This is a thread for debating the points raised in Tony Blair’s speech to Congress yesterday. It’s a terrific speech. Blair made some strong assertions. One addressed the burden of proof. Should we have attacked Iraq with less-than-certain knowledge of their weaponry?
Another controverial point concern the duty of the US:
Do you agree with Blair? Are there other points in his speech that you would like to address?
Tony Blai wouldn’t of said “fiber”, he would of said “fibre”.
Having read the quoted portions of the speech, I believe Blair skirts the issue of “Given that one of our principly states reasons for invading, and given that the veracity of this reason is now being examined with close scrutiny, with a particular eye toward the haste and inaccuracy with which intelligence gathered was improperly used to arrive at the conclusion known to most of the civilized world by now, is it appropriate to find error with those who knowingly acted in haste, and knowingly introduced substantial error in the claims of knowledge and proof of weapons of mass destruction, when such haste had not been shown to be necessary?”
Of course, my Britspeak in the above might be off, given that I am not, nor have I ever been, British:)
I think he’s flogging a dead horse with WMDs. I don’t think history will look to kindly on all the subterfuge surrounding the war, but dependant on what sort state Iraq beomes I don’t think it’ll judge them to unkindly for removing Saddam.
Bush owes Blair for that support and performance (except for the inevitable exposure of Bush’s lack of comparable eloquence). With luck, Bush will reciprocate by excusing the British citizens from his kangaroo courts and send them back to the UK for a fair and proper trial.
So, we’re supposed to forgive flat-out lying to get the public behind a war that they might not have supported without those lies?
Riiiiiiiight … sounds like a liar trying to help another liar wriggle off the hook to me.
This strikes an important note. Perhaps I’ve been too harsh. As a lib/lefty, it behooves me to be compassionate and forgiving. And so I shall.
As soon as GeeDubya is back where he belongs, scraping the Rumsfeld off his boots on his porch in Crawford, the healing process can begin. I stand with december on this: let that moment arrive as soon as humanly possible, as these are the tasks most suited to his talents and abilities.
The earliest date I can foresee is Jan. 6, 2005. If friend december can suggest a means by which this can be hurried along, I, for one, am eager to hear of it.
elucidator, not to seem overly harsh, but if GWB resigned or otherwise left/were forced to leave office, that “scraping” etc might occur earlier than January 6, 2005.
From your lips to the ears of Allah.
Are you two disciples of Pat Robertson? :eek:
It should be remembered that Blair played the WMD card even stronger than Bush. While Bush and Co. did talk about regime change Blair did not. In fact his 6 points to stop war where all about WMD not one about how the Iraqi regime treated it’s people.
We are left with two alternatives.
Blair was true to his words and would have accepted no regime change in Iraq if the WMD issue were dealt with. If this is the case he cannot use Iraqi regime crimes as a reason for war now as he said that that regime could stay if his points were answered.
Or he was pushing those reasons out coz he knew they were unobtainable and would secure public and political feeling for a war.
Either way Blair was shown to be not as trust worthy as he makes himself out to be.
An example of a fine rhetorical strategy - talk only about the positive (potential) results of what you did, and only the negative (potential and hypothetical, but just as solid) results of what you didn’t do, and therefore claim (potential) vindication. Blair isn’t any more honest than Bush, just more articulate.
The speech turned my stomach. Not the content, necessarily, which was the customary Mandelsonian drivel which we’ve become used to over here but which you lot obviously haven’t yet seen through like a piece of wet bog roll.
Will you please…Stop…CLAPPING?!
Channel 4 news said that 11 minutes had been assigned for “spontaneous ovations”, and 5 of them were used up getting him into the chamber. Such a display of obsequious toadying has not been seen since…er…Britain helped the US invade Iraq.
What does “Mandelsonian” mean?
Written by Peter Mandelson, the arch-Machiaveilian who engineered Blair’s 1996 election success (and has resigned twice from cabinet for various indiscretions).
There are those who, if Blair and Bush gave them the moon and the stars, would complain that the stars were too pointy and the moon too bumpy. I thought it was inspiring. A lot of my thoughts are summed up in James Lilek’s column today. A couple of quotes illustrate:
Christ almighty. Almost brings a tear to the eye doesn’t it. Not.
Slightly off topic but bear with me.
In the UK we have the case of a man called Tony Martin. A farmer who lived alone. One night two men tried to break into his house.
Mr Martin picked up his shotgun and went to investigate.
He shot at the young men who were in his house. One of them later bled to death.
Both men had criminal records.
Mr Martin is in Jail for Murder because he did not take the chance that the two men might hurt him first if he didn’t act.
Now lets try some substitutions
Mr Martin (USA + UK)
Two burglers (Saddam Hussein)
We think we may be at risk from Saddam (no proof, no sign of intent just our suspicions).
We act first to prevent harm that MAY happen in the future, despite protestations from most of the rest of the world.
Perhaps if Tony Martin had said that “History would look kindly on him for getting rid of such bad men” he would have got off
Anybody believe he would have … no nor me.
If anything Tony Martins case is more compelling than Blair/GWB’s but he is in prison (maybe we should prepare the cell next door)
Dec:
I was surprised at the first statement (“If we are wrong…”). I know exactly what he meant (the worst possible outcome is better than no action), but it will so surely be used by the Blaire/Bush critics to say that even they doubt whether they were right, that it seems like it would have been better left out altogether.
On the second quote, I think references to “Destiny” are hogwash (outside of a strip club where she’s a dancer).
All in all, I thought it was a good speech. For those not accostomed to all the clapping, it’s nothing unusual in Congress. Just like the Brits like to mumble in agreement/disagreement in Parliament during speeches.