Evidence Released Showing Blair Lied over Iraq WMD

While we anxiously wait to see what comes out when Democrats have full powers to investigate the run up to the war, we might be receiving a preview in Great Britain. Previously the Downing Street Memos provided evidence that Blair and Bush were lying to their countries. Further evidence has now been released as reported by The Independent:

The Government’s case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr Blair’s justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain’s key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, “at no time did HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] assess that Iraq’s WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests.”

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been “effectively contained”.

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. “I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed),” he said.

“At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that ‘regime change’ was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos.”

6 Comments

  1. 1
    Probus says:

    I wonder if the House of Representatives could investigate this story from the American angle and see how much the administration knew about Hussein not having the WMDs the administration vehemently claimed it did. Also how would that fit in with an impeachment proceeding? One would hope that the Judiciary Committee in the House would take this up along with the Downing Street Memos. At the very least it could be investigated even if impeachment is off the table. I don’t know if the House Judiciary Committee can ask Carne Ross to testify before them, but if they could we would definitely make progress in knowing what Blair and the administration knew at the time of the preemptive invasion especially if they were told that invading Iraq would destabilize that country.

  2. 2
    kj says:

    Again, Let the sun shine.
    Good ideas, Probus.

  3. 3
    Probus says:

    kj,

    I know many dem leaders have shut the door on any possible impeachment but I would like to see investigations on the run up to this war. I don’t know if the Judiciary Committee is open to at the very least an investigation in this area as incoming Chairman Conyers has said that impeachment is off the table.

  4. 4
    kj says:

    Probus,

    Oh, you know I want to see investigations on the run up to this war. I was ballastic at the time and did more than my share of phone calling to Pat Roberts, Jay and the rest. Our elected officials were infuriatingly negligent in their duties in 2002 and 2003. I do not want to (imo) waste time going directly to impeachment, I think we need every solid head on the situations in Afghanistan, Iraq and domestic US, but I strongly support investigations in the buildup of Bush’s Folly in Iraq, and if in the course of those investigations the trail leads to impeachment, so be it. (Personally, I want to see the lot wearing orange jumpsuits at the Hague.)

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    They should take it one step at a time. Investigate first and then find out both what really happened (most of which we can already give a fair answer about) and see what can really be proven. Then determine whether there is enough evidence of an impeachable offense to procede.

    Considering that it is very unlikely they will get the votes to remove Bush unless there is a real smoking gun they should not bother with impeachment if it could easily come across as a case of differences in opinion or of Bush being wrong as opposed to lying about the reasons for going to war. However if there is actual evidence that Bush intentionally lied to get the country to agree to go to war then they should procede with impeachment and let the Senate Republicans take their party down the path of defending a rogue President who betrayed his country in such a manner.

    One concern is the Clinton analogy and how the public will respond. The big difference is that Bush is being accused of a real crime. People will see the difference–but it is important that there be reasonable evidence before attempting impeachment.

  6. 6
    Probus says:

    kj,

    “(Personally, I want to see the lot wearing orange jumpsuits at the Hague.)” lol. I’d like to see Sen. Rockefeller the incoming Chairman of the Intelligence Committee investigate the NIE report given to Congress in the run up to the war which included cherry picked intelligence only favorable to the administration’s contention that we go to war with Iraq.

    Ron,

    I agree, impeachment shouldn’t be pursued if they is no direct, credible evidence that the president broke the law and took us to war for the wrong reasons. Or that he deliberately manipulated intelligence and misled the Congress and thus the American people. If the dem leadership is unwilling to go down this path, and impeachment seems unlikely I would like to see a censure motion. It would send the same message that the president broke the law and it wouldn’t have the severity of an impeachment that leaders like Pelosi and Reid are trying to avoid. Sen. Feingold should be persuaded as he seems to have dropped the idea of censure to introduce it at some point in the Senate. Hopefully, Sen. Johnson will make a full recovery and we will keep control of the Senate even if he is absent for the time he needs to recuperate fully.

Leave a comment