Guest Speaker
Having never been arrested anywhere by legitimate authorities, I was amused to learn some months ago that an illegitimate authority planned to arrest me when I spoke at the Hay Festival. George Monbiot, pretender to the throne of Monbiotshire, and assorted Hay camp followers were sufficiently outraged by a dissenting, non-Leftist voice sullying their muddy pleasures that they were spurred to action.
When I wrote Surrender Is Not an Option, the memoir of my tenure as US Ambassador to the United Nations, I learned that authors not only write their books, but also serve as their chief marketing officers. I had, therefore, dutifully done about one million interviews since the book’s November 2007 publication, and saw Hay as one more brick in the marketing wall. To be honest, I had never heard of it before.
The would-be King George (George III in his later years comes to mind) believed I was a major architect of the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy – thus proving, among other things, that he hadn’t read my book. Since that’s all that due process requires in Monbiotshire, he now had only to arrest the body and take it back down his rabbit hole.
In the event, I appeared at Hay, answered an hour’s worth of questions and left the stage before King George could lay a hand on me. The Welsh constabulary was most helpful, actually having a little fun. Being an American, I asked one policeman if he was armed; he smiled and said: “I might be.” I felt even more secure. As I drove out of the western badlands of Wales, King George and his subjects pursued me, but got stuck in Hay’s copious supplies of mud. Ta-ta, as the locals say.
COMMENTS
5:08 PM
"... Representative government’s central benefit is that competing viewpoints openly debate, with the majority view ultimately prevailing. In the United Kingdom, a majority in Parliament supported the Iraq war, deeming it both correct and lawful... Blair advocated his views in a democratic society, and his views prevailed. He did not impose anything on anyone. Many may see his policies as wrong, even disastrously so, but he is guilty only of superior political leadership, not crimes against humanity."
Definitions in the land of Boltonshire as to what passes for "open debate" differ to that of my dictionary.
Such debate that there was was based on the infamous 'dodgy dossier' and the imminent threat of WMD. (Did you guys check down the back of Saddam's sofa? That's usually where I find missing things, like tv remote, small change and so on, lost items can usually be found down the back of the sofa, maybe Saddam's WMDs are there?)
Politicians also relied on being told by Blair that the Advice of the Attorney General was that the action would be legal.
[Part of the advice was later leaked in the press. I'm fluent in legalese and believe it was couched in such a way as to superficially say what the then Prime Minister wanted to hear but anyone who understands legal language would understand that it was far from categoric, there were plenty of caveats and lots of legalistic wiggle room written in.]
Majority view did not prevail on the basis of open debate of the actual facts, but on the basis of calculated dissemination of misinformation.
And that's before I mention the British parliament's whip system. There are different categories of vote, a free vote (MPs are free to vote whichever way they choose), one-line whip, two-line whip and three-line whip. The Iraq War vote was subject to a three-line whip, the most serious measure of all, which means that members of a party are given strict instructions as to how they should vote, or they risk having the whip withdrawn, i.e. expulsion from their own political party.
So again, the definition of "impose" in Boltonshire differs from that in my dictionary. Blair sought to impose his will and his opinion on all the members of his parliamentary party (and the public) by calling for a three-line whip to the vote. He did succeed in imposing his will on some of those. However, to their credit, many of the members of his own party voted against their own government (and some ministers resigned from his government, causing him embarassment). Blair didn't win the argument within his own party or the support of many of its members through "open debate" or at all, in fact. The vote was won due to the imposition of the three-line whip, which many of his party adhered to out of respect for political convention, and the support of the opposition party members (who had their own - political - reasons for their actions).
Check out a contemporary article from your favourite newspaper entitled "Labour MPs revolt over Iraq":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/feb/26/foreignpolicy.uk2
You're seriously misrepresenting what actually happened in the UK parliament. Or failing that you're totally ignorant of the facts. I'm not sure which is worse.
Blair didn't demonstrate superior political leadership, he simply demonstrated better ability at bluff and bluster. He railroaded the decision through parliament despite all voices of reason arguing to the contrary and despite a million people marching on the streets against the war. You might also be unfamiliar with his nickname "Teflon Tony" because the criticism didn't stick, he just ruthlessly pursued his agenda regardless of who disagreed with it.
And as for him not being guilty of crimes against humanity...
The latest tally is between 86,453-94,325 documented Iraqi civilian deaths from violence.
But I guess if your country calls such people who are so unfortunate to find themselves between the US and its desire for oil "collateral damage" then you can pretend they're not party of humanity and so their deaths in your estimation won't fit the definition of crimes against humanity.
And that's not counting those who didn't die a violent death, those who died because hospitals were without power, or many Iraqi doctors fled the violence and left the country, or who died or are dying due to malnutrition or lack of water supplies.
And that's also not counting the dead U.S. and UK service personnel.
And also not counting all those service personnel returning home severely disabled and incapacited.
Nope. Not guilty of crimes against humanity. Because Iraqis aren't part of humanity. Service personnel are just rank and number, they're not part of humanity either.
Since definitions of words are a bit 'unusual' in Boltonshire, to say the least, that leads me to wonder about your mathematical sense; exactly how many dead people add up to a crime against humanity?
All those lives were, are valuable. An Iraqi is just as much a part of humanity as a member of the coalition forces, as much a part of humanity as an American back home in the States.
As such, Bush are Blair are guilty of crimes against humanity. Maybe not in a legal sense, not in a court of law. Yet. But one day, I hope.
2:08 AM
3:08 PM
POST A COMMENT
Related Links
Most forwarded
Most commented
