[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
War, War, War See other War, War, War Articles Title: Bush and Blair did strike Iraq deal, says Welsh MP A SENIOR Welsh MP said last night he knew “for certain” Tony Blair and George Bush struck a deal to invade Iraq at their notorious Crawford Ranch meeting in 2002 – a year before war was declared. Elfyn Llwyd, Plaid Cymru’s parliamentary leader, said he had seen a confidential memo to that effect, although he would not divulge its exact contents. Critics of the military action in Iraq have long suspected Mr Blair and President Bush came to an agreement at the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas in April 2002, a claim Mr Blair denied in evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry last week. Mr Llwyd said he had offered to give evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry himself, in private if necessary. The Meirionnydd Nant Conwy MP said: “I think other things should have been pursued [at the inquiry], in particular the detailed conversation at the ranch in Crawford in April 2002. “I do know that the deal was struck, I know for certain it was struck at that stage so just to pretend months down the road that no deal had been struck I think is unforgivable. “I have offered to give evidence and Chilcot has said ‘I’ll come back to you’. At that stage I will have private discussions with him.” When the document was leaked five years ago Mr Llwyd said the security services paid him a visit. He declined to comment when asked if he still had the document. “What I do know for sure is that the deal was struck, incontrovertibly,” said Mr Llwyd. “I’m sorry I am being cagey about it, I simply don’t want the plod knocking on my door again. It created a huge interest among the intelligence community and a section of the Met came to us.” The Chilcot Inquiry continued its deliberations into the causes of the conflict yesterday with evidence from Clare Short, International Development Secretary at the time of the US-led invasion in March 2003. Ms Short, who resigned later that year and has since left the Labour Party, told the panel the Attorney General “misled” the Government over the case for war. She said she was not aware of Lord Goldsmith’s “doubts and his changes of opinion” over the issue. Lord Goldsmith gave legal advice before Britain committed to going to battle against Saddam Hussein in March 2003. Ms Short said: “I think he misled the Cabinet. He certainly misled me, but people let it through.” In light of Lord Goldsmith’s “doubts and his changes of opinion” that have since emerged, Ms Short added: “I think for the Attorney General to come and say there’s unequivocal legal authority to go war was misleading.” Ms Short claimed Lord Goldsmith was “leaned on” by former Prime Minister Tony Blair to agree that the war was legal. Lord Goldsmith provisionally advised Mr Blair in January 2003 that it would be unlawful to invade Iraq without a further United Nations Security Council resolution. But he changed his mind a month later after being persuaded to talk to senior US government lawyers and Britain’s ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock. “Lord Goldsmith said he was excluded from lots of meetings – that’s a form of pressure,” said Ms Short. “It was suggested to him that he go to the US to get advice about the legal position. “You have got the Bush administration who have very low respect for international law. It seems the most extraordinary place in the world to go to get advice about international law.” The inquiry will hear from Cynon Valley MP Ann Clwyd, the Prime Minister’s special envoy to Iraq, today. The panel is still debating whether to recall Mr Blair to give further evidence, and a date is yet to be set for Prime Minister Gordon Brown to appear. Yesterday Ms Short described the Cabinet meeting on March 17, at which Lord Goldsmith presented his final and unequivocal advice that the war would be legal without a further resolution. She recalled that the Attorney General was sitting in the seat of Robin Cook, who had that day resigned as Leader of the House of Commons over the war. The former International Development Secretary said it was not true – as claimed by Mr Blair and Lord Goldsmith in their testimony to the inquiry – that the Cabinet was given the chance to ask questions. She said she started to ask the Attorney General why the advice was so late but was “jeered at” to be quiet by other ministers. Ms Short told the inquiry she was “stunned” by the legal advice but accepted it at the time. She said: “I thought, in the teeth of war, the Attorney General of the UK coming to Cabinet to give legal advice – this is a very serious, monumental thing and that’s his advice, and I’m very surprised but you must accept it.” But she said the Cabinet would have had second thoughts if it had seen the detailed 13-page legal advice that Lord Goldsmith sent Mr Blair on March 7. Ms Short said Mr Brown, then Chancellor, was being “marginalised” in the weeks before the invasion. “Brown was pushed out and marginalised at the time and having cups of coffee with me and saying ‘Tony Blair is obsessed with his legacy and he thinks he can have a quick war and then a reshuffle etc’,” she said. She said Mr Brown, in discussions with her, spoke of his concerns over what would happen “beyond Iraq”. “He was worried about what is beyond Iraq,” she said. “He would say ‘On Iraq, we must uphold the UN’. I would say ’I agree’.” A poll published this morning suggests voters believe Mr Brown should share responsibility for the war with Mr Blair. The survey, by ComRes for The Independent, found 60% agreed that Mr Brown bore a similar responsibility to Mr Blair.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
It's all well and good that these other cabinet ministers are speaking out now, 7 years after the fact, about how the bogus Iraq War was pushed through the UK Parliament by Blair. But why did these cabinet ministers not resign on the same day as Robin Cook? Such a scandal would be Front Page news around the globe and surely would have stopped the Blair war machine in its tracks. The UK has a parliamentary system of government and as such the party in power can be brought down by a simple mechanism called a "vote of no confidence" - the resignations of multiple cabinet ministers would have triggered such a vote and a new election would have to be called. Blair would have no legal standing to take the UK to war if his party failed to survive a no confidence vote. Furthermore, if Blair could not bring the UK into war with Bush, I very much doubt the US would have invaded Iraq. Regardless of what Bush told Blair - that the US would go it alone - imo, NOT-A-CHANCE would that have happened. Poppy Bush and the realists were against the Iraq War from the start. If Blair's government were brought down through a no confidence vote and all the slimy details of the Crawford Ranch "arrangement" were aired, that's all the Elder Bush would have needed as a wedge against the neocons and Zionists to get Junior under control of the realists and to call off the Iraq invasion. Reading through this article about Blair's cabinet ministers who chose to be silent about the pre-Iraq War skullduggery thereby becoming warmonger enablers, I am reminded of that well known saying: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||