Gordon Brown, whom some claim as some kind of "Old Labour" hope in the Blairite regime, backed Blair to the hilt saying that there was a range of documents brought before the British Cabinet on 17 March 2003. Sadly, none of these showed that Iraq was failing to co-operate with the UN weapons inspectors. Hans Blix was asking for a few more months to finish his job. Blair and Brown went with Bush and ignored both Blix and the UN.
Brown argued that the documents provided to the cabinet to ensure their decision included a report by Hans Blix (which said no such thing) and one that showed Iraq had failed six tests imposed by the UK to judge whether it was complying. These UK imposed tests are of interest, as it shows how seriously the Blair government tried to avoid war.
The first test stated that Saddam Hussein appear on Iraqi television and make a statement in Arabic confessing that Iraq had been concealing its weapons of mass destruction, and making a dozen promises of cooperation. The other tests included producing at least 30 scientists willing to leave Iraq with their families in order to be interviewed by UN weapons inspectors; surrendering all anthrax stocks and anthrax-related materials and capabilities; accounting for all "unmanned aerial vehicle" (UAV) programmes; and surrendering all mobile biological and chemical weapons laboratories.
The problem with the TV appearance, anthrax, the WMD-bearing UAVs, and the mobile laboratories is that we now know that there was no WMD in Iraq, no anthrax, no UAVs, and no mobile biological and chemical weapons laboratories. In such circumstances, Iraq would automatically 'fail' to meet these demands. Given that the "test" presumed guilt, it is clear that they were created to ensure war. After all, to comply with the "test" would show that Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions and, consequently, allow the US/UK to invade. To fail to comply with them (due to a lack of WMD) would ensure that the US/UK would invade.
The final 'test' drawn up by the British Government was the destruction of the al-Samoud 2 missile and its components, which Saddam promptly done. So what of the evidence that Iraq had failed to comply? There is none. Brown is lying as much as Blair. Vote Blair, get Brown? What difference is there? Both supported the war and lied to justify it.
But war was always on the agenda, as proven by the leaked Cabinet memo. Dated the 23rd of July, 2002, and reporting on the Prime Minister's meeting of that date, the memo represents the conclusion of recent high-level talks with the equivalent apparatchiks of the US state:
"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Jack Straw is quotes as agreeing with this conclusion. He is summarised as saying that "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
Blair concurred, stating "that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors . . . If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work."
In other words, Blair and his cronies lied and lied again during the run up to the war and after it. Regime change had been decided by Bush (who was also lying when he said at the time that war had not been decided on). The rationales for war had been decided upon, as were the tactics for ensuring it. The flaw in the plan was that Saddam allowed inspectors back in, so cutting off that means to justify war. Moreover, the UN Security Council refused to play ball and the attempt to justify war via a new UN resolution failed. That left the war of aggression, a war crime to be conducted by the powerful sure that their military and political might will allow them to escape justice.
Finally, the memo blandly states that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Yes, that much is obvious now. We are paying for those lies as are the Iraqi people. And our redress? To vote for Blair or Howard, both of whom supported the war. Wow, truly democracy in action!