'Nothing staggering': The government's dossier on
Iraq seems a damp squib.
Major Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies: it doesn't contain any
convincing evidence that says Hussein has to be taken out straight away.
Thomas Withington, a research associate at the Centre for Defence Studies,
Kings College, London: 'Nothing staggering, is it? It firms up a lot of
what is already known.' [Times].
According to the BBC's Paul Reynolds, the dossier's accumulation of
detail will convince some; others will continue to argue that there's no
imminent Iraqi threat.
He points out the dossier contains nothing linking Iraq to international
terrorism. [BBC].
A democratic deficit: As anti-war protestors crank up Give Peace A
Chance in Parliament Square, MPs continue debating the seriousness of the
threat from Iraq, whether it justifies going to war.
To what end? No matter if the dossier fails to convince. Amazingly, shockingly,
typically, Tony Blair doesn't need the approval of Parliament to go to war.
The US President needs the permission of Congress. The German
Chancellor needs the backing of the Bundestag. In Britain, the Prime Minister,
acting through the Royal Prerogative, can act alone. [Independent].
Anti-war MPs can't even be explicit about their disapproval of the PM's policies.
Tam Dalyell, 'father' of the Commons, the MP with the longest unbroken
parliamentary service, failed this afternoon to secure a vote giving MPs
the chance to oppose backing a war unless it had UN authorisation. [Daily
Telegraph].
When the debate finishes at around 10 pm tonight, MPs still unconvinced by
the government's case can only register their disapproval by voting on a technical
motion, a 'motion to adjourn'.
