Posted on 09/07/2002 2:40:29 PM PDT by MadIvan
Tony Blair and George Bush today face mounting opposition to the war on Iraq from both sides of the Atlantic.
In Britain, a survey of Labour MPs showed almost zero backing for military attacks on Saddam Hussein's regime.
And in the States, former president Bill Clinton led a growing chorus of demands to postpone action until Osama bin Laden, the terrorist godfather thought to be behind the 11 September atrocities, is caught.
In another blow, the head of the intelligence committee in Congress, Bob Graham, also called for war to be postponed until Afghanistan was dealt with.
Mr Blair, who flies to Camp David tomorrow for a war summit with President Bush, came under pressure from Robin Cook, the leading "dove" in the Cabinet who pressed for MPs to be given a Commons vote on the issue.
Number 10 has so far refused to promise a vote and has rejected an early recall of Parliament to debate the crisis.
But Mr Cook said that before the original Gulf War in 1990, Labour and the Conservatives agreed to hold a vote.
"I am sure that this Labour government will be aware of that precedent," he said in an interview with the Financial Times.
Mr Cook, the Leader of the Commons, also demanded that military action be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. "If we are to succeed in curbing Saddam's military ambitions, we have a better chance of success if we have the world with us and Saddam isolated," he said.
The scale of opposition among backbenchers was revealed in a survey of 100 Labour MPs carried out by the BBC. Only four said they thought there were currently sufficient grounds to declare war on Iraq, compared with 88 who did not.
Almost nine in 10 - 86 per cent - said there should be a Commons vote before the Cabinet takes a decision on military action. That was a direct challenge to ministers who have only offered a debate, without a vote, after the Cabinet has made up its mind.
Tensions were also growing in America, where Mr Clinton used a fundraising gala in California to attack President Bush for targeting Saddam Hussein before "finishing the job" in Afghanistan.
"Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on 11 September," declared Mr Clinton. "Osama bin Laden did, and as far as we know he is still alive. Before we give up the effort in Afghanistan we need to finish the job. Bin Laden is still our biggest security threat."
Mr Clinton also warned that a strike against Saddam would strip the Iraqi leader of any incentive to hold off using chemical and biological weapons. He said: "Saddam Hussein is not a good man by our definition. There is no question that he has significant stocks of chemical and biological agents.
"I think we have to assume that if he knows we're coming, he'll do everything he can to use them. He has maximum incentive not to use the stuff. If we go in, he has maximum incentive to use it because he knows he's going to lose. That's a risk and it's an issue the President-has to address." The former president-said America should be trying to "lead the world" not "run the world". And he warned that Saddam was "admired" by many ordinary Arabs.
Labour MPs were furious today that Mr Blair decalred in a television documentary that he was prepared to pay the "blood price" needed to preserve the special relationship with the US.
He insisted that the UK must be there "when the shooting starts" to maintain its most important alliance.
Mr Blair will fly to Russia on Monday for talks with Vladimir Putin, his first piece of shuttle diplomacy on behalf of the fledgling coalition.
Russian backing is vital because Mr Putin has the power to veto any UN resolution as a permanent member of the UN security council.
Jack Straw will today insist it would be "wildly irresponsible" to rule out military action against Saddam. In a speech at Birmingham University, the Foreign Secretary will say: "Until Saddam co-operates fully with UN weapons inspectors, we have no guarantees that a dictator who has previously shown no restraint in using weapons of mass destruction will not use them again."
On the bright side, however, based on his "effectiveness" record, if he respresents the "leadership" of the "anti-war movement", then war is guaranteed.
Imal
Clinton has this knack for killing a few political birds with one stone.
Note that he did not even say killed, as if we could discuss with the guy who won't let his dead victims speak up, a travesty of justice.
In addition this is a hedge for his lack of action on Bin Laden. You, know, he was chasing other tails during his 8 years too.
Last but not least, Clinton's sick communist human life accounting has been brought up to an art form, now we must go in a tit for tat battle, but certainly not parallel processing the securisation of the free world.
1. Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
2. Liar.
[As in: I have my entire audited next twelve months income for the charity of my choosing if you can QUOTE ME, EVER, speaking for anyone other tham myself. (Although I can understand that you feel as if that amounts to more than just me)]
3. Dullard.
4. Psychopathological projector.
5. Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
Again, during the transition, he refused to release keys to the office space, requiring Cheney to have to go rent offices in Alexandria.
At the Inauguration, President Bush was greeted with vandalized office space and Clinton delayed leaving town, and also asked for AF1 to take him to New York.
All of this was calculated to draw President Bush into a public battle with him, which at the time Clinton could probably have won because Bush's presidency was so new.
Now we have a proven leader in President Bush, and the sniping is going to escalate.
I especially liked your comment about the Europeans and Clinton. I believe he did this in Asia as well, making little trips to Australia and Indonesia and other places, sowing seeds of doubt where he could.
Your comment reminds me about this picture. You've probably heard about the black historical landmark that was torn down to make way for clintoon's Prez Liebrary? I think this may actually be that landmark !:
Alright ! Well, we'll just hafta make you an honorary Texan, then !
Are you talkin' about modifying this pic with Roseanne Barr and Ted Kennedy?>>>>>>
I see, President Bush is in a conspiracy with Clinton! Are you sure that Saddam Hussein, the Bavarian Illuminati, and the Learned Elders of Zion are not also a part of this conspiracy!
Just because you have not been paying attention for the past year, while the administration and others have been talking about Iraq is no reason for those who have paid attention to forget the dozens of references which have been made over this period to the need to dispose of Saddam.
Great post, although made them look good, should have done Rose Anne Barr for Queen T--t, and the loved and revered, almost never sober, senator from Mass, as WJC. I know you can do it, love to see it.Well, I'm brand new to playin' around with making/modifying images, so I needed the practice anyway. So I played around with this this morning and here's what I came up with. Like I sed, I'm new, so please don't laugh at me - not too hard, anyway! lol!
I took this........
.....and made it into this:
Is that what you were wanting to see (sort of)??
His head's BIG, I know.....but that's cuz he haz a hangover - again !
Why aren't more people challenging this assertion? Osama Bin Laden has NOT beeen seen by ANYONE in almost a year. So as far as we know, he is dead.
They want evidence that Hussein supports terrorism, and it is there in abundance. We should now demand evidence that Osama is still alive.
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.