0
   

Bush and Blair had planned to invade Iraq from 9/20/01

 
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2004 04:02 pm
Blair lied too.
Quote:
Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war

· Decision came nine days after 9/11
· Ex-ambassador reveals discussion

David Rose
Sunday April 4, 2004
The Observer

President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.

According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner when Blair became the first foreign leader to visit America after 11 September, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy.

It was clear, Meyer says, 'that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions'. Elsewhere in his interview, Meyer says Blair always believed it was unlikely that Saddam would be removed from power or give up his weapons of mass destruction without a war.

Faced with this prospect of a further war, he adds, Blair 'said nothing to demur'.

Details of this extraordinary conversation will be published this week in a 25,000-word article on the path to war with Iraq in the May issue of the American magazine Vanity Fair. It provides new corroboration of the claims made last month in a book by Bush's former counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, that Bush was 'obsessed' with Iraq as his principal target after 9/11.

But the implications for Blair may be still more explosive. The discussion implies that, even before the bombing of Afghanistan, Blair already knew that the US intended to attack Saddam next, although he continued to insist in public that 'no decisions had been taken' until almost the moment that the invasion began in March 2003. His critics are likely to seize on the report of the two leaders' exchange and demand to know when Blair resolved to provide the backing that Bush sought.

The Vanity Fair article will provide further ammunition in the shape of extracts from the private, contemporaneous diary kept by the former International Development Secretary, Clare Short, throughout the months leading up to the war. This reveals how, during the summer of 2002, when Blair and his closest advisers were mounting an intense diplomatic campaign to persuade Bush to agree to seek United Nations support over Iraq, and promising British support for military action in return, Blair apparently concealed his actions from his Cabinet.

For example, on 26 July Short wrote that she had raised her 'simmering worry about Iraq' in a meeting with Blair, asking him for a debate on Iraq in the next Cabinet meeting - the last before the summer recess. However, the diary went on, Blair replied that this was unnecessary because 'it would get hyped ... He said nothing [was] decided, and wouldn't be over summer.'

In fact, that week Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, was in Washington, meeting both Bush and his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, in order to press Blair's terms for military support, and Blair himself had written a personal memorandum to the President in which he set them out. Vanity Fair quotes a senior American official from Vice-President Dick Cheney's office who says he read the transcript of a telephone call between Blair and Bush a few days later.

'The way it read was that, come what may, Saddam was going to go; they said they were going forward, they were going to take out the regime, and they were doing the right thing. Blair did not need any convincing. There was no, "Come on, Tony, we've got to get you on board". I remember reading it and then thinking, "OK, now I know what we're going to be doing for the next year".'

Before the call, this official says, he had the impression that the probability of invasion was high, but still below 100 per cent. Afterwards, he says, 'it was a done deal'.

As late as 9 September, Short's diary records, when Blair went to a summit with Bush and Cheney at Camp David in order to discuss final details, 'T[ony] B[lair] gave me assurances when I asked for Iraq to be discussed at Cabinet that no decision [had been] made and [was] not imminent.' Later that day she learnt from the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, that Blair had asked to make 20,000 British troops available in the Gulf. She still believed her Prime Minister's assurances, but wrote that, if had she not done so, she would 'almost certainly' have resigned from the Government. At that juncture her resignation would have dealt Blair a very damaging blow.

But if Blair was misleading his own Government and party, he appears to have done the same thing to Bush and Cheney. At the Camp David meeting, Cheney was still resisting taking the case against Saddam and his alleged weapons of mass destruction to the UN.

According to both Meyer and the senior Cheney official, Blair helped win his argument by saying that he could be toppled from power at the Labour Party conference later that month if Bush did not take his advice. The party constitution makes clear that this would have been impossible and senior party figures agree that, at that juncture, it was not a politically realistic statement.

Short's diary shows in the final run-up to war Blair persuaded her not to resign and repeatedly stated that Bush had promised it would be the UN, not the American-led occupying coalition, which would supervise the reconstruction of Iraq. This, she writes, was the clinching factor in her decision to stay in the Government - with devastating consequences for her own political reputation.

Vanity Fair also discloses that on 13 January, at a lunch around the mahogany table in Rice's White House office, President Chirac's top adviser, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, and his Washington ambassador, Jean-David Levitte, made the US an offer it should have accepted. In the hope of avoiding an open breach between the two countries, they said that, if America was determined to go to war, it should not seek a second resolution, that the previous autumn's Resolution 1441 arguably provided sufficient legal cover, and that France would keep quiet if the administration went ahead.

But Bush had already promised Blair he would seek a second resolution and Blair feared he might lose Parliament's support without it. Meanwhile, the Foreign Office legal department was telling him that without a second resolution war would be illegal, a view that Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, seemed to share at that stage. When the White House sought Blair's opinion on the French overture, he balked.

A Downing Street spokesman said last night: 'Iraq had been a foreign policy priority for a long time and was discussed at most meetings between the two leaders. Our position was always clear: that we would try to work through the UN, and a decision on military action was not taken until other options were exhausted in March last year.'
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 630 • Replies: 1
No top replies

 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2004 04:03 pm
More lies from Tony "Bliar?"
Quote:
Blair faces fresh WMD questions
Tony Blair has said that the information was genuine
Tony Blair should make a statement to parliament on the case for war in Iraq after Colin Powell said some evidence may have been wrong, an MP says.

The US Secretary of State has said a claim to the United Nations that Iraq had mobile laboratories may not have been based on "solid" intelligence.

Labour MP Doug Henderson has said that American people have been misled and it appears that UK citizens have as well.

Mr Powell said the labs could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The claim was made at a meeting of the United Nations Security Council in February 2003.

It did not persuade a majority of the council's members to back the US case for war but it did influence American public opinion.

Dreadful error

The US Secretary of State said he would be taking up the issue with the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr Powell's admission has prompted some UK critics of the war to wonder whether similar claims made by the prime minister and the government in the run up to war came from the same source.


The cat is out of the bag, now we have every reason to believe that the information does not stand up
Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrats

Mr Henderson, a former defence and Foreign Office Minister, has said that the record had to be put straight on faulty intelligence.

"Those who are responsible should apologise to those who have lost loved ones because of this dreadful error of judgment and a statement should be made to Parliament," he said.

The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said the admission was further evidence of the intelligence case for war "unravelling".

"The cat is out of the bag. The certainty with which Colin Powell lectured the Security Council of the United Nations was overwhelming.

"Now we have every reason to believe that the information upon which he was relying does not stand up," Mr Campbell said.

Butler Inquiry

In the UK a parliamentary inquiry has been probing intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but last month the Conservative Party withdrew its support from the committee which is being led by Lord Butler.

Tony Blair called the inquiry following mounting pressure caused by the failure to find WMD stockpiles and the US decision to hold a similar investigation.

The Butler Inquiry has been set up to investigate intelligence

More controversially was the admission by the former US chief weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, who said he does not know whether Iraq ever had a mobile weapons programme.

Foreign Office minister Mike O'Brien has insisted that all intelligence issues come under the remit of the Butler Inquiry.

"That has got the objective of looking at the intelligence received behind the issue of the WMD allegations in relation to Iraq. So that is now being investigated.

"When Lord Butler reports we will know more about the way in which that intelligence was collected," he said.

In September 2002 the UK government's dossier on Iraqi WMD said that the Saddam Hussein regime had developed mobile laboratories for military use, which supported previous reports about the mobile production of biological warfare agents.

"These would help Iraq conceal and protect biological agent production from military attack or UN inspection," it said.

Last January Tony Blair said he had no doubt in his mind that the intelligence was genuine.

He said: "It is absurd to say in respect of any intelligence that it is infallible, but if you ask me what I believe, I believe the intelligence was correct, and I think in the end we will have an explanation."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush and Blair had planned to invade Iraq from 9/20/01
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/15/2024 at 04:50:27