Enough of his excuses: Blair must be impeached over Iraq

[Clara T]

Enough of his excuses: Blair must be impeached over Iraq

The only way parliament can regain the trust of disaffected voters is to admit that it was wrong to support the war

Michael Rose
Tuesday January 10, 2006
The Guardian


Wars are won when the people, government and army work together for a common cause in which they genuinely believe. Whereas the people may be initially uncertain about military intervention, politicians will often be the strongest advocates - blinded by the imperatives of their political views. It will invariably be military commanders who are most cautious about using force - for they understand better than most the consequences of engaging in war.

Although in a true democracy they must remain subordinate to their political masters, they have a clear responsibility to point out when political strategies are flawed or inadequately resourced. Since they might also have to ask their soldiers to sacrifice their lives, they must be assured that a war is just, legal and the last resort available. Yet three years ago this country was somehow led by the prime minister into war in Iraq where few, if any, of these requirements were met.

Most importantly a clear justification for the war in Iraq was never sufficiently made by Tony Blair - for the intelligence he presented was always embarrassingly patchy and inconsistent. What is more, his unequivocal statement to the House of Commons that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used within 45 minutes was made without being properly validated - for it was decided in Washington and London to launch the invasion of Iraq early, on the basis of the flimsy evidence available. This was done without asking the UN weapons inspectors, who were actually on the ground in Iraq, to investigate this allegation. Ultimately, as the inspectors suspected and as we now all know, it turned out that there were no such weapons. Britain had been led into war on false pretences. It was a war that was to unleash untold suffering on the Iraqi people and cause grave damage to the west's prospects in the wider war against global terror.

Nevertheless, today the prime minister seeks to persuade the world that the war was justifiable because Saddam Hussein was toppled and there now exists in Iraq a slender hope of democracy. The Iraqi elections are a creditable achievement by the coalition forces. But it must be remembered that a general election was previously held in Iraq in 1956, and within two years the country had fallen under military rule. Without adequate security and the necessary democratic institutions in place, there are absolutely no long-term guarantees that democracy will endure.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1682807,00.html

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. I wasn't aware that PMs could be impeached

Isn't the only thing that can happen is a vote of No Confidence, which disbands Parliament and forces new elections? Or is it possible for the Government to just replace the Prime Minister and select someone different?

I'm pretty foggy on how the British parliamentary system operates.

[Clara T]

2. Not sure

but I think impeachment is also possible as I read yesterday a British General was calling for Blair's impeachment as well. posted an article on this in GD.

On edit: The General is the guy who wrote this article, Michael Rose.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. We're pretty foggy on impeachment ourselves

It was last attempted about 150 years ago, against Lord Palmerston (when, I think, he was Foreign Secretary). It was originally designed to use against royal ministers when the courts wouldn't be impartial, and was all the rage around the time of the Civil War in the 17th century. But it hasn't been specifically abolished, so some think it could still be used.

Both options you give are the 'normal' way - a vote, by all MPs, whatever their party, of No Confidence in the Government - which forces a new election (last done in 1979); or the party that is in government replaces its leader by whatever its internal rules are, in which case that party stays in power, and the new leader becomes Prime Minister (eg Major following Thatcher in 1990).

The Labour party selects its leader by a combination of MPs, party members, and affiliated trade unions. I think they need a fairly large amount of MPs to say they want an election held before it can start - so it's thought very unlikely that they would be able to force one. If that many Labour MPs opposed Blair, I think he'd be persuaded to resign (he's said he's going to at the end of this parliament, which could be up to 4 years from now).

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. That info helps, thanks. n/t