Blair warns that marchers will have 'blood on their hands'

The Sunday Telegraph ^ | February 16, 2003 | Colin Brown and Francis Elliott

[MadIvan]

Tony Blair warned the estimated one million anti-war protesters in Britain yesterday that they would have blood on their hands if they succeeded in stopping action to depose Saddam Hussein.

As mass marches took place in cities around the world, the Prime Minister used his strongest terms so far to confront the critics of military action, including some in his Cabinet.

He told Labour's Spring conference in Glasgow: "Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is inhumane." There would be "consequences paid in blood" for failing to disarm the Iraqi dictator, he added.

The Telegraph has learned that the Prime Minister avoided a Cabinet split by holding private talks before his speech with Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, to secure her support for putting a "moral case" for toppling Saddam.

A Downing Street official said: "He had lengthy discussions with Clare about the humanitarian aspects of the speech. There is absolutely no problem with Clare."

Mr Blair challenged his party to support his leadership, saying: "I do not seek unpopularity as some badge of honour, but sometimes it is the price of leadership."

Cabinet colleagues said his speech amounted to a "back me or sack me" ultimatum and that it was an unprecedented political gamble by the Prime Minister. Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip, said: "This is something that he's considered carefully. He is aware of the dangers to himself of this."

Mr Blair has also secured the support of other potential Cabinet critics of a war on Iraq, including John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, who will back his stand in a speech to the conference today, and Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary.

One senior minister said: "Everybody is worried, but I don't see anybody in the Cabinet who doesn't understand that the balance of the argument is in backing action if necessary."

David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, said the crisis was "one of the more difficult" in the past 40 years for Labour. In a message to those who had "left the party or who were toying" with quitting, he urged the Labour "family" to "pull together and stick together".

However, Diane Abbott, the Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, gave warning that members were threatening to tear up their cards. "Blair is risking liquidating his own party," she said.

Mr Blair's allies conceded that there could still be a Cabinet split if he failed to win a second resolution at the United Nations Security Council.

Robin Cook, the Leader of the House, is regarded as the most likely to quit the Cabinet if Mr Blair decides to back United States-led military action without a second resolution.

The Prime Minister will try to revive his hopes of avoiding a French veto for a second resolution when he confronts President Jacques Chirac at the European Union emergency summit on Iraq in Brussels tomorrow.

Mr Blair said UN weapons inspectors should be given more time in Iraq, but he remained committed to action "within weeks, not months" if Iraq refused to disarm.

Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, warned Baghdad last night that a new Security Council resolution could be forthcoming.

He said: "I believe that the inspectors should continue their work, but if there is no co-operation then the council will see that the operation has become meaningless and that inspections could end. The ball is again in the Iraqi leadership's court."

While Mr Blair made no reference to a second UN resolution in his speech, Downing Street later insisted that he remained committed to seeking a "final verdict" on Iraqi failure to disarm. "He still has confidence in the UN and he still has confidence in Hans Blix," said an aide.

Another official at Number 10 said Mr Blair was "not exactly upbeat" but that "his moral certitude is as strong as ever on this".

[Jerez2]

It's time to talk.
It's time to tell us what he knows that makes him so sure.
Bush & Blair are making it very hard for us to help make their case! They need to communiate more and better!

[prairiebreeze]

I agree that Mr. Blair (God Bless him) and Mr. Bush both know the REAL evil that exists in Saddam's fun houses. The peaceniks are under the greatly mistaken idea that all the information and evidence that exists has been made public.

Bah! Damn Fools! Blood will be all over their hands and SOULS should this regime continue.

[Timmy]

I've seen the pictures. A million? Hah! Must be using Million Man March Math. I doubt if there's 300,000 in the pictures I've seen. Go look at the Promise Keepers rally pictures. THAT was a crowd (I was there).

[prairiebreeze]

I don't agree. There are many reasons for keeping certain information classified. Compromising of important information sources(perhaps by placing their lives in danger) , not wanting to demonstrate our methods and means of collecting intel or the level of sophistication we possess with intelligence gathering to our enemies, or tipping off possible future operations to Saddam or the evil twins to name a few.

Besides, it would very likely scare the PANTS off the public and that includes you and me.

A government that is unwise about what it shares and when is dangerous. It's not time for them to talk. They have talked. It's time for us to listen, understand and TRUST.

[Travis McGee]

"I do not seek unpopularity as some badge of honour, but sometimes it is the price of leadership."

Where did he get that steel and titanium backbone? God Bless Tony Blair!

[arasina]

I didn't fancy Tony Blair back when he appeared to be so buddy-buddy with our lawless ex-president, but I now perceive him to be quite principled. I hope he knows he has the support of much of America.

[Mr. Mojo]

Blair warns that marchers will have 'blood on their hands'

Blair has serious balls of steel, considering that 90% of the British public is against the ousting of Saddam (if the latest polls are to be believed). But he knows what all intelligent people everywhere know (or should know) --- that in a few weeks when the streets of Baghdad are flooded with grateful Iraqis celebrating their new freedoms, the world will look upon the liberators with grudging respect and admiration. Blair is way too smart to miss such an opportunity.

[RightWhale]

The PM is correct. Just as the Vietnam protesters have Pol Pot and 3 million Cambodians to account for, these protesters may have their own shining monument.

[Eva]

I wonder if there is a way to e-mail Tony Blair a word of thanks.

[areafiftyone]

Thats a good idea. I am going to check it out.

[Mr. Mojo]

Too bad that it may cost him [Blair] his political career.

It'll only cost him his political career if the upcoming military battle turns out to be a disaster (for the good guys), and that ain't gonna happen. He's banking on our military success, and I'd say that's a mighty safe investment.

[Jerez2]

I know the dangers of revealing information. And I DO trust President Bush. But the dangers of sending our military into war without public support is greater. I'll leave the timing of the info release up to Bush and Blair. But it BETTER come soon. Protests DO have an effect on public opinion. I hate to say it, but it is true!

[Cultural Jihad]

I am sorry but that's a load of cr*p...

FYI, our newbie with the potty mouth came back from a Saddam-enabling march today.

[Neever]

Man, I have to agree with Blair. There has to be something going on that we haven't been told. This warning of his is frightening.

Half of me would like to see these Communist peaceniks eat their words. The other half of me doesn't want to have to see what will happen if Saddam is left in power.

[knak]

I was wondering that too. Also what the world is going to do if the next resolution doesn't pass. I'm sure I already know the answer though.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I think he will risk it. I believe he knows something about Iraq that he is not able to share with us at the present time, but once Saddam is out, his reasons will become clear.

It is the only logical reason for his behavor and that of John Howard.

I have been trying to imagine what kind of threat would make a Prime Minister risk his position and go against his own party. He would have to be convinced that it was something both urgent and nasty.

[Mr. Mojo]

Why exactly do you believe this article to be "a load of crap?"

Be specific.