London bombings: Why does Blair oppose inquiry into intelligence failures?

[Karmadillo]

Have the questions raised in this article been debunked yet?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/lond-j13.shtml

<edit>

Both the congressional report and the report issued by the commission proceeded from the premise that no section of the state or intelligence apparatus wilfully acted in a manner to allow the terrorists to carry out an attack. Instead, they attributed the failure of the FBI, the CIA and other government agencies to foil the hijackers to organisational glitches and an inability to “connect the dots.”

In the London bombings, too, a number of questions have emerged. (See “Unanswered questions in London bombings”.)

* Why was Britain’s threat level not raised in advance of the G8 summit of major industrial nations held last week at Gleneagles, near Edinburgh?

* Are reports that the Israeli embassy was informed of the bombings beforehand true?

* Did Israel’s security service Mossad warn MI5 of a possible attack, as has been suggested by Stratfor?

In the past two days, more questions have been raised that demand answers. Not least is the fact that military explosives appear to have been used, according to Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, the chief of the French anti-terrorist police, who is working with Scotland Yard. Who would have access to such explosives?

There is one additional anomaly. On the morning of July 7, “BBC Radio Five Live” carried an interview with Peter Power, managing Director of Visor Consultants, a crisis management company. Power is a former Scotland Yard official who worked with the Anti-Terrorist Branch.

Power told “Radio Five,” “At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.”

more...

[Beaver Tail]

1. Had a Brit explain this a few days ago

He/She said it was just a move by the Labour party to score political points. The police are investigating to get to the bottom of it (The Bombing).

[southernleftylady]

2. the same eason why bush didnt want to look into 9/11 nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Blair rejected the call for a 'quick inquiry'

which was what the Tories originally wanted - and wouldn't have been appropriate (an inquiry couldn't do anything public until any court trials had been held). He didn't say he'd never have an inquiry at all - and the Tories have now said they just want some kind of inquiry, at some time. It did look a bit like a kneejerk "we want an inquiry- the government must be to blame for something" move.

For the other points:

Why the threat level was not raised - that may indicate that intelligence had failed to penetrate whatever group or groups was responsible. That might be a good question for an eventual inquiry.

Warning to Israeli embassy - they now say the warning came after the first explosions (one of which was very close to where Netanyahu would have gone), which could still put it before the bus bomb. The correction came very quickly (eg AP corrected its report within half an hour). I think you need more than an only slightly wrong report from the first couple of hours of a major situation before you can start calling 'conspiracy'.

Warning from Israelis: Who knows what made Stratfor say this? They attribute it to "unconfirmed rumours in intelligence circles". You don't get mouch vaguer than that. Again, it looks insignificant to me on its own.