THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

I really like today's Leader in the Guardian:

[quote]It has been a long time since Tony Blair made a more thoughtful or more coherent speech about the war on terror than the one he gave in Sedgefield yesterday. Read it. Discuss it. It is important. That does not mean that the speech is beyond criticism. It is not. There are faults of omission and commission alike. But it is a very serious speech, intellectually demanding and carefully expressed throughout most of its length, about an indisputably big, difficult and complex subject. It is a speech worthy of its subject, and it deserves the respectful attention of all who take politics seriously. At a time when politics is widely felt to be so disreputable, that is no small achievement. It deserves an appropriately respectful and thoughtful response that goes beyond attitudinising.
It is impossible to imagine George Bush making such a speech - and this is in itself one of the problems with what Mr Blair had to say. Mr Blair touched on almost every aspect of the global problem of terror yesterday - except that of the response of the US and the stance of its current administration. This is an immense omission. Mr Blair advanced some very radical ideas yesterday about the future of global security and international law. But he did so within the context of Labour's internationalist philosophy in which global institutions play an essential role and in which human rights, whether in Africa or Palestine, are indivisible. Mr Bush does not think that way. Yet it is he who is the leader of the world's only military superpower. Mr Blair can propose multinational responses to global problems all he likes, but as long as Mr Bush is president, America will only dispose unilateralist responses that it perceives to be in the particular interests of the US. This was one of the key problems about the events of 12 months ago.

Mr Blair is right to say we live in an interdependent world. He is right to place the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the declaration by Islamic fanatics of a "war without limit" among the gravest of all threats to global security. He is right, too, to insist on the enduring "mortal danger" to our lives from the synergy between the two. And that means that he is right to raise questions about the best means that the world can adopt to protect itself against the threat from devastating weapons in fanatical hands. These means, as Mr Blair also says, cannot be restricted to armed action. Ultimately, universal freedom and prosperity are the best deterrents to the threat. But until then, military means will sometimes be necessary, and Mr Blair is absolutely right to call on the nations of the modern world to rise to the challenge of defining the modern rules and means by which they will prevent the threat from creating the catastrophe. These are global problems, and they require global solutions. The failure to agree effective global solutions places every nation of the world at greater risk.

This is the context in which Mr Blair continues to defend the Iraq war. He was, and is, wrong about that conflict. Even Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not the source of such an imminent terrorist threat of the kind that Mr Blair warns it was necessary to attack prematurely and in defiance of world opinion. Dialogue and diplomacy were not exhausted, as Hans Blix's account shows. But who will swear that Saddam's Iraq would not have been such a threat had it been able? Mr Blair is entitled to confront his critics with the seriousness of the choice any leader faces when intelligence suggests that such a threat may become a reality. To recognise this is not to legitimise every response. Risk can be a smokescreen, too. But the threat from terrorism is utterly real. Our nation, like others, is in danger from it. Mr Blair's sombre statement of what is at stake calls for both thought and action.[/quote]
Source: Seriously in conflict

I wish I could read Blair's speech. Has it been printed anywhere yet?

I think, BBB posted it already on another thread, but here's a link:

Full text: Tony Blair's speech

Thanks, Walter.

I think Walter's post pretty much covers Tony Blair's speech, including the criticism of the writer. Mr Blair makes some sobering points, and who amongst us would disagree with the action he took, sans the information they had back then? The big question that's not being answered is, exactly what information did they have to conclude that Saddam had those WMD's? Would any of us have made the same decision with the same information? We now have the advantage of knowing the terrorism infected on so many countries by those extremist radicals including Afghanistan and Iraq.

Walter, I add my thanks as well.
I've always been impressed with Tony's courage to stand up for what he believes in, but ... Wow! That was an amazing speech. If I were that articulate; I'd have said that already. :wink:

Would have liked to have been a fly on a wall in that room! I wonder what language was used in the "struck deal" and whether it will have to go back to the group as a whole for approval. What was the explicit or implicit deal?

Iraq Constitution "Deal Reached"

If the person does not know what she/he said is false, then its only a falsity. But if she/he knows what she/he said is false, then it's a lie.

from www.m-w.com

Main Entry: fal·si·ty
Pronunciation: 'fol-s&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : something false : LIE
2 : the quality or state of being false

Main Entry: 4lie
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
3 : a charge of lying

The definition of a "lie" seems overly broad, as it also subsumes the definition of a "falsity".

Yeah, I think those two words are interchangeable - with the meaning understood as the "same."

Did anyone see the piece on Chalabi on 60 Minutes tonight?Chalabi blames Us for believing him.

From the same link, above.
***********************
Kennedy Slams CIA Chief

WASHINGTON, March 5, 2004



Bloody Tuesday In Iraq


Sen. Edward Kennedy says CIA director George Tenet will face questions about the Iraq intelligence when he appears before a Senate committee next week. (Photo: AP)



"Did Tenet fail to convince the policy-makers to cool their overheated rhetoric? Did he even try to convince them?"
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.


Tenet says his analysts never said Iraq was an "imminent threat," and were under no political pressure. (Photo: CBS)


FULL TEXT
The quarterly report by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission claims Iraq destroyed most of its known weapons of mass destruction long before the United States invaded last March. Click below to read the report:

• UNMOVIC Report (.pdf)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet told an audience at Georgetown University that U.S. analysts had never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, the main argument used by President George W. Bush for going to war. Click below to read the entire speech:

• Transcription of Tenet's speech (.pdf)








(CBS/AP) CIA Director George Tenet must come clean with Congress and explain why he waited until last month to "set the record straight" that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United State in the months leading up to the war, a leading Senate Democrat said Friday.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, in remarks prepared for delivery, said Tenet must explain why he never corrected President Bush and others in the administration when they warned of a nuclear threat building in Iraq.

"Where was the CIA Director when the vice president was going nuclear about Saddam going nuclear?" said Kennedy in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. "Did Tenet fail to convince the policy-makers to cool their overheated rhetoric? Did he even try to convince them?"

In a speech last month, Tenet said Saddam Hussein's regime posed a danger, but that analysts had varying opinions about whether Iraq possessed chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. He said that information was passed on to the White House.

The analysts, said Tenet, "never said there was an imminent threat." But while he has distanced himself from the administration's assertions of an urgent threat in Iraq, Tenet has never said the White House distorted the intelligence.

Yes, I watched that segment on 60 Minutes. Frankly, I found it very interesting, and so clicked on the link above and read the piece summarizing the more salient points. It is still hard to decide what to think about it though, as you also have the filtering prism of the Middle Eastern mind.

And what filtering prism would that be? I think the main aspoect is the fact that Chalabi is a known embezzler, and swindler, and is determined to be the next ruler of Iraq. Do you doubt that by this time next year he will be the US installed "prime minister?"

Yes, I do doubt that, as this time next year it will not be the US's decision as to who will be the next prime minister..

I also think that sufficient time has passed to "learn" about Chalabi, and although the US is perfectly inclined to use him, for what he is worth, there is disillusion about him.

The "filtering prism" was a purposefully vague reference to national difference, or regional differences if you will, to predispositions to employ certain constructs and values in thought processes.

ci said



You put your finger on Blair's problem. For legal reasons he was forced to place all the justification for the British action on disarming Iraq of illegal wmd. But right up to the eve of war when the House of Commons voted, Blair admitted he was unaware of exactly what was meant by wmd (e.g. battlefield/strategic distinction). This stretches credibility. The implication is that Blair took the country to war, not knowing whether to expect Iraqi wmd attack to be a nerve agent on British bases in Cyprus delivered by long range scud missiles, or mustard gas from battlefield munitions.

In the absence of wmd, Blair is forced to admit he made an "honest" mistake, as if the error itself is somehow negated because it was made in good faith. "Dad, I've got some good news and some bad news. The bad news is I've put the car into a wall. The good news is I didn't mean to do it"

Sorry Tony you can't expect to get away with that.

The alternative position is that Bush and Blair had a very good idea of what really existed in Iraq, but they presented an exaggerated picture for public consumption, because they were working to a timetable that had already been agreed. Blair is a clever man. Which is more likely?

Note that I make no comment on whether it was the "right" thing to do.

[of course if the war had gone well, i.e. coalition forces greeted with flowers and not rpgs, liberated Iraqis dancing in the street...just as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz confidently predicted, Blair would have been a hero, and the point that he had to "exaggerate" the wmd threat for legal reasons would have been forgiven if not forgotten completely].

Now just listening to BBC radio 5 live, Hans Blix was being interviewed in Stockholm. He said Blair lacked application of critical thinking in his assessment of the wmd threat. Interviewer asks "Did you trust TB during the difficult period leading up to the war?"
Blix..."Er....er....well I have not made that accusation myself....I think he is a very able politician and admire many of the things he's done but er...

AT WHICH POINT THE LINE TO SWEDEN IS CUT!!!!!

Hans Blix is cutting through the crap. It's simple.
Blair exaggerated the threat to get the vote in Parliament.
He lied. It doesn't matter that he probably hoped the end would justify the means, which it hasn't. He still lied. You cannot conduct international affairs like that, and you cannot take your country into war because it may be expedient to do so.

He led us into an illegal and immoral war. He is a war criminal.

It is inconceivable that Tony Blair did not have grave doubts about Iraq's WMD. The evidence relied upon was negligible, in fact it indicated the absence rather than the existence of anything other than conventional weapons. That we are still prepared to hope he was honestly mistaken is testament to the high regard in which he was held prior to the sorry affair. Sadly, it is a hope which will be dashed. I cannot understand his continued posturing other than in terms of his hope of re-election. I wish he would crawl away.

gozmo, You're probably 99 percent correct, but it's kinda sad to see one of the great politicians of our time being sunk by his loyalty to the US (actually to GWBush). My intellect tells me he knew the truth about Iraq's WMD's, but my heart says he wouldn't do such a thing even to remain loyal to the US.

I'm with you, c.i. I would hate like hell to see TB driven out by GWB's fiasco. We hope to drive him out. Would that be enough for you guys? He's the one to blame, and I do. Don't be so harsh with TB. He is far the better man of the two and the world needs him.