Reply #14: No, the Guardian did not support the Iraq war [View All]

[muriel_volestrangler]

Here, for instance, is their leader on the day after the Commons voted to go to war:

It gave parliament the power to stop the war before it begins. Parliament did not take its chance, alas. But it is clear that, had the vote gone against war, British soldiers would not have gone into battle and Mr Blair would have resigned. He said as much at the end of his speech. In its way, this is as significant a shift in constitutional power as anything since the Glorious Revolution. Having made it, there can hardly be any going back. When and if Britain again stands on the brink of war, it will be parliament that decides. It is hard, even on a day such as this, not to regard that as a kind of consolation prize.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/19/iraq.houseofcommons

Clearly, their editorial line was that the invasion should not have gone ahead (hence the 'alas', and the precedent of the Commons voting on the invasion as a 'consolation prize', because their main hope, to stop the war, had been defeated).

Don't confuse The Guardian's editorial line with that of its sister paper, The Observer, which is published on Sundays. The Guardian's owning trust bought The Observer in 1993. They appear on the same website, but have different editorial staff and journalists, and took a different position on Iraq.