| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Blair turns heat back on Short |
| 2003-06-03 |
| Tony Blair yesterday made the final public breach with Clare Short when he branded his erstwhile cabinet colleague a liar for claiming that he made a "secret agreement" with George Bush as long ago as last September to wage war on Iraq. As opposition politicians and dissident Labour MPs piled the pressure on the government, the prime minister discarded his usual references to "Clare" to say that allegations by " Insisting that he stands "100% behind the evidence, based on intelligence, that we presented to people," Mr Blair rejected repeated claims that intelligence data was manipulated. "The idea that we doctored intelligence reports in order to invent some notion about a 45-minute capability of delivering WMD, the idea that we doctored such intelligence is completely and totally false," he said. It was all cleared through Whitehall's joint intelligence committee (JIC). Then came the stroke which severed his personal ties with Ms Short, an ally over aid and Africa since 1997. "The idea, as apparently Clare Short is saying, that I made some secret agreement with George Bush back last September that we would invade Iraq in any event at a particular time is also completely and totally untrue." Clare, you're not getting invited to Crawford, either. Mr Blair is sticking his neck out on what inspection teams eventually find - or do not find - in Iraq. Aides appear to be confident that he will be vindicated among most voters, those whose minds are not fixed against him and the war. Unlike the back benches, especially Clare and Robin. The prime minister's tough language came as his political opponents joined forces with Labour dissidents to exploit his difficulties over the failure to uncover banned weapons. Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, said: "In the history of Labour party fighting this is going to be as bitter as some of the left-right splits that ultimately produced the SDP. It used to be that Labour ministers kept their venom for their memoirs. It now seems that some can't wait that long." The Tories indicated that they may be prepared to abandon their bipartisan approach to Iraq by calling on the prime minister to publish the evidence to prove his claim that Saddam Hussein had banned weapons. Michael Ancram, the shadow foreign secretary, stopped short of calling for a full inquiry. But he said: "The prime minister says that he has the answers in information not yet made public. He should now come forward with those answers: firstly, to dampen down suspicions and, secondly, to show the people why he did what he did. If he fails to do so, then he might not be able to avoid an inquiry, but to call for one at this stage is premature." "Attention, attention: the honeymoon will be over in five minutes. Repeat, the honeymoon will be over in five minutes. That is all." But Paul Goodman, the Tory MP for Wycombe, a member of the team which prepares Iain Duncan Smith for his weekly Commons clash with the prime minister, echoed Robin Cook's call for a full independent inquiry. "The simple fact now is that the government's reputation for spin has come back to haunt it," he said in a letter to No 10. One dissident Labour member, Malcolm Savidge, the MP for Aberdeen North, told Radio 4's The World at One the row was potentially more serious than the Watergate scandal which forced Richard Nixon out of the White House in 1974. Sad that these jokers can't tell the difference between Tony and Tricky Dick. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #14 Claire Claire Claire... Put away the ganja and pay attention: Didnt; you get severence pay? Are ya tryig to sweeten an unpaid severence? |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-06-03 20:13:49 |
| #13 pols including Dubya have positions that "evolve" - i dont hold Joes softening on affirmative action against him - he had no choice. He didnt flip on culture - yeah he fundraised in hollywood, so what. And he didnt flip on Social - he was never commited to privatization - just interested in the concept. And all this is on domestic policy - he has been stalwart on foreign policy - more so than Dubya. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-06-03 15:17:11 |
| #12 First, All you said was that you intended to vote against Bush, you included no stipulations. Second, I never said that domestic policy was not important. Also, I beleive that if you go back and re-read the post I replied to, you'll see why I was screaming "politics". Third, Not to knock Lieberman, but I've yet to hear him give any reasonable criticism of the Afghan nation-building project. Fourth, that could be becuase I haven't paid much attention to him since he flip-flopped on the issues when he ran with Gore. And finally, That's why I'm afraid that your love for Lieberman seems a little out of place. Stalwart my ass! Only if the polls support it, or he'll get the face time. Next thing you know, he'll be asking which party will give him more time to speak on the Clinton impeachment. Oh, wait a minute.... |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2003-06-03 13:01:15 |
| #11 First I'll only vote dem in 2004 if they nominate a candidate i can live with on foreign affairs - and second sorry if i think domestic affairs are still an important issue facing the US. What i have a problem with is people who have scream "politics!!!" if Lieberman comes up with a reasonable criticism of, say, the progress of nation-building in Afghanistan, but can look the other way at the actions of the tories. Yes an opposition is supposed to oppose, theyre supposed to try to get elected, and theyre supposed to present genuine policy alternatives. Those are all connected in a democracy. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-06-03 12:07:49 |
| #10 The difference being that you would vote against Bush for lesser of two major issues facing the U.S., and Bulldog would vote against Blair for the greater of two important issues facing Btitain. Now, from where I'm sitting, it looks like your decision is influenced by politics, not genuine concern. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2003-06-03 11:28:34 |
| #9 and its certainly possible for you to be supportive of Blair on Iraq and the WOT, and still vote against him because of the Euro, etc. Just as I can strongly support Bush on Iraq and the WOT, while intending to vote against him because of his domestic policies. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-06-03 10:31:20 |
| #8 bulldog - perhaps you are right it is the job of an opposition to oppose. as you may have noted, some Americans who post here dont seem to realize that, and consider the Dems virtually traitors whenever they oppose anything Bush does in foreign policy - not only genuine idiotarians, but even such stalwarts as Joe Leiberman have been criticized for positions no more "traitorous" than taken by the tories. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-06-03 10:29:41 |
| #7 ...Not that I'd vote Labour before a lobotomy, anyway, but I think my views on Europe reflect those of a growing number of Britons. Blair has to be stopped from dragging Britain into the black hole of EUrostatedom. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-06-03 10:25:08 |
| #6 It's the opposition's job to hold the government to account and act as the main accuser of the party/ies in power. If they didn't demand an inquiry in a situation like this, they wouldn't be doing their job. The great majority of Tories supported Blair over Iraq (a significatly higher proportion than Labour MPs), but the fact is the Government's main argument in favour of war is legitimately open to question. Like it or not, the WMD issue needs to be resolved, or Blair, and whoever sided with him over Iraq, will seem to have, knowingly or unwittingly, deceived the public over the threat posed to the UK by Saddam's regime. Therefore, if WMDs, or satisfactory explanations as to what happened to them, do not come to light in the near future, an inquiry will be necessary. It's unlikely this will happen, but it's naive to think that calling for one is simply a political trick, after all, the Tories, for supporting the war, would look at best gullible for being so supportive. Blair's spinning is an issue the Tories can capitalise on greatly, however. And I, for one, won't countenance supporting Blair at a ballot box because of his support for further European integration European - a far bigger issue for this country. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-06-03 10:06:07 |
| #5 If the Guardian's report is correct and not unduly unbiased (i.e., does the majority of the Tories stand for support of the P.M. or is there a fringe minority that the Guardian tapped into), then I am truly disappointed with the Tories. Such is not a profile in courage and would be a cynical abandonment of their own policy positions for political gain. I would hope that the GOP, if they were in an analgous situation, would side with the President and their own policy positions. (e.g., the welfare reform law, NAFTA). |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-06-03 09:48:16 |
| #4 And when dubya came into office did he attack Bin laden in afghanistan - No. There was no consensus in the US before 9-11 for an effective assault on the Taliban. And no, it wasnt to deflect attention from the scandals - it was something that he needed to try, though it did turn out to be ineffectual. And of course Kosovo is not analogous, since there was real genocide occuring there, and graves have since been found in Serbia. So what do you think accounts for the differences between the US GOP and the party of conservatives beloved Margaret Thatcher??? Other than the presence of Tony Blair??? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-06-03 09:24:27 |
| #3 Given the Tories are not demanding an enquiry (which is usually an opposition's reaction to any perceived government failing) but simply accepting it's all but inevitable given the situation, I wouldn't regard this comment as anything more than the mininum expected of a British parliamentary opposition. It's as though Her Majesty's Oppostition were on work to rule. Look to the Labour backbenches and the Lib Dems for Blair's real enemies on the Iraq issue. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-06-03 09:19:28 |
| #2 Since you ask - do you hear GOP members saying that the Yugoslav situation was a pack of lies? No. Do you hear them contending Clinton was ineffectual and solely trying to deflect attention from his scandals re: Bin Laden and Sudan? Yes, and I think history will bear the notion out |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-06-03 08:55:20 |
| #1 so the tories are abandoning their principled support for Blair on Iraq to make political capital. Would the US GOP have done so differently??? Colorado Con, you listening? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-06-03 07:33:35 |