[A-List] UK state: Iraq crisis

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

On 7 February, Mark Jones wrote:

Just in the contrarian spirit of 'Wilderness of Mirrors' thinking, I'd like
to propose that this embarrassment was perhaps done *deliberately* by
Downing Street--my reasoning being on the basis that Blair's underlying
strategy since 9/11 has been about *stopping* crazed Bushite adventures,
beginning with Bush's plan to nuke Afghanistan. Possibly Blair, Chriac and
Schroeder are all in cahoots and all share the same determination to
destroy the Bush regime. There is an obvious division of labour between
them; Blair had the job of all-out seeming solidarity with Bush, the
ulterior purpose of which was to thwart US unilateralism and make Bush go
the UN route; the other 'old Europeans' had the task of drawing the US
deepn into a diplomatic and political quagmire which would so delay matters
that Bush was blocked by his own electyoral tiometable from invading Iraq.

Of course I suppose it is also possible that the Downing Street staff, led
by legendary cool spinmeister Alastair Campbell, actually  consists of
treacherous, incompetent, lazy buffoons--but there is scant evidence of
their lack of professionalism in media-control for many years now. Isn't
this gaffe just a little too obviously contrived? But what do I know.

see http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2003w05/msg00119.htm

-----

[I think that Mark was on to something here, but it looks increasingly like
Blair was out of the loop on certain important decisions, and is now being
hung out to dry by the very same master manipulators who are using him as
their necessary sacrificial lamb in order to further their long term agenda
of British realignment with Europe and thereby out from under direct US
hegemony. Being so presidential makes it difficult for Blair to pass the
buck at times like these, i.e. it is a gift for the "rogue elements" so
clumsily fingered by "Dr" Reid yesterday. Meanwhile the BBC's obvious
transformation into the broadcasting arm of MI6 (thanks largely to John
Birt) means that people like Andrew Gilligan are more likely than ever to be
fed "reliable" material. MK]


'Dodgy dossier' a symbol for lack of trust

JASON BEATTIE CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
The Scotsman, 5 June 2003

DOWNING Street's reaction to allegations that it doctored evidence on Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction was a mixture of anger and bewilderment.

The fury was because a report by a single journalist had been allowed to set
the news agenda for nearly a week; the disbelief was that people appeared to
be increasingly willing to believe the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan rather
than the Prime Minister. At the heart of the issue is the question of trust.

Stories involving the intelligence agencies are particularly susceptible to
abuse, in that they allow journalists to break with convention by hiding
behind the anonymity of the profession.

But the same rules apply to politicians, allowing No10 to argue, as it did
in the original dossier at the centre of the allegations, that further
information cannot be made available because it could compromise
intelligence sources.

This has resulted in an awkward stalemate for the government. It can neither
prove nor disprove the assertions by Gilligan any more than the public can
prove or disprove the evidence contained in the "dodgy dossier".

In fact, when faced with a choice of believing a story based on "unnamed
intelligence sources" claiming Downing Street deliberately "sexed up" a
dossier on WMDs, or Downing Street's claim that other "unnamed intelligence
sources" insist the story is untrue, a poll showed that 45 per cent placed
their faith in the journalist rather than the politician.

The anguish in Downing Street could be heard across central London. While Mr
Blair has been asked repeated questions about his probity and that of his
director of communications Alastair Campbell, Gilligan faces no such
inquisition about the status, integrity and accuracy of his report. Where is
the justice in that?

New Labour has only itself to blame for this situation. Such is its
reputation for media manipulation that one suspects if asked to choose
between the word of a politician or a used car dealer, most people would
place their trust in the latter.

For many, Downing Street surrendered its reputation for honesty when it
lifted a ten-year PhD thesis on Iraq and presented it as an authoritative
document bearing the Prime Minister's crest.

Cynics are entitled to ask: if No10 is willing to plagiarise an out of date
doctorate for political advantage then would it have any qualms about hyping
up an intelligence document for similar purposes?

Nor does it help when other aspects of the dossier, first published in
September last year, have since been proved incorrect. In particular, the
allegation that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from an African
state - the International Atomic Energy Authority informed the United
Nations in March that the evidence behind this assertion was based on
crudely forged documents.

But the collapse of public trust in the government can be traced beyond New
Labour's present difficulties over WMDs.

A combination of cash-for-questions under the Conservatives and spin under
Labour have contributed to the low standing with which we regard our MPs. At
the same time the traditional deference for establishment institutions such
as the monarchy and the church has also declined. All these factors make it
particularly difficult for Labour to rebut allegations of impropriety.

Mr Blair has already played his best card when he wriggled out of the
Ecclestone tobacco- ban affair by appearing on television to protest his
innocence. "Trust me," he effectively said, "I'm a politician."
Unfortunately, for Mr Blair this line does not bear repetition, particularly
in the wake of the Mittal affair and Cheriegate.

Hence the strategy of dragging in other authorities to vouch for the
government. At question time yesterday Mr Blair pulled out a letter from the
German government to rebut allegations that the German foreign minister had
criticised his stance on WMDs.

The Prime Minister also cited the word of the chairman of the Joint
Intelligence Committee as proof that the government had not massaged the
dossier.

The hope is that by successfully demolishing a few false accusations, the
public can be persuaded the government has not lied about others. But this
is a far cry from total rehabilitation for a disgraced profession.