Blair: How British Officials Conspired to Do Me Down

Tony Blair attempted, in an interview with the BBC's Today programme, to dismiss the claim that he had already agreed to go to war when the infamous "Downing Street Memo" meeting took place in July 2002 as “conspiracy theory”. Even by his pathetic standards this is a novel excuse. But just in case anyone is gulled into believing him, here is an extract from what was to my mind the most important of the eight memos. It was a Cabinet Office briefing paper, dated 21 July 2002 prepared for a key meeting of Blair's war cabinet, which was to take place at 10 Downing St two days later. It was the minutes of that meeting which included the infamous statement by Sir Richard Dearlove, the then head of MI6, that the intelligence was being “fixed around the policy” in Washington.

The Cabinet Office briefing paper revealed that Blair and Bush had agreed to invade Iraq at the Crawford summit on 6/7 April 2002, six months before the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441, which the British Prime Minister said legalised the war, and five months before Congress authorised military action.

“When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change.”

This was arguably the most important point made in any of the Downing Street Memos and although it was the Sunday Times lead when we broke the story, its significance was largely missed by other parts of the UK and US media. Even those who followed up the story said the memos showed that Blair and Bush had agreed to go to war in July. If you still believe that read the quote in blue again. 

That agreement meant that ministers had little choice but to find a way to "create the conditions in which we could legally support military action", by securing a UN ultimatum to Iraq to give up his weapons, the Cabinet Office briefing paper said.

You can read the briefing paper here. If we are to believe Blair, it was all cooked up inside the Cabinet Office to discredit him. And he’s accusing us of conspiracy theory?

Comments

[Chuck Unsworth]

Blair was waffling throughout the interview. He was not even remotely convincing, choosing to ignore facts and recent history. He is in complete denial.

It's quite remarkable that a man whose common interjection is 'The truth is....' is so unable to recognise the truth of any situation or circumstances.

His days are numbered, he will never be able to secure a 'legacy' except a most appalling reputation. His name will evermore be associated with mendacity. And his Party will forever be remembered for its unquestioning and slavish support for this crook. Brown - his supposed successor - is, if it were possible, even more devious.

And take a long hard look at those who are putting themselves forward for election to high office now. How many of them are to be trusted with our troops' lives, not to mention our cash?

'Thatcherism' was one thing, what is 'Blairism'?

Anyone care to put forward a succinct definition?

[Neil Murphy]

Hunphries is a lousy interviewer, I listened to some of the interview and gave up it was so bad (not that Blair will ever admit to any wrongdoing).

However, don't worry Mick, I doubt anyone in this country would believe anyting mouthed by Blair.

If he stood next to me and told me it was raining, I would look up to make sure.

[The 3rd Column]

Chuck and Neil are absolutely spot on. Blair is doing a repeat of the final charge of the last brigade but nothing he can say or do now will alter the fact that he's one big loser.

As to the MoD trying to do you down Mick, shows that they're hurting real bad. Just keep pounding Mick, those guys at MoD will wave the lil white flag soon enough.

[dave]

NEIL MURPHY
Humphrys is not lousy, perhaps, but Oh so often I also notice that punches are pulled.
Every few weeks, sometimes several times a week, I sit in my Normandy kitchen and writhe. Even I, without a research staff, have the Killer Question, and ......zilch.
A few years back, I even stopped listening completely.

I don't know if in this case there was a Killer Question ? Confronted with someone from a different Planet, what can you say ?

Chuck -- relying on you for the defition. I will attempt to refine / nitpick after you .

Blairwatch is publicising new stuff on 45minutes here.

[dave]

And here is some Blair mendacity on tape on extraordinary rendition

What goes around .........

SPLAT !

[Jail the Pigs]

Chuck,

Blairism: The co-ordinated deployment of all elements of State power to prevent freedom of thought, speech, expression, movement - coming soon to a toll road near you - and the utterance of truth in public life?

Not the most eloquent definition but I think it covers it.

[dave]

Hi "jail"

You forgot financial and economic crimes .

I was reminded of qinetic today -- sundry articles at spinwatch here

There is so much dirty work going on, that it is difficult to know where to concentrate one's attentions, but I'd suggest the whole field of PFI and 'privatisations' a good place to start.

Old Supermac once spoke of "selling off the family silver", but now it is being given away .

Corruption and incompetence have always existed, but we are in new territory now. Disbelief is permanently suspended, as one treasonous scandal succeeds another.

[Edmund Burke]

Blair's period in office coincided with massive geo-political changes, for which he was not personally responsible. The election of a Polish bishop as Pope tore a hole in the "Iron Curtain", and changed the entire relationshiop beween NATO and the former Communist bloc in Eastern Europe.

These inter-connected events cancelled the absolute dependence of the UK on the US, under the umbrella of NATO, but Blair nevertheless followed Bush in his totally illegal cowboy operation against Iraq - in contravention of the UN Charter and without a UN mandate.

The horrifying truth is that George Bush Jnr, for all his spin about "democracy", is himself a dictator. The only justification that he and Tony Blair came up with, on the Iraq war, was that "it was the right thing to do". In doing so they fulfilled the dictionary definition of a dictator - someone who governs by what he himself says is the "right thing to do".

The only remaining question is whether Blair himself privately had doubts about the war, and whether he had any real choice as far as preserving the Atlantic Alliance was concerned. That is for the historians to sort out.