Posted on 10/22/2003 4:12:04 PM PDT by Pokey78
Forty-one Labor MPs, including 11 members of Simon Crean's front bench, have signed a protest letter to present to US President George Bush today, criticising his conduct of the Iraq war.
Signatories to the letter include such powerful ALP figures as the shadow treasurer, Mark Latham, and Labor's Senate leader, John Faulkner.
The letter, drafted after Mr Crean's call for ALP members to show respect to Mr Bush, says the war was conducted on the basis of a "clear and present danger" in Iraq that did not exist.
It was drafted by Sydney Labor MP Tanya Plibersek, who plans to hand it to Mr Bush after his historic address to Federal Parliament this morning. Mr Bush was to due to fly into Canberra late last night after a stopover in Bali on his way from the APEC meeting in Bangkok.
The letter is highly critical of Mr Bush for not allowing United Nations weapons inspectors more time to disarm Iraq peacefully.
It says Labor values Australia's relationship with the US, but believes Mr Bush was wrong in mounting the military invasion of Iraq without UN backing.
"The point of the letter is to let Mr Bush know that a large section of the Australian community does not share the Prime Minister's support for the war," Ms Plibersek said last night. "We also want to ensure that we can use this visit to engage the President in a constructive dialogue on our great concerns about the dangerous precedent of pre-emptive self-defence this war has set."
Ms Plibersek said she drafted the letter as an alternative to threats by ALP members to protest against Mr Bush's visit by turning their backs during his speech.
A spokesman for Mr Crean said the Opposition Leader did not have a problem with the letter, but had decided not to sign.
"It is entirely in line with Labor policy and Tanya has every right to distribute it," the spokesman said. "It is not necessarily Simon's opinion, but he is not going to order others not to sign it."
In Sydney last night, between 3000 and 5000 protesters marched in the city in protest against Mr Bush, just hours before he was due to land in Australia.
Labor MP Harry Quick, a signatory to the letter, addressed the crowd and said he had been told to be respectful to Mr Bush when he addressed Parliament. "Why should we respect this duplicitous, conniving, and lying President of the United States?" he said. "When I was growing up as a young man, I was taught respect had to be earned. George Bush will never be shown respect by the countless Australians who realise our government entered a war which was based on a deliberate lie."
Mr Crean is scheduled to have a brief meeting with Mr Bush after his address to a joint sitting of Parliament.
Mr Bush will be met with unprecedented security in the capital. The public will be prohibited from attending his speech and protesters will not be allowed near him during his one-day visit.
The security will ease tomorrow when the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, who arrived in Sydney yesterday, makes a similar address to Federal Parliament.
The ALP letter to Mr Bush asks
how he can prevent other countries from using the example of Iraq to justify similar pre-emptive actions.
"Why shouldn't North and South Korea attack each other using the template we developed in Iraq? Or India and Pakistan?
"The precedent we have set is a very dangerous one, and there is every indication that the world will become less safe not more because of our actions."
The letter emphasises that Labor retains its commitment to the Australian-US alliance. While it says many of the signatories did not support the war, "all Australians welcome the end of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime".
Is this a twist on the "not an imminent threat" talking point?
Pres. Bush's comments on this need to be repeated:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
The stupidity of that statement continues to astound me, and it's a common mantra from the left.
Someone should explain to these people how their political system works and, in particular, the fact that Bush is not a citizen of, nor does he hold any office in, their country.
Tony Blair?
What's your point?
By the way, Vladimir Putin could attack us with chemical or biological weapons with only 45 minutes notice, or, indeed, none at all. So could Jacques Chirac.
Again, what was your point?
Hmm, since you don't even know who you're talking about, how can I possibly respond. I'm sure that someone, somewhere in the world said the sentence "there is an imminent threat" sometime within the last two years. Um, but so what.
If you're trying to say that Bush said this in his war campaign, however, then you are simply wrong. It's not just that Bush didn't say there is an imminent threat without using the word "imminent", it's that he said there isn't an imminent threat, and he actually used the word imminent:
So in the face of an explicit statement to the contrary of there being an imminent threat, it's not only silly but downright asinine (not to mention intellectually dishonest) to insist that Bush was "definitely saying there was an imminent threat, even if [he] didn't use the word "imminent"".
So I hope that's not what you're trying to say.
My point was that an attack within 45 minutes is very imminent.
I agree with that point. But who in your opinion said "Saddam Hussein is going to attack us in 45 minutes"? I don't recall anyone saying this.
What's your point? That 45 minutes isn't imminent,
No. An attack which is coming in 45 minutes is obviously imminent. But something which "could" happen within 45 minutes is not necessarily. An asteroid could smash into the earth with as little as 45 minutes warning for example. Do you know any different? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that there is always an "imminent threat" of an asteroid impact.
or that Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin are threats to the US and we should go to war with them?
I think that on their own levels and in some ways Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin are indeed threats to the U.S. In other ways they are friends and in still other ways they are neutrals. Whether or not we should go to war with France and/or Russia depends on a multitude of factors not the least of which is the fact that each of them possesses nukes. My guess is no, at least not at this juncture.
Again, what's your point?
Then I put a question-mark, because I wasn't sure if that was the answer you were going for. I see now that it is. Very well. Resolved: Tony Blair said sometime, somewhere, some statement like "Saddam Hussein could attack us within 45 minutes" to his British subjects. Still don't know what yer point is.
Now I don't know what I'm talking about, so you can't respond?
No, I couldn't respond because you don't know who you're talking about. If I say "George Bush said he wants to kill some puppies", that's a serious charge and you and I can discuss what that means about George Bush and whether we should vote for him etc. But if I say (like you said) "I couldn't remember who said it, but whoever said it was definitely saying they wanna kill puppies", then just what the hell is my point and what does that have to do with George Bush or Tony Blair or anyone else? So how are you supposed to respond if I don't even specify who I'm talking about?
Now turn that around and apply that to the beginning of your comment #12. Understand now? You made a charge (that they said "there's an imminent threat") against no one in particular. You don't know and couldn't say who you were making the charge against. But whether that charge is true or not depends, just a little, on who the heck you're talking about. So unless/until you specify that piece of the puzzle, I couldn't respond - that's what I meant. Capisce?
Okaayyy. If you had actually read my post, I asked who made the statement, you said Tony Blair. Where did I even mention Bush?
Nowhere. Like I said in my previous post, I was only addressing the hypothetical if you had Bush in mind. Then I said that I hoped you didn't. I'm glad to see that my fears proved unwarranted. That settles that then.
I merely asked a question about who made a certain statement. I never mentioned George Bush or anything he said.
I offered a possible answer (which I wasn't sure was correct) and then asked you what your point was. Still waiting to hear.
My original point, which has been made clearly, was the an attack within 45 minutes is imminent, which you agreed with. I never said anyone said Saddam Hussein was going to attack us in 45 minutes, as you say I did.
Ok then. Resolved: we both agree that an attack which is coming within 45 minutes represents an imminent threat, and that nobody ever said that such a thing was the case in the first place. But then what's your point? Why bring it up at all? Shall we now discuss whether an attack coming in 49 minutes is an imminent threat even though nobody said that either?
What's your point?
Probably that you have no point, I guess.
I mean beyond the obvious, that you're a nasty, lonely person with too much time on his hands?
Obviously. Good thing you've made time in your busy schedule to set me straight. Thanks,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.