-Caveat Lector- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml? xml=/news/2003/03/21/wus21.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/21/ixnewstop.ht ml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=137750 Blair 'restrained Bush from attacking Iraq after Sept 11' By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor (Filed: 21/03/2003)
Tony Blair played a key role in stopping President George W Bush from ordering military action against Iraq immediately after the September 11 attacks, and convincing him to take a longer diplomatic road to war, British sources disclosed yesterday. The Prime Minister also urged caution and delay on at least two later occasions. At one point America and Britain seriously considered the possibility of postponing the war until next September. But officials said they decided on a spring campaign because of fears that prolonged uncertainty would undermine the global economy and destabilise Arab countries ready to help. British officials are unrepentant about trying to secure a UN resolution authorising war, saying it had provided months of political "cover" for the military build-up. They admitted there had been blunders but were convinced that the diplomacy was foiled by a "strategic decision" taken by France some time in late January to frustrate America's plans. Senior officials familiar with the dialogue between Mr Blair and Mr Bush disclosed fascinating glimpses of the in-fighting within the Bush administration, and of the Prime Minister's struggle to steer Washington away from the idea of going to war alone. After the September 11 attacks, hardline members of the administration, such as Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, called for Iraq to be included immediately as a target of the "war on terrorism". But Mr Blair backed more cautious figures, such as Colin Powell, the secretary of state, who said that uprooting al-Qa'eda from Afghanistan should be the first priority. Days after saying that Britain stood "should to shoulder" with America, Mr Blair went to the United States to meet Mr Bush. Officials said one of his main objectives was to ensure that the US administration did not take action against Iraq immediately. "The final decision to concentrate on Afghanistan was not taken until Blair met Bush in Washington," said a senior British source. The Bush administration turned its attention back to Iraq at the start of last year. Dick Cheney, the vice- president, visited Britain and Arab countries in March but found little support for war on Iraq. In April, the question of removing Saddam was supposed to be the main item on the agenda for the Crawford summit between Mr Blair and Mr Bush. But the talks were overshadowed by the crisis over Israel's large-scale re- invasion of West Bank cities in response to a succession of Palestinian suicide bombings. The source said: "Between Crawford and the summer, we were telling the administration: 'You have the power to take action alone, but if you want international support the best way is to go through the UN'. They made clear that they wanted support." Despite British officials' confidence that they had convinced Mr Bush, Washington descended into internal war in August over whether to involve the UN. The issue was finally settled at the Camp David summit between Mr Bush and Mr Blair last September. A few days later, Mr Bush delivered his key address to the UN General Assembly. Another senior British official said: "There was tremendous in-fighting in Washington. The drafts of the speech went back and forth. I think there were 28 versions before the final text was agreed. "For us the key phrase was Bush's commitment to seeking a new UN resolution to disarm Iraq. We were only sure we had it 24 hours before the speech. "For some reason this was left out of the text on the teleprompter as Bush was reading it, and he had to improvise. "He managed to ad-lib a sentence saying 'we will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions'. But instead of saying 'resolution' he said 'resolutions' in the plural. That's how we got stuck with the French idea of two resolutions." At first the diplomatic route seemed to succeed. Security Council resolution 1441, giving Saddam a "final opportunity" to disarm or face "serious consequences", was adopted by 15-0. But the officials said the subsequent diplomacy was mishandled, not least by Mr Powell, who did not embark on the face-to-face diplomacy needed to win international support. "Powell was so busy protecting his position in Washington that he did not travel. That was a mistake," said the source, "The UN vote did not need to come out as badly as it did." 18 March 2003: Twelve years of failure to bring Saddam down 28 November 2002: Bush bows to pressure for Sept 11 investigation 9 October 2002: Bush rallies support by linking Iraq to Sept 11 3 October 2002: Congress gives Bush free rein to attack Iraq 24 September 2001: Rumsfield spells out what US victory will mean 12 September 2001: America on war footing Previous story: Blair urges Britain to back troops Next story: Turkey allows US to use its airspace Related reports The moment of reckoning Vidal preaches to the converted External links Iraq update - US Department of State PM's address to the nation - 10 Downing St Statement of the Atlantic Summit: A Vision for Iraq and the Iraqi People - White House Iraq - Centre for Stategic and International Studies Washington Post Sept 11: A nation remembers - Time © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutra <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
