America Loses Tony Blair's Letter Supporting Iraq War - BigAndy9 Has Found It

18th May 2014

Another BigAndy9 Exclusive only for the eyes of Newsfix Forum family members:


Hi George, how are you and how's the verruca?

Regarding that war you were on about on the dog and bone - yeah, count me in ta - one rule though - i'm only prepared to lose up to 20,000 of the army guys, any more and my job would be toast.

Let me know what you wanna do.

Tony.

A personal letter written by Tony Blair to George Bush backing his plan to wage war on Iraq has reportedly ‘gone missing’ from the official Presidential library – as pressure grows on the former Prime Minister to sanction the release of the private notes he wrote to Mr Bush.

The letter, which is said to begin with the words: ‘You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I’m with you’, was last night described by a senior figure involved in the diplomatic negotiations at the time as ‘absolutely critical’ to the public’s understanding of the war – because it reveals the extent to which Mr Blair gave Mr Bush a ‘blank cheque’.

Mr Blair’s refusal to authorise the publication of 25 personal letters and 130 official records of conversations with Mr Bush has led to a long delay in the publication of Sir John Chilcot’s official report into the war. Sir John held his last public hearings in 2011.
On Friday, David Cameron made public his frustration, saying the report should be published by the end of the year.
Mr Blair, backed by Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood – a key member of his inner circle during the build-up to the 2003 conflict – has argued that the sensitive documents should remain classified.
But Mr Cameron has now effectively told Sir Jeremy to reach a compromise under which a ‘sensible’ proportion of the correspondence is released.

The development comes as lawyers for the American government are deciding whether to release any of the documentation under US freedom of information laws. Since January – nine years after the conclusion of Bush’s first term in office – the letters have technically been available to researchers who ask for them, if they are cleared by a vetting committee of lawyers.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631497/Now-America-loses-Blairs-Ill-Iraq-war-letter-Bush-Mystery-missing-note-told-US-President-Whatever-Im-you.html#ixzz323c2LjIA

BigAndy9 wrote:18th May 2014

Another BigAndy9 Exclusive only for the eyes of Newsfix Forum family members:


Hi George, how are you and how's the verruca?

Regarding that war you were on about on the dog and bone - yeah, count me in ta - one rule though - i'm only prepared to lose up to 20,000 of the army guys, any more and my job would be toast.

Let me know what you wanna do.

Tony.

@ Tony

Hi Tone

Glad you're on board pal - what was that Swiss account number again?

Oh and if anyone asks for this letter - I'll tell 'em the dog ate it.

George

xxx

This makes me so angry. On the one hand Chilcot is saying the report could be published this year, but how can it be published without the correspondence between Blair and Bush? Bastard should be in jail.

Sassy wrote:This makes me so angry.   On the one hand Chilcot is saying the report could be published this year, but how can it be published without the correspondence between Blair and Bush?   Bastard should be in jail.

Both of them should be -- to me this story sounds like it's as much about protecting Bush, which we've seen before when it comes to the U.S.-British communications regarding Iraq, of course.

Halfway through Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” host Tim Russert, interviewing Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, asked about a secret, top-level British government memorandum. Consisting of minutes from a July 23, 2002, meeting attended by Prime Minister Tony Blair and his closest advisors, the memo revealed their impression that the Bush administration, eight months before the start of the Iraq war in 2003, had already decided to invade and that Washington seemed more concerned with justifying a war than preventing one.

The memo was leaked this year to the Times of London, which printed it on May 1. The story, coming on the eve of Blair’s reelection, generated extensive press coverage in Britain. In setting up his question to Mehlman on Sunday, Russert said, “Let me turn to the now famous Downing Street memo” (emphasis added).

Famous? It would be famous in America if the D.C. press corps functioned the way it’s supposed to. Russert’s June 5 reference, five weeks after the story broke, represented the first time NBC News had even mentioned the document or the controversy surrounding it. In fact, Russert’s query was the first time any of the network news divisions addressed the issue seriously. In an age of instant communications, the American mainstream media has taken an exceedingly long time — as if news of the memo had traveled by vessel across the Atlantic Ocean — to report on the leaked document. Nor has it considered its grave implications — namely, that President Bush lied to the American people and Congress during the run-up to the war with Iraq when he insisted over and over again that war was his administration’s last option.

http://www.salon.com/2005/06/09/press_and_downing_street_memo/

Yea, heard about that, there is also supposed to be one from BEFORE the twin towers. I bet they have lost that as well!

Probably so. I also noticed this about the Daily Maul's report:

has reportedly ‘gone missing’ from the official Presidential library

There is no official presidential library in the sense that this article makes out; after each president leaves office a library is created to hold documents, etc. from their era, and it is generally run by their supporters and allies. So what has very likely happened here is that the Bush allies who maintain the George W. Bush Presidential Library claim to have lost the letter. http://www.georgewbushlibrary.smu.edu/

How very convenient!

BigAndy9 wrote:18th May 2014

Another BigAndy9 Exclusive only for the eyes of Newsfix Forum family members:


Hi George, how are you and how's the verruca?

Regarding that war you were on about on the dog and bone - yeah, count me in ta - one rule though - i'm only prepared to lose up to 20,000 of the army guys, any more and my job would be toast.

Let me know what you wanna do.

Tony.

Maybe Iain Duncan Smith has got it, indeed he may even have written one hinmself, Here's what he was saying long before the decision to go to war was taken by parliament...

Although Mr Blair has said Saddam's weapons of mass destruction presented a threat that must be dealt with, he has stopped short of publicly backing American plans for military action.

Mr Duncan Smith, however, said America's determination to "topple Saddam" was fully justified by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, by the known links between so-called "rogue" states and the terrorists they sponsored, and continued Western vulnerability.

"Until the US completes its unfinished business with the Iraqi leader - preferably with European help - there can be no regional stability and the risk of further attacks on the US, and its European allies, will steadily become more grave," he said.

Mr Duncan Smith, who is in touch with key figures in the Bush administration, said America was consulting its allies on alternative courses of military action, ranging from supporting a Kurdish invasion from the North to a full-scale land invasion.

He even went to Washington to do his own research and he probably wouldn't have even bothered with UN.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1388060/Saddam-must-be-ousted-now-says-Duncan-Smith.html

Put them all in the dock then.

Now - said it many a time - it's one of two things Tony got right - going in to Iraq.

I just don't like how slimy and dishonest he is.

And then there was Michael Gove. Here's what he had to say...

[But it was on 25 March, five days after the invasion started, that his praise of Blair tips over into a gushing eulogy entitled “I can’t fight my feelings any more: I love Tony”. After the subheading “Blair’s outbreak of courage deserves the respect of natural conservatives”, the piece begins: “You could call it the Elizabeth Bennett moment. It’s what Isolde felt when she fell into Tristan’s arms. It’s the point you reach when you give up fighting your feelings, abandon the antipathy bred into your bones, and admit that you were wrong about the man. By God, it’s still hard to write this, but I’m afraid I’ve got to be honest. Tony Blair is proving an outstanding Prime Minister at the moment”. After a few paragraphs on other issues on which Blair is courting discontent within the Labour Party, Gove turns to Iraq and writes:

“It is over Iraq that he is in the greatest difficulty politically. All because, as a Labour Prime Minister, he’s behaving like a true Thatcherite. Indeed, he’s braver in some respects than Maggie was. The Falklands war took courage. But Thatcher had most of the country, and her party, behind her. In dealing with the Iraq crisis, Mr Blair has neither…Mr Blair’s policy…has the merit of genuine moral force….My admiration for the Prime Minister’s bravery in making the case is, I have to add, only increased when I listen to the sneering condescension with which broadcasters treat Government policy on Iraq…It may seem a trifle rich of me, as someone who’s enjoyed giving Mr Blair a good kicking, to object when the boot is being driven home on another foot. But there’s a difference between taking on a leader with a 93 per cent approval rating when he’s steering to the sound of applause, and piling in against a Prime Minister who’s grown into a conviction politician, risking public approval, party support and a cosy relationship with Europe in order to confront tyranny.”

http://www.ldfp.eu/2009/11/01/views-expressed-by-michael-gove-mp-on-iraq-and-palestine/

Oh dear

And then there was George Osborne speaking to parliament in the House of Commons in the debate about going to war with Iraq. Here's what he said...

It is worth reminding the House that on 18 March the House voted by a huge majority to go to war. As I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), I do not believe that the result of that vote would have been substantially different if we had known then what we know now. It is also worth stating in the House that the decision taken that day was right, and that those who supported it should not be defensive about the way they voted.

Moreover, those who supported the decision should not feel defensive about saying that those who opposed the war in that vote were wrong. They were wrong when they prophesied a long and bloody war of attrition. They were wrong when they prophesied a mass slaughter in Baghdad. They were wrong when they forecast a humanitarian catastrophe, which never arose. They were wrong when they predicted an exodus of millions of refugees, which did not happen. Indeed, they are wrong now when they say that post-war Iraq is a disaster and that the world is a more dangerous place because we have got rid of Saddam Hussein. We who supported military action should have the confidence to take on and demolish the arguments that we successfully took on and demolished in March.

Even worse.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031022/debtext/31022-29.htm

138 Labour MPs put up a motion that the case for war had not been established but it was defeated and it was with the support of almost every single Tory in parliament.

Count the votes. They're here...

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=117

If Tony Blair should be in the dock then there are quite a few other slimey politicians who should be in there with him.

Irn Bru wrote:138 Labour MPs put up a motion that the case for war had not been established but it was defeated and it was with the support of almost every single Tory in parliament.

Count the votes. They're here...

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=117

If Tony Blair should be in the dock then there are quite a few other slimey politicians who should be in there with him.

Were the Tory MP's aware there was no weapons of mass destruction?

Irn Bru wrote:138 Labour MPs put up a motion that the case for war had not been established but it was defeated and it was with the support of almost every single Tory in parliament.

Count the votes. They're here...

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=117

If Tony Blair should be in the dock then there are quite a few other slimey politicians who should be in there with him.

Well done to those Conservatives - the Iraqi people will be forever in their debt and in debt to the British forces who worked tirelessly.

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:138 Labour MPs put up a motion that the case for war had not been established but it was defeated and it was with the support of almost every single Tory in parliament.

Count the votes. They're here...

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=117

If Tony Blair should be in the dock then there are quite a few other slimey politicians who should be in there with him.

Were the Tory MP's aware there was no weapons of mass destruction?

Well 138 Labour MPs and every single LibDem and every Scottish Nationalist didn't seem to think they had. Strange that all the Tories did by the looks of it but maybe they had the gen from IDS and Michael Gove.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



Were the Tory MP's aware there was no weapons of mass destruction?

Well 138 Labour MPs and every single LibDem and every Scottish Nationalist didn't seem to think they had. Strange that all the Tories did by the looks of it but maybe they had the gen from IDS and Michael Gove.

Again did any Tory Mp's know like Tony Blair did there was no evidence of weapons of Mass destruction?

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



Were the Tory MP's aware there was no weapons of mass destruction?

Well 138 Labour MPs and every single LibDem and every Scottish Nationalist didn't seem to think they had. Strange that all the Tories did by the looks of it but maybe they had the gen from IDS and Michael Gove.

Again did any Tory Mp's know like Tony Blair did there was no evidence of weapons of Mass destruction?

Why did so many MPs think there was insufficient evidence but all the Tories did.

Seems a wee bit odd don't you think. I suppose IDS must have convinced them of that on the back of his own research.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again did any Tory Mp's know like Tony Blair did there was no evidence of weapons of Mass destruction?

Why did so many MPs think there was insufficient evidence but all the Tories did.

Seems a wee bit odd don't you think. I suppose IDS must have convinced them of that on the back of his own research.

Not odd, many thought Saddam had such weapons, so have no doubt why many voted that way to go to war which could have been avoided if Tony had been honest of which he was not.
You are making poor excuses for what is all intents and purposes a lie to go to war, that he did.
You cannot blame other people for going along with something he could of shown to be wrong, he didn't of which we are still seeing the repercussions today with the rise of Islamic extremism.

So fault is solely with Tony Blair

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again did any Tory Mp's know like Tony Blair did there was no evidence of weapons of Mass destruction?

Why did so many MPs think there was insufficient evidence but all the Tories did.

Seems a wee bit odd don't you think. I suppose IDS must have convinced them of that on the back of his own research.

Not odd, many thought Saddam had such weapons, so have no doubt why many voted that way to go to war which could have been avoided if Tony had been honest of which he was not.
You are making poor excuses for what is all intents and purposes a lie to go to war, that he did.
You cannot blame other people for going along with something he could of shown to be wrong, he didn't of which we are still seeing the repercussions today with the rise of Islamic extremism.

So fault is solely with Tony Blair

And yet you defend these people I have mentioned.

Did you read what Iain Duncan Smith said long before Blair came up with his case for war?

Did you read what George Osborne has said?

Did you read what Michael Gove said?

Did you really see the votes?

From 2006...

Cameron backs Blair on Iraq war

And Cameron also said that the dossier was only one element in the case for war and not the sole reason why he voted for it.

Behave yourself Didge. There's more than just Blair who should be in the dock and I'm surprised you believe otherwise.

So what's the answer to mu question? The one where all these other MPs didn't think there was case for war but all the Tories did.

BigAndy9 wrote:Now - said it many a time - it's one of two things Tony got right - going in to Iraq.

I just don't like how slimy and dishonest he is.

There were a lot of people who supported the Vietnam war too -- just your average militaristic, nationalist racist types who saw us killing farners and thought it must be a good thing. History has judged otherwise on both wars, of course.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Now - said it many a time - it's one of two things Tony got right - going in to Iraq.

I just don't like how slimy and dishonest he is.

There were a lot of people who supported the Vietnam war too -- just your average militaristic, nationalist racist types who saw us killing farners and thought it must be a good thing. History has judged otherwise on both wars, of course.

I'm very glad to say I marched against both. Both were untenable and both had idiots supporting them and both made the world a worse place.

Nam was a lovely place - served there a couple of times.

BigAndy9 wrote:Nam was a lovely place - served there a couple of times.

This one was it Andy? The one in Bethnal Green. Hope the customers appreciated you serving them.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:



Not odd, many thought Saddam had such weapons, so have no doubt why many voted that way to go to war which could have been avoided if Tony had been honest of which he was not.
You are making poor excuses for what is all intents and purposes a lie to go to war, that he did.
You cannot blame other people for going along with something he could of shown to be wrong, he didn't of which we are still seeing the repercussions today with the rise of Islamic extremism.

So fault is solely with Tony Blair

And yet you defend these people I have mentioned.

Did you read what Iain Duncan Smith said long before Blair came up with his case for war?

Did you read what George Osborne has said?

Did you read what Michael Gove said?

Did you really see the votes?

From 2006...

Cameron backs Blair on Iraq war

And Cameron also said that the dossier was only one element in the case for war and not the sole reason why he voted for it.

Behave yourself Didge. There's more than just Blair who should be in the dock and I'm surprised you believe otherwise.

So what's the answer to mu question? The one where all these other MPs didn't think there was  case for war but all the Tories did.

Irn your argument is not only absurd, but beyond the realms of lunacy.
So now your view is based on hindsight with some senior Tories, still not knowing the view of countless other Tory and Labour MP's who know doubt knowing the truth that Tony Blair lied could have voted very different. Even worse you ignore the fact he brought about a vote to go to war in the first place off a lie
What you are doing in the most appalling taste is try poorly to divert blame from Tony Blair and defending his lies. So I am not concerned over the views of what some senior Tories have said in hindsight that has no utter relevance to the initial lie. What is important is Tony Blair lied to the nation and Government and forced through a vote to go to war off a lie, which along with Bush are both culpable for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including many Allied soldiers .

This is not about Tory verses Labour, which you seem to think it is, this is about one man lying to many people to bring this country into a conflict which because of this saw rise in Islamic extremism in this country, so much so one could argue this also led to the 7/7 bombings, because there is now countless evidence this conflict fueled a rise in extremism in this country and elsewhere. So please do not keep coming out with poor excuses, this was created by two men, both Bush and Blair, who both lied and even worse if this had of been a Tory you would have been baying for blood long ago. 


You are defending the indefensible Irn, which has left resentment and hate towards Britain because he lied

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Nam was a lovely place - served there a couple of times.

This one was it Andy? The one in Bethnal Green. Hope the customers appreciated you serving them.

No - Cheltnam.

2 tours - it was rough at night, but enjoyable.

BA, I'm sure Vietnam was a better place before our governments got involved.

Only good thing I can say about it is I grew up around a metric ass-ton of awesome Vietnamese immigrants as a result. Why did the Vietnamese refugees choose to settle in North Texas? Your guess is as good as mine -- maybe they like the heat, or always wanted to see a tornado in person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Saigon#Dallas_-_Fort_Worth_.28DFW.29