Posted on 03/11/2004 6:40:36 PM PST by empirekin768
Blair's dramatic warnings ring terrifyingly true
JASON BEATTIE CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
LAST WEEK, Tony Blair delivered a speech in Sedgefield which has proved horrifically prescient.
In words he wrote himself, Mr Blair used the address to defend his fears. Britain and other developed countries were in mortal danger, he said, from a threat "different from anything the world has seen before".
This threat was defined not by Iraq but by 11 September, 2001 - an event which crystallised in the Prime Minister’s mind the dangers posed by global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
"The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before. It is to the world’s security, what globalisation is to the world’s economy," he said.
Contained in the speech was a frequent refrain of Mr Blair. Those who committed the atrocity were prepared to wage that war without limit. "They killed 3,000. But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it," he said.
If that were not enough he chided those who scoffed at the severity of his warnings. One commentator was later to accuse Mr Blair of indulging in "heebie jeebie" politics.
Mr Blair’s response to this was to quote at length his words at a January 2003 press conference: "And I understand, of course, why people think it is a very remote threat and it is far away and why does it bother us. Now I simply say to you, it is a matter of time, unless we act and take a stand, before terrorism and weapons of mass destruction come together."
Mr Blair is unlikely to take any satisfaction from the atrocious events at Madrid’s Atocha station but one could understand if, privately at least, he muttered with concern to a colleague: "I told you so."
Not only have his worst fears materialised, but they have manifested themselves on the brutal scale which he envisaged. While the Spanish government initially blamed only ETA for the terrorist attack, it was last night seeming increasingly likely that it was linked to Islamic fundamentalism.
While Spain had learned to be alert to terrorism, as has Britain since the Troubles in Northern Ireland, it had been used to individual assassinations, car bomb attacks and kidnapping.
Yesterday, we saw killing by the hundreds - fulfilling Mr Blair’s prophecy that if such organisations can kill 190 people they could easily kill 1,900 or 19,000.
Unspoken by Downing Street but prevalent elsewhere in the government was a sense of vindication. It takes a particularly perverted mind to find pleasure in the worst terrorist atrocity in Europe since Lockerbie, but one government insider could barely contain his thoughts at yesterday’s events. "Let us hope there is an al-Qaeda connection," he said.
In the arguments over pre-emption, balancing civil liberties with security needs, and collective action against isolation, the pendulum has swung back towards Mr Blair. Europeans never fully comprehended 11 September, now they have their own version, 11 March - a coincidence of dates not lost on the Spanish press. Making the leap from the twin towers to the reasons behind the occupation of Baghdad is more comprehensible.
Eric Joyce, the Labour MP for Falkirk West and a consistent supporter of Mr Blair’s foreign policy, said the devastation in Madrid justified the Sedgefield address.
"Whether or not this was al-Qaeda, it is a very important indicator that international terrorism is with us. These actions are designed to cause maximum carnage, to put states in that destabilising position where they fear the bombers or they over-react against them," he said, before giving warning: "This brings home how this could easily be something that happens in Britain."
A true loyalist, Mr Joyce pointed out that this omnipresent risk will infect British politics.
He suggested that those who had criticised the detention of terrorist suspects in London’s Belmarsh prison may be less forthright in their condemnation.
From asylum laws, to the stock market - which fell dramatically at one point yesterday - the agenda will be shaped by the spectre of another terrorist attack.
Mr Blair said 11 September altered crucially the "balance of risk," whether "to deal with it or simply carry on, however imperfectly, trying to contain it." What influence will 11 March have on this argument?
Some doubt that the scale of the tragedy will add strength to Mr Blair’s cause.
Opponents of the military action against Iraq may claim that those countries which backed the US war - ostensibly Spain, Britain and Australia - have fuelled the passions of the terrorist and placed their citizens most at risk.
This is an argument rejected by the government, who point out that France, an opponent of the war, has been a terrorist target.
"They [the terrorists] are indiscriminate about who they attack and I am not convinced the attack yesterday was simply because Spain took a tough line on the war on terror," said Mr Joyce.
A question remains about ETA’s involvement. If it is a Basque organisation then it may be premature to place the events in Madrid in a multi- lateral context.
This could be a purely domestic issue, executed entirely in the context of this weekend’s Spanish elections, and without regard for the wider, international implications.
The scale of the atrocity may be greater but the goal has remained consistently limited. If this is the case, then Mr Blair may be better worrying about the consequences for Northern Ireland, where the parallels are closer, than for the global security.
How soon we forget.
No surprise here.
That's because it was all cooked up at Bush's ranch in Texas to ensure his political success in November.
I know this because Ted Kennedy told me so.
I think the families of the dead and wounded in Spain should get with the program and get over it.
After all, it's just a case of "heebie jeebie" politics.
I had honestly always thought of Blair as a Clinton clone. But 9-11 brought out a side of him Clinton never posessed. A resoluteness, a moral line he refused to cross, and a willingness to sacrifice his political career in the service of his country if necessary.
I still can't say I like his politics. But I admire the man.
Does it have to happen to a first degree relative? Does someone they know personally have to die for a sense of outrage at and a resolve to fight terrorism to arise?
The worldly wise cynics who continue to scoff and sneer at the "so called threat" will continue to play with the dingleberries on their spotty behinds.
There was a good article written about him several years back in The American Spectator which provided some hope that he was not. The article referred to him as a "Salvation Army"-type liberal. I think we'd refer to them as blue-collar democrats in our country. He does have some true Christian values at his core.
Hath Hanoi John Kerry muttered a single word of sympathy or insight into the grave events of this day?
In context, his childish & hateful rhetoric of the prior day past and his botox-laden mannerisms in defiance today make that man (Hanoi John) seem so petty, so trivial and beyond any concept of anything US citizens should aspire as anything presidential.
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.