Tonight:
4°c
Tony Blair's support for George Bush on Iraq was torn apart today as a former senior aide said Margaret Thatcher would have done a much better job.
Sir Christopher Meyer, who was Britain's ambassador to Washington, told the Iraq inquiry the former Tory premier would have made sure there was a serious plan for what would happen after Saddam Hussein was toppled.
On day three of the inquiry, he criticised Mr Blair's failure to defend Britain's national interest and insist on much tougher conditions for his backing for President Bush — including progress on Middle East peace, and a serious strategy to stop Iraq descending into chaos. Sir Christopher also told the hearing that:
Mr Blair may have first “signed in blood” his secret backing for the US president at his Texas ranch in 2002.
US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice first targeted Iraq on the day of the 9/11 terror attacks.
The Americans admitted the war could have been delayed until late 2003 to make time for diplomacy.
Vice-president Dick Cheney said that US and British troops would be “greeted by cheers and flowers”.
Hawks in Washington failed to plan for the aftermath because they thought it would be “alright on the night”.
In a lengthy session, Sir Christopher insisted repeatedly that Mr Blair had failed to extract from Mr Bush any serious “payback” for Britain's support in removing Saddam. He added: “I think, What would Margaret Thatcher have done?' I take her name in vain — I may be hit with a thunderbolt — but I think she would have insisted on a clear, coherent diplomatic strategy, and I think she would have demanded the greatest clarity about what the heck happened if and when we remove Saddam.”
He told the hearing, chaired by Sir John Chilcot, that he was “not making a party political point”, but that Mrs Thatcher was much tougher on the “special relationship” between London and Washington.
Before and during the Falklands War, the former premier had a series of clashes with the Americans as she led the campaign to oust the Argentinians from the islands.Sir Christopher, Britain's ambassador to the US between 1997 and 2003, said he suspected Mr Blair had secretly agreed to go to war at a meeting at the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.
“There was a large chunk of that time when no adviser was there. To this day I am not entirely clear what degree of convergence was, if you like, signed in blood at the Crawford ranch,” he said.
He added that the change in stance was underlined for the first time in a hawkish speech by the Mr Blair the following day. “To the best of my knowledge — I might be wrong — this was the first time that Tony Blair had said in public regime change,'” Sir Christopher said.
“What he was trying to do was to draw the lessons of 9/11 and apply them to the situation in Iraq, which led— I think not inadvertently but deliberately — to a conflation of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.”
Sir Christopher said the biggest problem had been that the US hawks' military timetable for Iraq turned “on its head” the UN effort to tackle the dictator. In turn, this led to the fiasco of relying on non-existent WMD to justify the war.
Reader views (20)
Not "America's puppy" more America's rent boy!
- Veritas, Newcastle, Australia
The last thing she wanted was a costly war just after being bailed out finanically by the IMF under the previous labour government.
- Chris, Rochester
Comparing that lying deceitful Blair with Margaret Thatcher is pointless, that slimy leach isn`t fit to polish Maggies shoes.
- Clive, North London
Far from me to condone Blair's total sell-out to BUSH over the rape of Irak. However I take issue with Ambassador Meyer's assertion that Mrs Thatcher would have been less of a poodle in her dealings with Bush. Quite the reverse, I believe she would have actually taken the initiative and gone ahead with "invasion" EVEN if Bush's USA had had qualms about regime change in Irak!
- Bouloux Claude, MUS France
The then PM Thatcher , had no real backing from America , so one wonders what happened to the special relationship at that time , ho hum , at least the Falkland conflict did end , but this war in the middle east has dragged on and on and sign of any peaceful out come .I never could understand why PM Blair got sucked into the fiasco that is going on now . Yours etc. Andrew Davies .
- Andrew Davies, Veliko Turnovo
Well said, Huggy.
- Ventnorfan, Isleworth, U.K.
This country called Great Britain by the rest of the world is no longer Great. It has for sometime being run by second class politicans more keen on their gravy train than serving the greater good for their country.In the end if this continues there will be a revolution here to change the system. This has happened in history and will happen again if not heeded by those in power.
Britain ruled the world once but those days of glory are long pass.Empires only happen once to a country, then fade into oblivion.Other countries then take their place - America is starting to feel the affects of this now!
- Andrew Tabor, Yeovil ,England
"Thatcher was a second-rate PM who only won her second general election because she started a war with Argentina. So overrated it is amazing
- Keith Price, Luton, Emgland"
Yes, I remember Maggie forcing the Argentinians to invade a British island so she could have a war.
- Dave B, Beckenham
I would like Tony Blair to publically acknowledge the scale of human carnage that he is responsible for. Up until now it's as if no-one has been hurt at all. Surely he can't be smiling on the inside can he?
- Jethro Penzance, Bodmin
At least she finished the war she started, Keith, unlike your hero Bliar and his sidekick, McBroon. Both of their wars are still dragging on, costing us lives daily.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one
So, for all his talk, the great Tony Blair was never anymore than George Bush´s mouthpiece. But then didn´t we always know this?
- Graham Rodhouse, Helmond, Netherlands
There's little doubt that the UK became America's obedient puppy thanks to Tony Blair's total aquiesence to the Bush view. Bush never had a long term plan let alone any kind of exit strategy over Iraq and Blair meekly hitched the UK's fortunes to the US vision (or rather lack of). I never supported Margeret Thatcher and detest her legacy but she did fight Britain's corner during her time as Prime Minister and would never have backed the US position without extracting major benefits for the UK. Blair secured no guarantees or advantage by cravenly following the US position. Thankfully Europe decided not to vote for him when it came to electing a president
- Renny, London
"Thatcher was a second-rate PM who only won her second general election because she started a war with Argentina"
I'm no fan of Thatcher, but claiming that she started the Falklands War is historically illiterate.
Given the economic devastation of the 1980-81 recession, the last thing she wanted was to go to war with anyone, let alone Argentina - but they forced her hand by invading British sovereign territory.
So how exactly did Thatcher "start" the war? And what would you have done in her position, given that the alternative was abandoning your citizens to an aggressive military dictatorship?
- Michael, London
Sir Christopher Myer is entitled to his opinion, but let's not lose sight of the fact that 'opinions and conjecture' are all that they are! -Everybody's a clairvoyant in hindsight!
- Huggy, Cumbernauld Scotland
The main difference is that Mrs Thatcher was patriotic British MP,Interested in the well being of this Nation and not so interested in her self and what large paying jobs she might be able to poach after she left gov't.
The whole labour are more slippery then Teflon and I can not beleive how they all got away with so much in such a short space of time and still get away with it, any one of us citizens would have been sentenced long ago for doing half of what they have
- Malcy, Petersfield, England
Thatcher was a second-rate PM who only won her second general election because she started a war with Argentina. So overrated it is amazing
- Keith Price, Luton, Emgland
I presume Meyer believes Thatcher would have told more convincing lies.
- Neil645, Gloucestershire, England.
Wow, now we know the difference between Thatcher and Blair. One is a statesman, one is a showman.
- Stephen C, London
Love her or loathe her, only a blind fool with no capacity for objectivity would deny this.
I didn't like the woman, but if Blair was half as good a PM as her, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. At least she had substance, something Blair had none of whatsoever.
Truly the worst thing to happen to this country in more than a century.
- Alex, London
That's because Mrs Thatcher was in charge and not some unelected Politburo.
- Bj, East London
