BLIAR BLIAR

19-12-2006

It's official - Tony Blair lied, Jack Straw lied, the useless Geoff Hoon lied and so did others in Government writes Andy Goff.

Last week former diplomat Carne Ross, who left the Foreign Office in 2004 until which time he was closely involved in US/UK activities running up to the Iraq invasion, revealed information to the Foreign Affairs Committee which had previously been secret.

I had watched his 8th November questioning by the committee on BBC Parliament. At the end of his session he had mentioned this information previously given to the Butler Enquiry but subsequently kept hidden.

The Committee were obviously keen to see his evidence but he felt he might have problems under the Official Secrets Act. He was assured that this wouldn't be an issue if the information was presented to a parliamentary committee. He decided to do so. Well done Mr Ross.

“At no time did (the government) assess that Iraq's WMD (OR ANY OTHER CAPABILITY) posed a threat to the UK”

He went on to predict ““regime change” was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos”

So, no 45 minute threat, no impending attack of any sort, no need to invade.

This means that everything that Blair and his lackeys said was a pack of lies.

The Americans, determined to invade, believed what they wanted to believe in terms of intelligence - or lack of - and Blair went along in spite of the evidence being presented.

According to Cliff Richard, renowned expert on foreign relations, Tony Blair told him that he had two choices over Iraq, don't invade and risk an attack or invade and risk being wrong. He chose the latter. Well now it seems he had the choice to not invade or not invade.

His cabinet and the loyal opposition were dumb enough to go along with him.

Blair couldn't use “regime change” as a stated objective as that would have been illegal under international law so the greatest state deception since Suez in 1956 was concocted and sold to the world.

The media should accept some responsibility in this squalid affair. It failed en masse, with few notable exceptions, to make a case against the war in Iraq. But then again, as Rupert Murdoch well knows, nothing apart from the death of a royal sells papers or pulls in viewers better than war. Better to opt for war on a purely economic assessment.

Why are we pussyfooting around trying to get Blair on cash for questions when he must surely have a case to answer for an illegal invasion of another sovereign state?

Did Tony Blair have a choice over whether to invade Iraq? Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein in power? Leave a comment on our messageboard.