Tony Blair is to be summoned back to the official inquiry into the Iraq invasion in light of damaging and conflicting evidence revealed since he appeared as a witness in January. Members of the Chilcot inquiry are believed to be concerned about evidence in documents released in July showing that the former prime minister was warned by his government’s chief law officer that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal the day before he privately assured George Bush he would support US-led military action. The Guardian first reported in February shortly after Blair testified that the inquiry team planned to question him again in light of evidence which it was already clear contradicted that given by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general at the time.
Documents released in July provided an unprecedented insight into how Goldsmith repeatedly warned the prime minister of the potential consequences of invading Iraq without fresh UN authority – much to Blair’s irritation. 
They included a note from Goldsmith to Blair, marked secret and dated 30 January 2003, saying: "In view of your meeting with President Bush on Friday, I thought you might wish to know where I stand on the question of whether a further decision of the [UN] security council is legally required in order to authorise the use of force against Iraq." Goldsmith warned Blair that he "remained of the view that the correct legal interpretation of resolution 1441 [the last security council decision on Iraq] is that it does not authorise the use of force without a further determination by the security council". Goldsmith concluded: "My view remains that a further [UN] decision is required."
A handwritten note, believed to be from David Manning, Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, warned: "Clear advice from attorney on need for further resolution." Demonstrating his frustration with Goldsmith, Blair scrawled in the margin: "I just don’t understand this." An aide wrote: "Specifically said we did not need further advice [on] this matter."
The following day, 31 January 2003, Blair flew to Washington for a meeting with Bush. Manning records the president – in a minute previously disclosed – telling Blair that military action would be taken with or without a second security council resolution and the bombing would begin in mid-March 2003. The note records Blair’s reaction: "The prime minister said he was solidly with the president."
On 14 January 2003, in a note handed to Blair, Goldsmith warned that UN security council 1441 "contains no express authorisation by the security council for the use of force". By 7 March, after a trip to Washington, Goldsmith told Blair that a new UN resolution might after all not be needed, although going to war without one would risk Britain being indicted before an international court. Ten days later, on 17 March 2003, Goldsmith published a short note saying an invasion would be lawful.
For the record:
January 14, 2003: Lord Goldsmith, the British Attorney General, wrote that UN security council 1441 "
contains no express authorisation by the security council for the use of force."
January 30, 2003: Lord Goldsmith wrote Prime Minister Tony Blair, "In view of your meeting with President Bush on Friday, I thought you might wish to know where I stand on the question of whether a further decision of the [UN] security council is legally required in order to authorise the use of force against Iraq." … "My view remains that a further [UN] decision is required." Apparently, David Manning wrote, "Clear advice from attorney on need for further resolution" as he passed the note to Blair. Blair wrote in the margin, "I just don’t understand this." Someone else wrote, "Specifically said we did not need further advice this matter."
January 31, 2003: Prime Minister Tony Blair flew to Washington and met with President Bush who said we would invade in March with or without U.N. approval. David Manning wrote in his notes about the meeting, "The prime minister said he was solidly with the president."
The obvious point is that Tony Blair was committing the UK to the Invasion of Iraq in spite of being told by the Attorney General that the war would be illegal without a second U.N. Resolution. And what does Tony Blair mean when he writes, "I just don’t understand this"? And why did an aid[?] write, "Specifically said we did not need further advice this matter"? The obvious conclusion is that Blair knew what Goldsmith thought, and didn’t want to hear it. "I just don’t understand this" means "I just don’t understand why he wrote me this official note with his opinion when we had made it clear that we did not want his advice. We were moving on without it." Lord Goldsmith was acting on his own, saying, "Don’t do this!" I have no idea what Blair can say to the Chilcot Inquiry. He’s caught in a lie – dead to rights. A Whopper, at that. He was committing the British to the invasion with no legal grounds for war.
We, of course, have no call to point fingers. Everything from our side was a lie from the outset. Everything. In fact, I think that if there were a book with transcripts documenting every single lie Bush et al told from election to leaving office, it wouldn’t be a best seller. People just don’t talk about it. Talk about not understanding. I just don’t understand this…
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.