arete's posts
Posted on 02/15/2003 5:58:20 PM PST by MadIvan
Tony Blair warned the estimated one million anti-war protesters in Britain yesterday that they would have blood on their hands if they succeeded in stopping action to depose Saddam Hussein.
As mass marches took place in cities around the world, the Prime Minister used his strongest terms so far to confront the critics of military action, including some in his Cabinet.
He told Labour's Spring conference in Glasgow: "Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is inhumane." There would be "consequences paid in blood" for failing to disarm the Iraqi dictator, he added.
The Telegraph has learned that the Prime Minister avoided a Cabinet split by holding private talks before his speech with Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, to secure her support for putting a "moral case" for toppling Saddam.
A Downing Street official said: "He had lengthy discussions with Clare about the humanitarian aspects of the speech. There is absolutely no problem with Clare."
Mr Blair challenged his party to support his leadership, saying: "I do not seek unpopularity as some badge of honour, but sometimes it is the price of leadership."
Cabinet colleagues said his speech amounted to a "back me or sack me" ultimatum and that it was an unprecedented political gamble by the Prime Minister. Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip, said: "This is something that he's considered carefully. He is aware of the dangers to himself of this."
Mr Blair has also secured the support of other potential Cabinet critics of a war on Iraq, including John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, who will back his stand in a speech to the conference today, and Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary.
One senior minister said: "Everybody is worried, but I don't see anybody in the Cabinet who doesn't understand that the balance of the argument is in backing action if necessary."
David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, said the crisis was "one of the more difficult" in the past 40 years for Labour. In a message to those who had "left the party or who were toying" with quitting, he urged the Labour "family" to "pull together and stick together".
However, Diane Abbott, the Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, gave warning that members were threatening to tear up their cards. "Blair is risking liquidating his own party," she said.
Mr Blair's allies conceded that there could still be a Cabinet split if he failed to win a second resolution at the United Nations Security Council.
Robin Cook, the Leader of the House, is regarded as the most likely to quit the Cabinet if Mr Blair decides to back United States-led military action without a second resolution.
The Prime Minister will try to revive his hopes of avoiding a French veto for a second resolution when he confronts President Jacques Chirac at the European Union emergency summit on Iraq in Brussels tomorrow.
Mr Blair said UN weapons inspectors should be given more time in Iraq, but he remained committed to action "within weeks, not months" if Iraq refused to disarm.
Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, warned Baghdad last night that a new Security Council resolution could be forthcoming.
He said: "I believe that the inspectors should continue their work, but if there is no co-operation then the council will see that the operation has become meaningless and that inspections could end. The ball is again in the Iraqi leadership's court."
While Mr Blair made no reference to a second UN resolution in his speech, Downing Street later insisted that he remained committed to seeking a "final verdict" on Iraqi failure to disarm. "He still has confidence in the UN and he still has confidence in Hans Blix," said an aide.
Another official at Number 10 said Mr Blair was "not exactly upbeat" but that "his moral certitude is as strong as ever on this".
Regards, Ivan
That is soooo juvenile. I would fight tooth and nail to defend my country and constitution but I'm not going to either participate nor support a war to loot Iraq's oil or to provide a distraction from our own poor economy. If this were a just war, the administration wouldn't have to use all the fabricated "evidence" and scare tactics it is now using.
Richard W.
Makes no difference who is in the Oval Office. Blair is there to nod agreement just like he came over to support Bubba during his little personal "crisis". Like I said, Blair is a lackey.
Richard W.
I see, and just posting well-worn leftist catchphrases like "Blair is a houseboy" is a sign of your maturity? Peddle that rubbish somewhere else.
I would fight tooth and nail to defend my country and constitution but I'm not going to either participate nor support a war to loot Iraq's oil or to provide a distraction from our own poor economy.
Leftist talking point again. How can you be so damn sure that Saddam Hussein isn't a threat? Just as a point of information, the Gulf War initially ended with an agreement that Saddam would get rid of his WMD's. Should treaty violations be so easily overlooked?
If this were a just war, the administration wouldn't have to use all the fabricated "evidence" and scare tactics it is now using.
What fabricated evidence? Even the UN inspectors, as incompetent as they are, found warheads for chemical weapons and missiles with a range that exceed the agreed limits.
You will have to do better than come up with the same old crap that appears every day in the Socialist Worker's Daily.
Ivan
arete's posts
Richard W.
You are about as intelligent as a slug with a lobotomy. This totally ignores the history that Blair had of arguing and fighting with Clinton over action in Kosovo - the merits of going into there being a separate issue - but there was genuine disagreement and emnity over that.
And this disagreement covers a whole range of issues - Bush initially was hesitant to the UN - again the merits are dubious - but apparently Blair persuaded Bush to go to the UN.
For you to call him a "houseboy" and "lackey" is simplistic, untrue, and totally ingores the reality of the situation, a reality that you are trying to mould to your socialist, leftist, peacenik viewpoint.
Ivan
I didn't know MadIvan was a government official. Only GOVERMENT can silence free speech. The speech here isn't free. It's a PRIVATE site.
Your posts are largely one sentence equivalents of a fart in church, and about as intelligent. And you dare accuse him of lacking in "thinking"?
Look in the mirror before you make such accusations.
Ivan
Humm -- let's see. N. Korea is building nukes and Iran is about to. Yep, makes perfectly good sense to me that we need to disarm Iraq by going to war. It's about OIL and not about weapons or liberation. GW is desperate for war because of the economy, not any threat from Iraq.
Richard W.
Also, I'm not sure what effect this will have on Conservative Party prospects. If I imagine that Bill Clinton had been a moral, principled, genuinely believing Christian, who stood up to his own party and the "polls", it would have made him a very difficult man to dislike, much less hate. The fact that he was and is none of those things is a major factor in the decline of the democratic party. If it weren't for the damage he caused, we'd almost have to be grateful for his being on the scene.
Blair, it seems, presents some real problems for the conservative movement in Britain. Do you agree?
I see, because the order in which George W. Bush does things offends you personally, that we have to stop action in Iraq. I'm sure President Bush will take it to heart next time and give you a call the next time he's planning anything.
How much is Saddam paying you for peddling this piffle? Whatever it is, it's not enough.
And you have zero proof that George Bush has planned this for the sake of the economy. Of course, saying that economics drives everything is a Marxist point of view, unsurprising you should put it forward.
Ivan
Agreed. If Blair was totally bad, it would be much easier to oppose him. Because he does some conservative things, it's hard to be an "Opposition" all the time.
Regards, Ivan
Marxists and other materialists always think that there is a material-based reason to all actions, and never a values-based reason. Take your drivel back to D.U./Lewser/Pravda-Raimundo/LP/Greens.
Oh yeah, you are so intelligent. Ha Ha. Awfully big talk from someone who says so little without having to resort to juvenile "fart" references. Can you make even one substantiated point? Where is any, and I mean any proof that justifies a war?
Richard W.
"It's about oil, it's about oil, it's about oil" is all he knows.
He is simply parrotting what he reads on the PrudentBear.com and various gold-bug websites.
His children must be very proud of a father who exhibits such cowardice.
I can come up with a simile. Which is more than can be said for you.
Can you make even one substantiated point? Where is any, and I mean any proof that justifies a war?
Read above. Saddam violated the treaty by which the Gulf War ended, possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction and is multiple material breaches of Resolution 1441. Not even the French are denying this. You are, however.
Scott Ritter, is that you?
Ivan
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.