Thread: War inquiry

Well no surprises to this statement below B,Liar .


Wednesday, January 19, 2011



Britain's top civil servant is refusing to allow the official inquiry into the invasion of Iraq to publish notes sent by Tony Blair to George Bush – evidence described by the inquiry as essential in establishing the circumstances that led to war.

The abinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, has denied repeated requests for the notes to be declassified. In sharp exchanges with O'Donnell, Inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot – who has seen the notes – described them as "central to its work".

He added: "The material requested provides important, and often unique, insights into Mr Blair's thinking and the commitments he made to President Bush, which are not reflected in other papers."

O'Donnell refuses to release the papers on the grounds that disclosure would damage Britain's relations with the US as well as future communications between a British Prime Minister and a US President.

Earlier this month, in a third letter to O'Donnell, Chilcot wrote: "The question [of] when and how the Prime Minister made commitments to the US about the UK's involvement in military action in Iraq and subsequent decisions on the UK's continuing involvement, is central to its considerations."

He referred to passages in memoirs including Blair's autobiography and disclosures by Jonathan Powell, the then Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, and Alastair Campbell, his former Head of Communications.

Those publications, and the refusal to disclose Blair's notes, Chilcot noted in a stinging passage, "leads to the position that individuals may disclose privileged information (without sanction) whilst a committee of privy counsellors established by a former Prime Minister to review the issues, cannot".

The standoff between Chilcot, a former senior civil servant, and the Cabinet Secretary comes as the Inquiry prepares to question Blair in person.

It has summoned the former Prime Minister back to press him about what he promised Bush in private, and why he ignored advice by his government's chief law officer, Lord Goldsmith.

One document, previously leaked, notes that Blair told Bush at a meeting in Washington on 31 January 2003 – less than two months before the invasion – that "he was solidly with the president".

This was after Bush told Blair that military action would be taken with or without a new UN resolution, and that bombing would start in mid-March.

The invasion was not illegal-

UNSCR 687 was a ceasefire not a peace. When Iraq violated the ceasefire hostilities resumed. The US had previously to 2003 taken action to enforce the ceasefire agreement- No fly zones, Desert Fox etc. Without the international community challenging its right to act in according with UNSC 678.

How much time inspectors were allowed- 1991-2003, a few extra months after more than a decade of defiance would not have resolved the outstanding issues. Nor could there be any reasonable hope that Iraq would fully comply. However postponing the invasion from march to June for example would have subjected coalition forces who fully expected to be fighting in an NBC environment and were thus wearing either rubber or charcoal filled suits to the deadly effects of heat stroke and allowed Iraq more time to prepare its defenses.

Hans Blix state that Iraq was not in full compliance.

The war was not just about WMD's, but also about Iraq's continued state support of terror and genocide.

WMD's were found in Iraq, IIRC some 1500 tons worth of weapons, material and equipment including stuff not reported by Iraq and stuff they claimed was lost or destroyed.

I think one thing we have to keep in mind, is that most countries in the word are developing/third-world countries (and they all have votes). If the United States invades Iraq with the "legitimacy" of the UN and blessing of the international community, it is a "slippery-slope" for military intervention of other international actors/coalitions in their own affairs.

Why would such a nation condone something, if you could be next having given it "legitimacy"?

As one from a third world country, notwithstanding the hype of my country being an 'emerged power' which it is not by a long chalk, I think Ironduke has a point.

It does make one uncomfortable.

If I may add, is the UN or the Secretary General, not subject to pressure to just obey and be done with it?

The UN intervention in Korea would not have happened if the USSR was not missing.

Rwanda did not warrant attention because it was not in anyway politically, economically or strategically important.

Bliars latest statement .




Tony Blair has revealed he disregarded his top legal adviser's warning that attacking Iraq would be illegal without further UN backing because the guidance was "provisional".

The former Prime Minister made the revelation in a statement ahead of his second appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry into the March 2003 invasion.

He was questioned by inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot and his panel about possible gaps and inconsistencies in Mr Blair's justification for the war.

The-then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith told him on January 14 2003 that UN Resolution 1441 was not enough on its own to justify the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

But the next day Mr Blair told the Commons it was necessary to be able to say that Britain would still act if an unreasonable veto at the UN was put down.

Mr Blair has now said: "I had not yet got to the stage of a formal request for advice and neither had he got to the point of formally giving it.

"So I was continuing to hold to the position that another resolution was not necessary."

The peer revealed he was "uncomfortable" about Mr Blair's public comments that Britain could attack Iraq without further UN support.

Mr Blair said he believed Lord Goldsmith would come around to his interpretation of the legal position once he knew the full history of the negotiations behind Resolution 1441.

And in March 2003 before the invasion, Lord Goldsmith presented him with formal legal advice that a "reasonable case" could be made for launching an attack without extra UN backing.

Meanwhile, Mr Blair privately assured US President George Bush "you can count on us" in the run-up to the war.

The view was in a private note that will remain secret but Mr Blair summed up its contents and that of other statements to Mr Bush.

He said he had told Mr Bush: "You can count on us, we are going to be with you in tackling this, but here are the difficulties."

The inquiry released a newly declassified document from March 2002 in which Mr Blair said the UK should be "gung ho" about the prospect of getting rid of the Iraqi dictator.

In his evidence to the inquiry, Mr Blair said he made clear that he would always stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the Americans.

But he also claimed he succeeded in persuading the US leader to go down the "UN route" first.

The former Premier said regime change in Baghdad had always been "on the agenda" for the Americans after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

He said the US/UK were trying to get a second UN resolution, and Chile and Mexico wanted to support them but France was threatening a veto.

He claimed the French were clear they would veto any resolution that included an ultimatum, and the US/French relationship had become "very scratchy".

Mr Blair said France believed Saddam was complying in part with weapons inspectors. The US was arguing he was not fully complying. Mr Blair claimed without full compliance, action must follow.

The ex-PM argued that if US/UK had backed off from Iraq in March 2003, it was at least possible that Saddam would still be there now with WMD.