This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8380139.stm

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Blair-Bush focus for Iraq inquiry UK 'accepted' Iraq action in 2002
(about 1 hour later)
Tony Blair "sealed his reputation" in America by his support for the US after 9/11, the UK's former ambassador to the US has told the Iraq war inquiry. The UK believed it was pointless to resist US plans for regime change in Iraq a full year before the invasion, the Iraq war inquiry has been told.
Sir Christopher Meyer said Mr Blair and President George Bush "got on" from the moment they met in 2001 and that their relationship "warmed" after that. Sir Christopher Meyer, UK ambassador to the US at the time, said that by March 2002 No 10 felt trying to stop this policy was a "complete waste of time".
But talk of military action against Iraq "never entered the mainstream" in the US before 9/11, he said. But the UK told the US it should seek UN approval for any action, he added.
The inquiry is focusing on UK-US relations before the war. A meeting between Tony Blair and President Bush in Texas a month later was crucial in agreeing this, he said.
US-UK policy Sir Christopher noted that a day after this meeting, Tony Blair mentioned the prospect of regime change for the first time in a speech.
In his evidence, Sir Christopher is focusing on US policy towards Iraq in the run-up to the 2003 US-led invasion and its interaction with UK policy.
The former ambassador said the personal chemistry between the prime minister and the US president was important and Mr Blair's "eloquent" support for the US after 9/11 won him huge admiration in the US.
Before 9/11, he said the US viewed Iraq as "a grumbling appendix" but was focused on supporting dissident groups and toughening sanctions and talk of military action was "going nowhere".
After 9/11, Sir Christopher said some minor members of the Bush administration urged retaliation against Iraq, claiming there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
But he said the US government decided to focus instead on al-Qaeda and Afghanistan, "setting aside" other issues including Iraq.
The inquiry is looking into UK involvement in Iraq between 2001 and 2009, with the first few weeks focusing on policy in the build-up to the 2003 US-led invasion.The inquiry is looking into UK involvement in Iraq between 2001 and 2009, with the first few weeks focusing on policy in the build-up to the 2003 US-led invasion.
Intelligence claims
Critics of the war claim that the US had already decided to topple Saddam Hussein in 2002 and that the UK had agreed to go along with this - claims both countries have denied.
The reasons for going to war in Iraq - including the now discredited claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which could be used within 45 minutes of an order being given - remain a long-standing source of controversy.
INQUIRY TIMELINE November-December: Former top civil servants, spy chiefs, diplomats and military commanders to give evidenceJanuary-February 2010: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and other politicians expected to appear before the panel March 2010: Inquiry expected to adjourn ahead of the general election campaignJuly-August 2010: Inquiry expected to resumeReport set to be published in late 2010 or early 2011 Iraq inquiry: Day-by-day timeline
On Wednesday, senior Foreign Office official Sir William Ehrman told the inquiry that a report shortly before the invasion suggested Iraq's chemical weapons may have been "disassembled".
"We did... get a report that chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and Saddam hadn't yet ordered their assembly."
A separate report suggested Iraq might also "lack" warheads capable of spreading chemical agents, he added.
However, Sir William - the Foreign Office's Director general of defence and Intelligence between 2002 and 2004 - said there was "contradictory intelligence" and these reports did not "invalidate" the fact that Iraq had chemical weapons.
"It was more about their use. Even if they were disassembled the (chemical or biological) agents still existed."
'WMD surprise'
Sir William insisted that the role of intelligence in the decision to go to war was "limited".
He also said it was a "surprise" no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq, saying "it was not what we had expected".
WITNESSES ON THURSDAY SIR CHRISTOPHER MEYER-UK Ambassador to Washington 1997-2003 Q&A: Iraq war inquiry Analysis: tolerant or critical? How US has investigated Iraq war Iraq inquiry 'suffocated' - CleggWITNESSES ON THURSDAY SIR CHRISTOPHER MEYER-UK Ambassador to Washington 1997-2003 Q&A: Iraq war inquiry Analysis: tolerant or critical? How US has investigated Iraq war Iraq inquiry 'suffocated' - Clegg
The Lib Dems said Sir William's comments seemed to contradict Tony Blair's statement in Parliament that Iraq posed a "clear and present danger" to international security. On day three of its public hearings, the inquiry focused on UK-US relations before the war and the background to the controversial decision to invade Iraq.
Asked to explain the absence of WMD and why the UK government had got this wrong, Sir William noted a "great deal" of the intelligence about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production provided before the war had been withdrawn afterwards as false. The former ambassador said that before 9/11 the US viewed Iraq as "a grumbling appendix" but noted that regime change had been official US policy since 1998 when Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act.
Addressing the overall threat posed by Iraq in 2001, officials said it was "not top of its list" of countries causing concern because of their stated desire to develop weapons of mass destruction. "Sea-change"
With sanctions in place against Iraq, the Foreign Office believed Saddam Hussein could not build a nuclear weapon and, even if sanctions were removed, it was estimated it would take him five years to do so. But he said Washington was focused on supporting dissident groups in trying to bring about change and toughening sanctions rather than military action.
Officials said most evidence suggested Iraq's chemical and biological programme had largely been "destroyed" in 1991. However, he said there had been a "sea-change" in attitudes after 9/11 which the British government had been forced to react to.
Although reports in late 2002 suggested Iraq was rebuilding its capability, they said intelligence about its actual position had been "patchy" since weapons inspectors were withdrawn in 1998. He told the panel he had received "new" instructions in March 2002 - just weeks before the meeting between Mr Blair and President Bush - from Sir David Manning, the prime minister's foreign policy's adviser, about the UK's position over Iraq.
But they maintain the threat posed by Iraq was viewed as "unique" because it had shown itself willing to use weapons of mass destruction on its own people and its neighbours. Downing Street's believed that with the Iraq Liberation Act and "the fact that 9/11 had happened" it was "a complete waste of time" to say that the UK cannot support regime change, said Sir Christopher.
Terrorist links He said Sir David told the Americans that although there were "powerful enough" reasons for the US to go it alone in Iraq, it was much better that they built an international coalition to get "friends and partners" on board.
The inquiry also learnt that the UK investigated and rejected suggestions of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Referring to a subsequent conversation he had with a leading US government official about Saddam Hussein, Sir Christopher added: "I didn't say just we are with you on regime change, now let's go get the bastard. We didn't do that. What we said 'let's do it cleverly and let's do it with some skill'. That means, apart from anything else, go the UN and get a security council resolution."
Following the 9/11 attacks, the Foreign Office looked at the matter "very carefully" but concluded the two were not "natural allies". INQUIRY TIMELINE November-December: Former top civil servants, spy chiefs, diplomats and military commanders to give evidenceJanuary-February 2010: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and other politicians expected to appear before the panel March 2010: Inquiry expected to adjourn ahead of the general election campaignJuly-August 2010: Inquiry expected to resumeReport set to be published in late 2010 or early 2011 class="" href="/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8378559.stm">Iraq inquiry: Day-by-day timeline
The inquiry, looking at the whole period from 2001 to 2009, was set up by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who also chose the panel. He told the panel he was not at a crucial meeting at President Bush' Texas ranch in April 2002 at which the two leaders discussed Iraq.
Critics of the war maintain this was the moment that the prime minister pledged his support for toppling Saddam Hussein.
Sir Christopher said he noted a change in tone in a "sophisticated" speech Mr Blair gave the day afterwards, which he believed was the first time the prime minister had publicly mentioned regime change.
"When I heard that speech, I thought that this represents a tightening of the UK-US alliance and a degree of convergence on the danger that Saddam Hussein presented."
'True believer'
Sir Christopher, who left Washington in 2003, said Mr Blair was a "true believer in the wickedness of Saddam Hussein", his views pre-dating the election of the Bush administration.
Addressing the period immediately leading up to war, Sir Christopher said the "unforgiving timetable" for a likely invasion, in terms of military preparations, meant any other outcome was unlikely.
He said some elements in the US administration hoped that international pressure, encapsulated in UN Security Council Resolution 1441, and the threat of force might make Saddam decide to comply or go into exile.
However, he described how the "rumble of war" in early 2003 effectively "short-circuited" the work of weapons inspectors looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The Iraq inquiry was set up by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who also chose the panel.
Mr Brown and predecessor Tony Blair are expected to be among future witnesses, with the final report due early in 2011.Mr Brown and predecessor Tony Blair are expected to be among future witnesses, with the final report due early in 2011.
Previously, the Butler inquiry looked at intelligence failures before the war, while the Hutton inquiry examined the circumstances leading to the death of former government adviser David Kelly.