UK's Iraq war inquiry turns focus to Bush officials

Tuesday 09th February, 06:18 AM JST

LONDON —

Britain’s inquiry into the Iraq war will seek meetings with former members of the Bush administration after taking evidence from Tony Blair and other key British officials, the panel’s chairman said Monday.

John Chilcot, head of the inquiry, confirmed that he hopes to obtain evidence from officials in the United States, but did not name specific individuals, or specify if his panel hopes to put questions to former President George W Bush himself.

“We cannot take formal evidence as such from foreign nationals, but we can of course have discussions with them,” Chilcot said, bringing to a close the inquiry’s first set of public evidence sessions.

The hearings began in November and have seen Blair, current MI6 intelligence agency chief John Sawers, the head of Britain’s military Jock Stirrup and a host of ministers and government officials offer testimony.

Chilcot said his panel will question British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Development Secretary Douglas Alexander in a second set of hearings before summer, and also make plans to gather evidence from U.S. officials and military veterans.

“We will be holding a number of meetings and seminars with a range of individuals, British and non-British ... these could include veterans from the Iraq campaign and officials from the former American administration,” Chilcot said.

Inquiry spokesman Rae Stewart said no decision had yet been made on who would be asked to meet with the inquiry panel, or when and where any sessions would take place.

David Sherzer, a spokesman for Bush, declined to comment when asked if any request had so far been made to the former president, or whether he would cooperate if asked.

Several sessions have focused on the accusations that Blair offered Bush support for an invasion as early as April 2002—a year before legislators approved Britain’s involvement.

Britain’s former ambassador to the U.S., Christopher Meyer, told the inquiry that Bush and Blair used a meeting that April at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, to “sign in blood” an agreement to take military action in Iraq. However, in his testimony, Blair’s former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, denied any agreement had been made and called Meyer’s account unreliable.

Lawrence Freedman, a military historian who sits on the inquiry’s five-member panel, indicated in questioning that Bush had advised Blair he planned to topple Saddam Hussein even if the despot cooperated with United Nations weapons inspectors.

“Can you start by confirming that you knew that military action was planned by the US for the middle of March, come what may?” Freedman asked ex-British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in a hearing Monday. “You were copied in, presumably, to reports of conversations between the prime minister and the president?”

Details of private correspondence between Blair and Bush have been provided to the panel, but have not been released publicly.

Chilcot said his team had been granted access to tens of thousands of government documents, many highly classified. “They allow us to shine a bright light into seldom-seen corners of the government machine,” he said.

Some lawmakers have demanded that letters between Blair and Bush should be made public, but the government has declined.

Brown ordered the inquiry to scrutinize the case made for war and errors in planning for post-conflict reconstruction. Chilcot’s panel will offer recommendations by the end of the year, but won’t apportion blame or but establish criminal or civil liability.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 114 Total Comments Show All

IvanCoughalot at 08:34 PM JST - 11th February

Madverts - a very prudent policy. I particularly like their selective contempt for "half-truths and misinformation".

A lot of these posters are just angry young men that aren't old enough to have seen the 1980's anyway.

And I doubt they'll be in a rush to sign up for the wars they so vehemently support. Fight to the last drop of someone else's blood.
Madverts at 11:40 PM JST - 11th February

"And I doubt they'll be in a rush to sign up for the wars they so vehemently support."

Heh, we're talking about 2002, a era when the word "Chickenhawk" came to my awareness. Amazing that most of those pushing for war - and I mean people in power like Deferment Dick - were those that fitted that appelation.

It's easy to cheer on a war from your living room.
Sarge at 11:50 PM JST - 11th February

"I gave up trying to get the resident trolls to honestly stick to the topic"

Translation: I can't prove that the posters I don't agree with are wrong.

"I doubt they'll be in a rush to sign up for the wars they so vehemently support."

Not everyone can serve in the military. I did, quite some time ago. And you?
Sarge at 11:53 PM JST - 11th February

"It's easy to cheer on a war from your living room"

It's easy to whine about leaders making tough decisions from your living room.
Sarge at 11:55 PM JST - 11th February

"Chickenhawk"

Derogatory term used to refer to people who support wars against scumbags who would torture and kill us without hesitation or remorse, but who aren't in the military.
IvanCoughalot at 12:04 AM JST - 12th February

Sarge: congratulations on serving your country. I hope the orders you followed were not based on lies. The men who died in Iraq were called upon to do so by liars, each of whom evaded their country's call when it sounded.

If you served, you are a bigger man than Cheney, who had "other priorities" than to serve his country in Vietnam.

Yet he enhanced, distorted and misrepresented information, manipulated public opinion after 9/11, and pushed his stated PNAC aim of a war of aggression in Iraq.

Chilcot, being toothless, will not bring anyone to justice. But the Iraq war was nonetheless an inhuman, calculated war crime.

And let me pre-empt you. The fact that a Bad Man is now dead does not justify it. The Iraqi people are now not free, but subject to a mosaic of warlord tyrants instead of a single tyrant. But Halliburton, Bush and Blair all made their fortunes, so the dead thousands are - in your eyes - paid for.
cleo at 12:07 AM JST - 12th February

"Chickenhawk"

Derogatory term used to refer to people who support wars they expect other folks' kids to fight.
stevecpfc at 01:58 AM JST - 12th February

It is just common sense that this war was based on fabricated evidence and the Mid East is a far deadly place to its citizens and our citizens than befoe.
Sarge at 08:36 AM JST - 12th February

"Bush and Blair all made their fortunes"

Yeah, they're just rolling in Iraqi oil dollars, lol.

"Chickenhawk"

Derogatory term used to refer to people who aren't in the military or have kids in the military but still support wars against extremists/terrorists who would torture and kill us without hesitation or remorse.

"It is just common sense that this war was based on fabricated evidence" and the Mid East is a far ( more ) deadly place to its citizens and our citizens than befoe"

This war was based on Saddam's extremely poor track record and his refusal to come clean on his WMD and continuing to jerk the U.N. and the hapless Hans Blix Brigade all around Iraq.

Far more deadly place? Not for Iraqis who didn't support Saddam. It's true that Iran is closer to having nukes than ever before. Jeez, someone wanna do something about that before we have to?
IvanCoughalot at 10:26 AM JST - 12th February

Iraq was attacked precisely because they did not have weapons. North Korea will never be attacked because we know they do have weapons. Seems to be a very good reason for Iran to arm itself. It was never an issue when Israel went nuclear, for some reason.

Blair made 15 million pounds last year. Not a bad little earner, cracking jokes for your paymasters while your country lies wasted by a debt you created.

Chickenhawk: Term often used to define a man who got five deferments when called upon to serve his country, because he had "other priorities", yet who expects poor people's kids to fight and die in a war he engineered to the vast profit of Halliburton, and therefore himself.
SebastianFlyte at 01:59 PM JST - 12th February

Would love to see that blithering idiot Bush try to even understand the questions, let alone answer them. Hope he finds his way there, hope he gets pelted with rotten tomatoes as he leaves. Good riddance to the idiot war criminal!
Sarge at 03:23 PM JST - 12th February

"Iraq was attacked precisely because they did not have weapons"

That must be why thousands of coalition troops were wearing chemical garb and had masks at the ready at the outset of the liberation. Because they knew Iraq had no chemical weapons.

"Blair made 15 million pounds last year"

Oh, the horrors.

"That blithering idiot Bush"

I hear there are a bunch of billboards going up with Bush's photo and the caption "Miss me yet?"
sharpie at 08:19 AM JST - 15th February

how long has this inquiry been going on for??? it's just now starting to focus on bush and cheney??? talk about a waste of time and taxpayer's money. what next?

fk the inquiry, send the idiots to the hague!!!
diggerdog at 10:34 AM JST - 15th February

pointless inquiry as it will not uncover the truth. Which is that bush and blair are controlled by people behind the scenes. The money men of the world, who have been after afganistan and iraq for a while now. They created the guise of terrorism, had bush and blair flog it to us with their propaganda then they move in to take the prize. These are wars that will never end so the money men in the banks can keep on making their money. Bush and blair are just players they dont make the big calls. Take them down and nothing will change. Focus on Obama he is bush with a velvet glove. Everything bush started he is continuing.
Odogma at 01:51 PM JST - 15th March

Blair was vindicated. The Iraqi people are grateful.

For Americans I think we can safely say Britain is still a loyal, or rather, a very dutiful ally, though Obama is doing his best to ruin that partnership as well. The only inquiry needed should focus on the 1920s and address the lunacy of official foreign policy the then-dying British empire implemented. The free world - and in particular its protector the United States - need confirmation that any residual hubris and delusions of British grandeur have been thoroughly extinguished.