Home

"Poodle" Still Barking?
Comment by Larry Ross, April 27, 2005

We said in 2003 that Blair was lying about his claims:

1. that Iraq had WMD,
2. Saddam planned to attack US and UK,
3. Saddam had links to 9/11, to al-Qaeda, and to Osama Bin Laden.
4. Saddam had "missiles capable of being launched in 45 minutes" The lies and deep doubts were quite obvious at the time, yet the UK Parliament gave him the go-ahead for his plans to be Bush's 'poodle' and help make war on Iraq.
   

Blair deliberately suppressed UK Attorney-General's advice that the war was illegal. He also ignored Hans Blix's report to the UN that "no weapons of mass destruction had been found so far". A final report by Hans Blix would have stated this, thus removing a major reason for a US-UK attack. It is glaringly obvious that Bush and Blair decided to abort final UN WMD inspections, because they knew there were no WMD. Their plan was to make war at any cost. They were willing to take any risks to do it, including threatening Iraq with nuclear weapons and violating international law.

Why did Tony Blair knowingly commit this crime and so thoroughly deceive the UK Parliament and people?
Was there really that much benefit to him? What was this benefit? From watching Blair perform on this issue, I believe that he is one of history's most accomplished and convincing liars. He was able to convince enough people and parliamentarians to believe him.

Like all poodles, he is still barking for his master, George Bush. It will be interesting to see if the British people re-elect him. If they do, he will take it as a reward for his illegal war and confirmation that he can fool the people with outrageous lies anytime and still get their vote. No doubt it would encourage him continue his 'US poodle' role and probably lead Britain into another war for his master. Is Iran next?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Proof Blair WasTold War Could Be Ruled Illegal

by SIMON WALTERS, Mail on Sunday, April 24, 2005

The Iraq war has erupted as a major Election issue after legal advice warning Tony Blair that the conflict breached international law was sensationally leaked. The Government's refusal to disclose the advice has been one of the most controversial issues since the war ended, but The Mail on Sunday can now reveal for the first time exactly what counsel Mr Blair received.

The full document shows categorically the Prime Minister's claim that the advice was identical to a brief published 'summary' which declared the war was legal is completely untrue.

In fact, the full 13 pages of advice drawn up by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith stated the war was likely to be challenged under international law on a number of counts. The revelations were seized on last night by Tories and Liberal Democrats who claim Downing Street's refusal to publish the legal advice document stems from fears its explosive contents would cause political uproar.

The Mail on Sunday can reveal the legal advice warned Mr Blair could be in breach of international law for six reasons:

1. In law, there was a strong argument that it was the job of the United Nations - not Mr Blair - to rule whether Iraq had defied the UN's order to disarm.

Goldsmith set out how it may be judged that it was the function of the UN Security Council, not an individual country such as Britain or America, to decide if Iraq was in 'material breach' of UN Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002 and giving it a 'final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations'. Goldsmith pointed out that although Mr Blair could in theory make the decision, a court could decide otherwise.

2. Goldsmith questioned whether Britain could attack Iraq by using UN Resolution

The legal advice explained why the resolution's warning of 'serious consequences' if Saddam continued to flout the UN fell crucially short of permitting military action. The exact wording had important implications. It did not say 'all necessary means' - UN terminology for war, used when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990.

3. Goldsmith urged caution about going to war without a second UN resolution.

He said Mr Blair could go to war without one, but it would be much 'safer' and desirable to secure a second resolution giving specific approval to military intervention.

4. Mr Blair was warned of the risks of relying on the earlier UN resolution used to eject Saddam from Kuwait.

The legal advice challenged Mr Blair's claims that Britain and the United States had a right to go to war by 'reviving' UN Resolution 678, passed in 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Resolution 678 did not permit them to invade Iraq itself. The limited nature of Resolution 678 was one of the chief reasons the Allies did not try to topple Saddam when he was ousted from Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War. In principle, Resolution 678 could be revived; in practice it could be difficult.

5. Goldsmith drew attention to UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and his search for weapons of mass destruction.

On March 7, 2003, the day the legal advice was written, Mr Blix reported to the UN Security Council that 34 Iraqi al-Samoud missiles had been disabled. He said Iraq was being more helpful generally and that no weapons of mass destruction had been found so far. By the time Mr Blair received Goldsmsith's legal advice, he would have been aware of Blix's latest report.

6. He explained that the American government's position on the legality of the war did not apply in Britain.

Goldsmith explained the legal stance taken by George Bush and why he faced none of the legal restraints confronting Mr Blair. The US Congress had given Mr Bush special powers to declare the war legal in American law. It also detailed why, in the US view, a second resolution was unnecessary.

Caveats stripped out

All six caveats were stripped out when the Attorney General's nine-paragraph 'summary' was published ten days later. This summary declared the war was legal.

At a press conference on February 23 this year, Mr Blair was challenged whether the Attorney General's 'summary' on the issue was a fair representation of his legal advice. He snapped: "That is what he said and that is what I say."

One senior figure who has a copy of the Attorney General's legal advice said last night: "The Government sexed it up in the same way that it sexed up claims of missiles capable of being launched in 45 minutes."

Another source said: "When you clear away the legalese the picture is clear: the Attorney General believed the legality of the war was highly dodgy, and in all likelihood, it was illegal."

Leading international lawyer Phillipe Sands, who has led the campaign to show that the Iraq war was illegal, added: "These new disclosures confirm that the 'summary' produced by Lord Goldsmith in the Lords can in no way be described as a fair summary of the legal advice he gave the Prime Minister. It is utterly misleading of Mr Blair to pretend otherwise."

A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said: "The Attorney General presented his view to Cabinet on March 17, 2003, that military action in Iraq would be lawful. It was his own, genuinely-held, independent view.

"Legal advice is confidential, protected by professional privilege and we don't comment on the process of giving advice. The Parliamentary statement of March 17, 2003 never purported to be a summary of the Attorney General's advice."

The legal wrangle dates from 2002 when Foreign Office legal chief Michael Wood and his deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst confronted Jack Straw over their belief the war was illegal without a second UN resolution.

Mr Straw told them: "I am a lawyer, I have negotiated every dot and comma of this. Thank you for your advice but I am not going to take it."

Ms Wilmshurst and Mr Wood appealed to Lord Goldsmith to overrule Straw. Goldsmith told them: "I am not permitted to give you any advice but you know what my view is." They knew he believed the war was illegal, but dare not say so.

On February 11, 2003, as war approached, and with Mr Blair close to panic over the legal fiasco, Goldsmith flew to the White House to meet US National Security Council legal chief, John Bellinger.

His message was clear: the US had no legal worries because Congress had already given Mr Bush the power to rule the war legal. In addition it believed there was no need for a second UN resolution.

Mr Bellinger later boasted: "We had a problem with your Attorney General who was telling us it was legally doubtful under international law. We straightened him out."

The reference in the legal advice to the US position may be one of the reasons Mr Blair is reluctant to publish it, since it would be held as further proof that he was Mr Bush's 'poodle'.

The legal advice was written on March 7 and given to Mr Blair .

On March 13, Goldsmith met the Prime Minister's confidants, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and Downing Street aide Baroness Morgan.

On March 15, Goldsmith asked for - and obtained - a written assurance from Mr Blair declaring Iraq was in breach of the UN orders.

©2005 Associated Newspapers Ltd ·