Blair 'overrode terror warnings'

[Barrett808]

Tony Blair led Britain to war against Iraq despite intelligence chiefs' warnings it could increase the risk of terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction, it has emerged.

The revelation comes in a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) giving its verdict on how intelligence was handled in the run-up to the war.

The report says September's key dossier was not "sexed up", but it adds that ahead of the war Mr Blair was told the threat from al-Qaeda and allied terrorist groups would be made worse by invading Iraq.

The prime minister, who has repeatedly argued that disarming Iraq was needed to stop terrorists getting chemical or biological weapons, told the ISC he had acknowledged the dangers but argued inaction posed greater risks.

MPs and peers on the ISC criticised Geoff Hoon for initially failing to disclose fully how concerns were raised by Defence Intelligence Staff about parts of the Iraq dossier.

In a Commons debate, Mr Hoon said he regretted any "misunderstanding" and argued he had always intended to be open about disputes over the dossier's wording.

But the Conservatives continued to call for him to resign or be sacked.

(more)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3101364.stm

[PartyPooper]

1. So? What's the big deal? Why should Tony care?

No problema! He's off the hook! His pal, Georgie Boy, is skating, too!

:eyes:

[fizzana]

2. The CIA said the same thing.

Didn't make any difference.

[T_i_B]

3. This is the EXACT reason why I marched against Blair & Bush

We were not fighting a war against terror in Iraq but a war to breed terror. If Blair cannot listen to such common sense advice as this then he cannot be considered fit to run this country.

If we come under terrorist attack as a result of this we will hold you personally responsible Mr Blair. You have failed to make the world a safer place by quite some margin.

[AP]

4. Why can't anyone see the rock and the hard place Blair was between?

If had stayed out, that would have meant exclusive US control of Iraq and the ME (through chaos) which would have caused the sort of economic misery in Europe that lead to Hitler's rise in Germany 70 years ago. If he went in, he could at least have some slight control over Europe's destiny by keeping a close eye on George Bush. It was am impossible choice, but I think he made the more courageous choice which might have saved Europe from facsism (but we'll never know for sure).

[T_i_B]

5. With friends like Bush who needs enemies?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1020621,00.html

Diplomatically, the gains of many decades have been frittered away by our blind obedience to the American administration's wars. Huge numbers of people view the British prime minister as Bush's poodle, and see Britain as no more than the errand boy for the American neo-conservatives. What price British influence in the world if Albion has no influence with its American godfather?

For that is the case. We have next to no influence with the US administration. If we did, we would surely have demanded some quid pro quo for our loyal support to America in its military adventives. Perhaps some flexibility would have been forthcoming on the Kyoto protocol or on America's development of nuclear weapons. Not a chance. We continue to cravenly support all things American-inspired, whether missile defence or a distorting World Trade Organisation. In return, the prime minister receives plaudits from Congress delivered in a manner reminiscent of Beijing's Great Hall of the People. As America's love affair with Tony Blair blossoms, the world - and the UK's place within it -becomes less stable.

What an ignominious way we have begun the 21st century - as a satrapy of the new American world order. Old friends despair as old rivals mock this once-proud nation. No longer is it able to hold its head up as a free-thinking, sovereign state.

We are now viewed as a rather ignoble island, subservient to the world's superpower, and incapable of committing itself to its natural home within Europe. The irony of our position is that, as we further alienate our friends, including those in America who look for constructive criticism rather than sycophancy, so we reinforce the prejudices of our enemies. Thus do nations dwindle into insignificance and irrelevance.

[Oggy]

7. Dissappointed

Like you I marched to stop the spread of terror. I wrote to my MP to say any WMD's if they existed would end up the hands of terrorists or extremists. What control do you have in a war zone? Most of all though I marched for an idea of peaceful eradication of problems, I thought we Brit's really could stand up an be counted when it meant something, even if that meant standing up to our "Great Allies" the USA. I have been left disappointed and disillusioned by our country, the people in power are no different to any of the Capitalist rapers of countries in big corporations.

End of rant.

On edit must just say I like the US, by standing up to our great allies I mean standing up against shrub.

[AP]

32. Blair is trying to create an economically/democratically powerful

UK in a powerful EU which has the power to stand up to the US.

The EU doesn't have the power to stand up to the US just yet. That's part of the reason it was so important for Bush to become president to the RW. The EU is on the cusp of real power, and Bush is trying to sabotage that.

If no nation from the EU were involved in some marginal way in Iraq, the slide to economic decay in Europe would be faster, and you'd see fascists get elected all over Europe as a reaction to the failure of leaders like Blair to control the economy and to engage in the world in ways which protect UK and EU interests.

[dfong63]

6. that's weak

If had stayed out, that would have meant exclusive US control of Iraq and the ME (through chaos) which would have caused the sort of economic misery in Europe that lead to Hitler's rise in Germany 70 years ago. If he went in, he could at least have some slight control over Europe's destiny by keeping a close eye on George Bush. It was am impossible choice, but I think he made the more courageous choice which might have saved Europe from facsism (but we'll never know for sure).

your analogy is like saying that France should have joined the Axis powers in order to exert a moderating influence on them. the way to save the world from fascists is to oppose them, not to join them.

[AP]

33. It's way closer to the truth then the mad notion

that Bush and Blair are cronies. Bush is doing everything he can to sabotage Blair and to get the tories back in power. If you had an election today, the tories would win. If Blair had staid out of Iraq, I bet Blair would have been gone by now, and it would have been because America would have gone crazy in Iraq, perhaps already having spread the war to Iran and Syria, the European economy would be in tatters, and people would blame Blair for being an isolationist.

[T_i_B]

36. Yet again, arguments with no basis in fact.

If you had an election today, the tories would win.

Good news for you AP, the tories are still trailing in the polls and still unpopular. it's just that Blair seems to have decided that he wants to join them in the hard right electoral dustbin too with poicies that do little for those outside of the very rich.

If Blair had staid out of Iraq, I bet Blair would have been gone by now

Bollocks. If we had stayed out of Iraq then Blair would not be in the shit at all. The WMD crisis is the thing that threatens to kick Blair out of office more than anything else.

people would blame Blair for being an isolationist.

Read up on what internationalists such as the Liberal Democrats are saying AP. This argument of yours has no resemblence to the truth of what the political debate in the UK is whatsoever. It is anything but isolationist to join with the many countries of the EU instead of the one country of the US. Read my earlier article AP. You might just learn something.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1020621,00.html

[Spentastic]

8. Arghhh.., Like Really ARggghhhhhhh!

Why can't you see that Blair is beholden to corporate interests? Tony was not leading he was doing his masters bidding.

"If had stayed out, that would have meant exclusive US control of Iraq "

CONTROL. That was the goal admittedly but as TiB points out most right minded people knew that contolling Iraq would be impossible.

So by giving a veneer of respectability to a facist regime he in fact stopped American facism? More likely is that Tony Blair is setting Britain up to be Austria to Bush's Germany.

AP your constant defence of Blair is at least consistent. But I remember you defending him when he said there were WMD. Then I remember youu defending him when he said that liberating the Iraqi people was important. Now you're defending him on an economic basis.

You can't have it all ways.

I agree Tony Blair was in a hard place. He bottled it. I think he's a coward and a fraud. I think he does the left a disservice. He is a third way charlatan who beguiles the weak and stupid with a smile and a silver tongue. He's a bout as genuine as this Rolex I'm wearing that my dad bought for $6 in Hong Kong. It looks the part but inside it's another thing altogether.

[AP]

34. Corporate interest run the UK. The political reality of the UK

dind't magically shift from oligarchy to democracy when Blair got elected. That was a momentary victory for democracy. However, all those politicians operate in a systeme in which the oligarchy and Murdoch still runs things.

If Blair didn't act like a politician and play the many angles he'd have been booted or shot by now. Blair is trying to undermine the foundations of oligarchy as much as possible. (Which is why sabotaging him is so high on Bush's to do list.)

When you read that there is record low unemployment and record high wages in the UK, that's what Tony is doing to shift the power to the middle class so that you can have a real democracy. In many ways, he's sacrificing himself so that you can have it better in the future (in the same way that the far left hated FDR during the 30s and 40s while FDER was working his ass off putting up the bulwarks against fascism which have stood for almost 60 years in the US).

[T_i_B]

35. Another Poodle can make the appeasement argument all he wants

We all know that there is very not very much truth to back that argument up and a lot of objections on the moral front to AP's poodling.

However, it would be nice to see AP actually look at the matter in hand, namely the question of whether or not any of Blair's actions are going to reduce the threat opf terror to the UK. I support the war on terror in so far as I support action against Al-Quaida. However, since Saddam and 9/11 were not related I opposed this war. The war on Iraq was not a war to end terror but a war to breed terror.

Iraq was not a terrorist threat before but it is now and suffice to say that for Blair to create massive new terror threats and endager the lives of British citizens in this manner is just beyond redemption. Particularly when he refused point blank to address this matter in his insane lust for power.

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/opinion.cfm?id=919062003

[dArKeR]

9. MPs' SHOCK REPORT: THE WARNINGS BLAIR IGNORED - Mirror

TONY Blair ignored advice that terrorism posed a far greater threat than Saddam Hussein as he plotted war on Iraq, secret evidence revealed yesterday.

Senior MPs said in a report spy chiefs believed "al-Qaeda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq."

Mr Blair led Britain to believe Iraq had large quantities of chemical and biological agents - some of which could be mobilised in 45 minutes - and could arm Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda.

But, it was disclosed, he ignored information from the powerful Joint Intelligence Committee that:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13397997_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-MPs%2D%2DSHOCK%2DREPORT%2D%2DTHE%2DWARNINGS%2DBLAIR%2DIGNORED-name_page.html

[dArKeR]

10. Report shoots holes in Blair's war reasoning - IOL

Tony Blair's justification for war on Iraq has been blown apart.

It emerged on Thursday that intelligence chiefs had warned that deposing Saddam Hussein would increase the risk of terror attacks on Britain.

The prime minister told parliament and the public earlier this year that the West had to act against Baghdad to prevent chemical and biological weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=vn20030912035839741C430685&set_id=1

[LivingInTheBubble]

11. cartoon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1039834,00.html

[emad]

12. A cunning rogue desperate to deflect attention from his terrorist

past, but confident that his mate George will see him allright in perpetrating this massive deception on their own electorates.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

14. So, if you're blaming the "Islamist thugs"

Why did Bush and Blair kill Iraq, the only secular state in the Middle East?

[Rainbowreflect]

15. And the inocents in Iraq are meaningless to you.

This was an awful attack, but it had nothing to do with Iraq.
We need to look at why it happened, all the facts. Make sure it does not happen again. And stop attacking other countries that have done nothing to us.

[timber]

19. I guess the Al quada training camps in Iraq were nothing, or

the evidence of Saddam gassing his own people, or the weapons programs in Iraq, or all the mustard gas found in the Tigres river,naaaaaaaa, none of that makes any difference. You just want to keep hand holding do nothings around the world while innocent Americans are targeted again.
Just wait, when the next attack comes, you can go tell the families of the victims that you were fucking stupid.

[Zero Gravitas]

21. There were no Al Qaeda camps

The only terrorists in Iraq were in the Kurdish controlled regions, not in areas still cntroled by the Hussien regime. And you seem to forget that we supported Iraq when they were gassing the Iranians...

[Rainbowreflect]

22. The training camps were in parts of Iraq not under Saddam's control.

The "gassing his own people" was done with our leaders blessing with weapons we supplied. How is making more and more people hate us making us any safer.

[underpants]

25. AND Ansar al Islam were the first move to get rid of Hussein

This bozos has no idea what she is talking about.

[underpants]

27. The Army War college report on the gassings in Halabjah

It was the Iranians
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO209A.html

Not to say Saddam didn't do that........with the WMD we gave them and he started his arsenal with. Oh and the mass graves recently found were from Poppa Bush calling on an uprising after Gulf1 and then letting Saddam keep his helicopters and go kill those who had followed Poppa Bush's lead.

[Skittles]

30. timber, take it back to the freak republic

you are so brainwashed

[Maeve]

31. timber has been axed

:toast: to the mods!

[Capt_Nemo]

16. Get enlightened by learning history, timber

look at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=110690#110884

[hang a left]

17. What is the matter with you?

Are you just stupid? You are stupid aren't you? Stupid Stupid Stupid and dumb too.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underpants]

20. The founding fathers were liberals and progressives

Do you have a problem with the founding fathers? How wonderfully patriotic of you.

Those opposed to the AMERICAN REVOLUTION were the Tories (about 40% of the population just like today) who were CONSERVATIVES!

Google "America First" (not Buchanan's thing) and read up on their opposition to WWII and what they actually were and who supported them.

[Bridget Burke]

24. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with September 11th

The illegal invasion of Iraq will indeed increase the risk of terrorist attacks throughout the world.

At the very least by their incompetence--and probably by reasons more sinister--the Bush administration has more of the blood of September 11th on their hands that Saddam Hussein did.

Please, try to enlighten yourself.

[hang a left]

26. Stupid, stupid, stupid

Come on stupid, tell me how iraq is involved in 9/11.

[Barrett808]

28. Don't feed the trolls

Back under your bridge!

[bluestateguy]

29. I'm going to ask you nicely

to please leave OUR board. I just finished a review of your posts, and I don't think you belong here. We welcome free and open debate here within the different factions of the Left, which does not leave a place for you.

[TahitiNut]

23. You really seem obsessed with that picture.

Prurient interest? Do you keep a copy beside your bed? :eyes: