Pressure grows re. Iraq truth, Blair may be ready to concede

[Bowfinger]

News from across the pond

For those who are still interested in the story, pressure on both sides of the Atlantic is growing as the WMD story continue to unravel. Here are two articles from The Observer about recent developments. They overlap some of the other recent articles, but look at other allies and contain more behind-the-scenes information. I include brief excerpts; follow the links if you want the whole story.

The arms hunt: were they weapons of self-delusion?

Despite frantic efforts by leaders on both sides of the Atlantic, it's the story that won't go away. As spies and spin doctors trade insults, the mystery of Saddam's arsenal grows ever deeper.

Peter Beaumont and Kamal Ahmed in London, Ed Vulliamy in New York and David Fickling in Sydney
Sunday June 8, 2003
The Observer

Every week, senior senators in the United States Congress sit down to a policy-makers' lunch. It is usually a pretty ho-hum affair, an occasion for political backslapping. But last Tuesday as the grand panjandrums of the Grand Old Party assembled, Vice-President Dick Cheney had pressing business on his mind. That business, unusually, was to reassure the assembled senators that the administration of George Bush was not, as some had alleged, lying about weapons of mass destruction and that it did have credible evidence before American soldiers were sent to war that Iraq retained those weapons.

It has not been an easy argument to make this week. On both sides of the Atlantic, war on Iraq has given way to an altogether more difficult guerrilla battle over propaganda. Victory is in danger of being soured by nagging doubts: was the public deceived, by the manipulation of intelligence, as to the nature of the enemy they were fighting?

[ ... ]

No. 10 regret on war dossier

Downing Street is to express regret about the fundamental flaws in the second 'dodgy dossier' on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Senior Whitehall sources told the Observer that the officials who will be called before the Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry into the weapons issue will say that the second dossier on Saddam's history of deception undermined public trust in government information.

If Blair is questioned on the issue, he will concede that mistakes were made.

[ ... ]

First article implicates Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz as directly involved in distorting intelligence information. If this proves true, it will be interesting to see if Bush is willing (able?) to sacrifice them to salvage his credibility.

 

[Insane3D]

They just need more time...until 2008 at least

 

[Tripleshot]

Couple this with the organizations that won contracts for clean up and you start to see a picture of corruption that rivals anything we have seen in the last 100 years. The evidence is in text and film of Rice,Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush continually ascerting this was about WMD's and the "FACT" that that Saddam was about to use them on us and/or his neighbors, stirring fears that Israel would be a target.

If this story gets legs in the US, there could be a call for impeachment. Congress is about to hold meetings on this issue this week. There are too many questions and not enough answers, and 'spin ain't gunna cut it this time folks'. I watched C. Rice try and spin a plausable excuse with George Stephenopolis(sp) this mornig, and she was most uncomfortable answering the questions, and very unconvincing in her answers. If Bush lied to congress, and that lie led to the deaths of American soldiers, not to mention Iraqi's, then he deserves to be drummed out of office. That is sad, but a possible scenerio that people should consider.

I hope that the smoking gun is found. We are smart enough to recognize if anymore shennagins like "manufacturing evidence" are used, sealing Bush's fate. But if indeed there is hard evidence than this war may indeed have been justifed, and lives lost were not in vane.

Now I must go and speak with my neighbor. He has just returned from Iraq as an Arab interpetor. I'm sure I will have an even clearer sense after talking wih him.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Couple this with the organizations that won contracts for clean up and you start to see a picture of corruption that rivals anything we have seen in the last 100 years. The evidence is in text and film of Rice,Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush continually ascerting this was about WMD's and the "FACT" that that Saddam was about to use them on us and/or his neighbors, stirring fears that Israel would be a target.

If this story gets legs in the US, there could be a call for impeachment. Congress is about to hold meetings on this issue this week. There are too many questions and not enough answers, and 'spin ain't gunna cut it this time folks'. I watched C. Rice try and spin a plausable excuse with George Stephenopolis(sp) this mornig, and she was most uncomfortable answering the questions, and very unconvincing in her answers. If Bush lied to congress, and that lie led to the deaths of American soldiers, not to mention Iraqi's, then he deserves to be drummed out of office. That is sad, but a possible scenerio that people should consider.

I hope that the smoking gun is found. We are smart enough to recognize if anymore shennagins like "manufacturing evidence" are used, sealing Bush's fate. But if indeed there is hard evidence than this war may indeed have been justifed, and lives lost were not in vane.

Now I must go and speak with my neighbor. He has just returned from Iraq as an Arab interpetor. I'm sure I will have an even clearer sense after talking wih him.

Of course that won't happen, but since you've said it, that means you are officially just another "Bush hater" and will be labeled as such by some on this board. Of course, you aren't and your post was very reasonable, but if you call out GW like that, you are instantly labeled by the right, and anything you say from now on is not worth listening to...according to them.

I'm curious if it's possible to point out valid criticism of this administration without being labeled a "Bush hater"...probably not.

 

[Michael]

Insane3D - If you're refering to Tripleshot, he is a long-time Republican-hater and Bush hater. He is also always wrong about politics, at least from the evidence shown in posting on this board.

Michael

 

[sMiLeYz]

Blairs a dead man politically in Britain, all thanks to us.

He successor isnt going to be nearly as US friendly as he was.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Michael
Insane3D - If you're refering to Tripleshot, he is a long-time Republican-hater and Bush hater. He is also always wrong about politics, at least from the evidence shown in posting on this board.

Michael

Haha DAMN Insane3D, you were right on the money!

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Michael
Insane3D - If you're refering to Tripleshot, he is a long-time Republican-hater and Bush hater. He is also always wrong about politics, at least from the evidence shown in posting on this board.

Michael

Even if this is so, does he have a less valuable opinion than a "Republican and Bush lover?" I think everyones opinion is valuable, even if I strongly disagree with them.

Can you answer my question? Is it possible to criticize this administration and not be labeled a Bush hater? It seems to me that many around here prefer to try to lump someone they disagree with into a nice neat little group like "bush haters" so they can be referred to as "them" and easily ignored. Just my observation...

 

[Michael]

It is quite possible to not like Bush or his policies and not be a Bush-hater. It isn't possible for Tripleshot, because that is the straight truth (I'm not sure if you were around for the election threads or earlier).

I've already posted a few times that I'm alarmed at how bad our inteligence reports have been. Note - WMD goes back to Bush 1 and Clinton, and the UN - this is not a current administration issue. I doubt anyone would label me as a "Bush-hater".

I don't see many signs that the mainstream really cares. The media seems to be hoping that they do, but I run into no real mention of it other than political forums like this one.

Michael

 

[Dragnov]

Just give Bush some more time, to uhhh... be creative.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Blairs a dead man politically in Britain, all thanks to us.

He successor isnt going to be nearly as US friendly as he was.

Blair can save himself if he jumps ship . . . in part b/c his harshest critics in the prelude to war were in his own party (Labor). If he 'fesses up they (Labor) will likely rally around him. He will ask for forgiveness from the British people for his errors and commit the UK to rebuilding a vibrant Iraq . . . with the Iraqis as full partners.

The Tories are a little harder to gauge. They were staunch supporters before and during the war but Iain Duncan Smith was launching haymakers last week. Unlike typical American politics he was asking legitimate questions that Blair either sidestepped or refused to answer. The Tory goal was get rid of Saddam . . . now that it's happened they will have little compunction about showing Blair to the door.

If Labor retains control of the government but they dump Blair then YES the next PM will tell Bush et al to take a flying leap when it comes to Neocon dreams of Syria, Iran, NK . . . A conservative victory would likely mean Iain Duncan Smith becomes the PM. He's a UK version of John McCain before McCain became a Democrat.

 

[LunarRay]

BBD,
Blair has about three years or so before he has to call for elections save a no confidence vote. I think the N/C vote is what will occur. It seems the only way labor can hold the seats to form the next government. In either event, Blair is history.
You saw PM question time and they seem to be uniting against Blair already. On a number of issues.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

EDIT: Damn it! Wrong thread!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: ELP
UQ, you believe in the "Magic Bullet Theory" don't you?

UQ?

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: Michael
It is quite possible to not like Bush or his policies and not be a Bush-hater. It isn't possible for Tripleshot, because that is the straight truth (I'm not sure if you were around for the election threads or earlier).

I've already posted a few times that I'm alarmed at how bad our inteligence reports have been. Note - WMD goes back to Bush 1 and Clinton, and the UN - this is not a current administration issue. I doubt anyone would label me as a "Bush-hater".

I don't see many signs that the mainstream really cares. The media seems to be hoping that they do, but I run into no real mention of it other than political forums like this one.

Michael

Whether this is Bush hating, whether or not WMD goes back to Bush 1 and Clinton, whether or not the mainstream cares, if any President of the United States sends troops into battle by using false or misleading information we need to investigate, find the facts and act on them as necessary. Up to and including impeachment.

We are a nation of laws. We claim our goal is to bring freedom to oppressed nations. We cannot claim to be that and be a nation that allows our leaders to wage war without good cause or by trickery.

 

[Michael]

nowareman - You have a poor grasp of what has happened in the past. In just about every war, the US President has made decisions based on poor or misleading information. None were impeached.

I agree that it needs to be investigated as we rely on our inteligence services to do their job well. They missed 9/11, so it wouldn't surprise me if they got this one wrong as well.

Michael

 

[Moonbeam]

The real intelligence was pretty much we don't know. The Bush lie was that we faced an immediate threat. That became an obvious lie a few days into the war.

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: Michael
nowareman - You have a poor grasp of what has happened in the past. In just about every war, the US President has made decisions based on poor or misleading information. None were impeached.

I agree that it needs to be investigated as we rely on our inteligence services to do their job well. They missed 9/11, so it wouldn't surprise me if they got this one wrong as well.

Michael

Michael, you have no idea what my grasp of what has happened in the past is.

If a president intentionally uses false or misleading information to wage war we need an investigation to bring all the facts to light. Lyndon Johnson left under the cloud of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Had he decided to run in 1968 there very well may have been an inquiry.

I find it difficult to compare this war with any of the wars of the 20th century with the possible exception of Grenada. This war minus WMD was unnecessary. This war was about WMD and the threat it posed to the USA in the hands of Iraq. If there is no WMD in Iraq and the intelligence reports used were "tweaked" to give the American public a false picture of the threat then a full inquiry should be held.

We are the world's only remaining super power. We shoulder an awesome responsibility. We cannot become a nation that shoots first and asks questions later. If we lose our credibility in the world over this what will happen when the threat is real? What nation will believe us when we need them to when the issue is truly life and death?

 

[CaptnKirk]

There is an old story about the BushBoy that cried Wolfowitz.

I believe that this Administration knew exactly what they were doing,
and released data when they wanted to manipulate the public - truth be damned.
I for one will not be trusting anything I hear from these people for the duration
of their tenure. I hope that they do not make the 2004 election cycle before
more resignations remove those who fabricated this falsehood.

The U.S. Credibility is GONE - it will take decades to undo the damage.

 

[Wag]

It doesn't matter. Bush will be re-elected becuase most Americans still see the tie between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. The divisions will remain the same, those of us who wouldn't vote for Bush, aren't going to do so anyways. The other 60% of the US population won't turn out to vote. That's more disgracefull than anything the Bush Administration does. Pheh.

I hate to say we get what we deserve, but it sure looks that way.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
There is an old story about the BushBoy that cried Wolfowitz.

I believe that this Administration knew exactly what they were doing,
and released data when they wanted to manipulate the public - truth be damned.
I for one will not be trusting anything I hear from these people for the duration
of their tenure. I hope that they do not make the 2004 election cycle before
more resignations remove those who fabricated this falsehood.

The U.S. Credibility is GONE - it will take decades to undo the damage.

It'll be tough - rebuilding our credibility AND our economy at the same time for decades because of Bush and Co. No credibility and a multi-trillion dollar deficit.

Pretty impressive though. Hard to destroy both at the same time and still remain popular. I wonder when people will wake up.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
There is an old story about the BushBoy that cried Wolfowitz.

I believe that this Administration knew exactly what they were doing,
and released data when they wanted to manipulate the public - truth be damned.
I for one will not be trusting anything I hear from these people for the duration
of their tenure. I hope that they do not make the 2004 election cycle before
more resignations remove those who fabricated this falsehood.

The U.S. Credibility is GONE - it will take decades to undo the damage.

It'll be tough - rebuilding our credibility AND our economy at the same time for decades because of Bush and Co. No credibility and a multi-trillion dollar deficit.

Pretty impressive though. Hard to destroy both at the same time and still remain popular. I wonder when people will wake up.

When fox news tells them to...

 

[Bowfinger]

Here's a related article from the Sydney Morning Herald. It offers an Australian perspective on the story:

Weapon threat not the motive for war, ex-spy says
Australia's premier intelligence analysis agency told the Federal Government that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction threat was not the prime motive for the United States going to war against Iraq, a former intelligence officer said yesterday.

It was regarded as a "secondary issue", less important than regime change and reshaping the Middle East by putting in place a pro-US government in an oil-rich country and introducing democracy to the region.

[ ... ]

"It was also about the credibility of the US military. The US sees its military and threat of force as one of its most important foreign policy tools. They had threatened to use force and would lose credibility if they didn't," Mr Wilkie said.

[ ... ]

Follow the link for the complete article.