"There is now no great secret about how the administration took the
United States to war, and none about Blair's reason for supporting
Bush. As the Labor politician Aneurin Bevan would have said, why
look into the crystal ball when you can read the book? British
troops are in Basra because of something Blair knew and something he
believed.
He knew that Washington was going to invade in any case, and he
believed that "it would be more damaging to long-term world peace
and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if
they had international support to do so." So he told one London
journalist, telling another that he was worried about an American
drift toward unilateralism and that his mission was to embrace Bush
so as to "keep the United States in the international system."
The harder these arguments are looked at, the more curious they
seem. You don't say: "My big brother is a crazy kind of guy. On
Saturday night he likes to get blind drunk and drive through town at
90. It would be more damaging to peace and security if he acted
alone than if he had my support, so I'll go along with him for the
ride." Either Washington was doing something wise and virtuous, in
which case it should have been supported for that reason, or not, in
which case should have been restrained and, if necessary, opposed.
As to binding the Bush administration into the international order,
judge for yourself."
(more at link)
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
