Short: I was briefed on Blair's secret war pact

18.06.2003 [11:30]



Senior figures in the intelligence community and across Whitehall briefed the former international development secretary Clare Short that Tony Blair had made a secret agreement last summer with George Bush to invade Iraq in February or March, she claimed yesterday.

In damning evidence to the foreign affairs select committee, Ms Short refused to identify the three figures, but she cited their authority for making her claim that Mr Blair had actively deceived the cabinet and the country in persuading them of the need to go to war.

Ms Short told the first day of the committee's inquiry into the events leading up to the Iraq conflict that Mr Blair had "used a series of half-truths, exaggerations, reassurances that were not the case to get us into conflict by the spring".

She claimed Mr Blair told President Bush that "we will be with you" without laying down conditions to temper US ambitions.

She also claimed that the intelligence and diplomatic community had privately opposed the war. This is the first time she has alleged that intelligence figures had serious doubts about the need for early military action.

Justifying her charge of deception, she said: "Three extremely senior people in the Whitehall system said to me very clearly and specifically that the target date was mid-February."

She went on: "I believe that the prime minister must have concluded that it was honourable and desirable to back the US in going for military action in Iraq and therefore it was honourable for him to persuade us through various ruses and ways to get us there - so for him I think it was an honourable deception."

No 10 last night denied Ms Short's charge and said Mr Blair had worked as hard as possible to secure support for a second UN resolution that might have persuaded Saddam Hussein to cooperate.

In the same evidence session Mr Cook exonerated Mr Blair of the charge of deliberately misleading the country, but asserted that intelligence material was chosen selectively to fit a predetermined policy.

He said his own personal briefing by the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) confirmed him in his belief that Iraq did not have weaponised chemicals, let alone weapons capable of being fired within 45 minutes, a claim made in the main intelligence document published last September.

"I think it would be fair to say there was a selection of evidence to support a conclusion," he said. "I fear we got into a position in which the intelligence was not being used to inform and shape policy, but to shape policy that was already settled."

He asserted that No 10 had "a burning fixation" with weapons of mass destruction that led Mr Blair to reject Mr Cook's view that the policy of containment was working.

Both former cabinet ministers confirmed a previous Guardian story that cabinet ministers had been given private intelligence briefings by SIS, but insisted the briefings did not indicate that the world had to act immediately to stem an imminent Iraqi threat. At best, Ms Short said, Iraq had scientists working to try to develop biological and chemical weapons, but it was wrong to suggest that meant there were "weaponised" materials.

Ms Short also claimed there was a shocking collapse in proper government procedure, with a small unelected entourage in Downing Street making the decisions without minutes, proper options papers or any written material. She said the cabinet was never shown military options papers.

She also gave the impression that the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, was a cypher who "went along" with the decisions, while the real decision-making was "sucked out" of the Foreign Office.

The vehemence of the attack by the two ex-cabinet ministers and their damning analysis of the intelligence failure over Iraq raises fresh questions for Mr Straw when he gives evidence before the committee next week.

He will defend the use of intelligence material in both public and private evidence sessions. The prime minister has declined to speak to the foreign affairs committee, but will co-operate with the private inquiry by the intelligence and security committee.

He is determined to disprove the claim that the September document was manipulated by No 10 to exaggerate the case for war.

The former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has withdrawn his earlier offer to give evidence to the foreign affairs committee, arguing the misuse of intelligence is a matter for the British government and parliament.

For the Trolls and Ijits!

He said, she said.

But we found dead horse #10.

When do the war crimes trials for Bush and Blair start? An appropriate place to hold them would be Nuremburg, Germany. Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and the other flunkies can be tried as well - watch them all deny responsibility and try to incriminate their fellow conspirators.

11) Bush & Co. should be tried for war crimes

Bush Lied!

The simple answer: "You and what court, Oscar Meyer?"

As big and bad and tough as you think the rest of the world is, there ain't nobody with the balls OR the jurisdiction to hold your silly show trial.

So you can just keep on ineffectually shouting "Bush lied!" and "War criminals!" all you like...you're just going to raise your blood pressure. No other result is at all likely.

Meanwhile, you can go ahead and keep ignoring the real war criminals...Saddam and the Ba'ath Party. I know, I know, they're your heroes...but like it or not, they ARE the bad guys.

Also, whether you like it or not, they are no longer players...and that is undeniably a good thing.

The hardest thing to do

is

admit that you were

wrong.

US courts...... one day........ or some other form of turning of the tide will happen.

Our country is falling to shit so fast that we're going to see, at one point, something like the 1930s, where the ruling class fear the whole damn thing is going to crash, and a "new deal" is offered.

your an ass kisser for the rulling class and it's policies, and no, I'm not a marxist.... facts are facts, and your stance on issues on LA IMC is clear.

ass kisser. Nothing more

Ass kisser?

No.

I've never said that Bush is the be-all and end-all of Presidents. I don't care for his economic policy; my children are going to be left to pay the bill.

I do think, however, he has done a pretty good job since 9/11. Not perfect, but pretty good. The mission is getting accomplished, after all.

Your statements about the "ruling class" do betray Marxist leanings, despite your denials.

As for war crimes trials being held in US courts? Ain't gonna happen. Sorry, but that's the truth. Deal with it.

...for my obsession with dead horses. Is it better to stick to having sex with dead humans?

Com'n faker/KOBE!! Get out from under the bed. Better EV is demanded from you. And you will dance on our EV strings.

Watch out!!! "Faker/KOBE" is outside your window!!! You're nuttier than a truckload of peanut brittle!!!

We hate Muslims. Join us.

Yeah, right, Daveman, Bushie has done a great job - murdering Arabs, getting American teenagers killed, gutting the Bill of Rights, locking up immigrants who have committed no serious crimes, earning this country the hatred of most of the world, reviving 19th century style imperialism, and doing his best to whip up militarism and xenophobia among the American people. It is easy to see what your idea of a good job is.

I'm a solipsist. I also like to bugger sheep. Now I'm going to the pub and get pissed.

"reviving 19th century style imperialism"

How is the current US administration of Iraq any different from the US administration of Germany and Japan after WWII ? Why wasn't that imperialism?

Well, in case you didn't notice, there was international approval for the occupation of Germany and Japan and international condemnation of the US attack on Iraq. And Japan did attack US forces, even though many have argued that Roosevelt deliberately provoked them into doing it.

Anyone familiar with the Nuremburg Trial knows that one of the charges against the war criminals was waging exactly the type of unprovoked war that Bush waged. And generals like Keitel and Jodl were not allowed to cop out by claiming that they were just following orders. The invasion of Iraq was a blatant and vicious war crime by any sane definition. Bush and his flunkies deserve to be tried.

In what form did that "international approval" take place?

Try the Yalta Agreement, the Potsdam Conference, and the fact that the anti-Axis nations were already calling themselves the "United Nations" before the founding of the organization we know by that name in San Francisco.

How is the current US administration of Iraq any different from the US administration

of Germany and Japan after WWII ? Why wasn't that imperialism?:

the Germans or Japanese weren't sitting on oil or challenging the worthless federal reserve note with eurodollars.

If you don't understand the explanation by now you are hopeless.

Except, of course, for Britain, Spain, Australia, and several other countries, whose support has ranged from moral support to material support.

And look where the condemnation came from. It was led by France, Germany, and Russia...three countries who had vast economic reasons to wish the Saddam regime to continue. Most of the rest of the condemnation came from countries who support and harbor terrorism, and saw (rightly so) an attack on Iraq as a looking glass on their own future.

So your "international condemnation" is mostly meaningless, driven as it was by greed and fear for their own terrorist regimes.

You don't mean you actually care what terrorists and their appeasers and those who deal with them actually think, do you?

Yeah...looks like you do.

The approval of the governments against the over whelming

public opinion and wishes.

Clear evidence of the elite interests in forming international policy without regard to the welfare of the

"unwashed masses" or "useless eaters" or as I call them

the salt of the earth or we or us. We are screamed at constantly how irrelevant we are. News; common threats

create common bonds. Your sexist ageist raciest and classiest manure is making me ill. All people deserve water food and shelter.

They also deserve education, health and employment at collectively arrived at compensation.

You power freaks are sick.

And you blow it bad, as history tells us again and again.

Don't screw with us.

>Try the Yalta Agreement, the Potsdam Conference

The Yalta Agreement was not "international approval". It was an agreement between US, UK, and USSR.

The Potsdam Conference was not "international approval". It was an agreement between US, UK, and USSR.

One could easily argue that the international support for GWII was greater than the WWII support you speak of.

you all have to be kidding me.... you are all pretending as if the Irak war was the beginning of the lying and murdering of thousands by the "new" US. Please wake up ! This has been going on for years. Please read up on " PAX AMERICANA " and you will begin to understand that the US has longed to dominate the world since the beginning of the 2nd World War, only the distribution of military hardware was a bit unfortnuate; until now. The US doesn't care what anyone thinks or says or does. And all you american citizens who have the right to vote are guilty too. It's your Tax Dollars that are financing the brutal murder of the innocent around the world. And heed this warning, because it is not only the beginning, it is the continuation of a 50 year old policy. Wake up and do something. For one , you can be sure that I will never buy an american made product ever again ! All you americans are murderers through direct or indirect affiliation! Can you grasp it ? I don't think even the bravest of you have the balls to admit to it, because if you could , then you just might actually do something about it. They will probably kill you for it. Aha, so your hamburger is worth more to you than stopping the new Nazis, and so you continue to do nothing but babble and complain a little on the internet. Do any of you people out there actually realize that 911 was orchestrated by CIA and B'nai B'rit ? Hey they are fucking with you guys like little children and you do nothing because you are all cowards.

Not very sporting to debate children (or older people who think like children).

What does this mean??

"the Germans or Japanese weren't sitting on oil or challenging the worthless federal reserve note with eurodollars."

The only possible thing I can imagine you are talking about is the "popular on alternative website everywhere" story about OPEC wanting to change from being paid in dollars to being paid in euros.

If you really want to know what OPEC thinks about this subject, read the interview with OPEC Head, Petroleum Market Analysis Dept

http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm

I hope this puts a stop to this nonsense story.

toy: "We are screamed at constantly how irrelevant we are."

No, not all of you. Just the Communists, Socialists, and Leftists. And we don't have to scream; simply pointing you out to everyone is sufficient. You've created your own irrelevancy.

daniel: Who do you hate more? America, or Jews? Not that I care; your hate for either puts you beneath my regard.

It is more than obvious to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of history that most people the world over supported the occupation of the Axis powers after World War II and it is equally obvious to anyone who follows the news that the overwhelming majority were opposed to the US attack upon and occupation of Iraq. However, all this is beside the point. Even if one did take the position that US entry into World War II was motivated by imperialism, as was the subsequent occupation (and many leftists do take this position) it would in no way justify the pirate attack on Iraq, which resembled Henry Morgan's sack of Panama more than anything else.

Well, Teddie boy, the nations who fought against the Axis included the US, UK, USSR, China, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Greece, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Yugoslavia, and a number of others. All contributed a great deal of blood and treasure, and most were directly attacked by the Axis powers; they did not go searching for mythical weapons of mass destruction. I assume that you can see some differerence between that situation and the one that transpired a few months ago.

Well, Meyer, I was simply questioning your use of the words "international approval". There have only been (if I remember correctly) four wars with international approval. WWII and the subsequent occupation of some axis countries was not one of them.

To imagine that most people in the world approved of the occupation and saying it had "international approval" is intellectually sloppy.

Which 4 wars had 'international approval' and who approved them?

The comparisons drawn between WWII and the current conflict in Iraq are misplaced. During World War II, the US waited until it was attacked before doing anything to stop the conquest of Europe by the Third Reich and the world by the Axis powers. Additionally, Germany, Italy and Japan had already invaded and occupied foreigh countries for imperial reasons prior to US involvement.

In Iraq, the US pre-emptively struck at a sovereign nation which was a non-belligerent. No matter what world opinion is regarding this incursion, it is without question in violation of international law. As such, any resulting occupation would automatically be unjustifiable and condemned by one with a conscience.

Thus, comparing the occupation of belligerents following WWII with the current Iraq occupation is unfounded based upon the circumstances which gave rise to the conflicts.

Questions?

That's why important decisions regarding what are war crimes and what are not and what are violations of international law and what are not aren't made by people who agree with the same policies promoted by Indymedia.