Blair dodges all Iraq Questions

[Vanhalen 0]

Less than 24 hours to go before it all comes out Mr. Blair.....

 

Tony Blair has brushed off questions about the inquiry into pre-war intelligence on Iraq but given a robust defence of his decision to go to war.

The prime minister spoke after Lord Butler handed him an advance copy of his report into intelligence on Iraq, which will be published on Wednesday.

 

Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy is urging the prime minister to apologise for misleading people over Iraq.

 

But Mr Blair insisted the world was a safer place without Saddam Hussein.

 

'Foolish' claim

 

At a news conference with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Mr Blair urged people to wait for Lord Butler's report.

 

But he rejected suggestions he had been given "duff" information and made to look a fool in the world.

 

And he said he felt the same about Iraq as he had before the war.

 

What will Butler say? 

 

"With the history of Saddam and what he did, not just to his own country but to the wider world, we are better, safer, more secure without him in office," said Mr Blair.

 

He said the situation in Iraq was changing, although it was far too early to be anything other than "immensely cautious".

 

Lord Butler will publish his report at a news conference on at 1230 BST on Wednesday, with Mr Blair addressing MPs on the issue at about 1330 BST.

 

Spy chief criticism?

 

The Tories and Lib Dems will be able to see the report from 0600 BST on Wednesday, leaving about seven hours to prepare for a Commons statement by Mr Blair.

 

The timings are similar to those used in January when Lord Hutton published his report into Dr David Kelly's death.

 

Mr Kennedy said it was for unacceptable for opposition parties to be given a quarter of the time available to Mr Blair to consider the report.

 

There has been growing speculation about what the Butler inquiry's findings will mean for Downing Street and the intelligence services.

 

Downing Street said it would not comment on a claim by ITV News that the report would criticise MI6 boss John Scarlett but also say he should not be sacked.

 

The inquiry was set up in February in the wake of the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, amid suggestions that the UK's pre-war intelligence might have been wrong.

 

Intelligence doubt

 

Last week Mr Blair admitted that Iraq's WMD might never be found.

 

John Ware, from the BBC's Panorama programme, was told that key intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction used to back the case for war has recently been withdrawn.

 

Two ex-intelligence officers meanwhile have cast doubt over the way the premier went about trying to justify war with Iraq.

 

Dr Brian Jones, formerly of the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS), told the BBC's Panorama programme that nobody on his staff had seen evidence of the scale of weapons capability being touted by Downing Street.

 

Over-egged?

 

John Morrison, former deputy chief of DIS, said Mr Blair's claims on Iraqi WMD were met by disbelief in Whitehall.

 

"The prime minister was going way beyond anything any professional analyst would have agreed," he said.

 

Their statements seem to challenge assertions by the prime minister in the run-up to war that Iraq posed a "current and serious" threat to Britain.

 

Panorama also claimed that Mr Scarlett, chairman of the JIC, was warned a month after the dossier's publication the intelligence was not strong enough to back the presentation of some of its claims.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, you're implying Blair made it all up for the hell of it?

-=Mike

[Vanhalen 0]

Mike, you didnt see the press conference today, so how in the hell can you comment on it?

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, you didnt see the press conference today, so how in the hell can you comment on it?

I'm asking a question. I don't remember mentioning the press conference.

 

*looks at post*

 

Nope, didn't mention it once.

 

But, I suppose I should apologize for interrupting your witchhunt. Happy burning!

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Blair will come out of this pretty much safe. The report will no doubt blame intelligence failures and Blair will maintain thet Saddam was a threat and needed to go regardless.

[KTID 0]

Mike, go away. We're all happilly enjoying the demise of Tony Blair. No need for you're interupting self.

[Guest MikeSC]

RVD! RVD! RVD!

There ya go.

-=Mike

[KTID 0]

What the fuck?

[Guest MikeSC]

RVD! RVD! RVD!

So, apparently, Blair just made up information to go to war just for the hell of it. Interesting theory.

-=Mike

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I sincerely doubt Tony Blair will be gone tomorrow.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

RVD! RVD! RVD!

So, apparently, Blair just made up information to go to war just for the hell of it. Interesting theory.

-=Mike

I think the complaint is that he immediately jumped on board with bush against the wishes of the people there. I'm not English, though, so I'm the wrong person to ask.

[Zorin Industries 0]

With "Persil Butler" in charge of the inquiry, Blair is going to be scot free again, just like the last time

[NoCalMike 0]

Well at least they are asking Blair to be accountable, and are actually expecting him to answer tough questions.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Blair will come out of this pretty much safe. The report will no doubt blame intelligence failures and Blair will maintain thet Saddam was a threat and needed to go regardless.

That's not true???

[Guest INXS]

It's not true that Saddam was a threat to the UK, no. Nor to the US, really. It's already been established that there was no WMD...I mean that Blair will play the "Saddam was evil, he needed to be got rid of anyway card".

[Justice 0]

It's not true that Saddam was a threat to the UK, no. Nor to the US, really. It's already been established that there was no WMD...I mean that Blair will play the "Saddam was evil, he needed to be got rid of anyway card".

It's never been proven that Saddam never had WMDs

 

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

[Guest INXS]

It's hardly looking very likely is it...

[Guest BDC]

Y'know the fact that there was so much damned stalling was a big help in getting them OUT OF IRAQ.

[Guest INXS]

You're right BDC! I bet they were all shipped to Syria....let's roll!

[Guest BDC]

And you accomplished what there? Bsaically in this one thread you've stated that there are no WMDs on lack of finding them. Like was said, absence of proof is not proof of absence. Your rebuttal is things aren't looking hot in finding them.

 

Can you backpedal any faster?

[Guest INXS]

I'm not backpeddling...I didn't say that they were never there. I'm saying it's not looking likely. Obviously he had SOME WMD as he slaughtered the Kurds and used some in the Iraq/Iran war but the question is, is did Saddam have WMD in the year leading up to the war? NO. I'm not even buying that he shipped the WMD out either - US and UN inspectors have found no evidence after inspections and coalition troops have found no evidence after over a year of occupation. IF any WMD was shipped out we would have found some evidence. Saying that Saddam had WMD was an intelligence failure or, quite possibly, a flat out lie.

[Guest BDC]

It's not true that Saddam was a threat to the UK, no. Nor to the US, really. It's already been established that there was no WMD...I mean that Blair will play the "Saddam was evil, he needed to be got rid of anyway card".

You never said they weren't there, huh?

 

EDIT:

 

So you're saying that UN inspectors would have found something. Would this be the UN inspector that was blowing Saddam on all the news networks?

 

Despite what you might want to think, these folks aren't idiots. Bury your stuff deep in a patch of sand and it'll take YEARS to find. And given that the Iraq/Syria border is pretty damn open, that doesn't make it likey that they will find it. All thanks to weeks of pointless stalling.

[Guest MikeSC]

I assumed a Brit would know better than to be in favor of appeasement of tyrants.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

It's not true that Saddam was a threat to the UK, no. Nor to the US, really. It's already been established that there was no WMD...I mean that Blair will play the "Saddam was evil, he needed to be got rid of anyway card".

You never said they weren't there, huh?

I am saying that it is looking very, very unlikely that Saddam had WMD during the timeframe that intelligence reports claimed he had.

 

Do you think that WMD is in Iraq and we just haven't stumbled across any yet?

[Guest INXS]

I assumed a Brit would know better than to be in favor of appeasement of tyrants.

-=Mike

How is believing that Saddam had no WMD in favor of appeasing tyrants?!

[Guest BDC]

I'll copy what I edited into my other post:

 

Despite what you might want to think, these folks aren't idiots. Bury your stuff deep in a patch of sand and it'll take YEARS to find. And given that the Iraq/Syria border is pretty damn open, that doesn't make it likey that they will find it. All thanks to weeks of pointless stalling.

[NoCalMike 0]

EDIT: nevermind

[NoCalMike 0]

I'll copy what I edited into my other post:

 

Despite what you might want to think, these folks aren't idiots. Bury your stuff deep in a patch of sand and it'll take YEARS to find. And given that the Iraq/Syria border is pretty damn open, that doesn't make it likey that they will find it. All thanks to weeks of pointless stalling.

It's not like there weren't bombing campaigns and heavy surviellence before the war though. It is not like suddenly after Sept. 11th we decided to "deal with Iraq" They were being dealt with already and from every account so far, it was working pretty well, not PERFECT, but they were contained.

[Guest INXS]

Right, i'm willing to accept that it's *possible* that WMD were moved into Syria and/or are hidden somewhere in Iraq. Not likely and I don't believe it but I accept that it's possible.

 

Are you willing to accept that it's *possible* that there never was any WMD?

[Guest BDC]

As Mike has often stated, every damned country in the world KNEW Saddam had WMDs right up until we rolled up our sleeves.