Wednesday, 29 September 2010

What's the point of lying Ed?

I am 100% sure that, had I been an MP in 2003, I would have voted in favour of British military action in Iraq – mostly because the Prime Minister lied through his teeth to persuade people like me of the case for war.

Now as it happened the new leader of the Labour Party was safely ensconced over at Harvard during this great debate. As far as we know, he made no public statement regarding the decision to invade Iraq. I am 100% certain that, had Ed Miliband been an MP back in 2003, he would have supported the line from Blair and Brown. His period in America seems to me as somewhat akin to an extended visit to the dentist!

Now, I’m prepared to say that I was wrong back in 2003 and now take the view that the invasion of Iraq was wrong (not illegal but definitely of no strategic significance to my country). What I find odd is that Ed Miliband – covered by the tiniest or tiny fig leaves – can’t say the same. Especially as he appears able to do so on the banks, the deficit, ID cards, incarceration without trial and public spending cuts.

But then Ed Miliband lives in a world where the truth is a man in rags staring in at the opulence of bullies and liars.

1 comment:

Pam Nash said...

He may have been at Harvard during the great debate - but he 'Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war'. See 'They Work For You'

With that in mind, what does yesterday's speech say about him? Have cake and eat it?