(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

What Tony Blair said in his secret Iraq war letters to George Bush

Andrew Rawnsley's new book elicits more detail than the Chilcot inquiry

Andrew Rawnsley should have been put in charge of the Iraq inquiry. I've only just started his 800-page book, The End of the Party, but I've already picked up three key facts about Tony Blair's relationship with George Bush that haven't emerged from the Iraq inquiry hearings. Many of the figures interviewed by Rawnsley also gave evidence to Sir John Chilcot and his team. But Rawnsley seems to have asked the more searching questions.

Here are the revelations that struck me.

1. Blair told Bush: "Whatever you decide to do, I'm with you."

The inquiry has heard about the private letters that Blair sent to Bush in 2002. Alastair Campbell told Chilcot that the letters were "very frank" and that the central message was, in Campbell's words: "We share the analysis, we share the concern, we are going to be with you in making sure that Saddam Hussein is faced up to his obligations and that Iraq is disarmed." But the letters have not been published and the precise contents remain a secret.

Rawnsley, though, has published a direct quote from one of the letters. Here's the relevant extract from his book.

Towards the end of July [2002], Blair did write a letter to Bush "really making the case for going down the international route" to deal with Saddam …

Yet again, though, Blair had emphasised his "yes" at the expense of the "buts". The July note began: "You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I'm with you."

When [Sir Christopher] Meyer [Britain's ambassador to the US] learnt of it, he rang [David] Manning [Blair's foreign policy adviser] in horror. "It's a brilliant note except for this bloody opening sentence: 'Whatever you do, I'm with you,'" the ambassador expostulated. "Why in God's name has he said that again? He's handed Bush carte blanche."

Manning sighed down the phone: "We tried to stop him. We told him so, but he wouldn't listen. That's what he thinks."

A footnote explains that the information in this passage came from interviews with Manning and Meyer.

When Blair gave evidence to the inquiry he said he had always been quite open about the fact he supported Bush in his determination to deal with Saddam. But I don't remember him ever saying in public that he would back Bush "whatever" Bush decided to do. As blank cheques go, they don't get much blanker than that.

2. Blair did not tell his aides much about his private talks with Bush at Crawford

A crucial meeting between Blair and Bush took place in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002. The two leaders spent a lot of time talking alone and what they said to each other has been the subject of considerable speculation. Meyer told the inquiry that to this day he still did not know "what degree of convergence was signed in blood" during these private exchanges.

In his evidence, Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, said that Meyer was wrong to suggest that there was any mystery about what was agreed.

"I was at Crawford, David Manning was at Crawford, Christopher Meyer was not at Crawford. He was at Waco, about 30 miles away," Powell told the inquiry. "The prime minister gave us an account of his conversation with the president the previous evening … There was no undertaking in blood to go into war on Iraq."

But Rawnsley has got a rather different version of what happened. He says Blair did not give his aides a full account of his private conversations with the president.

The two men [Blair and Bush] were alone for several hours. "It sent Jonathan [Powell] and David [Manning] mad" because they could not be sure what Blair was signing up to in the absence of any advisers or officials. That was made worse by his reluctance to properly debrief them afterwards. "He'd drive the foreign policy people nuts because he wouldn't give them a readout." When asked by Manning and Powell what he had said to Bush, Blair would shrug: "You know, I can't really remember." It was "partly because he wanted to keep it tight and partly because he just couldn't be bothered".

Rawnsley attributes these quotes to named sources. The "drive the foreign policy people nuts" quote came from an interview with Tom Kelly, Blair's press secretary. The "I can't really remember" quote came from interviews with Manning and Powell. And the "wanted to keep it tight" came from an interview with Powell.

So, according to this version, Blair had a discussion with the most powerful man in the world about going to war and later claimed that he could not really remember what they said. Doesn't sound too good, does it?

3. The Americans did not think the British had attached conditions to their support for an Iraq war

The inquiry has spent some time trying to establish whether Blair attached any conditions when he told Bush at Crawford that he would support action against Saddam. A Cabinet Office paper written in July 2002, which was subsequently leaked, said there were conditions. It said Blair had agreed "to support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted."

But Rawnsley says the Americans did not come away from Crawford thinking British support was conditional.

"I don't remember any quote conditions that were outlined at that meeting," says Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff. Neither did Colin Powell [the then-US secretary of state]: "It was always a given that Blair would back us militarily, should it come to war in Iraq, so far as I was concerned. Right from the start. He did not attach any conditions to that support. Or none that I can recall anyway."

The Card quote comes from an interview with Rawnsley. The Powell quote comes from Anthony Seldon's book, Blair Unbound.

The inquiry has been trying to establish how much influence Britain had over the US. Blair argued that being close to Bush gave him more leverage than he otherwise would have had. Judging from some of the questions they have been asking, Chilcot and his colleagues have their doubts about this. Rawnsley's revelations will make them even more sceptical.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Comments are now closed for this entry.
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor
  • AutoReply AutoReply

    18 Mar 2010, 1:09PM

    It seems that Blair wanted to unleash the bloodbath in Iraq without regard to what the outcome would be. First signs were there when he dismissed the 2 million anti-war march in London before the war.

    As he got re-elected - even after starting the war - it can be surmised that he had strong political sense that the slient majority of British public supported the war. Perhaps that is why he could not be bothered to consult the foreign policy people.

    The British public support has only waned now after the limits of British military power have been laid bare by Iraq.

  • spanows spanows

    18 Mar 2010, 1:10PM

    Just goes to show what a true slimeball Blair was: all this, all the lies and the jumping ship to rake in millions (almost immediately) whilst leaving the country to flounder.

  • giopap0 giopap0

    18 Mar 2010, 1:16PM

    Blair is even more subservient than I thought. That any politician (no matter how craven) -and a leader of the country as well- is willing to give up on any notion of diplomacy and surrender straightaway all his bargaining tools without getting anything back is shocking.

  • Monsi Monsi

    18 Mar 2010, 1:18PM

    Excellent stuff, Andrew, but...

    Imagine if someone were to unearth a handwritten note from Blair to Bush which said:

    'George, let's not just topple Saddam; let's go in and really fuck Iraq up - you know, smash the infrastructure, create millions of refugees, kill hundreds of thousands of innocents - not just as a warning to other countries, but because it'll just feel good...'

    What would the upshot be? Nothing. Fuck all.

    What does that say about this country?

  • kendrew kendrew

    18 Mar 2010, 1:24PM

    There is nothing new to say on the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. I marched in 2003 and I hold the same views now as I did on that day.

    Whatever is or will be in the public domain and specifically the outcome of the Chilcot fiasco BLiar will be remembered for taking this country into a totally unnecessary war of choice.

    He is yesterdays man as is Bush but at least Bush has had the good grace to shuffle off into the ploitical wilderness.

  • ilaister ilaister

    18 Mar 2010, 1:39PM

    Yes, but invading Iraq was 'the right thing to do".

    Monsi is right, none of the above matters. It may have done, had this information been released at the time, but not now.

  • MmeEAB MmeEAB

    18 Mar 2010, 1:42PM

    The most sickening thing about both Bush and Blair is that they are both absolutely certain they were, are and ever shall be - right about everything they did. Good Christian soldiers fighting their pathetic crusade, with their particular god on their side.
    If we, the stupid people, would only just shut up and let them get on with their blitzkreig, dressed in their fiery armour with their wings and halos polished to a shine. Tony Blair might even persuade born-again christian George W. Bush to convert to catholicism, so that the Pope could earn himself some much needed brownie points by canonizing the pair of them.

  • LostintheUS LostintheUS

    18 Mar 2010, 1:48PM

    Why would they need advisors when they already had gotten their orders from the people who were and remain in control? The White House was run by oil and Halliburton. 10 Downing was run by BP. They have gotten their deals in Iraq oil. Those of us who marched before the invasion said so at that time...and, big shock, here we are. Meanwhile, Blair continues with his bloody wake. Interesting that Bush seems not to be able to be asked to give a speech at the local PTA.

  • unbanned unbanned

    18 Mar 2010, 1:49PM

    "Don't worry about that outspoken Kelly chap by the way George, he's been dealt with. I've even got old Hutton to agree not to release the circumstances of his demise for 70 years, by which time I trust, we will no longer be accountable - Arf arf!"

  • thomzas thomzas

    18 Mar 2010, 2:01PM

    It must be a huge dent to Blair's ego that the US didn't bother paying any attention to any of his concerns or so-called concessions. Even on the Neo-con's big misconception, sincerely believed or otherwise, that Saddam was partially behind 9/11. They never gave him any ground, just took his support and never looked back.

    Because of his weakness the need to go to war was always going to be open to debate and attack. Because of his eagerness to appear an unquestioning ally, he never achieved any of the positive outcomes he wanted.

    Why doesn't he admit at least this?

  • CleverUsername CleverUsername

    18 Mar 2010, 2:08PM

    First signs were there when he dismissed the 2 million anti-war march in London before the war.

    And then, both Bush and Blair got re-elected. How the hell did that happen? I still remember the shock and dismay I felt on both occasions.

    Yep, they are both manipulative demons. Ultimately however, the responsibility lies with all of us and our passivity. As many have pointed out before, monarchs and governments used to be overthrown for not as big reasons as this. Oh well... it's almost time for my favourite soap opera.

  • Sharik Sharik

    18 Mar 2010, 2:13PM

    Can't say that I thought any of these "scoops" add anything to the sum of knowledge. We all knew Blair and Bush had a private meeting and discussed things, that he gave his personal backing to Bush and that the Americans took British conditionality less seriously than it may have been intended. Adding an excitable Barbara Cartland narrative doesn't really bring anything new to the sum of knowledge about the topic.

    I agree with the comment above that the war (despite the 1, not 2, million people marching against it) was a popular war at the time and has only become unpopular after it has taken longer to exit from than hoped and the number of British dead has slowly and steadily increased over the years.

    I was against the war, against the changing of rules of diplomacy post 9/11 and against the blithe assumption that you could bomb people into acting the way you want them to, but this view was not the one that found favour in parliament or by the public at large. We can and should learn lessons but endlessly raking back and forth over the ashes is not healthy.

  • Calabria Calabria

    18 Mar 2010, 2:22PM

    I don't see a problem with Blair's relationship with Bush. Out of context it is very easy to reinterpret this quote and that quote to support your political point of view. But the actions that are referred to happened within a geopolitical context that is seldom referred to in these articles. That is the state of Iraq and it's citizens after years of ineffective sanctions and the fact that the U.S. would have gone in regardless of whether the U.K. supported them or not. The people of Basra might have suffered more had U.S. troops (who started the conflict with a more gung-ho attitude than the British) been there instead.
    Yes there were some mistakes made regarding restructuring but the decisions that Blair made were leadership decisions and whatever you say about him his position remained unchanged throughout the build up to war, he did not um and err he was decisive whether you like it or not that is the most desirable attribute of a leader and history will judge him as one of the 20th c greatest prime ministers.

  • frankoman frankoman

    18 Mar 2010, 2:27PM

    While it is infuriating that Blair has walked away to amass millions and cultivate his following in the US, joinig up with fundamentalist religious groups etc. the reality in Britain is that history will judge him very harshly. Anything his governement achieved will be overshadowed by his lies and his subservience to Dubya. It would be lovely to see him bunged up in some hellhole but his condemnation by historians will hurt him far more. NO wonder he spends so much time in the US. They pander ot him. In Britain he is now and will continue to be reviled. They will tire of him in America and eventually he will have to face the empty shell that his career was. Maybe there is a God.

  • Longrigg Longrigg

    18 Mar 2010, 2:38PM

    The 'I'm with you' says it all really.

    Not 'we' the cabinet.

    Not 'we' the Labour Party.

    Not 'we' the UK Parliament.

    Not 'we' the British people.

    It was about "me, me, me".

    Shocking really.

  • Longrigg Longrigg

    18 Mar 2010, 2:40PM

    The 'I'm with you' says it all really.

    Not 'we' the cabinet.

    Not 'we' the Labour Party.

    Not 'we' the UK Parliament.

    Not 'we' the British people.

    It was about "me, me, me".

    Shocking really.

  • PaulLambert PaulLambert

    18 Mar 2010, 2:52PM

    "You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I'm with you."

    It reads like a teenage love letter, almost. Only much more sinister.

    Crimes againt peace? I'm with you.

    Torture? I'm with you.

    Rendition? I'm with you.

    Standing trial in the hague? I'm with you (here's hoping).

  • Monsi Monsi

    18 Mar 2010, 3:23PM

    benjamincoe:

    I think it's strange how at the time, we didn't know any of this. Credit where it's due, he did well to cover his intentions, at least until now.

    There's a philosophical debate to be had about whether we ever know anything, but that's not relevant here.

    What is relevant is that anyone with an IQ larger than his or her waist measurement could have joined some pretty obvious dots and come to a conclusion which it didn't need half a dozen inquiries to establish.

    This precludes John Prescott, naturally.

  • raphaelg raphaelg

    18 Mar 2010, 3:24PM

    Crikey,

    Does Rawnsley need any more free publicity? I trust he is going to give young Sparrow a cut of his Amazon sales over the next 48 hours.

    There is nothing new in any of these quotes.

  • nimn2003 nimn2003

    18 Mar 2010, 3:28PM

    @ilaister

    Yes, but invading Iraq was 'the right thing to do".

    Is this a serious comment, or irony? If serious, can you please explain why Iraq and not, say, Zimbabwe, Korea, China, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia etc etc etc

    @CleverUserName

    First signs were there when he dismissed the 2 million anti-war march in London before the war.

    Your reply:

    And then, both Bush and Blair got re-elected. How the hell did that happen? I still remember the shock and dismay I felt on both occasions.

    Indeed, but the REALITY was that only 23% of voters actually voted for NuLab. Also don't forget that something like 130 NuLab MPs voted against the war, and it only got through due to the Tories.

    It may well have been that a more representative voting system in 2005 would have thrown NuLab and Blair out of office.

  • jigen jigen

    18 Mar 2010, 3:31PM

    I wish this sort of examination was going on in the US. Here the public only turned against it because it didn't go well, and not because it was illegal, unnecessary and wrong.

    Democratic politicians are afraid to go after the perpetrators because it will be seen as a partisan attack (such attacks travel well only from right to left in the US, and require a sex angle for sufficient public outrage) and because they supported the invasion in an attempt to be seen as patriotic.

    The media isn't interested because it isn't a "new" story (similarly they let the criminals off the hook back during the Iran-Contra scandal, claiming the American people had had enough of the story), and requires examination of facts and context, which don't do well in sound bites.

    And the Republican party won't go after the perpetrators because of the "Reagan Commandment" about not slagging off your own party.

    Justice for all? No, some are above the demands of justice.

  • RR17 RR17

    18 Mar 2010, 3:43PM

    Britain, once the conqueror of the seven seas, is now a tired old country clinging onto the coattails of the current top dog in the hope that it will last. It won't. Best start teaching your children Chinese (as the Germans are doing) or say goodbye to any economic future.

  • raymonddelauney raymonddelauney

    18 Mar 2010, 4:21PM

    Yet again, though, Blair had emphasised his "yes" at the expense of the "buts". The July note began: "You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I'm with you."

    I wonder how parents of injured and dead service personnel feel at reading Blairs' obsequious nonsense?

  • stig69 stig69

    18 Mar 2010, 4:28PM

    None of this is surprising. Blair has grinned his way through. Co-opted a nation to the will of another. Aint that special? More interesting would be knowing what writing paper he used. I'd guess it had angelic-like teddybears down one side. And what scent might he have sprayed the letter with before drizzling the envelope with his grinning spittle?

  • kvlx387 kvlx387

    18 Mar 2010, 5:10PM

    It goes to show that enquiries set up by government can be toothless affairs and are easily manipulated. I guess Hutton was a low water mark where that's concerned.

    Maybe what we need is a system whereby an independent body, maybe the judiciary, is responsible for enquiries, including their frames of reference.

  • KingOfNothing KingOfNothing

    18 Mar 2010, 5:11PM

    The trouble here is that there is so much evidence to back all of this up that we KNOW what has happened, we really do.

    No much short of a trip to the Netherlands for Mr Blair is going to make much of a difference.

  • TiredofAntiBlairCrap TiredofAntiBlairCrap

    18 Mar 2010, 5:22PM

    Really people are so busy reinventing history it is untrue. No doubt the Chilcot enquiry has the note that was written between the two. It should be possible to get it from the U.S side via FOI there even if it can't be found from here.
    Rawnsley is reporting through unnamed sources and unattributed quotes. He has been proven to play fast and loose with the truth himself in the past.
    What it comes down to is that the leader of a major European country had to make decisions based on information that was put in front of him and judgements as to what was in the best interests of the people in that country.
    Maybe the decision was wrong, but none of us would have liked to be in the position to have to make that decision.
    I'm laughing about people saying how did Blair get re-elected. Well probably because none of the guys bitching and moaning now got off their backsides to campaign or even vote. Wake up guys, we live in a democracy you get who you vote for. More than 23% of the voters who actually voted, voted for Labour in 2005. The others couldn't be bothered.

    Also with regard to:

    Rawnsley, though, has published a direct quote from one of the letters

    .

    So how did Rawnsley get this direct quote if it is still secret. Why doesn't he publish the whole note rather than take one line out of context.? Or is this again just somebody's understanding of what was in the note.

    How many enquiries does it require before you guys let it go and get on with your lives.

  • BoutrosDiveris BoutrosDiveris

    18 Mar 2010, 5:33PM

    For years I am trying to understand what drives 'people' like Blair. Attributing everything to psycopathy is an easy get out (although Bush probably is one.)
    Then there is religious zeal which sometimes isn't dissimilar to manic episodes.
    But with hundreds of thousands of people dead and millions of people all over world ignored.

    Not one word of apology to the Iraqis, just lies upon lies, he's even got the blood of the Madrid bomb victims in his hands, along with this other dwarf and CIA asset, Aznar.

    What can I say.. Whatever the explanation we are doomed.

  • Haigin88 Haigin88

    18 Mar 2010, 6:35PM

    Were these letters accompanied by photographs? Ashley Cole-esque photographs? Blair suggestively eating a Texas-style hotdog, maybe?

    "How many enquiries does it require before you guys let it go and get on with your lives".

    Just the one. The kind of enquiry that take place in a court when the witnesses are under oath and the matter of War Crimes is the subject of discussion. Then we can go and get on with our lives...because we, unlike some other people in the world, haven't had our houses bombed into smithereens; haven't seen loved ones murdered before our eyes; etc. Those people will never be able to 'let it go' as it'll always be there for them to deal with every single day for the rest of their lives.

  • GerryP GerryP

    18 Mar 2010, 7:06PM

    I agree with most of the comments here both in support of academia and with regard to realism in the public sector. It strikes me the real problem is that universities seem to have been singled out by Government for cutbacks in advance of the publication of a realistic public-sector financial plan.

    There will indeed have to be a major pruning of public sector expenditure in the UK over the next five years whatever actions the Government take to increase taxes. For example my mother-in-law and mother both in their 90s receive huge state benefits as regards medical and social care. Quite how cutbacks in their benefits can be balanced against university cutbacks I am not sure, but they surely will.

    I suppose ultimately these decisions will be a political fudge. Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere will no doubt have more to say about them than anyone reading this article.

    From a strictly logical viewpoint, there are only two areas that Government expenditure can really add value, education and transport. The multitude of Government regulators, equal opportunities bodies, health care, armed forces etc just consume resources. In that light universities should be immune from cutbacks. But who believes any of these decisions will be taken logically?

  • Clevo Clevo

    18 Mar 2010, 8:16PM

    Some children are brought up to seek out the most powerful men and women in their environments and be subservient to them. They are children with very weak souls who need to attach themselves to power in order to feel grown up.

    They will work their way up from one powerful person to another as they change environments. At one stage in T.B.'s journey towards the promised land, it was G. W. Bush. At the next stage, it was the Pope. Now there is nowhere else to go for external security. He is now mimicking G.W.B. by becoming finanacially rich, with lots of rich friends. Logically his next stage will be to try to become more like and closer to the Pope, and to internalise the correctives to his emptiness.

    Pity such people. They are dangerous.

  • ThisStinks ThisStinks

    18 Mar 2010, 11:49PM

    Where has Andrew Sparrow been hiding? NONE of this is new. I expect ignorance and bias from Cifers, but from journalists too?

    On second thoughts, I suppose I do -

    http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/so-who-said-british-journalists-arent-nuts/

    From this quote -

    Yet again, though, Blair had emphasised his "yes" at the expense of the "buts". The July note began: "You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I'm with you."

    - Sparrow seems to conclude that ALL future decisions had already been taken. Even though (from THIS quote, accurate or not) Blair only said "I'm with you". He didn't say, "whatever my party, parliament or the country thinks we'll be right in there, all guns blazing."

    To be quite frank if he HADN'T said to Bush "I'm with you" I'd have thought him an idiot. Of COURSE he'd be "with" our most faithful ally in their time of need, right after 9/11.

    None of that is to say that we'd be able to go into Iraq without parliament's vote, which Blair knew was his bottom line, as did Bush, and which (vote) he got. Btw, Blair was the frst PM EVER, that's EVER, EVER to ask Parliament's permission to go to war. We do not have war by referendum, press say-so or Lib Dem casting vote. Thank the powers that be!

    Just before the invasion Bush, knowing the level of controversy in Britain, asked Blair if he wanted to opt out, and not go to Parliament for the vote. Blair said "no".

    He believed in it, then and now, as he has often said.

    He was right as many Iraqi people know:

    http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/iraq-election-thank-you-to-great-leaders-blair-bush/

    It's what we used to call "leadership." Something whose meaning we 'armchair politicians' will never understand.

  • Antigones Antigones

    19 Mar 2010, 10:46AM

    It hurts me that, I have lived in a gutless age for Britain. I was brought up to believe my country had principles and integrity.

    Who will rid us of the BLIAR image--who will send him to The Haig to face war-crimes charges?

    This creature has made himself a millionaire from the kick-backs of massive death and destruction and also has the brass neck to start a "Faith Foundation". What does this say about the British Establishment? What does this make of the British people?

    The Devil Incarnate with Bible in hand.

  • dav231 dav231

    19 Mar 2010, 11:41AM

    'A crucial meeting between Blair and Bush took place in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002. The two leaders spent a lot of time talking alone and what they said to each other has been the subject of considerable speculation.'

    "Yo Blair, here boy, have a scooby snack. Roll over, play ded.
    Now I'll tell ya how it's gonna be boy. Whad yo er gonna do is whatever you'all are told geddit. Fer one hand over that thar Bridish Army to my guys for whaddeva we need 'em fer. An don you be rasin no fuss see.
    Yo will also support us in everee way that yo kin evereeware yo are told to.
    Never mind that thar elegtor, er electdora um alactorade, electorade er um....... der peeple cos dey don' matta okay!
    Now when yo do dese here thangs fer us we jus mite be able to swing it fer yo to, now lets see, mebee get a job with a large invesment bank and er an ivee league posit.. possert.. um possesion er I mean po- sis-sion as one of dem dare leckturers. Also we could see to it that you could git some kindsa internasional job as a... well lets see, I know, an invoy or summink.
    Now see here boy dese cood be werth Millions to ya boy, I mean millions.
    So whadda yer say?''

    " Oooh YES YES YES PLEEESE!"
    (Turns round chases own tale and attempts to lick own A#$@, Before actually licking Bush's. Then lifts leg and pisses on British public.)

  • readyduck readyduck

    21 Mar 2010, 5:01PM

    george wetard bush was so smart daddy got him into harrrrrrrrrrrvard by donating funds to there school made cmimuses and majored in binge drinking and cheerleading can he spell he cant speak doubht he reads or writes he was appointted president by his dadda,s selected /appointted ussc supremes justices and they are still effing up in the supreme court john roberts is the main man those neocons fugged up our nation so bad they killed my nephew in iraq those two arrogant dudes should be prosecuted for murder and jailed

  • capmint capmint

    22 Mar 2010, 1:30PM

    Andrew

    an excellant piece of analysis. It just goes to show what a waste of time, money and effort the Iraq enquiry has been. They've interviewed all of the key players but the fact that there have been no legal council to cross exam witnesses has meant that the Iraq Inquiry hasn't un-earthed any new evidence.

    It has been great political theatre but time will show that it has been a waste of taxpayers money.

    Whilst you may disagree with Tony Blair, there is no doubt that he is an accomplished politician who would definitely win dancing on ice (he can turn on a sixpence), whereas Gordon Brown wasn't as well briefed and stumbled on the 'I've never refused an MOD request' issue.

    Its a shame, as Tony Blair should be the one who is accountable, and the analysis by Andrew is quite damning.

Comments are now closed for this entry.

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Politics blog weekly archives

Mar 2010
M T W T F S S

Find your constituency

Latest news on guardian.co.uk

Last updated three minutes ago

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop