Important info on Blair backing war in Sept 2002 "whatever happened"

[tinnypriv]

This is posted in Op-Ed, but is worth putting in Gen I think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,998776,00.html

Check these parts out:

The British people were indeed tricked into the Iraq war. But the trickery was not forensic. It was not really about intelligence dossiers, whether sexed up by Alastair Campbell or otherwise. It even had little to do with weapons of mass destruction, whether possessed or programmed by Iraq.

The deception was always political. It concerned the true reasons why Britain went to war, stuck by America's side, abandoned its principal allies and interests in Europe, and played fast and loose with the United Nations. Like all deceptions, this was not admitted in public. But it was certainly discussed in private. And now it has been revealed. Ladies and gentlemen, it looks as if we have a smoking gun.

...

The evidence for this has been sitting unremarked in a book published at the start of this month. Peter Stothard's book, 30 Days, is an inside account of what the subtitle calls "a month at the heart of Blair's war". It is exceptionally well sourced. The former editor of the Times was given remarkable access to the inner workings of 10 Downing Street...

...

The crucial passage occurs on page 87 of Stothard's diary-style narrative of the war. It comes as the author reflects on the political thought processes that had gone into the crafting of Tony Blair's widely admired speech at the start of the vital eve-of-war Commons debate on March 18. Stothard's reflections are contained in a relatively long passage, but it deserves to be quoted in full:

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[Fridays Child]

1. How could such coldly cynical thinking ever have prevailed over the ...

...(now realized) certainty that so many would die such grisly and tragic deaths? I don't understand it.

[AP]

3. It would be so much worse for so many more if Blair stayed out

The UK is making the best out of a bad job. It takes courage.

[AP]

2. Pat myself on the back: I have had this same exact analysis

without the benefit of having the same access to Blair.

This is so painfully obvious that any DUer who hasn't realized the same exact thing should ask themselves why they've been so blinded.

Just because you hate Bush and Republicans doesn't mean you have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Like I've said, it's better for Britain, Europe, for Democrats in America, for Iraqis and for the world that Tony Blair had the courage NOT to let America rape Iraq all by their lonesome and has an eye over America's shoulder.

You'd all do yourself a big favor if you didn't advocate for Blair's demise.

[It was not a pretzel]

4. I "knew" the same but draw a different conclusion

His support of the US for purely political reasons is traitorous to the UK. He thought he could tame the tiger and has failed to do so. Maybe he can seek political asylum in the US.

[AP]

5. His political reason: don't let America become an imperialist

nation controlling the economic and democratic fate of Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

Yeah, what a traitor.

[T_i_B]

6. If that be the reason

Then Blair has failed.

[AP]

9. We have different opinions on what the various possible outcomes

would have been.

I feel like I'm on a role because I came to the same conclusion Southard came to on Blair's motivations. My opinion is that it would have been worse for Iraq and for the future economic and political independence of Europe and Britain if the US were over there in Iraq completely without any oversight.

[aneerkoinos]

7. I "knew" it too

But I knew even more: I fully agreed with France and Russia who warned that Iraq invasion would be a catastrophe for the invaders - in full realpolitik meaning - and it has turned out that they were right. Your whole defence of Blair is based on the misconception that Iraq is a success. It's not, it's a mistake of such magnitude that the politicians who made it happen can make only once.

Also you - like the realpolitik ideologues of Washington - tend to forget that "we the people" are still part of the whole thing: democracy and democratic ideals have not died, on the contrary they evolve and grow and they will prevail, we the people will set continuously higher standards of good governance and we will expect our leaders to live by those standars. There is a limit to the amount of shit we will take, and that is also realpolitik, dear AP!

[AP]

8. Uh, Iraq isn't a success, and my argument does NOT depend on it

being a success.

What I'm sure of, however, is that it would be much worse, and we'd probably know less about it, if the US had the run of the place.

And you know what. If France and Russia didn't have Blair to do their dirty work (ie, if there weren't a European leader willing to take the political risk Blair has taken), Russian and France wouldn't have had the luxury of opposing the US. They would have had to go it too, just to look after their own, and European intersts. Blair is covering for all of them.

This isn't so much an issue of real politik vs ideological purity. It's a matter of a politician looking after the democratic political and economic interests of his or her nation. Bush wants to destroy the economic competitiveness of Europe. Blair is representing his citizens by doing what it takes to protect them.

[aneerkoinos]

14. "it would be much worse"

Exactly, and that's the point. Without Blair's support US would fall apart sooner. Blair's (and your) mistake is to overestimate US strength. Occypuying Iraq does not give US leverage over OPEC and US can't stop others selling oil to Europe. It is nothing more than quaqmire bleeding US economy towards bankruptcy. Without Blair US would face armed opposition not only in central Iraq but also in south, their stupidity can be counted on. Without the help and know how from an old imperialistic power US military adventurism would end earlier.

Blair is not covering for European interests, if he thinks he does, he's badly mistaken. Continental Europes views on European interests are very different from Blair's views, and Blair (or Ingerland) is actually the biggest single obstacle against the greatest European priority, building strong democratic Union and thus respecting the wishes of majority of EU-citizens. Blair supports neoliberal corporate ass-kissing politics and has no respect for European social model and other European values, as his opposition towards Union level social policies, European Charter of Human Rights etc. show. He's not center-left but far away off the center pole on the other side. What actual social democratic policies have been carried out are Brown's achievments, not Blairs.

To say that without Blairs support for France, Germany and Russia could have not opposed US is just laughable. Everybody in the world opposed US invasion except Blair and few other corrupt leaders against the will of their people.

[Capt_Nemo]

15. Absolutely right

[T_i_B]

13. No you didn't

I can remember your inane posts on DU before the war another poodle and you were on and down on the subject more often than a whores drawers.

First you were claiming that Blair would pull some sort of rabbit out of the hat and leave Bush high & dry at the last minuite. Then when that looked more like bullshit you were for war with UN backing, then when Blair did a U-turn so did you. And all this time you would only ever admit to your views on Iraq when confronted by the rest of us.

Now that your argument about Blair being electoral gold has turned to dust you are parroting the "new" labour line on Iraq incessantly. Trouble is your argument is morally repugnant. Based on your analysis Chamberlain would have been better advised to invade the Sudentenland with Hitler! :grr: You are nothing more than a Bush appeaser much like your politcal masters AP, and you deserve all the contempt that you get.

[Eloriel]

20. Morally repugnant is right

and thank you for saying it. Your analogy re Hitler and Chamberlain is apt as well.

Eloriel

[TheDonkey]

10. I do feel bad for Blair

If it was not for England we would of had more american deaths, and a higher cost for this ridiculous war. I do think Blair had a lot of courage to not let Bush go it alone on this war (as he would of). But Blair has also put British lives on the line and he does deserve whatever bashing he is soon going to recieve.

He should have told Bush, NO NO NO. But I'm personally glad he didn't.

[AP]

11. Kick. People need to confront this.

It all good fun to bash anyone who APPEARS to support Bush (even if bashing that person ultimately helps Bush).

Scratch the surface, though, and there are some truths that need to be confronted, even if they aren't black hat vs white hat fun to confront.

[newyawker99]

12. tinnypriv

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4 paragraphs
from the news source.

Thank you.

NYer99
DU Moderator

[T_i_B]

16. Six flimsy points

Saddam Hussein's past aggression, present support for terrorism and future ambitions made him a clear threat to his enemies. He was not the only threat, but he was a threat nevertheless.

This was the point that was sold to the public. it is also the argument that is unravelling now as it is clear that he did not have the means to fulfil any ambitions that infringed on other nations. In other words he did not have the means to attack with WMD, as Blair claimed.

There is also still no link between Saddam & Al-Quaida. This first point was essentially a lie, a pretext which most people on here have seen through.

The US and Britain were among his enemies.

No shit Sherlock! Seriously though, there are plenty of other nations who are enemies of the UK & the US and they don't get attacked. Why not?

The people of the US, still angered by the September 11 attacks, still sensing unfinished business from the first Gulf war 12 years before, would support a war on Iraq.

In case you have not noticed, Blair is not president of the US but PM of GREAT BRITAIN. Blair's task is not serve the people of Britain, not America. The fact that Blair is more worried about US opinion that UK opinion tells you something about the deep contempt in which he & his supporters hold this country.

Gulf war 2 - President George W Bush v Saddam Hussein - would happen whatever anyone else said or did.

That does not make is any less morally reprehensible, not does it mean that we have any more interest in joining in with it than anybody else. It is now quite clear that US allies get hardly any say at all in what Bush does so why bother? All Blair has done is to isolate ourselves from our European allies who do listen.

The people of Britain, continental Europe and most of the rest of the world would not even begin to support a war unless they had a say in it through the UN.

Two points. Firstly, Blair failed in his attempt to get UN backing, secondly, those of us who opposed the war did so regardless of what the UN said. We opposed the war because it was wrong.

it would be more damaging to longterm world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so

Nonsense. Bush will destroy long term world peace regardless of whether or not he has Blair poodling along at his side. The only way to preserve the peace is to stand up to Bush and fight against those who want endless war. Joining them will only make things worse.

[T_i_B]

Six flimsy points

Saddam Hussein's past aggression, present support for terrorism and future ambitions made him a clear threat to his enemies. He was not the only threat, but he was a threat nevertheless.

This was the point that was sold to the public. it is also the argument that is unravelling now as it is clear that he did not have the means to fulfil any ambitions that infringed on other nations. In other words he did not have the means to attack with WMD, as Blair claimed.

There is also still no link between Saddam & Al-Quaida. This first point was essentially a lie, a pretext which most people on here have seen through.

The US and Britain were among his enemies.

No shit Sherlock! Seriously though, there are plenty of other nations who are enemies of the UK & the US and they don't get attacked. Why not?

The people of the US, still angered by the September 11 attacks, still sensing unfinished business from the first Gulf war 12 years before, would support a war on Iraq.

In case you have not noticed, Blair is not president of the US but PM of GREAT BRITAIN. Blair's task is not serve the people of Britain, not America. The fact that Blair is more worried about US opinion that UK opinion tells you something about the deep contempt in which he & his supporters hold this country.

Gulf war 2 - President George W Bush v Saddam Hussein - would happen whatever anyone else said or did.

That does not make is any less morally reprehensible, not does it mean that we have any more interest in joining in with it than anybody else. It is now quite clear that US allies get hardly any say at all in what Bush does so why bother? All Blair has done is to isolate ourselves from our European allies who do listen.

The people of Britain, continental Europe and most of the rest of the world would not even begin to support a war unless they had a say in it through the UN.

Two points. Firstly, Blair failed in his attempt to get UN backing, secondly, those of us who opposed the war did so regardless of what the UN said. We opposed the war because it was wrong.

it would be more damaging to longterm world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so

Nonsense. Bush will destroy long term world peace regardless of whether or not he has Blair poodling along at his side. The only way to preserve the peace is to stand up to Bush and fight against those who want endless war. Joining them has only made things worse.

[T_i_B]

17. Six flimsy points

Saddam Hussein's past aggression, present support for terrorism and future ambitions made him a clear threat to his enemies. He was not the only threat, but he was a threat nevertheless.

This was the point that was sold to the public. it is also the argument that is unravelling now as it is clear that he did not have the means to fulfil any ambitions that infringed on other nations. In other words he did not have the means to attack with WMD, as Blair claimed.

There is also still no link between Saddam & Al-Quaida. This first point was essentially a lie, a pretext which most people on here have seen through.

The US and Britain were among his enemies.

No shit Sherlock! Seriously though, there are plenty of other nations who are enemies of the UK & the US and they don't get attacked. Why not?

The people of the US, still angered by the September 11 attacks, still sensing unfinished business from the first Gulf war 12 years before, would support a war on Iraq.

In case you have not noticed, Blair is not president of the US but PM of GREAT BRITAIN. Blair's task is not serve the people of Britain, not America. The fact that Blair is more worried about US opinion that UK opinion tells you something about the deep contempt in which he & his supporters hold this country.

Gulf war 2 - President George W Bush v Saddam Hussein - would happen whatever anyone else said or did.

That does not make is any less morally reprehensible, not does it mean that we have any more interest in joining in with it than anybody else. It is now quite clear that US allies get hardly any say at all in what Bush does so why bother? All Blair has done is to isolate ourselves from our European allies who do listen.

The people of Britain, continental Europe and most of the rest of the world would not even begin to support a war unless they had a say in it through the UN.

Two points. Firstly, Blair failed in his attempt to get UN backing, secondly, those of us who opposed the war did so regardless of what the UN said. We opposed the war because it was wrong.

it would be more damaging to longterm world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so

Nonsense. Bush will destroy long term world peace regardless of whether or not he has Blair poodling along at his side. The only way to preserve the peace is to stand up to Bush and fight against those who want endless war. Joining them has only made things worse.

[T_i_B]

18. Six flimsy points

Saddam Hussein's past aggression, present support for terrorism and future ambitions made him a clear threat to his enemies. He was not the only threat, but he was a threat nevertheless.

This was the point that was sold to the public. it is also the argument that is unravelling now as it is clear that he did not have the means to fulfil any ambitions that infringed on other nations. In other words he did not have the means to attack with WMD, as Blair claimed.

There is also still no link between Saddam & Al-Quaida. This first point was essentially a lie, a pretext which most people on here have seen through.

The US and Britain were among his enemies.

No shit Sherlock! Seriously though, there are plenty of other nations who are enemies of the UK & the US and they don't get attacked. Why not?

The people of the US, still angered by the September 11 attacks, still sensing unfinished business from the first Gulf war 12 years before, would support a war on Iraq.

In case you have not noticed, Blair is not president of the US but PM of GREAT BRITAIN. Blair's task is not serve the people of Britain, not America. The fact that Blair is more worried about US opinion that UK opinion tells you something about the deep contempt in which he & his supporters hold this country.

Gulf war 2 - President George W Bush v Saddam Hussein - would happen whatever anyone else said or did.

That does not make is any less morally reprehensible, not does it mean that we have any more interest in joining in with it than anybody else. It is now quite clear that US allies get hardly any say at all in what Bush does so why bother? All Blair has done is to isolate ourselves from our European allies who do listen.

The people of Britain, continental Europe and most of the rest of the world would not even begin to support a war unless they had a say in it through the UN.

Two points. Firstly, Blair failed in his attempt to get UN backing, secondly, those of us who opposed the war did so regardless of what the UN said. We opposed the war because it was wrong.

it would be more damaging to longterm world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so

Nonsense. Bush will destroy long term world peace regardless of whether or not he has Blair poodling along at his side. The only way to preserve the peace is to stand up to Bush and fight against those who want endless war. Joining them has only made things worse.

[T_i_B]

19. ARGH!

Multiple posts! Mods, please delete a few of these so only one is left!