John Hamilton: Prime Minister Tony Blair told then-president George W. Bush in 2002 that Britain would back military action if diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq's Saddam Hussein failed. That's according to testimony today by Blair's former communications chief as he appeared before a public inquiry into the Iraq War in London. Alastair Campbell said there never was a precipitant rush to war despite the close ties between Blair and Bush; however, Campbell said that Blair wrote personally to Bush to offer his support for military action if Saddam did not accede to the United Nations demands on disarmament before the March 2003 invasion. Here he describes the content of secret letters from Blair to the former president pledging British support for an invasion as early as 2002.
Alastair Campbell: We share the analysis. We share the concern. We're absolutely with you in making sure that Saddam Hussein is -- face up to his obligations and Iraq is disarmed. If that cannot be done diplomatically, it has to be done mila-militarily. Britain will be there. That will definitely be the tenor of his communications to the president.
John Hamilton: Campbell is a former journalist who was one of Blair's closest advisers from 1994 to 2003. He insisted today that Blair tried all along to disarm Saddam by diplomatic means. His testimony conflicted with widespread reports that a British intelligence dossier on Iraq's pre-war capabilities to produce Weapons of Mass Destruction was "sexed up" on Campbell's orders to make Saddam Hussein appear to be more of a threat to national security. Those reports were reinforced this week when the British Guardian newspaper reported that those who drafted the dossier were immediately asked to compare British claims against a 2002 speech to the United Nations by then-president George W. Bush. In that speech, the former president claimed Iraq would be able to produce a nuclear weapon within a year. The next day, the [British] dossier's timeline was halved to claimed Iraq could get the bomb within a year. Campbell today dismissed such reports.
Alastair Campbell: But at no point did anybody from the prime minister down say to anybody within intelligence services, 'Look, you've got to sort of tailor it to fit this argument.' I defend every single word of the dossier I defend every single part of the process.
John Hamilton: The five-person Iraq Inquiry also known as the Chilcot Inquiry was called by current Prime Minister Gordon Brown to examine the run up to the 2003 invasion. Critics point out that witness are not sworn to testify under oath. And others have criticized the panel's members for their lack of prosecutorial skills. This is former Financial Times journalist John Munch.
John Munch: The panelists don't have any [. . .] or any professional lawyers who are really intent on - on making the case against the government. In the states, you have far more tough questioning in federal investigations.
John Hamilton: Also today an official Dutch investigation into the Iraq War concluded that the Hague government supported the war without legal backing, it did not fully inform Parliament about its plans. The committee's scathing report -- whose release was broadcast live on state television -- said the US led invasion probably targeted regime change in Iraq but military intervention for this reason was not supported by international law and the Dutch government was aware of that case.
Though the Pacifica Evening News could note both the Iraq Inquiry and the Dutch findings, Amy Goodman had time for neither. I'm not joking when I say you need to pay attention to who is covering it and who is not. You also need to pay attention to who grandstanded over the Iraq War, who lined their pockets with money from it. People like Amy Goodman who make no time for it today. War profiteering is not limited to the defense industry. You also need to grasp that John Munch doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
No, they don't have attorneys. That's a valid point. (Although Gordon Brown would insist they aren't needed because they will determine no individual guilt.) But this nonsense about what the US has? The US would not do this as a federal investigation. Did we do the 9-11 inquiry as a federal investigation? No. The Warren Commission was a federal investigation? No.
Some people really need to be asked what the hell they're doing. Munch thinks the hearings will be a whitewash. They may be. They may end up that way. In the meantime, the Inquiry's public hearings are turning up interesting facts that add to the broader understanding of the illegal war. Munch sounds like he need to get some sunlight or vitamin D before next weighing in on what would happen in the US. Reality: The US has had no public inquiry into the Iraq War. Not with John Conyers when the Dems were out of power and not since Dems grabbed control of both houses in the 2006 mid-term elections.
Let's stay with the Iraq Inquiry's hearing yesterday. Catherine Mayer (Time magazine) adds:
Blair's star turn is expected to be so heavily subscribed that the inquiry has launched a public ballot for seats. A key question will be at what point the British government gave pledges to Washington about taking part in military action. The inquiry panel's questions to Campbell revealed for the first time the existence of private letters in 2002 from Blair to U.S. President George W. Bush. The "tenor" of these letters, said Campbell, was "We are going to be with you making sure that Saddam Hussein faces up to his obligations and that Iraq is disarmed. If that cannot be done diplomatically and it is to be done militarily, Britain will be there."
For the New York Times, John F. Burns has covered the Inquiry before and he notes of yesterday's hearing:
Mr. Campbell is a former tabloid newspaper reporter who became powerful through his close personal relationship with Mr. Blair. Already a highly contentious figure, he resigned amid the controversy that erupted in the summer of 2003 after a leading British weapons specialist, David Kelly, whom Mr. Campbell and others accused of making misleading statements to a BBC journalist about the government's statements on Iraq's weapons, was found dead with his wrist slashed on a hill near his Oxfordshire home.
Mr. Campbell's testimony was filled with instances of the uncompromising approach that caused even senior cabinet ministers to treat him with care. He was unrelenting in his backing for Mr. Blair and for the approach he took to removing Mr. Hussein. "You seem to be wanting me to say that Tony Blair signed up to say, 'Regardless of the facts, regardless of W.M.D., we are just going to get rid of the guy," he said. "It was not like that."
The Daily Mirror offers, "A little humility might have been appropriate when considering the dire situation Iraq is now in but perhaps we're expecting too much." BBC News offers a press roundup of coverage (with links). Meanwhile Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) notes Campbell's taken to blog to toss out the Bible to hide behind.
The Iraq Inquiry is continuing today. Andrew Sparrow live blogs for the Guardian:
2.47pm: Turnbull says there was also an ad hoc group on Iraq. It was set up on 20 September. An ad hoc group is an official group set up within the Cabinet Office machinery, he says.
This group was heavily influenced by what happened during the first Gulf War. For example, it received papers on transport and shipping. Officials did not want to repeat what happened in the first Gulf War, when a British commercial plane got stuck in Kuwait.
Channel 4 News' Iraqi Inquiry Blogger live blogs at Twitter:
- Inquiry releases 'Secret - UK eyes' document from MoD re legal basis for war and correspondence about Clare Short http://bit.ly/4zgwIT
Chris Ames also notes the release:
The Inquiry has posted on its website two letters to former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull in the run-up to the war.
This is the first time it has published or “declassified” actual contemporaneous documents. It appears that Turnbull gave permission.
One letter is dated 5 March 2003 and gives the views of MOD permanent under secretary Kevin Tebbit on the process for obtaining legal cover when “the call to action from President Bush” came.
The other letter is from DFID permanent secretary Suma Chakrabarti, dated 11 March 2003. It sets out Clare Short’s position, including her desire for a full discussion of the legality, based on advice from the attorney general.
Remember that in addition to reading Chris Ames' writing at the Guardian and The New Statesman, he also runs the Iraq Inquiry Digest -- and that last one is the resource for the issues being raised.As the hearing continues today, This Is Nottingham notes concerns over a witness to appear next week:
A LABOUR party figure has warned Geoff Hoon not to "needlessly attack" the Prime Minister when he appears in front of the Iraq War Inquiry next week.
On Tuesday Mr Hoon is scheduled to give evidence about his time as Defence Secretary, which included the build-up to and early stages of the Iraq conflict.
But after the Ashfield MP took part in a challenge on Gordon Brown's leadership last week, some party sources fear he may use the event to try and damage the Prime Minister politically.
Turning to the topic of the findings on the Iraq War in the Netherlands -- which may involve Tony Blair as well, Dutch News reports:
A furious row has erupted between the Labour party and the prime minister about his dismissive reaction to yesterday's highly critical report on the Netherlands' role in the Iraq war.
Labour's leader in parliament has called on Jan Peter Balkenende to make a new statement on the report while other MPs want an emergency debate later today.
In a statement late on Tuesday afternoon, the prime minister said several of the report's most serious conclusions are 'an opinion' and that the cabinet had kept parliament properly informed about the decision-making process.
Afua Hirsch (Guardian) pronounces them to be "damning findings" and explains the inquiry had a mysterious document that is being kept secret: "The document – allegedly a letter from Tony Blair asking for the support of the Dutch prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende – was handed over in a breach of diplomatic protocol and on the basis that it was for Balkenende's eyes only, an inquiry official told the Guardian." Andrew Porter (Telegraph of London) adds of the report:
It stated: "The United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq from the 1990s did not give a mandate to the US-British military intervention in 2003."
Mr Balkenende joined the "coalition of the willing" because he said Saddam Hussein had repeatedly flouted UN resolutions. Dutch MPs opposed the move.
The report said the Dutch government did not adequately inform parliament in 2002 and 2003 about a US request for support for the invasion.
Willibrord Davids, the committee chairman, said: "It could have been much more complete. Information from intelligence and security services was handed out selectively."
This is a dictated entry (parts of it) due to running out of time this morning. I was just read this from the last entry (which I actually typed all by lonesome): "We've noted here before (and at Third) that Vlahos is a conservative. For some reason, her political position has led Ricks in the past to believe she was 'open game' and he could write whatever he wanted about her -- true or false. He'll probably ignore the latest (which went up yesterday) because it's a depressing time for him." And the friend reading that to me reminded me of Ricks' habit of posting cheesecake T&A photos to his allegedly 'political' website. I'd forgotten that, honestly. But with that in mind, let's note that his attacks on Kelley B. Vlahos may have also stemmed from her gender.
We'll close with this from Kenneth J. Theisen's "Guantanamo – Eight Years is Eight too Many" (World Can't Wait):
On January 11, 2002, twenty prisoners of the U.S. war of terror arrived in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Despite the promises of President Barack Obama the hellhole known as Guantanamo continues to operate.
Almost 800 men from the ages of 13 to 98 have been held at Gitmo. Nearly two hundred remain there. Gitmo prisoners have been subject to death, abuse and torture, and denied fundamental human and legal rights all at the hands of the U.S. government and its agents.
Gitmo has come to symbolize to the world the crimes of the Bush regime and the ongoing crimes of the Obama administration as it continues to operate not only Gitmo, but other hellhole prisons such as the one at Bagram, Afghanistan. Torture, abuse and the denial of rights continues under the Obama administration despite the promises and lies that are issued in press releases and delivered in speeches.
Obama promised to shutter Gitmo shortly after taking office. He ordered the closure of the prison by January 22, 2010. He now admits that the prison will still be in operation by that date. Even worse, his administration is opening and expanding prisons similar to Gitmo. These include the “new Gitmo” in Thomson, Illinois and the multi-million dollar expansion of the Bagram prison. Every day new prisoners of the U.S. war of terror are being incarcerated in these hellholes operated by the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the pacifica evening news
john hamilton
kpfk
kpfa
time magazine
catherine mayer
the daily mirror
the guardian
andrew sparrow
this is nottingham
the telegraph of london
andrew porter
dutch news
afua hirsch
chris ames
the world cant wait
kenneth j. theisen
