Blair’s denials on Iraq ring hollow in light of diplomatic memos from the time

Tony Blair responded to the Chilcot report by stating that he had not deceived the public: in fact, he did so repeatedly and deliberately, most notably on the reasons for invading Iraq.

Asked in a Commons debate on the subject on 24 September 2002 whether regime change was his objective, Blair replied, “Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.” However, leaked diplomatic memos dating from six months previouslyexpose his treachery. In March 2002, Downing Street foreign policy adviser Sir David Manning reported to Blair on a meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, stating: “I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change, but you had to manage a press, a parliament and a public opinion that was very different from anything in the States.” A few days later, the British ambassador in Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, reported to Sir David Manning on a conversation with Paul Wolfowitz (US Deputy Secretary of Defence) as follows: “I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice. We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option.”

Suggested punishment for Blair’s catastrophic arrogance ranges from criminal trial to withdrawal of membership of the Privy Council and his hilarious title of “The Right Honourable”.

ROBERT DOW Ormiston Road, Tranent

Sir John Chilcot’s report on the Iraq war has been warmly welcomed by bereaved families and others for its hardhitting and unequivocal findings. Many were expecting yet another obfuscating whitewash and this report was anything but that and has restored a measure of faith in the public as regards independent scrutiny of those in public life.

At Holyrood we have SNP-dominated committees who are supposed to scrutinise the actions of the government whose rule that no SNP member shall criticise the actions of the SNP or its members precludes transparent minuting of meetings and reports which may cause discomfort or embarrassment for the Government.

In light of the resignations of two of the three members of the Child Abuse inquiry with allegations of interference by the Scottish Government, might I suggest Sir John Chilcot be invited to chair a reconstituted panel of inquiry? That would give the victims a measure of comfort.

DONALD LEWIS East Lothian