UK Parliament to investigate Blair

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Huh, this whole sorry fiasco may just cost him his job yet.

 

Blair faces Iraq weapons probe

By Katherine Baldwin LONDON (Reuters) - MPs have decided to launch an inquiry into Prime Minister Tony Blair's motives for attacking Iraq as he faces accusations of misleading parliament and the public over Saddam Hussein's suspected banned weapons. Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee said late on Tuesday it would look into the decision to go to war, focusing particularly on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. Earlier, Blair's office held talks with the parliamentary committee that scrutinises the intelligence services about a possible inquiry into evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, his spokesman said. Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush ousted the Iraqi leader on the grounds that his weapons posed a serious threat, but no chemical, biological or nuclear arms have been found, prompting claims they hyped up intelligence to justify war. Blair has angrily denied the allegations and said no independent inquiry was necessary. But his spokesman said the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee, a parliamentary committee that reports directly to Blair, may probe the case. In contrast to the Security Committee, an inquiry by the Foreign Affairs Committee is normally held in public. The inquiries would follow a similar move in Washington where the Senate is planning hearings on the motives for war. The Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry will focus "particularly on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," Chairman Donald Anderson told Reuters. The issue of Iraq's weapons has come back to haunt Blair, who risked his premiership by defying public opinion over the war but appeared to emerge unscathed after Saddam's swift fall. "In trying to make the case for war, Tony Blair stretched his credibility to the limit and has potentially done serious harm to his own standing and public trust in government," said Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats. HARSH CRITICS While it could take some heat off Blair, the inquiry may not silence his harshest critics, many within his own Labour Party. Many of the committee's previous reports have been filled with blanks where material deemed sensitive has been edited out. Talk of the inquiry comes as parliament gears up for a mammoth day of talks on Iraq and its weapons on Wednesday. After a week of globetrotting, Blair will have to field questions at his weekly prime minister's question time. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has cut short a NATO meeting in Madrid to respond to an opposition debate on Iraq. Two of Blair's former ministers, both of whom resigned over Iraq, have accused him of duping the public and committing a "monumental blunder" by going to war. Fifty MPs from the Labour Party, which was deeply split over Iraq, have signed up to a motion calling on him to publish in full his evidence against Saddam. One said the potential scandal was "more serious than Watergate." Already widespread cynicism over UK-U.S. motives for war was fuelled by a BBC report quoting an intelligence source as saying Blair's Downing Street office made a report "sexier" by adding that Iraq could deploy weapons at 45 minutes' notice.

[Guest JMA]

Uh oh. The shit's about to hit the fan...

[Guest Vern Gagne]

It will be proven Blair did not mislead anyone. He believed the intelligence given to him was reason enough to remove Hussein by force.

 

I also saw some Greek lawyer wants to charge Blair with War Crimes at the ICC.

[Guest JMA]

Which "intelligence" supplied him with this info? Does anyone know?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I don't know the name of British Intelligence but it's one of the best in the world.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Foreign intelligence is under MI6/SIS.

[Guest DrTom]

Even if there is no evidence of WMD found in Iraq (which I seriously doubt will be the case; remember it's the size of California, which is a lot of turf to search), then the Coalition was absolutely right in removing Saddam from power. The British Parliament can go pound sand. I hear there's a lot of that in Iraq, though they probably don't trust that intelligence report, either.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The point of 1441 was for Iraq to show inspectors where any WMD's are, or clear proof they had gotten rid off them.

 

The Hussein regime didn't show proof they had got rid of all their WMD's.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Even if there is no evidence of WMD found in Iraq (which I seriously doubt will be the case; remember it's the size of California, which is a lot of turf to search), then the Coalition was absolutely right in removing Saddam from power. The British Parliament can go pound sand. I hear there's a lot of that in Iraq, though they probably don't trust that intelligence report, either.

Wrong. Let me explain how things occurred as far as Britain goes, which is the only thing that actually matters concerning this story:

 

1-Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq, the U.N was against it.

 

2-Blair essentially tried to play mediator between the two until it became obvious America was going to war anyway, regardless of having a U.N mandate.

 

3-By this stage, Blair had committed himself to Bush and any backtracking would have made him look politically weak. However, maintaining support for Bush made him incredibly unpopular with the British public, who overwhelmingly felt America was dangerously placing itself outside international law. The UK public staged the biggest mass demonstration in their history to protest our support of Bush on this. There was talk of a parliamentary rebellion and/or Blair being forced into resignation as Prime Minister.

 

4-As if by magic, we were now told that there was top-secret evidence to show we were in grave and immediate danger from Iraq's WMDs. Hussein must be stopped as soon as possible before he kills us all. But this information couldn't be shared. Because it was top-secret.

 

5-Suitably frightened, the British public held their breath and we went to war. Iraq fell. Now we could obviously dispose of those WMD's which we were told we were in such danger from. Except, as yet, there are no WMD's. There was no grave and immediate danger.

 

It was not wrong to attack Iraq, Hussein was a loose cannon and had to go. But it was wrong to attack Iraq without waiting for a U.N mandate. There was no immediate danger. Yes, the process would have taken longer than Bush wanted, but that is the nature of international politics. To throw those processes out the window in favor of your own impatient agenda has set a dangerous precedent, and made the world a much more unstable place than it was even 6 months ago.

 

The UK went to war in the end almost purely on the issue of WMD's and the immediate danger they presented. That's why we couldn't possibly wait for the U.N to deliberate. But now the war's over, and there aren't any. And that's why Blair, the intelligence he was given, and the spin that was released to persuade parliament & public to let him keep his job and take us to war is being investigated.

 

If it is found Blair gave false or even exaggerated information to parliamnet & pubic in order to save his political career from the very real danger it was in, then he would have no choice but to resign. He would be a liar.

 

The fact that Paul Wolfowitz recently admitted the WMD issue was significantly played up in an attempt to win over international support does not bode well for Blair's political future.

 

The British Parliament can go pound sand

, a moronic statement in itself, is made doubly irritating by the fact you have admitted in the past you have little knowledge of political opinion outside of your own country, so thanks for your condescending tone but shut the fuck up until you know what you're talking about.

Even if there is no evidence of WMD found in Iraq ... the Coalition was absolutely right in removing Saddam from power.

By Coalition, you obviously just mean America. Britain's role in the war, as far as the public was concerned, was purely about WMDs. If you had any idea about British politics you would know that. This is a thread about Britain, not America.

[Guest DrTom]

But it was wrong to attack Iraq without waiting for a U.N mandate.

This is the key part where we differ. The UN had shown an unwillingness to support its own resolutions. They preferred inaction to action. Hans Blix couldn't find his car keys if a siren were attached to them and they were under a spotlight. Like it or not, a UN mandate was not necessary. This is, of course, colored by my negative opinion of the UN, but I don't think we were wrong for acting when the UN was busy inserting its thumb up its collective rectum.

 

a moronic statement in itself, is made doubly irritating by the fact you have admitted in the past you have little knowledge of political opinion outside of your own country, so thanks for your condescending tone but shut the fuck up until you know what you're talking about.

I don't need to know the inner workings of Parliament to tell them to fuck off, or to tell you to fuck off for answering me like a prick. Blair is being criticized for standing up and supporting what had to be done just because evidence of WMD hasn't been found quickly enough for some people's liking. Bush is coming under fire with some over here for the same thing, and it's completely pointless.

 

By Coalition, you obviously just mean America. Britain's role in the war, as far as the public was concerned, was purely about WMDs. If you had any idea about British politics you would know that. This is a thread about Britain, not America.

No, I obviously don't. What "Coalition" quite *obviously* refers to is the "Coalition of the Willing," the ~40 countries that stood beside the US in the campaign against Iraq. I didn't even add "of the Willing" since I really felt "Coalition" by itself would give it away. Obviously, I don't know enough about the shoddy reading comprehension being taught in the British school system.

[Guest Vyce]

But it was wrong to attack Iraq without waiting for a U.N mandate.

 

Why?

 

No anti-war individual has EVER explained that to me sufficiently.

 

As a sovereign nation, we don't need the blessing of the U.N. to commit a military act, even one as expansive as war. We've acted without U.N. mandate before. We did it under the previous administration!

[Guest Anglesault]

Hans Blix couldn't find his car keys if a siren were attached to them and they were under a spotlight.

Nice way of saying it. I prefer to say "Hans Blix wasn't actualy looking for shit."

[Guest JMA]

I myself don't know much about Britain's politics or its PM. But I will play Devil's advocate. Isn't it possible that he DID mislead his people? I'm not saying it's true or not, just suggesting that it is a possibility. I don't agree with telling the Parliament to "fuck off." They seem to just be doing their job. If Blair is innocent he has NOTHING to worry about. Anyways, I DO think the US should be bound by international law.

 

I don't think we should be able to take down any country that we don't like.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

"International law" is a meaningless term. It does not exist and never has existed.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

what about the imf, world bank, and wto?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

What about them?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

one could consider their manipulation of third world economies -- and subsequent issuance of sanctions for noncompliance -- as the basis for an international law body.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Nonsense. Law is one thing and treaties, agreements, and sanctions are another. It is every nation's sovereign right to impose penalties on other nations for actions or policies it finds unacceptable. The WTO has no jurisdiction over non-signatories; the IMF and the World Bank work only with those countries which request their help or offer help themselves. They do not police the world. Even the NPT applies only to countries which have voluntarily signed it. Laws aren't voluntary; if you're living in Detroit, you don't get to choose whether you'll come under Michigan's jurisdiction.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The fact that Paul Wolfowitz recently admitted the WMD issue was significantly played up in an attempt to win over international support does not bode well for Blair's political future.

Dr Wolfowitz did nothing of the sort, DH; you're talking out of your ass as usual. Kindly quote the Deputy Secretary's exact words, because if you're talking about his Vanity Fair interview, you're wildly distorting what he actually said.

 

Or, more likely, you're regurgitating the wild distortions someone else fed you. Also as usual.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

in a sense, yes. however, the sanctions and whatnot -- plus political pressure from our country and other world powers -- virtually ensure that noncompliance (or compliance for that matter, but that's a different story) would be disasterous. you do make a decent point about the voluntary vs. involuntary laws, though.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Here, for those who are interested, is a unedited and undistorted excerpt from Dr Wolfowitz's 05/09/03 interview.

 

Tannenhaus: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into -

 

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but - hold on one second.

 

(Pause)

 

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to -

 

Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.

 

Kellems: By the way, it's probably the longest uninterrupted phone conversation I've witnessed, so -

 

Tannenhaus: This is extraordinary.

 

Kellems: You had good timing.

 

Tannenhaus: I'm really grateful.

 

Wolfowitz: To wrap it up, the third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.

As everyone can see, not ONCE did he say that any issue was "significantly played up," or anything to that effect. He simply stated that the central issue was Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction, and the concern caused by the combination of that possession and Hussein's support for terrorism. Simple. Clear. Direct.

 

Don't try to twist his words into some sort of evidence for your hysterical "It was all a lie" ravings.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Marney! I thought you left the board! It was the Vanity Fair interview I was referring to yes (which I did manage to read all by myself, thanks). I didn't source it a)because I assumed people would know what I was talking about and b)because it wasn't the main thrust of my post, just an example of the fuel-to-the-fire evidence mounting against Blair at the moment

 

But anyway, the words 'significantly played up' were obviously my own, not a quote from Wolfowitz. What he does say is that they "settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction". That issue, certainly to a greater level in Britain than in the U.S, was then seized upon and thrust forward as the issue for convincing the public as well as Parliament itself. With the evidence emerging (or rather lack thereof), it seems certain that the seriousness of that threat as well as the urgency required to act against it were, shall we say, exaggerated for political ends. While not necessarily out and out lying about the WMDs, most people now feel betrayed to discover they were the victims of political spin designed to play on their fears rather than their reason, and I think that's a fair enough reason to call our masters to task. The comments that have been made to indicate this [alec guinness mode on]unproper hoodwinking[/alec guinness mode off] have come from a wide spectrum of British & European politicians; I only mentioned Wolfowitz as an example because he's probably the most well known to the range of posters on this board.

 

Don't try to twist his words into some sort of evidence for your hysterical "It was all a lie" ravings.

Um, I never claimed it was all a lie, hysterically or otherwise. I was merely explaining to Dr Tom why WMD & the intelligence around them was such a big deal in Britain, and why his juvenile response to the original news story was out of place. While WMDs may well have been one of three reasons given to the American public, over here the other two were rejected outright by the British Parliament as legitimate reasons for going to war without U.N mandate. So whether or not they find the weapons which posed such an immediate danger to us if of huge importance this side of the Atlantic, because it was essentially (to the public) the only reason we went to war in the first place. It now appears we were lied to about the seriousness of that threat. I happen to support Tony Blair and I hope to hell they do find WMDs and find them fast, otherwise his tenability to continue as Prime Minister is toast.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

...

 

Why are you being so nice to me? <sighs> Don't you love me anymore?

 

Anyway, well, that all seems fair enough. You know we already have found a few mobile bioweapons labs, right?

 

 

 

PS. I had left the country; we came back for the wedding a little over a month ago.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Weren't the SAS and MI6 the people who claimed to have found evidence of WMD before the war anyway? The British people should be pissed that they were lied to.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

SAS is operations, not intelligence. And no one lied to the British people save the incurably recidivist appeasers.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

But it was wrong to attack Iraq without waiting for a U.N mandate.

 

Why?

 

No anti-war individual has EVER explained that to me sufficiently.

 

As a sovereign nation, we don't need the blessing of the U.N. to commit a military act, even one as expansive as war. We've acted without U.N. mandate before. We did it under the previous administration!

then remove yourselves from the U.N., and stop wasting it's time. If another country had ignored a U.N. mandate to attack a country America would be among the first to condemn them.

[Guest Vyce]

But it was wrong to attack Iraq without waiting for a U.N mandate.

 

Why?

 

No anti-war individual has EVER explained that to me sufficiently.

 

As a sovereign nation, we don't need the blessing of the U.N. to commit a military act, even one as expansive as war. We've acted without U.N. mandate before. We did it under the previous administration!

then remove yourselves from the U.N., and stop wasting it's time. If another country had ignored a U.N. mandate to attack a country America would be among the first to condemn them.

I would LOVE for us to quit the U.N. and form our own like organization. You want to REALLY see an irrelevant U.N.? Try watching them fumble around without our support.

 

But that's not really the point here. You're again (as do so many who find the war "unjustified") conveniently neglecting the fact that the initial resolution, passed UNANIMOUSLY by the Security Counsel, gave us full and complete legal authority to wage the war with Iraq.

 

Of course, the U.N. pussied out and didn't give us the go-ahead for war, but it was IRRELEVANT an unnecessary for them to do so in the first place. We never needed their approval.

 

But really, that still doesn't answer my question, though. Even though we used the first resolution as our basis for the war, why do we need any U.N. resolution / mandate to proceed if we have presented evidence that a country poses a significant threat to our security? There's a far better answer out there than just "We'd condemn another country that did it!"

[Guest TheMikeSC]

But it was wrong to attack Iraq without waiting for a U.N mandate.

 

Why?

 

No anti-war individual has EVER explained that to me sufficiently.

 

As a sovereign nation, we don't need the blessing of the U.N. to commit a military act, even one as expansive as war. We've acted without U.N. mandate before. We did it under the previous administration!

then remove yourselves from the U.N., and stop wasting it's time. If another country had ignored a U.N. mandate to attack a country America would be among the first to condemn them.

In case you failed to notice, there is considerable support for that.

 

And if we do that, the U.N dies the next day.

 

Don't tempt us.

-=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

why do we need any U.N. resolution / mandate to proceed if we have presented evidence that a country poses a significant threat to our security? There's a far better answer out there than just "We'd condemn another country that did it!"

where's the evidence? Where's The WMD?

 

and for a country that posed a "significant threat" to America you sure won the war with light casualties...and have the casualties you did have were caused by your own troops.

[Guest JMA]

This post is about to get REALLY ugly. Brace yourselves.