I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
He looks like a muppet, but I'd vote for him.
Next up - Tony Blair gives the impassioned "He gassed his own people!" speech.
I havent been following Britain. Are they getting the same "it was justfied b/c he was bad" line (and the implicit assertion that nothing else matters)? Also, how much are they kicking in?
THe funny thing is that I think the fact that hurts Bush most of all is the 87 billion. It's an easy fact (like a BJ) for the public to be outraged by.
He already did that one on Wednesday, iago. His batteries take a while to recharge.
And one thing we know. Not from intelligence. But from historical fact. That Saddam's regime has not just developed but used such weapons gassing thousands of his own people. And has lied about it consistently, concealing it for years even under the noses of the UN Inspectors.
Labour conference 'like Nuremberg'
Robin Cook is one the few Labour MPs still prepared to stand up to Blair. And about the only one too well thought of to be smeared or ridiculed. More power to him!
I think Blair is toast with this. There was already a lot of hostility to him at the Labor meeting this week. This just proves that Blair did what he said he would resign over if he had done it--lied about Iraq.
I only hope this gets some play over here (so far I don't see any), so we can skewer our chief executive for lying at the same time.
Yikes. Would I be mixing too many metaphors if I said "While jumping the shark, the poodle seems to have dropped the pooch"?
I hear the "Bliar -Ready to wear in lrss than 45mins" T-shirt is very popular in the UK right now.
a
eerk- lrss = less ^^
Let's get real: Any single Labor MP who stands behind Blair, supports him, doesn't call for his immediate resignation, is just a friggin traitor to the left, to the Labor party, and to UK. None of these guys deserve to hold any public office ever again, except perhaps overviewer of public toilets.
Of course, the same goes for the US Dems.
If the Labour expels Galloway, then the Labour Party is dead, deserves to die, and should from then on be considered a right-wing party, an Enemy, and nothing else. After all, there are plenty of other parties in UK that might take its place, Lib-Dem, Greens and some other minor leftist parties that could well make a powerful coalition if they really wanted to.
Labour, not Labor. If it weren't for the you in Labour, there wouldn't be anyone to screw.
I've been a Blair supporter since day one, and a loyal Guardian reader to prove it.
I disagreed with his Bush-embracing stance on the war, but he's so good at articulating his reasons that I had to assume that he knew something I didn't.
Turns out I was wrong. Even if this latest accusation isn't true, there's a clear pattern of Bush-like obfuscation.
Blair has to go.
That's what's great about British Politics, parties come and go because they have more than two. If we loose the Dems there's no one to fill the void. Which of course is the Neocon Reps plan: to buy the ones who can be baught (I'm looking at you, Lieberman), kneecap them (everyone but Dean) or otherwise beat them into submission while they become Uber Fascists. Our choices are spineless wafflers or the PNAC spawn.
What I wouldn't give for a viable third party in this country. Maybe the Green, if they can untangle themselves from the trees long enough to put together a coherent agenda, or a revived Bull Moose platform would be nice. Heck, I'd settle for some 18th century Torries at this point, they're more progressive!
US has a primary process which allows for input from the bottom. At this moment, sending money to Dean definitely has some shaking-up effect. I like Dean, but his person is secondary. Carol Mossley-Brown would do if she had a better campaign and she somehow convinced folks to send her 25 million in small checks and charges. Ditto Kucinich etc.
And even if Dean will not prevail, he changed the positions of candidates that wish to be viable (meaning, other than Lieberman).
So what about the Greens? Suppose that you have 2 million of Green voters who become grass-root activist, volunteer with their time and contribute on average 50 bucks to campaigns of the candidates that they like. The impact would shake Democratic party to the core. As it happen with religious right and GOP.
what? maybe isn't good enough for the Brits?
Actually we're not quite so multiple party as folks sometimes think. Only the Conservatives and Labour have been in government since 1922. Nevertheless, our third party, the Liberal Democrats (the successors of the Liberals, or Whigs) that reliably pulls in at least enough MPs to field a cricket team or three. The Libs haven't had a Prime Minister since David Lloyd George lost to Andrew Bonar Law in 1922. After that, Labour came along and itself did an excellent job of becoming the 2nd party.
The Libs and the other parties do well in local elections though, and hold plenty of councils.
We're at an interesting point in UK politics, because for the first time its looking like the Tories might actually be sinking down to 3rd place, and the Libs have been dragging themselves up, inch by inch. Even so, we've seen that before, and could just as easily fall apart again.
All to play for.
Ah, he're we are. This is our makeup at Westminster right at the moment. As you can see, small parties at least get a look in.
Labour 411*
Conservative 164*
Liberal Democrat 52
Scottish National Party (SNP) 5
Plaid Cymru (Welsh Nationalist) 4
Ulster Unionist Party 6
SDLP (Social Democratic and Labour Party) 3
Democratic Unionist Party 5
Sinn Fein 4**
Independent (Richard Taylor) 1
Speaker and Deputies 4* These chaps are nominated from within the already elected MPs, and then lose their votes, but gain some other powers.
the Greens are very well organized in fact and probably part of the reason that Dean and others can be more staunch today. That said, our political system in the US is less friendly to third parties. We lack any kind of proportional rule or runoff voting. its sad really.
Jeebus, for a minute, I thought that one of the parties with a seat at Westminster was called Plaid Cthulu! Talk about small parties. Then I read it a bit closer, the small type font on my screen is sometimes a problem.
Do the Whigs have a website ?
Did Jim McMahon arrange this 'row'?
"I say he does have them...in pieces!"
"I say he does have them...assembled!"
Sane people ask:
WHERE?
Where are the pieces or the assembled weapons?!
Nice new frame on a frame-up.
Sure do jp:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/
And Lol innerlooper. Cymru is welsh for Wales. But a Cthulhu party would be fun.
Arkenor..
A poster here once proposed regarding the Judge-Moore-in-Alabama-affair that there should be a monument to Cthulu in the same courtroom, and I am definitely thinking now it should be in plaid.
The word cymru makes me wonder if Cumberland was once a place where Welsh people also lived.
So, let's see....
Saddam is really, really, really bad because he gassed Iraqis back in the 80's. So he had to go.
But the British gassed Iraqis back in the 20's, and that's okay?
A decade here, a decade there, but who's counting?
Well, many moons ago, before the mean old Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Romans, and Normans marched in (not all at once), this happy isle was home to the celtic people. I have no idea whether there is a link between Cymru and Cumberland (one of the northernmost counties of old England, sitting along the Scottish border and straddling the Cumbrian Mountains in the south.), probably not, but the original folks of both areas were certainly related by language and culture.
But the British gassed Iraqis back in the 20's, and that's okay?
Well it could be argued that all the Brits who did that are very dead, and Saddam wasn't. Not that thats an excuse regarding the guilt that lies upon Britain's shoulders. We've done a whole load of bad things. But then, if we want to go blaming countries for the actions of their ancestors, then theres two centuries of back-taxes we need to discuss...
Suffice it to say, I don't think the sins of the father should be visited upon their children. Accept, admit, remember, and move on.
If Robin Cook had any principles, he would have revealed this information long before he was ready to publish it in a book.
I think my post at Sideshow gives a possible reason Blair was so insistent on this war:
http://
www.sideshow.connectfree....blairtheory.htm
Oops. Thats what I getting for rushing a rebuttle off without pausing to close tags.
Clare Short blew her credibility but Cook's word still means a lot in the UK. This is a big deal.
Cwm (in Welsh) or combe (in English) means valley. It's an old Celtic word, and crops up here and there. Cymru is the land of valleys, I'm pretty sure.
Actually, the article says *Cook* told *Blair*, not the other way around. Then he mentioned Saddam's regular ground forces, and Tony said they were too concealed to be useful. But sounds like Blair never said anything of the sort, Cook made two comments, and Blair brushed off the first.
I wish you Anglos could get your Hun agenda straight and stop boring and irritating us Gallic people, who only want to fuck, drink, eat, and have fun....pursuit of happiness, anyone?
Another from The Independent...
Hmm, didn't take.
Blair 'not welcome' at war service
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk...sp?
story=450117
"I think he's a war criminal, it's as simple as that. The man, without any consideration to the Labour parliamentary party, elected to go to war with this scabby little friend in Texas [President Bush], and killed 51 of our men unnecessarily," he said. "If I have a chance to meet him on Friday, I will tell him to his face."
This is the one thing I really can't explain. It is easy to explain why Bush and his cronies wanted the war: oil, political benefits, finish what his father started, etc. But I can't figure out what Tony Blair's ulterior motive was in supporting the war...he risked his political career to support it. I still don't understand what was in it for him, and that is the only thing I can't explain when I try to show that this war was primarily for political purposes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/
vide...4_andrew_vi.ram
A short BBC video story on Cook's allegations.
Wow. Read this comment by "Hunter Betts" at The Command Post (13th comment under this post). Sample: "Nobody can travel to Iraq and not see for themselves the absolute almost ecstatic joy with which they go about their daily tasks."
Here's the whole thing:
I came across this site by accident but sort of glad I did. I just returned from Baghdad 4 days ago. I was there evaluating regional airport reconstruction with the aim of getting internal light commuter air service to these smaller communites.
I was there 9 weeks. The reason I feel compelled to comment here is because I can see there is some confusion on behalf of some of the commentators. I will try to be brief.
During my 9 weeks in Iraq I must have had 100 conversations with the average Iraqi. These conversations were instigated about 90% of the time by an Iraqi, not I. In every single case, I mean every single case, the Iraqi I was talking to thanked me profusely for our(the Coalition of the willing) being there. It got a little embarrassing at times. Because I did nothing myself to bring this about. Now, the next thing I noticed is that they almost always cornered me away from the earshot of others to talk to me. When I finally asked why they were being so private I was repeatedly told that they still do not know who they can trust. That there is still thousands of Bathists and foreign mercenaries around who might harm him or his family if they heard what he or she said.
Nobody can travel to Iraq and not see for themselves the absolute almost ecstatic joy with which they go about their daily tasks. This new found freedom scares them as well as confuses them. They are almost like children who have been let out of a cellar after years of being in the dark.
WMD? who cares! The Americans and their coalition partners have done something much more significant by this invasion. Anyone who tells you different is either lying or has not been there to see for themselves.
Now, all that having been said does not bely the fact that being in such close proximity to the center of the Middle East, it is attracting like bees to honey every exteremist muslim who are even as I write this in transit to Iraq with the sole purpose of killing a US soldier. Therefore, the sooner we can get their Self Defence Force up and running the fewer brave soldiers will die.
Lastly, I notice we may have a French National on-board this meeting of the minds.'
To him or her I would like to say this.
Of all the countires in the world who have recent experience of living under a Tyrant it is almost unbeliveable that your position on this matter has been what it has been.
You may have a thousand reasons for not liking America but can you tell us all here what you have against freeing the Iraqi people?
Please feel free to visit our company
[continued from above]
Please feel free to visit our company web site at www.hunteraviation.com. You may find our activities interesting. Thanks for the opportunity to get this off my chest.
Regards Hunter Betts
Posted by: Hunter Betts at October 4, 2003 11:20 PM
* * *
Wow. Thanks, Hunter Betts.
All of us back here in the U.S. thank you for your work in building a democratic Iraq, too. Hunter Aviation deserves a special bookmark in the blogosphere - and in the mainstream media. But I won't hold my breath for that last one.
Okay, let's read slowly and together shall we?
Mr Cook told Mr Blair he doubted Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could strike strategic cities, but he might have battlefield weapons which could be used against British and US troops. "[Blair replied]: 'Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use.' "
Those remarks appeared to contradict directly the assertion in the September Iraq dossier that Saddam could make his WMD ready for use in 45 minutes...
Mr Cook continues: "There were two distinct elements to this exchange that sent me away deeply troubled. The first was that the timetable to war was plainly not driven by the progress of the UN weapons inspections. Tony made no attempt to pretend that what Hans Blix [the chief UN weapons inspector] might report would make any difference to the countdown to invasion.
"The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances." (emphasis mine)
Clear enough?
Wow. Read this comment --
Brownshirts retyping Unka Karl's boilerroom script always make me sleepy...
ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
the fact that being in such close proximity to the center of the Middle East
With all due respect to this person's powers of observation and recollection...
eejit.
I think I've read Noam Chomsky speculating that Thatcher, Major, and Blair have all taken on a strategy of being US junior partner--that is, if the UK is no longer the world power that it once was, it's better to be with the big guy than it is to be against him. Ideally, this junior/senior "partnership" allows the Brits to impose some kind of moderating influence over some of the more extreme US positions.
Unfortunately for Blair it doesn't really seem to have worked out that way. Neo-con radicalism has forced him to adhere to some really wacked out views. That is, I'm not very surprised about Cook's statements: I don't think that Blair ever really believed any of the bullshit that he and Bush were selling during the lead up to the war, but he was already locked into this junior partner approach and seemingly had no choice.
From that point of view it's kind of hard not to feel a bit sorry for him--he's smart enough to see that he's already screwed up big time. Bush, on the other hand, is so stupid that he probably hasn't figured it out yet.
And here's an appropriate song lyric from an appropriately British band:
Puppy dog leader sooner or later
We'll dig up your cellar and try you for murder
from Chumbawamba's "Jacob's Ladder"
Since we were told that the chem suits were no good or not enough to go around, this makes sense. Seems the Generals would have been a bit vocal if they actually thought there was a chance that the troops would get hit with chem weapons.
Sunday Times breaking the news this morning:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/art...-
842665,00.html
Blair 'knew Iraq had no WMD'
David Cracknell, Political Editor
TONY BLAIR privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, reveals today.
John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC), also "assented" that Saddam had no such weapons, says Cook.
His revelations, taken from a diary that he kept as a senior minister during the months leading up to war, are published today in The Sunday Times. They shatter the case for war put forward by the government that Iraq presented "a real and present danger" to Britain.
Cook, who resigned shortly before the invasion of Iraq, also reveals there was a near mutiny in the cabinet, triggered by David Blunkett, the home secretary, when it first discussed military action against Iraq.
The prime minister ignored the "large number of ministers who spoke up against the war", according to Cook. He also "deliberately crafted a suggestive phrasing" to mislead the public into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and he did not want United Nations weapons inspections to be successful, writes the former cabinet minister.
Cook suggests that the government misled the House of Commons and asked MPs to vote for war on a "false prospectus".
He also reveals that Blair earlier gave President Bill Clinton a private assurance that he would support him in military action in Iraq if action in the UN failed "and it would certainly have been in line with his previous practice if he had given President Bush a private assurance of British support".
Cook's long-awaited diaries, published in book form as Point of Departure, are the first memoir of any member of Blair's cabinet. His disclosures are likely to lead to renewed calls for a judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of the war.
The Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly has dealt only with the question of what the government believed ahead of publication of its Iraq dossier in September 2002 and whether Downing Street hardened intelligence reports to make the threat from Saddam seem more compelling.
Cook today opens a new controversy. He says that just days before sending troops into action, Blair no longer believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes, the claim the prime minister had repeatedly made when arguing the case for war.
Cook reveals that on February 20 this year he was given a briefing by Scarlett. "The presentation was impressive in its integrity and shorn of the political slant with which No 10 encumbers any intelligence assessment," Cook writes in his diary. "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons that could be used against lar
Cook writes in his diary. "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons that could be used against large-scale civilian targets."
Two weeks later, on March 5, Cook saw Blair. At the time the government was still trying to get a fresh UN resolution and Cook was still in government as leader of the Commons.
Cook writes: "The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam's arsenal. I told him, 'It's clear from the private briefing I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities. But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them against British troops?'
"[Blair replied:] 'Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use'."
Cook continues: "There were two distinct elements to this exchange that sent me away deeply troubled. The first was that the timetable to war was plainly not driven by the progress of the UN weapons inspections. Tony made no attempt to pretend that what Hans Blix [the UN's chief weapons inspector] might report would make any difference to the countdown to invasion.
"The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances. I had now expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the prime minister and both had assented in it.
"At the time I did believe it likely that Saddam had retained a quantity of chemical munitions for tactical use on the battlefield. These did not pose 'a real and present danger to Britain' as they were not designed for use against city populations and by definition could threaten British personnel only if we were to deploy them on the battlefield within range of Iraqi artillery.
"I had now twice been told that even those chemical shells had been put beyond operational use in response to the pressure from intrusive inspections. I have no reason to doubt that Tony Blair believed in September that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. What was clear from this conversation was that he did not believe it himself in March."
Cook asks: "If No 10 accepted that Saddam had no real weapons of mass destruction which he could credibly deliver against city targets and if they themselves believed that he could not reassemble his chemical weapons in a credible timescale for use on the battlefield, just how much of a threat did they really think Saddam represented?"
He raises "the gravest of political questions. The rules of the Commons explicitly require ministers to correct the record as soon as
He raises "the gravest of political questions. The rules of the Commons explicitly require ministers to correct the record as soon as they are aware that they may have misled parliament. If the government did come to know that the [United States] State Department did not trust the claims in the September dossier and that some of even their top experts did not believe them, should they not have told parliament before asking the Commons to vote for war on a false prospectus?"
Cook decided not to publish his diaries ahead of last week's Labour conference in Bournemouth. Had he done so, his revelations would have ensured Blair received a much tougher ride from activists, many of whom are deeply uneasy about the war.
He reveals that in the months leading up to the war Downing Street aides, including Alastair Campbell, Blair's former director of communications, and Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, were obsessed with not falling out with Washington.
Cook discloses that several cabinet ministers had held misgivings about the war, not just himself and Clare Short. At a cabinet meeting in late February 2002, Blunkett asked for a discussion on Iraq and Cook received cries of "hear, hear" from cabinet colleagues when he argued that Arab governments regarded Israel, not Iraq, as the real problem for the Middle East. Cook records it was "the nearest thing I've heard to a mutiny in cabinet".
His diary entry of March 7, 2002, a year before the war, says that Blunkett and Patricia Hewitt, the trade secretary, raised objections at cabinet.
"A momentous moment. A real discussion at cabinet. Tony permitted us to have the debate on Iraq which David [Blunkett] and I had asked for. For the first time that I can recall in five years, Tony was out on a limb."
According to Cook, Blunkett asked Blair: "What has changed that suddenly gives us the legal right to take military action that we didn't have a few months ago?"
Hewitt warned Blair: "We are in danger of being seen as close to President Bush, but without any influence over President Bush."
But the prime minister was "totally unfazed" and, when Hewitt again raised objections at cabinet the following month, Blair refused to be boxed in, telling colleagues: "The time to debate the legal base for our action should be when we take that action."
Cook reveals that Bush had wanted to hold a crucial war council with Blair in London on the weekend before the invasion of Iraq, a move that would have been a public relations disaster given public hostility to the war. Blair persuaded Bush to hold the summit in the Azores instead.
By September last year most of the cabinet had fallen into line. At cabinet on September 23, before parliament was recalled from its summer break, Cook says: "Personally I found it a grim meeting. Much of the two hours was taken up with a succession of loyalty oaths for Tony's line."
He says only Estelle Morris, then education secretary, "
He says only Estelle Morris, then education secretary, "bravely" reported public disquiet that Britain was simply following Bush.
Hmmmm. That took more posts than I expected. Next time I'll just leave a link...
In every single case, I mean every single case, the Iraqi I was talking to thanked me profusely for our(the Coalition of the willing) being there.
Virtually everyone who walks up to Justin Timberlake says that they're his biggest fan. Thus we can conclude that Justin Timberlake is beloved by everyone.
And anyone who says otherwise hates America.
As the Israelis and Palestinians could tell the wingnuts, it doesn't matter that 99% of the population may want a peaceful solution, as long as the remaining 1% have lots of weapons and the will to use them.
John Isbell, while Cymru - Land of valleys is a good try, Cymru actually means "same country/kingdom". Wales was historically seven or more perennially warring kingdoms with three major ones: Dyfed (South), Gwynedd (North & Anglesey), and Powys (East). Never entirely united, it came closest under Hywel Dda (Howell the Good) and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd/Llywelyn Mawr (Llywelyn the Great). Cymru "Wales" and Cymry "Welsh" are relatively late terms meant to foster a national unity against the common opponent - England.
Arkenor, you prove my point with your rebuttal. When Cook resigned, and announced he would vote against the war, his "reason" was that "if Gore were President we wouldn't have this war." Whoopdee-doo. If he had told the REAL reasons, the FACTS that he knew THEN that he is NOW revealing, perhaps he could have persuaded a majority of the Parliament to oppose the war, with who knows what effect on subsequent events. But he did nothing of the kind, he kept his knowledge to himself.
Ummm, those were just a couple of choice quotes from the resignation speech that I somewhat overzealously linked to. He said plenty else in the same speech. Such as:
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
I have to disagree he doesn't look like a muppet, I have to agree with the guy that said cook is like Obi wan Kenobi.
And Yes I would definitely vote for him over Blair.
Thanks, Know it all, that's nice to learn. I know two people who speak fluent Welsh, and I'm not one of them. Three now, I guess. I remember Llewelyn ap Gryfudd from school days (note my bad spelling).
HOW exactly did Clare Short 'blow' her credibility?
DONALD ANDERSON, British Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman:
...Now you have been quite trenchant in your criticism, since I notice for example the conclusion of your article for the New Statesmen, on the 9th of June, where you say in [your] terms: ‘My conclusion is that our Prime Minister deceived us.’ Do you still labor under that sense of ‘deception’?
CLARE SHORT, Former British International Development Secretary , 1997-May 2003:
I’m afraid I do, very sadly. And I think it’s a series of half-truths, exaggerations, reassurances that weren’t the case, to get us into conflict by the Spring, and I think that commitment had been made by the previous summer, and I think nothing else explains the failure to allow Blix to complete his process.
--
FABIAN HAMILTON:
Clare, to what degree were you aware of the threats posed by Iraq prior to the events of September 11, 2001?
SHORT:
I’ve been very troubled by sanctions and the suffering of the people of Iraq for a very long time, and certainly since I took office in the government in 1997, and we’ve attempted to improve the humanitarian programs and the effectiveness of UN actions, and get some relief in the way in which sanctions worked, so I have been absolutely clear that the situation was unsatisfactory, I don’t believe it could have been just left, I didn’t believe in containment, both because SH was defying the UN, but also because the people of Iraq were suffering so badly.
FH:
Did you believe there was a threat to British interests posed by Iraq prior to the 11th of September?
SHORT:
No, I didn’t believe that. I believed that the people of Iraq were suffering badly, and that SH was in defiance of the UN over the question of working to try to achieve chemical and biological weapons. I believed and I still believe that he did try for nuclear, but the previous inspection regime dismantled that. So, I still don’t think he was an imminent threat, I think that’s where one of the exaggerations came, but I think he was, and I believe still he was committed to having laboratories and scientists doing work and trying to develop chemical and biological weapons and we know he had ballistic missiles of the range beyond that permitted in the SC resolution.
So my view was, the problem needed attending to, but there wasn’t an imminent threat, therefore we should do it right.
The new urgency that came into the US was because of September the 11th, this false suggestion that there was any link to Al Qaeda, its another of these falsities in try to get an urgency for action, so I think the right way would have been to say we going to attend to this, and we’re going to attend to the Middle East.
The Roadmap had already been negotiated, so we should have started off with publishing that, and starting implementation, and showing a commitment to move to justice in the Middle East, and then we should have turned to Iraq, trying to k
... trying to keep the support of Arab governments, and we should have tried for disarmament, and you could have even had the UN authorizing military action to support the inspectors, it seems to me, we should have tried indicting SH, we should have lifted sanctions.
If you take the Kosovo parallel, and I was one who believed that we should have acted on Milosevic earlier, with all the ethnic cleansing from Bosnia, and so on, but it was absolutely right to act, and the Kosovars being pushed out of their country was reversed, and then the military action [was] stopped, but he was indicted, and other action was taken, and we got him to the Hague without a full-scale invasion of Serbia.
So, I hope that’s not too long of an answer, but the point is I was very aware of it; my deepest concern was the suffering of the people of Iraq, and the anger that was causing in the Middle East. I think it should have been attended to, but we had time to attend to it right. And let me make it clear, from the beginning of this crisis, and indeed before, I’ve always thought we had to be willing to use military force to back up the authority of the UN, so I wasn’t saying no military force at all at any price. But I was saying you should avoid it if at all possible, that’s the teaching on the just war, you have to make sure that there’s no other way, we should have tried that, and I thought for a long time in this crisis that the UK was playing the role of trying to restrain the US, and try and examine all other means, and I now think that we weren’t, and that we pre-committed.
See, that seems eminently SANE. So if the UK public think she has lost credibility, I'd like to hear in comparison to whom?
Clare Short is a hero, one of the great human beings who have shared our pain and our fight for freedom and sanity in the face of dictators who play on people's fears, and kill the innocent in huge bloodbath's they smirk and self-forgive over. Bliar has the blood of thousands on children spattered on his face. He is a disgusting human being. Over here, we've got too many m-fers to count.
Blair "did not try to convince" Cook-- big deal. I'm "not trying to convince" you elephants are green. You'd think from the headline they'd have the words in his mouth. Rush and Karl Rove are better targets.
Better targets for you maybe.
I live in Blairland.
I have a feeling if one falls, the other won't be far behind though.
Heh. I'm of the view that Cook most resembles a ginger gnome in search of his fishing rod. Having said that, his resignation speech was possibly the most impressive I've ever heard. Don't forget, this was our Foreign Secretary for gawd's sake. Out of everyone in the Cabinet, surely he would be best placed to judge the threat Iraq posed. For him to vote against war and to have resigned when he did was an act of courage that should have damaged the case for war a lot more than it did.
Claire Short on the other hand... I believe her heart is in the right place, but she lost all credibility when she backed down on her threat to resign.
consolidation grant loan student student consolidation grant loan student student consolidation grant loan student student. best loan personal rate best loan personal rate best loan personal rate.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
