Short relives the day Blair silenced her for criticising the Iraq war
Former PM 'was willing to be deceitful because he thought conflict was right'
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Tony Blair was prepared to "deceive" Parliament over Iraq and freeze out opposition within his Government because of his unshakeable belief that it was right to topple Saddam Hussein, a former cabinet minister has said.
Clare Short, who was the International Development Secretary before resigning shortly after the March 2003 invasion, also revealed that she was "jeered" by cabinet colleagues and told to be quiet by Mr Blair when she attempted to dispute the legality of the war. She added that Gordon Brown had complained to her that Mr Blair was "obsessed with his legacy" and was determined to use a short, decisive victory in Iraq to secure it.
In the most ferocious attack on Mr Blair's style of government heard by Sir John Chilcot's inquiry to date, Ms Short said the former Prime Minister had ignored warnings that post-war preparations were not ready because he was "frantic" to give his backing to President Bush. Plans on Iraq were decided by a small group of his "mates", while she was frozen out during the summer of 2002.
"I'm not saying he was insincere," she said. "I think he was willing to be deceitful about it because he thought it was right."
Ms Short, who became the first MP to be given a round of applause after her evidence, told the Iraq Inquiry that Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General who gave the legal green light for military action, misled the Cabinet in doing so. While Lord Goldsmith told the Cabinet on 17 March that the war would be legal, just 10 days earlier he had advised the Prime Minister that while a "reasonable case" could be made for the invasion's legality, he could not guarantee that a court would agree. "I think for the Attorney General to come and say there's unequivocal legal authority to go war was misleading," she said.
She said that Mr Blair used "secretiveness and deception" to take Britain to war, while the checks on his power had "broken down quite badly" during his drive to join the US-led invasion. In particular, she said a tactic to "blame the French" for vetoing any further action against Saddam was "a deliberate lie". Ms Short added that France and other UN members may have backed military action at a later date.
"I noticed Tony Blair in his evidence to you kept saying, 'I had to decide, I had to decide.' And indeed that's how he behaved. But that is not meant to be our system of government," she said. "When you add secrecy and deceit the system becomes positively dangerous."
A letter published by the inquiry yesterday showed that Ms Short had warned Mr Blair before the invasion that preparations for the reconstruction of Iraq were not ready and that military action should be delayed. In the correspondence, sent two weeks before the war, she warned of a "possible humanitarian crisis" unless planners were given more time.
She said that the US body overseeing the post-war strategy was "under-staffed, under-resourced and under-prepared for the scale of the challenge" as the war approached. "You should be aware that the US and the international humanitarian community are not properly prepared to deal with the immediate humanitarian concerns," she wrote. "A little more time would make the US much better able to deal with some of the humanitarian consequences of conflict."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Her other great claims of lies is that Tony Blair told her the UN would be involved after the invasion and there was going to be a Palestinian state. Now, it was always clear that Mr Blair wanted more UN involvement after the war, but it again was fairly obvious that this might not happen to the extent that he desired. Everybody knew the Bush administration's views on such things. And as for a Palestinian state, again Blair lobbied hard for this and did get Bush to sit down with Abbas and Sharon, but such a process can never be guaranteed. It's nonsense to say this was some big lie.
This is very weak and petty claims from Short. It's of a completely lower order to the claims of others who assert Blair invented the whole threat and lied over the big issues. Simon Hoggart sums up her evidence very well - it's petty and immature.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2
Every time someone in the Chilcot inquiry is critical of the war "mikeclark1" is sure to make an ad hominem attack with smears and lies. To him, Blair and Goldsmith are pillars of the society and should be fully trusted and anybody critical of them are of course full of deceit.
Mike, the only time the war was tested in a court of law (by the Dutch) it was found to be illegal. The experts on international law in the foreign office concluded the war was illegal. if you think the war was legal.....who gives a rats ass ?
Anyone who was pro-war at the start of the war and are still pro-war now when no WMDs were found in Iraq are clearly simpletons. The pro-war people went to war because Saddam according to them had WMD. No WMD was found. End of story. Unless you are a moron.
Perhaps Mike could guide us as to how Ms Short's all-too obvious (to him, anyway) failings alter in any way the veracity of the extensive accumulation of evidence against Blair and Campbell.
You are probably right but the "real" reason why Bush, Blair et al. went to war, (oil, israel, to impress daddy .. ?) is irrelevant. The pro-war lobby claimed Iraq had WMD and therefore was a threat to the US and UK. They also claimed the threat was imminent because they could not wait for the inspectors to finish or until they had got a UN resolution authorizing an invasion. They furthermore claimed that Iraq was in breach of old UN resolutions because it had not got rid of its WMD.
So what happened ? They decide to illegally invade Iraq. They destroy the country. Kill hundreds of thousands. Create millions of refugees. But find no WMD. Nada ! Clearly Saddam had been telling the truth about WMD all along and Bush and Blair had been lying. At this point anyone with the capability of feeling shame would never ever again take the word Iraq in their mouth. The moment Bush and Blair had to admit that there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq or a nuclear program the game was up and everybody supporting the war had eggs on their face. At this point you shut up. Unless you are a moron.
No you'll remember that the Americans stayed to rebuild the country and stop the Al Qaeda killings. They strongly opposed those deaths and did everything they could to stop it, whilst many in the antiwar movement wanted the Americans to leave and hand the country over to these people. The US also stayed true to their word to bring democracy. Now that country has majority rule for the first time.
Create millions of refugees. But find no WMD. Nada ! Clearly Saddam had been telling the truth about WMD all along and Bush and Blair had been lying
No, duel use equipment that wasn't declared was found, along with detailed plans to build long range missiles by 2007. Dr Kelly was right that only regime change would take out the long term threat.
the truth is out there. you just have to take the blinkers off and find it
I watched most of Clare Shorts testimony she may have been a little petty but certainly NOT immature. She gave evidence as she saw it through first hand experience, her replies did show that she has a firm grasp of PROPER parliamenty procedure unlike the overpowering bully Tony B.Liar
When asked questions she did not introduce other matters as a diversion as did our Tone
She was most believable and I think it a pity she came AFTER Blair in this inquiry
Ho ho. No need to lie, kid.
Where is the smear and lie?
Mike, the only time the war was tested in a court of law (by the Dutch) it was found to be illegal.
The Dutch have never believed in the revival argument, unlike the UK. It was the foreign office lawyers who told Goldsmith about the revival argument. Don't worry, you won't hear this in the media so I forgive your ignorant.
The experts on international law in the foreign office concluded the war was illegal. if you think the war was legal.....who gives a rats ass ?
The foreign office lawyers contradicted themselves. They said 1441 started a new process, when they had previously believed in the revival argument, but they said the 1998 bombings had legal backing under the ceasefire resolutions. This meant that they were effectively saying the war would have had more legal backing if Blair has never gone back to the UN in the first place. No, Goldsmith's evidence was much more coherent.
Anyone who was pro-war at the start of the war and are still pro-war now when no WMDs were found in Iraq are clearly simpletons. The pro-war people went to war because Saddam according to them had WMD. No WMD was found. End of story. Unless you are a moron.
Yes, very good logic. Seriously though, Saddam remained a threat whether or not he currently had WMD. It was his job to comply with the UN resolutions. You can be proud of what was done in your name.
Thanks for the contribution.
Her description of Blair's way of doing government (informal, secretive, no notes etc) accords with both other evidence and the finding of the Butler inquiry (of which Chilcot was a member).
In content, her evidence was damning. It is a shame that Robin Cook is not around to contribute. The rest of the cabinet are prisoners to their own silence (and shame).
www.millarcrime.com
How many of the 6 figure salaries with gongs, rings, epaulettes and lanyards followed her? Where are the corpses of the so called professionals who should have fallen on their swords rather than let their men and women go to war without body armour, for example?
Now we know that Short was right, but how was Blair to know when the "professionals" kept silent?
OOH I bet they feel so ashamed when they cash their great fat retirement cheques.
Incidentally, where is the man or woman that advised Short that there was a desparate shortage? That person really does deserve a statue in Trafalgar square.
Apart from the bit about the short decisive victory. But Iraq secured Blair's legacy as worst prime minister we have ever had as well as a legacy as a lying war criminal scumbag we all hate.
A curse on him and all his tribe.
Ugh, what a dreadful thought that we might be sharing our air time with either of them, particularly arsehole Cumpbell; B'Liar is bad enough but Cumpbell, makes your skin crawl.