Contact Spencer Fitz-Gibbon
Tel 020 7561 0282, Fax 020 7272 6653, email firstname.lastname@example.org
"The Liberal Democrats remain the positively pro-UN party. We are not the all-out anti-war party"
Charles Kennedy, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, March 2003 
The Liberal Democrats have gained a reputation for opposing the Iraq war. It is a reputation that is undeserved.
What Charles Kennedy and his party deserve credit for is the skilful manipulation that created a strong impression that the LibDems were opposing the war – a stance known to be very popular with the public – while in fact they made no such commitment.
The LibDems did make clear statements of the conditions in which they would support the war. Those conditions were never met, but they supported the war anyway.
This briefing charts the slippery meandering course of LibDem pronouncements about Iraq from their conference decision to support the war in certain circumstances, through Kennedy’s failure to condemn it even when he addressed up to two million people at a Stop the War rally, to their eventual support for the war once the shooting started.
The Green Party hopes that any voters for whom the war on Iraq is a significant factor in deciding their vote this year will cease to be misled. The only major party that opposed the war last year and is opposing it still is the Green Party.
The Liberal Democrats did NOT oppose the war.
“…the dossier does not constitute evidence of immediate threat and therefore is not justification for precipitate military action…”
The Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton in September 2002 passed a resolution about Iraq. It was not a resolution to oppose the impending war, but a resolution setting out the circumstances in which the LibDems would support it (see Appendix A).
But even then, when it came to the fighting, the LibDems supported the war against all the reservations they had carefully agreed at their conference.
The resolution “Welcomes the publication of the Assessment of the British Government of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction as a carefully presented catalogue of Iraq's WMD capabilities, but believes that the dossier does not constitute evidence of immediate threat and therefore is not justification for precipitate military action.” Yet the LibDems supported the war anyway.
The resolution “Calls on the UK Government to participate in military action against Iraq only as a last resort…” Yet we all know that inspections were not given the time they needed, and the war was not a last resort, but the LibDems supported it anyway.
The resolution didn’t just say war would be acceptable as a last resort. It laid down further conditions:
a. The war would only be acceptable if “Iraq's agreement to the return of weapons inspectors without conditions has been violated by the Iraqi Government or shown to be deceptive.” This didn’t happen, but the LibDems still supported the war.
b. The LibDems insisted that war should only be considered if “Clear and incontrovertible evidence has been presented to the international community and public that Iraq has the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction and is likely to use them.” It wasn’t. But they supported it anyway.
c. They said war should only follow if “Such evidence has been placed before Parliament with full and intensive debate…” It wasn’t, but they supported the war anyway.
d. They said the war would only be legitimate if “New UN resolutions are in place providing a clear mandate, or action is taken in accordance with international law.” It wasn’t, but they supported it anyway.
21 January 2003
“…participate in military action only as a last resort … if clear and uncontrovertible evidence emerges … after a full and intensive debate in Parliament…”
On 21 January 2003, almost exactly two months before the war started, the Liberal Democrat Federal Executive reiterated the party’s reservations about the impending war . In a decision passed without opposition, the Federal Executive asserted:
a. That it supported “the line being taken by the [Liberal Democrat] Parliamentary Party that there remains no compelling argument for military action to be taken against Iraq at the present time.” Once again avoiding explicit opposition to the war, the LibDems nonetheless stated that there was no compelling argument for war at the time. In fact the arguments for war remained unchanged later – and were still not compelling – but the LibDems supported the war anyway.
b. That it supported the policy adopted at the Brighton conference, “that the UK should participate in military action only as a last resort” – “if clear and uncontrovertible evidence emerges to show that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and is likely to use them” – “after a full and intensive debate in Parliament” – AND “with an explicit mandate in the form of a UN resolution or in accordance with international law”. None of this came about, yet the LibDems decided to support the war in the end regardless.
10 February 2003
“…demonstrating our opposition to this war on the current discredited evidence…”
Britain’s biggest ever anti-war demonstration was planned for Saturday 15 February 2003. LibDem Leader Charles Kennedy was invited and decided to accept the invitation to speak. In the week leading up to the march, Donnachadh McCarthy, the LibDems’ coordinator of its part in the march – and Deputy Chair of the Liberal Democrat Federal Executive – said in "A message from the Federal Executive"  that his party must “ensure that the Liberal Democrats form a visible presence, demonstrating our opposition to this war on the current discredited evidence.”
Note that the “opposition to this war” was only “on the current discredited evidence.” But in any event, the evidence remained discredited, and the LibDems supported the war anyway.
11 February 2003
"France and Germany have made their point and should back down now."
In February 2003 it became clear that the NATO allies were divided over the proposed war against Iraq. The division became most apparent on 10 February when France, Germany and Belgium blocked a move to send Nato missile batteries to defend Turkey in the event of a war.
Far from asserting an anti-war position in support of those countries, Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Paul Keetch insisted that "France and Germany have made their point and should back down now". 
13 February 2003
"The party isn't anti-war.”
On 13 February the Green Party asked the Liberal Democrat policy unit for clarification of their party’s stance. The policy unit said: "The party isn't anti-war. The position at the moment is that the weapons inspectors haven't given their full report. We favour the continuation of inspections over military action at this stage."
Note the clear statement that the LibDems were not anti-war. Note also that they only favoured inspections over military action “at this stage.” Time would show that at another stage they would favour war over inspections.
The policy unit confirmed that LibDem Leader Charles Kennedy intended to speak at the anti-war march. The Green Party put it to the LibDem policy unit that the march was titled Stop the War, and surely to attend the march was to be anti-war. They said Charles Kennedy was going on the march "to give peace a chance" and to "give support to all Liberal Democrats who are against the war." Asked if he was representing the party therefore, they said that "he is going as Leader of the Liberal Democrats" and will be "representing the party" but that "it's his decision to do it".
It was made clear at the rally that Charles Kennedy was speaking in a personal capacity. But even then – even at a Stop the War rally – he didn’t say he opposed the war.
15 February 2003
“We are not the all-out anti-war party.”
Having decided to attend the anti-war march – albeit on the basis of a “maybe-war” policy – Charles Kennedy put a personal message on the LibDem website. He encouraged people to attend the march, though he avoided calling it a Stop the War march. He said there were “real concerns among the British people that the case for war and the reason why British troops should participate has not been adequately made.” He said “The Liberal Democrats have repeatedly pressed the Prime Minister for a vote in the House of Commons on the deployment of British troops ahead of any military action.” He said “vast numbers of people feel powerless to influence the government and make their voices heard and […the Prime Minister…] must listen.”
He said “The Liberal Democrats have been prominent in the debate over Iraq, asking the questions that many people in this country want answered about the possibility of military action.” He said he wanted “to articulate the concerns which have driven the Liberal Democrats throughout this debate.”
But at no stage did Kennedy express opposition to the war. Indeed, he actually said: “The Liberal Democrats remain the positively pro-UN party. We are not the all-out anti-war party. I believe that the United Nations is the proper place to make the decisions.”
But this part of what he said seems to have been missed by most people, who gained the impression the LibDems were opposed to the war.
However, Kennedy went on to say a number of things that he would later contradict in his decision to support the war.
a. He said “We need to be certain that, after hearing from the UN Secretary General and the weapons inspectors, the Security Council is sure that military action is the only way to make Saddam Hussein disarm.” It never was, but Kennedy decided to support the war anyway.
b. He said “It is UN resolutions which have been flouted and it is the UN which must decide what the next step should be.” But the UN didn’t decide on war – George Bush and Tony Blair did – and Kennedy went against his public pronouncement about the UN being the place to make the decisions, and sided with Bush and Blair.
c. He said “Ideally this requires a second resolution, but above all it requires a clear UN mandate.” There was no second resolution, there was no clear UN mandate, but he supported the war anyway.
d. He said “If it is impossible to persuade [Saddam Hussein] to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction by peaceful means, then military action may be necessary. But we are not there yet.” We never did get there, because Bush and Blair decided the inspections must cease so the war could start. And Kennedy supported the war.
26 February 2003
“…the case for military action is as yet unproven...”
In the Commons on 26 February, the LibDems voted for an amendment to a government motion. The motion said that the House “reaffirms its endorsement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, as expressed in its Resolution of 25th November 2002; supports the Government's continuing efforts in the United Nations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction; and calls upon Iraq to recognise this as its final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.”
The LibDem amendment merely sought to delete the call on Iraq to regard this as the final opportunity, and replace it with "but finds the case for military action against Iraq as yet unproven."
When they voted for the amendment, the LibDems were merely saying once again that the case for war hadn’t been proven. The case would ultimately remain unproven, but they would support it anyway.
17 March 2003
“…very difficult indeed to support a war in which there is no mandate from the UN and no sense of legitimacy…”
Still avoiding explicit opposition to the war, Charles Kennedy nonetheless continued to give the impression that the LibDems were the ones urging restraint. A statement appeared on the LibDem website alongside Kennedy’s picture: "I find it personally and politically very difficult indeed to support a war in which there is no mandate from the UN and no sense of legitimacy on the international stage."
Yet that is exactly what he was to do.
“…the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established … but, in the event that hostilities do commence, … total support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East…”
It is commonly supposed that “the LibDems voted against the war” on 18 March. In fact they voted for an amendment to a government motion. The amendment was not passed, and the LibDems then voted against the motion.
But the LibDem amendment was not a motion against the war. It sought to replace part of the government motion with the words: "believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established, especially given the absence of specific United Nations authorisation; but, in the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its total support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides."
That is, it reiterated that the case for war had not yet been proven – but went on to give “total support” to the armed forces who would implement government policy. This was as good as saying “we give total support to the prosecution of a war that has no legitimacy and the case for which has not been proven” – or, simply, “we don’t believe in this war but we’re going to support it anyway.”
18 March 2003
“…the inevitable military conflict against Iraq begins. Let us hope … that the conflict can be conducted as swiftly as possible, with the minimum of casualties: first and foremost, clearly, among our forces…”
Originally Charles Kennedy could only support the war if a string of conditions were met. They weren’t met. So he said he’d “find it personally and politically very difficult indeed to support a war in which there is no mandate from the UN and no sense of legitimacy on the international stage." Difficult it may have been, but he did it.
In the House of Commons on 18 March, the day before the war began, his earlier reservations evaporated. There was no more talk of forcing the Prime Minister to prove the unproven case for war: now Kennedy’s view was that if “under the democratic procedures that we enjoy in this House, that is to be the decision, it is important that the whole House unites in that genuine support.” No longer did Kennedy subscribe to the view that it was “the UN which must decide what the next step should be,” with “Ideally … a second resolution, but above all … a clear UN mandate” – now he merely gave “genuine support” to Blair’s decision.
Kennedy did express a desire for minimum casualties “among innocent Iraqi civilians, with whom none of us have ever had any quarrel,” but his hope for minimum casualties was “first and foremost, clearly, among our forces…” (See Appendix C.)
19 March 2003
“That attack is almost certain to kill many Iraqi civilians – and more than half the Iraqi population consists of children … Thousands more innocents will die … But our troops are not politicians and they deserve to be supported in the professional job they are asked to do by Her Majesty’s Government.”
The war started, and the Liberal Democrats at last came down off the fence and supported it.
LibDem peer Shirley Williams’ speech in the House of Lords, publicised by the LibDem press office, continued the pattern already seen. (See Appendix D.) It agonised over the “catastrophe” and the “unpredictable” nature of the war. She mentioned the “emphasis on regime change by the Bush administration” which was “an objective not recognised in international law.” She said the attack was “likely to knock out the key elements of Iraqi’s ramshackle infrastructure – transport links, power stations, bridges and dams.” She said that “If that infrastructure collapses, the oil for food programme which feeds 60% of Iraq’s people will halt, untreated sewage will flow into Iraq’s rivers, and clean water will be unavailable.” She said: “Thousands more innocents will die. And from their ashes thousands more terrorists will spring up.”
And she said: “But our troops are not politicians and they deserve to be supported in the professional job they are asked to do by Her Majesty’s Government.” She said: “We owe them more than our support. We owe them the judgement and wisdom to conduct this war in a way that there is not only military victory but a lasting peace in Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole.”
None of the conditions laid down in the LibDems “maybe-war” policy had been met. None of the things that would legitimise the war in the eyes of the LibDem conference and Federal Assembly and Charles Kennedy himself had been achieved. But none of it mattered. On the pretext of supporting the troops, the LibDems had swung into line behind the government and supported the war.
20 March 2003
“This conflict has one of the strongest moral and ethical mandates since the second world war. It is a just war which we know to be right.”
LibDem MEP Emma Nicholson went further. She stated unequivocally that “the legitimacy of our cause ... “is not in doubt.” She said: “There has been much debate, quite rightly, on the legal and political legitimacy of war. But let us unite behind one fact. This conflict has one of the strongest moral and ethical mandates since the second world war. It is a just war which we know to be right.” (See Appendix E.)
This, of course, contrasts markedly with all the reservations articulated by the Liberal Democrats hitherto. One may speculate as to what had actually passed through the minds of Charles Kennedy and his colleagues. Were they ever really sincere in saying they would oppose the war unless certain conditions were met, or was it mere spin? Were they being blatantly dishonest in pursuit of votes? Or did Tony Blair persuade them that they had been wrong to entertain doubts?
But the following are certain facts:
a. The Liberal Democrats managed to sustain an impression that they were against the war despite repeated pronouncements that they would support it under certain circumstances.
b. Having clearly articulated the conditions in which they would support the war, the Liberal Democrats supported it unconditionally in the end.
c. Whatever they may have said before or since, the Liberal Democrats supported Tony Blair’s war against Iraq.
Liberal Democrat conference resolution on Iraq, September 2002
1. Unreservedly condemns the appalling human rights record of the Iraqi regime and notes the human rights failings of other regimes in the Middle East.
2. Is committed to a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and calls upon the UN to put pressure on all states in the Middle East to abandon WMD programmes.
3. Notes that existing United Nations Security Council resolutions placing obligations on Iraq to respect human rights, and eliminate its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities, in particular resolution 660 (1990), 687 (1991) and 1284 (1999) remain unfulfilled.
4. Believes that the priority of the United Nations Security Council and all of its members should be to achieve the return of the weapons inspectors to Iraq.
5. Notes Iraq's stated willingness to readmit UN inspectors unconditionally, urges it to do so without delay and without placing any obstacle in the way of the inspectors and to fulfil all its obligations under relevant UN resolutions.
6. Welcomes the publication of the Assessment of the British Government of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction as a carefully presented catalogue of Iraq's WMD capabilities, but believes that the dossier does not constitute evidence of immediate threat and therefore is not justification for precipitate military action.
7. Calls on the UK Government to participate in military action against Iraq only as a last resort and if:
a) Iraq's agreement to the return of weapons inspectors without conditions has been violated by the Iraqi Government or shown to be deceptive.
b) Clear and incontrovertible evidence has been presented to the international community and public that Iraq has the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction and is likely to use them.
c) Such evidence has been placed before Parliament with full and intensive debate and that Parliament continues to monitor the situation and has authorised any action through its votes.
d) New UN resolutions are in place providing a clear mandate, or action is taken in accordance with international law.
e) Full consultation has taken place with our European partners, if possible to achieve a unified European position.
f) Military action is designed to avoid as far as possible civilian casualties. Conference further believes that military action should not be taken without careful consideration of the consequences for international stability and security including the impact on the Middle East peace process; and that clear and coherent plans be in place, and the necessary resources committed, for its aftermath.
The full is below. It has been separated here into parts for ease of understanding the LibDem amendment.
1. “That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003
to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; …
2. “…recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; …
3. “…in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine.”
The amendment selected, tabled in the name of Rt Hon Chris Smith MP, was to delete part 2 above and replace it with: "believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established, especially given the absence of specific United Nations authorisation; but, in the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its total support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides."
The LibDems voted for the amendment, which fell, then voted against the motion.
Statement by Charles Kennedy in the House of Commons, 18 March 2003
“…Given the events of the past few days and the last few hours, there has been much understandable comment about the drama of the situation. In the next few hours and days, however, we are liable to see even more drama and trauma when what appears to be the inevitable military conflict against Iraq begins. Let us hope, as we all agree, that the conflict can be conducted as swiftly as possible, with the minimum of casualties: first and foremost, clearly, among our forces, but equally among innocent Iraqi civilians, with whom none of us have ever had any quarrel and who have suffered terribly under the despicable regime of Saddam Hussein.
“As for those of us who remain unpersuaded as to the case at this time for war, and who have questioned whether British forces should be sent into a war without a further UN mandate having been achieved, there stands no contradiction—as the former Leader of the House and former Foreign Secretary put succinctly last night—between giving voice to that legitimate anxiety and, at the same time, as and when exchange of fire commences, looking to the rest of the country, and to all of us in the House, to give full moral support to our forces. They do not take the civilian political decision in relation to what they are being asked to do, but they must carry out that task in all our names. The shadow Leader of the House expressed that well last night, but, equally, Church leaders, who earlier expressed profound opposition to war in this way at this time, are making the same point. If, later tonight, at the conclusion of this debate, under the democratic procedures that we enjoy in this House, that is to be the decision, it is important that the whole House unites in that genuine support.
Extracts from the speech by Baroness Shirley Williams to the House of Lords on Iraq
“War is always a catastrophe. Its course is unpredictable. No one can say what the effects of the imminent war on Iraq will be.
“Thousands of young men and women in the armed forces have now been sent to the Gulf or are on their way there. We owe them more than our support. We owe them the judgement and wisdom to conduct this war in a way that there is not only military victory but a lasting peace in Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole.
“Politicians may disagree as to the necessity and legitimacy of this war. But our troops are not politicians and they deserve to be supported in the professional job they are asked to do by Her Majesty’s Government.
“Despite Tony Blair’s efforts, no second Security Council resolution was passed. Many here blamed France. But France believes she has been misrepresented. She indicated that she would veto the second resolution as tabled by the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain even if it achieved a majority in the Security Council. But this was a judgement on the timescales envisaged by that resolution, and the necessity for the inspectors to judge for themselves that they had run out of options. France accepted, according to what I have been told by the French Embassy this morning, that serious consequences would follow for Iraq if the Inspectors said they could make no further progress .
“Without that second resolution, the legitimacy of our action will continue to be disputed. The doubters will point to the emphasis on regime change by the Bush administration, an objective not recognised in international law.
“Last night, in his speech to the nation, President Bush said he had no quarrel with the Iraqi people; indeed he welcomed their cooperation. If that cooperation is to occur, much will depend on the conduct of the war – on proportionality and fairness, to mention two of the principles of a just war – Ius in Bello.
“Yet US military plans are for a massive air attack on Iraq. That attack is almost certain to kill many Iraqi civilians – and more than half the Iraqi population consists of children. That attack is likely to knock out the key elements of Iraqi’s ramshackle infrastructure – transport links, power stations, bridges and dams. If that infrastructure collapses, the oil for food programme which feeds 60% of Iraq’s people will halt, untreated sewage will flow into Iraq’s rivers, and clean water will be unavailable. Thousands more innocents will die. And from their ashes thousands more terrorists will spring up.
“There has been little preparation for a parallel humanitarian programme to alleviate the suffering of Iraq’s wretched people. There has been little discussion with NGOs and little money has been pledged for the purpose. Iraqi oil cannot cover the whole costs of relief, reconstruction and a new administration. Yet Donald Rumsfeld, on March 11, made it plain that the US would not bear the full costs of its own action. Some in the United States hold the UN in contempt, yet they are happy for the UN to pick up the pieces, alongside potential donors who may actually oppose the war.
“In Afghanistan, President Bush said he would not walk away. He has tiptoed away, allocating a derisory sum for reconstruction in Afghanistan, a country falling back into chaos. It is not a happy precedent.
“When will the necessary UN resolution for humanitarian action referred to yesterday by the Foreign Secretary be tabled? Who will administer the country after a military victory? How will a new administration be staffed, and will the government consider offering an amnesty to Iraqi civil servants willing to work with them?
“Finally, the road map on which the Prime Minister sets such store – rightly so. The demands on the Palestinians are being met, such as the appointment of a new Prime Minister. It is equally important that Mr. Sharon contributes to a new negotiation for peace. That must mean an immediate halt to the settlements that are gobbling up the land on which a Palestinian state can be built.
“There will now be military action. We deeply regret it is happening without the authority of the Security Council. That is now water under the bridge. What matters now is that the war – and its essential humanitarian complement – is conducted in such a way that the people of Iraq, and of the Middle East benefit, and do not have to sustain yet more suffering.”
Article by Baroness Nicholson, 20 March 2003
The right war
A Member of the European Parliament with long-standing interest in the fate of the Marsh Arabs sees their terrible fate as only one piece of evidence for the morality and legitimacy of war against the Saddam regime in Iraq.
“As I write this, thousands of men and women in our armed services will be preparing for hostilities in the Gulf. As a Member of the European Parliament for the south-east of England, I know that many of them will be my constituents.
“Conducting a war is, by its nature, uncertain and unpredictable. What is not in doubt, though, is the legitimacy of our cause.
“Saddam and his regime constitute one of the worst dictatorships the world has ever seen. Even by the standards of tyranny witnessed in the last century, few can equal the magnitude of Saddam’s crimes. He has presided over the deaths of millions – many of them his own people.
I have been especially concerned with a catastrophe that has been unfolding over the last two decades.
The Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq are a proud and ancient people, whose existence in the region dates back 5,000 years. Since the beginning of Saddam’s rule, they have been the victims of a systematic campaign of genocide.
“Thousands have been killed and thousands more have been forced to flee their homeland. 95,000 now live in makeshift camps on the Iranian side of the border. As part of a deliberate programme of environmental sabotage, 75% of the marshlands of the Euphrates–Tigris river basin have been drained. Amid incalculable human suffering, a world heritage and ecological treasure is soon to be lost forever.
This is the work of Saddam, and tragically it is only one example of the many crimes his regime has committed.
“There has been much debate, quite rightly, on the legal and political legitimacy of war. But let us unite behind one fact. This conflict has one of the strongest moral and ethical mandates since the second world war. It is a just war which we know to be right.”
1. Found at http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.iraq/section.home – but this statement subsequently disappeared from the LibDems’ website.
“Tories force questions on Nato crisis,” The Guardian, Tuesday February 11, 2003,
Published and promoted by Spencer Fitz-Gibbon for The Green Party,
both at 1a Waterlow Road, London N19 5NJ.