In the real world, the Iraq War had a huge impact on the UK elections earlier this month. Nick Clegg became something of a media star as a result of using the Iraq War in the second debate. And of course there was the polling by Labour which showed how much the Iraq War had hurt and was hurting the Labour Party. (In England, Labour was in charge when the Iraq War started. The Prime Minister was Tony Blair. When he would step down, he'd be replaced with Labour's Gordon Brown.) Rebecca would call Pal out. But so did reality and recent history.
Two weeks later, Pal continues to get fresh egg on his face. From Friday's "Iraq snapshot:"
Iraq had an impact on the UK elections this month. If you still don't get that, take a look what's going on currently. Labour is no longer the majority party in Parliament and there is huge competition to lead the party. Ed Balls is among those vying for the leadership slot. Mary Riddell and Andrew Porter (Telegraph of London) interviewed Balls:
His greatest criticism is reserved for the Iraq war, which still saps Labour support. Mr Balls today becomes the first former Cabinet minister unequivocally to condemn the invasion, claiming the public were misled by "devices and tactics".
"People always felt as if the decision had been made and they were being informed after the fact." Though not yet elected as an MP, Mr Balls -- as Mr Brown's adviser -- was party to top level discussions after attempts to get a second UN Security Council resolution failed.
"I was in the room when a decision was taken that we would say it was that dastardly Frenchman, Jacques Chirac, who had scuppered it. It wasn't really true, you know. I said to Gordon: 'i know why you're doing this, but you'll regret it'. France is a very important relationship for us."
Although Mr Balls concedes that, had he been an MP at the time, he would have voted for the war on the basis of the facts provided, he now concedes that not only was the information wrong but the war unjustified.
"It was a mistake. On the information we had, we shouldn't have prosecuted the war. We shouldn't have changed our argument from international law to regime change in a non-transparent way. It was an error for which we as a country paid a heavy price, and for which many people paid with their lives. Saddam Hussein was a horrible man, and I am pleased he is no longer running Iraq. But the war was wrong."
Ed Balls is only one vying for the position and talking Iraq. Patrick Wintour and Allegra Stratton (Guardian) report, "Labour's divisions over Iraq broke out into the open tonight as Ed Miliband became the first contender for the leadership to make it an issue during the campaign. He said UN weapons inspectors were not given enough time in 2003 before coalition troops invaded the country, and asserted that the way in which Britain decided to go to war led to 'a catastrophic loss of trust in Labour'." Miliband's position is much weaker than Balls and that may be intentional (right now no one seriously believes Ed Miliband would challenge his brother David Miliband for the leadership post -- everyone could be wrong, but no one believes it's happening). If it is intentionally weak, he's there to siphon off potential support for Balls while not making such a strong statement against the illegal war that it might potentially force his brother to make a comment/rebuttal.
Elaine and C.I. know the Milibands and Elaine asks that when C.I. tells you what's-what with the Miliband brothers that you pay attention.
Today Ekklesia observes, "The Iraq war has become a central issue in the Labour Party's leadership contest, with candidates who previously supported it seeking to distance themselves from the decision to invade the country." Whereas Brian Brady and Richard Osley (Independent of London) reported, "David Miliband attempted to shift the focus of the Labour leadership debate away from the Iraq conflict yesterday, after two of his main rivals criticised the decision to go to war in 2003." And Vincent Moss (Mirror) notes, "David Miliband clashed yesterday with his brother Ed over the decision to invade Iraq - as they fought it out for the Labour leadership."
It would appear that the person 'moving on' from Iraq was Amitabh Pal who, for the record, hasn't written a column on Iraq in years.
In the real world, the Iraq War continues to drag on and yesterday "US military announced 2 deaths." To Pal, it's all too much to address, all too much to cover. It's all so yesterday for Pal.
March 7th, Iraq held Parliamentary elections. Ayad Allawi's political slate won the most seats (91). Nipping at Iraqiya's heels was Nouri al-Maliki's State Of Law (89 seats). In the weeks that followed, Nouri lodged one objection after another to discredit Iraqiya's win while working behind the scenes to form a power-sharing coalition with the Iraqi National Alliance which, like Nouri's, is a secular Shi'ite slate.
Since forming the alliance, Nouri's served up one suspect after another offering one tortured confession after another in an attempt to prove that he (Nouri) is the law and order man. He didn't bring peace to Iraq in the four years that he's already been prime minister, but he's taken to making statements about how he can do it now. And in case that doesn't work, he's now painting himself as the diplomat.
The Iraq War continues . . . despite the fact that according to then-candidate Barack Obama promised that, if elected, US forces would be out of Iraq by May 21, 2010.