Channel 4 News in the UK has revealed some of the background to Phillppe Sand’s new version of a book about the Iraq war. The new document they reveal is more important than the “Downing Street memo”. It shows Bush and Blair were aware there was no evidence Saddam was in material breach of the UN Resolutions and were exploring ways of provoking him so that war could be declared. War would go ahead regardless of a “second” UN Resolution.
The report was so significant that Channel 4 kept details of it secret until broadcast in case the UK government tried to stop the transmission.
Acting leader of the LibDems was, Sir Ming Campbell, interviewed (blogging this live). Reported that there were suspicions that the US was to go to war no matter what, the memo confirms this. Blair desperate to get justification for war. Blair deceived Commons over what was said at the meeting on January 30, 2003. Both knew there was no evidence that Saddam had WMD before Powell went to the UN on February 4th.
The Channel 4 site report on this news item:
Channel 4 News tonight reveals extraordinary details of George Bush and Tony Blair’s pre-war meeting in January 2003 at which they discussed plans to begin military action on March 10th 2003, irrespective of whether the United Nations had passed a new resolution authorising the use of force.
Channel 4 News has seen minutes from that meeting, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. The two leaders discussed the possibility of securing further UN support, but President Bush made it clear that he had already decided to go to war. The details are contained in a new version of the book ‘Lawless World’ written by a leading British human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands QC.
President Bush said that:
“The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would ‘twist arms’ and ‘even threaten’. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.”
Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: “solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam.”
But Mr Blair said that: “a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs.”
Mr Sands’ book says that the meeting focused on the need to identify evidence that Saddam had committed a material breach of his obligations under the existing UN Resolution 1441. There was concern that insufficient evidence had been unearthed by the UN inspection team, led by Dr Hans Blix. Other options were considered.
President Bush said: “The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.”
He went on: “It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddams WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated.”
Speaking to Channel 4 News, Mr Sands said:
“I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law.”
Also present at the meeting were President Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice and her deputy Dan Fried, and the Presidents Chief of Staff, Andrew Card. The Prime Minister took with him his then security adviser Sir David Manning, his Foreign Policy aide Matthew Rycroft, and and his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell.
President Bush to Tony Blair: “The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach”
Bush: “It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam’s WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated.”
Blair: “A second Security Council Resolution resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected and international cover, including with the Arabs. “
Bush: “The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would ‘twist arms’ and ‘even threaten’. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.”
Blair responds that he is: “solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam.”
Bush told Blair he: “thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups.”
.
by Simon Walters – Mail on Sunday
A White House leak revealing astonishing details of how Tony Blair and George Bush lied about the Iraq war is set to cause a worldwide political storm. A new book exposes how the two men connived to dupe the United Nations and blows the lid off Mr Blair’s claim that he was a restraining influence on Mr Bush.
He offered his total support for the war at a secret White House summit as Mr Bush displayed his contempt for the UN, made a series of wild threats against Saddam Hussein and showed a devastating ignorance about the catastrophic aftermath of the war.
Based on access to information at the highest level, the book by leading British human rights lawyer Philippe Sands QC, Professor of Law at London University, demonstrates how the two men decided to go to war regardless of whether they obtained UN backing.
The book also makes serious allegations concerning the conduct of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and Attorney General Lord Goldsmith over Goldsmith’s legal advice on the war.
And it alleges the British Government boasted that disgraced newspaper tycoon Conrad Black was being used by Mr Bush’s allies in America as a channel for pro-war propaganda in the UK via his Daily Telegraph newspaper.
The leaks are contained in a new version of Sands’ book Lawless World, first published last year, when it emerged that Lord Goldsmith had told Mr Blair the war could be unlawful – before a lastminute U-turn.
The new edition, to be published by Penguin, is likely to cause a fierce new controversy on both sides of the Atlantic. It follows recent charges against two British men under the Official Secrets Act after a transcript of another conversation between Mr Bush and Blair, in which the President raised the possibility of bombing the Al Jazeera Arab TV station, was leaked by a Whitehall official.
The description of the January 31 meeting echoes the recent memoirs of Britain’s former ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer. Meyer, who was excluded from the private session between Blair and Bush, claimed the summit marked the culmination of the Prime Minister’s failure to use his influence to hold back Mr Bush.
It’s past midnight in the Netherlands, this info would be interesting for writing a diary …
≈ Cross-posted from BooMan’s story — Surrender Monkeys ≈
Thanks Londonbear for picking-up the story!
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Thanks Oui, C4 were playing this as a new exclusive. In a sense it was as rather than just relying on the book, they have seen the actual document.
.
A position lined up for him, like his predecessor John Major, with the Carlyle Group. A Conservative predecessor – oh well, Blair could be considered a Conservative Lite anyway. Practising British politics and keeping corporate interests in mind.
I assume Blair’s escape to the New World territories will prevent his rendition, or is it extradition, in any future indictment for war crimes and an Interpol warrant for his apprehension in Europe.
Tony Blair Double Defeat by Labor Vote
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
when will these two be brought to the Haque on charges of war crimes? The abundance of evidence seems to disappear in the next news cycle.
They lied, innocent people died. And Bush has just requested another $70 billion for Iraq.
amount he will be requesting next. I don’t think they have decided yet what their original request will be for Operation Iranian Freedom.
.
WASHINGTON Feb 2, 2006 — The Bush administration said it will ask Congress for $120 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $18 billion more this year for hurricane relief.
If approved by Congress, the war money would push spending related to the wars toward a staggering half-trillion dollars.
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Thanks for the updated figure. At the time of writing my comment, msnbc had the figure at $70 billion, The updated article has the additional $50 billion ’emergency money will likely be requested in fiscal year 2007.’
link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11145948
What’s a billion? How about the costs now being at half a trillion. Recall who was it that got fired by the Whitehouse when he had the cost at $200 billion. That new study released last month, putting the true cost at $1-2 trillion on the mark. Of course the real national treasure – innocents lost – is priceless.
Whatever the figure, you can bet it wasn’t in the President’s budget as originally submitted to Congress…. those numbers would just make him look like a big spender and make the deficit look even worse than it is, so he leaves them out…
Shall we email this piece to Olbermann? He is the only media anchor that would touch it don’t you think?
.
Just to be certain, please do.
I’m quite sure Keith Olbermann and a Juan Cole will have picked up the topic from Europe’s news outlets.
The U.S. corporate news media are not yet interested.
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
WOW! Like I’ve said before, What does it to to get a guy impeached around here??
A blow job and a (D).
If nobody’s willing to touch you long enough for a blow job, you’re safe. If you have an (R) you’re untouchable.
link here.
Also, compare these revelations about the Janurary meeting with what Robin Cook reported in his diary entry from March 5, 2003 (diaried here):
Just sent to Keith. Now let’s see what happens.
The “remember the Maine” incident was used to justify starting the Spanish American War. It was false.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was used to justify starting the Vietnam war. Recent releases from the archives show that this was false.
The MWD-9/11 mantra was used to justify the Iraq war. It was false.
What does this show? President’s can start wars when they wish, and never suffer the consequences (except for failing to get re-elected). Rather than focus on “getting” Bush, focus on getting control of congress.