What if the invasion of Iraq had not happened? And without the UK support, even Colin Powell’s lies to the UN about Iraq’s WMD would not have been enough. And Tony Blair was no reluctant liar but a willing player in the scheme to dupe the UN.
I wonder what history will make of Tony Blair now that this memo from Colin Powell has been revealed.
Smoking gun emails reveal Blair’s ‘deal in blood’ with George Bush over Iraq war was forged a YEAR before the invasion had even started
- Leaked White House memo shows former Prime Minister’s support for war at summit with U.S. President in 2002
- Bombshell document shows Blair preparing to act as spin doctor for Bush, who was told ‘the UK will follow our lead’
- Publicly, Blair still claimed to be looking for diplomatic solution – in direct contrast to email revelations ……
A bombshell White House memo has revealed for the first time details of the ‘deal in blood’ forged by Tony Blair and George Bush over the Iraq War. The sensational leak shows that Blair had given an unqualified pledge to sign up to the conflict a year before the invasion started.
It flies in the face of the Prime Minister’s public claims at the time that he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis. He told voters: ‘We’re not proposing military action’ – in direct contrast to what the secret email now reveals.
***MAIL ONLINES *** Email from Colin Powell Image vis Glen Owen MOS political reporter
The classified document also discloses that Blair agreed to act as a glorified spin doctor for the President by presenting ‘public affairs lines’ to convince a sceptical public that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction – when none existed.
In return, the President would flatter Blair’s ego and give the impression that Britain was not America’s poodle but an equal partner in the ‘special relationship’.
The damning memo, from Secretary of State Colin Powell to President George Bush, was written on March 28, 2002, a week before Bush’s famous summit with Blair at his Crawford ranch in Texas.
In it, Powell tells Bush that Blair ‘will be with us’ on military action. Powell assures the President: ‘The UK will follow our lead’. ….
Smoking gun emails reveal Blair’s ‘deal in blood’ with George Bush
Tags: Bush's poodle, George Bush, Iraq, Tony Blair
The k2p blog 
October 20, 2015 at 9:16 am
I don’t know what “blood” you’re referring to. It can’t be the blood of the Marsh Arabs, who were being systematically exterminated by Saddam Hussein, or the blood of the Shiites and Kurds whose bodies were filling those mass that Saddam’s cronies were digging all over Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/3087491.stm
October 20, 2015 at 9:18 am
Oops.
“those mass that Saddam’s” should be “those mass graves that Saddam’s”
Sorry.
October 20, 2015 at 9:23 am
No doubt, but the invasion and regime change were justified to handle his non-existent WMD not for saving those oppressed by Saddam. And certainly not for the eventual creation of ISIS which has been achieved.
October 20, 2015 at 4:12 pm
1. The WMDs were real, as I documented below.
2. Saddam’s brutality was, indeed, one of the reasons given, at least by President Bush, for going to war. (I don’t know whether Blair talked about it.)
3. The allies’ overthrow of Saddam and establishment of a democracy in Iraq was not the reason ISIS was successful invading Iraq, more than seven years after Saddam Hussein’s execution.
When Obama took office, we were allied with a Republic of Iraq that even President Obama called “a Sovereign, Stable, Self-Reliant Iraq” (though the “self-reliant” part was exaggerated, since the Iraqi Army still relied on the United States for air support). Iraq had a lousy Chief Executive (Al-Maliki), but so did the USA (Obama).
It is important to recall that the Republic of Iraq has no air force. Their military was dependent on the United States for air support. When their Army was being rebuilt and trained by the Allies, it was with the expectation that the United States would provide air support, when needed.
By 2014, when ISIS invaded, Obama had withdrawn U.S. forces from Iraq, but we still had air assets in the region. But when ISIS invaded, Obama denied the Iraqi Army the air support which they urgently needed to repulse the invasion, The consequences were catastrophic.
The only reason I’ve seen given for Obama’s betrayal of our Iraqi allies was his personal tiff with Prime Minister Al-Maliki. That’s the proximate reason ISIS now controls much of Iraq: because Obama detests Al-Maliki.
Detesting Al-Maliki is reasonable, he was an awful leader. But detesting Al-Maliki is not a reasonable excuse for Obama’s betrayal of the Iraqi people.
But I strongly suspect there’s a second reason Obama did it. I think it’s the drugs.
Obama still acts like the pothead that he used to be. What is most shocking to me about Obama is not his foolishness, nor his habitual dishonesty. It’s his apathy, his detachment from reality. That’s just not natural. It’s a behavior pattern that I associate with potheads.
When President Bush was in office, he was very diligent and very focused & engaged w/r/t the primary functions of his office. He never missed a national security briefing, and he had a clear vision of America’s role in the world, and a deep understanding of the challenges in Iraq.
Obama doesn’t seem to know or even care what America’s role in the world is, and he often doesn’t even trouble himself to attend his own national security briefings.
During the 2012 Benghazi attack, Obama made not a single phone call.
In 2014, while the ISIS blitzkrieg swept across Iraq, and the beheaded bodies of innocents lined streets in ISIS-conquered towns, Obama’s response was to fire up Air Force One and take a vacation, leaving his Defense Secretary behind. At the height of the crisis, Obama visited a Sioux Reservation in North Dakota, attended a California fundraiser, visited some gay friends in Palm Springs & played some golf, and weighed in on the argument over how to pronounce “gif.”
It boggles the mind. Apparently, no crisis is severe enough to make Obama take his job seriously. What could account for such astonishing dysfunction?
This President is so aloof from reality that I can’t think of any other possible explanation. It can’t just be his hatred of Al-Maliki. It must be the drugs.
http://www.google.com/search?q=choom+gang
October 20, 2015 at 9:37 am
As for the WMDs which Daily Mail claims didn’t exist, WikiLeaks revealed that the U.S. hunt for WMDs in Iraq found chemical weapons labs, chemical weapons specialists, and multiple small stockpiles of chemical weapons and related equipment.
The New York Times reported that in 2005-2006 the CIA ran a secret program called “Operation Avarice,” which purchased hundreds of Saddam’s old chemical weapons on the black market, to keep them from falling into the hands of terrorists. In fact, the New York Times now even belatedly admits “Iraq’s practice of mislabeling [chemical] ordnance to confuse foreign inspectors.”
CNN reported that the USA removed over 550 metric tonnes of refined uranium yellowcake from Iraq. That’s enough to make over 100 nuclear weapons. Most of it (perhaps all) was known to the IAEA and subject to their “safeguards” and periodic inspections, but Iraq had been permitted by the IAEA to retain access to 13 tons, and Saddam was only permitting the inspectors to do their work unimpeded when he was threatened by >100,000 troops. U.S. forces also removed 1.7 metric tonnes of partially-enriched uranium from Iraq in 2004.
In June, 2014, ISIS captured Saddam’s old Al Muthanna chemical weapons facility, including bunkers with stockpiles of “damaged and contaminated” containers of mustard gas and three kinds of nerve gas: Sarin, Tabun, and VX. Expert opinion varies about whether ISIS will be able to use them against our allies. (Fortunately, Saddam’s uranium stockpiles are long gone.)
None of that should be surprising, to anyone with a good memory. Even the American Left used to issue dire warnings about Saddam’s WMDs, before it became politically convenient to pretend (as the Daily Mail does) that “none existed.” Here are some quotes from the American Left:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraqi’s a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“[Saddam will use] his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction… again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
October 20, 2015 at 10:02 am
You to your opinion – me to mine.