Kennedy attacks 'imperialist' Bush (HOLD MUH LAGER ALERT)

Charles Kennedy tapped into growing anti-Americanism in his party yesterday by accusing President Bush of "imperialism" in the build-up to war against Iraq.

In case you're wondering what spawn of JFK this is, he's not - he's a Scot, and the leader of the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK, the 3rd largest party. Still, the Kennedy name seems to bring deranged leftism - Ivan

On the eve of the emergency recall of Parliament, he warned Tony Blair that he could not count on Liberal Democrat support in a Commons vote for military action.

Making an emergency statement to his party conference in Brighton, he was cheered when he questioned the motives behind the White House's policy of "regime change" in Baghdad.

Adopting a stance that has raised eyebrows in certain sections of the party, he said he was "increasingly concerned" about Mr Bush's determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

"Who decides the legitimacy of such change? On what basis in international law? And with what ultimate objective in mind? I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to these questions. There is more than a hint of imperialism here," he said to sustained applause.

I wonder if old Charlie would have felt the same if we had shot dead Hitler or Stalin before they murdered their people; a fellow on the BBC this morning put the estimate of people Saddam had killed at 900,000. - Ivan

Mr Kennedy, who travels to London today to answer Mr Blair's statement on Iraq, said he was worried about America "undermining the moral, legal and practical authority of the United Nations".

Charlie, my lad, they have no authority. Do what no liberal is able to do - shut up. - Ivan

There were "extreme uncertainties and dangers" in going to war against Saddam Hussein, he said. But military action should not be ruled out "as a last resort".

He said: "The first priority of the Government must be the return of the UN weapons inspectors. Anything less than unfettered access anywhere in Iraq is unacceptable.

But as you don't want to fight, laddie, all you can do if Saddam refuses is hold your breath until you turn blue - Ivan

"The unconditional return of the inspectors requires a clear timetable and no ruling out of an ultimate resort to military action if that necessary compliance is denied or thwarted. But we are not there yet."

Meaning: we'll rule it out at home, but we hope the Iraqis don't watch television, so we can threaten them with it, even though we'd never do it - Ivan

Mr Kennedy was heard mainly in silence. Delegates reserved applause for the sections that were the most questioning of American motives and his call for pressure to resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestinians.

He said Britain should take account of the "sensitivities" of its Muslim community and of the Arab world at large.

We've bent over backwards to be sensitive in both the USA and UK; time for them to show loyalty to the nations which shelter them. If not, off with their heads - Ivan

He reiterated his support for the Government's policy of "standing shoulder to shoulder" with America after September 11 but said Britain must remain a "candid friend", willing to offer "the occasional cautionary tap on the shoulder".

With the Government's dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to be published today, he said America had produced "no definitive evidence directly linking" Baghdad to al-Qa'eda.

Lib Dems would adopt a "common-sense approach" to the issue. In a signal to Mr Blair that he could not bank on the Lib Dems to defeat Labour anti-war MPs, Mr Kennedy said his party would not suspend its "critical faculties". The mood of the conference is running against war and America's robust diplomacy since September 11.

Lib Dems will debate an emergency motion on Iraq tomorrow which calls on Iraq to allow weapons inspectors unfettered access and says military action should only take place with UN, EU and Parliamentary approval.

Although the motion makes no mention of America, senior front-benchers are concerned that the tone of the debate could be harshly critical of the United States.

A delegate, William Beard, of Wolverhampton, attacked "this unjustified, unwanted and unwinnable war".

Anti-American rhetoric surfaced from a senior front-bencher when Malcolm Bruce described the Bush administration as a "regime" and condemned its "arrogant defiance" on green issues.

You'll love this reaction to the Liberals in the Times:

Why I can't stand all those smug Liberals
by Daniel Finkelstein

Proportional representation. Now I haven’t got your attention, let me talk to you about the Liberals. You might think that no one would want to thunder about the Liberals, that nothing could be as herbivorous and inoffensive as them. Surely no one could have all that much against all those earnest people out delivering Liberal Focus leaflets and eagerly awaiting a visit from the leader on his Battlebike. You would be wrong.
How would Tom Lehrer have put it? Old Labour hates new Labour and new Labour hates old Tories and old Tories hate new Tories, but everyone hates the Liberals.
For political junkies (the only people watching) the Liberal conference is the most irritating week of the year. Of course, all party conferences have their moments. I worked for the Conservatives when Jeffrey Archer received a standing ovation for what, even at the time, was a toe-curlingly embarrassing call to be tough on crime (criminals only allowed out to the theatre four days a week and no more than five Chinese takeaways a month). And have you ever listened to a whole speech by John Edmonds? Yet the Liberal week at the seaside somehow contrives to be worse.
It is the sanctimonious tone of all those patronising lectures that does it. Watching Liberal conference is like going back to primary school, only without the literacy and numeracy hours. My own theory about why Charles Kennedy looks more uncomfortable as party leader than his predecessor is that being sanctimonious came naturally to Paddy Ashdown while Kennedy has to make a real effort.
Now, being sanctimonious is never a very attractive characteristic, but there is something in the Liberal case that makes it truly insufferable. It is what might be termed the Law of Liberal Politics — the more sanctimonious the Liberals are about something, the more likely it is that their own behaviour towards it will be characterised by hypocrisy or self-delusion.
Let’s start with their favourite topic for smug sermonising, their insistent complaint about the negative campaigning and “Punch and Judy politics” of the other parties. I’m not a celebrity, but get me out of here anyway. There is nobody who can compete with the Liberals when it comes to running nasty and disingenuous local campaigns. In private they revel in it. “Be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly,” the Association of Liberal Councillors told its members before the 2002 elections. “Positive campaigning will not be enough to win control of the council.”
This must be the reason why, at the last election, the Labour MP Denis MacShane found himself adorning Liberal literature in another constituency apparently endorsing the Liberal candidate when he had done no such thing. Or why the Folkestone Liberals told pensioners that the Tories planned to charge them £6,500 for a hip operation.
The Law of Liberal Politics covers policies as well as campaigning. The Liberals love to go on about how honest they are, and how responsible, when they talk about taxation. Only they have been prepared to admit they will put up taxes. Yet their famous 1p extra on income tax to fund spending on education is entirely fraudulent. The money is pledged over and over again by the party to fund the most expensive series of unrealisable promises.
Whether it be their boast that they are the party that truly believes in decentralisation, while promoting a highly centralised European Union, or their attacks on Labour’s ties to “vested interest” while exploiting Tony Blair’s difficulties by emphasising their “lifelong belief in trade unionism”, as Kennedy shamelessly did in Blackpool, Liberal policies are lent coherence only by their incoherence.
The party always claims that if only people thought they could win power they’d vote Liberal. The Law of Liberal Politics applies again. If people ever thought they would actually win, they’d run a mile.
There is, however, one nice thing you can say about the Liberals. At the end of this polemic they’ll only have one complaint. I should have called them Liberal Democrats.

Regards, Ivan Regards, Ivan

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.