Blair just said “You would be hard pressed to find anyone who in September 2002 doubted that Saddam had WMD”.
It wouldn’t have been that hard. If he had asked members of the Near East and North Africa Department of the FCO, the Middle East experts in the FCO’s Research Analysts, or in the Defence Intelligence Service, he would have found absolutely no shortage of people who doubted it, whatever position No 10 was forcing on their institutions.
One of the many failures of this Inquiry has been a failure to ask individual witnesses before it whether they personally had believed in the existence of any significant Iraqi WMD programme. I know for certain that would have drawn some extremely enlightening answers from among the FCO and probably MOD participants.
Sir Martin Gilbert allowed Blair to conflate Iran, Iraq, Al-Qaida, WMD and terrorism in a completely unjustified way. When Straw tried exactly the same trick, Rod Lyne did not allow him to get away with it.
A further stark contrast with Straw is that both Blair and Straw were asked about the failure of the UK to secure movement in the Middle East peace process by using our role in Iraq to influence the USA. A major, detailed and fascinating part of Straw’s answer was that Israel’s – and specifically Netanyahu’s – political influence in the USA had prevented progress.
By contrast, Blair did not even mention Israel in response to the questions on the failure to achieve progress in the Middle East. He solely blamed the Palestinian Intafada. He has been anxious to widen the discussion beyond Iraq at every opportunity, and frequently referred to destabilising factors in the Middle East, and again and again pointed to a growing threat from Iran and Iranian sponsorship of terrorism, and to Palestinian terrorism (including Saddam Hussein’s past sponsorship of it).
He has made not one single comment about Israel’s behaviour as a contributing factor in Middle East instability. Given Blair’s official position as Middle East envoy, this lack of any bare pretence at impartiality is most revealing.
Zounds!
“Eurasia’s energy wars: the US, China and Muslims in Pipelineistan”…
http://tinyurl.com/ylk3var
“Russia’s imperial policies in the North Caucasus”…
http://tinyurl.com/yz9s5f5
Mark – “Don’t be too hard on her.”
Okay, but. She shouldn’t have said that and then not done it. That’s why we think politicians can’t be trusted.
“He indeed was a frightened man!”
Mark: I recall that you’ve said the same thing about Brown. Could you elaborate on this?
No. I said that about my friend (after one meeting lasting about 15 mins)Robin Cook.
He held my hand as if holding a babies hand; He looked down at our hands as if to check… he looked me straight in the eyes; I believe I saw fear in his eyes. It has haunted me. We were talking about Iraq, I remember pressing him to do something, I was urging him too strongly maybe and then I praised him, I congratulated him, I said, “I treasure this meeting, Robin” – our eyes never parted.
It was at that moment he said the words I have written here.
What was he implying? I am not certain.
Have attended meeting with Clare Short at IMF/World Bank AGM in Washington.
Very impressive lady with a passion for what she was at.
She put a lot of delegations to the pin of their collective collars.
She also took on Karimov in Tashkent in the full glare of world TV. Can you imagine Tony Blair making such a speech?
There can’t be many of her ilk left.
And that tells us a lot about the current state of governance in many of our so called democracies.
Good on ya girl.
BBC political commentator on the 10pm News. (From memory): “Of course, she wasn’t trusted by Blair at all at that stage. But that doesn’t mean that everything she said was of no interest.”
Grrrrr …
dreoilin – “Of course, she wasn’t impartial” is what I think I heard. (R4, 6.00pm and just now repeated at midnight).
“Here is what you need to think about her”, anyway. Not a thing I’ve heard them say about any of the others.
I must say, this is all bringing rather more out than I’d expected. Nothing I didn’t think I knew already, but then I was watching them. I wonder what effect it’s having on all those who weren’t ?
February 2, 2010
“Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, QC: Duplicitous Testimonies”…
http://tinyurl.com/yfzu3fv
I met Cook in Orkney a day or two before his death – he seemed calm, even bored. He was waiting while his wife browsed around a craft textile shop. “When will we see your boss in jail” I asked. “I think he has other ideas on that” was the reply. I never really trusted Cook after his bold pronouncements on foreign policy while in opposition, especially concerning East Timor – but once in power, he continued the sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia. I’ve since heard that he was overruled on this, but one nowadays has no idea what to believe.
I shared Richard’s disappointment with Clare Short back then – perhaps she was sidelined too as she says, but her past vacillations diminish the force of her testimony now. But still, like dreoilin, I was enraged by the BBC spin on her appearance. The BBC – tagline ‘Any resemblance to actual events is purely coincidental’.
Thanks for elaborating and sharing that, Mark. It was a very evocative and moving account. I didn’t know Robin Cook. My only close-up memory of him was in the Author’s ‘Yurt’ at the Edinburgh Book Festival – I think this was after he was no longer Foreign Secretary. He was the centre of attention, of course, as one would expect, but seemed surrounded by guys in identical, pin-striped suits, all of whom seemed to tower over him – I suppose he wasn’t very tall though. This had become a common fanfare for senior Labour politicians and indeed at many Labour-dominated events by then, an overwhelmingly distant, corporate image. It also may have been security, of course. It was a fleeting, superficial impression, that was all, and probably unrepresentative of the man. But perhaps as a vignette it is telling – and maybe also somewhat ominous.
Ya know it strike me funny on Gaza/Blair
He certainly has wreaked his magic in that part of the world.
US/Israel/Uk not recognizing HAMAS as legitimate government, to allow more time for the illegal settlements to continue…NICE
Im sure there are currently some ex terroists in the Irish gvnt as we speak, and I’m sure the current Iraqi/Afghanistan gvts are filled with people of a tainted background….
I guess its a case of who ya friends are really! nothing changes, different day same shitty people fucking it up for the rest of us (coincidently they all seem to be men)
Me I judge people into two camps…
Camp A) Those that worship at the altar of the good old curry…
Camp B) everyone else.
however if you find yourself in camp B i’ll still give you respect and support irrespective of colour, religion and earning potential.
PS Nice on Claire Short….they do say what goes around comes around…..just wondering if Brown is still running the Cabinet aka TOny Blair style.
Just interested on why no formal minutes of cabinet meetings were kept? thought it was a legall requirement of the government, like keeping all MP emails?
“Of course, she wasn’t impartial” (via Richard’s comment)
The person who should have been the most impartial in all this was Goldsmith. But he came across as weak, ill-informed, ineffectual, under Blair’s thumb, ready to produce ‘legal advice’ under pressure from his boss (with input from the USA) — advice which he now claims was given for the sake of soldiers and civil servants.
Aside from Blair, he comes out of this the worst, so far. Craig’s picture of him shows him as a fake, with his “thinker” pose in his fatly-stuffed armchair. I don’t know either man, but I suspect that Robin Cook’s intelligence would knock Goldsmith’s into a cocked hat.
Even if Clare Short did herself some damage in resigning late, she could never come across as shallow as Goldsmith. I think she speaks from the heart – at least, the bulk of the time. None of us is perfect.
“Im sure there are currently some ex terroists in the Irish gvnt as we speak”–anon
Sorry? Are you speaking of the South? The “Irish Government” refers to the Republic of Ireland. Nowhere else.
and Brian Cowen may come across as a bit of a shambles (as he did leaving Stormont with Brown, when his jacket was too small and his two buttons were bursting …) but he’s no terrorist. He just needs a stringent diet and/or a new suit.
Roderick,
I have re-visited your claims of harassment by our own secret services several times now. If you remember, I was concerned by your statements and asked you some questions.
My own belief is that it was not our people and I say that based on what I know of their recruitment process. I know what they do in some detail. They are sophisticated, intelligent and subtle. They rely somewhat on intercepts from GCHQ and they have a very sophisticated communications network.
Most of the time they are protecting us from nasties, even from our own allies. Take the case of Gary Mckinnon, he was tracked I belief from intercepts, he left a message on a US military computer, used a script (well known) to find default passwords and was accused of deleting files and thus causing damage.
Despite US demands, he is still in Britain awaiting appeal (Nov 2009). The front-end of SIS are gentlemen and women and all actions route that way first.
I therefore believe your ordeals were done by others, I hope I am right.
Just got home from Africa in case anyone missed me. Now I am going to sleep. 🙂
Posted by: Craig at January 31, 2010 2:59 PM
Hope Craig’s alright. He’s either having a long sleep, is very busy, is lost for words on the current state of our country or did he say he was going to Scotland?
“Elfyn Llwyd”…
http://tinyurl.com/ykhk7d3
George,
“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.”
Good find George, Elfyn has seen hard evidence:
“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.”
Perhaps Elfyn will divulge to Chilcot what the ‘security services’ said to him, all that time ago.
Interestingly every time I make post, I have activity on Port 443, the secure connection route. Most of the time this is normal, for instance, if a secure server is visited, or a combination of secure/insecure traffic is active.
This connection is probably confirming my authenticity. Slightly strange though.
Mark, if you’re suggesting then that Robin Cook felt he had reason to fear, but that, in your view and from your knowledge, the UK secret state generally tends to be benificent towards the citizens of the UK, of whom do you imagine Mr Cook might have been afraid? I’m not asking this in a cynical manner, I’m just intrigued by the plexus which you have begun to outline.
I don’t think Clare Short should be criticized for not resigning earlier. I doubt very much that it would have made any difference to Tony Blair’s behaviour in practice. He still had the total support of the Tories, and that was his parliamentary safety net. The anti-war members of New Labour were never going to risk bringing down the government over Iraq.
What’s important now is that Short’s testimony gives us a glimpse of how Blair run the government. It was a totalitarian model. Simplicity itself. Back me, or sack me!
The problem with the Westminster system is that too much power is concentrated in the hands of the PM. When a determined, ruthless, and power-mad, individual occupies the position, challenging them for power is very, very, difficult indeed.
The system is bizarre and degenerate. One person, the PM, effectively has more power, than the rest of parliament put together, as Blair proved in relation to Iraq.
Parliament needs to reign in the power of the executive, but it seems disinterested, prefering rule by an elected “dictator” which makes everything so much simpler.
I hope Craig is well. Maybe seeing Clare Short condescendingly asked why ‘she didn’t speak out more’, like it would have made a differnce, was enough to give him a coronary. Citing Craig’s experiences might have been a good answer for Clare to give!
Suhayl,
Well it may look like I have double standards, I have not. What I am trying to say, in Rodericks case, the attempts to frighten him were crude, vulgar, witnessed and therefore accessible in a court of law. This is not the modus operandi of our own intelligence services. Cover is paramount in any operation. The public face of our SIS is protection of British citizens and others that fall within that same shelter. That is the front-end as I have described.
What I call the back or ‘dirty end’ is totally different, but I have to stress, I believe a ‘black mission’ is carefully evaluated and contained by the ‘PR’ if your like, department that exist as an interface between the two. That is the ‘plexus’ I was hoping to describe. I just hope that makes sense to Suhayl – that is what I believe.
Yes, that’s very lucidly described, thanks, Mark. My knowledge of this area is very limited, but common sense tells one that it must be extremely complex, as I sense you’re suggesting.
Who or what do you imagine Robin Cook might have been afraid of, though? Why would he be afraid? What might he have had to fear? The CIA? Mossad? Some plausibly-deniable systemically outsourced oufit? Some other ‘plexus'(my word-of-the-day!)?
The threats may have been enough to kill him?
You don’t need to kill someone to silence them. Threats and mud slinging can and do have the same effect. Enough of them can make you very ill and knock you out of politics even if you don’t want to leave. Not enough, and it can still reduce your effectiveness as you will have to spend time counteracting them.
Too much, and it can lead to heart attacks and death.
I don’t believe in Democracy anyway. I believe they are all just a bunch of patsies while the real decisions are made on the other side of the Atlantic.
Suhayl Saadi
All of the above.
As well as the press they control.
Vote For A Change – electoral reform progress:
http://www.voteforachange.co.uk/blog/entry/weve-made-it-to-parliament/
Or click on my name below. I’m getting off-line as my broadband is down and I’m on pay-as-you-go- dial-up.
Suhayl,
Let me add, what I have described I believe, is the difference between us and the American secret service. Their ‘dirty end’ is/was, I believe, completely autonomous. Again without hard evidence I think that has been addressed by President Obama in a brief to his replacement head of CIA.
I hope that is the case, after the warning (or bride) the Americans directed at us by threatening to withdraw intelligence sharing. I think we have relied on these briefs too much in the past and this has complicated our relationship, caused a lot of hand wringing and discomfort, from having our own arms twisted.
No, not Mossad, not some obscure Blackwater outfit, not the CIA, I believe it was Blair himself that frightened him, thinking hard about it, it was Blair – the bastard.
“I don’t think Clare Short should be criticized for not resigning earlier. I doubt very much that it would have made any difference to Tony Blair’s behaviour in practice”
I see it more as illustrating Blair’s behaviour in practice. She stands up and makes a noise, says she’ll resign, and then doesn’t, it’s a piece of opposition that didn’t happen, another voice that wasn’t there at the time for opposition to form around. And now she says Blair conned her. So, maybe it’s a worked example of how the trick was done ?
I didn’t mean to suggest I was dismissing what she says now on account of it.