has blair caved?? rumsfield took back his remarks

[rainstorm]

but the fact is we have waited so long that the political pressure on blair is now enormous. today on fox it was announced that blair is now willing to compromise with france. now he wants saddam to announce on national irqi tv that he no longer desires wmd's. i almost fell over laughing at this. isnt the point of the endless resolutions that saddam cant be trusted. i feel bad for blair. if this had been taken care of 6 mos ago he would now be a hero in britain.

"By Charles Aldinger

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday left open the possibility the United States might invade Iraq without the help of British forces, then quickly backtracked to quell the firestorm his remarks touched off.

Pressed by reporters at a news briefing on whether Washington might go ahead without British military help because of rising political pressure on Prime Minister Tony Blair, Rumsfeld said it would be a decision for President Bush to make.

"I think until we know what the (U.N.) resolution is, we won't know the answer as to what their role will be," Rumsfeld said.

"And to the extent they are able to participate -- in the event that the president decides to use force -- that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they're not, there are work-arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase..."

"That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume," he said in comments that one U.S. defense official said later caused "a firestorm" of reaction from British officials.

And, four hours later, Rumsfeld issued a terse two-paragraph written statement expressing confidence that the forces of America's most prominent ally would be side-by-side with U.S. troops should an attack take place.

"In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom," he said.

'NO DOUBT OF FULL SUPPORT'

"I have no doubt of the full support of the United Kingdom for the international community's efforts to disarm Iraq. In my press briefing today, I was simply pointing out that obtaining a second United Nations Security Council Resolution is important to the United Kingdom and that we are working to achieve it."

In London, a spokeswoman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office shrugged off the original remarks and said there had been several phone calls with Rumsfeld's staff, but could not say when.

"Nothing has changed. We are working to get a second resolution. We are not yet at the stage of military action. Throughout there has been complete cooperation between the UK and the U.S. on military planning," she told Reuters.

The United States and Britain have more than 250,000 troops gathered in the Gulf region around Iraq, but British Prime Minister Tony Blair has come under mounting anti-war pressure at home.

A U.S decision to go it alone would be slap in the face for the beleaguered Blair who has gone out on a limb and sparked a revolt in his own Labour Party to support Bush in his hawkish stance on Iraq.

Rumsfeld was asked at the Pentagon briefing by reporters whether the United States, with about 225,000 of its troops already in the Gulf region and thousands more on the way, might go ahead without Britain or whether Britain might scale back its participation.

"This is a matter that most of the senior officials in the government discuss with the UK on a daily or every other day basis," said the secretary, adding that he had spoken with British Defense Minister Geoff Hoon by telephone "about an hour ago."

WILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE?

Britain has recently appeared to show more willingness at the United Nations to compromise on a controversial new resolution which might authorize war against Baghdad.

Rumsfeld seemed to suggest that it stemmed from political pressure. "Their situation is distinctive to their country and they have a government that deals with a parliament in their way, distinctive way," he told reporters.

"And what will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role, that is to say their role in the event a decision is made to use force. There is the second issue of their role in a post-Saddam Hussein reconstruction process, or stabilization process, which would be a different matter."

Britain has committed about 42,000 military personnel, including ground troops, to the potential war effort but only about 25,000 are in the Gulf region so far"

[Stephanie]

Actually, I find it very interesting that all of this last minute diplomacy is taking place. It didn't seem like the protests had that much effect and we were going through with the war one way or another. Diplomacy be damned and the same with the UN and the rest of the other countries. Something must be occuring in the wings that we don't fully know about for this to be happening.

[mf_dolphin]

I think what we're seeing is just the push to get a majority for the Security Council vote. France and clan will still veto it but it makes the perception different in many peoples eyes.

[rainstorm]

Actually, I find it very interesting that all of this last minute diplomacy is taking place. It didn't seem like the protests had that much effect and we were going through with the war one way or another. Diplomacy be damned and the same with the UN and the rest of the other countries. Something must be occuring in the wings that we don't fully know about for this to be happening.

blair may no longer be in office

[rainstorm]

comply with. prediction: saddam will do just enough to cause further delays. when will this joke end?

[Stephanie]

I think what we're seeing is just the push to get a majority for the Security Council vote. France and clan will still veto it but it makes the perception different in many peoples eyes.

Good point, but still what about we'll go it alone if we have to? Perhaps it's because of something that's happening in Britain with Blair.

[JQ Public]

Once france votes infavor of the war then Canada would be a shoe-in