View Full Version : Ministry of Defence gives Evidence in Iraq Enquiry

11-24-2009, 10:16 PM
The Iraq Enquiry opened for the first day today, in an attempt to hold a public Enquiry into what happened between the Bush Administration coming to power, and The United States of America leading a Unilateral Pre Emptive Invasion of Iraq.

Its not a Court of Law, though these Enquiries tend to mimic Civil Law, Certain Key Members are under no legal obligation to attend. I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that ANY American from the past Administration will attend...I find it Highly unlikely that even Tony Blair will come.

The Enquiry is going to go through the Anglo-American Relations between Washington and London the year before 9/11, during the begining of the War in Afghanistan. It is going to try and assess whether the British Government was either 1) mislead by the Americans in making the Jump from Afghanistan to Iraq or 2) whether the British Government mislead Parliament in signing off on the War. Its going to look into the death of Doctor David Kelly...who apparently committed suicide in an impossible manner from the Medical point of view after it was shown he leaked information to the press that proved both the American Government and the British Government knew the evidence on Iraq was not what they claimed. Some claim the Government is responsible for murder in this case.

So far the Ministry of Defence has said that as soon as the Pressure Group known as "The New America for The Twenty-first Century" came to power as an Administration, they were talking about Regieme change in Iraq.

please note...that is PRIOR to 9/11

They claim that London was not in favour. They made no comment as to whether they thought this was a policy of the New American Administration, or, whether it had more to do with who the Presidents Father was.

11-24-2009, 10:27 PM
According to Kelly's diary it could have just as well been the Iraqi's murdering him for lying to them.

I dunno it does sound horrible and fishy and if he was murdered by either government everyone involved should be given the death penalty.

11-24-2009, 11:08 PM
According to Kelly's diary it could have just as well been the Iraqi's murdering him for lying to them.

I dunno it does sound horrible and fishy and if he was murdered by either government everyone involved should be given the death penalty.

Well...I think all have motives...Yes I think that the Iraqis had motive, a hired hit man of some kind. The British Government certainly had motive...the guy went to the press...and the Americans had motive in stopping a possible British Rebellion....but I think the Americans were too far away and wouldnt have heard about it until it was too late to do anything...and I dont think that the Government would be hesitent to investigate the murder if they thought it was Iraq...that HELPS them

nope...odds on favourite to win this one is the British Government of some description...ironically, something probably under the MOD itself...its too much like State Sponcered Terror to me.

then there is the possibility he had a complete change of heart and killed himself...but...the medics, several have said they dont think he was capable of killing himself, physically...

The sad thing is...nothing will come of this. a few lower level politicians will just create rumours...the Government will never say anything, and those involved will either not show (the Americans) or lie (the British)


11-25-2009, 03:40 PM
poor bastard

11-26-2009, 06:53 PM
poor bastard

As predicted....on the Second Day of the Enquiry, the Government has given the Civil Service the right to censor documents that are to be used. This comes after the Ministry of Defense admitted the British Government knew Eleven Days before the War was declaired, that the Weapons of Mass Distruction were Firstly, not able to be launched within forty five moments, and secondly, were all non nuclear short range weapons capable only of streching as far as British Bases in Cyprus.

Seems like Mr Blair did a little bending of the truth, Satanic Style...you know...tell some truth, but not the whole truth. So there were weapons, but not exactly of mass destruction...and they could be launched, but not really within the hour...and when he meant they could "target us" what he meant to say was, target a base on Cyprus.

He wonders why we cast him out, and why Europe stuck their fingers up last week at him trying to be European President.

If they can and were prepared to lie like that...then im DAMN sure they would be capable of murdering a guy who finds out just before invasion and tries to go global...dont you :huh:

11-26-2009, 09:29 PM
The Old British Ambassidor to Washington DC has said that he remembers a meeting, a private meeting between President Bush, and Prime Minister Blair, he says the day after that meeting, London did a U-Tern over Iraqi Regieme Change (this meeting took place after 9/11 but a year before the Invasion) In otherwords. He blames the Americans :rolleyes::laugh: saying that only after a secret meeting privately with Bush did Blair suddenly believe that Saddam had to go.

This jump....is what the rest of the world, particularly the powers of Old Europe never made. This is why and Where London became the voice box of Washington DC to the United Nations and Old Europe. I have to admit for a while we WERE essentially the Fifty-First State :laugh:

11-26-2009, 11:23 PM
I have to admit for a while we WERE essentially the Fifty-First State :laugh:

Now you only want to be??

11-27-2009, 12:33 AM
Now you only want to be??

No. Now we democratically ellect someone on the premise they WONT speak on behalf of America. Its about the only thing this century that has unified the country on a patriotic level.

Its why Prime Minister Blair is gone...and his Administration doesnt end until May next year.


11-27-2009, 10:06 PM
"legal but of questional legitimacy"

Said the British Ambassidor to the United Nations His interpretations of Legal is that there was no clear No vote...but he said that it was illegitamte since without the vote Europe had not said Yes. In terms of English Law it was legal due to the vote in the commons, but of course, lacked the referendum which was the hidden no vote of the populas

He two blames the Americans. He two says that London did a U-Tern on Iraq after Blair and Bush had a private talk months before the invasion. He threatened to resign...but didnt :laugh:

11-29-2009, 03:28 PM
Can opened...worms everywhere :laugh:

Iraq: The war was illegal

Then Attorney General Goldsmith was 'pinned to the wall and bullied into keeping quiet' while the Prime Minister kept the Cabinet in the dark

The Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war will consider a letter from Lord Goldsmith, then Mr Blair's top law officer, advising him that deposing Saddam would be in breach of international law, according to a report in The Mail on Sunday.

But Mr Blair refused to accept Lord Goldsmith's advice and instead issued instructions for his long-term friend to be "gagged" and barred from cabinet meetings, the newspaper claimed. Lord Goldsmith apparently lost three stone, and complained he was "more or less pinned to the wall" in a No 10 showdown with two of Mr Blair's most loyal aides, Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan. Mr Blair also allegedly failed to inform the Cabinet of the warning, fearing an "anti-war revolt".

Lord Goldsmith allegedly threatened to resign over the issue, but was "bullied" into backing down. He eventually issued carefully drafted qualified backing for the invasion.

But according to The Mail on Sunday, his advice was radically different in July 2002, when ministers were allegedly told the US and UK planned "regime change" in Iraq. Then Lord Goldsmith reportedly wrote a letter to Mr Blair on 29 July, flagging up the legal difficulties of the plan of campaign he had apparently thrashed out with President George Bush. The letter pointed out: (1) Although UN rules permitted "military intervention on the basis of self-defence, they did not apply in this case as Britain was not under threat from Iraq; (2) While the UN allowed "humanitarian intervention" in certain cases, that too was not relevant to Iraq; (3) It would be very hard to rely on earlier UN resolutions in the Nineties approving the use of force against Saddam.

Lord Goldsmith ended by saying "the situation might change" although, in legal terms, it never did. The advice, and the decision to commit it to an official record, reportedly caused great friction between the two men, as it was feared publication of the details could undermine the case for war and damage Mr Blair's credibility.

The revelations follow testimony from a series of by figures at the Chilcot inquiry who have questioned Mr Blair's judgement and honesty, and the legality of the war. The Independent on Sunday understands, after only four days of testimony, the former prime minister was already furious that his reputation could be "shredded" by senior civil servants taking revenge on him during the inquiry into the Iraq conflict, it emerged last night.

Mr Blair has been appalled by the high-profile evidence given by mandarins who have appeared before the Chilcot inquiry since the first round of public hearings began last Tuesday, close friends have revealed. His image has taken a battering over the past six days, as a series of current and former public servants have given evidence that conflicts with the Government's account of the intelligence assessment of Iraq's weapons capability before the invasion in March 2003.

Among the devastating details presented to the inquiry was the revelation that British spies reported 10 days before the invasion that Iraq had "disassembled" what chemical weapons it had but Mr Blair went ahead and sent troops into battle. Britain's former ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, claimed Mr Blair and Mr Bush had signed a secret deal "in blood" to remove Saddam almost a year before the invasion. He said the agreement in effect left officials scrabbling to find "a smoking gun" to justify going to war.

Mr Blair's friends claimed last night that he has found some of the evidence given so far "distasteful", and potentially damaging to his reputation. "It is clear that the headlines so far have not been helpful to him," a former minister said. "But more troubling is the sense that some of the people involved are so keen to stick the knife in. It is quite distasteful."

Another Blair ally said the former leader had made clear his concern that "his reputation could be shredded by the Chilcot process". "He is furious that mandarins are seeking revenge and discovering their principles after the event," one friend added.

Sir Christopher Meyer has attracted much criticism from Blairites following a flamboyant appearance during which he claimed Mr Blair's view on "regime change" in Iraq hardened after a private meeting with Mr Bush in 2002. He also compared Mr Blair unflatteringly to Margaret Thatcher. The former diplomat told the inquiry on Thursday: "She would have insisted on a clear, coherent political/diplomatic strategy and I think she would have demanded the greatest clarity about what the heck happened if and when we removed Saddam."

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who worked beside Mr Blair in his attempts to gain UN blessing for the invasion, said the war was of "questionable legitimacy" even though it is unlikely to be proved illegal. The former UK ambassador to the UN said the invasion did not have the backing of most UN members or the British public.

Mr Blair assured MPs in the run-up to the invasion that "extensive, detailed and authoritative" intelligence showed "beyond doubt" that Saddam had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons; tried to develop nuclear weapons; and that he had already produced chemical weapons and used them on his own people. His government produced two dossiers on Saddam's weapons capability, to back up the case for war.

It has since been shown that much of the intelligence received by the Government in the run-up to the war was confused and inaccurate. Sir William Ehrman, the Foreign Office director general for defence and intelligence at the time, told the inquiry that a report suggested Saddam may not have been able to use chemical weapons. A separate report suggested Iraq might also "lack" warheads capable of spreading chemical agents.

Tim Dowse, the director of counter-proliferation at the Foreign Office between 2001-2003, said most evidence suggested Iraq's chemical and biological programme was largely "destroyed" in 1991. He said intelligence in late 2002 suggested Iraq was rebuilding its capability, although its actual position was unclear after weapons inspectors were expelled in 1998.

And now it appears the inquiry could become more uncomfortable for Mr Blair. It is understood the Chilcot panel has already been given Lord Goldsmith's letter. The two are both likely to be interrogated about it when they give evidence in the new year.

Critical evidence from key figures to Chilcot inquiry

Sir Peter Ricketts "We quite clearly distanced ourselves from talk of regime change... that was not something we thought there would be any legal base for."

Sir William Patey "We were aware of those drumbeats from Washington [about regime change]. Our policy was to stay away from that end of the spectrum."

Sir Michael Wood "[Establishing no-fly zones over Iraq] was very controversial ... The US government was very careful to avoid taking any real position on the law."

Sir William Ehrman "We did, on 10 March, get a report that chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and Saddam hadn't yet ordered their assembly."

Sir Christopher Meyer "Suddenly, because of the unforgiving nature of the military timetable, we found ourselves scrabbling for the smoking gun."

Sir Jeremy Greenstock "I regarded our participation in the military action against Iraq in March 2003 as legal, but of questionable legitimacy."

12-02-2009, 07:43 PM
Army Sources say the Prime Minister Tony Blair began planning for the Invasion of Iraq almost a whole year before the Invasion took place. They were already drafting soldier numbers and stuff :blink: