(UK Gordon) Brown: ‘Saddam’s WMDs were not why I backed the Iraq war’

[sabra]

Source: tribune magazine

Gordon Brown has revealed that he did not support military action against Saddam Hussein because of the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction.

The threat of a WMD attack on British interests was the primary reason given to the House of Commons by Prime Minister Tony Blair for the invasion of Iraq and the reason many MPs backed it.

But in an exclusive interview with Tribune, Mr Brown said that it was not the threat of WMDs – later proven to be non-existent – but Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with international demands on disclosure that persuaded him that action was necessary.

The will raise fresh questions about the basis and legality of Britain’s involvement in the invasion in coalition with the United States. Mr Brown’s predecessor Tony Blair has never wavered in his view that the threat was considered real at the time.

...

Asked when he first knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq, Mr Brown told Tribune: “For me, the issue was all the time Iraq’s obligations to the international community.

If Saddam Hussein had signed up to international commitments to disclose everything about munitions to the international community, didn’t do it and then failed to respond properly, then the United Nations itself and collective action by the world community itself was put at risk, so for me that was the issue.”

Read more: http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2010/02/18/brown-%E2%80%98saddam%E2%80%99s-wmds-were-not-why-i-backed-the-iraq-war%E2%80%99/

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. but it didn't need a preemptive strike - oil my dear Watson

yes 3 words oil - greedy Britain

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. "you haven't completed the paperwork to my satisfaction, so I have to kill you"

The UN inspectors were OK with the cooperation they were receiving; claiming he wanted to invade to protect the UN is a pile of bullshit.

"The issue was that they should disclose in full and co-operate with the international community, but I think everybody agrees that was never fully done." Bollocks, Brown. Go and ask Hans Blix.

[Jefferson23]

3. Another fucking lie, what a shock. n/t

[Don Caballero]

4. Is Brown popular in the UK?

He certainly is much better than Bliar.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. No, he's very unpopular

Satisfaction ratings:

Approval of Brown as Prime Minister
YouGov: (1) Are you satisfied or disatisfied with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister? (2) Do you think Gordon Brown is doing well or badly as Prime Minister?

Survey 				End Date	Yes	No	Net

YouGov/Sunday Times (2) 	04/12/09	28	66	-38
YouGov/Sunday Times (2) 	16/10/09	28	67	-39
YouGov/Sunday Times (2) 	11/09/09	26	70	-44
YouGov/Sunday Times (2) 	14/08/09	26	70	-44
YouGov/Sunday Times (2) 	17/07/09	24	71	-47
YouGov/Sunday Times (2) 	12/06/09	23	73	-50
YouGov/Sunday Times (2) 	08/05/09	25	71	-46
YouGov/Sunday Times (2) 	04/04/09	41	53	-12
YouGov/Sunday Times (2) 	13/03/09	36	60	-24
YouGov/Sunday Times (2) 	13/02/09	31	65	-34
YouGov/Telegraph (1) 		29/01/09	27	63	-36

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/leaders/brown

[tabasco]

5. Tell us something we don't don't know, criminal

puppet of war profiteers.

[ThomThom]

7. I hate to defend Saddam Hussein but that just does line up with the

facts. Inspectors were allowed in and he disclosed everything and explain how and when everything was destroyed. He didn't want his neighbors to think he was defenseless so he said somethings but the UN knew what was destroyed and when. We were not given authorization from the UN to invade but we did it any way. Nothing has ever been found to prove he was hiding anything. He was tried for completely unrelated charges that happened years before.

[wuushew]

8. Why was Brown even asked his opinion on the Iraq war?

Chancellor of the Exchequer has no say in the planning or decisions regarding military force.

Even though his statement and opinion are morally reprehensible, should I be in a uproar if say Allan Greenspan gave a statement on the invasion of Panama?



Brown is an even bigger moron than I thought if he is volunteering to be tarred and feathered.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. No; his position as Chancellor was more akin to Vice-President

All Cabinet members are meant to agree on government policy; it's a common criticism that, under Blair, they tended to rubberstamp whatever he said, without discussing it properly as they're meant to. Robin Cook resigned from it because he couldn't go along with the invasion.

But the Chancellor is a senior position in the Cabinet; and Brown was always acknowledged as a particularly powerful chancellor (look back at all the stuff about the agreement between Brown and Blair about the election for Labour party leader in the 1990s; for Brown not standing, and giving Blair his support, Blair agreed to let him have a lot of power as Chancellor). Brown was generally agreed to be the 2nd most powerful person in government.

Brown was a member of the 'war cabinet' that Blair formed for the invasion: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-forms-his-eve-of-battle-war-cabinet-591481.html

He is inevitably one of the people who has to answer for their decisions about Iraq (there are also accusations that, as Chancellor, he wouldn't allow enough money to equip the troops, which caused excess deaths among them, for instance when they didn't have enough body armour for all the troops in Iraq to have some). He's presumably decided he'd rather be seen as 'tough' rather than 'gullible'.

[Solly Mack]

10. Snort

[MisterP]

11. "I'm a Mussolini, not a Fedor von Bock" nt

[ck4829]

12. The US didn't comply with US vs Nicaragua. When are we going to be 'liberated'?