HOW BULLYING BLAIR AND HIS CRONIES MANIPULATED LEGAL ADVICE TO JUSTIFY THE WAR PLOTTED AT ‘DEAL IN BLOOD’ SUMMIT

1 Bush and Blair meet – and seal Iraq’s fate

April 2002: Tony Blair and George Bush meet at Crawford, Texas, where they are suspected to have signed a ‘deal in blood’ to wage war on iraq. in a memo revealed by The Mail on Sunday last month, Secretary of State Colin powell tells Bush that ‘Blair will be with us’ on military action.

2 Attorney General says war ‘not justified’

JulyJ 2002: Attorney General lord Goldsmith, left, sends a note to Blair on a single side of A A4 headed notepaper saying why he thinks war could not be justified purely on the grounds o of ‘regime change’. He also says that although united Nations rules permit military intervention for self-defence, they did not apply in this case because Britain is not under threat from iraq. And he says it would be very difficult to rely on old UN resolutions approving the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

3 Goldsmith silenced as clique takes control

SUMMER 2002: Blair issues instructions to gag Goldsmith, banning him from attending Cabinet and ordering a cover-up to stop the public finding out the contents of the letter. Goldsmith threatens to resign, but Blair and his cronies bully him into backing down.

4 Goldsmith AGAIN says conflict may be illegal

MARCH 7, 2003: Goldsmith produces a 13-page document stating that the war could be challenged under international law. One argument is that individual nations cannot decide if iraq is in ‘material breach’ of UN resolutions on disarmament. He also urges caution about going to war without a second UN resolution:

5 U-turn on legal advice clears the way for action

MARCH 17, 2003: Goldsmith gives a nine-paragraph parliamentary answer summarising his advice, declaring war to be legal under existing resolutions:

6 Britain goes to war

MARCH 20, 2003: Baghdad is hit by air strikes and Coalition forces on standby in Kuwait invade.

‘There are two competing arguments: (i) that provided there is a [UN Security] Council discussion, if it does not reach a conclusion, there remains an authorisation to use force; (ii) that nothing short of a further Council decision will be a legitimate basis for the use of force’. ‘Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.’