Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Further evidence that Blair lied to force the Iraq war

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    L'Etranger Senior Member Banquo's Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hunting the Snark, a long way from Tipperary...
    Posts
    5,604

    Default Further evidence that Blair lied to force the Iraq war

    Witness evidence given to the Butler Inquiry and kept suppressed by use of the Official Secrets Act has now been put out into the open by members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war
    By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith
    Published: 15 December 2006

    The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

    A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

    In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

    Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

    He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

    "At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

    He claims "inertia" in the Foreign Office and the "inattention of key ministers" combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war.

    Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict.

    The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act.

    It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.

    Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross.

    His hitherto secret evidence threatens to reopen the row over the legality of the conflict, under which Mr Blair has sought to draw a line as the internecine bloodshed in Iraq has worsened.

    Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment.

    "What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added.

    Mr Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.

    Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.

    "Mr Ross hasn't had any approach to tell him that he is still not liable to be prosecuted," said one ally. But he has told friends that he is "glad it is out in the open" and he told MPs it had been "on my conscience for years".

    One member of the Foreign Affairs committee said: "There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it's pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff."

    Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons who was Foreign Secretary during the war - Mr Ross's boss - announced the Commons will have a debate on the possible change of strategy heralded by the Iraqi Study Group report in the new year.


    Perhaps the most damning element is that through disinterest and laziness in the Foreign Office, the more effective use of properly policed sanctions was ignored and not really discussed, even as an option.

    If the UK had any sort of constitution the Prime Minister would be facing charges a bit more serious than selling gongs to his rich buddies.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    "If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
    Albert Camus "Noces"

  2. #2
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re : Further evidence that Blair lied to force the Iraq war

    'The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.'
    That is utterly damning for Blair.

    However, I would like to make a distinction between his justification and his reason for going to war. His justification consisted of this whole WMD nonsense.
    I believe however that his private reason for going to war was his near messianic calling to relieve Iraq from its brutal dictator. And, secondly, in a more strategic sense, complying with Britains life-insurance policy of joining the US blindly into war, always.
    As to the former, his messianic calling has clouded his judgement, for which Britain has paid a high price. But I refuse to condemn any sincere urge to oust Hussein and liberate the Iraqi's.
    As to the latter, well...it probably is a good life-insurance policy, isn't it?
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  3. #3
    Second-hand chariot salesman Senior Member macsen rufus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Ratae Corieltauvorum
    Posts
    2,481

    Default Re: Further evidence that Blair lied to force the Iraq war

    Britains life-insurance policy of joining the US blindly into war, always.
    Bit of a sweeping, and incorrect, over-generalization, don't you think?

    WW1 - Britain in first, America came in later
    WW2 - Ditto
    Vietnam - Britain?
    Suez - against US wishes (but with France, probably THE stupidest modern war we've ever engaged in )
    Falklands - no US involvement (allegedly...)

    which leaves us with Korea (1950s / 2010's?), Kosovo, Afghanistan and 2x Iraq.

    But back to the issue: I really don't believe that anyone in the UK other than Tony Blair and Sun/Daily Mail readers could have believed the WMD story (and I doubt Blair did). We had weapons inspectors over there telling us there were none, publically resigning because no-one would believe them, eventually being pulled just in time to prevent them getting definitive proof there were none left, thereby ruining the pre-invasion party atmosphere.

    It hardly takes FO officials to have worked out that removing Saddam would lead to chaos. Hadn't we just watched Yugoslavia fall apart a few years before without Tito? And Iraq as a nation has always been a fiction, much more so than Yugoslavia ever was.

    Yes, Saddam was a terrible ruler -- but replacing a bad rule with likely civil war is not a sufficient justification for an invasion. Two wrongs don't make a right. The whole "regime change" agenda was, and is, to my mind illegitimate, as it defies the very concept of sovereignty which our own nations depend upon. That Saddam was a long-term Western stooge who just went bad on us worsens rather than exonerates our guilt in invading. We should not have intervened in the 1960s, maybe we wouldn't then have "needed" to intervene in the 1990s. If we stop creating monsters, we can stop having to take them down.

    But was Blair lying or ignorant? Neither looks good. Personally, I'm verging more towards lying.
    ANCIENT: TW

    A mod for Medieval:TW (with VI)

    Discussion forum thread

    Download A Game of Thrones Mod v1.4

  4. #4
    Master of Few Words Senior Member KukriKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,415

    Default Re: Further evidence that Blair lied to force the Iraq war

    Yesterday, Jack Straw ...announced the Commons will have a debate on the possible change of strategy heralded by the Iraqi Study Group report in the new year.
    This surprises me, that a US group's report should spawn a Commons debate. Will such a discussion be able to reach back to 2002, and the arguments for and against invasion? Or will it more likely focus on "what next"?
    Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.

  5. #5
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

    Default Re: Further evidence that Blair lied to force the Iraq war

    there were only 30% of us against teh invasion, so we don't matter, we were called traitors and saddam sympathizers. Go eat crow now bitches. Jack Webb for president!!!!!!
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

  6. #6
    probably bored Member BDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    5,508

    Default Re: Further evidence that Blair lied to force the Iraq war

    Blair is a liar. Everyone knew that from day one.

    However, we probably did have to go along with the USA. Otherwise what do we have? No empire. A small army without proper transport. The EU? Hah.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO