THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

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.

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.


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.

Yes, Steve. Bush and Blair could not be more different as personalities, but they both have a touch of the messianic.



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:
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 .....




Continuation

I'd say that comes a day late and a dollar short .....






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.

This piece on the subject in today's NYTimes says that Powell was asked directly if he would have supported the war, knowing that Iraq did not have WMDs:

February 4, 2004
Powell and White House Get Together on Iraq War
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

ASHINGTON, Feb. 3 ?- The White House and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell scrambled on Tuesday to present a united front about the war in Iraq, a day after Mr. Powell said he was not sure if he would have recommended an invasion had he known Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of banned weapons.

After telling The Washington Post in an interview on Monday that the absence of weapons stockpiles "changes the political calculus" about whether to go to war, Mr. Powell told reporters on Tuesday, in comments coordinated with the White House, that "the bottom line is this: the president made the right decision."

Mr. Powell's comments to The Post clearly irritated some White House officials, who have complained before that Mr. Powell sometimes strays from the official line on national security issues. Repeating a line that Mr. Powell had used to describe himself during a dispute with the White House on another topic three years ago, one administration official said on Tuesday that the secretary was "a little forward on his skis again."

Mr. Powell's comments focused attention again on the longstanding foreign policy conflicts within the administration that have often pitted Mr. Powell against Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Powell's statements highlighted the contrast between his sometimes measured support for the war and the more full-throated justifications offered by Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld.

"There definitely appears to be some jockeying going on around here," said one administration official. "There's a high degree of frustration and it does creep out."

Mr. Powell and the State Department staff have clashed repeatedly with Mr. Rumsfeld and his team at the Pentagon over Iraq and other issues. And Mr. Powell is known to be deeply resentful over the large role that Mr. Cheney and the vice president's influential staff play in foreign policy, and feels that he has been undercut and marginalized on major issues. Mr. Powell has told associates that he has never before seen a vice president with so large a voice and so powerful a staff, and that it has created enormous problems for an administration that has never been able to speak with one voice on foreign policy.

The administration has struggled for the last week to deal with the conclusions made public by the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, David A. Kay, that Mr. Hussein did not have any large caches of chemical or biological weapons at the start of the war. Unlike Mr. Powell, Mr. Bush has carefully avoided making any public statements suggesting that he views the prewar intelligence he relied on as flawed or that his case for war has in any way been undermined or complicated.

Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld have been equally unwavering in defending the war as justified. A senior administration official said Mr. Rumsfeld told the cabinet at its meeting on Monday morning that he had spent the weekend reading Dr. Kay's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week and that it supported the administration's position that Iraq was a dangerous place that was growing more dangerous to the region and the world before the war.

Mr. Cheney joined the president and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, for lunch with Dr. Kay on Monday. Despite Dr. Kay's views on the absence of weapons stockpiles, they focused on his statements that Iraq was nonetheless a threat that had to be dealt with, the senior official said.

After first suggesting that no new study was necessary, Mr. Bush signed off this weekend on the creation of a quasi-independent commission, whose membership will be announced in the next few days, to study whether and how the intelligence system broke down and how it should be organized to deal with the threats from terrorism and weapons proliferation.

An administration official said the commission was likely to include at least one sitting member of Congress in an effort to defuse criticism from Democrats on Capitol Hill that the group would not be sufficiently independent of the White House to deliver a credible report.

Even as they have defended the war, members of Mr. Bush's team have been shifting their rationale away from the presence of weapons. Even before Dr. Kay's disclosures, Mr. Cheney had been quietly backing away from his assertions that Iraq had possessed illegal weapons at the start of the conflict.

"I think the jury is still out in terms of how extensive a program Saddam Hussein had," Mr. Cheney said in an interview with The Rocky Mountain News on Jan. 9.

In an interview with 10 European journalists in Rome on Jan. 27, Mr. Cheney said, "There's still work to be done to ascertain exactly what's there, and I am not prepared to make a final judgment until they have completed their work."

Mr. Powell, in his interview with The Post, was supportive of the decision to go to war, and his public comments on Tuesday were more pointedly in sync with the White House's official line. But he appeared to acknowledge in the interview, more openly than any other senior administration official so far, that the failure to find any weapons not only looked bad but weakened Mr. Bush's argument that Iraq was a direct and urgent threat.

Asked whether he would have recommended the invasion had he known what Dr. Kay would conclude after the war, Mr. Powell replied, "I don't know because it was the stockpiles that presented the final little piece that made it more of a real and present danger and threat to the region and the world."

Pressed on whether the lack of stockpiles removed that real and present danger, Mr. Powell said: "The absence of a stockpile changes the political calculus. It changes the answer you get with the little formula I laid out. But the fact of the matter is we went into this with the understanding that there was a stockpile and there were weapons."

Mr. Powell's statements, some administration officials said, reflected in part his frustration at having to field questions about his own credibility after Dr. Kay's conclusion about the absence of weapons stockpiles. A year ago, Mr. Powell gave the United Nations a comprehensive presentation on American intelligence findings about the threat from Iraq, and many of his assertions at the time now seem to be in doubt.

But Mr. Powell's nuanced but distinct departure from the official line also reflected another example of his willingness to hold himself slightly apart from the positions held by Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld, administration officials said.

Some senior officials said on Tuesday that Mr. Bush was not angry at Mr. Powell, and understood that his comments to The Post were generally supportive of the war and in line with Mr. Bush's own comments. The State Department took the unusual step of quickly issuing a transcript of the interview with The Post to put Mr. Powell's comments in their full context.



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top