[Media-watch] The pro-war commentators: what do they say now? - Independent - 9/04/2004

[Julie-ann Davies]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=509886

The pro-war commentators: what do they say now?

09 April 2004



Stephen Glover, 'Daily Mail' columnist

What he said then: "The fall of Baghdad, and the ousting of Saddam Hussein,
mark a spectacular victory for American and British forces. This may be a
turning point of history. Tony Blair ... deserves particular praise since he
took Britain to war in defiance of what was probably a majority of his
backbenchers." Daily Mail, 11 April 2003

What he said recently: "Is it not clear that things are going from bad to
worse in Iraq? It is as though America and Britain have created their very
own Palestine in the Middle East." Daily Mail, 6 April 2004

What he says now: "I was extremely sceptical about the war for the six
months before the invasion. Because of the involvement of British troops, I
gave it a slightly grudging acceptance. I would like to see an end to
British involvement but I can't see how we can honourably get out now. We
have got to make the best of a bad job."



David Aaronovitch, 'Guardian' and 'Observer' columnist

What he said then: "If, in a few weeks, the Security Council agrees to wage
war against Saddam, I shall support it. If there is no resolution but the
invasion goes ahead, I will not oppose it. I can't demonstrate against the
liberation, however risky, of the Iraqi people." 2 February, 2002

What he said recently: "Now, nearly a year after the beginning of the
coalition invasion of Iraq, something is beginning to be created, and it
doesn't look like anything that anybody quite anticipated. It is more
complex, more difficult, more beset by difficulties and tragedies than
anyone who supported the invasion ever allowed for before the war." February
2004

What he says today: "It would be stupid to say things have gone as I had
hoped. But getting rid of Saddam was the only chance that the Iraqi people
had and the next few weeks will show whether it's a chance they are able to
take."



Anne McElvoy, London 'Evening Standard' columnist

What she said then:"The Iraqi people will be heartily relieved to be rid of
him. The brave but misguided protesters can only get in the way. If they
want to do their humanitarian duty, they could try staying at home." 22 Jan
2003

What she said recently: "Iraq is a country in which a US-led coalition has
won a military victory against a dictator and is now attempting to create
the rudimentary conditions for democratic elections, whether as a unified
country, or a divided one. The worry for all supporters of the war like me
is not that America will get 'bogged down', but that it will not finish what
it started." 7 April 2004

What she says now: "Places that are hell on earth one day do not become
heaven on earth tomorrow. Being an interventionist means sticking with the
hard slog afterwards. I don't deny the situation is very serious. I do
object to the view that it was fine to allow Saddam to continue in power
because that was somehow easier for us."



Rebekah Wade, editor of 'The Sun'

What she said then "Unlike the display of arrogance and greed put on by
President Chirac, Blair has acted throughout with the highest moral
principles. A swift and successful war which proves to the world just what a
deadly menace Saddam has been for years will cement Blair's place in
history." Sun editorial, 13 March 2003

What she said recently: "A year ago today, life began to change for the
better in Iraq. Don't just take our word for it. A poll this week shows that
70 per cent of Iraqis say life has improved with Saddam off their backs. The
war on Saddam's evil regime was right - and it was worth it, no matter what
the Dismal Jimmies may whine ... As billions in American and British aid
pours in, Iraq has electricity, running water, goods in the shops, cars
instead of donkeys - and hope for the first time." Sun editorial, 19 March
2004

What she says now: "No comment."



Tony Parsons, 'Daily Mirror' columnist

What he said then: "Being against this war when British soldiers are
fighting and dying seems cheap, grubby and inappropriate. The
self-congratulatory banners of the peace marchers ... seem pitifully
inadequate ... [amid] the realities of combat." 24 March 2003

What he said recently: "If Tony Blair can make nice with Colonel Gaddafi,
then why couldn't he have made nice with Saddam Hussein? He goes to war
against a nation that poses us no danger, and then kisses the ring of the
proxy murderer of a 25-year-old British policewoman." 29 February 2004

What he says now: "The whole sorry mess looks like a bloody disaster.
Leaders like Bush and Blair make me sick: never heard a shot fired in anger
in their lives, wouldn't dream of packing off their own children to fight
and die, yet trigger-happy gunslingers when it comes to somebody else's son.
History will record [Blair] is a liar."



Johann Hari, 'Independent' columnist

What he said then: "Those who still deny all this evidence will know soon
enough, once the war is over, what the Iraqi people thought all along. When
it emerges ... that they wanted this war, will the anti-war movement recant?
26 March 2003

What he said recently: "The only time British newspaper readers hear about
Iraq or Afghanistan is when there is a suicide-bomb ... Most experts believe
that Iraqi elections will happen this year, and the grotesque, racist idea
that Iraqis cannot be democrats because they are primitive tribal people has
already been proved wrong." 20 Feb 2004

What he says now: "Before the war I rejected all the WMD arguments. I said
that they were rubbish. They were. But I also said that the best evidence we
had was that the majority of Iraqis could see no other way to overthrow
Saddam and therefore wanted war to proceed. All the opinion polls have shown
a clear majority of Iraqis wanted the invasion to proceed."