• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year.
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Britain's Blair Loses Minister in Iraq Protest

ShiningIce

3rd Level Green Feather
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
4,704
Points
36
LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) suffered his biggest political hit of the Iraq (news - web sites) crisis on Monday when a senior Cabinet minister resigned in protest at his hawkish stance.





"It is with regret I have today resigned from Cabinet," the government's parliamentary leader and former foreign secretary Robin Cook said in a statement.


"I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support."


Blair's pro-American Iraq policy has set the centrist Labour leader against a large part of his party in the biggest crisis of his premiership since taking power in 1997.


Cook, who had previously said he would not support a war without United Nations (news - web sites) backing, resigned ahead of an emergency cabinet meeting and as the United States told Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) he must leave the country or face war.


Another minister who has threatened to resign, International Development Secretary Clare Short, told reporters she would make a statement later. Apart from those two, Blair is thought to have relatively solid Cabinet support.


Weighed down by Blair's political problems, Britain's sterling currency fell by late afternoon to a three-month low versus the U.S. dollar at below $1.57.


On a more welcome note for Blair, his government's top lawyer countered claims from some quarters that war on Iraq would be illegal under international law by saying he believed it could be justified under a raft of existing U.N. resolutions.


"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441," Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith said.


U.N. resolutions 678 and 687 were passed before and after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). Resolution 1441 was unanimously voted through by the Security Council last year, demanding Saddam disarm or face "serious consequences."


DECISION TIME


President Bush (news - web sites) had given the United Nations just the rest of Monday to give its blessing to a resolution sanctioning the use of force to rid Iraq of suspected weapons of mass destruction. But France restated a veto threat that effectively signaled the end of diplomacy.


Blair's ministers were being asked to make a final decision at their Cabinet meeting. "Judgments will have to be reached as to whether we have come to the end of the diplomatic road," a government spokesman said.


The United States has advised the United Nations to pull its weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the clearest signal to date that war is imminent.


Both London and Washington were training their verbal guns on Paris. "The damage done by this threat of a French veto to the whole diplomatic process has been enormous," Foreign Office Minister Mike O'Brien said.


The British embassy in Kuwait told its nationals to leave the country urgently while flights were still available.


Aides believe Blair can ride the political damage as long as war in Iraq is short and does not result in the deaths of thousands of innocents or British soldiers.


The government has yet to say whether it will give parliament the opportunity of a vote on the Iraq crisis but it is expected to be this week. There too, it faces trouble.

Last month, 122 Labour members of parliament, more than one in four, defied Blair's hawkish Iraq stance. Rebels in Blair's ruling party say that number could rise by another 40 this time.

But the support of opposition Conservatives will deliver Blair parliamentary support almost whatever the size of the Labour rebellion.
 
Where is Congress? We hear Bush and UN, but not Bush and Congress? I thought we needed Congress to go to war?
 
Congress declares

Bush, as Commander In Chief, can order military action without even notifying congress. However this is rarely done due to every president's fear of impeachment. So the president will normally ask congress for support prior to action so he doesn't get bitten on the ass afterward.

Concerning war: congress in the only entity with the power to actually make the declaration of war. The difference being, a declaration of war opens far more governmental powers than exist during peacetime or during a military action.
 
Limeoutsider said:
Where is Congress? We hear Bush and UN, but not Bush and Congress? I thought we needed Congress to go to war?

Nope. Technically Dubya could send the US forces into action without even bothering to inform congress for something like 60 or 90 days.
 
Robin Cook won't be missed. I think he's the only cabiet minister to have a face resembling an ageing Scotsman's bollock.
 
What's New

2/24/2025
Visit the TMF Welcome Forum and say hello!
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top