Replies

Abandoning whole swathes of his printed text - the more parochial stuff about petty vandalism, dirty pavements and mattresses abandoned in the street were now not equal to such a historic occasion - Blair stumbled occasionally over the newer lines, but the meaning was clear - there was no going back, however unpopular and frightening the prospect of military action. He ended to another standing ovation and was flying back to London before lunch and the bulk of the protesters arrived.
Blair knows that, after this week, the arguments to be made are much harder. Bush could quite easily, and possibly with little political damage to himself, go ahead with military action against Iraq with a 'coalition of the willing' and no UN endorsement. Blair would find such a move politically dangerous, possibly fatal.
He knows it. Those around him know it: 28 February is now seen as the next deadline, the date of the next Blix report. Either Blix gives America and Britain what they want - a clear statement that Saddam is not complying with Resolution 1441 and is now running out of road - or Blair will find his premiership on the line.
As he said in his speech, many mocked when he said that this was going to be bleakest and toughest year of his premiership. 'You say that every year,' one ministerial colleague had said. It is now clear that the prediction was true.

It does appear to me that President Bush and Tony Blair are exactly right. If since 1991 the U.N. has passed (I believe) 17 resolutions against Iraq and they have yet to comply, they will become a non-entity - 'irrelevant' as Bush says. I don't care if we have ~~United Nations~~ French and German support or not. But for Tony Blair, a war resolution seems necessary. I don't understand why, however, if the last one had a use of force provision in it.

Blair is the US's best advocate across the pond in the War on Terror, imho. Here is my comment and an excerpt (from another article) from the speech they are referencing:

Excellent ! Thanks for the post !
This bears repeating. Not too unlike Churchill's speech of yesteryear?

Tony Blair: The price of my conviction

But there are also consequences of 'stop the war'. There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will remain in being.
I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process. But 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 the cost of conviction.
If there are 500,000 on the [Stop the War] march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.
So if the result of peace is Saddam staying in power, not disarmed, then I tell you there are consequences paid in blood for that decision too. But these victims will never be seen, never feature on our TV screens or inspire millions to take to the streets. But they will exist none the less.