Blair refused offer of get-out clause on Iraq

[kskiska]

Tony Blair rejected George Bush's offer of keeping British troops out of Iraq, it emerged yesterday, as the two leaders mounted a united front on the year-long campaign.

The US president welcomed his closest ally to the White House on a day when an impressively sourced book by the Watergate journalist Bob Woodward laid bare damaging revelations of their conduct in the run-up to the war.

In the book, Plan of Attack, Mr Woodward writes that Mr Bush offered Mr Blair the option of keeping British troops out of the war because he was so concerned that the government might fall. Mr Blair rejected the offer.

(snip)

The disclosures are provocative. Mr Blair will be asked to justify a decision to go to war when he had a chance to keep British troops out of harm's way with no political sanction.

For Mr Bush, who has suffered a steady erosion in his approval ratings, it becomes even more urgent to turn the page on Iraq before it begins to hurt him in the elections in November. An opinion poll released yesterday by the National Annenberg Election Survey found that 56% of Americans now believe the president has no clear plan for resolving the situation in Iraq.

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1193886,00.html

[Eye and Monkey]

1. The feeling of one's legs giving way, of a slow-mo fall, floor looming.

Poor Poodle. You should've known. Bad dog, bad, bad.

[rpannier]

2. And the Moral of this Story is

If you lay down with shrub, you are in big trouble (and likely you will get pitched from office). Bye Bye Tony. We won't miss you that much.

[Imperialism Inc.]

3. "because he was so concerned that the government might fall"

and by having this come out it is that much more likely that it will fall.

[daleo]

4. Wow - circles within circles

So, the claim is that Blair could have kept British troops out, with no sanction from Bush (hard to believe, but we will set that aside for a moment). So, why do it:

- to keep Britain's foot in the imperial door, and ensure access to that sweet, sweet crude.
- to keep an eye on the Americans, and try to prevent them from running amok (Britain to be Athens to America's Rome).
- to ensure that there would remain a helpful broker between the U.S. and Europe, as relations deteriorated due to the Iraq war.

Occam's razor seems to favor the first explanation, but maybe all three and more were in play.

Also, the article has some fresh war related Bush lies to reveal, summarized below.

"The Woodward book describes how on November 21 2001, halfway through the Afghan war, the president pulled his defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, aside near the White House situation room to ask about his war strategy for Iraq. When Mr Rumsfeld indicated it was outdated, Mr Bush urged him to draft a new plan, but to keep it secret, keeping the CIA director, George Tenet, out of the loop. The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was also not fully informed.

"I knew what would happen if people thought we were developing a potential war plan for Iraq," the book quotes Mr Bush as saying in an interview two years later. "It was such a high-stakes moment and ... it would look like that I was anxious to go to war."

Asked about the episode at the summit yesterday, Mr Bush said he could not remember exact dates, but that on September 15 2001, "I sat down with my national security team to discuss the response, and the subject of Iraq came up. And I said as plainly as I possibly could: 'We'll focus on Afghanistan; that's where we will focus'." "

[Devils Advocate NZ]

7. There is one other reason you are missing..

To ensure that the Labour party loses a significant proportion of its support. In other words as an intentional ploy to destroy the British Labour Party.

As long as half of Labour's supporters go Lib-Dem, but the other diehards stick it out, then the Tories are gauranteed victory after victory - especially if Labour supporters treat the Lib Dem supporters the way Dem supporters treat the Green supporters on DU.

[daleo]

18. So, Blair's a mole instead of a poodle

Could be. Interesting.

[T_i_B]

5. Can anyone really now say with a straight face...

...that Tony Blair is not a committed neo-con? :grr:

This is not what we voted you in to do Tony.

[D-Notice]

6. I'm so glad...

I didn't vote Labour at the election, otherwise I'd have the deaths of British soldiers on my conscience even more than what I do.

Thing is... what if the Tories had won? It's be even worse...

Just hope by some miracle, the Lib Dems manage to get in power, even if through a coalition

[AP]

8. Bush didn't want the British Army in Iraq because he wanted

free reign over Iraq.

The idea that Bush wanted to protect the Blair government is ABSURD.

[bemildred]

9. I suppose it would be unseemly to suggest that Mr. Woodward is full of it.

It all seems like a feeble attempt to de-poodleize Tony to me.

[worldgonekrazy]

10. I always assumed Blair was bullied into this mess somehow

But this story seems to directly contradict that. Basically, its saying that Georgie said "you know, you don't have to send troops if you don't want" and then Blair said "oh, but I really want to!"

So the question is...is this a bunch of bullshit? Is Blair really in the pocket of the Bush Admin for some reason or another, and this story is an attempt to cover up that fact?

Or was Blair really a part of this all along? And if so, why? Was it a plot to destroy the Labour party? Did he go along to guarantee that British interests would be recognized in post-War Iraq (assuming we ever get to that point)?

Its an interesting situation indeed.

[bemildred]

11. Not mutually exclusive possibilities.

I think a.) this is bullshit and b.) Blair is a mercenary whore
in Shrub's cabal. The gist of this story is that Blair is a
"principled" proponent of the war, and not "merely" Shrub's
British poodle.

[fedsron2us]

12. Some people are of the opinion that Tony Blair is simply mad

This would explain his delusion that he is a great world statesman who has some sort of influence over the Bush regime.

http://www.rwevans.co.uk/~r/rwevans/wevansnet03/item0038B.htm#682

It would not be the first time a British Prime Minister has gone crackers. Edens addiction to amphetamines almost certainly sent him over the edge during the Suez crisis in 1956. Blair's problems with his heart rhythm may indicate some deep seated psychological problems. His recent ravings about Iraqi fanatics do not sound to me like the words of a sane man.

[bemildred]

13. We've had a few Presidents go around the bend too.

I tend to think he's a garden-variety corrupt political hack,
but the view from here in the USA is foggy, so I would defer to
and informed citizen of the UK. I tend to think of Tony as
"like John Major" which is probably a bit simple-minded of me.

[fedsron2us]

14. We will know the truth when he tries to make his horse consul

n/t

[bemildred]

15. Heh.

:thumbsup:

[Tellurian]

16. Bush needed Blair as a credible means to War w/Iraq...

It's that simple-

The promises of sweet crude ownership were part of the bargain.

Whatsmore, Blair has been privy to Bush's private plans and is a star witness if one is needed.

[Tellurian]

17. Here- Tony looks like he has a conscience..