Blair admits July 2002 meeting, does not deny any of its content

[steve2470]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3662153&mesg_id=3662225

<snip>

In a Sunday morning television interview, Mr. Blair did not deny that the meeting took place in July 2002, but he recalled that ''subsequent to that meeting, we went the United Nations route,'' seeking a resolution in November 2002, calling on the Iraqi government to disarm. An effort to secure a more bellicose second resolution faltered in early 2003.

Mr. Blair disputed a suggestion that Britain might have pulled out of the war, leaving America to topple Mr. Hussein alone.

''So we the British at the moment of decision would have faltered and backed off,'' Mr. Blair said. ''That's not my conception of Britain.''

He denied, however, that Britain had committed itself irrevocably to war by July 2002.

''The idea that we had decided definitely by that stage is disproved by the fact that we went back to the U.N.'' he said.

<snip>

the link may not work, best I can do.

http://query.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=...

I bought the original 5-2-2005 NY Times article. If you want the entire article, email me.

[brainshrub]

1. English translation: "The Yanks were the ones who faked the data."

"Don't blame us."

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Link to the BBC interview

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/4503183.stm

Unfortunately David Frost never specifically mentioned the "intelligence and facts were being fixed" bit, which is the most damning section.

Also, the New York Times article is available as the reprint in the International Herlad Tribune. Sorry you had to fork out for teh NYT archive.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/02/news/blair.php

[steve2470]

4. oh well, my little bit for democracy :-) nt

[janx]

3. Yet--

''The idea that we had decided definitely by that stage is disproved by the fact that we went back to the U.N.'' he said.

Going to the U.N. was part of the game plan according to the memo, was it not?

[gratuitous]

5. The decision was disproved?

Uh Tony? You and your henchman went to the UN with a pack of lies, half-truths and jiggered conclusions. The only promise Bush made during his pack of lies press conference before launching the illegal invasion (the one where Judith Miller was "too scared" to ask a real question) was that he would go back to the UN for a second vote. He never did, because Hans Blix was telling everyone who would listen that there were no weapons in Iraq, and it had no offensive capabilities.

Damn, but isn't life a bitch when people remember stuff, Tony? Enjoy your time at The Hague just before they sentence you to life for crimes against humanity.

[punpirate]

6. Well, young Tony...

... if you thought that the UN was important, why didn't you insist on a second, clear declaration of the authorization for military action from the Security Council?

Because they wouldn't bloody fucking do it on the basis of the evidence, and both you and Bush knew that to be true.

Blair is getting more pathetic by the day, election or no.

[bennywhale]

7. "we...would have faultered and backed off?" "Thats not my conception of

Britain" From that then he is admitting it. We went back to the UN for them to authorise it but in the event of them not authorising it, it is "not my conception of Britain" that we would have backed off.

So committed to war then. Is this not him dropping himself in the shit. Am i interpreting this right. Its blindingly obvious what he's saying.

WE WOULDN'T HAVE BACKED OF IN THE EVENT OF THE UN NOT AUTHORISING IT.

So they just went for clearence it didn't come. Fuck it lets go.

[bennywhale]

8. By the way you'll all be pleased to know i can report from Britain that

Blair is a broken politician. The way the election works over here people still wanted the Labour Party but not Blair, and thats exactly whats happened. The only reason he's been so 'effective' is the massive majority. This has been slashed, and his power within the party has vanished.

Brown is manouvering, the bankbenchers are revolting against him, and it won't be long before he's gone.

The election couldn't have worked better. Victory for the Labour party,defeat for the tyrant.

[steve2470]

13. welcome to DU and thanks for your input ! nt

[JDPriestly]

9. The United Nations route was a fraud.

Vanity Fair published a blow-by-blow account of the chronology of the pre-war period. The Bush and Blair administrations put on an act and pretended to go to the UN in order to trick Americans and British into supporting the war. I think the Vanity Fair article was printed somewhere between February and April 2004.

According to that article, the head of the UN inspection team reported that Saddam was allowing full access to all sites, but Bush went in anyway on the lie that Saddam was not giving the inspectors access. It is all explained in that article. The whole UN thing was a ruse, cover for going to war without a good reason. I believe that was what Blair and Bush were thinking up in and shortly after the July 2002 meeting. Blair is simply relying on the cover that he and Bush created in July 2002, i.e., the UN route. What more can you expect? Criminals rarely admit their crimes unless they are harshly punished. Blair did wrong and he knows it, and now the truth is coming out. He is fighting for his political survival and probably too scared to admit the truth even to himself.

[steve2470]

11. It was the May 2004 issue. I cannot find it so far online.

I found the reference but not the article, unless one wishes to pay for it.

[JDPriestly]

14. I have a copy -- It is May 2003, p.228.

I actually retrieved it from a box. You might find a copy at a library. Authors are Bryan Burrough, Evgenia Peretz, David Rose and David Wise. It has a lot of interesting points.

From the point of view of the chronology, everything revolved around the date February 5, 2003, the day Colin Powell (supported by Tenet sitting next to him on the podium) went to the U.N. with the "evidence" supporting Bush's case for war, which the Blair memo debunks. p. 230.

At page 283, the article tells that BLAIR VISITED BUSH IN CRAWFORD IN APRIL 2002 and "made clear that he would back whatever America decided about Iraq." The article states that, IN JULY 2002, Blair's attorney general, Lord Goldsmith insisted that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal without the support of UN, that "Blair would need to demonstrate that the threat to British national security was real and imminent," in short, that "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." p. 283. The Blair memo confirms what Vanity Fair reported last year.

Blair sent his chief foreign-policy adviser, Sir David Manning to meet with Rice, possibly in LATE JULY 2002 OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER. p. 283. Bush called Rice into his office while Manning was there, and Manning told the president directly that Blair wanted to go through the UN. pp. 238-84. A few days later, Bush spoke to Blair on the phone, and "a White House official who has studied the transcript of the phone call" said that, at that time, "SEVERAL DAYS AFTER MANNINGS VISIT," SOMETIME AROUND END OF JULY OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER (UNCERTAIN DATE), Blair and Bush agreed that "Saddam was going to go; . . . they were going forward, they were going to take out the regime, and they were doing the right thing." p. 284. After that call, the official said that going into Iraq was "a done deal."

The die had been cast. The whole UN route was a ruse to try to legitimize the war. It would have worked except that it was, from the very beginning, just a way to make an illegal act look legal.

The article describes the demands Bush made on Saddam as "so Draconian that Saddam could never accept them, thereby creating a trigger for war." p. 286. It would have required Saddam to allow, not just the UN inspectors, but "representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council, as well as military forces from those countries"
who would follow the inspectors around, for instance. p. 286. The problem was that the French balked at the UN proposal and its "hidden trigger" that would lead automatically to war without UN approval. pp. 286-287. The Vanity Fair article describes how the French objections were handled -- or, more appropriately, strong-armed. pp. 286-287.

Hans Blix delivered his first report to the UN on January 27, 2003. p. 289. It was pro-war. Blix reported that Iraq had not accounted for certain chemical and biological warfare substances that it had possessed and that Iraq had missiles that violated UN restrictions and that Iraq refused to let the inspectors use U-2 surveillance planes. p. 298.

Powell's speech was February 5, 2003. p. 298. The "evidence" behind that speech is discussed at page 298. It explains that Powell was not informed of facts that placed his "evidence" in doubt, and that his speech contained many errors (as we now know, since he said there was evidence that Iraq had WMDs, and Iraq did not have them). p. 298.

Following Powell's speech, and the reason it is so pivotal, "on February 14, Hans Blix appeared once more before the Security council, and his findings contradicted Powells." p. 290. Blix completely debunked much of Powell's "evidence," and stated "that Iraq was finally taking steps toward real cooperation with the inspectors, allowing them to enter Iraq presidential palaces, among other previously proscribed sites." p. 290.

(I add, that, shortly after this, Saddam allowed Dan Rather to interview him and, looking straight into the camera, without flinching, denied that he had WMDs.)

After the invasion, Americans soon realized that there were no WMDs. pp. 293-294.

The UN route was a hoax, and the evidence of that has been public since at least May 2003. The Blair memo corroborates that evidence. Anyone who says they don't "agree" with the memo (McCain) is either misinformed or purposely spreading lies.

[killbotfactory]

10. No decision had been made. Right.

But they wouldn't let America invade alone.

Oh yeah, and they knew America was going to invade.

1+1=3

It's so simple.

[kentuck]

12. So, it's true....

Huh..?

[lyonn]

15. Bottom line

Bushco forced an Illegal invasion of a country that posed no threat to the U.S. The British fell in line for historical reason I guess.