his rebels: Portillo, Bercow, Howard and Davis. Kelly died in July 2003 and Howard was elected leader in November 2003.

It was an American operation using doubtful American intelligence which also led to the post war disaster. If we had a strong party at the right time the bloodshed may have been prevented! I will be gladdened when those rebels have quit the party.

[Yet Another Anon]

Rather a feeble attempt by Meinzes Campbell to paint all who supported the war as being somehow full square behind the war strategy, I was sceptical of the Rumsfeld strategy from the start and so were many others including many in the Pentagon and many in the US Congress who supported the war, Tony Blair should have been more critical of the Rumsfeld strategy and actually more strongly pushing for the war to be undertaken more vigorously from the start with some kind of interim authority ready to start working on establishing new authorities as territory was liberated and with a stronger committment of troops and a stronger attempt to retain the police and army structure maybe coalition forces would be out already, Paddy Ashdown really was a far more suitable leader in such circumstances than either Charles Kennedy or Meinzes Campbell and the only leading Liberal Democrat to have backed the war.

[Julian Williams]

The war started with a lie, and then more lies were made to cover the first lies, and so they built a great heap of lies, one on top of another and our soldiers have been dying to protect the bottoms of politicians who have lied and lied and lied about this war.

General Dannan has broken the knot of lies, he spoke the truth. Quite frankly baby blair is not the one to crow over this sorry mess.

[Graham D'Amiral]

I thought it was entirely reasonable to question the lack of clarity of the strategy, when the Prime Minister and the head of the Army are saying such completely different things.

What the Lib dems don't seem to understand is that the issue is no longer whether we should have gone to war or not but rather how we assist the development of a democratic and stable Iraq and alongside that how we begin our withdrawl from the country.

[tired and emotional]

And that Graham is exactly the point. The job will be done when the Yanks and Iraqis say it is done. We are supporting our most powerful ally in the fight against extremism by promoting and defending democracy. We are also defending the Iraqi people and government against the sectarian terrorists and murderous Ba'athist refusniks that are desperate to show that democracy can't work in an Arab and Muslim country.

Besides the boys ain't coming home even if they leave Iraq, hopefully they will go to reinforce our Afghan contingent so that platoon houses may be defended and mobile operations against the Taliban be properly undertaken.

We are making more than one omelette... and our Armed forces are doing it magnificantly. About time we backed them come what may and gave them the support they deserve.