MICHAEL HOWARD today raises the political stakes over Iraq by saying that he would not have backed the government in last year’s eve-of-war Commons vote had he known then that British intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons was flawed...
Howard, in an interview with The Sunday Times, says the crucial government motion that authorised military action should not have referred to Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles” posing “a threat to international peace and security”.
Which doesn't even make sense on its own terms. Whatever the situation with WMD, Iraq really did have long-range missiles (far longer than was permitted) and they were hardly to be used as a high-speed alternative to air mail.
At least Kezza was funnier when he claimed that he voted for it before he voted against. Howard on the other hand....
Although Howard qualifies his remarks by saying he is still in favour of the war and would have voted for a different motion authorising military action, a decision by the Tories not to back the government’s motion would effectively have meant British involvement in the war would have been blocked.
He was in favour of the war, but he would have voted against.... m'kay. What a conniving rat. He knows Iraqs turned the corner, so he'll take some of the reflected glory for that, but he also wants the benefit of being seen to be opposed to liberating Iraq in the first place. But don't ask why people don't trust the Tories.
Still, there's one more outrage hidden in the text:
Meanwhile, senior MI6 officers expressed deep concerns about the misuse of their intelligence by Downing Street and three spies even boycotted all work on Iraq because they believed the war was wrong.
Well, isn't that special ? So, they told a democratically elected government to shove it and what happened ? I mean, could police officers refuse to enforce the dipstick laws coming out of the Home Office ? Hardly - so why haven't these lowlife been fired ?