BLAIR AT THE CONFERENCE

What's with the BBC and the use of the word "defiant"? Anyway, Prime Minister Blair has spoken at the Labour conference:

. . . Mr Blair, who arrived to chants of "four more years", was heckled first by a lone anti-war protester during his speech.

Notice how the "anti-war" never try this sort of stuff before war-making dictators . . .

As the man was removed from the conference hall Mr Blair said: "That's fine sir you can make your protest - just thank God we live in a democracy."

And that about tells the story. For contrast Blair's response, as a democratic leader, with the infamous footage you may recall that was made by Saddam of his thugs removing various "dissenters" Godfather-style, from a Saddam-fest, so they could be, ummm, dealt with outside the hall.

And of course, others have their complaints:

Outside, thousands of pro-hunters protested against a hunting ban. Police are working to prevent any repeat of clashes seen at a pro-hunting demonstration earlier this month in Parliament Square - a protest which also saw five men storm into the House of Commons chamber. . .

The prime minister's full speech may be found here. Here are some War on Islamist terror points (owing to length, it is in bold, not italics as a quote normally is):

. . . There was talk before this conference that I wanted to put aside discussion of Iraq.

That was never my intention.

I want to deal with it head on.

The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong.

I acknowledge that and accept it.

I simply point out, such evidence was agreed by the whole international community, not least because Saddam had used such weapons against his own people and neighbouring countries.

And the problem is, I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam.

The world is a better place with Saddam in prison not in power.

But at the heart of this, is a belief that the basic judgment I have made since September 11th, including on Iraq, is wrong, that by our actions we have made matters worse not better.

I know this issue has divided the country.

I entirely understand why many disagree.

I know, too, that as people see me struggling with it, they think he's stopped caring about us; or worse he's just pandering to George Bush and what's more in a cause that's irrelevant to us.

It's been hard for you.

Like the delegate who told me: "I've defended you so well to everyone I've almost convinced myself."

Do I know I'm right?

Judgements aren't the same as facts.

Instinct is not science.

I'm like any other human being, as fallible and as capable of being wrong.

I only know what I believe.

There are two views of what is happening in the world today.

One view is that there are isolated individuals, extremists, engaged in essentially isolated acts of terrorism.

That what is happening is not qualitatively different from the terrorism we have always lived with.

If you believe this, we carry on the same path as before 11th September.

We try not to provoke them and hope in time they will wither.

The other view is that this is a wholly new phenomenon, worldwide global terrorism based on a perversion of the true, peaceful and honourable faith of Islam; that's its roots are not superficial but deep, in the madrassehs of Pakistan, in the extreme forms of Wahabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the former training camps of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; in the cauldron of Chechnya; in parts of the politics of most countries of the Middle East and many in Asia; in the extremist minority that now in every European city preach hatred of the West and our way of life.

If you take this view, you believe September 11th changed the world; that Bali, Beslan, Madrid and scores of other atrocities that never make the news are part of the same threat and the only path to take is to confront this terrorism, remove it root and branch and at all costs stop them acquiring the weapons to kill on a massive scale because these terrorists would not hesitate to use them.

Likewise take the first view, then when you see the terror brought to Iraq you say: there, we told you; look what you have stirred up; now stop provoking them.

But if you take the second view, you don't believe the terrorists are in Iraq to liberate it.

They're not protesting about the rights of women - what, the same people who stopped Afghan girls going to school, made women wear the Burka and beat them in the streets of Kabul, who now assassinate women just for daring to register to vote in Afghanistan's first ever democratic ballot, though four million have done so?

They are not provoked by our actions; but by our existence.

They are in Iraq for the very reason we should be.

They have chosen this battleground because they know success for us in Iraq is not success for America or Britain or even Iraq itself but for the values and way of life that democracy represents.

They know that.

That's why they are there.

That is why we should be there and whatever disagreements we have had, should unite in our determination to stand by the Iraqi people until the job is done.

And, of course, at first the consequence is more fighting.

But Iraq was not a safe country before March 2003.

Few had heard of the Taliban before September 11th 2001.

Afghanistan was not a nation at peace.

So it's not that I care more about foreign affairs than the state of our economy, NHS, schools or crime.

It's simply that I believe democracy there means security here; and that if I don't care and act on this terrorist threat, then the day will come when all our good work on the issues that decide people's lives will be undone because the stability on which our economy, in an era of globalisation, depends, will vanish.

I never expected this to happen on that bright dawn of 1 May 1997.

I never anticipated spending time on working out how terrorists trained in a remote part of the Hindu Kush could end up present on British streets threatening our way of life. . .

Absolutely. And that is why (on this issue at least), thank goodness (actually, thank the British people) he is currently prime minister. He sees clearly what the two opposition leaders -- especially the leader of the Liberal Democrats -- do not: that we are dealing with the second, not with the first.  ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, September 28, 2004