No 10 knew: Iraq no threat (UK Guardian)

[Bushfire]

Richard Norton-Taylor and Nicholas Watt
Tuesday August 19, 2003
The Guardian

One of the prime minister's closest advisers issued a private warning that it would be wrong for Tony Blair to claim Iraq's banned weapons programme showed Saddam Hussein presented an "imminent threat" to the west or even his Arab neighbours.

In a message that goes to the heart of the government's case for war, the Downing Street chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, raised serious doubts about the nature of September's Downing Street dossier on Iraq's banned weapons.

"We will need to make it clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that he is an imminent threat," Mr Powell wrote a week before the document was finally published on September 24.

His remarks urging caution contrasted with the chilling language used by Mr Blair in a passionate speech in the Commons as he launched the dossier a week later.

more...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1021534,00.html

OK Brits, time to fire the Poodle.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. It's ok though, it was all for humanitarian purposes

That was the message I was hearing back then, you too right?

[T_i_B]

4. I know that the spin was then

and it bears very little relation to the spin now. We were told we were going to war to disarm Saddam. Who belives that now?

[GCP]

10. Sorry, it was never about humanitarian purposes

It was all about imminent threat, 45 minutes etc. Where were you?

[Spentastic]

11. Don't be dense

First it was about maintaining the reputation of the U.N.

Then it was about imminent threat via WMD

Then it was about the humanitarian mission.

How hard can it be to remember?

[IkeWarnedUs]

2. BBC reported this on TV tonight

Even played an audio clip of the discussions.

I can't imagine that TB will weather this.

[Garion_55]

3. Any recent blair poll numbers?

I cant imagine that he can last much longer.

[T_i_B]

5. Try this

How much longer are the ever decreasing number of people in the Labour party going to keep their head in the sand?

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1021548,00.html

The scale of the task facing Tony Blair in trying to rebuild public trust in his administration is dramatically underlined by new figures showing only 6% of voters trust the government more than the BBC to tell the truth.

Half the electorate also believes that the government deliberately embellished its dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in an attempt to make its case for war stronger, according to the August Guardian/ICM survey.

And the vast majority - 68% - believes the government was unfair in its treatment of David Kelly, the biological weapons expert who apparently killed himself after being named by the Ministry of Defence as the source of a BBC story. Just 8% believe the government's treatment of the MoD scientist was fair.

Only 24% of those polled believed the government's claim that the Iraq dossier was not "sexed up", and a quarter refused to commit themselves. Men are more sceptical than women - 55% compared with 47% believing the dossier to be embellished - and skilled manual workers are the social group who are most wary, with 57% believing the BBC's allegations.

[bodhisattava]

6. Finally, Tony the Tiny Poodle, Got bit by the old British

imperialist bug and wanted to show the wogs what the big, bad old
British Empire was made of and piggybacked on to the US/PNAC
hegemonists and got caught.He is a pathetic loser yet one who could have done so much good if he had the good sense to listen to his European friends across the Channel.

It is one of history's cruel ironies that a man with the potential of
Tony Blair being led to ruin by an ignoramus like Bush.

[emad]

7. fire dumbo's poodle?

first start with his asshole "middle east envoy" the so-called lord levy, who spent some three years frittering away UK tax payers' money on a ceaseless round of global shuttle diplomacy to foment suspicion against saddam and to push ariel sharon's paranoid line of imminent wmd threat. next, nato secretary-general lord robertson, who has about as much credibility and moral fibre as augusto pinochet, and whose role as defence secretary in the early years of blair's first administration was to cover up uk intelligence material on clinton/gore dodgy dealings re universal fruitcake princess diana and pave the way for mad vlad putin to replace asshole of the 20th century boris yeltsin. then it's cherie's turn and that of her accomplice "lifestyle guru" carole caplin. homely and cute as apple pie, one bite of this pair is more deadly than any lethal wmd that saddam might or might not have stashed somewhere in his own backyard. watch these two fall and the poodle comes crashing down all by himself.

[0007]

8. So indeed it appears

that the Brits and the Yanks were holding hands all the way in the Iraq debacle.

Why did the brits go along with the scam, and why are the folks in the US giving junior a pass?

[emad]

9. because they weren't merely holding hands all the way.....

they were born joined at the hip - bush senior/cheney/rumsfeld made sure of that! just ask margaret thatcher who won a massive harassment/libel lawsuit against her and the uk tory party in 1990, that led to her being booted out of office. bet that's not in her official memoirs! but it was enough for bush senior to make the gamble of a lifetime to pave the way for dumbo to run for office in 2000, using clinton/gore as a stalking horse in the inbetween years. now comes the comeuppance..........

[dArKeR]

12. 'NO THREAT' cover of the Mirror

http://www.mirror.co.uk/frontpages/

It's so obvious there really is NO democracy in America. NO free press, only controlled press.

[UpInArms]

18. it is a fascist corporate press

[eablair3]

13. this story just keeps growing

seems like there has got to be more than they've let out if that Guardian piece is even close to accurate.

[realFedUp]

14. What's the parliementary procedure for removing Blair?

What are the steps? Does this have to go to court first?

[muffit]

15. Parlamentary Procedures

My understanding is that parliament can call a no confidence vote in Blair at any time Parliament is sitting. I would assume the oppsition would vote in favour, so they would just need enough labour MP's to vote in favour and they would be forced to go back to the electorate for re-ellection.

The only way to avoid a potential no confidence vote is to not have parliament sit, which they can do for a while, but ultimately monetary bills would need to be passed and they would have to sit.

[StandWatie]

16. labour has too much invested in Blair..

they won't dump him.

[T_i_B]

19. That's exactly right

They have put all their eggs in the Blair basket, allowed Blair's lackeys to have total control of the party and now they are paying the price. Sadly the Labour party is too scared to do the right thing and dump Blair.

[David Zephyr]

17. Kicking This Major Story Up.

n/t