The key question is whether the Prime Minister has a case to answer.
Dan Plesch and Glen Rangwala document 28 instances where the Prime Minister’s public statements are apparently at variance with the information that he had then received from the intelligence services.
I offer just one example of the mass of evidence which can now be deployed.
On 17 September 2002 the Prime Minister’s own Chief of Staff - Jonathan Powell - wrote in an e-mail that the government "will need to make it clear that we do not claim that we have evidence that he
is an imminent threat". And yet when he presented that very case to the House of Commons one week later, Tony Blair claimed "the threat is serious and current". Perhaps the Prime Minister can explain these and the other 27 discrepancies. However, there is a case to answer.
No self-respecting parliament can accept a position where its decisions are reached on the basis of misinformation. All standard parliamentary procedures for holding the government to account have been exhausted and found wanting. It is into this vacuum that impeachment comes back as the final protection of Parliament, and thus democracy itself.
There is no more important issue than the question of peace or war. There is no more important bulwark of democracy than the ability of the legislature to hold the executive to account. In reviving the process of impeachment, 23 MPs from across the political spectrum have planted our flag in the ground. We shall see now how many others rally to that standard.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1354242004