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/8466204.stm

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
No deal in blood on Iraq - Powell No deal in blood on Iraq - Powell
(about 2 hours later)
Tony Blair's ex-chief of staff has told the Iraq inquiry there was no deal "signed in blood" in March 2002 to support the US in war with Iraq. Tony Blair's ex-chief of staff has told the Iraq inquiry Britain gave "no undertaking in blood to go to war in Iraq" in March 2002.
Jonathan Powell dismissed ex-diplomat Sir Christopher Meyer's claim that Mr Blair's stance had hardened after a private meeting at George Bush's ranch. Jonathan Powell dismissed ex-diplomat Sir Christopher Meyer's claim that Mr Blair's stance had hardened after a private meeting with the US president.
"There was no undertaking in blood to go to war in Iraq," Mr Powell said. He said there had been an "assumption" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, because Saddam had used them before.
He also said notes from Mr Blair, who faces the inquiry next week, to Mr Bush in 2002 did not commit Britain to war. And he said they had considered that Mr Blair might lose his job over the war.
Trade-off Mr Powell, who was Mr Blair's chief of staff for his 10 years in power, has been addressing the inquiry in its seventh week of hearings into the run-up, conduct and aftermath of the war in Iraq.
Mr Powell said the notes in which Mr Blair had said "Britain will be there" - if Saddam Hussein could not be disarmed using diplomacy - were part of a process in which Mr Blair had tried to influence the Americans. UK-US 'gulf'
"If you just go to someone and say you are wrong forget it... the amount of influence you are likely to have... is less. So yes there's a trade-off between indicating you are with someone and persuading them to move down a certain route." He said Iraq had not been a big issue in the US when British officials visited in January 2001, but the September 11 attacks "changed everything".
He said that in the note Mr Blair had been making clear the basis on which it would be "sensible to go ahead". Mr Blair had made constant efforts to persuade the US of the need to stick with the UN route of dealing with Iraq diplomatically, he said.
I was at Crawford, David Manning as at Crawford. Christopher Meyer was not at Crawford. He was at Waco 30 miles away Jonathan PowellTony Blair's ex-chief of staff And he rejected suggestions by the former British ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer, that Mr Blair's stance on dealing with Iraq had hardened when he met President George W Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas in March 2002.
Mr Blair had talked about "the danger of unintended consequences" - if it became "militarily tricky, Iraq suffered unexpected civilian casualties, the Iraqis feeling ambivalent about being invaded". There was not an undertaking in blood to go to war with Iraq. There was no firm decision to go to war Jonathan PowellTony Blair's ex-chief of staff
He said that far from supporting regime change in a speech after the Crawford ranch meeting, Mr Blair's team had been worried about not drawing attention to the gap between the UK and US positions at the press conference. Sir Christopher had said a speech by Mr Blair the following day had mentioned regime change for the first time and he could not be sure "what degree of convergence was, if you like, signed in blood" at Crawford.
"I was at Crawford, David Manning as at Crawford. Christopher Meyer was not at Crawford. He was at Waco 30 miles away," Mr Powell said. But Mr Powell said that far from supporting regime change in that speech, Mr Blair's team had been worried about the gap between the UK and US positions at the press conference.
"We were worried about how we wouldn't reveal, to public discussion, the huge gulf between us," he said.
"I was at Crawford; [Mr Blair's then-foreign policy advisor] David Manning was at Crawford. Christopher Meyer was not at Crawford. He was at Waco, 30 miles away," Mr Powell said.
Blair notes
"There was not an undertaking in blood to go to war with Iraq. There was no firm decision to go to war.""There was not an undertaking in blood to go to war with Iraq. There was no firm decision to go to war."
'Assumption' He also said notes from Mr Blair to Mr Bush in 2002, in which he said "Britain will be there" if Saddam Hussein could not be disarmed using diplomacy, did not commit Britain to war.
On the issue of hard evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - Mr Powell said intelligence was not as hard as evidence - it could only suggest what might be there. Mr Powell said the notes were part of a process in which Mr Blair had tried to influence the Americans: "If you just go to someone and say: 'You are wrong, forget it'... the amount of influence you are likely to have... is less."
"We had an assumption, we had that assumption because Saddam had used weapons of mass destruction. We had that assumption because he has lied about getting rid of it. We had that assumption because he got rid of weapons inspectors and we bombed him in '98. So it would have taken some quite strong intelligence saying he had got rid of them to persuade us he had got rid of them." We had that assumption because he got rid of weapons inspectors and we bombed him in '98 Jonathan Powell
As a result the September 2002 dossier on intelligence was not seen as a "big deal" at the time, he said. Mr Powell told the inquiry "most people" believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. There was "an assumption" he had them because he had used them before and "lied about getting rid" of them.
Jonathan Powell: "We were signing up for going down the UN route" "We had that assumption because he got rid of weapons inspectors and we bombed him in '98. So it would have taken some quite strong intelligence saying he had got rid of them to persuade us he had got rid of them."
But he said most people accepted that continuing a containment policy against Saddam Hussein was no longer viable in 2001 - and they were concerned that the effectiveness of sanctions would decline and not be replaced by anything. He was "absolutely amazed" when none were found when the troops went in.
He was also asked about the claim Mr Blair made, in the foreword to the September 2002 dossier, that intelligence had established "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons. In fact, the September 2002 dossier on intelligence was not "such a big deal" at the time, he said.
Mr Powell told the inquiry they were "attaching too much importance" to a phrase which "at the time had very little impact". Blair job fears
He said it had turned out to be a "damp squib" and his much-reported question to former communications chief Alastair Campbell about what the Evening Standard headline would be was an old joke referring to a previous story about Ken Livingstone when Labour was in opposition. He also said Mr Blair was exposed to other views and was not dismissive of the anti-war movement: "We could see the possibility of the prime minister losing his job in March [2003] as a result of this."
Meanwhile the ballot for tickets for members of the public to watch Tony Blair's appearance before the inquiry also took place on Monday, with letters set to go towards the successful applicants. "I remember [then cabinet secretary] Andrew Turnbull used to regularly pop into my office in that period and ask me for the Labour Party rules on a change of prime minister - which wasn't altogether encouraging."
It was announced on Monday Mr Blair would face the inquiry on Friday next week, the day after ex-attorney general Lord Goldsmith - the man at the centre of controversy over whether the war was lawful. Meanwhile, the ballot for tickets for people to watch Mr Blair's appearance before the inquiry on Friday next week has taken place.
Other witnesses next week include legal advisers from the Foreign Office, while ex-defence secretary Geoff Hoon and ex-foreign secretary Jack Straw are giving evidence later this week. He will appear the day after ex-Attorney General Lord Goldsmith - the man at the centre of controversy over whether the war was lawful.
On Monday inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot said he could have stopped "the whole thing in its tracks".
But Mr Powell denied Lord Goldsmith had been bullied into authorising the war.
He said lawyers often gave a "on the one hand, on the other" opinion adding: "Sometimes they have to come down on a decision one way or the other on an issue, you can't have it both ways, and I think that is what is happening in this period."