David Miliband challenged over ministers' differing explanations for Iraq war decision ... - 0 views
-
At the start of the foreign secretary's evidence to the Chilcot panel, Sir Roderic Lyne, a member of the inquiry panel, said it had heard "three rather different explanations as to why we took military action against Iraq in 2003".Tony Blair emphasised the need to impose regime change on Iraq, Lyne said. But Jack Straw, the foreign secretary at the time of the war, stressed the importance of dealing with Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction, Lyne said.And Gordon Brown, when he gave evidence on Friday last week, said he supported the war because he thought the will of the international community had to be enforced.
-
In his evidence Blair said the inquiry should consider what would have happened if the Iraq war had not taken place. He said that an Iraq still led by Saddam Hussein, competing with Iran to acquire WMD and support terrorism, could be an even greater threat today than Iraq was in 2003.
-
Miliband went on: "The authority of the UN would have been severely dented. If, in the hypothetical case you are putting, we had marched to the top of the hill of pressure and marched down again without disarming Saddam Hussein, that would really have been quite damaging [to the ability of the UN to work together].
- ...2 more annotations...
-
"People in the region will respect those who will see through what they say they favour, even though they disagree with it, and would say to me: 'You have sent a message that when you say something, you actually mean it,'" Miliband said.
-
He also insisted that Britain would not have gone to war if it had been known that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction."If there was convincing evidence there were no WMD, there would have been no UN resolution and ... no [parliamentary] vote."