Threat to Blair as Democrats pledge inquiry on Iraq

It says a lot about how far Tony Blair has strayed from the traditionalist Labour party ground that the election victory of the Democrats in the US may come to be seen as something that he wishes had not happened.

Blair recently successfully saw off an attempt to hold a British enquiry into the Iraq war, stating - rather ridiculously - that to do so would endanger our troops.

However, with the Democratic victory comes the possibility of a proper inquiry into the actions of both the US and UK governments before the Iraq war and the reasoning that led to the invasion.

Democratic Senators are also expected to seek hearings aimed at throwing light on how Downing Street and the White House co-ordinated efforts to claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. All the claims that led to war, from allegations that Saddam was reconstituting a nuclear weapons programme to his alleged links with al-Qa'ida, could come under examination. Unlike their counterparts in Britain, congressional committees have the crucial power to subpoena witnesses and documents.

Mr Conyers's staff have long been investigating how false information was presented by the Bush administration to persuade the public of the "significant and growing" threat posed by Saddam. Their inquiries were partly triggered by the leaking of the Downing Street memos, which revealed the belief of the British government that Mr Bush had decided on war as early as the spring of 2002.

When Mr Conyers published his findings last year, he said: "We have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice-President and other high-ranking members of the Bush administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their administration."

Conyers wanted Bush to be censured for what he has done, but the incoming Democrats have vowed not to do that.

Personally, I think Bush should be impeached for what he has done, but I accept that my view is not one that is held by held by the newly victorious Democrats.

However, the Democratic victory is already producing the groundwork for major changes in both the US and UK policy towards Iraq with Bush yesterday hailing his new Secretary of Defence as, "an agent for change" and describing former CIA chief Robert Gates as an able manager who 'will provide a fresh outlook on our strategy in Iraq'.

There is every indication now that Bush is preparing to evacuate as soon as he possibly can.

Last week's elections showed that the US public has grown weary of the conflict. Ending the war as soon as possible has become an overriding political aim for Republicans with an eye on the White House race of 2008.

The replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates is seen as paving the way for wide-ranging change. He served on the group before being chosen to replace Donald Rumsfeld and is party to its new thinking. In previous public speeches, he has indicated he believes a strategy of phased withdrawals could see the US leave Iraq before the next presidential election.

Blair is expected to contribute by video link this Tuesday to the Iraq Study Group, a high-level Washington commission, chaired by former US secretary of state James Baker, which is trying to devise a new course for the war.

It is said that Blair plans to urge the US to push for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to defuse Middle East tensions. I agree with his sentiment, but wonder how seriously anyone will take the US and UK on this matter when John Bolton has just vetoed a UN resolution condemning Israel's recent shelling of Gaza which cost nineteen innocent Palestinians their lives. Britain abstained on this resolution, a further indication of how much we have become merely an international rubber stamp for American foreign policy.

There was a day when the Palestinians could have relied on the British Labour Party for support. Sadly, under Blair, whenever Israel commits any act worthy of international condemnation, the UK goes silent.

However, the Democratic hearings into the Iraq war are not the only danger Blair faces.

The foreign affairs committee is waiting to receive secret evidence about the run-up to war from Carne Ross, a former British diplomat. In an extraordinary session of the committee last week, Mr Ross, a close friend of Dr David Kelly, offered to make public evidence he gave in secret to the Butler inquiry.

The offer threatens to develop into a major embarrassment for the Government, since the FAC's Labour chairman, Mike Gapes, a Blair loyalist, urged him not to disclose his evidence.

Among those who gave evidence to Mr Conyers last year was Joe Wilson, a former US diplomat who proved Mr Bush was wrong to claim Iraq had tried to obtain uranium in Africa. The administration later admitted that the claim, which the President attributed to Britain, should never have been in his 2003 State of the Union address.

Mr Wilson said he was willing to testify, adding that he had been following the claims by Mr Ross in London. "The whole question of pre-war intelligence has not been resolved," he said.

The Democratic victory will assure that proper enquiries will be held into how we were misled into this disastrous conflict. Blair may be able to quash any proper enquiry here in the UK, but he will be unable to do anything about the enquiries ordered by his Democratic cousins across the water.

As I say, it's a strange position he finds himself in. A Democratic victory in the US is now a very dangerous thing for a British Prime Minister living in the pocket of a Republican US President.

tag: Iraq, mid-term, elections, Bush, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, strip, John Bolton, United Nations, "Stay the course", House of Commons, Iraq war study group, James A Baker, Blair