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."
The same way he did during Vietnam. I still haven't heard an explanation for Billy Blyth's little excursion to Moscow during the height of the cold war.
I used to think that -- until the fall-out from 9/11. *THAT* is the sinkmaster's legacy.
Great post, btw. :-)
He was in Europe during the first few months of the new presidency and that is where we coincidentally starting hearing reports about how little the Eurosnots thought of GW.
Then we had the orchestrated defection of Jeffords on the "principled" stand that Bush was too responsive to the rightwing of his party (sounds like Clinton and his obessive hatred with the Christian Right).
Until 911 I think that strategy was working towards more open and hostile remarks. Afterwards, he and his strategists in the Democratic Party had to gnash their teeth over the fact that he was too untouchable to criticise.
Clinton seems to have a real problem with Bush. He dismissively called him a "frat boy" during the last election. When that hasn't worked he and his minions have done everything to call into question his integrity and convictions.
He must see this as the only opening the Dems can weasel into to try to put some space between Bush and those high public opinion polls.
This is a gamble that leads me to believe the Dems are orchestrating an attack on Bush to head off a war that could hand Republicans a victory this fall at best and, at the very least, distract from the issues they want to talk about.
It's a calculated risk. I'm not sure that he anticipated Blair giving such unqualified support and if more join in it will make his remarks look very political and crass.
This could get very interesting and Iwonder if Clinton is going to be prepared for the political fallout to himself personally and his party of followers when the country rallies around Bush rather than him.
I'll lay my bet on GW over Clinton anytime.
No argument here.
Brian, to use an American phrase, "knock it off".
Ivan
You were snowed by this insolent bloody rubbish:
[Which insults our intelligence and spins the original post, written in an attempt to create "moral equivilence" [IE: To support our enemies!] between the positions held by more than 90% of UK subjects -- and effectively all of its government -- and Hilly-Billy Bubbafoucco! One of US, no less!]
<< 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. >>
While it is true that the filthy piece of anti-American hatred that leads this tread was carried in a disgusting no-account foreign rag, the treasonous, predatory, lying, looting, mass-murdering serial sexual criminal of whom the EUROtrash are so enamoured was quoted -- in an attempt to show "American support" [EUROnal dwellers still think of Peking's former '"man" in Washington' as an American] for the position held by the more than 90% of United Kingdomers who -- along with their government -- so cravenly cowardly inhabit the Jack Straw Squalid Swamp Of Moral Equivilence -- from a diatribe he delivered in California.
QUOTE:
And in the United States Of AMERICA, Bill Cli'ton 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.
Tensions were also growing in America, where Cli'ton 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 Cli'ton. "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."
Cli'ton 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.
END QUOTE.
FReegards -- Brian
Explain the basis for this opinion. You are really letting fly with the insults today, Brian, and this one in particular simply isn't true.
Polls say 90% of Labour MPs feel that way. Which is a minority constituency at best.
Ivan
Cli'ton 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.
Clinton understands exactly what the real situation is, and he's playing the role of Saddam's shill. He's saying: Don't point the finger at Saddam -- stick to the "loose knit band of wackos" line -- otherwise you have to go after Saddam -- and he'll bring the house down on your head.
Everybody get the picture?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.