BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Blair wanted to quit before Iraq war

Sunday, July 8th, 2007

TONY BLAIR wanted to quit as prime minister a year before the Iraq war, according to Alastair Campbell, his former communications director.

He told Campbell that he was not going to seek a third term of office and wanted to be free to act without worrying what the Labour party or public thought of him for the remainder of his second term.

Campbell reveals the former prime minister’s plans in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times today on the eve of publication of his long awaited diaries, The Blair Years.

His revelations, from the man who was at Blair’s side for a decade and dubbed the real deputy prime minister, are the first to come from a figure at the centre of power in Downing Street.

In the summer of 2002, a year after winning his second general election and nine months before the start of the Iraq war, Blair decided to tell the Labour party conference in the autumn that he would not fight a third election.

He told Campbell: “Two terms is all you get in the modern world.”

Blair asked his inner circle – Campbell, his political adviser Sally Morgan, and his chief of staff Jonathan Powell – whether the announcement would liberate him to pursue sometimes unpopular reforms without focusing on the next election.

“I wasn’t totally opposed, but I advised him that it would make him a lame duck,” says Campbell.

There had been mounting tension over the potential military action in Iraq and there have been claims that Blair and President George W Bush had already decided in principle to invade Iraq, although this has always been denied by Downing Street.

Blair was also under pressure over a variety of issues, some of them personal, but others included wrangles over tuition fees and hospital reforms.

“We had been going through a lot of crap,” says Campbell.

As the diaries record, Blair’s departure plan was shelved under pressure of events.

But the motive remained – “What you get as the book goes on is Tony caring less about what people say about him,” Campbell says.

Campbell also reveals that Princess Diana held secret dinners with Blair and his inner circle – including one at an “ordinary house” in east London – in the mid1990s when he was leader of the opposition and inventing new Labour. “It was just extraordinary to see her in this ordinary house. We had an amazing dinner. She made me a cup of tea,” Campbell says.

The princess had earlier met Blair at an “Establishment” dinner party in Belgravia, where she had made a beeline for Campbell when he arrived at the end of the meal.

“I rang the bell and told them Mr Blair’s car was there. And the next thing is she’s there, at the car. I’ve ribbed Tony about this ever since, because she basically said she’d really like to meet Alastair Campbell.

“We’re standing there, in the middle of the road with cars whizzing by . . . And she said, ‘Wouldn’t it be hilarious if there were a photographer around now?’ She was so gorgeous.

“She said, ‘I mustn’t hold you back any longer,’ and there was I wanting to be held back for a very long time.”

A few weeks later Diana accepted an invitation to the modest Hackney home of Mag-gie Rae, a Labour activist and friend of the Blairs. This time Campbell was a guest with his boss at the relaxed and informal dinner.

“I think she really felt she was part of the whole new Britain. I think she thought Tony would support her causes, Aids and child poverty. We talked to her about how she was seen and how she handled the media . . . She’d talk about pictures all the time. She said to me, ‘They can take a lot away from you, but they can’t take away your pictures.’ She said, ‘You can really touch people in pictures.’

“I think she was interested in Tony and what we wanted to do.

He described her as very political, not in the party sense but instinctively.

“At the dinner she would physically withdraw from the conversation if she thought it was getting too political. I honestly don’t know what would have happened if she’d lived. And whether she would have had a role.”

A source close to Campbell said yesterday that Blair thought Diana could do “a brilliant job as a kind of ambassador abroad for his vision of a modernised Britain. The princess was intrigued by the idea. She liked the image of the country Blair wanted to project and thought she could make a contribution. She was very excited about it”.

The sources said Blair and Diana continued to meet secretly until her death in August 1997, three months after new Labour

came to power. In his diary Campbell denies that he put the words “the people’s princess” into Blair’s eulogy for her. The former prime minister came up with it himself, he says.

Similarly the phrase “bog-standard comprehensive”, for which Campbell was widely criticised by Labour traditionalists, was coined by Blair, he says.

The former Downing Street communications chief talks about the ideological gulf between himself and Blair. They fell out over the decision to send Blair’s sons to a selective school. Blair said he was not going to do “the wrong thing for my kids for the sake of political correctness”.

On another occasion Blair told him: “I’m not as Labour as you.” Campbell comments: “He truly wasn’t.”

The Iraq war overshadows the diaries. Campbell says he warned Blair about its likely political repercussions. “I had doubts about the impact of military action on Tony’s future. I said to him, ‘Look, if, when all this is done, you are history before your time, is it really worth it?’ And he said, ‘It’s always worth doing what you think is right. America has been attacked. It’s important they don’t think they’re going to stand up to this on their own.’

“He knew from the word go that there would be some who would want to portray him as Bush’s poodle. He was just prepared to live with that.”

He says Bush joked about his relationship with Blair when they visited Wash-ington in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on America. “After the first meeting before we flew home, Bush said to me, ‘There you go – you’ll be able to paint a picture of how Tony flew in and pulled the crazed unilateralist back from the brink’.”

As for Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, Blair was sympathetic during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. “He said every leader’s got to be able to let go a bit, and Bill – that was his way of letting go of it.”

Clinton was equally supportive of Blair, giving Campbell a pep talk. “I was a bit down on Tony at the time – I was pissed off with everything probably – Bill said I should mix very frank advice with an understanding that we’re all human in the end. He was saying don’t beat up on him.”

Clinton also asked Campbell to consider whether he was “hurting” Blair through his antagonistic relationship with the British news media, which Campbell says he now regrets.

There was less empathy in Blair’s relationship with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. A lunch in Moscow became particularly heated.

“There were tough exchanges. It was at the time of Iraq. Putin felt that Britain was constantly taking the American side on different issues. There was a point at which he was talking to Tony in a very personal, emotional way, and I noted that it reminded me of Fiona [Millar, his girlfriend] when she was having a go at me.”

Boris Yeltsin, Putin’s predecessor, was sober when he first met Blair, but “there were other times when he might have had a few. There was a phone call when Tony had no idea what he was saying at all”.

Campbell writes at length about the row with the BBC in 2003 over claims that the government’s dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction [WMD] had been “sexed up”, which led to the suicide of the former weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.

When Campbell heard Kelly had gone missing: “I felt absolutely sick. I felt like a juggernaut was coming my way. When they said a body had been found, I came home just before the press started arriving and I wanted to quit there and then. I knew what was coming. Then Tony phoned me . . . and I said, ‘Look Tony, I just want to go’.”

Campbell says Millar had long wanted him to leave, and his resignation had already been agreed with Blair before the WMD row. It was put on hold for three months, but he then left.

“Fiona didn’t want me to do the job in the first place. At times she felt I was off, gallivanting round the world, being feted as a political superstar. . . To me,I was working my arse off. I had to go, not just for the family, I had to go politically as well.”

Have Your Say: Blair wanted to quit before Iraq war
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

War Costs Soar by a Third; Total Could Top $1.4 Trillion

Sunday, July 8th, 2007

By Noah Shachtman

It’s not just the troops that are surging. War costs are up for American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan* – way up, more than a third higher than last year. In the first half of this fiscal year, the Defense Department’s “average monthly obligations for contracts and pay is running about $12 billion per month, well above the $8.7 billion in FY2006,” says a new report, obtained by DANGER ROOM, from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.

Additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017.

Meanwhile, Inside Defense reports that “top Pentagon budget and program officials have directed the military services to prepare spending proposals to finance Iraq and Afghanistan operations… through fiscal year 2009, which will span the last days of the Bush administration and the early months of the next administration.”

Have Your Say: War Costs Soar by a Third; Total Could Top $1.4 Trillion
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Moscow says it has MI6 spy ‘recruited by Litvinenko’

Sunday, July 8th, 2007

By Mark Franchetti

RUSSIAN officials announced yesterday that a criminal investigation had been opened into allegations by a former tax police officer that he was recruited as an informant by MI6 with the help of Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB agent who died of polonium poisoning in London last year.

Vyacheslav Zharko is said to have turned himself in to the FSB, the successor to the KGB, 10 days ago and confessed to having worked for British intelligence since 2002. He claims that he was introduced to MI6 officers by Litvinenko during a trip to London in that year.

Zharko said he met his British handlers regularly in Turkey, Finland and Cyprus and supplied them with analytical reports on Russia’s economy and politics. In return, he claims, he was paid about £60,000. He estimates that MI6 spent an additional £150,000 on expenses.

“I needed money so when Litvinenko told me that I could earn easy cash by collaborating with British intelligence I agreed,” Zharko, 36, told The Sunday Times in his first interview with a western newspaper. “I saw myself as a consultant. I began to worry after Litvinenko’s death because I feared I’d be sucked into something too dangerous. That’s when I turned myself in.”

The FSB, which has investigated Zharko, backs his claims but will not prosecute him for espionage, saying that he did not reveal any state secrets and had come forward voluntarily. His testimony comes a month after Andrei Lugovoi, a former KGB officer named by the Crown Prosecution Service as the prime suspect in the death of Litvinenko, accused MI6 of trying to recruit him.

Russia has refused to extradite Lugovoi, who met Litvinenko on the day he was poisoned, to face trial in Britain and the Kremlin has angrily rejected accusations that it was behind the murder. Like Zharko, Lugovoi, who has protested his innocence, claims British intelligence sought to recruit him with Litvinenko’s help.

The fallout over Litvinenko’s death, which also left dozens of people contaminated with polonium 210, together with the subsequent row over Lugovoi, has plunged relations between Britain and Russia to their lowest point since the end of the cold war.

The dispute has also provoked a propaganda battle between MI6 and the FSB, two former foes that, officially at least, are partners in the fight on terrorism. British investigators are believed to suspect that Litvinenko, a former FSB officer who fled to Britain and was granted asylum, and who became a fierce critic of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, was killed by his former employer.

The FSB rejects the claim and is now hitting back, using Zharko’s testimony to highlight allegations of secret MI6 operations in Russia. “For months we’ve been accused of killing Litvinenko,” said an FSB source.

“The Brits have been waging an information war against us and now we are responding in kind. We have gone public with Zharko’s story because it proves that Britain is actively spying against Russia and that Litvinenko was in cahoots with MI6.” Zharko claimed he had first met Litvinenko through Boris Berezovsky, the exiled Russian tycoon and opponent of Putin.

Berezovsky has been granted asylum in Britain. A former tax police officer in St Petersburg, Zharko had turned to Berezovsky for help in 2000 when an investigation he had led into a rival tycoon was threatened for political reasons. According to Zharko, Berezovsky — who at the time had fallen out with the tycoon under investigation — used his influence to keep the investigation open.

In 2002 Zharko left the tax police but stayed in touch with Berezovsky who by then had fled to Britain after falling out with Putin. It was during a trip to London five years ago that the billionaire, who according to Zharko knew him under the false name of Vladislav Petrov, put him in touch with Litvinenko. In turn, Litvinenko introduced Zharko to several British “friends”, who claimed to be business consultants but who later revealed themselves as MI6 officers and told him they were interested in recruiting him as an informant.

“They agreed to pay me €2,000 [£1,355] a month,” Zharko said. “I was told I shouldn’t travel to London any more because Berezovsky’s entourage was closely watched by Russian intelligence. I was supplied with a mobile phone I was to use to make contact with them, but only outside Russia.

“Litvinenko led them to believe that I’d worked in Russian intelligence so they thought I was a good catch.” According to Zharko, during his years of secret work for MI6 he had several meetings in the West with a total of four undercover British handlers. He talked fondly about one of the MI6 agents.

“We spent many nights drinking together and he once told me how he had photographed some secret documents in the toilets of a Moscow restaurant,” he said.

Zharko said that at first his British handlers had been interested in information on several Russian companies. Then they asked him to compile a series of analytical reports on the political situation in Ukraine in the run-up to the country’s Orange revolution and were also interested in information on any FSB operations against western non-governmental organisations working in Russia.

Zharko claims he supplied his case officers with information he compiled only from open sources. His final meeting with his handlers took place last November in Istanbul, a few days after Litvinenko’s death, he said. He last spoke to them on the phone in June.

It is not the first time the FSB has publicly claimed to have exposed an MI6 operation. Last year it leaked footage of four diplomats posted at the embassy, allegedly downloading secret data from a transmitter concealed in a fake rock left in a Moscow park.

Relations between the two countries have been steadily worsening since. For months members of a pro-Kremlin youth group harassed Sir Anthony Brenton, the British ambassador in Moscow, after he attended an opposition gathering. Last week Brenton issued an angry public denial after a Russian paper claimed that asylum could be bought in Britain.

“We are in the middle of an information battle,” said a British diplomat who was based in Moscow. “Relations were hard enough before the Litvinenko case. They’ve since taken a sharp turn for the worst. Expect more salvos to be fired.”

Have Your Say: Moscow says it has MI6 spy ‘recruited by Litvinenko’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Impeach Dick Cheney

Sunday, July 8th, 2007

Impeachcheney.org

That’s right, we said the “I” word. And you should be saying it too — to your family, your friends, your neighbors, your pets and the hearty 26% of Americans who somehow still believe the Bush/Cheney team more worthy of sitting in the Oval Office than an undisclosed location stripped of all authority to further damage the country we love.

You’ll want to say it even more after watching our video with the evidence for impeachment right there: http://impeachcheney.org/?utm_source=rgemail

Dick Cheney has been a malevolent force on the checks and balances of American government for over six years. He has subverted government processes to lead us into this tragedy in Iraq, and is now seeking to do the same with Iran. Two countries, mind you, he did business with while CEO of Halliburton.

We are at an important moment in American history. For if we don’t take action in light of the High Crimes and Misdemeanors committed by one Richard Cheney, we might as well throw the word away. Because there will never be a time when it is more justified.

Sign the petition: http://impeachcheney.org/petition.php?utm_source=rgemail

14 representatives already support H. Res 333, the articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney. Your signatures will be used to get other House members to to sign on. We are working with a substantial and growing coalition led by Democrats.com and AfterDowningStreet.org.

Let’s make this travesty a turning point in our history. Please join us in restoring democratic principles to our government by IMPEACHING DICK CHENEY.

Have Your Say: Impeach Dick Cheney
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Growing use of CCTV in classrooms

Sunday, July 8th, 2007

By Mick Meaney
RINF Alternative News

The Australian government seems to be involved in a game of catch up with Great Britain as they increase the level of surveillance on its citizens. Now over 50 schools in New South Wales have installed CCTV cameras in classrooms to monitor student and teachers.

Many schools have already been using the cameras in playgrounds but this new measure of classroom surveillance is provoking a worrying reaction from teachers, as many are now speaking out against the Big Brother style system.

Defending the system, a NSW Department of Education spokesman said: “Not all schools are suitable for CCTV cameras, due to the size and physical layout of the school.

“Where this and legal or privacy issues are raised, a school is recommended to use another effective security measure or a combination of measures. The footage from CCTV cameras is confidential and is released to the police to help with their investigations in the case of criminal activity impacting on the school,” he said.

However, Bob Lipscombe, senior vice-president of the NSW Teachers Federation said: “Teachers are concerned about its improper use and that it may be taken out of context.”

Where is this information kept and who has access to it? How long will it be stored for and has the system been fully tested for security? These questions have yet to be answered.

A report last week revealed at least 40,000 CCTV cameras are in operation in Melbourne and the number is growing as the Australian government has been inspired by the UK on how to monitor its citizens, with no regard for personal privacy.

Global surveillance is on the increase with the UK pioneering the Big Brother template. America is also upping the level of state sponsored surveillance, with Bermuda, China, Australia and Ireland quickly following behind.

Besides the obvious privacy issues, the technology being used is not up to par and is very insecure. With the advancement of Wi-Fi, a whole new set of problems arise opening the doors to hackers and give them the ability to spy on us and record our movements.

Other concerns with the surveillance society are; how this data can be used, where it is kept and the length of time is it stored for, who has access rights to the data and who makes the decision to what is acceptable behaviour?

As seen in the UK, the Data Protection Act was created to merely humour privacy advocates and does not work under real life conditions.

Have Your Say: Growing use of CCTV in classrooms
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 8th, 2007 at 10:46 pm and is filed under Political News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: