On 15 Aug 2002 at 12:20, Casey wrote:
> Hey Andy,
> Did you follow the link? From my reading of the article it would seem
> that Blair would be a fool to attempt to follow Bush's lead
> considering the following quotes from the article I posted:
> "Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition
> Liberal Democrat Party, said Rice's arguments for removal of Saddam
> did not stand up under international law.
> 'In international affairs it is not enough to claim a moral authority
> in cases where the United Nations has been involved,' he said.
> 'There will be no world order if the most powerful states are entitled
> to remove other governments at will. There is no doctrine of
> international law which justifies regime change.'
> Gerald Kaufman, a lawmaker from the governing Labor Party, said in an
> article published today in the Spectator magazine that there was broad
> opposition in Parliament to a strike against Iraq.
> '(Prime Minister) Tony Blair would find it difficult to support and
> participate in a war against Iraq whose majority in the House of
> Commons was provided by the (opposition) Conservatives,' Kaufman
> "A poll published Monday in The Daily Telegraph found that 28 percent
> of Britons thought that the United States would be justified in
> attacking Iraq, while 58 percent disagreed. If the United States does
> strike, only 19 percent thought that Britain should join in the
> military action."
> Both quotes originating from the LA Times article located at this
> To our UK friends:
> Perhaps I'm naive. But, if I were Blair I'd want to retain my post as
> Prime Minister, rather than go off on a lark with the Shrub. But,
> perhaps I'm too eager to credit Blair for a level of integrity and
> intelligence that Shrub doesn't have. Tell me, am I wrong to think
> that Blair would do as his constituents wished? Or, would he buddy
> up with Shrub and go off to battle without the support of his
> constituents? I read a few publications from the UK, but perhaps,
> I'm not seeing the "picture".
> Fond regards,
Sometimes, a politician must rise to the level of statesman and, even if
it involves personal political sacrifice, pursue a domestically unpopular
and politically costly yet strategically required, correct and beneficial
course. It's called having integrity. It's called being a leader and not a
follower. The potential nuclear stakes a few years out are too high for
Blair to play politics with this one, and he 'bloody well' knows it.
> This message was posted by Casey to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT