Blair's humiliation

[tartanwiz]

With Labour's humiliation at the polls, maybe Blair will realise he can't just make decisions on behalf of the country without the consent of the people. What do you think?

[Hippy]

I actually think his decision was right, and contrary to Mr. G. Michael's "poodle" similie, our Mr. B was a captivating motivator for the American Mr. B. Where our Mr. B got it wrong was in the justification he gave for getting the Parliamentary vote. However honestly held, his WMD assertions were wrong in substance and logic. Had he stayed with the "Evil Dictator - Evil Regime must change" argument, he would have maintained more dignity and integrity.

[Quizmonster]

Tartan, The plain fact is that Blair already has - by virtue of his having been elected MP and chosen as ruling-party leader - "the consent of the people". Whether that consent remains in force when next time the electorate is asked for it remains to be seen. Personally, I sincerely hope it does. He doesn't need to ask for it every five minutes! (A little reminder...the Tories under William Hague gained 38% of the votes in the council elections of 2000 - exactly the same percentage as the Tories under Michael Howard this time - and I'm sure I don't have to remind you of what happened to Hague a year later!)

Hippy, I agree with you that the Iraq decision was correct, but what you call Blair's "WMD assertions", were everybody's "WMD assertions". Just look at the veritable stream of UN Resolutions over the decade preceding the invasion of Iraq, every last one of them stating categorically that Saddam Hussein had such weapons and the means to deliver them.

Even Resolution 1441 (see below) - the one used to justify the war - was published many weeks after the supposedly dubious Blair/Campbell dossier at the heart of the Hutton Inquiry! And that resolution was signed-up-to by all 15 of the member-countries of the UN Security Council. So - if Blair and Bush were lying or "wrong in logic" - Chirac, Putin, the Chinese and all ten others must have been lying or "wrong in logic", too.

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security..."

These are the words of Paragraph 3 of the preamble to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. (Click on http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm for confirmation.)

[Hippy]

Thanks QM, always reliable in pointing us to the source. However, if sheer weight of numbers believing something made it right then the world really would be flat!

My point was that WMD have not been found and therefore those beliefs of such were wrong, however honestly held. It would have been far more effective and politically creative for Mr. B. UK to have stuck to the "Regime Change" mantra. It would have had more connection with the people, both here and abroad, and had little chance of being disproved.

Remember, the evil Milosevic in Kosovo shooed out people he didn't like and attempted genocide, and our Tony stepped in like a caped crusader, teeth first, and managed to mobilise Western opinion and action to reverse the evil policy. He used the "Evil Man - Evil Regime" with great success. Malignant Milosevic stands trial and preparations for a more democratic governance proceed. All is not sweetness and light, but social change is never without suffering. http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kosovo98/index.shtml

[sylvday]

I agree with everything Quizmonster says. To hear some people talk, you would think that Tony Blair and George Bush were the only two people in the world who thought Iraq had WMD. But in that case, why had UN weapons inspectors been in Iraq since the first Gulf War? There is a legitimate question about what happened to the WMD, which has not yet been answered; and may be when various ongoing inquiries into the matter have reported. As for the "consent of the people", it should not be forgotten that Parliament approved the war, which is the way the UK makes democratic decisions, many of which we may disapprove of as individuals. (Speaking personally, I found our military action re Kosovo - especially the bombing of Belgrade - extremely questionable; but had to accept that it had received democratic approval.)

[WaldoMcFroog]

QM, you write that "Blair's "WMD assertions", were everybody's "WMD assertions". Unfortuantely, they weren't Colin Powell's assertations just a few months before 9/11.

During a press conference on 24 February 2001 during his visit to Cairo, Egypt. The Secretary of State said: "[...]the sanctions exist - not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. [...] And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

On 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee: "The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful."

Rather a contrast between these measured words to the loaded retoric he used before the UN to secure 1441, no?

I do however agree that Blair doesn't have to consult us when he makes decisions. Bet he wishes he had though...

[LeMarchand]

I'm with tartanwiz, while Blair was under no obligation to consult the public directly over the Iraq War, there was clearly a great deal of public opposition to it, which he ignored. It comes as no great surprise that the same public now doesn't trust his party.

[tartanwiz]

Hippy - are you really a Hippy? Whatever happened to Love 'n' Peace, man? War - what is it good for? and all that.

[Quizmonster]

Waldo, The Powell quotes you provide are dated a long time before the invasion of Iraq. If "a week is a long time in politics" - as another well-known politician expressed it - what does that make almost two years?

Even within your chosen quotes, the claim that Saddam had "no significant capability" (in 2001) is very far from saying that he had "no capability" (in 2003). LeMarchand, There was also a great deal of public support for the war...polls at the time showed roughly a 50/50 split. Presumably, therefore, had Blair not gone ahead, the other half of the electorate might now be alienated! Pretty much a lose-lose situation for him.

The key fact remains that effectively everyone in the civilised world believed in Iraq's WMD. We were all mistaken, not lying. If you disagree, then fine, but for me that's the end of the story.

[WaldoMcFroog]

QM: "Waldo, The Powell quotes you provide are dated a long time before the invasion of Iraq. If "a week is a long time in politics" - as another well-known politician expressed it - what does that make almost two years?"

Indeed. I agree entirely. If the program of sanctions was working shortly before 9/11 however, is it credible that they relaxed restrictions afterwards? Additionally, they may be a long time before the invasion of Iraq, but it was a considerably shorter period of time after 9/11 that we've been told the US was looking for an Iraqi persective in the disaster. The Project for a New American Century document (by Wolfowitz and other right wing members of Bush's cabinet) additionally suggested an invasion of Iraq well before 9/11, again this would tend to suggest that a build up of WMD in a proposed theatre of war was unlikely.

Even within your chosen quotes, the claim that Saddam had "no significant capability" (in 2001) is very far from saying that he had "no capability" (in 2003). "

Again, I suggest that any capacity to have produced WMD is likely to have decreased, not increased between 2001 and 2003. If Saddam had "no significant capability", does that not implicitly say he had an insignificant capability?

[bernardo]

I find it odd that most of the answers so far have been discussing the Glorious War for the Liberation of Iraq, although that was not mentioned in the question. The answer is yes he can, but he must take the consequences at the next election (one way or another).

[winned]

You are absolutely right, Blair has made decisions about the public and thats not fair, it doesn't really make Britain a democracy. However, I don't think Blair will change his mind. All the 3 big parties- Liberal , Cons and Labour are all corrupt, and all have gone back on their words in one way or another. The conservatives are no better than labour- in fact worse- remember when they swore an oath that BSE meat is safe, knowing full well how dangerous it really is. The BNP are the best party because they have good ideas on all issues concerning the public-environment, transport, schools, defence, etc. Pple who call BNP racist should think again- BNP only want to tighten up asylum rules like other countries have. They are therefore saying that other countries with tight asylum rules are racist- like Canada and Australia: which they are not.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Winned, if you seroiusly believe the BNP are not racist, you are being deceived. It is irrefutably true.

John Bean, editor of the BNP journal Identity, joined Oswald Mosley's Union Movement in 1950.

BNP leader Nick Griffin is a holocaust denier, 'I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the earth is flat' I have reached the conclusion that the extermination tales is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter day witch hysteria.'

They claim to be the party of law and order. In the 2003 elections in Barnsley, Joe Hayward, a Labour councillor and magistrate, was physically assaulted by three BNP supporters, including the party's candidate, after he refused to hand over copies of the anti-racist 'Searchlight'.

Senior BNP member, Tony Lecomber, has called Hitler "peace loving". BNP youth leader Mark Collett told Channel Four that Hitler was his hero. He said he would have liked to live in Nazi Germany and found Nazi-saluting German soldiers "inspiring".

The BNP is linked to some of the world's most hardline nazi groups. Among them is the National Alliance, America's leading Nazi party. Griffin is also very close to David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and still a hardline nazi. In 2001 Griffin spoke at a German nazi rally alongside Duke and other European fascists.

A very basic Google search will allow you to find a myriad of evidence to prove the BNP's true colours.

[speshial k8]

the downing st press office appears to be in overdrive on this one, facts, figures and all. I'm impressed. may the schoolboy debater and Alfred E. Newmanalike continue his adventure, apparently.