Further evidence that Blair lied to force the Iraq war

[Banquo's Ghost]

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: 

Transcript of the actual statement as source.

[Louis VI the Fat]

'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?

[macsen rufus]

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.

[KukriKhan]

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"?

[Major Robert Dump]

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!!!!!!

[BDC]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

This view, which I have heard a lot from my British friends, strikes me as quite a cop-out.

What exactly do you all imagine would have happened to the UK as a result of Blair not supporting Bush?

The French got called some mean names, but that's all that happened to them. Everyone else who opposed the imperium merely got ignored, until it became time to ask them nicely to help out with the fiasco.

PM Blair appeared to think he might gain some influence at the big table by kow-towing, but events have proven him to have been misled. The UK would in fact have far more influence over the US (though still minimal - the Special Relationship is only special when it suits the US president) by not being taken for granted.

Funnily enough, the UK would have a far more powerful global influence by engaging in the EU. Many countries look to the UK for leadership there, and as a link to the States. If Blair had not bent over on every occasion reagrding Middle East policy, his current tour - as an envoy of the more balanced EU approach - might actually be statesmanlike, instead of the farewell comedy tour they are all treating it as.

Just because the UK doesn't have an empire any more, doesn't mean it can't be an important player. It has a Security Council seat, and used to have a capital of good will amongst countries with a shared history. It would immediately be a big player in the EU if it just calmed down.

Britain's future is as a powerful leader and influence within the EU, not as the 51st state. The Commonwealth is another developing political power that could be moulded and led by the UK. I imagine even President Bush in his more reflective moments would want that scenario, as poodles he can get anywhere, but influence with Europe and the developing world is scarce.

Not only that, a recalcitrant Britain might just have stopped him going to war, and his legacy would have been quite a bit different. I wonder if he ever wishes that Tony Blair ate cheese?

[Mooks]

Iv never heard one good thing about Blair.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The part that galls me is the failure of all players to be ready for the aftermath.

Maybe they felt the WMD thing was the needed motivation and kept blinders on (lied?) to keep that bogeyman in play. It now appears that few of the real decision makers could have been of the belief that an immediate threat existed --- even with the incomplete information that was reaching the ultimate desks.

So, if they felt the policy was so important that they would even lie to have it come about, how in heavens name could they also believe that Saddam would be swept aside and we'd be welcomed like the Allies returning to France in '44?!!!??!??!!! I mean, lying for public consumption is bad enough, but sometimes a leader does what they think is in their people's best interests -- and maybe not what they want -- but lying to yourself and then falling for it is exceedingly stupid.

If you were convinced it was the right move, then do it with overwhelming force and build that force for a worst-case scenario. It's easier to pull back from an easier task than to recoup a difficult one. Grrrrrrr.

[InsaneApache]

I know I may have said this before about Blair, but the man just does not know the difference between the party and government. He thinks that they are both one and the same.

Now for a deluded man like that to make such an elemental error, then it is no surprise that he believes that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Even when he gets caught out, he is still right and they (his opponents) are still wrong.

He was an accomplice in starting an illegal war. But he was right to do so. He lied to the UK electorate about the reasons for starting the war. But he was right to do so. He sent troops into a combat zone without the correct equipment and logistics. But he was right to do so.

It is my opinion that this bonehead sociopath should stand before the Hague and answer some serious charges. He wont though. Because he was right to do so.