Thursday, March 17, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Blair Misleads Parliament (again)

Hansard 16 Mar 2005 The Prime Minister was asked.........

Mr. Kennedy: ...........Still on Iraq, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm to the House that when the Cabinet gave final approval for the war in Iraq, the Cabinet at that time had before it a full written legal opinion from the Attorney-General concluding that the war was legal—yes or no?

16 Mar 2005 : Column 249

The Prime Minister: The Cabinet had before it the Attorney-General, who was there precisely to answer questions and to say that the war was lawful. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, we can debate whether the conflict was right or wrong but, frankly, it is absurd to keep on suggesting that some secret opinion of the Attorney-General said that the war was unlawful. The Attorney-General has made his position absolutely clear—the war was lawful because of the breach of UN resolutions and the evidence that Saddam was in breach of the UN resolutions.

This is an interesting development and one wonders just why Charles Kennedy felt he had to ask the question, as similar questions were raised at last weeks Prime Ministers Questions

The Prime Minister was asked... 9 Mar 2005 : Column 1514

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): Are full texts of Law Officers' advice on matters of peace and war made available to the Cabinet as a whole, or just to the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: It depends on whether the Attorney-General actually attends Cabinet. In the instance that is being raised in the newspapers this morning, the Attorney-General himself came to Cabinet and therefore gave an oral report on his advice.

later he was asked at Column 1516

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): In response to the Father of the House, the Prime Minister said that the question whether Cabinet colleagues were entitled to the full opinion of the Law Officer depended on certain circumstances. Will he now tell the House and the country why a written opinion is good enough for him, but only an oral opinion is right for the rest of the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: Let me elaborate on what I said earlier. The Attorney-General came to the Cabinet, gave his opinion in detail and was able to answer any queries that people raised about the matter. I really do not understand what is being said by the hon. Gentleman and others. If it is being said that the legal opinion of the Attorney-General was different from the Attorney-General's statement to the House, that is patently absurd. I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman and others that, as a result of evidence that has emerged subsequent to the Iraq war, it is perfectly obvious that there were indeed multiple breaches of UN resolutions—and it was on the basis of breaches of UN resolutions that we went to war.

Could it be that the lying Bastard is just about to be exposed. The fact that the Attorney General was present at the Cabinet meeting on 17 March 2003 as stated above, is irrelevant. Section 2.23 of the ministerial code is quite clear; "When advice from the Law Officers is included in correspondence between Ministers, or in papers for the Cabinet or Ministerial Committees, the conclusions may if necessary be summarised but, if this is done, the complete text of the advice should be attached".

There are no get out clauses for Tony Blair on this occasion and no amount of legal training or spin doctoring will change things.

The man has lied and blatantly mislead his colleagues in Cabinet and more importantly Parliament. He should resign now and go.



Post a comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares