In his call yesterday for the Prime Minister to be impeached, Sir Michael Rose writes:
Before the invasion, regime change was never cited as a reason for going to war. Indeed, Mr Blair insisted that regime change was not, nor ever could be, a reason for going to war. Had such a justification been fully debated in parliament, it is exceedingly unlikely that the necessary political support would have been forthcoming. It was the apparent need to defend ourselves against a dire threat - so vividly described by Mr Blair in the Commons - that finally won the political argument.Ho hum - round and round it goes. I've said this all before, but I'll say it again. I take it as relevant that Britain went to war in Iraq as an ally of the United States and would not have done so other than as part of that alliance; and that in those circumstances the reasons of the major partner in the alliance are not immaterial. This is from the resolution passed by both houses of the US congress authorizing the use of military force in Iraq:
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime...Here is George Bush speaking in October 2002:
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban... The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.There is more from that speech here. Under the same link are these words of Tony Blair's, from a speech in the House of Commons in February 2003:
The purpose in our acting is disarmament. But the nature of Saddam's regime is relevant in two ways. First, WMD in the hands of a regime of this brutality is especially dangerous because Saddam has shown he will use them. Secondly, I know the innocent as well as the guilty die in a war. But do not let us forget the 4 million Iraqi exiles, the thousands of children who die needlessly every year due to Saddam's impoverishment of his country - a country which in 1978 was wealthier than Portugal or Malaysia but now is in ruins, 60 per cent of its people on food aid. Let us not forget the tens of thousands imprisoned, tortured or executed by his barbarity every year. The innocent die every day in Iraq victims of Saddam, and their plight too should be heard.At the same place there is also an excerpt from a speech by Ann Clwyd, which was widely noted at the time and concludes so:
I believe in regime change. I say that without hesitation, and I will support the Government tonight because I think that they are doing a brave thing.Regime change may not have been cited as the main reason for going to war - though for a section of pro-war opinion it has always been the main justification - but the claim that it was 'never cited as a reason' is false.
Another argument deployed by Sir Michael Rose is also unhelpful to his case:
It should come as no surprise [because Blair has not been held personally to account] that so many of this country's voters have turned their backs on a democratic system they feel has so little credibility and is so unresponsive.'Turned their backs on [the] democratic system', and because of Tony Blair, is a piece of half-baked political sociology and not worth taking seriously.