Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

More explosive charges from former British UN diplomat, Carne Ross

by smintheus Fri Nov 10th, 2006 at 06:38:08 AM EST

On Wednesday the former First Secretary of the British delegation to the U.N., Carne Ross, made to a Committee of Parliament some pretty stiff allegations against Tony Blair and George Bush regarding their plans to drag the U.K. and U.S. to war in Iraq. Ross resigned his position in protest over the Iraq war nearly two years ago.

But now Ross says he's decided the public has to see the evidence. It is evidence, he implies, that the Butler Inquiry ignored when it reported that the Blair government did not manipulate the pre-war intelligence on WMD.

Promoted by Colman


Briefly, some background on Ross:

In June 2005, he alleged that he and all his diplomatic colleagues at the British mission to the U.N. had known in 2002 that the Blair government was mischaracterizing the intelligence on Iraq in order to make a case for war. Even earlier, in March of 2005, he appeared in a BBC Panorama program on the run-up to the war, giving a scathing critique of Blair's deceptions.

Now for the new developments:

On Wednesday, he gave testimony to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in which he said he has finally decided to release to the Committee documents he posseses, particularly relating to the testimony that he gave to the Butler Inquiry, which have been kept secret until now. He thinks that it is long past time for them to be made public.

The best reports about his testimony are in the Independent and at the BBC.

From the BBC:

Carne Ross told MPs the intelligence presented to the public about weapons of mass destruction was "manipulated".

He also added that "the proper legal advice from the Foreign office on the legality of the war was ignored".

Mr Blair has always defended the war's legality and the Butler inquiry said there was no evidence of "deliberate distortion" of intelligence on WMD....

His [i.e. Ross'] Butler testimony concluded that the invasion had been unlawful, he told the MPs in a separate, written submission. It also accused the government of misleading the public over the threat posed by Saddam, and of failing to consider alternatives to military action.

Ross also claimed that along with other British diplomats, he met repeatedly with Bush administration officials, whom the British delegation warned over and over again that "regime change" would likely lead to chaos in Iraq. Then suddenly in mid-2002 the British diplomats stopped telling their American counterparts the unwelcome truth, because of pressure from the Blair government to fall in line with what the Bush administration wanted to hear. Ross says that he gave Foreign Office documents to the Butler Commission that prove the claim.

From the Independent:

Speaking in public for the first time since he left the diplomatic service two years ago, Mr Ross also confirmed suspicions that the Prime Minister made up his mind months before the Iraq invasion in March 2003 that the war was going to happen and British troops would take part. Mr Ross said when he was serving in the embassy in Afghanistan, as early as April 2002, British officials there knew troops were being held back in readiness for the Iraq invasion.

He claimed that when official documents from the Foreign Office are made public, they will prove that the view of British officials, repeatedly conveyed to the Americans, was that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would cause chaos.

He told MPs: "I took part in the bilateral discussion between the State Department and the Foreign Office for four years. One of the items repeatedly on the agenda was regime change. Whenever that item came up, the leader of our delegation would say, with emphasis: 'We do not believe regime change is a good idea in Iraq. The reason we do not believe that is because we believe Iraq will break up and there will be chaos if you do that'. That view will have been recorded in the telegrams that have remained secret, and will do for years. That was emphatically the unified view of the Foreign Office.

"That view changed in mid-2002. There was no basis for changing the view from what was going on inside Iraq. What changed was our view of what the future policy would be."

The Parliamentary Committee also heard testimony from other senior ex-diplomats, such as Jeremy Greenstock (who gave an interview recently that was highly critical of British and American policy in Iraq, as I reported at the time here).

So it may very well turn out that inconvenient information about the pre-war conspiracy of Bush and Blair will begin to trickle out again, as pressure mounts once again for a serious inquiry into how Britain got dragged into this war.

That could be a boon to any inquiries in the U.S. Congress into the same subject.

From Unbossed

Display:
very glad to crosspost this, Jerome.

There's a lengthy discussion of this piece also available at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/9/13414/1771

However the conversation there is mostly directed toward the question of whether Democrats ought to try to impeach President Bush. Almost nobody there doubts, indeed, that the President has committed impeachable offenses.

by smintheus on Thu Nov 9th, 2006 at 04:58:16 PM EST
Official Secrets Act

Only a schizofrenic could think up this name.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Nov 9th, 2006 at 05:17:20 PM EST
If you ever end up running into this, there's a form that you get to sign, that basically says that you understand that the work that you're doing could fall under the OSA. now it dosen't matter wether you sign it or not, it still applies to you.

Strangely, a vast majority of people who I know who had to sign it in their line of work used to work in a factory that made beer barrels!

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Nov 9th, 2006 at 06:03:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Aluminium tubes?
by Trond Ove on Fri Nov 10th, 2006 at 06:27:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As it comes as the same time as this:
Police close to quizzing Blair in cash-for-peerages probe

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 9th, 2006 at 05:24:33 PM EST
Maybe he'll resign and seek asylum in the US.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 9th, 2006 at 06:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or Paraguay.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 9th, 2006 at 08:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
are they going to need a butler at Rancho Bush?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Nov 10th, 2006 at 03:15:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Or a new poodle?





*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Nov 10th, 2006 at 04:28:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The third poster is brilliant.
by smintheus on Fri Nov 10th, 2006 at 03:40:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I happen to think that Blair is much more likely to be forced out by corruption scandals than because of his criminal deceptions regarding Iraq. Labour just does not want to risk damaging their party by holding Blair accountable. As a result, I suspect they could lose the next election.

Long ago, Robin Cook pointed out (in his published diary) that not long before the invasion of Iraq Blair admitted to him that the September 2002 dossier on intelligence (which had been cobbled together to make a case for war) was full of things that Blair no longer believed.

Cook noted that Blair was under a legal obligation to notify Parliament of the 'facts' from that dossier which were no longer "operative" (to take a phrase from the Nixon administration). Cook noted that Blair had not in fact notified Parliament.

Thus if any of his Labour colleagues wanted to take Blair down, that fact alone would suffice -- I should think.

by smintheus on Thu Nov 9th, 2006 at 08:58:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not just Labour - the Tories don't want to look like chumps too. Even thought they could use the excuse that they'd been lied to.

A question no one has answered honestly yet is - why Iraq? Was it really just a simple oil grab?

If it was, why was it botched so badly? Why was the pretext so thin? Why did the UK military go along with a plan they must have known was unworkable?

When did Bush start running Blair?

None of it makes any sense. Not even as an imperial adventure.

Vietnam made more sense than Iraq. (And that's not saying much.)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 9th, 2006 at 09:49:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the old guard is back.. and it will be back soon in England..if it ever left.

In Us they have internal provisions/dealings so that nothing happens to the president. Old dad-boys takes care and Democrats will not make a lof of noise about the lies and the propaganda. It will work in the US (maybe with some noise from the netroots that it is not impeached and sent to prison).

On the other hand, england is very different... you can always find a media who can spoil the agreement. so I do not know if the final days of Blair would be that easy. But probably he will go.. and that's it.

The most you can get is that they leave in disgrace...not more .. the old realsitic guard (carlyle, Bush father, Scrow, bobby and co) are not known for being too retaliatory... as the internal motto of the CIA said "US has no constant alies or enemies , it has only constant interests" (and man they DID change the alliances in South America from dictatures of the Reagan group to the technocrats)... so they do not see Bush Jr as an enemy now. They will probably leave Rove and Bush to their own devices.. it will be up to them to recover prestige by manipulation and fight with the dems or lose it in the battle.

The adults are back in charge. Not the adults we would like.. but adults nontheless.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri Nov 10th, 2006 at 07:43:36 AM EST
Ive never heard that being the internal motto of the CIA.

Neither has Google.

As you might know, you are paraphrasing Lord Palmersons "Britain has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests."

This worked extremely well for 19th century Britain, disastrously not so in the 20th century.

And one of the main reasons the United States is still the primary power in Europe (and might I say the world) is that they have usually NOT followed such a realpolitik-approach, and instead stubbornly stuck to their "eternal friends and eternal enemies" to some extent to the detriment of their own interests.

by Trond Ove on Sat Nov 11th, 2006 at 06:54:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
.. I have read that this English motto (actually at the time I wrote it and now I am not sure it came from Britain.. I thought british adapted it from another place and the Bush father group liked it) was one of the favourites of the CIA in the Bush father administration. And I have certainly read that tey adapted to the US for sure.

I am not sure if it was the CIA during Bush father tenure or  in the national security meeting of the Bush father (so not only in the CIA).

I would have to look for the place where I read.

Frankly I read it only once.. and I believed it comletely.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Nov 11th, 2006 at 08:46:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
.. but I think it also had to do wiht the black caucus motto or some thing.

Ah... and I also thought that from England, the sentence came from a jew.. I think Disraeli , the same one of the lies damnes lies and statistics.. but I could be wronf... not from a lord.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Nov 11th, 2006 at 08:56:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmf... Sorry for all the mess. I replied to myself instead of to you. See below.
by Trond Ove on Sat Nov 11th, 2006 at 09:52:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That should of course be Lord Palmerston, not Palmerson. And he probably said England, not Britain. If only I had packed my political science books last time I moved I could have pulled the quotation.

While there are elements of the US foreign policy apparatus that has been accused of engaging in realpolitik at different periods in US history, especially Republicans during Nixon, you should be wary of seeing this as a general trend. One reason for why so much fuss is made of it in American literature is that it is considered a relatively rare thing, and by many, amoral.

Now, I am perfectly ready to engage in a discussion about how much  US policy has differed de facto from its supposed idealist stance. But you seemed to be claiming that the CIA is and has always been an agency following a strict policy of realpolitik. This is frankly not true.

by Trond Ove on Sat Nov 11th, 2006 at 09:51:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Onthe contrary, i was exactly pointing out that only during this specific tenure realpolitik was known wiht a motto. I actually did nto point out any similarity with any other administration.

I was not discussing other periods in time  where the motto, the ideology or the core group had different backgrounds. I merely stated that teh administration of Bush father probably copying the black caucus motto or becauxe they knew the quote, use the it as a commonplace of their policy. Theya re the ones that are in charge. And mind you, I do nto find it at all negative to have that motto. Otehr period in history had a much much worse outcome with no realsits in place.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Nov 11th, 2006 at 11:55:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah yes, I completely misread what you meant. Sorry!
by Trond Ove on Sat Nov 11th, 2006 at 12:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Trond: "That should of course be Lord Palmerston, not Palmerson. And he probably said England, not Britain. If only I had packed my political science books last time I moved I could have pulled the quotation."

There's always Google. It seems he said "We" rather than "England".

"We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual."

Lord Palmerston (1784-1865) apparently said in 1848.


Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sat Nov 11th, 2006 at 12:10:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, thanks. How stupid of me.
by Trond Ove on Sat Nov 11th, 2006 at 12:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]