Powell on pre-war intelligence information

[reprise]

There have been a number of reports in Australian newspapers over the past few days indicating that Australia's intelligence agencies queried the accuracy of information supplied to it regarding Iraq's WMD prior to the commitment to war in Iraq (and also several reports that Britain's intelligence agencies did the same).

Today, I came across this report which suggests that Colin Powell himself might have had reservations about some of the intelligence information being supplied to the Bush administration regarding WMD in Iraq. I know absolutely nothing about U.S. News in terms of where it fits in the American media spectrum and how reliable a source of information it might be, so I thought I'd ask our US members to comment.

I'm really hoping we can avoid turning this into an anti-US pissing match and focus on the issues related to governments ignoring the misgivings of their own intelligence agencies or senior advisors when it's politically expedient to do so.

For the Brits - how much will it damage Blair's chances of re-election if it's proven that UK intelligence agencies advised him to treat US intelligence reports with caution? IIRC, he was very vocal about having "seen the evidence" and being convinced that it demonstrated a clear and present danger existed in Iraq which justified military action. Our own PM made similar statements, although somewhat less often and with less passion than Blair.

 

[Jon_in_london]

For the Brits - how much will it damage Blair's chances of re-election if it's proven that UK intelligence agencies advised him to treat US intelligence reports with caution? IIRC, he was very vocal about having "seen the evidence" and being convinced that it demonstrated a clear and present danger existed in Iraq which justified military action. Our own PM made similar statements, although somewhat less often and with less passion than Blair.

Well, I think this has done and will continue to do huge damage to Blair. Before the war, few people thought they could trust the man but perhaps grudgingly gave him the benefit of the doubt. However, this has irretreivably destroyed the public's trust in him.

There are also other problems with the public opinions of new labour- we are shouldering a massively increased tax-burden but see no concurrent rise in the quality of public services eg. Schools having to run 4 day weeks because £500million squids have 'disappeared', health service still the same as ever and Labour's transport policy is just a sick joke. But most of all, we are sick of spin-doctoring and being lied to.

As to his re-election: you have to look at the alternatives that we have. Or rather dont have because the Torys are completely useless and the Lib-Dems have a reputation as opportunists and have no proven track-record in being able to govern.

So will, Labour win the next election with Blair at the helm? I'd say 60-40 in favour. With Gordon Brown in charge, id say 90-10 in favour. Either way, I think we will porbably see a record low voter turnout.

 

[reprise]

Blair has quite a while before he has to go to an election, doesn't he?

BTW, is voting not compulsory in the UK?

 

[Lothian]

A BBC poll today had 18% thinkingTony was Trustworthy and 82% saying he wasn't. This is a low for him with the WMD issue being hot news. The next election is a bit off and by all accounts even now there are plans to leave it to the last minute in order to allow his popularity to rise.

Voting is not compulsory. Typically

70% vote in the general Election (National government) and

25% vote in the local elections (local government)

In the european elections I Understand Mr Albert Tubbs of Bromley, Kent was the UK's voter.

 

[Jon_in_london]

When is the next election btw?

 

[Tony]

How often does the PM come up for re-election?

 

[reprise]

Our PM is probably wishing he'd called an early election before the Governor-General debacle tarnished voters opinion of his judgement. While this will damage him further, we don't have a credible opposition at the moment, so the Liberals aren't in any real danger of losing the next election with or without him at the helm.

I'm somewhat surprised that voting isn't compulsory in the UK. Here it's compulsory in Federal and State elections and in my state it's also compulsory in local government elections whether or not you're a rate payer.

 

[Tony]

I'm somewhat surprised that voting isn't compulsory in the UK. Here it's compulsory in Federal and State elections and in my state it's also compulsory in local government elections whether or not you're a rate payer.

What happens if you dont vote? Will you be arrested?

 

[reprise]

IIRC, we could have gone to an election as early as May this year and we must have one by about mid-next year (we did have a referendum on making it a fixed term, but the voters wanted to keep it flexible).

Prime Ministers are not elected, parties are and the leader of the party then generally becomes the PM. It is - however - entirely possible for the PM to lose his seat at an election. It's possible that the Liberal party will vote for a new leader before the next election as there is a fear that people will vote against the Liberals if they believe John Howard is likely to resign soon after the election, leaving the voters feeling deceived.

In fact, leadership challenges are on the cards in both major parties.

There used to be a token fine here for not voting, however it has recently been increased substantially and is now around $375.

 

[Tony]

There used to be a token fine here for not voting, however it has recently been increased substantially and is now around $375.

What happens if you are out of the country when voting takes place?

 

[reprise]

What happens if you are out of the country when voting takes place?

I'm not sure whether voting is compulsory for those who are out of the country, but I know that when elections are close postal, pre-poll, and overseas votes become extremely important. I assume that those overseas either use a normal postal vote or there are special arrangements made at our embassies for them.

Edited to add the following from the Australian Electoral Commission website :

If you are living overseas and currently enrolled on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll you can vote in federal elections. You can do this by voting in person at an overseas polling or applying for a postal vote.

The list of overseas polling places will be available upon the announcement of an election.

Postal vote applications (PVA) are available from the AEC web site once an election has been announced. The PVA must be printed off from the web site, completed and then either faxed or posted to your nearest overseas polling place. Your ballot papers will then be sent to you.

Enrolment and voting by people outside Australia is not compulsory. However, if you are enrolled and you do not vote, or apply for a postal vote at a federal election, your electoral enrolment may be cancelled.

 

[BillyTK]

When is the next election btw?

Possibly 2005, but could be as late as 2006; Blair might stall the election to push through a referendum on the euro.

 

[reprise]

Possibly 2005, but could be as late as 2006; Blair might stall the election to push through a referendum on the euro.

So Blair has quite a lot of time to make up lost ground if he can hang on to the leadership. Is there any real chance that he'll be ousted from the leadership before the next election?

 

[Lothian]

When is the next election btw?

Elections must be held every 5 years. It can be sooner at the discretion of the ruling party.
The last election was 7 June 2001 so the next will be sooner that 7 June 2006

Originally posted by Tony
How often does the PM come up for re-election?

We don’t vote for prime ministers here. The public vote for Members of parliament in national elections. The party with the most seats then chose who they want to the prime minister within their elected members. (In practice the leaders of each party become P.M.) Each party has different rules on choosing and changing leader, but knives in the back is the most common. Leaders as well as prime ministers can change in the middle of parliaments.

e.g. General election 1987
Thatcher loses leadership 1990
General election 1992

 

[Jon_in_london]

So Blair has quite a lot of time to make up lost ground if he can hang on to the leadership. Is there any real chance that he'll be ousted from the leadership before the next election?

Its a possibility, at the moment Id say its not really a probability but Blair is facing increasing amounts of digruntlement from within his own party. Basically, he needed the Tories support to get the vote on the war and on a number of other issues as well. If he carries on with his Tory-Boy policies.... who knows....

I'd much prefer Brown for PM.

 

[BillyTK]

Today, I came across this report which suggests that Colin Powell himself might have had reservations about some of the intelligence information being supplied to the Bush administration regarding WMD in Iraq. I know absolutely nothing about U.S. News in terms of where it fits in the American media spectrum and how reliable a source of information it might be, so I thought I'd ask our US members to comment.

There was a front page article about it in Saturday's Guardian: Straw, Powell had serious doubts over their Iraqi weapons claims; but subsequently Jack Straw has denied such a meeting took place.

For the Brits - how much will it damage Blair's chances of re-election if it's proven that UK intelligence agencies advised him to treat US intelligence reports with caution? IIRC, he was very vocal about having "seen the evidence" and being convinced that it demonstrated a clear and present danger existed in Iraq which justified military action. Our own PM made similar statements, although somewhat less often and with less passion than Blair.

My suspicion is that he will spin it that the moral victory of ousting Saddam and liberating the Iraqi people mitigates misleading the people of the UK. I don't know if he'll go as far as Paul Wolfowitz's suggestion that: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason"
[Full interview transcript]

 

[BillyTK]

So Blair has quite a lot of time to make up lost ground if he can hang on to the leadership. Is there any real chance that he'll be ousted from the leadership before the next election?

Like Jon, I'd like to see Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown become prime minister, and there seems to be a huge conflict between Blair and Brown over joining the euro (a conflict so great they had to issue a joint statement denying it!).

Neither (the lack of) Iraqi WMDs or Blair's desire to join the euro will particularly harm his standing in the public eye, because he's kind of seen as the best of a bad bunch; however, if he did start losing out to Ian Duncan Smith (alleged leader of the Conservative Party) I suspect the knives would be out for him.

 

[Jon_in_london]

if he did start losing out to Ian Duncan Smith (alleged leader of the Conservative Party) I suspect the knives would be out for him.

He would have to try really very hard to lose to Ian Duhhhhhhhhh... what his name again?

 

[BillyTK]

He would have to try really very hard to lose to Ian Duhhhhhhhhh... what his name again?

William Hague?

I was hoping that tuition fees might be Blair's poll tax, but it ain't going to happen...

 

[JamesM]

Neither (the lack of) Iraqi WMDs or Blair's desire to join the euro will particularly harm his standing in the public eye

There has been some suggestion that if Blair was found to have misled the House over the case for war, he would have to resign. This seems unlikely to me, though - at the moment, anyway.