Nick Clegg says Iraq war was illegal

Nick Clegg is deputy prime minister and he says the Iraq War was illegal.(1) The British press says the point is of significance to international courts, because Clegg said it while on the floor of the legislature.

In the underground, the media is selling Clegg to the world as another MIM antidote. He was calling himself a “revolutionary”(2) not long ago.

The British Chilcot Inquiry on the Iraq War is not done. It’s an example of another important item held up by the tendency of elites to hide truth until its memoir time, and even then. It will be better for the proletariat to break open the structure for the truth–sooner. Doing so is in fact a measure of our strength in the international united front.

MIM’s long-held position is that capitalism generates demand and supply for weapons of mass destruction (WMD). We cannot let that be a justification for war.

On the other hand, we have to look at the history of the question in connection to Iraq to understand the specific political features of the Iraq War. The Democrats in Congress yanked Bush Sr. around on the weapons of mass destruction question when Bush Sr. was president. Clinton then sent inspectors who saw the WMD possibilities of Saddam Hussein degraded as reported by a weapons inspector Scott Ritter and UN inspectors who published the truth.

The real problem here is that MIM believes the WMD discussion was a euphemism for a political discussion. It was a signal from Bush Jr. to Hillary Clinton, the New York senator, about not resisting the Iraq War. In turn, with the Democratic leadership crushed, it was a signal to Labour in Britain.

Although the United $tates was crawling with intelligence professionals as the Washington Post confirms this week, it did not result in more truth leaking out. The Pentagon intelligence world was too sprawling and the politicians in too weak a position. That is also true in the would-be communist movement, that the Pentagon had too much influence.

Some conservative leaders have realized that MIM’s forensic speculations on the crime of the Iraq War make sense. What MIM said is not yet a “fact,” because there is not common agreement to establish the facts on the politics of 9/11 yet. What we said is also not a “theory,” because theory is just an attribution of cause and effect. So it’s more like sleuthing out a crime, a forensic speculation. Only when many people agree to look into the forensic situation can what MIM says become fact. Facts have to be commonly agreed upon.

The Amerikan people did not get to have a real debate, because the Democrats were effectively crushed even before 9/11. Even some conservatives feel cheated, because they do not like arguing with Straw men. The external evidence for this also came from MI5 this week,(3) which reminded readers that 9/11 had no connection to Iraq. Then the question becomes why Bush raised it. In part, his voter base is that dumb, but it also makes sense in the context of MIM’s forensic speculations.

A country should go to war after it has had out its own internal conflicts, not because one faction had the other by the gonads or because neither faction wanted the truth leaked and had to cover.

Notes:
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/21/nick-clegg-prime-ministers-questions
2. http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6157843/cleggs-revolution.thtml
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/20/iraq-inquiry-saddam-mi5-chief

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: