Well, happy 80th birthday, Lady Thatcher.
How about this intriguing Thatcherian utterance, described by Tina Brown in today’s WaPo:
- The former chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, Lord Palumbo, who lunched with Mrs. T six months ago, told me recently what she said when he asked her if, given the intelligence at the time, she would have made the decision to invade Iraq. “I was a scientist before I was a politician, Peter,” she told him carefully. “And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof — and then you check, recheck and check again. The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return.”
This, of course, was the same Lady (then Mrs.) T who famously, back in August 1990, urged W’s father “not to go wobbly, George” in terms of his confrontation with Saddam.
That was then, and now is now. I wonder what snippets of conversation the once-Iron Maiden exchanged at the gala birthday party hosted for her in London today, with favored guest Tony Blair?
There is a fisking (thorough debunking) of that story here:
http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/444-Debunking-the-Thatcher-Revealed-Doubts-about-Iraq-War-Claim.html
Do people in the USA know that Harold Pinter has won the Nobel prize for literature?
Do they know of his stand on the Iraq War? Do they know he said that G. W. Bush is a “mass murderer”?
There is a lot more one can say about this great playwright and poet. It’s good that he is recognised.
Well, Barak, why didn’t you tell us that item you linked to was your own? Why hide your light under a bushel, eh?
It’s probably for readers of your post there, though rather than you, to pass judgment on how “thorough” your debunking was?
The post is on a site called “Information Regarding Israel’s Security” (“Because Israel is on the front lines of the Global Jihad”) that features an apparent “map” of Israel on its homepage that shows Israel including all of Gaza, the West Bank, and Golan… But gosh, I’m not for a moment engaging in “guilt by association here”… any more than you were with your argumentation in much of that post. Such as this, (in bold!) shortly after a mention of Lord Palumbo: Serendipitously, his name appears next to today’s anti-American Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter.
And that’s an argument?
The February 2002 NYT article, by Margaret Thatcher (or a ghostwriter empowered to use her name) that you refer to there has considerably more heft as an argument. Why didn’t you stick with that instead of introducing all the sly innuendo that marked the rest of your post?
In that article, Lady T wrote of Saddam: How and when, not whether, to remove him are the only important questions. Again, solving this problem will demand the best available intelligence. It will require, as in Aghanistan, the mobilization of internal resistance. It will probably also involve a massive use of force. America’s allies, above all Britain, should extend strong support to President Bush in the decisions he makes on Iraq.
That’s presumably a pretty definitive expression of her views at that time.
But thanks, anyway, for including in your post a link to this article, in yesterday’s “Independent”, in which reporter Michael Grice had probed the story quite a lot further than Tina Brown and wrote:
Lady Thatcher’s office did not dispute her reported remarks but said she had been – and remained – in full support of the decision to oust Saddam by military means, which she always believed would be the only way to remove him. Aides said she wished that had been achieved by the first Gulf War, prompted by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, which took place shortly after she was forced to resign as Prime Minister after losing the confidence of her cabinet.
So, her office did not dispute Palumbo’s version of the remarks. So maybe it was the way the case had been made– in DC and in London– for going to war that she had wanted to criticise “sexing up” the intelligence, etc…), and not the decision to go to war itself. But even if that was so, it ‘s pretty interesting. And pretty damning for her ideological soul-mates over on this western side of the Atlantic.
Because Israel is on the front lines of the Global Jihad”
Typical Israelis claims to spread fears around the world, the realty they occupied the Arab’s/Muslim’s lands, killing Arabs/Muslims people, destroying Arab’s/Muslim’s homes, and peaceful loving people all these lies, Putting themself as “the front lines of the Global Jihad”.
The recent funny warranting issued by israelii officials that high oil price make the neighbouring Arab countries give them the ability to by military arms! ok so what, why they should not? Did they need approval from Israel how to spend their revues?
But don’t worry US/UK doing good job for you, the tag all the arm sale to the Arabs/Muslims to be “NOT USED AGINEST ISRAIL” if not it is special edition those weapons not advanced like the Israeli got.