Blair rules out war decision inquiry

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/30/1059480412729.html

British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday ruled out an independent inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq and declined to answer questions about the suicide of a British weapons expert that has rocked his Government's credibility.

Mr Blair refused to be drawn on whether he would resign if weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, but said his appetite for power had been "undiminished" by more than six years in office and recent events.

On the eve of becoming Britain's longest-serving Labour prime minister, Mr Blair's public support has crumbled recently after the failure to find Saddam Hussein's weapons stockpile and the David Kelly affair.

Recent polls have shown the Tory opposition consistently in front of the Government for the first time since Labour came to power in 1997.

more

[leesa]

1. Oh well isn't that nice

The criminal decides he doesn't feel like being investigated. I certainly would agree that his appetite for power is intact.

[CWebster]

4. Sort of like Bush "accepting responsibility"

As if saying the words were all that was required.

[saigon68]

14. MAYBE THE WAR POODLE WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THE HAGUE?

One can only hope.

[salin]

2. In short - you all now know we lied - so why Inquire into it

:shrug:

[CWebster]

3. It goes to show you what little true regard

some politicians have for the best interests of their country, when they won't step down to save the party.

[dmr]

5. Does he have the final say whether

there will be an inquiry? Or can/will the Parliment over-rule him?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Only by forcing a general election

I don't think Parliament (the House of Commons, in this case - I think the unelected House of Lords has no power here at all) can force an enquiry to which people are forced to give evidence. I think all they could do is pass a Vote of No Confidence - in which case the Labour party would have to unite behind a new Prime Minister very quickly, and very convincingly, or the Queen would have to call a General Election.
Since half of the Labour party MPs would have to vote to get rid of Blair, it wouldn't be very convincing that they were really united behind anyone else (eg Gordon Brown), since there are plenty (those who are officials in the government, for a start) who do still support him. With the conservatives in a narrow lead in the opinion polls, not many Labour MPs would vote this way. I don't think any PM has been got rid of this way (by their own party) for at least 100 years.

More likely would be the way Thatcher was kicked out - her own party decided she would be a liability in the next election, and persuaded her to go, so they could install a new leader in time to look as though they all supported him.
The only thing I can see doing this is if the Kelly inquiry found that Blair had ordered the leaking of Kelly's name himself, which he's already denied. And he's a canny enough politician not to put out a denial like that if there's any chance of getting caught.

[grytpype]

15. What about the Kelly judicial inquiry?

There's that judicial inquiry into the death of Mr. Kelly, the scope of which has not been determined.... maybe the justice in charge will enlarge it to cover the selling of the war, it is certainly relevant to the matter at hand.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi muriel_volestrangler!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[PaDUer]

17. Email/letter campaign...

anyone up for a email/letter campaign to members of parliament, labour party or anyone to let them know how upset we are also w/ these lies..maybe they need to know that we're upset w/ the actions of poodle also?!

Anyone have any idea or know their email addys?

[yellowcanine]

6. Labour may dump Tony

If the Tories continue to gain, Labour may dump Tony in favor of an anti-war backbencher. Then who in "Old Europe" will back bunnypants on the war?

[T_i_B]

12. Even if they want to

I suspect that Blair will stich up the Labour party at their annual conference, same as he always does. Under Blair the grassroots party has no voice & no role other than as a Tony Blair fan club. Small wonder that so many people have left Labour since Blair took charge.

At least you lot have primaries in the US, and some presidential candidates who are willing to speak out on your behalf.

[AP]

16. An anti-war Labour candidate would lose the next general election

and Labour knows it. Gordon Brown would lose the next general election too. And, by the way, if anyone thinks Brown is more liberal than Blair, you should read The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. There are whole passages in that book in which Pallast argues, essentially, "Blair is really coopted by big business because Gordon Brown did X."

Obviously, what's going on in Britian is that Blair is trying to prevent Bush from destroying the British and European economies by keeping his enemy, Bush, close. He's holding out for a Democrat to get elected in 2004, and then, when the relentless covert and overt attack by Bush has passed, he will spend a year redeeming himself with the public, and, if he's lucky (which he probably will be, since he's the best politician I've ever seen in my life) he'll get elected to a third and final term (after which he'll become a Law Lord, or serve in the European Parliament). u

[salin]

19. Why?

Not doubting you, but I thought the polls showed that most British were against the war. So why would it necessarily follow that they would lose in a general election? Is it that anti-war labour folks also tend to hold some views on other issues that the electorate do not support?

That may Blair's motivations - but I still think it is fair to question whether or not this strategy, regardless of whether or not it is of noble or valid intent, has been effective.

Sorry AP, I think you may be engaging in some wishful thinking regarding Blair. Sort of reminds me of the talk last summer/fall that the democrats in congress had a "secret plan" to avoid war and win in the elections. Waiting and waiting - of course it never happened. There wasn't one. Or if there was it didn't work. At some point you might want to start questioning if Blair, even if acting from good intent, is pursuing strategies that are beginning to be counterproductive.

[AP]

20. according to polls, most brits are for Tories right now,

so it's not like their anti-war sentiments have driven them to candidates farther to the left than Blair.

As for last fall's secret plan, I for one, didn't think that was the case. I thought it would have been easy for the Dems if they WANTED to win, but I'd bet that the Dems saw that Bush is very effective at avoiding having the buck stop with him, and they saw that the best way for the buck to stop with him was to not allow him to say for two years that he didn't get what he wanted because he didn't have a majority in the senate.

And back to Blair: there's a passage in The Clinton Wars about how the Republicans created the budget mess in the 94 midterms, but ended up not getting punished for it because they successfully cast themselves as the party of the level-headed, well-organized people who'd get America out of the mess created by the scatter-brained, late-rising, pizza-eating, non-suit wearing Bill Clinton. There's a way that RW'ers help to create a mess, and then benefit from the mess. I don't have the patience right now to develop this argument further, but, bottom line, I feel it's the Tories who benefit electorally from the attack on Blair from, what appears to be, the far left.

[salin]

22. I understand that part of what you wrote

but was questioning why you singled out a "anti-war" labour candidate would lose. Thought you were singling out a "type" of labour candidate who would be worse than another type of labour candidate.

Reading what you just wrote here, it seems the issues isn't anti-war vs problair labour candidates - but that ANY labour candidate who is not Blair that would lose a general election.

[T_i_B]

21. No

First of all, it would actually help the government if they admitted that they were wrong on Iraq. If that means Blair going then so be it. "new" labour is no longer new, it is tired drifting, arrogant and of touch. The government desperatly needs a new start otherwise there is a far greater danger of the tories gaining power by default after the core labour vote refuses to turn out. And I'm not taling about a change of presentation here either. Policies such as foundation hospitals and PFI are wrong whatever spin is put on them.

The reault is that Blair, though bad policy and blatant dishonesty has dropped in the polls, when you consider the appaling behaviour of Blair recently then it is hard to see how an opposition party can fail to fail against Blair. I mean goodness, this is a man who lies about the key issue of peace & war! You could put a dead parrot up as tory leader and the dead parrot would be gaining in the polls, so bad is this government! All the tories have to do is stay off most people's radar oddly enough! :eyes:

Tony Blair is not made of gold and with his landslide majority and the tories lead by dimwit-smith Labour should be in a way stronger position then they are now. If they are to maximise their appeal then they need to work out what the labour party is there to do, does the labour party exist to grab power at any cost or does it exist build a better, fairer Britain? If the answer is the latter one then a lot of work will have to be done to prove that, work which Blair is not prepared to do.

Hence a Brown premiership would be the best chance of the new start that labour needs. There are those who might make for better leaders but only Brown has any chance as the frontrunner.

Where's Ken Livingstone when you need him?

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Don't you love it when the criminal

is also his own judge and jury?

I guess Tony came to America to learn how to be more like his master W. Act as if you are above the law and the corporate media will do everything they can to convince the public that it's true and that it's okay.

Someday, these two will reap what they have sown and I'm sure there is a special place in hell for them.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

9. Labour must dump him!!!

Fruher Blair is a corupt, evil, bastard!!!
He may belong to Labour (the Democrats of England) but is no better than Bush!!!

[T_i_B]

10. Something to hide have we Tony?

Bliar Bliar pants on fire.

[samsingh]

11. why is he supporting the evildoers?

what's he trying to hide?

[Neutrino]

13. How can the object of an "inquiry" "rule out" an inquiry?

inquiry is Freedom, anything less is Tyranny.