Skip to main content

The Chilcot inquiry dealing with Great Britain's role in the Iraq War grinds on.
Former Attorney General Goldsmith now states beyond any doubt that Blair deceived Parliament about the legality of the war.

From The Independent:

In a written statement to the Chilcot inquiry, Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, suggested Mr Blair's statements to Parliament about the legality of the invasion were not compatible with the advice handed to the prime minister. He said Mr Blair's statements made him "uncomfortable". He described how he was cut out of discussions over the drafting of the UN resolution used as cover for the invasion of March 2003.

I have previously followed this in detail, and have written various diaries about Attorney General Goldsmith.
Goldsmith was forced to approve a "hop-scotch" interpretation of a series of U.N. Security Council Resolutions in order to justify a pre-emptive attack.
His testimony now is potentially devastating for Blair, who is scheduled to reappear before the Chilcot commission.

Unable to find support for a second Security Council resolution supporting an attack on Iraq, the neo-cons and Blair were stuck in the desert with an army that could go nowhere.

The U.N. inspection teams under Blix were discounting fanciful tales of Iraqi WMD capabilities. Meanwhile, Blair ratcheted up the threat by deploying army personnel and anti-missile defence systems at Heathrow, in a visible display of security theatre, designed to massage public opinion.

The last link below provides background to what is happening at the Chilcot inquiry now. AG Goldsmith's contradiction of Blair is important, as Blair is scheduled to appear for a second interview before the committee.

While the U.S. administration took steps to ensure it couldn't be charged with war crimes by foreign courts, matters are not as rosy for former PM Blair. As can be seen from this diary, UK commanders demanded specific legal language demonstrating that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq was not a war crime.

The new evidence:

What Blair said:
"We have said that a second UN resolution is preferable, because it is far better that the UN come together. We have also said that there are circumstances in which a UN resolution is not necessary, because it is necessary to be able to say in circumstances where an unreasonable veto is put down that we would still act."
Commons, 15 January 2003

* "If the inspectors do report that they can't do their work properly because Iraq is not co-operating there's no doubt under the terms of the existing UNSCR that that is a breach of the Resolution. In those circumstances there should be a further resolution. If, however, a country were to issue a veto, because there has to be unanimity amongst the permanent members of the Security Council ... then I would consider action outside of that."
Newsnight, 6 February 2003

What Goldsmith said: When asked by the Chilcot inquiry whether he considered Blair's words to be compatible with the advice he had given the PM

* Goldsmith: "No ... I was uncomfortable with them, and I believe that I discussed my concerns with Jack Straw and my own staff. I do not think there was any doubt about my view. I had been clear at the meeting with [Blair] on 22 October 2002."

Goldsmith has yet to explain how he was persuaded to craft the "hop-skotch" rationale for war that was ultimately used to justify the attack. This was also why the Coalition was desperate to find evidence of WMD following the invasion, which led to the abuses of Abu Ghraib and the frantic attempts by Blair to deflect attention away from the fact that no WMD was found. Blair later had to admit that his claims of mass graves with hundreds of thousands in them was untrue.

Background information here:
http://www.dailykos.com/...

Originally posted to self-evident on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 02:28 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (12+ / 0-)

    "If you don't use your majorities, you lose your majorities."

    by SteinL on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 02:28:41 AM PST

  •  Thanks for keeping up with this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bronte17

    The "rule of law" is a bit of a two-edged sword.  While it enables people to get away with criminal behavior (depriving others of their inherent human rights) under cover of law and the law leaves no finger-prints, using the law as a tool of subordination, rather than to insure justice, does leave a written, reviewable record for public inspection and correction.

    Declaring the enslavement of human beings and their re-designation as property, instead of persons, was a signal event in the evolution of global jurisprudence. However, having enshrined this despicable practice in the legal code, also made it possible to remove it.  Just so, declarations of war based on lies and misinformation can be revoked and compensation can be ordered.

    How does one compensate the premature termination of hundreds of thousands of lives?  

    The conservative mind relies mainly on what is plain to see.

    by hannah on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 03:33:42 AM PST

  •  I have never in my life been closer to kicking (0+ / 0-)

    in my t.v. screen than when I watched blair talk before the chilcott enquiry. The smug self righteousness would be right at home in the republican party.

    When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know. -- Mark Twain

    by voroki on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 04:27:10 AM PST

  •  There is nothing to stop charges of War Crimes (0+ / 0-)

    from any soveriegn country no matter what Blair, Bush, Cheney or anyone else says. Look to Spain or Italy for prime examples of proof.
    The only thing stopping any country is fear of US retaliation, be it political, financial, or worse. Of course in this time that is enough for most countries since most of them particpated in one way or another in the Iraq fiasco or illegal Renditions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site