What is as close as we’re going to get to a calling-to-account for the former Decider and his puppet Tony Blair for thousands of deaths in Iraq is unfolding, largely out of American media sight, before a panel of British nobles.
The Chilcot inquiry is hearing from such witnesses as the then-Ambassador to the UN that he threatened to quit in the runup to the Iraq invasion over bulldozing from the Bush-Cheney White House.
“The UK’s attempt to reconstitute a consensus,” says Sir Jeremy Greenstock, “had only a slim prospect of success, made slimmer by the recognition by anyone else following events closely that the United States was not proactively supportive of the UK’s efforts and seemed to be preparing for conflict whatever the UK decided to do.”
The ambassador’s testimony follows that of British intelligence officials that right after 9/11 in 2001 they were asked to draw up an Iraq “options” paper, including regime change.
“We dismissed it at the time because it had no basis in law,” says the then-head of the Middle East department at the Foreign Office, noting that “”there was no increased appetite among UK ministers for military action in Iraq.”
A former policy director at the Ministry of Defence adds that, in those days, the issue of regime change in Iraq was like “the dog that did not bark. It grizzled, but it did not bark.”
But Bush’s Neo-Con dogs of war, “hell bent” on the invasion, were barking loud enough to be heard on both sides of the Atlantic, and their call for overthrowing Saddam Hussein and his non-existent WMDs was drowning out all dissenters.