Here is a transcript of Tony Blair’s speech yesterday. I find it very compelling.
To those of you who are still opposed to the war, I would like your impressions of this speech. Some on this board still doubt that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction at all. Do you still believe that after reading this?
I’m not opposed to the war, but I’ll answer anyway. Wow, good speech. It worked too because parliment is backing him.
He brought up one thing that never occured to me & I haven’t seen brought up here (I could have missed it though). If we back away from this, we’ll have no credibility with any other dictator attempting to get WMD’s. He mentions that S Korea & Japan are backing us fully. That makes sense since they are close to N Korea.
Blair is a good orator and highly skilled at debate. His arguments are almost always convincing and persuasive, but that’s because he knows how to argue effectively, eloquently, and persuasively–would that Bush could learn from him, instead of convincing himself of his moral superiority and personal friendship with God while mangling his mother tongue.
There are many issues at work here. Firstly, the direct evidence advanced to support the claim that Iraq has WMD is weak. It’s almost certain that Saddam Hussein has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapon materials hidden somewhere, but it is far less certain that he has WMD in (as Robin Cook put it) the conventional sense of the word (i.e. warheads plus delivery mechanisms ready to fire).
The indirect evidence that Iraq has WMD is much more abundant, and Blair listed some of it in his speech (i.e. previous weapons and materials unaccounted for, etc.).
I don’t think Blair needed to convince anyone of the above, since it’s fairly straightforward.
He also didn’t need to convince me that there can be no turning back from this war now-- to stand down at this moment would be a show of weakness and a colossal loss of face for both the US and UK. It would do nothing but strengthen Saddam Hussein, maybe even encouraging him to ban UN inspections forever.
What Blair has failed to argue convincingly was that his support for Bush’s warmongering was justified all along. It is highly inappropriate for a leader to push for war for months, and, once all the prepaprations are complete, state that war must happen because war is now inevitable. Note that I do not use the word “warmongering” lightly, but considering the often manic and depserate push we’ve seen from Bush for an unnecessary and unjustified war to date, I believe “warmongering” is the correct term.
If there is any one element that has most damaged the campaign against Saddam, it has to be Bush himself. His lack of consistency, lack of diplomatic understanding, disrespect, disdain, disregard, abundant shows of dishonesty, etc., served to alienate allies and isolate the US in the world arena. The main reason for France’s threats to veto any resolution automatically authorizing war stems in large part from the Bush administration’s idiotic handling of foreign affairs–from Rumsfeld’s frequent displays of incompetence to Bush’s own threats and insults.
Blair did not convince me that French roadblocks to the diplomatic process were to blame for the present state of affairs. France was the loudest (and most obnoxious) opponent of war, but not the only one by any means–the rest of the permanent Security Council were also opposed to war, as were most of the Security Council and, indeed, the world. I have little doubt that President Chirac has at least a touch of senility, but the same cannot be said of the leaders of all countries that opposed this war, surely.
From the link in the OP:
Once again, I am in agreement with Blair. The point he makes is fully justified. What he neglects to address are Bush’s own fumbling of this situation, and the mixed messages that stripped US efforts vis-a-vis Iraq of all credibility. Consider these messages, courtesy of Bush over the last year:
Iraq is connected to Al Qaida (there is no evidence of this)
Iraq is a deadly threat to the USA (Iraq is a mere shadow of its pre-Gulf War strength, and other countries like N. Korea and Iran could pose MUCH greater threats than Iraq, directly or especially indirectly)
This is part of the war against terror and will ensure the safety of Americans (when in fact one of the direct effects one can surmise from the coming war is an increase in terrorist activity)
Iraq must be invaded because of the threat of proliferations of WMD (yet the only shreds of evidence are conjecture, and the UN inspectors will not be permitted to complete their mandate in Iraq to obtain the appropriate damning evidence)
Iraq has dangerous and advanced WMD programs (there is no direct evidence of that—however we know for a fact that North Korea has such programs and has even used them as threats!)
Iraq is an evil dictatorship and is a dire threat to the region (Iraq causes some uneasiness, but it is not really a threat to the region—N. Korea on the other hand destabilizes the world’s most populous region AND has one of the biggest armies in the world.)
UN approval is required and will be pursued for this war (while at the same time stating that UN approval was not at all necessary and that the US could do what it wished)
Regime change in Iraq will pave the way to peace in Israel (when it is in fact the exact opposite)
Saddam Hussein is evil and he is guilty of human rights crimes against thousands of people (Saddam is not the only one, he’s not the one who’s been doing it longest, and he’s quite possibly not the worst)
Or consider, more specifically, the US administration’s fickle attitudes towards Iraq, revealed progressively: first, that Iraq must disarm one way or another; then that disarming would necessarily require regime change; that war could be averted if a regime change took place; then, that even regime change would not be good enough, and that invasion will take place whatever happens.
France is by no means the only nation who has found such behaviour baffling and dangerous.
Another point Blair made that I found extremely important was this:
In a way this is stating the obvious. But in another way, Blair is subtly highlighting the failures of the Bush administration to win support for this war. The run-up to the war has been mismanaged beyond all belief—alliances have been damaged and the support of most of the entire planet following 9/11 has been squandered. I see this part of Blair’s speech as a nod towards the anti-war camp, and as a negative comment in Bush’s report card, a classic English understated comment: “George could try harder at school”.
Blair then reaffirms his belief that such matters must be dealt with through a forum like the UN. It doesn’t do any good when it comes to the fundamental question though. Has Blair argued convincingly that the decisions taken thus far were the correct ones? I don’t think so. He has tried again and again to bring the US into the fold of the international community, and he has worked hard to repair the various blunders of the Bush administration—he certainly deserves credit for all those actions. But, in his unwavering support for the thoroughly confused and less than honest US administration’s position, I think Blair made a grave error, one that is perhaps justified behind closed doors but not yet in the world’s eye.
So the question remains: why follow this dangerous course of action alongside the US, flying in the face of all reason and most opinion? The prospect of America taking on a long list of ensuing crises on its own is no rosy prospect for the world, and Blair may (correctly) see that this cannot be allowed to happen (the alternative is disastrous: extended military conflict, economic deterioration, UN influence reduced, etc.). Still, that is supposition and it doesn’t properly explain Blair’s commitment to the US from the start.
He’s convinced me of almost everything, but not that.
As I said last night: “I don’t agree with him, but f*ck is he impressive”. I am also fairly convinced of his sincerity.
I listened to the entire debate, and it really made me proud that this is the governmental chamber of my country. An incredible debate, with compelling arguments on either side.
So, Bush is totally responsible for the failure of diplomacy. France and Hussein are blameless. Way to be objective.
IMO, France was going to attempt to block the U.S. from the get go. Diplomacy never had a chance to work. Why this is I don’t know. Maybe they don’t want us finding evidence of them helping Iraq. Maybe they don’t like Bush. Maybe France & Germany want to be a counterweight to U.S. power. Whatever the reason, France was never going to back us on this.
All the fault of little, belligerent France, all on their own, with nothing but world public opinion and half the permanent members of the UNSC on their side. Talk about unilateralism, pshaw…
Seriously, if there is someone at fault for the diplomatic crisis, it is Bush and his neocon advisors. It would have been entirely possible to get people on his side. Had they gone the humanitarian route straights away, and plonked for a cohesive plan for post-war Iraq, it would have made them look less like they were papering over the cracks when they suddenly discovered “the moral case for war” just as the biggest anti-war protests in history were taking place. Had the administration not shown such a strong desire to rid themselves of anyone who didn’t see things exactly their way, even down to Rumsfeld’s basic lack of common courtesy over the fact that Blair had stuck his neck on the block for him, moves which have cost Blair five cabinet ministers and counting.
Every national leader works, as they should, in accordance with what they see their own national interests as being. It just so happened that the current administration of the USA seems to see their own national interests being best served by telling everyone to toe the line or fuck off. You can agree with their actions or not, but the diplomatic failure is down to that attitude.
Resignations:[ul][li]Andy Reed: Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Environment Secretary;[/li][li]Robin Cook: Leader of the House of Commons;[/li][li]Ken Purchase: Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House of Commons;[/li][li]Lord Hunt: Junior Health Minister;[/li][li]John Denham: Home Office Minister;[/li][li]Bob Blizzard: Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Work & Pensions Minister;[/li][li]Anne Campbell: Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Trade & Industry;[/li][li]Sandra Osborne: aide to Secretary of State for Scotland;[/li]David Kidney: Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Environment Minister.[/ul]I’m afraid I have no idea as to their potential replacements.
**Sam Stone ** – I don’t think that’s a correct reading. Only the evening before, the former Foreign Secretary, resigned from Government (making an equally good speech and argument) and said this in his resignation speech(bearing in mind his former office and the fact that he was, until yesterday, a full member of Blair’s Cabinet and therefore privy to just about all we know about Iraq:
“Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term - namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.”
as a senior member of the Cabinet, Cook knows pretty much what Blair knows. Cook says Saddam’s probably got zero.
Can’t we just accept the alleged WOMD are just a pretext and argue the merits of pre-emptive action against a psychotic nutball with a liking for very nasty toys ?
I was slightly surprised as well. I suspect a lot of MPs are thinking of their careers: war is inevitable, and will anyone remember their principled stand once the dust has settled?
I think it was Mathew Parris who made the point yesterday that he’s a second rater (in terms of great Parliamentary orators) but he’s a great second rater. Blair was superb yesterday at convincing others of his own deep personal convictions. The Party still believes in the perceived essence of the man.
It was Blair the man, Blair the leader who they voted for last night. That and the fact of the case for both sides is so evenly balanced, for the overwhelming majority of the PLP.
I think, for me, the degree of loyalty in the face of the French veto, not having a second resolution and public opinion says an awful lot about the faith the PLP have in the man that got them to where they are.
You know London, If Saddam did not break the law and original cease-fire agreement, then that probably would have been a certainty that he doesn’t have the materials to make the weapons we know he has. As it is now we are certain he probably does have them.
"But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.”
And ever since '91 the world has demanded he get rid of them. Simple as that. They have deemed him a threat because we know he has them.
My point, Sean, is that becuase Cook knows pretty well what Blair knows and they express differing views the point Sam Stone relies on (re WOMD) is not quite so clear cut as Sam states.
Wow. I ask for impressions of Blair’s speech, and it turns into a Bush bashing party. What a surprise.
Look: Forget George Bush. Forget whether this could have been handled better. That’s not the debate.
The debate is, “Is this war justified?” Did Tony Blair make the case for war?
As for Robin Cook’s comment:
That’s a straw man. No one is suggesting that Saddam is about to launch rockets against New York City. The threat of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is that they will wind up in the hands of terrorists. Saddam has 10,000 liters of weaponized Anthrax. We saw how much chaos an envelope full of the stuff did. How would you like to deal with 500 terrorists throughout the world, each having 20 liters of the stuff? Mass mailing it at random, dumping it into ventilation shafts of high rises, spreading it with crop dusters, etc? How much psychological, economic, and human destruction would result? What would the result be if someone flew a crop duster through Manhattan spraying Vx nerve agents?
And Saddam probably DOES have the ability to hit his neighbors with chemical SCUDs. He certainly had that ability before, and there is evidence he still has 50 scuds or so.