THE secret White House memo which surfaced yesterday confirms what a lot of people had long suspected: for many, many months ahead of the 2003 Iraq invasion, Tony Blair was doing his utmost to cosy up to George W Bush by promising him British support for military intervention.
At the time, however, Blair was insisting at home he was open to a diplomatic solution to the crisis, with his official spokesman telling reporters just ahead of the Texas summit in April 2002 that the then PM was not just going to “sign on the dotted line” but was “to think through the options”.
Well, the memo which has sprung into the public domain, more than 13 years after it was written, suggests that signing on the dotted line was exactly what Blair was preparing to do.
Nowhere is the possibility of a diplomatic resolution mentioned – instead, military action is a recurrent theme.
“Blair continues to stand by you and the US as we move forward on the war on terrorism and on Iraq,” writes US Secretary of State Colin Powell in March 2002.
"On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary,” he points out again.
Towards the end is one particularly galling, if laughable, assertion in which Powell again passes on Blair’s commitment to “sticking with us on the big issues” but appeals to Bush that in return he give Blair a boost by sending out signs that “Britain and America are truly equity partners in the special relationship”.
Overall the reader is left with the impression that here is a British politician who cared little for what his people thought about heading to a war few of them wanted or believed was justified, and a lot about desperately trying to enhance his own reputation on the world stage.
But the events that unfolded following the Iraq invasion have clearly put paid to Blair being given any such positive assessment in the history books.
Doubters need look no further than the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the inexorable rise of the repugnant Daesh movement and the destabilising of the Middle East – currently causing millions to flee the region in the hope of a better life in Europe.
Pressure on Chilcot as the ‘net closes in’ on Blair over Iraq
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here