The British Labor Party lost the last election and it is time for its leaders to rehash how they ever wound up in the position of losing to the Conservatives and barely beating the Liberal Democrats. Tony Blair left a few years ago, Gordon Brown left a month ago, and now the race for power is in full swing. It appears those in contention to fill the vacated position of leader of the Labor Party are trying to establish their credential on the issue of– why did we go to war in 2003 against Saddam Hussein. Ed Miliband, who, along with his brother, David, is seeking to become head of Labor, announced why he was against the war, sort of. “As we all know, rthe basis for going to war was the basis of Saddam’s threat in terms of weapons of mass destruction and that is why I felt the weapons inspectors should have been given more time….” He also told the media, “what I am not saying is that the war was undertaken for the wrong motives.”
I gather you ARE saying more time was needed to find out if there were WMD, but you ARE also saying motives for war were correct. If the main motive for war was WMD and they did NOT exist then you should be saying the motives for going to war were WRONG. I believe that is what is termed, LOGIC.