You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
Blair makes case
2003-02-16
Tony Blair laid his political future on the line yesterday as he spelt out the moral case for waging war on Iraq, warning peace marchers that there would be 'consequences paid in blood' for showing weakness now. For the first time he admitted his premiership was in danger if he was unable to ride out the storm, implying that to back down now in the face of the terrorist threat could spell the end of the New Labour project.
I think this is right. His job is in danger, and it makes it that much more remarkable that he's standing firm.
But as hundreds of thousands of peace protesters marched through Britain's cities in opposition to military action against Iraq, the Prime Minister insisted he had a 'moral purpose' equalling theirs, shifting the argument decisively away from the United Nations inspections process towards the humanitarian case for ridding Iraq of a tyrant. The Prime Minister insisted that more time would be given to UN inspections, with Dr Hans Blix, the chief UN inspector, still to report again on progress in Iraq at the end of the month. Whitehall officials said it was likely that the 28 February report would be the 'final deadline'.
We really don't want to delay into mid-March.
Blair's speech to Labour's spring conference in Glasgow was uncompromisingly designed to prepare his party for war - while rebutting public suspicions that Blair himself was too wedded to the idea of military action. 'The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam,' he said. 'It is not the reason we act: that must be according to the UN mandate on weapons of mass destruction. But it is the reason frankly why, if we do have to act, we should do so with a clear conscience.
Tony fuses the morality on removing WMD with the humanitarian morality. Too bad the peaceniks miss both.
'I ask the marchers to understand this: I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And it is the cost of conviction.' Quoting two letters from Iraqi exiles he had been handed that morning, both urging military action against Saddam's regime on humanitarian grounds, and stumbling occasionally as he strayed from his printed text, Blair said that, if the result of peace was Saddam staying in power and retaining weapons of mass destruction, 'then I tell you there are consequences paid in blood for that decision too... These victims will never be seen. They will never feature on our TV screens to inspire millions to take to the streets. But they exist none the less.
Not that the peaceniks care.
'Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is inhumane. That is why I do not shrink from military action, should that indeed be necessary.' Innocents would die in a war, he admitted, but hundreds of Iraqi children were already dying from preventable diseases in what should be a wealthy country.
But they have such lovely presidential palaces!
Blair's defiant tone, however, masks serious fears within Downing Street about the consequences both for his premiership and for New Labour of the course it is set upon. British and American diplomats are still hoping to present possible wordings for a second resolution paving the way for military action against Saddam to the Security Council in the next fortnight.
No possible wording will work, since the French understand that any wording means war. They'll vote 'non' regardless.
Officials said they were well aware that, if a vote were taken now among the key five permanent members, Britain and the US would be defeated. President George Bush, in comments over the weekend, made it clear that Saddam would be disarmed, probably by military force. 'These terrorists have got connections in some cases with countries run by outlaw dictators, and that's the case with Iraq - Saddam Hussein has got ties to terrorist networks,' Bush said. 'Saddam Hussein is a danger and that is why he will be disarmed.' Government officials are also braced for a rocky ride at a meeting of European Union heads of state in Brussels tomorrow. It is expected that the meeting will again reveal the deep divisions in Europe over Iraq.
Eagles versus Weasels, round two.
The Prime Minister has told aides that he is entering the most dangerous period of his leadership. He said he had been influenced by arguments that war, law and order and immigration - issues now dominating the political agenda - were natural territory for the Right, which historically benefits in what he yesterday called 'uncertain times' of national insecurity. Officials said the nightmare scenario was that, if Blair and Bush failed to gain a second UN resolution, the US would simply go to war without it, dragging Blair behind him into a conflict with no popular support.
That's the biggest danger for us. We will go to war, but if Tony falls it could set off a chain reaction with some of our allies, and that would be bad. We'd always have Kuwait and Qatar, but we might lose Turkey, Spain, Italy, etc.
Abandoning the last three pages of his prepared text at the Glasgow conference for an impassioned defence of the New Labour project, the Prime Minister - referring repeatedly to the need for 'the courage to do the difficult thing' - made clear the stakes could not be higher. 'This is the time for progressive politics to come of age. This is the testing time, the difficult, the tough time, but if you come through it the prize is not just a Government able to carry on, it's far more important than that,' he claimed. 'It is a signal that we have changed politics for good.'
It's a signal that a Left government can defend Britain's national interest. I don't think that's ever happened...
In a number of concessions to his critics, the Prime Minister did row back on previous discredited attempts to claim a concrete link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, insisting instead that rogue states and terrorism were the 'twins of chaos' connected only loosely by a desire to destabilise the West. Insisting he respected the marchers' 'entirely understandable hatred of war', Blair said that he had 'hated' each time he had sent British troops into conflict, in Kosovo and Afghanistan. But avoiding action now would allow the menace to 'feed and grow on our weakness', he said, drawing parallels with the League of Nations' failure in the 1930s to act on the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, a move which paved the way towards the Second World War.
The problem there is that in 1938, Churchill was waiting in the wings to take over from Chamberlain. Today we've got the closest thing Britain has to a Churchill, with dozens of little Nevilles trying to gnaw him down to their own size.
Blair argued that, if demands for more time became an excuse for prevarication, 'the conflict when it comes will be more bloody' and the UN, like the League before it, would have lost its authority. He called on the 'Labour family' to unite. Although the Prime Minister received his traditional standing ovation, some delegates remained resolutely seated - and a handful held up posters proclaiming 'No Blood For Oil' in protest against the war. However, the threatened walkouts did not materialise.
These would be the 'red' Laborites.
The Chief Whip, Hilary Armstrong, admitted afterwards that the Prime Minister was aware that the survival of his leadership if the war goes wrong was being openly discussed in the press. 'He is not immune to what is written every day,' she said. 'He knows that leadership which is real leadership is doing what is right, not expedient.'
That's was the difference between Churchill and Chamberlain, too...
Earlier, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, delivered an impassioned plea for unity, appealing to party members 'who are so exercised now, and those who have toyed with or have left the party', in a frank admission that Labour activists are deserting because of the threat of military action. He said it was 'unsurprising' that so many protesters were marching, adding: 'We understand why you are marching, we understand how you feel. We do not want war. We are against taking action unnecessarily, we are in favour of the UN. But we ask them to respect not only that we feel and understand and empathise with what they are saying, but that we want to see a just and proper solution that reinforces the role of the UN rather than destroying it.'
When the UN goes under, then its resolutions don't count, do they?
Many delegates said they had been reassured. But some MPs admitted doubts - particularly over whether invading Iraq was really the proper answer to terrorism.
And that depends on whether you're going after the symptoms or the cause of the disease.
Blair quoted extracts from an email received from a 19-year-old Cambridge University student, Rania Kashi, whose parents fled from Iraq 23 years ago, which was handed later to the delegates. Describing the anti-war movement as 'misjudged and misplaced', she argued that distrust of the West should not blind people to 'the bigger truths about Iraq'.
Hang in there, Tony.
Posted by:Steve White

#9  Hey, Grouchy: Ronald Reagan accepted the deaths of several hundred U.S. Marines in Lebanon with only a few missiles launched at Gaddafy. This was many years before Clinton.

We turned tail and ran.
Posted by: Meryl Yourish   2003-02-16 23:39:57  

#8  I think I may haved coined that, but was surely influenced by: "Nancy Pelosi, D-LaLaLand" that was on several sites, like National Review, et al...
Posted by: Frank G   2003-02-16 19:18:24  

#7  Hey! Peace protesters! Yes, you. If only you knew how much this man Muhammad hates you!
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-02-16 17:15:27  

#6  Clinton? Leadership? Sumpin' doesn't compute here. Who set the stage for 9/11 with all the empty threats after the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole? Who botched N. Korea (with the aid of Jimmy Carter)? Who turned down the offer of bin Laden by the Sudan. Leadership? I don't think so.
Posted by: Denny   2003-02-16 17:11:50  

#5  Churchill, Thatcher, Blair; Britain seems to get the leadership they don't deserve.

Reagan, Clinton, Bush; America gets leadership they don't expect.

(Pearson, Trudeau, Chretien: Oh Canada doesn't have leaders, just part of the Axis of Sheep)
Posted by: john   2003-02-16 14:18:04  

#4  Hang in there, Tony. If worse comes to worse, you can always move over here and run against some D-Moron. [Thanks Frank G. If you coined "D-Moron", you coined one that will catch on.]
Posted by: Tom   2003-02-16 12:10:47  

#3  slightly OT: Iraq War must be close - Wolf Blitzer/C(apitulation)NN have new snappy SHOWDOWN IRAQ graphics and new martial-theme music. On FoxNews Sunday - they exposed Sen. Carl Levin, D-Moron, for lying repeatedly last Sunday saying Colin Powell's been advocating sanctions (undermining the Bush I and II proposals) since 1990. Powell personally refuted that, Levin wouldn't return repeated calls. Typical
Posted by: Frank G   2003-02-16 11:09:47  

#2  "Mr. Blix, I have three questions:
1- Was the Iraqi declaration full, complete and accurate, yes or no?
2- Have you found Iraqi violations of Security Council resolutions, yes or no?
3- Have you received full and complete cooperation from Iraq, yes or no?"
Posted by: Dishman   2003-02-16 05:58:27  

#1  The non-Muslim demonstrators need to know how much Muslims hate the West:

http://islamic-world.net/papers/jihad.htm
Posted by: Anon   2003-02-16 01:23:45  

00:00