Verdict first, evidence nowhere
I have only just caught up with John Rentoul’s excellent ‘Iraq inquiry rebuttal’ blog, which I recommend as essential reading to help combat the hallucinatory distortions now taking place almost every day in the media reporting of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war. For me, it’s a case of déjà vu all over again. During the Hutton inquiry into the death of the WMD expert Dr David Kelly, I read, watched and listened in disbelief as the coverage of that inquiry systematically wrenched and distorted the evidence to fit the prior conclusion by the media that ‘Blair lied and people, including Dr Kelly, died as a result’.
The actual evidence didn’t lay a glove on Blair who was therefore always likely to be exonerated, as I observed in an article for the Spectator before its conclusions were published. People reacted to this article with astonishment. How ridiculous to say this, they scoffed, when the evidence had been conclusive that Blair was guilty as charged. Hutton was a wise, robust and independent- minded character who, on the basis of the media reports of the evidence, would undoubtedly find against Blair who would most likely be forced out of office as a result. When Hutton finally reported and all but totally exonerated Blair, this formerly wise, robust and independent-minded paragon was immediately denounced as an establishment stooge who had flown in the face of the evidence.
Now the same thing is happening again. Having forced the establishment of this inquiry, the anti-war mob are spitting tacks that it has not in fact been set up to find Blair guilty of ‘war crimes’ in Iraq or the crime of ‘talking us to war on a lie’. They have complained that it is not objective because two of its members had supported the war (and even, in one disgusting article, because they were Jews); it goes without saying, of course, that if these members had opposed the war they would be hailed as wise, robust and independent-minded. As far as the anti-war brigade from both left and right are concerned, it’s a case of verdict first, evidence nowhere.
And in the media coverage of the Chilcot inquiry, the evidence – much of it itself from bitterly hostile and anti-war diplomats -- is in turn accordingly being cherry-picked, distorted and misrepresented to an astounding degree to produce the running narrative libel that Blair led Britain into an illegal war on a lie. As I said, the Rentoul blog has a running commentary on a number of these distortions. But the ones I personally have been picking up on include these:
- The inquiry heard evidence that, because of the desire by the Bush administration to get rid of Saddam, Bush’s ‘poodle’ Blair committed himself to regime change in Iraq even though, in spring 2002, he knew it was illegal; he therefore led the UK into an illegal war.
Misleading and wrong. America had committed itself to regime change in Iraq in 1998 under President Clinton because Saddam was seen as such a threat to the west. Blair agreed with Clinton’s assessment and came to power therefore believing that Saddam was a threat who needed to be removed.
The legality of the eventual war in Iraq rested however on a series of UN resolutions, the last of which -- Resolution 1441 which reactivated the earlier ones – was not passed until November 2002. So the fact that regime change may have been deemed ‘illegal’ in the spring of 2002 is totally irrelevant. Indeed, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s former ambassador to the UN, told the inquiry that the war was legal – evidence downplayed by the media in favour of his remark that it was nevertheless not ‘legitimate’ because it did not enjoy the support of the public (itself a deeply arguable ex post facto point). The war was legal when it was waged in 2003. No witness to Chilcot has said that war in 2003 was illegal. That impression has been given solely by the malevolent media coverage. And if people are so exercised that the Iraq war was ‘illegal’, why aren’t there calls for an inquiry into the ‘illegal’ war in Kosovo which was undertaken with no basis in any UN resolutions at all?
As for Blair apparently supporting war/regime change before Resolution 1441 was passed, the implied suggestion that it should have been the other way round is ludicrous. There would have been no need for Resolution 1441 unless war was being proposed; the reason it was proposed was because of the perceived threat from Saddam and the exhaustion of 12 years of fruitless attempts to defang Saddam through negotiation.
- The inquiry heard evidence that Blair and Bush cooked up war in Iraq at a meeting at Bush’s ranch in Crawford Texas in April 2002.
Wrong. The inquiry was told that the British government’s view that it could not support regime change in Iraq had reversed by March 2002 – a month before the Crawford meeting – because 9/11 had changed everything. The UK could no longer oppose regime change because 9/11 had changed the calibration of the risk posed by a rogue Islamic state possessing WMD. As Sir Christopher Meyer told the Chilcot inquiry, by March 2002 the British government had independently of the US decided
that containment and sharper sanctions had run its course. It simply wasn't practical to pursue this at the UN... It was a fact that 9/11 had happened and it was a complete waste of time, therefore, in those circumstances, if we were going to be able to work with the Americans, to come to them and say any longer -- and bang away about regime change and say, "We can't support it", and the way I think the attempt was made to square the circle of supporting something to which the Foreign Office, and maybe other lawyers objected, was actually so to wrap it, so to contextualise it, that regime change, if and when it happened, would be with the benefit of the support of the international community in the framework of UN action, quite possibly through a Security Council Resolution.
In other words, 9/11 had caused the British government to abandon its opposition to regime change in Iraq. It was now on side with the Americans. The only reason it wanted to gain the endorsement of the UN was to defuse the hostility from the ‘Foreign Office and other lawyers’ -- ie, a tactical move to counter the voices of appeasement from within, whose interpretation of international law was always inseparable from a deeply questionable ideological stance and whose poisoned antagonism has been dripped into the ears of journalists throughout this entire period -- and which has now been exposed for all with eyes to see at the Chilcot inquiry.
- The inquiry heard evidence that Blair knew before the war that Saddam didn’t have WMD any more/couldn’t use them and therefore there was no case for war.
Wrong. And wrong again. The evidence did not say Saddam was shown not to have had WMD any more or couldn’t use them. What was said was that on the eve of war, intelligence revealed that some of Saddam’s chemical weapons had been dismantled and therefore could not be used instantaneously. But as was also said, that was irrelevant to the case for war; the crucial fact was that he still had the stuff, a fact which he had denied and which was in breach of the UN resolutions – the case for war. Indeed, as the Butler report revealed in March 2002, British intelligence officials advised that the risk from Saddam was that he could activate his WMD material within a few days:
‘Iraq continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, although our intelligence is poor... Iraq continues with its [biological warfare] BW and [chemical warfare] CW programmes and, if it has not already done so, could produce significant quantities of BW agents within days and CW agent within weeks of a decision to do so. We believe it could deliver CBW by a variety of means, including in ballistic missile warheads. There are also some indications of a continuing nuclear programme. Saddam has used WMD in the past and could do so again if his regime were threatened.’
Sir John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee at the time of the war and now head of MI6, gave evidence to Chilcot that such ‘dismantling’ or ‘dispersal’ – of which there was intelligence evidence at the time – is recognised as a way of concealing such material. Such dismantling therefore did not mean the WMD no longer existed. On the contrary, the dismantling meant it continued to exist and was being hidden. This is hardly rocket science; it falls into the category of the bleedin’ obvious, but is nevertheless ruthlessly ignored or denied by the anti-war, anti-truth and anti-reason mob -- who have simply and shockingly reversed the meaning of the evidence given to Chilcot.
Sir John said this:
Now, there was a paper, an assessment, on 9 September 2002, which reaffirmed and that was on Saddam’s options for using chemical and biological weapons. But it was in fact a separate judgment on capabilities which existed. I know that it has been described as a possibly a worst case scenario paper, but it wasn't intended to be that. That paper reaffirmed existing judgments on the ability, if so decided to produce agent the availability of a range of delivery systems and the development of missiles beyond the permitted limits. The change was in the judgment on current possession, which now became firm: "Iraq has currently available a number of CW and BW agents and weapons from pre-war stocks or recent production."
And the paper referred to recent intelligence on the production of weapons now taking place, the development of a mobile systems and then, importantly, on the regime and Saddam's intent: The great importance that he attached to the possession of chemical and biological weapons and his readiness to use them if necessary, including to defend the regime from attack: "He saw possession as a central feature of his regional power position and continuing ability to project influence." That intelligence on intent was significant -- taken to be significant. It was also noted that we did not know specific plans for CBW use in the event of conflict, the location of production facilities, the size of stocks
... "It was also noted that further intelligence might be forthcoming in the near future." And, indeed, further intelligence did come in in September, which reported on the acceleration on the production of chemical and biological agent. And that too was regarded as significant.
As for the very late intelligence which came in on the eve of war, Sir John said this:
Now, an update, an assessment staff update on 10 March noted the report, which in fact was issued on 7 March yes, intelligence, which was issued on 7 March actually it was, I think, two reports that it was essentially saying there were two versions of the same report, that Iraq had no missiles which could reach Israel and none which could carry germ or biological weapons. The leadership had ordered the dismantlement of the missiles known Al Hussein, 600kilometre range missiles, to avoid discovery and they thought that they could be quickly reassembled. The JIC had over many months throughout this period reported the assessed existence of these missiles, up to 20 was the expectation. But all along, it had been reported that they had been disassembled and concealed.
... Defence Intelligence Staff advised, and this was noted in the update, that depending on the method of disassembly used, it might be possible to reassemble in one or two days. But if it was very complex disassembly, then it would be longer. SIS advised that the reference to "germ and biological" might also refer to chemical, just from the context, although that was speculative. So that was what the 10 March reference was about. On 17 March, intelligence was received that chemical weapons had been disassembled and dispersed and would be difficult to reassemble. Saddam had not yet ordered reassembly nor, indeed, asked about chemical weapons. The reports were assessed in the context of the policy of dispersal and concealment. They were not understood to be an indication that chemical and biological weapons did not exist. Indeed, they didn't say that but, of course, it was clear from the reports that they might be difficult to find (my emphasis).
In any event – and this is absolutely crucial to the general madness now gripping Britain about the war in Iraq -- the idea that the case for war rested on the belief that Saddam possessed stocks of WMD is a rewriting of history. WMD was only part of the story; if people like the current Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth thought that was the key element, that merely shows just how dumb some MPs are. The case for war was set out by the speeches made at the time by both Bush and Blair. Their overwhelming emphasis was on Saddam’s refusal to obey the binding UN resolutions showing he had dismantled his WMD programmes and the need to enforce the authority of the UN; Saddam’s concomitant failure to prove that he had destroyed his stocks of WMD and renounced his intention to continue developing such weapons; and the unconscionable danger posed by the ‘triple lock’ of his attachment to such weapons and past record in using them, his regional ambitions and hostility towards the west, and his connections to terrorism.
- From the advance reports of Blair’s TV interview over the weekend, the claim that he would have invaded Iraq even if he had known that Saddam did not possess WMD explodes the whole case for war and comes close to an admission that he ‘went to war on a lie’.
Wrong. Blair said specifically in that interview he would have invaded anyway because of the 12 years in which Saddam defied the UN resolutions to disarm and his threat to the region -- the core of the legal case for war. And he indicated there were other reasons for thinking Saddam was dangerous -- which he didn’t amplify on this occasion, but did in spades in the run-up to the war.
The terrifying thing about such media misrepresentation is that people have not only come to believe the lies but because this is a uniform media line they have no idea that this is the very opposite of much of what is actually being said to the Chilcot inquiry. So the belief that Blair lied in order to wage an illegal war is now fixed in the public mind. Hence the tirade this morning by the former Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald, who before he was a Law Officer was a barrister in the ultra radical Matrix chambers and who has previously expressed boiler-plate anti-Iraq war views. In the Times this morning, he raged:
The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer.
On the contrary: the deceit is being promulgated by the media. We were not taken to war on a lie. We are instead being lied to about that war – and about the evidence being given about that war -- as history is steadily and shamefully rewritten, even as it is being made.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (44)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Yes campaign launch will cause problems — for the independence movement - Ysenda Maxtone Graham
2 Obama vs Balls - edited by Graham Storey, Margaret Brown and Kathle
3 Cameron's attack on Balls is strangely endearing - Lloyd Evans
4 Susie Squire to take over as Tory press chief - James Forsyth
5 What Farage's offer means for David Cameron - James Forsyth
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
THE PRESENT FINDER
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Kennybhoy
December 14th, 2009 6:13pm"That impression has been given solely by the malevolent media coverage."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230358/Will-Sir-John-Chilcot-resist-whitewash-Iraq.html
Carl
December 14th, 2009 6:33pmWell, well. I am rendered almost speechless, a Melanie Phillips article that I can agree with 100%.
There is no doubt that Iraq possessed chemical and rudimentary biological weapons. I spent a long time talking to a senior Iraqi officer concerning this. The only reason that they did not use them in the First Gulf War was that commanders on the ground and in the higher echelons where terrified that the Coalition would respond with a Nuclear strike.
I am of the opinion that Syria took what was left of the stockpile.
David Lindsay
December 14th, 2009 7:13pmYes, Carl, I expect that you are. Mercifully, that particular little line to force a war against Syria is taken seriously by absolutely no one who matters in the post-Blair, post-Bush world.
Anyway, next they'll be telling us that Blair did it to make himself enormously rich. Then we really will all die of the shock.
King Prawn
December 14th, 2009 8:07pmLet's not forget that during the First Gulf War, Saddam sent his whole Air Force to Iran to stop it being destroyed.
The grateful Iranians just kept the Air Force for themselves.
Graeme
December 14th, 2009 8:22pmThis war is legal from an American standpoint. On the 16th October 2002, Congress passed legislation authorising the use of force in Iraq. It contained 23 clauses of which only 2 even mentioned WMD; the rest mentioned violations of UN resolutions and so on. Also, Why is the fact that in 1987, the Iraqis tested a nuclear dirty bomb containing 1/2 a kilo of irradiated zirconium, but was regarded as a failure as most of it stayed in the crater from the resulting explosion, glossed over entirely?
The man from Texaco
December 14th, 2009 8:38pmI thought it was common knowledge that the only reason the US invaded Iraq was to secure the oil reserves?
Carl
December 14th, 2009 9:30pmDavid Lindsay - I am not sure what thought process, if any, you follow. There was and remains no reason for a war with Syria or indeed Iran before you start.
Still, if your posting makes you feel better, who am I to argue
Augustus
December 14th, 2009 9:35pmThe main point about the war on Iraq is the perfectly sane and legitimite policy of preemption.
The United States and the Coalition forces were prepared to implement this policy against Iraq. This was not a policy of striking the first blow because of a direct threat to Western nations by Saddam Hussein, or because a war with Iraq appeared to be imminent, or unavoidable. It was
more properly characterized as
'preventative war', i.e. a war of choice to prevent the emergence of a threat further away in the future. And under the Bush administration at least, it was US policy to maintain that capability to wage
a preventative war against those
who were not just perceived to be a serious threat to world peace, but also a real threat as regards the use of weapons of mass destruction.
daniel maris
December 14th, 2009 9:39pmGood article.
If Iraq was prepared to relocate its jet aircraft to Iran of all places (as it did in the First Gulf War) it was quite capable of removing its WMD to Syria in the Second Gulf War.
BlairSupporter
December 14th, 2009 10:13pmExcellent article, Melanie. I have noticed over the years that your are NOT habitually with Blair, but at least this time you recognise the REAL agenda behind the 'Blair Baiters'.
That is: twist the truth in order to hang Blair out to dry, in order to push for the Islamists' cause, in order to annul that of Israel, in order to aid Iran, in order to push America's Obama to choose ... in order to?
These ignorant innocents may not have joined up the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle yet, but others have.
It's all linked, international politics. It isn't just about getting our former PM in court. It never was.
Readers who believe in fair treatment for ALL,including Blair should sign the "Ban Blair-Baiting petition". (Google it.)
You too should sign, Melanie, like Rentoul, Stephen Pollard and Oliver Kamm.
The ongoing nonsense and blatant misrepresentation of the Iraq Inquiry is REALLY a challenge to truth and freedom. Not necessarily in that order.
David Raynes
December 14th, 2009 10:34pmYou are surely being a bit harsh on poor old Bob Ainsworth and all those "dumb" others in the House of Commons & the country, who were made to believe that the case for war was based on Saddam's possession of WMD.
Many people convinced by that argument, came to think , (though it is rarely mentioned) that it meant Saddam could hit Isreal and possibly intended to. An awful prospect which would have led to nuclear war.
Blair specifically made the case in his statement to the HoC, that if nothing was done Saddam would be left with his WMD intact.
That was a lie, a long running deception and a deliberate subterfuge to deceive the House around which his recent TV "confession", attempts to re write the history.
Look again at what Cook said:
EXTRACT OF COOK MEMOIRS:
Thursday February 20 [2003] ... John Scarlett, chairman of the JIC.. had come to brief me...
The presentation was impressive in its integrity and shorn of the political slant with which No 10 encumbers any intelligence assessment. My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons that could be used against large-scale civilian targets.
Wednesday March 5: ...I saw Tony [Blair] privately shortly after we left the chamber. I started by observing that he'd gone out on a limb and the first piece of advice that I would offer is that he had to stop climbing further out on it, especially on Friday when Hans Blix presents his next report to the UN. "Britain has got to be seen on-side with Blix." If he needed months, we should be prepared to give him until autumn.
Tony was quite frank that he could not deliver that: "I don't know if I could do that. Left to himself, Bush would have gone to war in January. No, not January, but back in September."...
The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam's arsenal. I told him, "It's clear from the private briefing I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities..." ...
There were two distinct elements to this exchange that sent me away deeply troubled. The first was that the timetable to war was plainly not driven by the progress of the UN weapons inspections. Tony made no attempt to pretend that what Hans Blix might report would make any difference to the countdown to invasion.
The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances. I had now expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the prime minister and both had assented in it.
END EXTRACT.
Both accounts cannot be correct. Either Blair really believed in the case for WMD or he did not. Cook tells us he did not. I know which I believe.
You also imply that 9/11 changed everything in Britain. It did not, it changed things in the US because the population was also deceived and in shock. The UK Intelligence community never believed there was any connection between 9/11 and Saddam.
The House and the public were deceived, by Blair.
He could not have got the supporting vote for war unless he had engaged in that deception around WMD. He clearly assents to that idea now, with his suggestion that different arguments would have had to be deployed if the WMD point was not available.
That pretence around WMD was critical to persuading the House, it was also dishonest and that was wrong, regardless of one's personal views on the war. It was a deceit of the High Court of Parliament. It is the criminal offence of Malfeasance in Public Office.
Put that deception together with the earlier evidence of the Downing Street memo, that the evidence was being fixed to make the case for war.
Certainly there are efforts to re write history. On that much we can agree.
EDDIE
December 14th, 2009 10:37pmSaddam was certainly guilty but the American really thought that when they arrived flag waving grateful Iraqis would greet them. How naïve are the Great? They should have known better or at least something of the mindset of people in this region. The greatest idiocy that was obvious even to me was that they didn’t have enough Troops. Then it came out that they had absolutely no plan about what to do once they took over. They should have been able to seize the important buildings in the capital immediately. They should have made a deal with the Iraqi army instead of letting them dissolve into the civilian population together with their arms. Most of all, had their been a decisive and overwhelming victory nobody would have complained – remember the Falklands. Lastly they should have realized that the main enemy was Iran and that Saddam had, up till then, kept those bastards in check. War is certainly a dirty business.
Haldane
December 14th, 2009 11:14pmHow to judge Melanie's piece?
I'm not sure that the "evidence is overwhelming" in the case she makes. Indeed, I can't make up my mind whether to judge her blog as "extensive,detailed and authorative" or "limited,sporadic and patchy".
I guess it comes down to what you really want to believe.
David Lindsay
December 14th, 2009 11:46pmThere was no reason for a war against Iraq, either. No good reason, at any rate.
BOGDAN OF EUNUCHALIA
December 15th, 2009 1:43amDavid Lindsay; As always an ignorance is a bliss.
Would you bother to reach out for interviws with Gen. Jon Micheil Pacepa, the highest ranking defector from the Eastern Europe?
You shall learn about the so called "Sarindarin-Exit" plan concocted by the Soviets and Hussain to conceal his WMD programs.
You shall also learn that the Soviets, and later Russians and Hussain have been determined to rebuild Saddam's WMD programm once he would have been cleared out by the "UN" and the sanctions regime lifted.
As the Russkies (neo-Soviets) failed with Saddam, they have now concentrated their effords to rearm their new allies - Iranian mullahs and Syria and help them to acquire their nukes as a tool of blackmailing the ME and drive the Yanks from that region.
The aim of that strategy should be obvious to everyone; The eternal maintenace of tensions in ME to keep the price of a crude oil as high as possible.
Gas and oil are the only means that keep the, otherwise socially and economically degenerate Russia and her allies going.
That stretegy was clear for me from the middle 70-ties of the previous century when I was still living in Poland under the Communo-Fascist occupation.
I had the opportunity to talk to quite a few middle ranking communist operatives and couple of GRU officers who regarding me as their mate (after quite a few vodkas, of course), were totally open about their long term plans regarding ME and the US presence in that region.
The current events in ME just only confirm what I learned so many years ago.
If Bush had refrained from launching military expedition in Iraq, Saddam would be well advanced in his quest for the NUKE.
Unfortunately, thanks for the UNIMAGINABLE CRETINISM of the European "political elites", and now of Obama and his criminal cohorts, Iran shall for sure, replace Iraq as the anti-American tool of a blackmail.
porkbelly
December 15th, 2009 3:15amImagine if Saddam hadn't been deposed, as apparently the antiwar set would have preferred. Sanctions would certainly have lapsed and he would have embarked on a massive program to rebuild his military, with the assistance of the Russians, Chinese, French, N. Koreans etc. When he had got wind of the Iranian nuclear program (and can you imagine them not pursuing that path with Saddam rearming next door?) he without a shadow of a doubt would have followed suit. Dr. Khan would have been booked out a decade in advance. More likely than not either Iraq or Iran would have had their weapon by now, and I doubt they would have waited for Obama's endless dithering diplomacy to use it. Whatever ghastly motives the Blair- and Bush-haters may wish to impute to them, the fact is the world is a better place for the Iraq war, and those who wring their hands and mourn the dead Iraqis might spare a thought for how many of them would have perished in an Iran-Iraq nuclear exchange. Of course, as Mel correctly points out, the whole debate is really about Blair and Bush and the apoplectic hatred they still arouse in certain circles.
John of Canberra
December 15th, 2009 4:11amGood analysis Melanie, but it does raise a question, viz., since when does a sovereign state have to seek UN approval to wage war? This is even more the case when the state is a democratic one like the UK and the USA. One only has to remember the poltroon-like behaviour of the French government during the onset of the second Gulf War to see how preprosperous it is to allow the UN to have any say at all in these matters.
Edward in the USA
December 15th, 2009 6:39amAnyone who claims that Saddams Iraq never had WMDs should read about Saddams 1988 poison gas attack on the Kurds of Halabja Iraq. 5,000 Kurds were murdered in one day.
Halabja was preceded by the use of poison gas during the 8 year Iraq/Iran war.
Oh. Saddam said he no longer had WMDs?
How fortunate Saddam was to have such craven leftists/socialists to believe him.
Today there are leftists/socialists who believe that the iranian regimes nuclear program is for "peaceful purposes" despite the constant calls of Death to Israel and the US and Britain.
JH
December 15th, 2009 8:35amThe joy of the Internet is the number of fruitloop conspiracy theorists it entertains. Some choice examples:
1) The moonlandings were faked
2) 9/11 was orchestrated by the US Govt
3) JFK was shot by the Mafia (and/or US Govt)
4) Thousands of scientists worldwide are faking data to support AGW
5) The world is run by Israelis
6) The principle motive for the US invasion of Iraq was the removal of 'Saddam's WMD'
All highly entertaining (and quite, quite wrong).
JohNW
December 15th, 2009 8:38amThe notion of regime change in Iraq goes back even further than 2002. Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 on 31 Oct 1998, which declared:
"...it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."
Funny how the leftists have a collective amnesia about that little-reported law, eh?
daniel maris
December 15th, 2009 9:04amDavid Raynes -
That's a dishonest argument. Cook was clearly narrowing the argument to WMDs capable of striking at city populations outside Iraq. Blair did not ever maintain Saddam had that capability as far as I recall so there was no reason he should try and persuade Cook that he did.
It is however perfectly reasonable to draw people's attention to the risks of such dictators possessing WMDs in something like the Iraqi context, particularly in an era of proxy terrorism, and because previous actions of Saddam (invasion of two countries, use of WMD on a civilian population, defiance of UN sanctions,and defiance of UN resolutions) showed an intent to take territory through threats and military action.
But no one can deny he DID have WMDs at one time and further - as Hans Blix confirmed at the time - he failed to comply with UN resolutions to verify the destruction of the WMD.
Of course Blair's words were meant to invoke a degree of alarm among the people of the UK. It seems to me that alarm was perfectly justified - and so is alarm about Iran and North Korea now. Both those mad dictator states need to be neutered.
However, my recollection at the time is that the legal justification for war was Saddam's failure to comply with the UN resolutions flowing from Gulf War 1.
voroddo
December 15th, 2009 10:46amMelanie Philips writes: 'As Sir Christopher Meyer told the Chilcot inquiry, by March 2002 the British government had independently of the US decided
“that containment and sharper sanctions had run its course …”'
Where in his evidence did Sir Christopher speak of 'independently'? Has Ms Philips read a different text from the one everyone else has read?
Neil Craig
December 15th, 2009 1:03pm"Hutton was a wise, robust and independent- minded character"
This is not how I remeber the public reaction to the Hutton report - more that he was a judge who had been nobbled.
The bottom line is that the basic justification for the war - that there was a genuine threat from WMDs in 45 minutes was fraudulent & that the intelligence had been "sexed up".
Kennybhoy
December 15th, 2009 1:30pm"...the REAL agenda behind the 'Blair Baiters'."
Daily Mail....?
David Raynes
December 15th, 2009 1:59pmDaniel Maris
Before you accuse me of dishonest argument I suggest you read Blair's speech where amongst other emotional non factual hyperbole, he linked WMD and Scud missiles (and also with 9/11). He made a lawyers plea, arguing his case with brilliance, but knowing full well,(as so often in a Court) the evidence did not support his position. I believe that parliament and people were entitled to expect honesty from their Prime Minister on such a serious subject. History will judge him harshly, that is why he is trying to re-write it.
Start with this speech:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/18/foreignpolicy.iraq1
John Richardson
December 15th, 2009 3:07pmDavid Raynes must be correct when he explains Parliament was misled.
Yet we all know that the entire 'Blair Project' was essentially a lie.
This is why the MSM are now singing a different tune regarding Blair.
They knew he was a fraud but lied to themselves and everyone else. Now there is no advantage in the self deception they suddenly develop a pseudo moral conscience.
This also explains the hatred of Brown expressed via the newspapers after years of lies about his competence and the property boom.
A good friend of mine is a serving Officer & saw action in Iraq ( including the first show,and just about anywhere else you might mention).
When I asked, he told me
NOT ONE fellow Officer (RM) believed Iraq had WMD before the invasion.
Somehow this organised expedience/immorality must have a consequence.
Blair and his ilk have damaged our Country so much I do wonder where and how the poison can be excreted from the body politic.
'Edward in the USA'
You are factually correct however, the town was in Iraqi territory.The locals (Kurds)had rebelled and taken zero Iraqi prisoners,so the 'his own people' description so often used (you excepted) would not have been used by the victims.
Planes flew overhead and drums with chemicals were kicked out of the back.I only mention this to show the 'weaponized' (not capacity to produce from disparate elements)element in chemical weapons may not actually threaten the west or even near neighbours.
I think it just probable the Kurds, under their old leadership, would have used Chemical weapons against Iraqis if they had them.As Iran had done.No good guys.
In the Wilderness in America
December 15th, 2009 3:42pmLet the appeasers, anti-war fanatics, loony left liberals, and the self-important progressives hide their collective heads in the sands.
When Israel launches its preventative attack against Iran to hault its missile warhead program, where will these cowards be? When Britain has succumbed to sharia law and honor killings are legitamitized, where will these cowards be or more acurately, where were they?
The answer to these questions is: nowhere to be found.
Melanie, thank God you are standing up to the prostitutes in the media who want only to rewrite history so that their idea of a socialistic, anti-war planet will be safe from the criticisms of real history.
Blair and Bush did what was morally and strategically right. The evidence is there for all to see, but the media has an agenda, and the agenda rules.
Where are the leaders of the past when you need them? Patton and Montgomery are turning over in their graves. Oh, and so is JFK, Truman, FDR, and Churchill.
Baron
December 15th, 2009 4:28pmListen up, please, all supporters and deniers. Here's a must link. It takes few minutes, but every second's worth it.
It should be of particular interest to those scientists on the blog who still believe that the AGW 'science' stands.
pleas, please, please click on it.
http://www.cfact.org/a/1652/Monckton-names-names-on-Climategate
PhilipH
December 15th, 2009 8:18pmSo when the inquiry doesn't say what those who angrily demanded it wanted it to say, and it exonerates Tony Blair, it will be condemned as a whitewash. What a surprise! I think it's a bit naïve to think that those who angrily demand inquiries might be interested in what really happened.
Dirty Old Lefty
December 15th, 2009 9:50pmIN the Wilderness in America, JohNW
In the aftermath of Halabja a certain Sir Geoffrey Howe was more than happy to make the acquaintance of Saddam,as was David Mellor.
And a certain Donald Rumsfeld was filmed very happily chatting with Saddam.
Yes, just 'leftists/socialists' were happy to 'excuse' Saddam.
Andrew Roberts
December 16th, 2009 1:51amYou have stated in this article and I quote
'As Sir Christopher Meyer told the Chilcot inquiry, by March 2002 the British government had independently of the US decided that containment and sharper sanctions had run its course'
No he didn't, he actually said and I quote accurately
'I think my memory is that containment and sharper sanctions had run its course'
Nothing about 'independently of the US' and also the 'I think' could be classed as a little vague and you could say purposely ambiguous.
In the Wilderness in America
December 16th, 2009 2:13amDirty Old Lefty
I said "loony" left, not "dirty old." Anyway, Rumsfeld and Howe and Mellor were absolutely wrong for bussing the posterior of Saddam. Anyone who did deserves condemnation.
daniel maris
December 16th, 2009 3:05amDavid Raynes -
Rather than send people off on wild goose chase why don't you provide some quotes to back up your assertions if they are indeed honest and truthful.
Blair was fundamentally right about Saddam and his regime. To strike a note of alarm when it is right to do so is perfectly acceptable. The fact that Hitler never used gas in bombing raids on London would hardly be a proof of dishonesty on Churchill's part if he had expressed concern about Hitler's capabilities in that regard in 1936.
There are and were perfectly valid arguments against Gulf War 2. But pretending Saddam was no threat to the region or us is not one of them.
An unholy alliance of Leftists, Islamists and the Conservative Right is looking to hang draw and quarter Blair via this inquiry. The fact that he's already outfoxed them with his pre-emptive interview strike - reminding us of his political skills - further enrages the alliance, but this is simply a distraction from the important business of dealing with Iran.
There undoubtedly should have been an inquiry into how the post war situation was handled so badly, although most of the blame on that lies with the Americans under the low IQ Tommy Franks and the arrogant fantasist Rumsfeld. However, it is true we lost the post war battle for Iraq and gave power to the Mehdi army. A pretty shameful episode .
However, the time for such an inquiry was a couple of years ago.
Iran won't wait. The crisis is coming to us.
David ben Duji
December 16th, 2009 7:19amDaniel Maris
Well Said!!
Getting rid of Saddam was justified, although the trial and execution were botched abominably.
And the chronic failure to properly 'Win the Peace', again down to the arroganty idiotic Rumsfeld will have lasting repercussions.
'Islamic Republic of Iraq' when the Coalition forces leave, anyone?
John Edwards
December 16th, 2009 9:01amExcellent comment from David Raynes. I also note that Melanie has not quoted Christopher Mayer accurately as regards the alleged effect of 9/11 on the UK government position.
"Edward in the USA" reminds us about Halabja and the use of poison gas against Iran. Yes indeed I remember attending a protest meeting at the time organised by Kurds in the UK. Who was the only MP in attendance? The left Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn.
Kennybhoy
December 16th, 2009 6:23pmIn the Wilderness in America
wrote:
"Let the appeasers, anti-war fanatics, loony left liberals, and the self-important progressives hide their collective heads in the sands."
You forgot to include Miss Phillips' employer the Daily Mail on your list.
Cat Murphy
December 16th, 2009 10:33pmSounds like the same template our media used.
Roger Dodger
December 17th, 2009 1:52pmIf all this is true Melanie, he still allowed the copying and pasting of an out of date university dissertation to be presented as evidence to the British people.
We are not squeamish. There were a whole host of reasons why the war in Iraq was a good idea. If Blair was any sort of a man these cases would have been made with a straight bat. Then we could have planned for the occupation openly rather than keeping up the charade of being willing to withdraw if Saddam did X,Y,Z and running in like amateurs to cock everything up.
Instead we went in like idiots, the military illiterate Blair screwed our armed forces and the people of Iraq. More than that he has weakened the position of the US/UK forces, countries that would have been bricking it after a successful invasion/handover are now more confident than ever. (Iran)
Worst of all for me, the British public will never have the same degree of faith in its leadership. I don't think we have ever been treated as fools as clearly as this. Next time we need to use force and our leader goes before the populous, who will believe him. That stuff gets us killed.
The politicking of Blair and Bush have cost many many lives so far and quite possibly unknown amounts in the future.
Damn Blair, damn his government, damn his lies and weep for the mess he made.
400 odd MPs and one of them has some military experience.
Damn the voters.
I was for invasion from 1991 onwards BTW.
In the Wilderness in America
December 17th, 2009 4:07pmKennybhoy
Concerning the Daily Mail: If the shoe fits, then wear it.
Roger Dodger
Couldn't agree with you more about the lack of leadership, especially after the invasion was under way. Rumsfeld and the gang screwed up big time by not having enough troops. Former General Bernie McCaffery called him on it as did others. It took Bush a long time to get fed up with Rumsfeld to the world's detriment. When he finally did (after the 2004 election for obvious and shameful political reasons), it was almost too late. Fortunately, he picked the right person in General Petraeus to get the U.S. on the right track.
Kennybhoy
December 17th, 2009 6:14pmIn the Wilderness in America
wrote:
"Concerning the Daily Mail: If the shoe fits, then wear it."
Forgive me if I am missing something here, but I fail to see the relevance of this idiom in this particular instance....?
Regards,
JOHN ROOSEVELT
December 18th, 2009 11:37pmAugustus: et tu, Iran...
JOHN ROOSEVELT
December 18th, 2009 11:40pmDaniel Maris: " it seems to me that alarm was perfectly justified - and so is alarm about Iran and North Korea now. Both those mad dictator states need to be neutered."
Now you're talking!
In the Wilderness in America
December 19th, 2009 8:40pmKennybhoy
The idiomatic expression, "If the shoe fits, then wear it," means that if the "appeaser" etc. name applies to the Daily Mail, then they should be called that. Sorry if that is just an American turn of phrase. Didn't mean to confuse. Well, now you know.
JOHN ROOSEVELT
December 24th, 2009 12:11pmdaniel maris: I have come to "blows" with you before, but I applaud you now. Excellent posts!!