"We were told that the war with Iraq was necessary for two reasons. Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons and might one day use them against another nation. And the Iraqi people needed to be liberated from his oppressive regime, which had, among its other crimes, used chemical weapons to kill them. Tony Blair, Colin Powell, William Shawcross, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Ann Clwyd and many others referred, in making their case, to Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. They accused those who opposed the war of caring nothing for the welfare of the Iraqis.Ok, George - the use of white phosphorus is a Bad Thing. In fact it's an utter disgrace. Bit like torture in that respect: the fact that the use of either cannot conceivably be compared either quantitatively or qualitatively to how both were used under Saddam Hussein in no way excuses or minimizes what no person can sanction and still call them civilised.
Given that they care so much, why has none of these hawks spoken out against the use of unconventional weapons by coalition forces?"
Did you assume because we didn't rush to the microphone or our keyboards immediately that we approved in some way?
Check in next week for Monbiot's latest challenge to the prowar left: when did you last beat your wives?