steve
I noticed yesterday that the BBC has started to fight back (re Hutton). My spy there in London tells me there is not a poll to be found anywhere which doesn't hold the findings to be a whitewash.
I can't quite figure Blair out in all of this. He's made so many bad moves, and he won't see another term. I think it is likely, to a point of near certainty, that he's been under nearly as much pressure from the US to continue the denial strategy as he was to join the charade.
Blatham
The lesson to be learnt here is dont **** with the British Establishment.
It does appear complicated but in essense its pretty simple.
[A background note here. Blair regards it as "an article of faith" (his words) that Britain maintains its Special Relationship with the US. It goes back to WW2, sharing intelligence, fighting the Cold War and all that]
I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton, big mates with Tony, said look I might be leaving office, but don't jeopardise a wonderful relationship with a lot of history by going cool on the US if the Republicans win.
So when Bush said he was going to invade Iraq (in January 2002) Blair saw it as an opportunity to cement that alliance. He even said (I heard him) that it was important for Britain to "pay the blood price" when it came to the alliance with the US.
When they met in Crawford Texas in April 2002 Blair pledged Britain's military support and the rest as they say is history.
The problem is that the publically given reason for the war, wmd, has been exposed as bullshit. But the BBC made a mistake. They allowed the Govt. to protest that they did not deliberately lie about wmd. Lord Hutton was carefully chosen by Blair to confirm that he had not deliberately lied, which Hutton did with over kill, destroying the BBC in the process.
But the logic of that is we went to war on the basis of an honest mistake. And I don't believe that for a moment.
Quote:The problem is that the publically given reason for the war, wmd, has been exposed as bullshit. But the BBC made a mistake. They allowed the Govt. to protest that they did not deliberately lie about wmd. Lord Hutton was carefully chosen by Blair to confirm that he had not deliberately lied, which Hutton did with over kill, destroying the BBC in the process.
It was indeed sad to see the BBC officers fall on their swords to save the Blair government. But I am sure the Brits will not let this lie and that there will be a full blown inquiry. Gordon Brown must be licking his chops.
Quote:But the logic of that is we went to war on the basis of an honest mistake. And I don't believe that for a moment.
This is the argument on both sides of the Pond, of course, but I hope that the citizens of this country will rise up against that spin. Where is the outrage about our dead soldiers, lost to what cause? How can we sit by and not be heard about the reality that containment was working and that our government had no right to decide for all of the people of this country who would sacrifice their sons and daughters to a cause that was never honestly put forth, and thus no contract existed between those offering up the lambs and those letting loose the lions.
Kara,
you ask
Where is the outrage about our dead soldiers, lost to what cause?
this from
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5983_526759,004300140003.htm
Energy Security will be one of the key driving factors for India in the coming years. Other nations have gone to war over this; there have been riots, insurrections and revolutions over energy security. USA's foreign policy is almost completely driven by the need to provide energy security for its economy.
Steve, thanks for the good piece. As I read it, I thought "I know where this fellow went to school" -- enjoying some marvelous Britishisms such as gobsmacked (though that is of Irish origin, I think) and tickety boo. Sure enough, the credits tell us he sat at the feet of the folks who invented English.
Just watched Tony Blair in front of House of Commons committee. I have to hand it to him, I thought he was going to get crucified over wmd as a consequence of what David Kay said, but far from it.
First he admits no wmd found, but also insists people read the entirety of what Kay said. Then he says wmd was the legal basis for war. And when asked if he feels vindicated he says yes, even more so, because Kay highlighted breaches of UN resolutions, which if put before the security council last year, would have made UN authorisation for war pretty straightforward.
Blair stressed that the combination of unstable regimes, wmd and terrorism is THE threat to the world and to Britain in the 21st century. He said removing the Saddam regime has made progress possible with Libya, and others by demonstrating we really mean it. He said there was ample evidence of Saddam's intent, and that justified the war.
All in all a very polished performance, when I thought (to use a Britishism Kara) he would "come a cropper".
And I'm sorry but I can't get out of my mind the contrast with what Bush said yesterday. When asked why the American intelligence inquiry will not report until next year, after the election, he said …..er well we er don’t know yet what we thought.
People tell me that Bush is a lot brighter than he appears. Doing that job, he needs to be.
I can understand why people detest Blair. He is a superb politician. But he also has a strong sense of moral drive about him which gets up people's noses. He really believes that we did the right thing in Iraq. I get the impression that he is prepared to stretch the rules of the game to their breaking point or even break the rules if he knows he can get away with it, providing the noble objective is achieved. He's prepared to act immorally in a moral cause. Trouble is the moral cause in this case was war to get rid of Saddam. Only history will tell I guess.
In announcing the British inquiry into intelligence failures, Blair pointed out this will effectively be the 4th inquiry into events surrounding Iraq. 1 House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Inquiry. 2 Intelligence and Security Committee investigation. 3 Hutton Inquiry and now the Intelligence inquiry to be announced.
I have some sympathy with Blair's view that there will always be people calling for further inquiries until they obtain the answer they want to hear.
BUT the really interesting point that comes out of all this is that Blair has shifted the justification for war away from the wmd that Saddam had, to the wmd that Saddam was intending to develop. In other words the war is now justified on the basis of pre-emption (using the American argument), and this was ABSOLUTELY NOT THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE WAR GIVEN TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE IN MARCH 2003. There will be many people who will be going all out to 'get' Blair on this. But as Hutton has shown, Blair has some useful establishment friends at his disposal, I think he will survive.
Quote:I can understand why people detest Blair. He is a superb politician. But he also has a strong sense of moral drive about him which gets up people's noses. He really believes that we did the right thing in Iraq. I get the impression that he is prepared to stretch the rules of the game to their breaking point or even break the rules if he knows he can get away with it, providing the noble objective is achieved. He's prepared to act immorally in a moral cause. Trouble is the moral cause in this case was war to get rid of Saddam. Only history will tell I guess.
Yes, Steve. Bush and Blair could not be more different as personalities, but they both have a touch of the messianic.
Quote:BUT the really interesting point that comes out of all this is that Blair has shifted the justification for war away from the wmd that Saddam had, to the wmd that Saddam was intending to develop.
This is, of course, exactly what the US administration is saying and the spin they have been placing on the issue for some months. It is the flag that Bush will carry onto the hustings.
These are the arguments and positions that most conservatives and some liberals will use to justify the war. What is obscured and unspoken behind this verbal façade is the use of power for the wrong reasons. Those of us on different "sides" of the war issue will never find a meeting place here; it is philosophical and essential, especially to those arguing from first principles. (Although one could make the point that Bush is arguing
ab initio...from the principle that There is no God but God, and Bush is his handmaiden.)
I agree nearly 100% with what you wrote above, Steve.
One of my first thoughts was that Blair was again following Bush today.
And after listening to him on the radio (it was partly broadcasted live here) my next question was, whether the inquiry will examine the political decisions taken to wage war or focus exclusively on problems with the intelligence Blair's team received.
Walter, You already know the answer to your question.
Well, here's the official answer:
Quote:
Former cabinet secretary Lord Butler will chair a six-member committee looking at whether the pre-war intelligence was right or wrong.
SOURCE and further reading
"While the US inquiry may be relatively risk free or even positive for Mr Bush... it is far less straightforward for Tony Blair!" (Nick Assinder, BBC)
steve
Does it seem as unlikely to you as to me that Blair will succeed in the next election?
It's risk free for Bush, because the US inquiry into the intelligence of WMD's will be completed "after" the next election. It's the same thing with Bush's huge federal deficit that he claims will be reduced in half by 2009 - after he's long gone. Risk free all the way around for Bush.
Well, it will certainly be a contention during his second term.
Most of us on A2K are doing our best to ensure Bush doesn't see a second term except in Texas.
I'd be happy for Bush to have a new term..a prison term!
Capital punishment is too good for him. He's been responsible for the killing of over 10,000 innocent men, women and children. Even the 5,000 plus Iraqi military wasn't a threat to the American People, so they all died needlessly. The ones that survived probably joined the terrorists, because they could not see the 'justification' for our aggression and occupation.
The knot unravels a bit more .....
Quote:The Lie Factory
Mother Jones
January 26, 2004
BY ROBERT DREYFUSS & JASON VEST
Mother Jones, January/February 2004
Only weeks after 9/11, the Bush administration set up a secret Pentagon unit to create the case for invading Iraq. Here is the inside story for how they pushed disinformation and bogus intelligence and led the nation to war.
IT'S A CRISP FALL DAY IN WESTERN VIRGINIA, a hundred miles from Washington, D.C., and a breeze is rustling the red and gold leaves of the Shenandoah hills. On the weather-beaten wood porch of a ramshackle 90-year-old farmhouse, at the end of a winding dirt-and-gravel road, Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski is perched on a plastic chair, wearing shorts, a purple sweatshirt, and muddy sneakers. Two scrawny dogs and a lone cat are on the prowl, and tne air is filled with swarms
So far, she says, no investigators have come knocking. Not from the Central Intelligence Agency, which conducted an internal inquiry into intelligence on Iraq, not from the congressional intelligence committees, not from the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. All of those bodies are ostensibly looking into the Bush administration's prewar Iraq intelligence, amid charges that the White House and the Pentagon exaggerated, distorted, or just plain lied about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda terrorists and its possession of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. In her hands, Kwiatkowski holds several pieces of the puzzle. Yet she, along with a score of other career officers recently retired or shuffled off to other jobs, has not been approached by anyone.
Kwiatkowski, 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists. "It wasn't intelligence-it was propaganda," she says. "They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials-including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February-that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war.
Until now, the story of how the Bush administration produced its wildly exaggerated estimates of the threat posed by Iraq has never been revealed in full. But, for the first time, a detailed investigation by Mother Jones, based on dozens of interviews-some on the record, some with officials who insisted on anonymity-exposes the workings of a secret Pentagon intelligence unit and of the Defense Department's war-planning task force, the Office of Special Plans. It's the story of a close-knit team of ideologues who spent a decade or more hammering out plans for an attack on Iraq and who used the events of September 11, 2001, to set it into motion.
Continuation
I'd say that comes a day late and a dollar short .....
Quote:
Iraq: Powell 'Not Sure' He Would Have Supported War In Light Of Missing WMD
By Mark Baker
Secretary of State Colin Powell states his case at the UN. (CTK)
Prague, 3 February 2004 (RFE/RL) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell now says he is not sure he would have supported the war in Iraq if he had known the country did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
Continuation
I read that story this morning, Ge. But yesterday he backed away and added the comment that the Prez was right to go to war. Apparently, the administration leaned on him to get with the plan.
