Skip to comments.Clinton leads the revolt against war (PROJECTILE VOMITING ALERT)
Posted on 09/07/2002 2:40:29 PM PDT by MadIvan
Tony Blair and George Bush today face mounting opposition to the war on Iraq from both sides of the Atlantic.
In Britain, a survey of Labour MPs showed almost zero backing for military attacks on Saddam Hussein's regime.
And in the States, former president Bill Clinton led a growing chorus of demands to postpone action until Osama bin Laden, the terrorist godfather thought to be behind the 11 September atrocities, is caught.
In another blow, the head of the intelligence committee in Congress, Bob Graham, also called for war to be postponed until Afghanistan was dealt with.
Mr Blair, who flies to Camp David tomorrow for a war summit with President Bush, came under pressure from Robin Cook, the leading "dove" in the Cabinet who pressed for MPs to be given a Commons vote on the issue.
Number 10 has so far refused to promise a vote and has rejected an early recall of Parliament to debate the crisis.
But Mr Cook said that before the original Gulf War in 1990, Labour and the Conservatives agreed to hold a vote.
"I am sure that this Labour government will be aware of that precedent," he said in an interview with the Financial Times.
Mr Cook, the Leader of the Commons, also demanded that military action be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. "If we are to succeed in curbing Saddam's military ambitions, we have a better chance of success if we have the world with us and Saddam isolated," he said.
The scale of opposition among backbenchers was revealed in a survey of 100 Labour MPs carried out by the BBC. Only four said they thought there were currently sufficient grounds to declare war on Iraq, compared with 88 who did not.
Almost nine in 10 - 86 per cent - said there should be a Commons vote before the Cabinet takes a decision on military action. That was a direct challenge to ministers who have only offered a debate, without a vote, after the Cabinet has made up its mind.
Tensions were also growing in America, where Mr Clinton used a fundraising gala in California to attack President Bush for targeting Saddam Hussein before "finishing the job" in Afghanistan.
"Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on 11 September," declared Mr Clinton. "Osama bin Laden did, and as far as we know he is still alive. Before we give up the effort in Afghanistan we need to finish the job. Bin Laden is still our biggest security threat."
Mr Clinton also warned that a strike against Saddam would strip the Iraqi leader of any incentive to hold off using chemical and biological weapons. He said: "Saddam Hussein is not a good man by our definition. There is no question that he has significant stocks of chemical and biological agents.
"I think we have to assume that if he knows we're coming, he'll do everything he can to use them. He has maximum incentive not to use the stuff. If we go in, he has maximum incentive to use it because he knows he's going to lose. That's a risk and it's an issue the President-has to address." The former president-said America should be trying to "lead the world" not "run the world". And he warned that Saddam was "admired" by many ordinary Arabs.
Labour MPs were furious today that Mr Blair decalred in a television documentary that he was prepared to pay the "blood price" needed to preserve the special relationship with the US.
He insisted that the UK must be there "when the shooting starts" to maintain its most important alliance.
Mr Blair will fly to Russia on Monday for talks with Vladimir Putin, his first piece of shuttle diplomacy on behalf of the fledgling coalition.
Russian backing is vital because Mr Putin has the power to veto any UN resolution as a permanent member of the UN security council.
Jack Straw will today insist it would be "wildly irresponsible" to rule out military action against Saddam. In a speech at Birmingham University, the Foreign Secretary will say: "Until Saddam co-operates fully with UN weapons inspectors, we have no guarantees that a dictator who has previously shown no restraint in using weapons of mass destruction will not use them again."
This was in a British newspaper, mind. So he's not only speaking as if he is speaking for your country (a claim he can't legitimately make), but he's also mouthing off behind your back too.
Nobody said anything about giving up the effort in Afghanistan. It's the old liberal trick of posing a false choice. Food not bombs. Schools not prisons. Moreover Clinton very well knows that OBL may very well be dead, and we have to assume that he is and move onto the next objective. We also must assume that he alive and keep looking for him. The Dems are despertely trying to find any conceivable reason to stall any action on Iraq until after the election.
And I suppose the PERVERT would maintain that Osama had NO aid in this undertaking as well!
Meanwhile there is the little matter of IRAQ BEING SIX MONTHS AWAY FROM HAVING A NUCLEAR WEAPON
.... And OJ finds the real killer.
In other words, let the sons-a-beeitches go, because there will never, ever be a shred of Bin Laden's DNA located......the "Elvis is alive" scenario is going to be dwarfed for another 40 years.
This is a typical Clinton half-truth. It's also true that as far as we know he is dead. The whole truth is that we just don't know.
Personally, I think we need to find Hitler before we go after either Saddam or Bin Laden. We never did find him or his body. And how about Jimmy Hoffa? We haven't found him either.
But...who will tell him?
His wife? His daughter?
Terry McAuliffe? The Democrat party?
Or the warden at Leavenworth...???