Population: One

This is kind of trainspotting at this point, but the Guardian is running live coverage of the British House of Commons debate on Iraq. There’s no doubt Blair’s resolution will pass at this point; the question is how many Labour MPs will defect. Robin Cook adroitly separated opposition to war from opposition to Blair’s government yesterday, which makes today more interesting.

There we go. Here’s the full text of Robin Cook’s resignation speech, which I’ve been pitching as a must read, so hurry up already. In other British political news, Clare Short withdrew her threat to resign, confirming everything skeptics think about the left.

So. We’re going to war.

I think a number of things, which I will outline here, as much to remind myself of them in the days to come as for any other reason. I think that regime change in Iraq is an admirable goal; Saddam Hussein is a terrible leader who has caused great harm to his citizens. He is a dictator and a criminal. I have no doubt of this.

I do not think that war is inherently wrong. Given the way in which the international community functions, I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan.

I do not think that Saddam is any kind of immediate threat to the United States. He has no viable nuclear program, despite the fact that he’s been trying to get one for years. He probably has chemical and biological weapons. It is not moral to wage war on a country based on theories about what that country might do. Bush spoke tonight of the moral justification of preemptive strikes. I say this: that there is a difference between the belief that Saddam might someday hurt the United States and the knowledge that Saddam is about to launch an attack. In one case, a preemptive strike is justified. In another, it is not.

I think that had Bush managed to keep UN approval, this war would not be damaging to the United States. As is, there is more anti-American feeling in the countries of the world than there has been for some time. Today, the Canadian Parliament cheered Chretien when he announced that Canadian troops would not participate in this war. This is not an isolated incident. Pursuing this war in the manner that Bush has chosen has an undeniable cost. I do not think that toppling Saddam is worth that cost.

I believe that if Saddam isn’t in a position to launch terrorist attacks today, he wouldn’t be in a position to launch them next year. Let alone in the 30 days provided by Chile’s last proposal for a Security Council resolution. A unified world has kept Saddam from gaining nuclear weapons for over a decade. There’s no reason for that to change.

Despite my opposition to Bush’s war, I hope that it is very successful. Now that the die is cast, I hope that the war ends in a matter of weeks and not months. I care about the lives of US soldiers; I don’t want a long, messy war and I will not hope for one. I think we’ll get a pretty messy war, but I very much hope I’m wrong.

I also hope that those who think Saddam is a real and immediate danger are proven wrong. If Saddam is an immediate threat, Bush’s speech should be quickly followed by devastating terrorist attacks. I don’t think that will happen; by the logic of their positions, many do. I hope they share my desire to be proven wrong.

And there it is.

Two very important speeches were delivered today. One was delivered to the people of the United States; one was delivered to Britain’s House of Commons. I’m glad I had the chance to watch both of them.

President Bush made what we must now consider the definitive Administration case for war on Iraq. Robin Cook made what I consider to be the definitive case against. (I have not found a transcript of the latter, but there is a RealVideo archive.)

I want to encourage everyone to watch or read both. Cook’s speech is a textbook example of how to disagree with governmental policy without being unpatriotic. Bush’s speech, considered objectively, was probably the strongest he has ever made. I suspect most reading this will have read the Bush speech by now; take the time to watch Cook, too.

Edit: trimmed down Cook transcript; Bush transcript. The Cook transcript removed some of the interesting bits, so you should still watch the RealVideo.

Robin Cook and Tony Blair displayed uncommon class in their letters regarding the former’s resignation. That’s how you disagree with someone’s policies without attacking them as a person. It’d make good reading for a lot of people on both sides of the aisle.

Last night, Bush said “Tomorrow is the day we determine whether or not diplomacy can work.” Today, the US, the UK, and Spain withdrew the British resolution. Dude, it’s not even noon yet. That was a pretty short day.

I mean, OK, leaving aside the issue of whether you’re pro or anti — isn’t it a little weird that Bush can’t even stick with a diplomatic plan for 24 hours? Couldn’t he have just said, “If we don’t see a diplomatic solution by tomorrow morning, time’s up,” perhaps? You’re President of the most powerful nation on Earth. Gotta stop sending these mixed messages.

Anyhow, he’s going to address the nation at 8 PM EST. I will, no sarcasm here, be glued to my set.