Angry Straw to tell Chilcot he didn’t ignore Iraq advice
The Independent
Furious Justice Minister hopes to clear his name over claims that he dismissed expert legal guidance
by Brian Brady and Jane Merrick
7 February 2010
A furious Jack Straw will attempt to "set the record straight" when he returns to the Chilcot inquiry tomorrow, days after his former legal advisers claimed the Justice Secretary had ignored warnings that the invasion of Iraq would be illegal. Mr Straw has been recalled to the inquiry to further explain his actions, amid criticism of his conduct in the run-up to the war. Mr Straw, who was foreign secretary in 2003, is believed to have been particularly upset by the evidence of his former chief legal adviser, Sir Michael Wood. The former civil servant told the Chilcot panel that Mr Straw had rejected his advice that invading Iraq without UN backing would break international law.
Sir Michael claimed that Mr Straw had dismissed his advice as "dogmatic and international law was pretty vague". Sir Michael also claimed the minister "wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position". The revelations came amid growing claims that ministers had systematically overruled the advice of advisers in their haste to join the US in military action against Iraq. The then attorney-general, Lord Goldsmith, confirmed that he had originally ruled the invasion would be unlawful but subsequently changed his mind.
Allies of Mr Straw last night complained that the claims were "grossly unfair" and portrayed him as "an over-bearing boss who was hell-bent on Britain going to war". "He will welcome the opportunity to set the record straight," said one last night. "It was not a case of him saying ‘yes’ and the advisers saying ‘no’; it was much more complicated than that." An aide to Mr Straw said his appearance tomorrow would concentrate on the legal issues raised during the Chilcot hearings in recent weeks, as well as on the situation in Iraq immediately after Saddam Hussein had been deposed. The aide added: "He will say that he has always given very great weight to legal advice throughout his time as a minister. He encourages an environment where officials are able to put their opinions and he did so at the Foreign Office.
"He would never, and has never, ignored any such advice. But there have been times when he has challenged it and was proved correct in doing so in the courts. In the case of Iraq, it was ultimately the attorney-general’s view which was critical"…
Date Witness Timing of session 8 February General Sir John McColl 11:30 – 13:00
6:30 AM ESTRt Hon Jack Straw MP 14:00 – 17:00
9:00 AM EST
I continue to be amazed that neither the American Press nor the blogs seem interested in the Chilcot Inquiry. It’s about the Iraq War [that we, by the way, are still fighting]. Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary under Blair, seems to have his panties in a wad about the testimony of Sir Michael Wood [who seems quite civil to me]. What this rebuttal ignores is that the overwhelming evidence is that Jack Straw was on the skip-the-UN team in the lead up to the war. He’s going to say he didn’t "ignore" his legal advice, he "disagreed" with it. I wonder what he’ll say when he’s asked "Why?" Will the Right Honorable Jack Straw’s pique stand up under the surgical questioning of Sir Roderic Lyne and the piercing stare of Baroness Usha Prashar of Runnymeade? Tune in tomorrow for the next episode…
It becomes more and more curious why the U.S. media is ignoring this big story. Only when Tony Blair testified did they mention it. And that’s because of his star power, not the content of the inquiry.
It’s a tendency to chalk that up to the media being “owned” (in more ways than one) by corporate American — and maybe they think it’s not good for business to remind the American people of this tawdry piece of our recent history.
But what I really don’t understand is that on Jan 29 I tried to start a discussion thread about it on The Back Fence, telling them about your blog. To date, it has had exactly 1 response. This from smart people who can beat to death any topic you want to bring up — and often do.
This one respondent did mention an article in the Christian Science Monitor — about? Tony Blair’s testimony.
I wonder what will happen if real heads roll after this inquiry is completed. What does it take to have our own inquiry?Lying us into war sounds good enough to me but what do I know. My Dad use to say on a regular basis “don’t saw sawdust” I get the feeling that one side or the other (Democrats or Republicans) have to declare more investigations and a special prosecuter to investigate before the news media picks it up like in Clinton’s Whitewater incident. Of course the real news bosses have to think there are actual people that care and want to know the truth. Many people don’t like mistakes that our gov’t makes blasted in the paper because we’re (The United States) beyond reproach we’re perfect. Besides, how could the news media possible use up valuable time and print when there are so many other things like Tiger Woods, Ann Nicole Smiths death etc to cover. American Idol and Dancing with the stars is so much more entertaining. I suppose if more people were involved in fighting this war and there was a draft things might ignite more people.