Peter Presland Wrote:

Magda Hassan Wrote:Tony Blair says the quest for a 'conspiracy' is behind Iraq Inquiry

Wow!

Reduced to repeated resorts to the dreaded "C" word eh? He must be rattled.

David Guyatt Wrote:A sort of contemporary twist on "Dumb & Dumber" you mean?

But I suppose it would have to be called Dumb & Cunning...

Quote:Blair: Iraq oil claim is 'conspiracy theory'

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 15 January 2003


Tony Blair today derided as "conspiracy theories" accusations that a war on Iraq would be in pursuit of oil, as he faced down growing discontent in parliament at a meeting of Labour backbenchers and at PMQs.
The prime minister's double defence of Britain's backing of president Bush came as one of Tony Blair's oldest political allies, Peter Mandelson, insisted that the US and British governments did not need a second UN resolution to justify an attack on Iraq.

The MP for Hartlepool, traditionally used as a back channel for No 10's thinking, insisted that only his questioners on the BBC Radio 4's Today programme were asking for a new UN resolution - not France, Russia or China, the other members of the security council.

Instead Mr Mandelson insisted that a breach of the existing 1441 resolution could justify an attack on Saddam Hussein.

His intervention in the ongoing political debate on Iraq comes as Church of England bishops issued their strongest criticism yet of plans for military actions.

The drumbeat of war sounded louder today after Downing Street also announced that Mr Blair would fly to Washington for talks with president Bush at the end of January. Most military experts are currently predicting an attack in February.

At a private meeting of the parliamentary Labour party at Westminster this morning the PM underlined his uncompromising message that Saddam Hussein's regime had to be disarmed one way or another.

Afterwards, one anti-war MP, Glenda Jackson, said the meeting was split 70-30 in Mr Blair's favour.

Another who did not wish to be named said it had been more like 50-50, with the meeting evenly split on support or opposition to the government's position.

A Labour Party spokesman said after Mr Blair's hour-long grilling: "The Prime Minister got a very warm reception for what he had to say.

Mr Mandelson told Today that there could be circumstances in which securing a second resolution would be impracticable.

He said: "Now if that is the case, there is no question at all of America or Britain or anyone else acting outside the UN. They would be acting firmly and directly and explicitly on the basis of the UN's authority as expressed in resolution 1441."

Meanwhile, Church of England bishops issued a statement saying a conclusive case has yet to be made in favour of military action against President Saddam and without compelling new evidence a war could not be "morally justified".

A statement from the house of bishops said: "We do not believe that the evidence presented to date suggests a clear link exists between Iraq and al-Qaida or that Iraq poses an immediate threat to international security."

"Without compelling new evidence to the contrary, we contend that military action could not be morally justified."

The bishops said that it was crucial that the work of the UN weapons inspectors should be allowed to run its course.

To launch military action while there remained the potential to secure a peaceful resolution would be "ill-judged and premature", they said.

The Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev Richard Harries, warned the prime minister that any military action against Iraq could only be justified if there was a fresh UN resolution.

He told the BBC: "I do think that Iraq is a threat ... but the point is that we have contained this threat over the last 10 years by a policy of deterrence and containment, and there is absolutely nothing new now which would justify us going over the awesome threshold of war with all the unpredictable consequences in the Middle East and the almost certain rise of terrorism around the world and in this country."

Last month the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, attacked the government over its apparent readiness to launch military action against Iraq.

In his Christmas message, Dr Williams recalled the biblical story of the three wise men as he mocked strategists who end up creating "yet more havoc and suffering", despite their intimate knowledge of politics.

However, General Wesley Clark, a former Nato supreme allied commander, said he believed military action would be forthcoming.

Asked when he expected any action, he told Today: "Mid to late February, it looks like."

Asked for his assessment of the likelihood of action, he added: "I would say it is high. It is not 100%, because there is the possibility that Saddam Hussein will back down and flee the country before then."

The prime minister was today accused of being too scared of Labour back-bench opposition to his policy on Iraq to have a full-scale Commons debate on the crisis.

The accusation came from the Scottish National party whose Westminster leader, Alex Salmond, contrasted "meaningless" discussion of Iraq policy in the Commons with tomorrow's debate on the issue in the Scottish parliament on a motion tabled by the SNP.

"The Scots parliament is pursuing proper democracy, not the hypocrisy of Westminster," Mr Salmond said.

The SNP motion says that the UN security council resolution providing a mandate for weapons inspection in Iraq does not authorise military action.

Any such use of force would breach international law, it says.

It continues: "No commitment of UK forces should be made without a specific mandate for military action in Iraq in the form of a further security council resolution based on clear, published and compelling evidence provided by the UN inspectorate of a material breach of the resolution."

The motion also expresses "deep and serious concern" that the government is pursuing an inevitable path to war.

Mr Salmond said: "While Westminster is to have another meaningless and inconclusive adjournment debate on the Iraq crisis, the Scottish parliament is having a real debate based on a real motion from the SNP.

"That is a powerful contrast.

"Tony Blair is frightened of a substantive debate in the Commons because he is scared of the extent of support on the Labour benches for the fundamental point that military action in the name of the UN must be specifically authorised by the UN."

Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for Linlithgow and father of the House of Commons, said: "It is ironic that the Scottish parliament can find the means of having a meaningful debate on Iraq, while the Commons is refused."

[size=12] Posted by The Editors on February 8, 2010, 3:21 pm[/SIZE]

[size=12] Posted by The Editors on February 8, 2010, 7:23 pm, in reply to "Email to Iraq Inquiry"[/SIZE]

• Hung parliament looms as Tory poll lead cut to 5 points
  
• John Curtice: Voters are looking afresh at Gordon Brown
  
• Search the news archive for more stories
  

Magda Hassan Wrote:The document also calls into question Mr Blair's claim that using troops to bring down Saddam Hussein was only discussed after the 9/11 terror attacks on New York – and will increase pressure on the inquiry to call Mr Blair back to give further public evidence this summer.

Quote:The strategy paper was commissioned by Sir William Patey, then head of Middle East policy at the Foreign Office, ahead of the November 2000 presidential election which brought George Bush to the White House.