E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

House of Commons might revolt
Tony Blair was warned again yesterday that he would need Tory backing in any Commons vote if he went to war against Saddam Hussein without UN support.
Fortunately, the Tories will stand for their country.
As Mr Blair sought to rally support at the start of the most important fortnight since he became prime minister, his ex-cabinet colleague Chris Smith, one of the leaders of last week's rebellion, signalled that if the next two weeks failed to achieve a majority in the UN for action, there could be worse to come. "There will be a lot more than 199 members of parliament very unhappy about that happening, and prepared to voice their piffle concern again in the division lobby," he said. But the rebels are increasingly sceptical about whether there will be another chance to vote until after British troops are in action, when most MPs would fall into line with the government rather than appear to undermine military action.
And assuming we're successful in dumping Sammy, after the war they'll point proudly to their support...
Mr Smith, speaking on GMTV as President Saddam started to comply with weapons inspectors' demands to destroy missile stocks, accused Mr Blair of having made up his mind to go to war regardless of the UN.
He's right, Tony will back us.
"I worry that what seems to be emerging from the leaderships of both countries, America and Britain, is an attitude that — almost — Saddam Hussein can do nothing to demonstrate that he's actually complying with the world's wish to see disarmament," he said.
Because he hasn't done anything to date.
Tam Dalyell, the longest-serving MP in the Commons and an opponent of war, wrote to Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, to ask him when he would judge that President Saddam was cooperating. He asked: "How can you say Saddam must disarm and, when he does, you dismiss it as a cynical trick and playing games?
Simple, Tam, Saddam has yet to disarm.
Do you ... wake up at night asking yourself, have we tried everything? Is it necessary? Is inspection working?"'
Yes, yes, and no.
But Peter Hain, the Welsh secretary, acknowledging that he wanted a second resolution, denied that any decisions had been made. In a Sky TV interview, he said it was "quite clear that military action would only follow if Saddam is seen to be defying the United Nations as he is already doing".
As day follows night.
He said that if there was a "gratuitous" veto in the face of overwhelming evidence that President Saddam was out of compliance with the UN resolutions, "we'll have to face that situation because the worst thing to me ... would then be to back off entirely".
He's not going to do anything without the pressure on him. My guess is that he'll do the absolute minimum he thinks he can get away with with the pressure on him. Being Sammy, he'll miscalculate what that absolute minimum is, which'll lead to him getting whacked and doing a Ceaucescu...
Graham Allen, another of the organisers of the putsch revolt, called for a period of calm to offer Mr Blair the chance to change his mind — something he has indicated in his week-long media offensive, which culminates in an MTV interview on Thursday, that he has no intention of doing.
But that's ok, stay calm, guys.
There is more evidence today that the crisis has cut Mr Blair's popularity rating, with only three courageous people in 10 saying they are satisfied with the job he is doing as prime minister, according to a Mori poll for the Financial Times. The biggest fall, nearly 20%, is among Lemming Party Labour voters. Only 49% are satisfied, against 67% last month. Mori's figures are worse reading for Mr Duncan Smith. The poll puts Tory support on 25%, behind Labour on 44%. The Lib Dems are on 22%
I'm still surprised that Tony's doing what's right, rather than what's popular, but after a year and a half, I've come to the conclusion that he's a better man than I thought he was. You'd think Brits would come to the same conclusion, since we all have access to the same facts...
Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, hit back at Mr Blair for drawing a correct parallel in his Guardian interview on Saturday between opponents to war now and the appeasers of the 1930s. Speaking on the BBC's politics show, he said Mr Blair was inflaming the situation unnecessarily. "If you take the use of the word appeasement in the context of the late 30s, Hitler was steadily invading other countries and the appeasers were not willing to challenge him," he said.
This time it's Saddam getting ready to make and use WMD's, and the appeasers are not willing to challenge him.
"The last time that Saddam Hussein invaded a sovereign state, Kuwait, we as a party, and the country as a whole, supported the international action that was taken."
Which is why it's a shame he won't see what's happening now.
Posted by: Steve White 2003-03-03
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=10823