I'm seriously not trying to be argumentative or sarcastic. But I honestly was surprised by this development. Everything I've read has been talking about how alone Blair is in his support for Bush's position regarding Iraq. That even his own party had abandoned him on this one...that his whole political career was staked on this decision. House of Commons Backs Blair on Iraq The Associated Press Wednesday, February 26, 2003; 2:40 PM The House of Commons backed Prime Minister Tony Blair's determination to disarm Iraq, voting Wednesday to support his handling of the crisis and reject his opponents' assertion that the case for war is "unproven." Blair prevailed despite a substantial rebellion within his Labor Party's ranks, mirroring the divisions which opinion polls have demonstrated in the wider British public. Legislators voted 434-124 in favor of a government-sponsored motion that expresses support for working through the United Nations and urges Saddam Hussein to seize a "final opportunity" to comply fully with the Security Council's demands. They rejected by a tally of 393-199 an amendment which said "the case for military action against Iraq (is) as yet unproven." It was not immediately clear how many members of Blair's Labor Party opposed the government, but about 100 had signed the anti-war measure. If that many of Labor's 410 lawmakers were among the rebels Wednesday, as appeared likely, it would be the biggest revolt within the usually disciplined party since it won power in 1997. Support for the failed amendment was stronger than many had expected, and reflected anti-war sentiment that is widespread among Britons, particularly for any conflict that lacks U.N. backing. Opposition to Blair's tough stance on Iraq has been especially strong within his own Labor Party. The government motion did not explicitly mention military force, and Blair argued that it was premature to vote on war. Some of his critics, though, saw the daylong debate before the vote as a last chance to head off a conflict they believe is just weeks away. "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," amendment sponsor Chris Smith, a former member of the prime minister's Cabinet, said before the measure was defeated. 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." Britain has committed 45,000 troops - a quarter of its army - and its biggest naval task force in 20 years to the Gulf region, and Blair has worked strenuously to bridge differences between the United States and European critics led by France and Germany. The prime minister said it was not yet time to decide for or against an attack. "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 in the House of Commons. He was responding to lawmaker Eric Martlew, who said he would vote with the government on Wednesday but that he and other Labor members "cannot support war against Iraq unless there is a second U.N. resolution." "That's exactly what I want," Blair said. "I can assure him I am working flat out to achieve it "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 got strong support from leaders of the opposition Conservative Party. "Sometimes conflict is necessary in the short term to achieve peace through the threat of aggression, and sometimes it is the threat of conflict which can establish peace," said Michael Ancram, the Conservative spokesman on foreign affairs. Labor lawmaker Gerald Kaufman said he backed Blair's policy, despite his distaste for "the most unappetizing United States administration I have ever known." "I have no doubt that if that U.N. route fails on this issue, the Bush administration will wash its hands of the U.N. altogether and go it alone whenever it believes its national interests are at stake. Nor will we or any other ally be able to influence Bush otherwise," Kaufman said. Kenneth Clarke, who was Treasury chief in the last Conservative government, said there were suspicions that the United States had long been determined to attack Iraq. "Is there legitimacy in the doubt that possibly this was all decided on, has been remorselessly unfolding for many months? I think many people think it has," Clarke said. "I am not satisfied as to the morality of our action," he added. In the British system, the prime minister does not need Parliament's authorization to wage war. While pressing for a second U.N. resolution, Blair has argued that Britain and the United States already have full authority under U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, adopted unanimously in November, to take action to force Iraq to disarm.
I watched them in action a week or two ago. I was expecting them to grill Blair, but the session was muhc less contentious than many I had seen before. I was quite surprised at the time also.
This is a very fortunate turn of events. If we lost England on this, the war effort would have been a disaster.
Interesting how things can be spun so differently: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/26/sprj.irq.blair.vote/index.html <B>Blair suffers huge revolt on Iraq</B> <I>LONDON, England -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair has suffered one of the largest ever revolts of his career, with nearly 200 members of parliament -- including dozens from within his own Labour Party -- voting against his policy on Iraq. About 100 Labour MPs were believed to have defied him as members voted 2:1 by 393 votes to 199 to defeat a motion by dissenters that war should only be a last resort. The exact number of Labour rebels will be revealed later on Wednesday. ... </I> (Rest of article in link)
