Revealed: documents show Blair's secret plans for war

**xdir** · 1st May 2005

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=634702

PM decided on conflict from the start. Blair told war illegal in March 2002. Latest leak confirms Goldsmith doubts
By Raymond Whitaker, Andy McSmith and Francis Elliott

01 May 2005

Tony Blair had resolved to send British troops into action alongside US forces eight months before the Iraq War began, despite a clear warning from the Foreign Office that the conflict could be illegal.

A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

At the same time, a document obtained by this newspaper reveals the Foreign Office legal advice given to Mr Blair in March 2002, before he travelled to meet Mr Bush at his Texas ranch. It contains many of the reservations listed nearly a year later by the Attorney General in his confidential advice to the Prime Minister, which the Government was forced to publish last week, including the warning that the US government took a different view of international law from Britain or virtually any other country.

The advice, also put before the July meeting, was drawn up in part by Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the Foreign Office's deputy legal adviser, who resigned on the eve of war in protest at what she called a "crime of aggression".

The latest revelations could scarcely have come at a worse time for Labour, with a general election only four days away and the opposition parties lining up to attack the Prime Ministers credibility. Two polls last night showed the gap between Labour and Conservatives narrowing to 3per cent.

The minute revealed last night was of a meeting held in Downing Street on 23 July 2002. Signed by the Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser, Matthew Rycroft. It concluded: "We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any further decisions."

The minute records that the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, had warned that the case against Saddam was "thin". He suggested that the Iraqi dictator should be forced into a corner by demanding the return of the UN weapons inspectors: if he refused, or the inspectors found WMD, there would be good cause for war.

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith who took part in the meeting warned then that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action". But the Prime Minister countered that "regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD".

The document ended with the admonition: "We must not ignore the legal issues", adding that "the Attorney General would consider legal advice". The Government has consistently refused to say when the Attorney General was first asked for an opinion on the legality of war.

Eight months later, Lord Goldsmith drew up his 13 page legal opinion, released by Downing Street last week, which echoed many of the doubts expressed in the earlier Foreign Office brief. The Attorney General echoes the Foreign Office paper, rejecting US claims to be able to decide whether Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions. The Americans were alone in this position, he said, before dramatically altering his opinion 10 days later.

Mr Blair was challenged on whether he had seen Foreign Office legal advice in a BBC interview with Jeremy Paxman on 20 April. He replied: "No, I had the Attorney General's advice to guide me." In fact, Mr Blair had seen the Foreign Office advice as early as 8 March 2002, in an annex to a secret Cabinet Office "options paper". That annex is published in The Independent on Sunday for the first time today.

Asked to account for the discrepancy, a Downing Street spokesman said: "The Prime Minister accepts his legal advice from the Attorney General, not from individual departments. We are not going to comment on any papers prepared for specific meetings."

Those present at the 23 July meeting, alongside Mr Blair and Mr Straw, included Lord Goldsmith, the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, and military and intelligence chiefs, according to the minute leaked to The Sunday Times.

**4me2** · 1st May 2005

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>Blair plays down new Iraq claims

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

Tony Blair is under fire over a leaked memo

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Tony Blair has played down a leaked memo indicating he was looking at ways to justify war with Iraq in July 2002 - eight months before the conflict.

He claimed the Lib Dems and Tories were focusing on Iraq because they have "nothing serious to say" about the issues facing Britain.

Michael Howard accused the prime minister of deceiving the Cabinet and the Commons over the war.

The Lib Dems said Iraq will "dog" Mr Blair if he wins the election.

Leaked memo

The Sunday Times has published what it says is a leaked memo dated 23 July 2002 by Matthew Rycroft, a former Downing Street foreign policy aide.

In the memo, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is quoted as saying US President George Bush had "made up his mind to take military action even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin".

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=208 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>

</TD><TD class=sibtbg>

If the UN resolution had been adhered to by Saddam that would have been the end of it, despite the fact it was the most appalling regime

Tony Blair

Polls point to Labour lead
Papers split over party support

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

It reportedly added: "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would help with the legal justification for the use of force."

The memo followed a meeting, attended by Mr Blair, Mr Straw, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and the attorney general.

Mr Blair told BBC One's Breakfast with Frost the decision had not been taken at that point to attack Saddam Hussein.

"You have got to discuss everything as you go along, but the point is that after that meeting we decided to go back to the UN and give him a last chance.

"If the UN resolution had been adhered to by Saddam that would have been the end of it, despite the fact it was the most appalling regime."

He said opposition parties were focusing on the issue of Iraq because they had "nothing serious to say about" issues facing Britain.

Legal assurance

Former chief of defence staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, meanwhile told the BBC that he remains satisfied that he had unequivocal "top legal cover" for his forces when they went to war in 2003.

He was responding to the article in The Observer which suggested he had concerns over whether he could face prosecution over the Iraq war.

Lord Boyce told the BBC he sought, and received, "in black and white terms", the legal assurance he needed prior to the war.

This came in the form of "four or five lines" from the attorney general's office, after the collapse of efforts to secure a second UN resolution on Iraq, he said.

He said that he had been seeking legal assurances since February, and that after the failure to secure a second UN resolution, it was "imperative to have something I could show my troops, for their peace of mind and their families' peace of mind".

Complacency warning

Michael Howard told the Sunday Telegraph Mr Blair had though it legitimate to "dissemble" on Iraq to Lord Boyce.

Defending his accusation that Mr Blair had lied about the war, he told the paper: "What's worse? Accusing someone of lying? Or taking the country to war on a lie? This is perfectly justified.

"Whatever the consequences, you can't maintain a position which says that it's legitimate to trick the Cabinet, to deceive the House of Commons and to dissemble to the Chief of the Defence Staff. That's not the way government should be conducted."

On Sunday, Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy will tell a rally in Newbury that Tony Blair's "is now a failed premiership", and will warn that the Iraq war will continue to dog him in office if he wins a third term as prime minister.

Mr Kennedy will also criticise the Conservatives for fighting a "narrow, mean-spirited campaign" and appealing to voters' worst instincts.

Latest polls suggest Labour still has a strong lead while the Lib Dems are in their best position since 1992. Three polls published on Sunday give Labour a vote share of between 36%-39%. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4503061.stm

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>