Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Was 'Hell Bent' on Iraq War, UK Envoy Says
Bush administration didn't care about getting U.N. support, he tells inquiry
LONDON - The United States was "hell bent" on a 2003 military invasion of Iraq and actively undermined efforts by Britain to win international authorization for the war, a former British diplomat told an inquiry Friday.
Then US President George W. Bush and then Prime Minister Tony Blair wave upon Blair's arrival to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas in April 2002. Blair may have swung behind US calls for regime change in Iraq after meeting president Bush at his Texas ranch, a former top diplomat told an inquiry into the 2003 war. (AFP/File/Stephen Jaffe) Jeremy Greenstock, British ambassador to the United Nations from 1998 to 2003, said that President George W. Bush had no real interest in attempts to agree on a U.N. resolution to provide explicit backing for the conflict.
The ex-diplomat, who served as Britain's envoy in Iraq after the invasion, said serious preparations for the war had begun in early 2002 and took on an unstoppable momentum.
As diplomats frantically attempted in early 2003 to agree upon a U.N. resolution approving a military offensive, Bush's key aides grew impatient - criticizing the process as an unnecessary distraction, he said.
Grumbling from Washington "included noises about 'this is a waste of time, what we need is regime change, why are we bothering with this, we must sweep this aside and do what's going to have to be done anyway - and deal with this with the use of force,'" Greenstock testified before the inquiry into the Iraq war.
Several nations had hoped to stall the invasion of Iraq to allow U.N. weapons inspectors more time to search for evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - the key justification for the war. No such weapons were ever found.
Yet Bush's inner circle cared little about what international allies thought and refused to halt plans to invade in March 2003, Greenstock said. He said even Blair was unable to persuade Bush, winning only a brief hiatus of two weeks.
"The momentum for earlier action in the United States was much too strong for us to counter," Greenstock said in a written statement to the inquiry, provided alongside his live testimony.
Britain's inquiry is the most exhaustive study yet into the war and will seek evidence from former Prime Minister Tony Blair, military officials and spy agency chiefs. It won't apportion blame or establish criminal or civil liability. But it will offer recommendations by late 2010 on how to prevent mistakes from being repeated in the future.
Greenstock told the five-person inquiry panel that the failure to win U.N. approval for the war had seriously undermined the legitimacy of the conflict.
He said, in his opinion, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was legal - a view rejected by critics who say it violated international law - but was of "questionable legitimacy."
"It did not have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states, or even perhaps of the majority of people inside the U.K.," he said.
In London, an anti-war rally in 2003 drew an estimated 2 million demonstrators - the largest street protest in a generation.
Greenstock told the panel he had his own doubts, and had threatened to resign if no international backing was agreed upon. His threat came before a Nov. 2002 resolution that offered Iraq a final opportunity to disarm and demanded access for weapons inspectors.
Efforts to agree on a sterner resolution authorizing military action foundered because the international community believed the U.S. was "hell bent on the use of force" regardless of world opinion, Greenstock said.
"The United States was not proactively supportive of the U.K.'s efforts and seemed to be preparing for conflict whatever the U.K. decided to do," Greenstock wrote in his statement.
Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to the U.S., told the inquiry Thursday that he believed Bush and Blair had used a meeting at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, to "sign in blood" an agreement to take military action on Iraq. That was a year before Parliament approved Britain's involvement.
Greenstock said following the Crawford meeting, he realized Britain "was being drawn into quite a different discussion." But, like Meyer, he said the talks were secretive and the conversation between the two leaders was not disclosed to officials.
- Posted in
62 Comments so far
Show AllThe Associated Press is just now getting around to this story? Wow, aren't they on top of things. I'm sure this reporter will receive a Pulitzer prize for this scoop!
Or the AP nightshift manager will get demoted for letting the story get out.
I believe AP has been reporting on the enquiry ever since it started on November 24th, 2009. I don't agree that this qualifies as Pulitzer material though "Mr living in a cave".
I guess my sarcasm is a bit too subtle for you, Professor.
I understand Hannibal was "hell bent" on Rome, as well.
Of course!!!!! Had to get that oil!!!!! Let's keep throwing it in their face... I still can't believe that Bush and Cheney are walking around smilin; and makin' money. Bastards, son- of a...
Control of Oil, control of... oh wait, soon it won't matter, mother nature will be putting things right...
"But [the Inquiry] will offer recommendations by late 2010 on how to prevent mistakes from being repeated in the future."
As we've learned in the US over the past decade, it is impossible to prevent "mistakes" such the invasion of Iraq when a country's leaders are corrupt and incompetent.
The US is under the thumb of the military-industrial complex and has been since the Civil War. They don't make "mistakes"; they make money.
q
Extremely well said, q.
Mistakes my ass.
Correct," they don't make mistakes they make money". Mistakes... that is what the propaganda would like you to believe. Like General Butler said: " war is a racket". The line to correct mistakes in the future is BS for the sheeple to keep them dumbed down so they do not catch on to the racket of the MIC and its war profiteers. The wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq are not "mistakes" to the the extraordinary evil, politically, powerful, elite that really determine American foreign policy!
I believe the enquiry is concerned with British mistakes, after all it is a British enquiry.
Why do most people adopt a US centric view when European news is reported?
The British didn't make any mistakes. The British produce propaganda to assist U.S. foreign policy. Don't believe me:
"Gordon Brown Is a Murderous Two Faced Cunt":
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/gordon_brown_is.html
"Brown is appeasing domestic horror at the Israeli massacre in Gaza by calling for a ceasefire. Meanwhile British diplomats on the United Nations Security Council are under direct instructions to offer 'tacit support' to United States' efforts to block a ceasefire."
It's a good cop/bad cop routine, with Britain playing the good cop.
This is old news and has been repeated ad nauseum from many sources, starting with Richard A. Clarke.
There was no mistake and remember the entire media was pumping up the moronic public so as to make it easier for Bush to have his crusade and never forget that Tony Blair was his international cover and should be arrested along with him.
So Greenstock still thinks the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was legal--even though he knows full well that the WMD issue was a scam? This is the moral degeneracy that infects public officials in the UK and the US. These are the same "christians" who have so much respect for life that they are willing to destroy, kill, and maim for their political pleasure. These are sadists in suits. They should be behind bars, not desks.
Sioux Rose
DONNA: One wonders if the Christians who fill the churches that backed Bush got to view the photos of the deformed babies coming out of that war zone polluted with all sorts of radioactive & chemical detritus, if they might get to tweak the narrow basis for the belief construct known as "right to life." If these people love unborn fetuses as much as their political noise seems to suggest, how could they begin to stand behind leaders who make possible the genetic deformities of babies, those just emerged from the sacred womb? The control of information, especially VISUALS of this war of occupation would probably lead to a turning of the tide were citizens to really SEE what is going on.
Lakota Rose: Valid criticism, of course.
But you make the mistake of supposing "these people" apply any self-criticism at all, seeking consistency in attitudes.
I find that doubtful. The "Right to life'rs" and "Support the President always'ers" appear to be acting from a never checked emotional point of self-righteousness, rarely activating reason. "Gut" and "heart" always trumps reason in such an approach - never questioning the reasons that the metaphorical gut/heart-attitudes arise from.
People who think with their gut, or even an unchecked heart, have a few billion less neurons at their thinking's disposal than those of us who add the brain-circuits to our thinking.
To those gutted-heart folks it's all about being right without modifiers. "Don't check a fact, just act out what feels right" - might be the motto there. So far 102,879 documented dead Iraqies, and 4,366 dead US soldiers ensued.
Disgusting, of course. But never forget: we're the same few billion brain-cells up on them!
If you doubt that ignorance is bliss just look at the face of GWB in that picture.
Actually the adage probably should be 'stupidity is bliss'
OMG! Nothing would offend them more. And the moment they claimed ignorance you could point out that they were so certain, when the truth was obvious for anyone that bothered to look. They sure would have a hard time maintaining the self righteousness.
It would be so good to take the noses of the self righteous ones and rub it in some truth.
What is new is that the government is looking into the matter. One of the reminders that Glenn Greenwald pointed out is the Anthrax scare and how it was used to pump up support for the war.
We MUST look to the past to find out who decided what and on what basis. This also, in my opinion, needs to proceed to impeachments and trials to get closer to the truth.
BRILLIANT!!!
According to Jeremy Greenstock (or what I will now call Greenstockianism), even though there is ample evidence of lying, impatience, and collusion to start this war of aggression (to the point that he would resign his post in frustration), the war in Iraq is legal.
I AM SO PATHETIC! I keep thinking that words and actions have meanings! My mistake!
So, it seems that we should tell all the hundreds of thousands of slaughtered innocent people (we may as well talk to them - they may be more attentive than the living!) and the millions of survivors whose lives have been ripped to shreds that they were the lucky winners in our generous benevolence!
Maybe Hitler was the Christ and George Walker Bush is an Angel!
Oh MY!!! All this time I thought that I DIDN"T want to go to HELL!
Prime blame for this disastrous misadventure lies not with Bush nor his coherts. Instead it lies with the apathetic and unlearned voters who helped him steal the elections.
Yeah, it is called mass karma. Or another way to put it, it is the mass karma of the sheeple! America, you get the leaders you deserve!
Surely there must be a wee bit of blame left for Bush and his cohorts.
Notice the accompanying photo. The sign in the back doesn't say "Mission Accomplished". It probably says "Bank of America".
"The momentum for earlier action in the United States was much too strong for us to counter," Greenstock said in a written statement.
Britain withstood the Blitz and a threatened Nazi invasion but couldn't tell George Wanker Bush to go screw himself. Is that what we're supposed to believe? BS!
A great many of us tried our damnedest to do just that. The big difference was that during the Blitz the Prime Minister was on our side.
Good point.
back in the late 90's blair and joe biden tried to persuade clinton to invade Iraq.
Somehow, some rogue AP reporter must have released this at 3am in the morning.
News? The whole world knows the war was based on lies and Obama refuses to prosecute those involved.
And while the AP reports this about Iraq, it is following the false talking points of those in power to persuade us that Iran is a threat to world peace, just as Iraq was.
"Britain's ... won't apportion blame or establish criminal or civil liability."
then what bloody good is it?
It keeps the pot simmering.
Why rehash this now as though it's news?
(Yes, the inquiery is important, but the contents are not news).
We all know Bush & Blair lied their way into aggressive war. It's resulted in the death of 102,879 documented (though around a million estimated) innocent Iraqies. Plus a few thousand (4,366) US soldiers. And some (318) other 'coalition'-soldiers. Hail to the chief!
Sioux Rose
SMARTER: There is also the troubling info that many mothers are giving birth to children with genetic defects that are straight out of a Steven King horror film. This type of maiming of future generations should be against the Geneva Conventions. The Iraqi killing fields will keep on killing & maiming; and after what the US did to Japan in WW II, this type of weapon should never have been countenanced by the world! What passes for the victor in war sets up a series of rationales for that which no civilized humanity should ever countenance!
What bothers me about this article is the attachment to protocol, the emphasis on getting a UN resolution to serve as fig leaf legitimizing something that was always contrived, illegitimate, and planned on the basis of false pretexts from the get go.
When a nation's leaders are those that nakedly profit from big energy (oil, coal, gas) and/or weapons, than a moral breach becomes THE given that makes war not only possible, but inevitable. The horrific nature of those genetically malformed babies in Iraq ought to provide ample reason to re-instate laws that build a strong firewall between those serving in government and those at the heads of major energy and defense corporations. Enough is a f--king nough!
Don't forget Vietnam and agent orange. The grandkids from that war are still suffering, not to mention the US soldiers who have yet to be recompensed. And lets not forget all the land mines left, every one of which brought dollars into the coffers of our military industrial complex. The people responsible for these atrocities have built up a huge karmic response. They bandy about scripture, but what I remember is a little verse that says "The wages of sin is death".
I have known three Viet Nam vets who botched a suicide. Last summer one of them left nothing to chance.
Sweet Lakota Rose: You're too right. (See also my 'koinkidenkal' reply to your previus posting). The thought of the long-time damage from the Bush-atrocities makes me cry a bleeding feeling on the inside - you know?
"What bothers me about this article is the attachment to protocol, the emphasis on getting a UN resolution to serve as fig leaf legitimizing something that was always contrived, illegitimate, and planned on the basis of false pretexts from the get go."
Well spoken, Sioux Rose.
What's news is the milquetoast acknowledgement that what's rotten in this particular Denmark is not just the cheese, with the spectacle of the rats pointing at each other and squeaking.
Compared to Bush, Charles Manson is a saint
I always thought that a fitting punishment for Bush or Cheney would be to put him in a cell with someone like Manson (Jeffery Dahmer being dead).
Of course, one could point out that doing so would be too harsh a punishment for someone like Mason who murdered only a few people.
q
Absolutely relishing the prospect of Blair testifying at the inquiry!!
It's another "well-duh" moment.
Those of us on the streets protesting, getting flipped off and spat at by self-righteous idiots, didn't need to wait until 2009 to have a firm grasp of the obvious.
Even at this point, Jeremy Greenstock's testimony is equivocal about the obvious: of course it was illegal on top of everything else.
I agree that this is not news. Most of us saw the reality as it unfolded and knew war-supporter Colin Powell had persuaded George W. Bush to seek a UN cover, which I guess is what Greenstock thinks made the war legal.
Bring America Back !!!!
****Along with this, it is a good point to Google: "The Downing Street Memos"==showing both US and UK knew there were nO WMD's but were both intent on falsifying those facts, and proceeding with Bush' Insane Obsession against
his Daddy's enemy.
****Never forget that Saddam Hussein saw clearly that Neocon Bush' Team were ignoring the facts of the arms inspectors, and Saddam contacted CBS Anchor Dan Rather. Through Rather, Saddam challenged "W" Bush to a NATIONAL TV debate on the subject of Iraq WMDs===but Team Bush dismissed the challenge, ignored it mainly==knowing full well the gears of their Shock and Awe Genocide machine had already been oiled and in progress.
****Saddam did try his best to save his defenseless peoples from this criminal Invasion. But the Military Complex Beast just had to be fed through it's bloodthirsty handlers.
****We voted for Regime Change in America when Obama promised and END to the War, a change from the MIC culture of DC corruption, and hope to bring our troops home.
McCain absorbed much of "W"'s 20 percent popularity rating and the Options were Clear.
Now, we see the Regime has not Changed==What Team Obama is doing , King George and Prince Dick could not do better !
====WAKE UP AMERICA !!!! KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT !!!!
Bring America Back !!!!...............!!!!!Our Shiblikov guy below almost has it right. Obama has already been measured for his flight suit, a la mission accomplished !
**Except, since Obama's never served in the military, his suit will be a copy of the last Uniform worn by Michael Jackson at his final rehearsal !!
**Also the mission accomplished banner has been changed, and it will read "The War of Opium Necessity"==and will be decorated with nice poppy blossoms.
**Instead of a carrier landing, Obama has chosen, after much deliberation with his war council, to do a Tandem Plane Jump.
George H. Walker Bush, experienced, will be behind Obama as his Tandem partner, and will guide the Shute directly onto the grounds of the MLK Memorial in Atlanta, Georgia.
****After the successful landing Obama's highly inspirational speech will fittingly begin with the words:
"I Have a Dream" !!!! And so did We the Sheeple.
Blair: Bush made me do it.
Bush: Blair agreed with me.
Next inquiry, please...
LOL. Dead right.
"The struggle against imperialist war cannot be conducted through the election of Democrats or through putting pressure on the twin parties of big business. Putting an end to war is the task of the working class, in the United States and internationally, which must carry out an independent political struggle on the basis of a socialist program." - Patrick Martin
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/pers-n28.shtml
Sorry but there is an error in the article.
It says "the United States was hell bent on the Iraq war"
That is incorrect. I am part of the United States and I was never a supporter of the Iraq conflict.
It was bush who was "hell bent" on the war.
The responsiblity for the death, destruction, and horror of this needless conflict lie COMPLETELY with him and those that voted for him in 2004. There is no reason to imply the entire United States was supporting it.
>It was bush who was "hell bent" on the war.
Yes, it was Bush (although over 70% of Americans supported the invasion at the time), but you have to understand that it's also America's foreign policy, and that won't change by bringing in a new president. Some presidents are more militaristic than others, and, hence, foreign policy becomes bloodier at times, but the goals are the same, regardless of the means a particular president uses.
America's foreign policy might change by bringing in Justice to 'elevate' the evil doer.