Just a couple of short points, as so much has been said even if the scale of crimes and devastating aftermath are still often under-acknowledged. These points relate to that under-acknowledgement.
First, the internal review in The Labour Party: That’s easy enough to discuss. There wasn’t one. After all, we only talking about deliberate distortion, of already unreliable conjecture, out of recognition in order to make the necessary case for war in regards to addressing a real and present danger.
Defence of the realm is the first duty of state, like it or not. These were lies of an utmost serious nature. We know the people and Parliament were misled about our own safety, we know this same bunch can get very preachy about the Libdems and tories getting up to all sorts of no-good.
But there’s no reason for them to look at themselves, and their part in getting sucked into the most mendacious murderous lies our country has been dragged through in the modern era?
Countless thousands of people sneered at countless thousands of others, jibing that they must really have thought Saddam Hussein was more or less ok (Never forget where Saddam, like Bin Laden, will have learned many dark arts – from his erstwhile CIA sponsors)
Was a complaint ever brought against Anthony Blair within The Labour Party, even on as mundane a level as bringing the party into disrepute?
I remember being in Ireland about a year ago when a committee found that the former premier hadn’t been totally truthful about some financial stuff. The report came out on the Thursday. He left the party at the weekend, knowing he’d be kicked out otherwise.
Labour have “moved on” haven’t they? But it’s very much a <shuffle shoes and mutter at the floor> form of “move on”.
None of this has been much addressed internally as far as I can see. Do they just want to pretend it didn’t happen? Do they think they are doing themselves favours, aside from the moral bankruptcy of such an attitude?
And they have the NERVE to preach at the LibDems?
Ever wonder why Labour seem hollow these days, directionless, lacking in moral fibre?
The failure to address what happened inside the party during those months underwrites their sense of moral purpose to this day.
Another thing rarely mentioned, regardless of legality of war itself, is the responsibility for security on the part of such occupying forces, as specified under the Geneva Conventions.
What was the post invasion plan? Who discussed it? Who said “yep, that looks fine”? because it’s very clear it was US led and utterly clueless.
What evidence is there that a party that aspires to govern instead of the current horror-show won’t again be led on god-knows-how-many-other merry loads of bollocks, never once stopping to ask how it happened?
None, and it’s as big a problem for them as it is for us.