Donald Rumsfeld was giving a press conference at the White House, and he inadvertantly revealed that a) the UK would be unlikely to participate in the war without a second UN resolution (thus revealing Blair’s hand to the world), and b) the US doesn’t care, it’ll go in anyway (thus undermining Blair’s support for US actions). He later issued a statement retracting it, but the damage has already been done.
That the US doesn’t need the UK militarily goes without saying, but the fact that the US does have an ally despite the unpopularity of its position amongst the means something regarding the current hawkish position of the US administration.
It gives more strength to the French and the Russians that when/if they veto a new UN resolution, they’ll remove Britain from the equation: this gives them power in the knowledge that this will further isolate and discredit the US’s war plans.
Of course (speculating here) that means that Blair might feel that he has to commit troops anyway, even if there’s no second resolution passed. This will totally undermine his position domestically, as British international lawyers have said that war without the new resolution would be illegal.
But since Chirac has said he’ll use the veto “no matter what”, then we already know the resolution will not be passed.
Thus, Blair’s been caught in a cleft stick - either pull the rug out from the US, or pull the rug out from under himself.
There’s already a whispering campaign saying there’s going to be a leadership challenge against him. I put it to you that Rummy’s gaffe has destroyed Blair’s position - both at home and in the international community.
I couldn’t believe it last night when he came out with that. You could almost hear “Shut up you fool” from the background.
From the Indo
Blair is physically looking more under pressure everyday. He is also taking a lot of personal abuse from his own supporters. People who are Blair people are now saying that he may go. One minister already revolting and a possibility of more to follow. A chance of >200 Labour MP’s revolting against him in a vote on Iraq. Interesting times indeed.
Well the United States which prides itself on it marketing has once again pulled a bone head play. They have constantly made missteps to sell this war to the rest of the world. They keep on doing it. Yesterday they showed a video of the OAB test. It was supposed to scare the Iraqis and show US might. It probably also gave those who feel the US is being a bully more fuel to their arguments.
God Saddam is no saint how can you fuck up a slam dunk like this…
If Rumsfeld is seriously saying this US administration will act alone and outside the UN he’s not kidding anyone. Least of all Saddam.
After the “old Europe” crap and yesterday’s comments by Daddy Bush (about stronger diplomatic efforts - implying multilateralism, in my view), one wonders if Rumsfeld has rather run out of pressure-applying ideas; He seems reduced to screaming, but in diplomatic speak.
Dammit, I said this months ago - while I don’t really object to the actual action, I object to the amateurish way they are going about this whole business.
That would have to be one of the more illustrative gaffes from this administration.
The Secretaries Of State and Defense would now seem to be the one office with two spokesmen. What’s next? Rumfeld discussing GATT? And so totally unnecesary, unless some bean counter has figured the cost of influencing the necessary Security Council votes exceeds the benefit of having a substantial ally.
If this Administration pisses on you even when you’re inside the tent, there isn’t incentive to stay there. That’ll leave the coalition of the willing down to US and few Australians. And what did we get for being the only unquestioning ally and becoming terrorism proxy target? We get access to the NMD program. :smack:
Exactly the way I feel. It would be a better world all around if Saddam were removed. But the ineptness of this Administration in how they present information to the public, deal with the UN, and diplomatically with allies and everyone…boggles the mind.
I saw the press conference and think this is just a tempest in a teapot. The position of Blair has always been that they would not go to war without a new resolution or a unreasonable veto of one. Rumsfeld’s comments were in response to a question of what would happen if due to British politics the British army would not be able to participate in war to the extent the US would like them to. Rumsfeld responded that if the UK were unable to participate the US would modify the plans so that if Bush still wanted to go to war the US military would still be able to accomplish the objectives. It seems to me that he is merely stating the obvious. To say otherwise would be in effect to hand US foreign policy and the safety of the American people over to the whims of some British socialists.
That’s interesting puddleglum, it does change the meaning of the statement. I think the media has really been blowing out of proportion the US Administration’s statements. I have somewhat enjoyed their frankness, but it is really time for them to clue in and not speak off the cuff so much. They just keep giving their opponents more ammunition.
Some British Socialists? WTF are you talking about? You do realise what party is in power in Britain? Ok they’re not as left as they used to be but please realise that you are getting the support of British socialists when the government are agreeing with you. By US standards almost everyone is Britain is a socialist AFAICS
Or is it just the case that they are only socialists when you don’t agree with you?
I am aware that the Labour party is in power and that they are socialists. In calling them socialists I was being descriptive, though I do think that socialist is inherently perjorative, others may not agree with that but never the less, the appelation is true.
Hmmmm gee why do some believe the United States is acting arrogantly? Why do some think that no other oppinion or point of view has any value whatsoever to the US? Maybe it is these off the cuff remarks, maybe it is the fact that the tough talk designed to make others fall in line has done the opposite.
Each time those in the Whitehouse open their mouths I have to question going into Iraq. When ever I hear chants of We are the USA we will not be told what to do I cringe. That is not a good public relations campaign and the real art of politics is not banging on the table demanding my way or the highway. Some how Compromise has been turned into a dity word in this administration and look where bull headed determination has got them.
Yeah sure you could dust Iraq easily with no aid, but the point isn’t whether you can do it alone but if you should.
The policy differences between the current Labour government and the Conservative governments of Thatcher are increasingly negligible. The term “socialist” may reflect the party’s history but is certainly an inaccurate label for the current leadership.
This misses the point. Just because it’s true that the US has the military capacity to go it alone, and apparently the political will, doesn’t mean Rumsfield isn’t a complete moron for saying as much. It seems to me that the Bushies have gotten way too careless about what they say, complacent in the knowledge that Rupert’s talking heads will spin even the most outrageous comments into something every right-thinking American must agree with. Sadly for them, the foreign press, and foreign politicians, are entirely likely to draw their own conclusions, influenced not a whit by Mr. Hannity.
In this particular case, what Rumsfield said wasn’t even true, though I doubt he’d like to admit it. Oh, sure, militarily the US Army can take Saddam, but in order to stabilize things afterwards, the Americans need allies, and the more the better. The British, past masters of stabilizing fractious internal differences within colonies, are invaluable allies in this regard. France and Germany aren’t as important here, but if Rummy or whoever the hell is in charge of the asylum had any intelligence, he’d be moving heaven and earth to get Russia on board as well.
Anyways, the simple fact of the matter here is that Blair’s position at home is precarious in the extreme, and Rumsfield’s comments are as foolish from a diplomatic viewpoint as one can possibly imagine. One simply does not say things that will destroy the ability of your best and almost only ally to maintain his tenuous grip on control over his own government. The “right” answer to the question asked Rumsfield is obvious - refuse to speculate about what the US might do without the UK, and talk about how Blair is an invaluable ally.
What Rumsfeld said was entirely true and blindingly obvious. The US has the miltary capability to adapt the battle plan to various levels of British involvement including no involvement. As he said they would prefer more rather than less, but no sane nation would give its foreign policy over to another nation. I do not have alot of confidence in some of the British left’s grip on reality, but even they could not be delusional enough to believe that Bush will give them veto power over the security of the United States.
Rumsfeld was clear throughout the press conference that only Bush has the power to say when we will go to war and under what circumstances. The attempt to spin his innocuous statements into something else is indicative of the bad faith of those doing the spinning and the futility of trying to convince them with reason.
