Those
one and a half million people
who marched on Saturday are
not the only ones who feel war
would be wrong, needless and a
total disaster. Each of them
represents many
more.
-- | Tuesday,
February 18, 2003 London, February 17 2003 (Britain's multi-million circulation
tabloid)HYSTERICAL?
WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGUN WHEN
the Daily Mirror launched its campaign
against the war on Iraq we were dismissed
as lefty peaceniks, just opposing military
action for the sake of it. As the campaign continued the abuse
intensified - we were accused of being
'hysterical, of "cynically chasing new
readers, of over-reacting". The crescendo of negativity reached a
nadir with our BLOOD ON
HIS HANDS front page, powerfully
illustrating John Pilger's
ferocious attack on Tony Blair for
the impending slaughter of Iraqi
civilians. This was crass, offensive and way too
personal, our critics said. Yet it was the
exact same phrase Mr Blair used to
denigrate the 1.5 million people who
protested in London on Saturday. What is now absolutely clear is that
the Daily Mirror is right about this war.
And Tony Blair is wrong. The Prime
Minister is not a stupid man so he must
realise in his astute head that he is
beaten logically, politically and
democratically. The only support he has in this country
is from a few lapdogs in the Cabinet -
take a bow, John Prescott - the
Tory leadership and newspapers owned by
George W Bush admirers living in
America. Those one and a half million people who
marched on Saturday are not the only ones
who feel war would be wrong, needless and
a total disaster. Each of them represents
many more. It
was the biggest demonstration this country
has ever seen. It rivalled the magnificent
anti-Vietnam marches in the United States
in the 70s. In the past, protesters have been
sneered at as long-haired hippies. That
couldn't be said about Saturday's
demonstrators. Young and old, working,
middle, and upper class... Countless
thousands of ordinary people united on one
fundamental principle - war against Iraq
at this time is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is because Mr Blair knows he has
lost the argument that he is lashing out.
He claims to have scaled the moral high
ground and accuses those who oppose his
views of being as guilty as Saddam
of murdering his victims. Had the Prime Minister talked to the
demonstrators, he would have found hardly
any who supported the Iraqi tyrant - and
the Mirror has no time for those who
do. Being against Saddam - or any other
terrible regime - is a moral position to
take. Sending in bombers to obliterate
them, wiping out thousands of innocents in
the process, is not part of most people's
definition of morality. If this sounds like hysteria, the Daily
Mirror doesn't mind. If it takes
obsessional, hysterical, head-banging to
get over the message that this war must
not happen, so be it. The option - though
you wouldn't know this to listen to Mr
Blair - is not between waging war and
being obliterated by Saddam's weapons of
mass destruction. There is a real,
workable alternative - to control him
through tough use of UN weapons
inspectors. Which is the alternative
backed by most countries and the vast
majority of people in Britain. Having lost the argument, it is Tony
Blair who is plunging down the road of
hysteria. Playing the morality card is not
just offensive and ridiculous, but
dangerous. Where would it end? Having taken out
Saddam, where would the US-British axis
turn to next? Which other objectionable,
tyrannical regimes would become targets
for our bombs and invasion forces? Will they be sent in to remove
Zimbabwe's President Mugabe for
driving his people into starvation? How
about the terrible anti-human-rights
record of the Chinese Government - would
we take on their immense population? Or
what about the attitude of the Saudis to
women and human rights? Or Israel's
defiance of UN resolutions? It all smacks
of one rule for Iraq and another for
everyone else. We should be told if we have just heard
the Blair Doctrine - coming second-hand
from the dangerous men who run today's
White House - which will become our
foreign and military policy at the start
of the 21st Century. The world has one omnipotent power,
whose military spending outstrips every
other nation put together. That country,
unlike those in Europe, has hardly
suffered from attack. Yet this White House
wants to bombard Iraq and then
who-knows-where next. And it wishes to
take the United Kingdom along on its
coat-tails, a conspirator to mass
slaughter. If we are talking morality, perhaps
Tony Blair could explain the morality in
rigging reports of "evidence" to justify
military invasion? Both America and the
British Government have done that in the
past few days. Or maybe the Prime Minister
could debate morality with some of the
fundamentalists who threaten this country
because they believe we live an immoral
lifestyle. Morality is the last refuge of a
discredited politician. The final
desperate hiding place of those who have
lost the argument but refuse to accept
defeat. Tony Blair should ask himself if he is
Prime Minister of a nation so steeped in
immorality that one and a half million of
its people will march to support their
views. Or whether the people of this country
are desperately worried at the prospect of
being dragged into a divisive, dangerous
and murderous war. There will not be blood on the hands of
those who seek peace with strength. And we
don't want there to be on Tony Blair's,
either. The Mirror will go on shouting that
loudly, clearly, and if necessarily
hysterically, until Mr Blair
listens. |