# BritDopers: Why did Blair support Bush in the Iraq War? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2005, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276 "2005-06-14T21:15:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2005, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/21 "2005-06-16T11:05:23Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > ‘Yes sir, Georgie and me beat up that little kid.’ > > ‘Yes, I know he’s in hospital.’ > > ‘Yes sir, I punched him too.’ > > ‘Wrong of me to hit him?’ > > ‘But sir, I figured that by helping Georgie beat him up I could make it better by saying things like “don’t hit him in the face, Georgie” or “Him missing two teeth is enough, Georgie”’ > > ‘Sir? Do I know the meaning of the word accomplice, sir?’ I can see what you’re getting it, but the reason it’s flawed is that if you’re going to make an analogy between a little kid and Iraq, then you can’t talk about beating up the kid and putting him in the hospital because Iraq is composed of a lot of people. Maybe you could talk about a radiation treatment for the kid, in which the attempt was made to kill cancerous cells in the hopes of saving good cells. Maybe Blaire thought Bush wasn’t a sufficiently skilled surgeon. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2005, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/22 "2005-06-16T11:39:55Z")
Hmm, okay. I could go with that analogy. So, Blair assists Bush with the radiation against the advice of the other radiologists. Knowing full well the treatment is wrong, he doesn’t try to stop it but does it so that hopefully this operations, and others in the future, won’t be such _complete_ fuck-ups. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2005, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/23 "2005-06-16T12:49:24Z")
Pretty much, yeah. ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2005, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/24 "2005-06-16T12:54:55Z")
actually on reflection I was wrong to cast Tony as a socialist :smack: He believes more in private than state ownership - but also believes that a nannying state is the best way to oversee it. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2005, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/25 "2005-06-16T13:20:55Z")
> [@scm1001](#): > > 1. The Robin cook speech did not say anywhere that Blair thought anything. It said that Robin himself did not think there were any weapons. I think we must be reading different documents. From Cook’s speech: ‘‘For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam’s medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq’s military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.’ … Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. … Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?’ Bear in mind this is a senior member of the cabinet with direct responsibility for Iraq. He’s seen all the relevant documentation. And he states all the above in public before the war starts. (And of course he’s been proved completely correct.) What information do you think Blair had that Cook didn’t?! Certainly Cook and Blair were reading exactly the same documents. > [@scm1001](#): > > 1. Sure Tony sends his kids to public school. So do many avowed left wingers (e.g. Dianne Abbott) in the Labour party. Proves nothing except hypocrisy. Tony is not an old school socialist, but still has the socialist (Stalinist?) mentality that the best way to fix things in society is for the government to meddle, control spending and set lots of targets. I feel he has the same attitude to foreign affairs - you may care to differ. Firstly Blair moved the Labour party away from socialism: Tony Blair’s plan to remove Clause Four from Labour’s constitution is an attack on the left. Clause 4: ‘To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service.’ [http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr180/jenkins.htm](http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr180/jenkins.htm) Secondly you use vague and meaningless phrases: ‘Blair has the mentality that the best way to fix things in society is to meddle’ ‘I feel Blair has the same attitude to foreign affairs’ and slurs: ‘Blair has a socialist (Stalinist?) mentality’. You are comparing Blair to Stalin? **Have you got any facts to back up these allegations**? > [@scm1001](#): > > 1. Tony has consistently put foreign affairs on a high ranking and has been talking debt relief etc for many years. This is the first time I have seen Gordon Brown talk about anything except domestic economic affairs - I think Gordon is starting to assume the PMs mantle on for size. Try googling ‘Gordon Brown debt relief’. I found 81,000 pages, including this one: ‘Gordon Brown and Clare Short have proposed new measures to add to the Mauritius Mandate targets outlined in September 1997 and extended in September 1998.’ > **[Jubilee National Debt Solutions Company - Get UK Debt Help Today](https://www.jubilee2000uk.org/)** > > Jubilee offers National Debt Help in the UK. Offering all kinds of debt Solutions and debt assistance including IVA, DMP, DRO & Bankruptcy cases. > [@scm1001](#): > > 1. The PM is always (like any leader) talking about democracy overseas. just google “blair democracy speech”. This thread is about why Blair backed Bush in the war. From your quote Blair states “Democracy is the meeting point for Europe and America. **I am not, repeat not, advocating a series of military solutions to achieve it**.” ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2005, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/26 "2005-06-16T13:24:36Z")
> [@scm1001](#): > > actually on reflection I was wrong to cast Tony as a socialist :smack: You were indeed way off base - but thanks for having the courage to admit it. 🙂 > [@scm1001](#): > > He believes more in private than state ownership - but also believes that a nannying state is the best way to oversee it. Now you’re backsliding again! What is your definition of ‘a nannying state’? How do you know what Blair believes? You use a lot of right-wing jargon - are you perchance … a Conservative? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/27 "2005-06-16T23:51:44Z")
> [@Eolbo](#): > > The Bush administration has devoted considerable effort to sabotaging things important to the world community, (landmine bans, ICC etc). In the case of the ICC for instance the US not only refuses to take part but demands exemption and punishes nations that refuse to grant it with withdrawal of military aid. Blair thinks that through supporting Bush, he can moderate his isolationist impulses. Blair worked from the outset to get Bush to work within the existing international framework and to use the UN. Its an attempt to exploit insider advantage. You think Blair was trying to position himself to be Bush’s Jiminy Cricket? That sounds ridiculously optimistic for a man as ordinarily level-headed (at least, that’s my impression from this side of the ocean) as Blair. A conscience’s job is to say things that, by definition, will make his subject uncomfortable; and when has Bush ever listened to anyone who told him things he didn’t want to hear? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/28 "2005-06-16T23:54:30Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > My guess? He realises that things are bad, resource-wise and environment-wise in the world and likely to get much worse and it’s in the best interests of the UK to be the sidekick of the guys with the big guns. Why does the UK need a military alliance with the US? For purely defensive purposes – and I can’t see how the Brits have or will have any military needs that are not purely defensive – doesn’t it make more sense for them to ally themselves with Europe? ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2005, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/29 "2005-06-17T10:31:46Z")
> [@glee](#): > > From Cook’s speech: > > Bear in mind this is a senior member of the cabinet with direct responsibility for Iraq. He’s seen all the relevant documentation. And he states all the above in public before the war starts. (And of course he’s been proved completely correct.) > What information do you think Blair had that Cook didn’t?! > Certainly Cook and Blair were reading exactly the same documents. > > Firstly Blair moved the Labour party away from socialism: > > Tony Blair’s plan to remove Clause Four from Labour’s constitution is an attack on the left. > Clause 4: ‘To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service.’ > > [Subordinate clause (4)](http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr180/jenkins.htm) > > Secondly you use vague and meaningless phrases: ‘Blair has the mentality that the best way to fix things in society is to meddle’ ‘I feel Blair has the same attitude to foreign affairs’ and slurs: ‘Blair has a socialist (Stalinist?) mentality’. > You are comparing Blair to Stalin? > **Have you got any facts to back up these allegations**? > > Try googling ‘Gordon Brown debt relief’. I found 81,000 pages, including this one: > > ‘Gordon Brown and Clare Short have proposed new measures to add to the Mauritius Mandate targets outlined in September 1997 and extended in September 1998.’ > > [Jubilee National Debt Solutions Company - Get UK Debt Help Today](http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/jubilee2000/news/brown2502.html) > > This thread is about why Blair backed Bush in the war. > From your quote Blair states “Democracy is the meeting point for Europe and America. **I am not, repeat not, advocating a series of military solutions to achieve it**.” 1. try googling “tony blair debt relief” I got 281,000 hits. Not sure what either of that proves. Your cite was interesting, but I think that was Claire Short’s baby rather than Gordon Browns. Claire has always been very internationally minded. 2. Robin Cooks speech again at the time expressed his PERSONAL opinion. He was not supported by the any of the cabinet, (Claire Short perhaps excepted later) who were therefore either collectively mislead or dishonest. The key question is not Robin Cook, but Blair. What did he believe and why. While the latest leaked Downing St memo links are interesting, I would agree with Kaplan’s assesment [http://slate.msn.com/id/2120886/](http://slate.msn.com/id/2120886/) that they prove little, and if anything confirm that people in the cabinet and number 10 did actually think that Saddam had WMDs that could be used on the battlefield (indeed Robin Cook thought it more than possible in his speech) and perhaps beyond . Whether that was enough to invade is a different question. 3. You asked for a cite where Tony talked about introducing democracy into the middle east. I gave you one. What exactly do you want? 4. I am comparing the micromanagement of the present labour government with the micromanagement during the stalinist regime. I am comparing the excited release of glorious projects by the labour party (anyone remember Prescott’s tranport plan, Blairs announcment on NHS dentistry to name but two) with the 5 year plans released by the USSR. My wife is a doctor who is seriously considering leaving the profession. The government has forced changes upon changes into the Health Service, pointless targets that are easily got around, endless contract wrangles and renegotiations. That is a nannying state. ---
**Author:** ![WotNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@WotNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WotNot)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2005, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/30 "2005-06-17T11:02:40Z")
> [@scm1001](#): > > 1. I am comparing the micromanagement of the present labour government with the micromanagement during the stalinist regime. I am comparing the excited release of glorious projects by the labour party (anyone remember Prescott’s tranport plan, Blairs announcment on NHS dentistry to name but two) with the 5 year plans released by the USSR. My wife is a doctor who is seriously considering leaving the profession. The government has forced changes upon changes into the Health Service, pointless targets that are easily got around, endless contract wrangles and renegotiations. That is a nannying state. As an experiment, you might try comparing it instead to the micromanagement, Health Service changes, target setting etc of the right-wing, monetarist, free market economy Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2005, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/31 "2005-06-17T11:11:07Z")
> [@WotNot](#): > > As an experiment, you might try comparing it instead to the micromanagement, Health Service changes, target setting etc of the right-wing, monetarist, free market economy Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher. Quite and I speak as a person in an NHS Region during the Thatcher/Major regime directly responsible for monitoring and reporting on these targets and on occasion directly ordered to falsify returns to paint a better picture. All governments of all hues make plans and set targets. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2005, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/32 "2005-06-17T13:21:12Z")
> [@scm1001](#): > > While the latest leaked Downing St memo links are interesting, I would agree with Kaplan’s assesment [http://slate.msn.com/id/2120886/](http://slate.msn.com/id/2120886/) that they prove little, and if anything confirm that people in the cabinet and number 10 did actually think that Saddam had WMDs that could be used on the battlefield (indeed Robin Cook thought it more than possible in his speech) and perhaps beyond . Whether that was enough to invade is a different question. Can we talk a little more about the WMD that the cabinet and number 10 Downing Street thought he had? What type of WMD were they? Chemical? Biological? Nuclear? How many of them were there? When were they manufactured? What is the difference between WMDs configured as “battlefield munitions” and the description Cook used of WMD “namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.” What is the difference between active programs to develop WMD versus leftover WMDs? Should we treat this difference as significant at all, or are any WMD, no matter how old or what they might be suited for (battlefield/city) sufficient? The question isn’t binary. It isn’t just a yes/no on the WMD and the only courses of action being invade/not invade based on a yes/no. If there was a yes to the question of WMD, but it was qualified with “but they’re 15 year-old leftovers in a nearly forgotten storage bunker in the middle of the desert”, does that still justify invasion? Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2005, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/33 "2005-06-17T14:17:54Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > Can we talk a little more about the WMD that the cabinet and number 10 Downing Street thought he had? > [@](#): > > But it has recently got even more embarrassing. The prime minister told the House of Commons that he was unaware at the time of the war debate that the 45-minute piece of intelligence referred only to battlefield rather than strategic weapons. Let me list just some of the procedures which must have been executed incorrectly to allow him to be kept in such a state of ignorance at such a crucial time on such a crucial matter when other members of his cabinet (Cook and Hoon) appear to have been in the know. > > One: neither Cook nor Hoon saw fit to tell the prime minister, for whatever reason. > > Two: the intelligence was not considered important or accurate enough to explain to him in detail - even though it appears in the September 24 dossier at least three times and in the prime minister’s own foreword. > > Three: Blair had to rely on verbal briefings from the JIC chairman and others, who told him about the 45 minutes bit of the intelligence but omitted to mention that it referred only to battlefield weapons, and neither the prime minister nor any of the brilliant young staff asked the obvious question. > > Four: the original SIS report mentioned the 45-minute time, but made no attempt to distinguish between strategic and battlefield weapons - even though the service was aware that the report was about battlefield munitions. > > Five: the prime minister’s daily written intelligence brief from the Cabinet Office included the 45 minutes point but not the crucial distinction between battlefield and strategic weapons. And not a single member of the Cabinet Office assessments staff (the most brilliant intelligence analysts in the UK) spotted this or thought it important. > > This is not the case of a few guardsmen out of step or a few trumpeters out of tune. This is like holding trooping the colour but forgetting to tell the Queen the correct date. > **[Crispin Black: Blair's claim is incredible](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/feb/12/media.iraq)** > > Former senior intelligence officer Crispin Black challenges Lord Hutton's account. I still find it hard to believe that Blair didn’t know about the difference when he made the 45 min claim. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2005, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/34 "2005-06-17T14:26:43Z")
Sorry about two post in a row but [45 Minutes: Behind the Blair Claim](http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=5983&fcategory_desc=Government%20Lies%20and%20Deception) is also an interesting read > [@](#): > > The origins of the 45-minute claim may lie with Abdul Jalil Mohsen Muhie, a retired Iraqi brigadier general, and his son-in-law, Lt. Col. Dabbagh, commander of an air defense unit in Iraq’s western desert. > > In separate interviews with a Washington Post reporter, the two men said Dabbagh for several years had provided Muhie with intelligence data about Iraqi military installations, information that Muhie passed on to the Amman, Jordan, office of the Iraqi National Accord, a dissident organization of exiles. Their account first surfaced in an article in London’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper. > > In the summer of 2002, Dabbagh, who asked that his first name be withheld for his personal security, said he witnessed the arrival at his base of members of Saddam’s Fedayeen, an elite militia loyal to Hussein. The militiamen set up camp and unloaded silver and yellow crates. After their arrival, Dabbagh said, he was instructed to pick up gas masks for his unit and was informed by one of his commanders that the militia would use special weapons in case of a U.S. invasion. > > “If war breaks out we can use them within 45 minutes,” Dabbagh said he was told. While he was not directly informed what the weapons were, he concluded, based upon previous briefings, that they were chemical and biological weapons similar to those Iraq had used against Iranian troops in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. > > “I have no doubt they were weapons of mass destruction,” he said. > > Muhie, 63, said he forwarded Dabbagh’s information in handwritten notes to relatives, who smuggled them to the Iraqi National Accord office in Amman. The information was then dispatched to London, where the group’s leader, Ayad Allawi, gave it to the British intelligence agency MI6 and the CIA. > > Dabbagh showed a Washington Post reporter a map with tracing paper on which he had drawn what he said were air defense installations and deployments of unconventional weapons in the western Iraqi desert. “The 45 minutes, it’s from me,” said Dabbagh, who says he is bitter because he has received no expressions of gratitude or rewards from the United States or Britain for his contribution. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/35 "2005-06-17T21:17:56Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Anyone know what’s in his portfolio? A minister without portfolio? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276/36 "2005-06-20T20:17:38Z")
> [@scm1001](#): > > 1. I am comparing the micromanagement of the present labour government with the micromanagement during the stalinist regime. Why? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-did-blair-support-bush-in-the-iraq-war/308276.md?page=1)