Results 1-20 of 26 for iraq speaker:Robert Marshall-Andrews

Opposition Day — [14th allotted day]: Iraq Inquiry (24 Jun 2009) has video

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Many art forms thrive as a result of warfare, but none more, as a result of the Iraq war, than the art of sophistry. The ancient art of the sophist took apparently wise and irrefutable statements which, when they are carefully examined in the context in which they are made, turn out to be utterly without reason. There was no better example of that than the words that fell from the Prime...

Opposition Day — [8th Allotted Day]: Iraq Inquiry (25 Mar 2008) has video

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I did indeed say that I wanted an inquiry to reveal who was responsible for what has happened in Iraq, and the disasters that have followed. If, as part of that, the inquiry reveals the previous Prime Minister to be a scoundrel in what he said in the House, what is wrong with that?

Opposition Day — [8th Allotted Day]: Iraq Inquiry (25 Mar 2008) has video

Robert Marshall-Andrews: ...of victory. What is victory in this war? We had a victory four years ago, and it is a gloomy symbiosis that the fourth anniversary of that victory marked the death of the 4,000th US serviceman in Iraq. He will not be the last; and nor will our next casualty be our last. What is the victory that we seek? Is it the stable, secure state that is spoken of by the Prime Minister? What is a...

Opposition Day — [8th Allotted Day]: Iraq Inquiry (25 Mar 2008) has video

Robert Marshall-Andrews: ...has been removed. Let us have no more of this, particularly those of us who spent many years campaigning against Saddam Hussein. We do not want to hear any more the idea that the distress to the Iraqi people and the 600,000 of them who have died is blood that was worth paying for an illegal occupation in 2003. It was possibly the diversion into Ireland that prevented any serious...

Opposition Day — [8th Allotted Day]: Iraq Inquiry (25 Mar 2008) has video

Robert Marshall-Andrews: ..., all our other achievements and deficiencies—and there have been many of both—pale into insignificance. The circumstances and repercussions of what we did then have swept well past Iraq. As Tacitus noted, one victory can create a thousand enemies, and that is precisely what happened. I shall dwell briefly on the second matter, which is the written advice given by the...

Orders of the Day: Home Affairs and Justice (7 Nov 2007)

Robert Marshall-Andrews: .... I accept that we are in a position of considerable risk, which has inevitably been increased by our foreign policy during the past seven years. The risk was increased by our decision to invade Iraq, but that does not mean that it has any bearing on whether it was right or wrong to invade; if I had believed that the invasion of Iraq was legal and necessary, I would have voted for it,...

Opposition Day — [14th Allotted Day]: Iraq Inquiry (11 Jun 2007)

Robert Marshall-Andrews: .... The Government's reasons for opposing the motion are untenable. To deal with them individually and briefly, of course we must not damage or undermine the integrity of the elected Government of Iraq; but far more important than that, we must not damage or undermine the integrity of the elected Government of the United Kingdom. One great success of Iraq was the millions who voted in their...

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: Engagements (1 Feb 2006)

Robert Marshall-Andrews: An unsolicited testimonial. The tragedies in Iraq and the recent book by Professor Sands again raise issues about the legitimacy and legality of the war. Will the Prime Minister therefore take this opportunity to cast definitive light on one matter that remains obscure? Before the war, was the Cabinet made aware of the existence—not the content—of the Attorney-General's original...

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism Bill (23 Feb 2005)

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews: ...nature of the power that the Government are attempting to achieve. Secondly, much adulation has been heaped on our security services and I am certain that some of it is deserved. However, the Iraq war is fresh in our minds, along with the duplicity, lies, twisting and distortion of the security services' manifesto. We all know what happened: the information that the security services gave...

Iraq (31 Jan 2005)

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that many who actively campaigned against Saddam Hussein years before he invaded Kuwait and also opposed the invasion of Iraq because they believed that the prospectus was false can none the less acknowledge success with the generosity of spirit that it deserves? Does he also accept that many questions remain unanswered and many concerns have not yet been...

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: Engagements (17 Nov 2004)

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews: The Prime Minister will be aware that in July 2003 the intelligence services withdrew reports on Iraq's weapons as wholly discredited. Will he undertake to let the House know the information that he has consistently refused to give in writing, namely the exact date—not the period, but the date—on which he was aware of that withdrawal?

Written Answers — Prime Minister: Butler Report (11 Oct 2004)

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) of 21 July 2004, Official Report, column 285W, on Iraq, on what date and at which stage during the Butler Report he was informed of the withdrawal of the Iraq Intelligence Reports to which paragraph 405 of Lord Butler's Report refers.

Written Answers — Prime Minister: Iraq (7 Sep 2004)

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews: To ask the Prime Minister on what date he was informed of the withdrawal of the Iraq intelligence reports to which paragraph 405 of Lord Butler's report refers.

Iraq (17 May 2004)

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews: ...—that there were no weapons of mass destruction. That did not require the gift of prophecy; there was no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction. We foresaw that thousands of Iraqis would die and that hundreds of British and American troops would die with them. That, too, was not difficult. We foresaw, and warned, that there would be no proper planning for an evacuation...

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: Engagements (3 Mar 2004)

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews: I plead guilty. The Attorney-General has provided three written replies to the effect that he did not rely on any facts in Government dossiers when reaching his opinion that Iraq had failed to disarm. In those circumstances, what factual material was he given by the Government from which he could draw that conclusion?

Written Answers — Solicitor-General: Iraq (4 Nov 2003)

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews: To ask the Solicitor-General whether, in concluding that Iraq had failed to comply with UN Resolution 1441, the Attorney-General relied upon facts and assertions contained in Cm 5769 as material to his conclusion and to the opinion he gave as to the authority to use force; and which such facts and assertions were so relied upon.

Written Answers — Solicitor-General: Iraq (20 Oct 2003)

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews: To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) of 17 March 2003, Official Report, column 515W, on Iraq, to what extent, in concluding that it was plain that Iraq had failed to comply with Resolution 1441, the Attorney-General relied upon facts and assertions contained in the Government dossier published in January as material to his conclusion and...

Written Answers — Solicitor-General: Iraq (20 Oct 2003)

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews: To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) of 17 March 2003, Official Report, column 515W, on Iraq, whether, in concluding that it was plain that Iraq had failed to comply with Resolution 1441, the Attorney-General relied upon the facts and assertions contained in Chapter 3 paragraphs (a) two to five, (b) six to seven, (c) eight to 11, (d) 12...

Iraq (15 Jul 2003)

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews: Whatever the constituent parts of the assembly, total power in Iraq is still in the hands of the United States. The American people have been warned that this is something that may continue for years. Will we remain for as long as the American Administration considers it necessary, or is it possible that we will leave of our own accord?

Tariq Aziz (4 Jun 2003)

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews: ...grist of what I am going to say, I am pleased to see that the Minister is in his place to hear it. The wider question pertains to the legality of actions taken by the coalition in the invasion of Iraq. We had a debate in the House and views were widely aired on both sides. I have never made any secret of my view that the invasion of Iraq was based on very doubtful legality. Whether that...