British FM urged Blair not to go to war on Iraq, claims new book

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030914/ts_afp/iraq_britain&cid=1503&ncid=1480

LONDON (AFP) - British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made a last-minute plea to Prime Minister Tony Blair not to go to war on Iraq, but the plea was rejected, a new book serialised in a newspaper claims.

According to the book, Straw sent a memo to the prime minister days before the conflict broke out in March, urging him to tell US President George W. Bush that Britain would offer moral and political support, but no combat troops.

But Blair rejected the advice, and demanded an assurance that Straw would support the war despite his reservations, says the book by political journalist John Kampfner, entitled "Blair's Wars", to be published on September 22. snip

According to excerpts in the right-wing Mail on Sunday, Kampfner's book also alleges that Blair had secretly agreed to go to war as early as April 2002, when he had a summit with Bush at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas.

more

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. If Mr. Straw had such a strong opposition to....

the war in Iraq then he should have resigned as foreign minister!

[atreides1]

12. True

But that would have required Mr. Straw to have both honor and integrity, neither of which he possesses. Add to that the fact that he
is still trumpeting for Blair, is proof that Mr. Straw is a sack of excrement.

Just an opinion.

[emad]

20. But a very clever sack of excrement.....

only Straw and Brown remain largely unsullied by the Iraq debacle in the eyes of the UK electorate, if you now consider former defence sec George Robertson (now Nato sec gen) to be out of the picture. All the other shites are either discredited or married to Mr Blair/advising him on daring new autumnal colour schemes for his winter wardrobe....

The Blair/Straw/Brown triumvirate is a Bush 1 implant to make Bush 1 Part 2 a viable narrative for the USA electorate. Time to start rattling a few skeletons in cupboards that Dubya thought had been silenced in 2000.....

[alcuno]

2. That doesn't make sense.

"days before the conflict broke out in March.....that Britain would offer moral and political support, but no combat troops." Days before, British troops were already in Kuwait, weren't they?

[Minstrel Boy]

3. I vaguely recall,

perhaps days before the war, Rumsfeld saying the US didn't need the British troops. And I even more vaguely recall speculation that his comments might have been made with a knowledge of British waffling.

[NNN0LHI]

4. There were Greman soldiers in Kuwait too. They stayed in Kuwait

Some kind of chemical weapons decontamination team I believe? The British could have stayed in Kuwait as well if they were ordered to do so. Makes perfect sense to me.

Don

[alcuno]

5. I'm sure that they could, but the British were already charged with

taking Basra in the south. There had to have already been a war plan in place. Even Rummy would have had that. Days before and the British aren't part of the plan? Wasn't the original British deployment in the neighborhood of 20,000 troops? There's something odd about the "days before" assertion.

[NNN0LHI]

6. I thought it was about 20,000 that was reported initially

I also thought that after Juniors Mission Accomplished speech the British did bring thousands back home about the same time the Australian troops left. That is how I remember it anyway.

Don

[alcuno]

7. And it seemed like they were withdrawing troops almost

right away; it was implied that they were doing so because of public sentiment. They're down to under 11,000 now. Since the Indians have now said "no," maybe the British will send some more back; more than the 120 from last weekend.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

8. Is Straw still in office?

It would seem that this sort of revelation would be made only by someone out of power...but last I checked Straw was still a sitting minister. Is he from the same party as Blair or a different party?

[AP]

9. Then Blair definitely did the right thing. Straw is a closet RW'er

[Devils Advocate NZ]

10. So is Blair...

I can't believe, with all of the revelations at the Hutton enquiry, that you are still defending Blair.

Blair is a Crypto-Rightist who is destroying the Labour party. Unless Labour wake up and get rid of him soon, Labour will go down with him.

[AP]

14. I was trying to be funny.

Anyway, I think there are definitely two ways to read the Hutton Report.

And I think the RWers trying to sabotage blair and the extreme left wingers who always turn out to be the enablers for the return to power of the Tories are reading it in the light least favorable to Blair.

[bpilgrim]

11. and nothing to back that up with, something blair is becomming well known

for

peace

[AP]

13. If you don't know that Straw is the most RW member of government

and you need a cite to have it proven to you, then it's amusing that you think you know enough about British politics to have an informed opinion of what's going on over there.

Blair has consistently proven himself to be a leader with the best interests of the British public in mind. Straw has proven to be a person who acts like his job is to slow down the rate of social progress in the UK.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

15. I lived through this here in NZ...

When the right wing tried to take over and destroy the Labour Party here in NZ, they very nearly succeeded. I see all the same signs in Tony Blair, the privatisation kick being only the most obvious.

I just hope you're willing to have a country where what used to be centre is considered left, and what used to be right is considered centre, because that is where Blair is taking you, and he is NOT doing it with the best interests of the public in mind, he is doing it solely for the corporations.

Blair will take down the Labour party before he will admit he is wrong and leave. What kind of leftist would do that? That is OBVIOUSLY NOT putting the best interests of the public first, is it?

In fact, a crypto-rightist leading Labour is FAR more dangerous than a Tory government, because the Tories won't fight his changes, and many lefties like you will refuse to see the truth until it is almost too late - possibly gauranteeing the marginalisation of the Labour party in UK politics.

[AP]

16. Unemployment is at record lows and salaries are at record highs

That is the opposite of conservative.

Blair is spreading so much wealth among the non-wealthy, Britain might have an actual middle class before Blair's done.

Blair is not the conservativization of the the labour party. He is the transition PM from a Britain which is deeply institutionally conservative (which could never in the past have a labour leader who actually made any progress even though 99% of the public are worse off year over year with Tory governments) to one which can actually support and maintain a wealthy, politically powerful liberal democracy.

It a painful birth for the far left, but the misery of the working class is so intense, and the institutions causing it so entrenched, that the transition out of it was never going to be easy. If Blair has to be stealthy about what he's doing, I understand it and appreciate it. It's the only way forward for the UK.

[Spentastic]

17. Employment I'll give you. Where did you get the salary data?

"Blair is spreading so much wealth among the non-wealthy, Britain might have an actual middle class before Blair's done."

Evidence to support your contention please. The people getting rich under Labour are PFI providers and defence companies. Pensioners are running out of money and the average debt in the U.K is at record levels. I will provide evidence should you so wish.

"Blair is not the conservativization of the the labour party. He is the transition PM from a Britain which is deeply institutionally conservative (which could never in the past have a labour leader who actually made any progress even though 99% of the public are worse off year over year with Tory governments) to one which can actually support and maintain a wealthy, politically powerful liberal democracy."

What are you talking about. Which Government implemented the NHS and the welfare state? The Tories spend each term trying to dismantle it. I don't expect the same from Labour. But that's what Tony is doing. PFI is a monumental crime as is Tony Blair's continuing assertion that only private sector management can be effective. His pro corporate stance is selling the British people into a different kind of servitude to that practiced by the Conservatives. The rest of your puff piece is pure ballyhoo.

"It a painful birth for the far left, but the misery of the working class is so intense, and the institutions causing it so entrenched, that the transition out of it was never going to be easy. If Blair has to be stealthy about what he's doing, I understand it and appreciate it. It's the only way forward for the UK."

Yes, giving birth to a right wing child would no doubt be a painful birth for the left.

As for institutions causing the problems. What exactly was Tony's stance on Lords reform? He effectively scuppered it. Just one in the eye for Robin Cook.

I do not believe he is being stealthy he is quacking and waddling and yet there are some people that are still insisting that he's something other than he appears. Tony is destroying the Labour party. It will not survive his tenure for much longer.

[AP]

22. It came out the same day as the employment data.

I think there was a third statistic, salaries for public servants, which was at a record high, and those are middle income people like the posties and cops.

This is the bulwark against facism. Jobs and wealth for the middle class...man, that's what it's all about.

[T_i_B]

18. A bit bloody late!

According to Kampfner, Straw confronted the prime minister on his return from an eve-of-war summit with Bush in the Azores on March 16.

That was the summit at which we declared war for goodness sake! If Straw had been serious then he would have voiced his concerns months before that. This was right at the last minuite when it was obvious that there was no turning back from Blair's insane course.

Methinks Straw is trying to jump out of a sinking ship here. :evilgrin:

[Bush_has_Parvo]

19. I think we all need to redefine our parameters

there is no more "labor" "tory""republican""democrat".
there is only the party in power who wants more power.
I really could not understand on February 15 why there were so many people in the world fully against this war on Iraq, yet there were so few in government who were for it. It really blew me away, especially being and American and thinking that democracy would rule the day. I was so ever so wrong. Now I am smarter, and I know these people will stop at nothing and no one to achieve their goals.

Jack Straw will do what is best for Jack Straw, as will Blair. They willl lie, they will diffuse facts and they will exaggerate, dear God will they exaggerate. Citizenry, it is time for us to wake up, sober up, and reclaim our mantle. Corporations are not entitled to personhood, it is not legal. Therefore, Chub will not fund this rant.
Anna Maria

[dArKeR]

21. STRAW'S 'STOP THE WAR PLAN' - Mirror

JACK STRAW drew up plans to stop British troops fighting alongside the US - only days before the war in Iraq began.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13408683_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-STRAW%2DS%2D%2DSTOP%2DTHE%2DWAR%2DPLAN%2D-name_page.html