The parties' position on the war #2: Conservatives

It's easy to attack the Conservatives on this issue - but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. Michael Howard has decided to use Iraq in an attempt to make trust an election issue:

He said Mr Blair had taken only one stand in the last eight years, over the Iraq war, "and he couldn't even tell the truth about that".

Hmmm, well no one could accuse Michael Howard of making a stand on Iraq; he seems to have made several and it's a bit confusing trying to keep up but these are the key point I think: IDS was leader when Parliament voted on the invasion. IDS supported the government's position, which was entirely predictable given that he had previously raised the question of confronting Saddam Hussein militarily when Afghanistan was being debated on the floor of the Commons.

We have no record of Michael Howard dissenting from this in any way, shape or form but now, with the subsequent post-war difficulties, he has been shamelessly opportunistic in trying to make this an election issue, saying that if he knew "what we know now", he wouldn't have voted for the war.

Ah, the razor-sharp QC's mind at work. Problem is, Michael Howard only knows what he knows now because of the invasion of Iraq.

Since JS Mill, the Tories have forever been dubbed "the stupid party".

There's a reason for that.

And if you were thinking of rewarding Michael - poll tax, prison works, shackling pregnant women, child of immigrants making it difficult for those fleeing Milosevic's persecution to settle in Britain, did you threaten to over-rule him? - Howard with an anti-war vote then you're stupid too.

NB: Questions for Michael Howard - why are you banging on about intelligence and WMD? Did you not understand the regime-change argument? Your predecessor did. Either you didn't, in which case, you are too poorly informed to lead a major political party, never mind the country - or more likely you did, in which case you too aren't being entirely honest with us, are you?