... no matter where the beasts must be slain!
Posted on 05/02/2005 6:10:43 AM PDT by OESY
HOVE, England, May 1 - If there is one campaign issue that Prime Minister Tony Blair would prefer to wish away before Britons go to the polls on Thursday, it is probably the question of his integrity and credibility in the way he handled the period leading up to the Iraq war.
But on Sunday, Iraq came back to haunt him yet again in a newspaper article suggesting that he had committed himself to an American plan for "regime change" months before he told either Parliament or the people that British participation in the American-led invasion was all but inevitable.
The article could further damage Mr. Blair because his opponents may use it to renew their assault on his trustworthiness, reviving the argument that he secretly promised President Bush to support the invasion of Iraq.
Yet, at a rally of the party faithful on Sunday in this southern coastal town, Mr. Blair counterattacked, seeking to transform the debate into a broader question of leadership, and assailing his opponents for what he depicted as their lack of it.
In a combative speech to about 1,000 followers, he focused closely on areas where he says Labor has secured progress - particularly the economy and public services. His opponents, he said, assailed his character and leadership because "they have nothing else to focus this election on," adding, "They know they have lost the argument" on the economy and other issues.
He barely mentioned the war in Iraq, except to say: "I don't doubt that there are people in this audience today who disagreed with what I did in Iraq. I understand that, and I have never disrespected people who disagreed with me."
But, he said, "leadership is about taking difficult decisions."
He continued, "So now we come to the stage where it's the British people who sit in the seat of decision-making, and all I ask them to do is recognize the fundamental nature of the choice" to be made May 5. "On that choice they make rests the future of this country."
Politically, the legacy of the war has created an aura of mistrust around Mr. Blair that he has been unable to shake despite endorsements of his candidacy for a record-setting third straight term from sources as disparate as The Sun to Bill Clinton. With opinion surveys on Sunday forecasting a Labor lead at the polls of three to eight percentage points, a number of widely read tabloids gave Mr. Blair their endorsements.
But The Sunday Times published details of a leaked document dating to July 2002 - eight months before the Iraq war - recording a meeting between Mr. Blair and his close advisers, in which he seemed to swing behind American arguments for "regime change."
As the war approached, Mr. Blair said frequently that the reason for it was to force Saddam Hussein to comply with United Nations resolutions calling on him to disarm, and Mr. Blair denied that he was seeking to force a change of leadership in Iraq. Indeed, in a previously secret document made public last week, Britain's attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, said forcing a change of leadership could not be used as a justification for invasion.
The leaked document from July 2002, however, summarized Mr. Blair's position with these words: "If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work."
Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, reportedly described the case for war as "thin" because Mr. Hussein "was not threatening his neighbors" and his unconventional arms capacity "was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
Sir Richard Dearlove, Britain's most senior intelligence officer, who had just returned from Washington, was said to have concluded that the invasion was inevitable because "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action."
"Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," he was quoted as saying.
In a Sunday morning television interview, Mr. Blair did not deny that the meeting took place in July 2002, but he recalled that "subsequent to that meeting, we went the United Nations route," seeking a resolution in November 2002, calling on the Iraqi government to disarm. An effort to secure a more bellicose second resolution faltered in early 2003.
Mr. Blair disputed a suggestion that Britain might have pulled out of the war, leaving America to topple Mr. Hussein alone.
"So we the British at the moment of decision would have faltered and backed off," Mr. Blair said. "That's not my conception of Britain."
He denied, however, that Britain had committed itself irrevocably to war by July 2002.
"The idea that we had decided definitely by that stage is disproved by the fact that we went back to the U.N." he said.
The Iraq issue has dogged Mr. Blair despite strenuous efforts to move the campaign onto more comfortable territory, like the economy, where Labor believes it has a good record. Mr. Blair is also worried that if voters shift away from Labor to the smaller opposition Liberal Democrats to protest the war, the Conservatives will in effect benefit.
"There will be people who will feel very, very strongly over Iraq," he said. "But if they vote Liberal Democrat in a seat where the Conservatives are second, it is not policy on Iraq that will change; it's the policy on the economy, on the health service, on schools, on the minimum wage."
At his rally here, Mr. Blair also enjoined his supporters to vote in large numbers: "Think about the program and the policies. Think about the choice. Think about the type of country we are and want to become. Don't opt out of it."
He's still going to win handsomely. So a few Labour supporters are unhappy? Join the Socialist alliance then.
"The truest word Blair has said for a long time was over this weekend or late last week that had Michael Howard been in power we would have gone to war earlier."
Blair's assertion may well be true. It also spectacularly misses the point.
I firmly believe that the British people would be prepared to back an 'illegal' war in the right circumstances (whether Iraq was they is another point, I continue to believe they weren't but that is no longer the point). The British people would accept that 'international law' might not deem this ok but, hey, it's the right thing to do and we're going to do it.
But that is not what Blair did. Instead he manufactured, misled and lied to the country. That is what people care about and that is what they should care about. This is not about his actions, so saying others may have taken the same actions is disingenious, it is about his honesty and his integrity.
"He's still going to win handsomely. So a few Labour supporters are unhappy? Join the Socialist alliance then."
Why do you assume that only the far left would be concerned at a Prime Minister who lacks honesty and integrity? I assure you that that is not the case.
Absolutely
Unfortunately the MSM have portrayed it this way basically if you oppose Blair you oppose the war which is not true. Many British Conservatives support the War in Iraq but not the way Blair lied to take us to war, he simply lacks integrity.
The Conservative strategy of calling Blair a liar is not working.
"If Blair, Bush, Rice, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and hundreds of others, lied, misled, and manufactured, WMD claims and evidence, to get "permission" from the UN or their publics, what do you think they hoped to accomplish by their "lies"?"
I haven't mentioned any of those other people, nor have I mentioned "WMD claims".
The charge is specific to Tony Blair, specific to what he said and what he didn't say to the British people, to the British Parliament and to his own Cabinet.
"The Conservative strategy of calling Blair a liar is not working."
True. Although it does appear that the British electorate has lost a lot of belief in Blair's integrity, but people want something else to vote for instead. The fact that the polls still show a Labour lead despite the widely-held negative opinions about Tony Blair say more about the woeful campaign that Michael Howard has run.
Most people are more concerned with Blair's lies over domestic policies than international policy. That said he did issue the September Dossier under very suspicious circumstances (too many re-writes and half truths). He and his cabinet have also lied about the deployment of Blackwatch to the north of Baghdad.
He is a very slick lawyer. He has shown principle in deciding to get involved in Iraq but an amazing lack of it in getting the UK public to back him.
Some things trump kneejerk Conservatism, and one of those is a demonstrated capacity for leadership. Blairs' resolve and stalwart loyalty have been mind boggling. The pressure on Blair to abandon Bush and America was monumentally intense. He never faded. He was always there.
Even those in America that oppose the war will never forget this. I doubt that people in the UK have any idea of the sheer magnitude of elevation of the UK's prestige and perception in American sensibilities due to Tony Blair. A day will come when the UK desperately needs to call in this IOU. Blair has guaranteed that IOU will be paid promptly when that day arrives.
The "Conservatives" in the UK, and their opportunism to sell out, and be "anti-war" because it was cool in all the ponity headed socialist circles makes me want to PUKE.
Not my idea of leadership, regardless of what Blair does or does not do.
I look at the "Conservatives" and I see Dimocrap techniques, and talking points.
No... I do no have ANY respect for these so-called "Conservatives"
"Many British Conservatives support the War in Iraq but not the way Blair lied to take us to war, he simply lacks integrity."
Could you really say that if they found say viable anthrax stores in an Iraqi bunker?
Did Blair know that the missing WMDs would not be found?
"Did Blair know that the missing WMDs would not be found?"
As I said before, that's not the issue.
"The "Conservatives" in the UK, and their opportunism to sell out, and be "anti-war" because it was cool in all the ponity headed socialist circles makes me want to PUKE."
Who are you referring to exactly?
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.