Tony Blair- He's showing remarkable political courage

[redman]

5+ years ago when he first took office and (ironically now) was depicted as Clinton's European clone, I had a negative view of him. Even this article notes that he traditionally has been guided in his "leadership" by polls and popular sentiment.

I admire him, however, for taking a strong public stance on this issue, even though there is marked political risk and cost for him. In particular, his own party for some time has been chipping away at him because of the perception that he's too moderate or even conservative on economic/business issues for the socialist left's tastes there.

And now, oh irony of ironies, his strong stance on Iraq have led people to say that . . . he's merely Bush's European clone! I guess if you live long enough, you'll see everything. :laugh:

Labour 'Rebels' to Embarrass UK's Blair Over Iraq

52 minutes ago Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Andrew Cawthorne

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Wednesday faces potentially the biggest rebellion yet from within his ruling Labour Party in a parliamentary debate over his pro-American hawkish stance on Iraq.

Up to 100 of Labour's total 410 legislators (MPs) in the British parliament's lower chamber are backing an amendment -- for what is bound to be a fiery debate -- stating that "the case for military action against Iraq is yet unproven."

It is one of three "anti-war" amendments put forward by Labour "rebels" and opposition Liberal Democrats determined to embarrass Blair, who is staunchly backing U.S. leader George W. Bush's hard line against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Aware of high domestic public opposition to a U.S./British-led war against Iraq without international endorsement, the government has put forward a carefully-worded motion backing U.N. demands for Iraqi disarmament.

It does not mention the possibility of war.

London and Washington have said Saddam has just weeks left to disarm before they will seek a vote on a new U.N. resolution effectively authorizing military action.

"Mr Blair's spin that he is launching a last chance for peace and all that garbage, when everyone knows he and Bush are bent on war, has not worked," one Labour "rebel," George Galloway, told Reuters.

"Blair has hopelessly underestimated his opponents."

In a show of political boldness not in keeping with his prior reputation as a man governed by opinion polls and focus groups, Blair is clearly prepared to brave out disgruntlement within his party and sliding popularity among the public.

INTERNATIONAL DIVISIONS

Convinced of the moral rectitude of disarming Saddam, Blair believes public opinion will rally round if a second U.N. resolution is passed.

But he and Bush face a tall order to achieve that, given opposition from international heavyweights like France, Germany and Russia, and might eventually be forced to go it alone in what Washington has termed a "coalition of the willing."

That could be make or break for Blair, in power since 1997.

"If he gets the second resolution, then I think he is home and dry," pollster and political analyst Peter Kellner told Reuters. "If not, it could be extremely difficult. If he goes into war without clear public backing, then he absolutely needs a very fast, painless victory to recover."

Fortunately for Blair, while up to a quarter of his own party legislators are rebelling, the opposition Conservative Party -- which took Britain into conflict with Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War -- are backing him.

But even though he will not be defeated in Wednesday's vote, expected in the early evening, a large defection would be a hurtful political slap in the face and fuel many Britons' impression of a man swimming against the tide of public opinion.

A million people took to the streets of London just over a week ago for an anti-war rally, while a poll last week showed Blair's approval rating plummeting, with 55 percent of people disapproving of the way he does his job.

[redman]

And Blair's strong moral stance on Iraq is paying off:

House of Commons Backs Blair on Iraq

15 minutes ago

By BETH GARDINER, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - British lawmakers on Wednesday backed Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s determination to disarm Iraq, but rebels from his own Labor Party mounted their biggest challenge to the prime minister since he came to power in 1997.

While the government carried two votes decisively, the losing dissenters made a stronger-than-expected showing, underlining the strength of opposition to war among Britons and within Blair's party.

The prime minister emphasized that the House of Commons vote was not about whether Britain should go to war against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) — he said it was too soon to make such a decision.

Instead, lawmakers by a vote of 434-124 approved a government-sponsored motion which backed the prime minister's efforts to resolve the crisis through the United Nations (news - web sites) and called on Iraq "to recognize this as its final opportunity" to disarm. Opponents included 59 Labor lawmakers.

By a tally of 393-199, legislators rejected an amendment that said "the case for military action against Iraq (is) as yet unproven." Among those supporting the measure were 121 of Labor's 410 lawmakers, making it the biggest revolt within the usually disciplined party since it took power.

In May 1999, 67 lawmakers opposed the government in what was previously the biggest Labor revolt, over plans to cut benefits for the disabled.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the House of Commons would get another chance to vote on military action if the confrontation escalates, but warned that to protect the safety of British troops it might be necessary for lawmakers to have their say after hostilities begin.

So many saw Wednesday's daylong debate and votes as their last chance to weigh in.

"If the government motion is passed unamended by this house tonight, a signal will have been given that this house endorses the timetable that is now upon us, which leads I fear inexorably to war within the next three to four weeks," said Chris Smith, a former member of Blair's Cabinet and prime sponsor of the defeated anti-war amendment.

That timetable, Smith said, "appears to be determined by the decisions of the president of the United States and not by the logic of events."

Both votes showed solid support for the government, but the strength of opposition, particularly within the Labor Party, was likely to be unsettling for the prime minister.

"It is important to recognize what (the rebels) are saying, but nobody was asking them to go to war tonight," Labor Party chairman John Reid told the British Broadcasting Corp.

The British media focused on the strength of the rebellion against Blair. Some say the prime minister could be risking his job if he leads the nation to war without U.N. support.

"This is a very significant Parliamentary occasion," said Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrat party. The number of rebels "sends a potent signal to the governments of both Britain and the United States."

The prime minister has paid a high political price at home for his staunch support of President Bush (news - web sites)'s Iraq policy, and has been struggling to convince a skeptical British public that war may be necessary. Polls show a majority of Britons oppose any war that lacks U.N. support.

Many of the lawmakers who supported the government emphasized in debate that they were not voting for war, saying they wanted U.N. backing for any use of force and hoped to see weapons inspections continue.

When Labor lawmaker Eric Martlew told Blair as much, the prime minister, referring to a U.N. resolution that Britain, the United States and Spain introduced this week, said: "That's exactly what I want. I can assure him I am working flat out to achieve it."

"We are not voting actually on the issue of war tonight, we are voting on the issue of the government's strategy," Blair said as he answered questions from lawmakers Wednesday afternoon.

"The whole issue before the international community comes down to this — when we said last November this was a final opportunity to Saddam, when we said there had to be full unconditional and immediate compliance, did we really mean it?" Blair said.

Blair won solid support from the opposition Conservative Party.

"Sometimes it is the threat of conflict which can establish peace," Tory foreign affairs spokesman Michael Ancram said.

But Kenneth Clarke, Treasury chief in the last Conservative government, said peaceful solutions had not been exhausted.

"I cannot rid myself of doubts that the course to war we are now embarked on was actually decided on many months ago, primarily in Washington, and we've seen a fairly remorseless unfolding of events since that time."

The House of Lords, Parliament's upper chamber, also debated Iraq but did not plan a vote. Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, now a member of the Lords, attended but did not speak.

[redman]

I just wanted to follow this up with another post. Again, I can't tell you how much respect I have for this guy. He gets it, and thank goodness he's an articulate ally of Bush's in this, because for all his merits in organizing behind the scenes and setting policy and successfully delegating, Bush just doesn't know how to make arguments in front of a camera. Good friends are hard to find:

Blair Wins Legislative Votes on Iraq

1 hour, 55 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - Britain's House of Commons backed Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s policy on Iraq (news - web sites) on Tuesday, voting in favor of using "all means necessary" to disarm Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

In an earlier vote, lawmakers also supported Blair, rejecting a motion to oppose a U.S.-led war with Iraq. Yet many rebel legislators in Blair's Labor Party voted against his hard-line stance on Baghdad — which prompted three ministers to resign this week — showing that opposition to his pro-war position remains strong.

With a U.S.-led war appearing inevitable, legislators voted 396 to 217 to defeat a parliamentary amendment by Labor Party rebels that declared the case for war "has not yet been established."

The 217 votes included about 135 Labor Party backbenchers, TV reports said. Last month, a similar parliamentary showdown regarding Iraq and its weapons saw 122 Labor lawmakers vote against the government, the biggest revolt since the party came to power in 1997.

On Tuesday's second motion, legislators voted 412 to 149 to use "all means necessary" for disarmament.

"Back away from this confrontation now and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating in their effects," Blair said during hours of Commons debate before the votes.

In Britain, where public and legislative opposition to a war without U.N. approval is strong, an invasion could present Blair's government with serious risks, especially if U.S. and British troops in the Gulf aren't successful.

During the debate before the votes, Blair said the Iraq crisis would determine the shape of international politics for a generation.

"It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the United Nations (news - web sites); the relationship between Europe and the United States; the relations within the European Union (news - web sites); and the way that the United States engages with the rest of the world," he said.

"So it could hardly be more important. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation."

Many disaffected Labor legislators have ignored party discipline and opposed Blair's handling of the crisis. Already, senior Cabinet minister Robin Cook, junior Health Minister Lord Hunt and Home Office Minister John Denham have quit over Iraq.

Yet Blair had been expected to win Tuesday's votes because he has the support of the opposition Conservative Party as well as many Labor lawmakers. There also have been signs of growing nationalism in Britain in support of the British troops massed in the Persian Gulf.

Labor lawmaker Peter Kilfoyle joined many other members of his party in arguing that military action against Saddam would be "illegal, immoral and illogical."

But Blair said backing away from conflict now "would put at hazard all that we hold dearest, turn the U.N. back into a talking shop, stifle the first steps of progress in the Middle East, leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of events on which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better.

"I would not be party to such a course," he said.

Blair's defenders in the debate included an old foe, former Conservative Party leader William Hague.

In his speech, Hague said a war was in Britain's national interest, and he praised the prime minister for sustaining the country's close ties with Washington.

"The reason why the United States takes on so many responsibilities in the world is because others shirk those responsibilities," Hague said. "Those who will not venture out when there is a criminal coming down the street should not complain when somebody else acts as the policeman."

Hague said Europe must differ with the United States from time to time but never forget the important roles it has played on the world stage, especially in saving Europe from Naziism and communism.

Hitting out at France, Hague said that during the U.N. Security Council debate about Iraq there was "a hint of appeasement" similar to that of World War II among countries who oppose fighting Saddam.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by redman

I can't tell you how much respect I have for this guy. He gets it, and thank goodness he's an articulate ally of Bush's in this, because for all his merits in organizing behind the scenes and setting policy and successfully delegating, Bush just doesn't know how to make arguments in front of a camera. Good friends are hard to find...

Amen. :thumbsup:

[Kilmer17]

He's a true liberal in the mold of JFK and Roosevelt.

He understands that the first ( if not 1-10) job of govt is to protect it's citizens.

I would probably never vote for the guy, but I can admire his courage and his beliefs.