IRAQ – THE TWO FACES OF CHARLES KENNEDY

Someone once said "The weak are a long time in politics" and in the case of
Charles Kennedy this sadly seems certain to be the case. The disgraceful
two-faced antics of the Lib/Dem leader over Iraq have plunged the credibility
of his party to new depths. Normally people tend to ignore the Lib/Dems’
extraordinary ability to agree with both sides of an argument at once, in
order not to offend anyone. But over Iraq, this creepy dissembling has become
an outrage and must be exposed. So keen is Kennedy to face in every direction
over Iraq that he has variously portrayed himself as pro war and anti war, a
UN supporter and a UN sceptic, a friend of America and anti-American and pro
sanctions and anti sanctions. He has said the war is illegal and then said it
is legal. He has supported sending troops to the Gulf and then said he didn’t
support sending troops. He agreed Saddam was a threat and then said Saddam
isn’t a threat. And all this from the man who stated on the Iraq issue in an
interview in The Times "It is about establishing clear, principled arguments
and sticking to them. Being opportunistic does not impress people very much."

Back in December last year, Kennedy was quoted on BBC News Online as stating
"We have particular concerns about an attack on Iraq in the absence of clear
proof of an Iraqi link with the events of 11 September." However, the
previous month he had claimed "I think the present resolution (1441) that has
been passed can be interpreted obviously, as giving further cause for
military intervention if here have been material breaches." Indeed, in
September 2002 he told the Press Association that "There should be no ruling
out of an ultimate resort to military action as a last resort if that
necessary compliance is denied or thwarted."

On the question of the UN, Kennedy was quoted in the Lib Dem News in January
as saying "The Liberal Democrats have remained the pro-United Nations party."
However, in his book ‘The Future of Politics’ he states "The UN has not
lived up to the ideals of its founders. Put simply, it does not work. At
present, the UN is simply not equipped to promote global security."

On America, Kennedy told last year’s Lib Dem conference that Britain must
remain a ‘candid friend’ to the US but one that is prepared to offer ‘the
occasional cautionary tap on the shoulder.’ However, his party colleagues
seem to have ignored his advice. Paul Tyler MP, Lib Dem Shadow Leader of the
House said in September last year that "The US President seems to be dragging
us towards World War III…If every regime in the world that he (Bush) does not
like has to be nuked, where will he stop?" Kennedy’s International
Development Secretary Jenny Tonge said in a press release last year "George
Bush fails to understand why the rest of the world resents the power, greed
and isolation which now characterises America."

On the question of sanctions in Iraq, Kennedy was in no doubt of their
validity when he told BBC radio’s ‘Today’ programme on 13 March "I would
strengthen the sanctions regime." However, this was in sharp contrast to the
position stated by Menzies Campbell MP, the Lib Dems Foreign Affairs
Spokesman who said in 2001 the sanctions regime "had no effect on Saddam
Hussein, nor on his programmes of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction."

Arguing that the war in the Gulf is illegal, Kennedy said in a Times
interview on 12 March "If, under whatever procedures, the UN fails to agree a
second resolution, then there is not a legitimate basis for this country to
commit troops to war and we will oppose it." But again, Kennedy failed to
persuade his Front Bench Spokesman Menzies Campbell, who told the House of
Commons last September "legally, no new resolution is required for the use of
force to implement resolution 687."

The sensitive issue of whether or not the Lib Dems should support British
troops left Kennedy in no doubt. "Once the first shot is fired, whether it is
fired by British troops or at British troops, it is the duty of elected
parliamentarians to give support to those troops," he told the Times earlier
this March. Kennedy may have been a tad hasty in offering such resolute
support to our troops, because the records show that on the Today programme
in February he said "It is possible that the Liberal Democrats will not
support a war in which British troops are fighting." Indeed, in a Lib Dem
Campaigning Letter sent to party members in February, he said "We will not
support a war which is launched without a second UN Security Council
resolution authorising such action."

Kennedy was also quite clear that Saddam Hussein was completely harmless. In
a debate in the House on 3 February this year he said action against the
dictator "has to be based on credible evidence, which has not so far been
forthcoming." Once again, Kennedy’s position was in sharp contrast to that of
his own Foreign Affairs Spokesman Menzies Campbell, who told ‘Breakfast with
Frost’ in August last year "It is a valid assumption that he (Saddam) has
continued with the biological and the chemical weapons programmes and I think
it’s also a reasonable assumption that he’s trying for a nuclear capability."

So much for the "clear, principled arguments" which Charles Kennedy promised.
At least he was being completely honest when he concluded that "Being
opportunistic does not impress people very much." Mr Kennedy, we are not
impressed.