Guardian Utd: Howard: Blair should resign over WMD claim

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Gaurdian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Thursday February 5

Howard: Blair should resign over WMD claim
By Tom Happold, Matthew Tempest and agencies

Michael Howard today called on Tony Blair to resign, accusing him of failing to ask basic questions before committing Britain to war.
The Tory leader's comments come after Mr Blair revealed to MPs yesterday that he was unaware that the intelligence that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes referred only to battlefield munitions, not any missile capability.
Speaking in Portsmouth, Mr Howard said: "I am accepting what the prime minister told us at face value. He said he never knew, he never bothered to ask this question.
"If I were prime minister and I had failed to ask that basic question before committing our country to war I would be seriously considering my position."
Mr Howard's comments shift the debate over the pre-war intelligence about WMD from questions about Mr Blair's integrity to ones about his competence.

As they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.

[einniv]

1. I'm sure Bush has his fingers crossed.

Get that dang "liberal" out of the Brit government?
Or would this be harmful to Bush? I don't believe for a second our Congress will ever hold Bush responsible so clearly that isn't a concern. But, is there any chance someone more rightwing would take Blair's place?

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Is there any chance someone more rightwing would take Blair's place?

Yes. Michael Howard is definitely more right wing than Blair.

I'll leave it to DU's British members to elaborate on that.

[Capt_Nemo]

4. OTOH, Howard is not YET a war criminal

which makes him in my eyes just a little (but not much) more suitable
for the job than Blair.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

6. Is Howard more suitable than Blair?

No. But Charlie Kennedy is. He is, at least, a self-identified Social Democrat.

[Briar]

3. Bliar isn't a "liberal"

and he certainly isn't a socialist. He is a neo-Thatcherite who has been stealthily privatising our public services for years now. Bush would be a fool to want him out - he has neutered the Labour Party and divided Europe, both of which things must delight Bush and the right. While Bliar leads New Labour (in fact while that wretched perversion continues to exist) the UK doesn't have a party of the left, just three parties of the centre, centre right and right.

[nolabels]

5. No but much of the punditry reverberate it with hammers because..

this is the line in sand the corporate and moneyed interest will except. One will notice the policies people like Blair and Clinton succeed in are the ones the anti-democratic forces want. I wouldn't know if personally they plan it that way, my guess is these so called leaders are at low, and they see these things as a way to be successful. Then after they sucker up to it, they are hooked. Blair could not go back with the WMD any easier than Clinton could on NAFTA and welfare reform. All darlings of the Neo-Colonialist and very undemocratic. Sucked in and sold like chattel.

[Emillereid]

7. That's why it's so important for we democrats and progressives in the US

and old labourites and progressives in the UK take our parties back from the likes of Blair and Clinton that have sold us down the river. Until we get the moneyed, special interests out of our parties and begin to represent real people the Democratic Party and the Labour Party will continue to nothing more than a 'lighter, slightly nicer' version of the Plutocratic Party that runs it all. I for one feel the sting of the betrayal more when I'm stabbed in the back by the folks I helped get elected.

[nolabels]

8. That's why a lot people around here are kind of pissed also

They saw a shot with Dean to draw the line a little more to the left, but got the old short circuit again, just like weather when seasons change, a lot of people thought maybe it could be a little different, but knew it was coming one way or another anyway.

There just wasn't enough goodies in the bag to get it over the hump this time. The corporatist used * as foil to get the guys they wanted. I am sure they thought they could even deal with Dean, but the other's would be their other better choice. Many have already said that much.

Hell, even if he gets in, he will probably socked in and unable to do much if the congress is still Republican. What's to get excited about either road anyway?

We will have to change underneath before we erect change on top, making a viable machine, being able to withstand downward chill is a must.

[xxqqqzme]

9. I could not agree more!

One of the reasons Dean caught my attention, earned my respect and support (still). Dean was not kowtowing 2 the DLC. He was the party of opposition when nearly EVERY one else w/ a (D) behind their name was kissin' squatter's ass. I felt betrayed and abandoned by my party. I was disappointed w/ Ted Kennedy MA(D) for supporting squatter's bogus 'no child left behind' but he has since 'seen the light'. My senators - Barbara Boxer, CA(D) is rapidly climbing out of the squatter hole she fell in - unfortunately, Diane Feinstein, CA(D) remains buried.

We need to concentrate on making the House Democratic and therefore, diminishing Roachman's power. Delay scares me as much, if not more, as any neo-con in the WH.

[mumon]

10. Ted Kennedy irritated bit me over this...

At yesterday's CSPAN Senate Armed Svs. Committee hearing with Rumsfeld & Co., Rummy punted to Gen. Peter Pace when Kennedy asked how come they didn't get all the information.

Peter Pace (picked a peck of pickled problems) said basically, "We knew they used 'em on their own people & the Iranians, so we suited up..." which of course meant that the Iraqis used battlefield tactical chemical weapons. Which didn't answer Sen. Kennedy's overall question about the doubts about WMDs.

Kennedy should have ripped both Rummy & Pace a new one over that, but let the answer pass. Kennedy should have noted that the advertised threat at the time was strategic chemical weapons that could be used against the United States, not tactical weapons.

[joeunderdog]

11. BINGO. Let them use ignorance as their defense for lying and then accept

their admission of guilt. It they want to plead "unprepared, confused, or stupid" about sending their country to war, then take their confession and take appropriate steps accordingly.

Take them at their word and throttle them. Claiming ignorance is no safe harbor. That it's untrue is almost beside the point.