Blair is embattled on many sides. But the confrontation with Blair over Iraq has been pushed out onto the More 4 Channel which we do not receive.
They had a very interesting looking programme this week on why we really went to war.
Sent: 13 January 2006 01:07
Subject: Credentials for lambasting Blair over the war in Iraq | The
Guardian | Friday January 13 2006 | Main Paper | page 39
CREDENTIALS FOR LAMBASTING BLAIR OVER THE WAR IN IRAQ
[There's a letter - ill informed in my opinion - from Siôn Simon MP but I
haven't copied it - BR]
* As a former Labour MP who when in parliament took a detailed interest in
the illegal invasion of Iraq and its aftermath (as I still do now), I found
Gen Michael Rose's comment article very interesting. He is, however, wrong
on two matters. He suggests parliament has not yet ascertained how far the
prime minister evaluated intelligence regarding alleged Iraqi WMD.
Immediately after reading the now notorious intelligence-derived dossier,
published on September 24 2002, I tabled a series of questions to the prime
minister, including asking him to set out the technical basis for the
assertion made on page 19 that chemical or biological weapons could be
deployed within 45 minutes of an order to do so. The prime minister
answered: "These points reflect specific intelligence information." This was
over seven months before Andrew Gilligan provided his documented challenge
to the credibility of the 45-minute claim.
Rose also asserts that there has been no attempt in parliament to call
Blair personally to account over the Iraq blunder. Not so. In December 2003,
for instance, at prime minister's question time, I specifically asked Blair
if no WMDs were found in Iraq, would this parliament be right to expect
resignations to follow at the highest level of government? He replied: "It
is also absolutely clear to me that weapons of mass destruction are a real
issue, not just in Iraq but in the wider world. I believe entirely in the
information that was given to us at the time. We will carry on the search
for those weapons through the Iraq Survey Group, which should be allowed to
complete its work before anyone makes up their mind."
The problem was there were neither sufficient parliamentary colleagues nor
newspapers that were prepared to press for ministerial resignations when the
facts showed them to be demonstrably wrong on their claims over Iraqi WMD.