World

Chilcot inquiry: Tony Blair decided on Iraq war a year before!

by Babel-Fish | November 26, 2009 at 07:14 pm

195 views | 24 Recommendations | 4 comments

This Inquiry will prove that the invasion of Iraq was to change the regime and not anything to do with terrorism it possible may lead into the fact that there was a plan to pump oil by pipeline to Afghanistan to feed the Chinese pipeline all ready built for such purpose.

Tony Blair's government decided up to a year before the Iraq invasion that it was "a complete waste of time" to resist the US drive to oust Saddam Hussein, opting instead to offer advice on how it should be done, the former British ambassador to Washington said today.
Sir Christopher Meyer, testifying to the Chilcot inquiry into Britain's role in the war, made it clear that once the Bush administration decided to take military action, the Blair government never considered opting out or opposing it.

He said that the timing of the invasion was dictated by the "unforgiving nature" of the military build-up rather than the outcome of diplomacy or UN weapons inspections, which had not been given sufficient time. British officials were left "scrabbling for the smoking gun" – evidence for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – as preparations continued.

3 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

snuffysmith

at 21:51 on November 26th, 2009

Blair 'Signed in Blood' Support for Iraq War at Bush's Texas Ranch, Ex-envoy Says - Nico Hines, The Times. Tony Blair's meeting with President Bush at his Texas ranch in 2002 was probably the turning point when the Prime Minister 'signed in blood' Britain's support for the Iraq war, it was claimed today. Sir Christopher Meyer, then British Ambassador to the US, told the Iraq Inquiry that Mr Blair would have been more influential if he had attached pre-conditions to British support at the Crawford ranch meeting - which was six months before Hans Blix began looking for weapons in Iraq. “I think that would have changed the nature of American planning,” he said. “By the time you get to the end of the year it’s too late. ... I did say to London that we’re being taken for granted. “To this day I am not entirely clear what degree of convergence was, if you like, signed in blood at the Crawford ranch,” Sir Christopher said. “[But] they weren’t there to talk about containment or strengthening sanctions." The high point of Britain’s influence on Washington amounted to “bugger all” and a stronger Prime Minister like Margaret Thatcher could have done more, he told the inquiry. Sir Christopher, who was the ambassador in Washington between 1997 and 2003, said he often thinks: "What would Margaret Thatcher have done? I think she would have insisted on a coherent diplomatic and political strategy."

snuffysmith

at 21:53 on November 26th, 2009

UK Officials Tell Inquiry Iraq Wasn't Main Worry - Associated Press. Iran and Libya, not Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, were Britain's main security concerns before the invasion of Iraq, Foreign Office officials testified Wednesday at an inquiry probing Britain's role in the war. William Ehrman, the Foreign Office's director of international security from 2000 to 2002, said "in terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq." The inquiry, billed as the most sweeping look yet at the conflict, was in its second day of hearing public evidence. It is examining Britain's involvement in Iraq, beginning with the run-up to the 2003 invasion and concluding in July 2009. The Iraq war, which left 179 British soldiers dead, was deeply unpopular in Britain. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair is to be called to testify before the inquiry, which is headed by retired civil servant John Chilcot. The panel isn't expected to report before the end of next year, and won't establish criminal or civil liability. Tim Dowse, the Foreign Office's head of counter-proliferation between 2001 to 2003, agreed with Mr. Ehrman, telling the panel that Iraq "wasn't top of the list." "In terms of my concerns on coming into the job in 2001, I would say we put Libya and Iran ahead of Iraq," he said.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 03:11 on November 27th, 2009

This would not be a surprise. Regime change was already a Clinton policy.

MasterJai (not verified)

at 05:36 on December 14th, 2009

Regardless of what Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was the fact remains that there was no WMDs, which was the main reason why Iraq was invaded and Saddam Hussein executed on live TV (inhumane to say the least). I think both Tony Blair and Bush should be executed in the same way as Suddam Hussian was to send a clear messege to the rest of the worlds politicians that they cannot just do what they want. It is evidant to me that Iraq was invaded simply for OIL, there is no other rational explanation for the invasion especially when there have been no WMD's uncovered. Because of these two people (Blair & Bush) thousands of innocent civilians have died including the 179+ British soilders. These two have clearly abused their powers and fooled us all, these are the tyrants and they should both be charged for war crimes and executed. All politicians should practice what they preech Where was the UN, why did they not intervene, clearly they should have known better. Therefore, again it is my belief that the UN should be removed as they have done nothing to improve the situation ever since they were formed.