But given the number of celebrity endorsements they seem to be getting, along with this sort of crap, it's necessary to give Chick and his team another couple of well-placed kicks to the genital area - metaphorically speaking.
For one thing, even if it could be accepted that the Liberals' UN-legalism counts as a principle (which it can't) - how in the name of god are they allowed to get away with the sanctimonious claptrap they were spouting during the most obviously disastrous phases of the post-war occupation (Abu Ghraib, Fallujah)? They said they opposed the war in principle: will someone please tell Charlie Kennedy and Menzies Campbell what that means? I.e. not on the basis of how they thought it was going to turn out - because that was and is irrelevant to the question of its legality.
If we were to take the Lib Dems at their word (always a mistake but go with it for the sake of argument), they would have supported the invasion if it received UN-backing. I'm wondering if that's why they tried to use the failings of the occupation; they think UN-cover would have resolved all the post-war difficulties? Yeah, because after a dozen years of sanctions, the UN was real popular in Iraq: anyone in the Lib Dems notice a slight explosion in the UN headquarters?
Libs: heard of a place called Afghanistan? You supported - as did I - the toppling of the Taliban regime after 9/11. Did the presence of blue berets make any opposition to the subsequent occupation melt away? Has the postwar occupation there been free from incident or blemish? It certainly has not so why haven't you used those incidents as a stick with which to beat Blair Iraq-style? Oh, that's right - keep forgetting: you supported that, not least because it was sanctioned by the hallowed UN.
And when you're out canvassing, wooing the Muslim vote with your "principled opposition" to the Iraq war - will you be reminding them about Afghanistan?
Didn't think so.