In them, Mr Blair is said to have promised the US President: ‘You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I’m with you.’
Blair should demand Bush Iraq war letters are published to stop conspiracy theories ‘festering’, says John Major as pressure grows on former PM to come clean
- Sir John says Blair could ask for papers to be published in Chilcot Inquiry
- Urges former PM to force publication to stop suspicions getting worse
- Comes after deal struck to report only ‘gist’ of notes between leaders
- Material includes 25 letters and more than 130 records of conversations
- Iraq report could now be published in the run up to next year’s election
- Father of soldier killed in Iraq said ‘it will be open wound until the day I die’
- One mother whose son, 19, was killed in Iraq says ‘let families see them’
- Families said it ‘beggared belief’ that Bush and Blair can ‘get away with it’
2,292
View
comments
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major this morning urged his successor Tony Blair to demand the release of his notes with George Bush
Tony Blair is hiding behind Government protocols to keep the notes between himself and George Bush secret, the former Prime Minister John Major suggested this morning.
Sir John warned that the decision not to allow the Chilcot Inquiry to publish the full correspondence between the two leaders in the run-up to the Iraq War would would allow conspiracy theories to ‘fester’.
He said it was a ‘pity’ that only the ‘gist’ of the notes and conversations would be published – and urged Mr Blair to publicly call for the details to be published in full.
Sir John said only Mr Blair and the last Labour Government could overrule the civil service rules stopping the notes from being published.
He said: ‘I think it is a pity the papers are going to be withheld for several reasons. Firstly, they will leave suspicions unresolved and those suspicions will fester and maybe worsen.
‘And secondly, in many ways I think withholding them is going to be very embarrassing for Mr Blair, not least of course because he brought in the Freedom of Information Act into law when he was in government. But that is the decision that has been reached, effectively by the Cabinet Office.’
He added: ‘I suppose the previous Labour government could approach them and say “we’d like to over-rule this, we think it better if they release those papers”, but the Government can’t do that.
‘Let me make that point – the Government cannot do that, Mr Blair could. The previous Labour Government could – and maybe in their own interests they could think about that because, otherwise as I say, this will fester and I don’t think anybody wishes to see that.’
Sir John’s intervention, on BBC Radio 4 this morning, will pile pressure on Mr Blair to publicly ask for the notes to be published.
It comes after the Iraq inquiry was condemned as a whitewash over the deal to keep the notes secret.
Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood has vetoed the release of the letters and phone calls in the run-up to the 2003 conflict, officials revealed.
In them, Mr Blair is said to have promised the US President: ‘You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I’m with you.’
Secrets: The hold up in the publication of the Chilcot report is down to a disagreement over what can be published from the notes and conversations between George Bush and Tony Blair in the run up to the war
The decision raises the possibility that the long-delayed findings of the £10million inquiry will be published before the general election.
The official reason for the censorship is that publication would deter prime ministers from speaking freely in private.
But critics said it was a shabby compromise that could fatally undermine public confidence in the findings.
Families of some of the 179 British soldiers killed in the conflict 11 years ago said last night they felt betrayed by the decision.
Baghdad ablaze during the allied bombing on the first night of the Shock and Awe operation, Iraq War, March 2003 B4M1E8
They believe the letters would reveal the real reason why Mr Blair dragged Britain into the catastrophic war to topple Saddam Hussein.
Rose Gentle, who lost her son Gordon, 19, said she felt let down. ‘I don’t think we’ll get the truth now,’ she said. ‘As far as we are concerned Tony Blair is just walking away from this.’
Reg Keys, who last year announced he would sue the Ministry of Defence for negligence after his son Lance Corporal Tom Keys was killed at the age of 21 in 2003, said on BBC2’s Newsnight programme last night: ‘I need to draw a line under this and until I know the whole truth I can’t. It will be an open wound until the day I die.’
The move follows two and a half years of wrangling between the Iraq inquiry and Whitehall officials over the publication of 25 letters sent by Mr Blair to President Bush and the transcripts of 130 phone calls between the two men.
In a letter yesterday, inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot confirmed his long-awaited report would publish only ‘the gist’ of Mr Blair’s messages to Mr Bush.
The US president’s replies will not be published in any form.
Mr Blair was consulted over what to make public as were the US authorities, who objected to the release of confidential conversations involving the former president.
The deal stands in stark contrast to other major inquiries, including the recent phone-hacking inquiry, when private messages were subject to the full glare of public scrutiny.
Government sources last night defended the decision, saying that releasing the Blair/Bush messages would limit the ability of future prime ministers to speak freely with world leaders for fear of their discussions being made public.
One source close to the talks said the US government had also blocked any hope of full publication.
‘It’s as simple as the Americans saying no,’ the source said.
Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell called the decision an ‘unsatisfactory compromise’, and warned that the deal on what can be published could be ‘subject to a whole variety of interpretations’ by the civil service.
Former Labour MP Andrew MacKinlay described the inquiry as a ‘sham’.
Mr MacKinlay, a member of the Common foreign affairs committee at the time of the war, said: ‘I am not surprised that Chilcot has surrendered. It is a bad, bad day for democracy and justice.
‘The Establishment of this country and the security and intelligence services have won again. Truth has lost out. We were lied to as a country time and time again on Iraq. The lies endure.’
Labour MP John McDonnell said: ‘This confirms all the suspicions people had that the inquiry will be a whitewash. Unless there’s full and open transparency the credibility of this inquiry will be completely undermined.’
Questions: Blair faced hostile questioning at the Chilcot inquiry in January 2011 over his role in Britain’s war
Delay: Sir John Chilcot (pictured) is now expected to publish his long-awaited report ahead of the next election
Lib Dem MP Sarah Teather said: ‘A lot of people are going to be unimpressed if we end up with a version so edited we still have no idea what took place in those conversations.’
Anti-war Labour MP Paul Flynn said the secrecy meant the inquiry would be able to publish ‘some of the truth, but not the whole truth’.
Details of the backroom deal emerged in a letter yesterday from Sir John Chilcot to Sir Jeremy Heywood, Britain’s top civil servant.
Reaction: The Daily Mail’s front page on March 22, 2003, the day after the Shock and Awe blitz in Iraq
The letter reveals that the inquiry will be permitted to publish some material from discussions held by the Blair Cabinet in the run-up to the war. But the messages between Mr Blair and President Bush will be subject to heavy censorship.
Sir John said the inquiry hoped to publish ‘gists and quotes’ from some of the messages. He said this was vital in order for people to understand the inquiry’s conclusions.
But the letters will not be published in full and any quotes will be kept to the ‘minimum necessary’.
And, following protests from the US, no details of Mr Bush’s messages will be published.
Mr Blair, who is expected to face heavy criticism in the report, has always denied trying to block the release of the messages.
He made no public comment yesterday but a source close to the former Labour prime minister said he was content with the deal.
The source said it was in Mr Blair’s interests for the Iraq Inquiry report to be published because it would allow him to ‘make the argument’ about why he took Britain to war.
Inquiry officials will now negotiate with Sir Jeremy about the precise wording of what they can publish.
They will send legal letters to Mr Blair and others – such as his former spin chief Alastair Campbell – warning them of the criticism they will face and asking them to respond. This process is expected to take several more months.
The report will then be sent to David Cameron, who may face a potentially explosive decision over whether to publish it in the run-up to next May’s general election.
Families of British troops killed in Iraq reacted angrily to the news that the Chilcot inquiry will not publish the full exchanges between Tony Blair and George Bush.
They said the agreement to include only quotes or ‘gists’ of the messages and conversations meant they would never learn the full truth about the decision to go to war.
Reg Keys, whose 20-year-old son Lance Corporal Tom Keys was one of six Red Caps killed by a mob in Iraq in 2003, said it ‘beggared belief’ that Mr Blair and Mr Bush were being allowed to ‘get away with it’.
Lance Corporal Tom Keys, from Bala North Wales, who was one of six soliders of the Royal Military Police who were killed in incident at the police station in the town of Al Majar Al Kabir, southern Iraq
He said inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot would have his hands tied by the failure to get permission to publish the classified documents in full.
Mr Keys, 62, from Solihull, West Midlands, said: ‘I’m not happy with it at all. I want to know the reason why my son gave his life for his country.
‘I don’t want the “gist” of it. I want the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
‘This isn’t some minor bit of legislation going through Parliament like the fox-hunting Bill.
‘We need all the details that led up to the war, which was a war of option, not necessity.
‘Parliament has been misled, the general public have been misled, but worst of all those troops have been misled.
‘We need to see the full story. It is very, very important as part of closure for those who have lost loved ones.
‘And there are also people who have been maimed, crippled or blinded – they may want to know why they sustained those injuries.
‘If there is nothing to hide, why hide it? If Bush is so proud of what he did, release all the documents.’
Rose Gentle, 50, from Glasgow, whose son Gordon Gentle, 19, was killed in Iraq in 2004, told the BBC the relatives of those who died were disappointed by the decision and now felt they would not get to the truth about why Mr Blair took Britain to war.
‘Now a lot of families think: “What was the point? What is going to be the outcome? Is it just going to be covered up now?”
‘I think they should be released for the families to see them, because we’re going to wonder for the rest of our lives what was in it.’
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Establishment looks after its own… again
When the Chilcot inquiry was established in 2009, the public was promised it would finally reveal the unvarnished truth about how Tony Blair, in the face of overwhelming opposition, dragged Britain into the shameful Iraq War.
Yet, despite the last witness giving evidence three years ago, the findings have remained unpublished – obstructed by a protracted row over private correspondence between the former Prime Minister and George W. Bush.
Sir John Chilcot wanted to release 25 notes from Mr Blair to President Bush and more than 130 records of conversations between the two men in the run-up to an invasion that stains our national conscience and cost hundreds of lives, including those of 179 British soldiers.
The Whitehall machine, led by Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood – who, crucially, was Mr Blair’s principal private secretary from 1999 to 2003 – flatly refused, claiming it could jeopardise UK/US relations.
Yesterday a squalid compromise was reached allowing Sir John to release the ‘gist’ of Mr Blair’s remarks only.
The documents will remain secret, quotations from the former PM will be kept to a ‘minimum’ and President Bush’s views will not be disclosed at all.
Cynically, this grubby deal was presented as a victory for transparency.
In fact, it is an insult to democracy, accountability and the intelligence of the British people that will ensure Chilcot, like the Butler and Hutton inquiries before it, is seen as yet another Establishment whitewash.
It should never be forgotten that the grave charge against Mr Blair is that he secretly gave Mr Bush a commitment to go to war – then lied to Parliament, the Cabinet and the country to force through a decision that had already been taken.
Most devastatingly, he is accused of exaggerating evidence that Saddam Hussein posed a deadly threat to Britain, while suppressing advice that the war might be unlawful.
The letters – and the context provided by whatever pressure was placed on Mr Blair by the President – are key to finding out if this chilling scenario is accurate.
Many will quite reasonably question the claims made by an increasingly messianic Mr Blair, in a self-serving BBC interview this week, that he has not deliberately tried to block Chilcot.
What is certain is that Sir Jeremy – the man at Mr Blair’s side when the decision to invade was being taken – should never have been allowed to play any part in the censorship process by David Cameron.
We remind the Prime Minister that the Leveson Inquiry he ordered into the hardly life-and-death matter of telephone voicemail hacking published every scrap of relevant private correspondence and electronic communication.
Yet when our political masters lie and deceive in order to wage an illegal war, the British Establishment disgracefully obscures the truth with an impenetrable shroud of secrecy.
Will they ever get it?
Jolted by the Ukip insurgency in his party’s heartlands, Ed Miliband said it was not racist to worry about immigration that ‘has been changing communities fast’.
But – in a week when would-be illegal immigrants have been cleared from camps at Calais, and experts predicted Britain’s population will continue to grow by 1,000 a day – is Labour really changing its arrogant, condescending ways?
Of course not. As we reveal today, MP Alex Cunningham has been caught on tape repeating Gordon Brown’s mistake of smearing a woman who voiced concerns about mass immigration as a ‘bigot’.
The bruised metropolitan elite may claim to be listening to the voters but, in truth, they still don’t get it – and, depressingly, probably never will.
Related articles
Perhaps there is one simple test that can be applied: Why, if nothing spoken by either Blair or Bush in private, differs from what they said in public, would there be any reason to with-hold the text of the conversation? Of course we all have a good idea why; we just lack the proof. A failure to be transparent, can only confirm our suspicions. Can there be any doubt that both “actors”, supported by a whole phalanx of influential, implicated, political, industrial and financial interests and individuals, are engaged in an exercise in duplicity? Sadly, the reality is, the deceit goes far beyond the lies relating to the Iraqi “WMD” and “missile threat”, to the cataclysmic events of 9/11, used to justify the invasion. The deplorable global mess of the first decade of the 21st Century, which these individuals had a large part in shaping, have acted as a creeping “dry-rot” to the confidence in the body politic, and been a largely unacknowledged explanation for the “rise and rise” of UKIP and SNP, that may well result in the “double whammy”, of both disintegration and isolation of the UK.