[ql06] CRIMINAL: International, RE: Iraq -- Part I
- From: "Ken Campbell -- LAW'06" <2kc16@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 06:33:15 -0400
Tony Blair is a wonderful speaker. (As is Bill Clinton. And was Reagan.)
Here's his defence of his policy on Iraq, from the NYT (as opposed to
the Brit papers I read, as well).
It doesn't deal with the Hutton Inquiry into whether Blair knowingly
broke international law. Americans don't seem to care about
international law -- heck, most can't find Europe on a map. But Brits
do. And continental Europeans still more, which is why Tony has serious
troubles over it.
Here's a snippet of the coverage of his speech. He actually uses the
"American's poodle" line!
I will follow it with another email, the pre-Iraq letter discovered by
the Hutton Inquiry, which you may or may not have seen. That letter
deals with the illegality of invading Iraq.
Ken.
--
It is not those who can inflict the most, but
those who can suffer the most who will conquer.
-- Terence MacSwiney
--- cut here ---
Blair Is Conciliatory, but Firm on War Stand
By WARREN HOGE
New York Times
October 1, 2003
BOURNEMOUTH, England, Sept. 30 ? Prime Minister Tony Blair said on
Tuesday that he had no question that his decision to go to war in Iraq
was right, and he asserted he would do it again in the same
circumstances.
But in a speech that mixed unaccustomed conciliation and humility with
his customary declaration of basic convictions, Mr. Blair added that he
understood why so many Britons strongly disagreed with him and that he
hoped they would come to understand that he had real reasons for acting.
"I know many people are disappointed, hurt, angry," he said, addressing
the annual Labor Party conference where many of the misgivings about his
actions in Iraq and even calls for his resignation have been expressed.
"I know many profoundly believe the action we took was wrong," he said.
"I do not at all disrespect anyone who disagrees with me. I ask just one
thing: attack my decision but at least understand why I took it and why
I would take the same decision again."
Alternately confessional and determined, Mr. Blair delivered a subdued
performance for a speaker with a history of stem-winding rallying calls
to the faithful at the yearly party conference. On Tuesday he abandoned
his jaunty stage presence for a more deliberate approach, substituting
his signature broad grin with a set jaw.
The new style seemed tailored to the mission beginning this week, which
is to regain the trust he sacrificed in pursuing an unpopular war. His
favorable standing, sustained for almost the entire six years since he
came to office, has slumped since the war with the failure to discover
unconventional weapons ? his principal rationale for taking military
action ? and with suspicions that his government manipulated
intelligence information to exaggerate the threat.
He said that he had acted in Iraq because he thought it represented the
21st-century threat of an outlaw state in a position to furnish weapons
to terrorists bent on "another Sept. 11 or worse" unless challenged. In
response to critics of his alliance with the United States, he said, "If
it is the threat of the 21st century, Britain should be in there helping
confront it, not because we are America's poodle but because dealing
with it will make Britain safer."
[Rest at www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/international/europe/01BRIT.html?th]
Other related posts:
- » [ql06] CRIMINAL: International, RE: Iraq -- Part I
