Britain releases Iraq WMD dossier draft
By DAVID STRINGER, AP, Feb. 18, 2008
LONDON - An early version of a British dossier of prewar intelligence on Iraq did not include a key claim about weapons of mass destruction that became vital to Tony Blair's case for war, the newly published document showed Monday.
The 2002 document insisted Saddam Hussein's regime had acquired uranium and had equipment necessary for chemical weapons, but does not contain a claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes — an allegation crucial to Blair's push to back the 2003 U.S.-led invasion — that later was discredited.
Campaigners allege that the 45-minute claim was inserted into later drafts of the document on the orders of Blair's press advisers, who were seeking to strengthen the case for invasion — a claim the government has strongly denied.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who published the document Monday following a request filed under Freedom of Information laws, said the early draft — produced by then-Foreign Office press office chief John Williams — was not used as the basis for later documents, drafted by the Joint Intelligence Committee, or JIC.
Blair presented a final draft of the JIC dossier, called "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction," to parliament on Sep. 24, 2002 — a document that included the 45-minute claim.
On Monday, opposition Liberal Democrat lawmaker Edward Davey said he believed the Williams document is proof of the role government press officers had in drafting Iraq intelligence reports.
"A press official should never have been drafting a document that ended up being used as the justification for going to war," Davey said. "There has to be a clear distinction between those that offer impartial intelligence advice and the government's spin machine."
A second document, published in February 2003 — which became known as the "dodgy dossier"_ was found to have repeated verbatim parts of an academic study on Iraq's supposed concealment of weapons of mass destruction.
Ex-U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said last year he believed Blair had replaced "question marks with exclamation marks" in intelligence dossiers to justify the decision to invade Iraq.
Lord Butler's 2004 official inquiry into intelligence on Iraq did not fault Blair's government, but criticized intelligence officials for relying in part on seriously flawed or unreliable sources.
Butler said the dossiers had pushed the government's case to the limits of available intelligence and left out vital caveats.
Government weapons scientist David Kelly killed himself in 2003 after he was exposed as the source of a British Broadcasting Corp. report that accused Blair's Downing Street office of "sexing up" intelligence to make a stronger case for war.
Writing in The Guardian newspaper, Williams acknowledged Monday that many within the government had failed to spot problems with Blair's case for joining the invasion of Iraq.
"Others were more perceptive, including one of the ministers I advised for a time, (ex-Foreign Secretary) Robin Cook," Williams wrote. Cook, who died in 2005, resigned from Blair's Cabinet in opposition to the war, claiming he could not support military action without international approval.
"He was right. Those of us who carried on working for the government were wrong," Williams wrote.
Miliband criticized the decision to order the release of the Williams document, saying officials should be free to draft policy papers without fears they could be made public.
___
On the Net:
Williams document, http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/wmd_jul_2002.pdf
Showing posts with label Blair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blair. Show all posts
Mideast envoy is a US puppet
gulfnews.com, By Manal Alafrangi, Staff Writer, July 03, 2007
Some say it's a full circle: The British were the main players in facilitating the creation of the Jewish state and now, nearly 60 years later, it is a British former prime minister who will try to facilitate the "creation" of a Palestinian state.
But there's a catch; this Palestinian state will be created on less than 22 per cent of historical Palestine.
Moreover, Palestinians as always are expected to make major concessions (Jewish colonies on Palestinian land, carving up of Palestinian land due to the building of the separation wall, questionable control over East Jerusalem, and Israel's insistence on maintaining supervision on their land) in order for a peaceful resolution to come about.
But back to Tony Blair. The man has almost single-handedly (along with the US President George W. Bush) caused more damage to Anglo-Arab relations than any previous prime minister. It is actually incomprehensible to understand how a man, who has proven himself to be untrustworthy, can be viewed as a neutral arbitrator.
After all, he provided his people and the world false assurances on the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq thus pushing his country into a war that was based on lies - irrespective of his public's view.
And his mistakes don't end with Iraq. Blair, along with his faith-obsessed buddy Bush, postponed a ceasefire in Lebanon last year in the hopes that Israel would rise victorious above Hezbollah. This vision of course was carried out at the expense of the innocent Lebanese people.
Blair's name is forever associated with the flawed US policies on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and other parts of the Middle East. The ex-prime minister spent an awful lot of time talking about Muslims and Islam, yet he consistently failed to show any real substance behind his talk.
On the other hand, it really makes little difference as to who takes the job of the Middle East envoy because ultimately, it amounts to following the orders of the key players from the Quartet. In that sense, perhaps Blair is the most suited candidate as he has perfected the act of adhering to American ways and standards.
Look at previous Middle East envoy James Wolfensohn, a former World Bank president, leave the job in frustration as "peace" could not be discussed let alone achieved.
Concentrating on Palestinian governance issues, Wolfensohn found the job nearly impossible after he had dealt with the conflict first hand.
Irony
There is a certain irony in Blair being assigned to clear up a mess he himself helped to create. British policies towards the Palestinian Israeli conflict have always been subservient to America's ways, which of course were known to be disastrous for the Palestinians.
Anything Bush deemed appropriate the British agreed to. Separate agendas (of Israel, the US and Britain) consistently echoed similar rhetoric.
Anyone up for this particular job needs to separate himself/herself from the US interests and plans but thus far, this has been virtually impossible.
Interestingly, there is always discussion in the media that Blair is a man with good intentions but it's the world of politics that has prevented him from acting on them.
Fair enough; Blair may have good intentions in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but he is limited in his job requirements and descriptions. While he might have the drive and knowledge necessary to make a difference, he still has to report to his patron, the US government.
Remember the "Yo Blair" conversation that took place last year between Bush and Blair? It exposed the subservient nature of Blair's approach to the US president with Bush interrupting Blair almost every time the latter spoke and telling him what to do.
With Blair stuttering and blithering in every sentence, one could grasp the limits of Blair against the US giant.
Logic dictates that the only option available to bring justice and peace to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is through the intervention of the international community. Of course the US and Europe are key players due to the impending influence they can exercise over Israel. Impending is the key word.
Blair's appointment comes at a time of heightened tension in the region. The Quartet (or the US rather) may want a man who can smile and who has an easy charm and a sense of humour, but it is his political stance that will prove decisive.
Will Blair be willing to talk to Hamas who are in control of Gaza and who have sufficient support in the West Bank? Will Blair apply pressure on Israel to stop its building of more colonies and expansion?
Will Blair confront Israel on its building of the "separation wall"? Will Blair discuss the fate of occupied East Jerusalem with Israel? Will Blair dare to discuss the plight of millions of Palestinian refugees?
Logically, the odds seem stacked against it and sadly, it appears Blair is another American puppet with an English accent.
As someone half-jokingly put it to me, "... What next? They might as well appoint the KKK to be in charge of global race relations".
Some say it's a full circle: The British were the main players in facilitating the creation of the Jewish state and now, nearly 60 years later, it is a British former prime minister who will try to facilitate the "creation" of a Palestinian state.
But there's a catch; this Palestinian state will be created on less than 22 per cent of historical Palestine.
Moreover, Palestinians as always are expected to make major concessions (Jewish colonies on Palestinian land, carving up of Palestinian land due to the building of the separation wall, questionable control over East Jerusalem, and Israel's insistence on maintaining supervision on their land) in order for a peaceful resolution to come about.
But back to Tony Blair. The man has almost single-handedly (along with the US President George W. Bush) caused more damage to Anglo-Arab relations than any previous prime minister. It is actually incomprehensible to understand how a man, who has proven himself to be untrustworthy, can be viewed as a neutral arbitrator.
After all, he provided his people and the world false assurances on the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq thus pushing his country into a war that was based on lies - irrespective of his public's view.
And his mistakes don't end with Iraq. Blair, along with his faith-obsessed buddy Bush, postponed a ceasefire in Lebanon last year in the hopes that Israel would rise victorious above Hezbollah. This vision of course was carried out at the expense of the innocent Lebanese people.
Blair's name is forever associated with the flawed US policies on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and other parts of the Middle East. The ex-prime minister spent an awful lot of time talking about Muslims and Islam, yet he consistently failed to show any real substance behind his talk.
On the other hand, it really makes little difference as to who takes the job of the Middle East envoy because ultimately, it amounts to following the orders of the key players from the Quartet. In that sense, perhaps Blair is the most suited candidate as he has perfected the act of adhering to American ways and standards.
Look at previous Middle East envoy James Wolfensohn, a former World Bank president, leave the job in frustration as "peace" could not be discussed let alone achieved.
Concentrating on Palestinian governance issues, Wolfensohn found the job nearly impossible after he had dealt with the conflict first hand.
Irony
There is a certain irony in Blair being assigned to clear up a mess he himself helped to create. British policies towards the Palestinian Israeli conflict have always been subservient to America's ways, which of course were known to be disastrous for the Palestinians.
Anything Bush deemed appropriate the British agreed to. Separate agendas (of Israel, the US and Britain) consistently echoed similar rhetoric.
Anyone up for this particular job needs to separate himself/herself from the US interests and plans but thus far, this has been virtually impossible.
Interestingly, there is always discussion in the media that Blair is a man with good intentions but it's the world of politics that has prevented him from acting on them.
Fair enough; Blair may have good intentions in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but he is limited in his job requirements and descriptions. While he might have the drive and knowledge necessary to make a difference, he still has to report to his patron, the US government.
Remember the "Yo Blair" conversation that took place last year between Bush and Blair? It exposed the subservient nature of Blair's approach to the US president with Bush interrupting Blair almost every time the latter spoke and telling him what to do.
With Blair stuttering and blithering in every sentence, one could grasp the limits of Blair against the US giant.
Logic dictates that the only option available to bring justice and peace to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is through the intervention of the international community. Of course the US and Europe are key players due to the impending influence they can exercise over Israel. Impending is the key word.
Blair's appointment comes at a time of heightened tension in the region. The Quartet (or the US rather) may want a man who can smile and who has an easy charm and a sense of humour, but it is his political stance that will prove decisive.
Will Blair be willing to talk to Hamas who are in control of Gaza and who have sufficient support in the West Bank? Will Blair apply pressure on Israel to stop its building of more colonies and expansion?
Will Blair confront Israel on its building of the "separation wall"? Will Blair discuss the fate of occupied East Jerusalem with Israel? Will Blair dare to discuss the plight of millions of Palestinian refugees?
Logically, the odds seem stacked against it and sadly, it appears Blair is another American puppet with an English accent.
As someone half-jokingly put it to me, "... What next? They might as well appoint the KKK to be in charge of global race relations".
Anti-war protest in Downing Street
Guardian Unlimited, Press Association, June 27, 2007
Anti-war campaigners have led protests outside Downing Street as they used Tony Blair's departure to highlight what they feel is his true "legacy".
The demonstrators, including many relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq, shouted slogans and waved placards as the Prime Minister prepared to leave.
Most were kept outside the gates of Downing Street but a handful, including veteran campaigner Rose Gentle, were allowed closer to the front door.
It is believed to be one of the first times that such protesters have been allowed to demonstrate inside Downing Street since new public order legislation was brought in.
Mrs Gentle, 43, whose son Gordon was killed in Basra three years ago on Thursday, said she wanted Mr Blair to speak to her as he departed.
She said: "We thought that he should have left a long time ago and we are here to ask Gordon Brown to change his policy and start to pull people out from Iraq.
"My feelings are so strong towards Tony Blair, the hatred for the man is hard to describe. If he had any decency today, then he would come out for five minutes and speak to us."
Mrs Gentle and the mother of a serving Iraq soldier held pictures of military men killed in Iraq as they shouted towards 10 Downing Street.
At one point, police officers had to ask them to come down from a window ledge from which they screamed for the Prime Minister to leave the building and speak to them.
As they made their protest, growing numbers of demonstrators gathered outside the gates of the famous road in central London.
Anti-war campaigners have led protests outside Downing Street as they used Tony Blair's departure to highlight what they feel is his true "legacy".
The demonstrators, including many relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq, shouted slogans and waved placards as the Prime Minister prepared to leave.
Most were kept outside the gates of Downing Street but a handful, including veteran campaigner Rose Gentle, were allowed closer to the front door.
It is believed to be one of the first times that such protesters have been allowed to demonstrate inside Downing Street since new public order legislation was brought in.
Mrs Gentle, 43, whose son Gordon was killed in Basra three years ago on Thursday, said she wanted Mr Blair to speak to her as he departed.
She said: "We thought that he should have left a long time ago and we are here to ask Gordon Brown to change his policy and start to pull people out from Iraq.
"My feelings are so strong towards Tony Blair, the hatred for the man is hard to describe. If he had any decency today, then he would come out for five minutes and speak to us."
Mrs Gentle and the mother of a serving Iraq soldier held pictures of military men killed in Iraq as they shouted towards 10 Downing Street.
At one point, police officers had to ask them to come down from a window ledge from which they screamed for the Prime Minister to leave the building and speak to them.
As they made their protest, growing numbers of demonstrators gathered outside the gates of the famous road in central London.
Protest at Downing Street on Blair's last day
London Wednesday June 27 From 10am
Military Families Against the War, supported by Stop the War Coalition, are planning to make Wednesday 27 June an anti-war day in Downing Street. This is the day Tony Blair leaves office to be replaced by Gordon Brown.
Tony Blair will leave Downing Street in the morning and our protest will begin at 10am. Gordon Brown will enter in the afternoon (we will publicise the time as soon as we get it), when Military Families Against the War will deliver him a letter asking him to meet them, a request that Blair has turned down repeatedly over the past three years.
Please join us to make sure that Blair’s last day in office is marked by his true legacy: up to one million killed in Iraq, over four million Iraqis – one in seven of the population – now refugees and 151 British soldiers killed in an illegal and unnecessary war.
For more information see Stop the War Coalition.
Military Families Against the War, supported by Stop the War Coalition, are planning to make Wednesday 27 June an anti-war day in Downing Street. This is the day Tony Blair leaves office to be replaced by Gordon Brown.
Tony Blair will leave Downing Street in the morning and our protest will begin at 10am. Gordon Brown will enter in the afternoon (we will publicise the time as soon as we get it), when Military Families Against the War will deliver him a letter asking him to meet them, a request that Blair has turned down repeatedly over the past three years.
Please join us to make sure that Blair’s last day in office is marked by his true legacy: up to one million killed in Iraq, over four million Iraqis – one in seven of the population – now refugees and 151 British soldiers killed in an illegal and unnecessary war.
For more information see Stop the War Coalition.
U.S. Is Urging Blair to Be Lead Mideast Envoy
By HELENE COOPER, New York Times, June 21, 2007
WASHINGTON, June 20 — The United States is pressing Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain to become a special envoy to the Middle East, representing the diplomatic “quartet” of world powers, administration officials said Wednesday.
The appointment would be the most visible attempt at laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state since President Clinton wrangled with Yasir Arafat and Ehud Barak during the waning hours of his administration in 2001.
If the proposal, endorsed by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, goes forward, and if Mr. Blair, who leaves office next week, accepts, he would work on behalf of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia to help the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, build the institutions and apparatus necessary for a viable state.
The proposal shows the renewed urgency in dealing with the changed political landscape brought on by the takeover of Gaza by Hamas. The power shift there has focused efforts on the West Bank, where Mr. Abbas and Fatah retain control.
European and American officials said that so far, the only grumbling about the possible Blair appointment has come from Russia, which has had contentious relations with Britain of late, including the charges regarding the poisoning of Alexander V. Litvinenko, a former K.G.B. officer and a Kremlin critic who died in London in November.
But diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic said that if Mr. Blair wanted the job, it was unlikely that Russia would seek to block the appointment.
C. David Welch, assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, met with Mr. Blair in London on Wednesday to make the case, a senior Bush administration official said. Mr. Welch, the official said, would not be in London “if there weren’t some seriousness to this.”
The official likened the talks to the “late stages of a scouting effort, seeing who’s available for an N.B.A. draft,” but added that the United States was not pursuing anyone other than Mr. Blair.
Mr. Bush has spoken to Mr. Blair about the proposal, and discussed it Tuesday with the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, Israeli and Bush administration officials said. Senior Israeli officials said Mr. Olmert was also very keen on the idea.
But British officials said Mr. Blair had not yet decided if he would take on the task, and bristled that public comments from the Bush administration were premature.
It remains unclear how broad Mr. Blair’s role would be. American and Israeli officials want him to focus primarily on shoring up Palestinian institutions and governance, economic development and security issues in the West Bank.
Administration officials said Ms. Rice would continue to try to work with Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas on a separate track that addresses the “final status” issues that have bedeviled peace negotiators since 1979: Jerusalem’s future, a Palestinian state’s borders and what to do about Palestinian refugees who fled, or were forced to leave, homes in Israel.
Israel, in the past, has been more squeamish about discussing those issues. But that may be changing. Mr. Olmert indicated in meetings at the White House on Tuesday that now that Mr. Abbas had dissolved the national unity government and separated politically from Hamas, Israel was ready to act.
While Mr. Olmert cautioned against moving too fast on “final status” issues, he said he planned to look for ways to empower Mr. Abbas, administration officials said, including releasing tax revenues that Israel had been keeping from the Palestinians.
But the lack of a link between the tracks — final status versus Palestinian institution-building — is the crux of why previous attempts at peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians have been unsuccessful.
“The one thing we’ve learned is that it is impossible to distinguish between governance, security and politics,” said Robert Malley, Middle East and North Africa director at the International Crisis Group. “If one doesn’t move, none of them move. That’s the reason why the road map never got off the ground.”
Mr. Malley was referring to President Bush’s “road map” plan for eventual peace between Israelis and Palestinians, which calls for the formation of a Palestinian state after Palestinian officials take certain steps.
The last envoy to represent the quartet, James D. Wolfensohn, the former World Bank president, left the post last year, expressing frustration with the lack of progress on the plan.
Certainly, Mr. Blair would bring to the job a higher stature, and might also bring a credibility — particularly with the Arab world — that an American might not be able to match.
During the Israeli-Hezbollah war last summer, for example, Mr. Blair offered to travel to the region and noted at the time that as British prime minister, he could say and do things that did not necessarily carry the baggage of similar actions by Mr. Bush or Ms. Rice, presumably because of America’s close relationship with Israel.
Mr. Blair’s appointment would also be an ironic footnote to the end of his 10 years of stewardship of Britain, given that his support of Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq hurt him politically at home.
But his close relationship with Mr. Bush is part of the reason why Mr. Bush wants Mr. Blair to take the envoy’s role, administration officials said.
On the other hand, Mr. Blair is still wrestling with the perception that his American friend is calling the shots at a time when Mr. Blair is thinking about his own legacy.
From the start, the two men had an unexpected bond, particularly given how close Mr. Blair was to Bill Clinton, with whom he shared a vision of a “third way” in domestic politics. Few had expected a similar bond with Mr. Bush.
But Mr. Blair, associates said, liked Mr. Bush’s directness, and felt strongly that the role of Britain in the world would be enhanced by a close relationship with the United States.
WASHINGTON, June 20 — The United States is pressing Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain to become a special envoy to the Middle East, representing the diplomatic “quartet” of world powers, administration officials said Wednesday.
The appointment would be the most visible attempt at laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state since President Clinton wrangled with Yasir Arafat and Ehud Barak during the waning hours of his administration in 2001.
If the proposal, endorsed by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, goes forward, and if Mr. Blair, who leaves office next week, accepts, he would work on behalf of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia to help the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, build the institutions and apparatus necessary for a viable state.
The proposal shows the renewed urgency in dealing with the changed political landscape brought on by the takeover of Gaza by Hamas. The power shift there has focused efforts on the West Bank, where Mr. Abbas and Fatah retain control.
European and American officials said that so far, the only grumbling about the possible Blair appointment has come from Russia, which has had contentious relations with Britain of late, including the charges regarding the poisoning of Alexander V. Litvinenko, a former K.G.B. officer and a Kremlin critic who died in London in November.
But diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic said that if Mr. Blair wanted the job, it was unlikely that Russia would seek to block the appointment.
C. David Welch, assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, met with Mr. Blair in London on Wednesday to make the case, a senior Bush administration official said. Mr. Welch, the official said, would not be in London “if there weren’t some seriousness to this.”
The official likened the talks to the “late stages of a scouting effort, seeing who’s available for an N.B.A. draft,” but added that the United States was not pursuing anyone other than Mr. Blair.
Mr. Bush has spoken to Mr. Blair about the proposal, and discussed it Tuesday with the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, Israeli and Bush administration officials said. Senior Israeli officials said Mr. Olmert was also very keen on the idea.
But British officials said Mr. Blair had not yet decided if he would take on the task, and bristled that public comments from the Bush administration were premature.
It remains unclear how broad Mr. Blair’s role would be. American and Israeli officials want him to focus primarily on shoring up Palestinian institutions and governance, economic development and security issues in the West Bank.
Administration officials said Ms. Rice would continue to try to work with Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas on a separate track that addresses the “final status” issues that have bedeviled peace negotiators since 1979: Jerusalem’s future, a Palestinian state’s borders and what to do about Palestinian refugees who fled, or were forced to leave, homes in Israel.
Israel, in the past, has been more squeamish about discussing those issues. But that may be changing. Mr. Olmert indicated in meetings at the White House on Tuesday that now that Mr. Abbas had dissolved the national unity government and separated politically from Hamas, Israel was ready to act.
While Mr. Olmert cautioned against moving too fast on “final status” issues, he said he planned to look for ways to empower Mr. Abbas, administration officials said, including releasing tax revenues that Israel had been keeping from the Palestinians.
But the lack of a link between the tracks — final status versus Palestinian institution-building — is the crux of why previous attempts at peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians have been unsuccessful.
“The one thing we’ve learned is that it is impossible to distinguish between governance, security and politics,” said Robert Malley, Middle East and North Africa director at the International Crisis Group. “If one doesn’t move, none of them move. That’s the reason why the road map never got off the ground.”
Mr. Malley was referring to President Bush’s “road map” plan for eventual peace between Israelis and Palestinians, which calls for the formation of a Palestinian state after Palestinian officials take certain steps.
The last envoy to represent the quartet, James D. Wolfensohn, the former World Bank president, left the post last year, expressing frustration with the lack of progress on the plan.
Certainly, Mr. Blair would bring to the job a higher stature, and might also bring a credibility — particularly with the Arab world — that an American might not be able to match.
During the Israeli-Hezbollah war last summer, for example, Mr. Blair offered to travel to the region and noted at the time that as British prime minister, he could say and do things that did not necessarily carry the baggage of similar actions by Mr. Bush or Ms. Rice, presumably because of America’s close relationship with Israel.
Mr. Blair’s appointment would also be an ironic footnote to the end of his 10 years of stewardship of Britain, given that his support of Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq hurt him politically at home.
But his close relationship with Mr. Bush is part of the reason why Mr. Bush wants Mr. Blair to take the envoy’s role, administration officials said.
On the other hand, Mr. Blair is still wrestling with the perception that his American friend is calling the shots at a time when Mr. Blair is thinking about his own legacy.
From the start, the two men had an unexpected bond, particularly given how close Mr. Blair was to Bill Clinton, with whom he shared a vision of a “third way” in domestic politics. Few had expected a similar bond with Mr. Bush.
But Mr. Blair, associates said, liked Mr. Bush’s directness, and felt strongly that the role of Britain in the world would be enhanced by a close relationship with the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)