Tony Blair is being increasingly cornered on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, reports Alistair Alexander from London "Worse than Watergate" was how one Labour MP last week described the potential scandal awaiting Tony Blair if no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq. Malcolm Savidge's claim would have been treated with derision only a few days earlier. But, nearly two months after the fall of Saddam, simmering anger over the lack of weapons of mass destruction has suddenly boiled over in Britain in a frenzy of revelations and recriminations. The current furore began last week when American Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld casually suggested that Saddam destroyed his weapons before military action began. With Tony Blair still claiming emphatically that "weapons would be found", the British media seized upon Rumsfeld's comments as a clear indication that the case Tony Blair made for military action was falling apart at the seams. Robin Cook, who resigned from the Cabinet over Iraq, wasted little time to jump on this development: "The more plausible explanation is that he did not have any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction." Indeed. To make matters worse, Rumsfeld's comments were swiftly followed by his deputy Paul Wolfowitz revealing to Vanity Fair that the issue of weapons of mass destruction was simply "settled on" by the US administration "for bureaucratic reasons". But it's the steady drip-feed of allegations from the British Intelligence services that are causing most of the damage for Blair. Still smarting at the political pressure brought to bear on them, intelligence officials (remaining anonymous -- naturally) are lining up to tell reporters how their information was "sexed up" -- as one source told the BBC -- by Downing Street to exaggerate the threat Iraq presented. One such report by Dan Plesch, a respected authority on security matters, alleged that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw met with Colin Powell, hours before Powell made his speech to the Security Council on 5 February this year. Both were reported to have serious concerns about the evidence. Straw denies the meeting took place. Or rather, he denies a meeting took place in the Waldorf hotel, as was originally reported. Plesch admits he may have been wrong about the location, but stands by the substance of the story. More serious still are persistent accusations over a claim in the government's first dossier released last September that Saddam could deploy non-conventional weapons systems in 45 minutes. The uncorroborated claim allegedly came from a defector linked to Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. Intelligence officials usually insist all information must come from two or more sources and its inclusion in the dossier was strenuously resisted. The 45-minute threat, not only made for dramatic headlines; it was a central component of the claim that Iraq presented an "imminent" threat -- crucial for keeping within the parameters of international law. Of course, questions surrounding weapons of mass destruction have dogged the government since September. In fact, virtually every single piece of evidence presented by the British government has been disputed. In January, for example, the documents alleged to show that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger were found to be amateur forgeries. And a second government dossier published this year, was found to be copied wholesale from an undergraduate thesis written 10 years ago. But by making ever more impassioned pleas to MPs and the public and by using all the authority his office bestowed on him, Blair either brushed these doubts aside or simply ploughed through the opposition. This time, however, the scrutiny is relentless and the pressure, rather than dying down, is increasing. Crucially, the pro-war papers have joined the more sceptical newspapers with revelations of their own -- surprising, considering those papers egged the prime minister on before war began and, until now, have glossed over the rather obvious gaps in the government's case. But hell, it would seem, hath no fury like a tabloid scorned. The issue of Iraq's weapons has been following Blair on his tour of Europe through last weekend -- first to Poland, then to Russia and finally to the G-8 summit in France. At every stop more questions greeted him on arrival. His initial response was to ignore the allegations. When new doubts were raised over his office's doctoring of intelligence findings, however, he came out fighting in a series of seemingly categorical counter-attacks. He has, after all, very little choice -- having dragged the country into war through the sheer strength of his convictions, he can hardly have second thoughts now. But on closer inspection, his denials appear very carefully qualified. For the press, such sophistry is an integral part of the New Labour package and has made the prime minister frustratingly hard to pin down. But when the accusations are flying so thick and so fast, even New Labour's awesome media management is unable to prevent some of the allegations getting through. Blair urged people to have "a little patience" and promised a new dossier on evidence so far assembled. But unless it reveals a nuclear missile in the Iraqi desert, primed and pointing at London, a further dossier would raise far more questions than answers. Besides, the "trust me, I'm Tony" routine is wearing pretty thin and "patience" is a commodity in ever shorter supply. Why, many people wonder, throw yet more good faith after bad? Clare Short, who resigned from the Cabinet over Iraq only two weeks ago, kept up the pressure over the weekend, by suggesting Blair had "duped" the public. She also claimed that Blair had privately set a date with George Bush for military action to begin, in September -- before Resolution 1441. In an airless press room and sweating profusely, Blair angrily dismissed the claim as "completely untrue". Effectively calling one of his former ministers a liar, is a serious charge. He knows he had better be right. Returning from his tour this week, Blair faces growing numbers of MPs demanding an independent inquiry; something he will desperately want to avoid, but it could now be inevitable. With admirable audacity, Blair called on his critics to produce evidence. Evidence, the critics unsurprisingly respond, is precisely what they are demanding from him. Labour rebels have been careful this time round to avoid calling for the prime minister to resign, focussing their fire instead on Alistair Campbell, Blair's all-powerful communications director. Campbell has clearly been the central figure in, not only presenting the government case, but in creating it -- way beyond the normal remit of an official spokesman. His role makes the government's blanket denial of any undue political interference implausible. The Conservatives, meanwhile, are also tempted to press for an inquiry, having previously backed Blair to the hilt on Iraq. The issue will certainly not go away, few doubt that further revelations will surface. But perhaps the person Blair should fear most is Robin Cook. The former foreign minister is playing his hand with perfection and his surgical attacks on the government's claims are hitting home. Never previously considered a leadership contender, many are beginning to reconsider Cook's chances. Incidentally, Cook made his name in parliament in the 1996 Arms to Iraq scandal, where he demolished the previous government's position with devastating precision. His attack severely damaged the government but failed to bring it down. Seven years later and now, with an "Arms in Iraq" scandal gathering momentum, this government will be lucky to escape Cook's glare so lightly.
