If True, What are the implications?

[ruthie]

Has anyone heard anything about this, or it's validity?

US gave date of war to Britain in advance, court papers reveal
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
27 October 2004
Secret plans for the war in Iraq were passed to British Army chiefs by US defence planners five months before the invasion was launched, a court martial heard yesterday.

The revelation strengthened suspicions that Tony Blair gave his agreement to President George Bush to go to war while the diplomatic efforts to force Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolutions were continuing.

Alan Simpson, the leader of Labour Against the War, said the documents were "dynamite", if genuine, and showed that Clare Short was right to assert in her book, serialised in The Independent, that Mr Blair had "knowingly misled" Parliament.

The plans were revealed during the court martial of L/Cpl Ian Blaymire, 23, from Leeds, who is charged with the manslaughter of a comrade while serving in Iraq. Sgt John Nightingale, 32, a reservist from Guiseley, West Yorkshire, died after being shot in the chest on 23 September last year.

The court, at Catterick Garrison, North Yorkshire, heard that contingency plans were drawn up by Lt Col Christopher Warren, staff officer at Land Command, Salisbury, Wiltshire, who was responsible for operational training.

Lt Col Warren said US planners had passed on dates for which the invasion was planned. The hearing was told Army chiefs wanted the training for the Army to start at the beginning of December 2002. However, due to "sensitivities" the training was delayed.

The court heard the training for the TA began two months late and for the regular Army one month late. Lt Col Warren was asked what the sensitivities were. He replied: "Because in December there was a world interest. If the UK had mobilised while all this was going on that would have shown an intent before the political process had been allowed to run its course."

The hearing was adjourned.

Veterans for Common Sense

[DanB]

If thats true then I believe it would definitely be bye bye Mr Blair

[manker]

I'd be more shocked at Claire Short being right about anything than if there was some sort of undercover pact between Blair and Bush about Iraq.

If this is proven in the sense that the poster seems to be implying, which seems unlikely since starting military training for a December 2002 invasion date could just be a precautionary measure, then it would indeed spell trouble for Blair.

Whether the toothless UK opposition parties would capatilize on this is another thing, more likely the dissentors his own party would be the ones to make him to fall on his sword.

[Illuminati]

If it were true, it'd basically be a political execution for Blair - Either in his resignation or at the ballot boxes next summer.

Such a claim proven true would incriminate Blair with conspiring to start this war for reasons other than were given.

However, I'm with Manker in part - Blair would have to watch out for those in his own party than anyone in the Tories and Lib Dem camps. However, chances are they'll be another community that'll give him the death call - the public.

So far the public's general trust in him is low. If this is proven, any remaining trust would be erased (apart from the "right-wing nutjobs").

[Rat Faced]

If thats true then I believe it would definitely be bye bye Mr Blair

Unfortunatly it wouldnt.

The only people that could run against Blaiire were in the Cabinet at the time, and therefore knew the same thing.. notably Gordon Brown, as he'd have had to OK it as Chancellor.

The Ballet Box is also unlikely to dump him, as the Tories are still "worse" and the LibDems are still looked at by a lot of people (although less and less as time goes by) as a wasted vote.

So the slimey little weasle really has nothing to worry about over this, even if shown to be true.

[ilw]

Does this report actually mean anything, personally I can see Blair not even breaking a sweat on this one. That a provisional date for war was set 5 months in advance doesn't exactly surprise me. I mean the rough date for a planned war is determined by a lot of factors and if the war was given the go ahead both american and british forces would have to be ready to deploy fairly rapidly which would take a shit load of organising.
I don't think it proves the critical thing which is whether blair had decided to go to war, it merely shows that in the event that war was agreed the armed forces would be ready and able to act.
The fact that he delayed training to avoid political fall out is perhaps understandable, but imo more damning.

[hobbes]

Does this report actually mean anything, personally I can see Blair not even breaking a sweat on this one. That a provisional date for war was set 5 months in advance doesn't exactly surprise me. I mean the rough date for a planned war is determined by a lot of factors and if the war was given the go ahead both american and british forces would have to be ready to deploy fairly rapidly which would take a shit load of organising.
I don't think it proves the critical thing which is whether blair had decided to go to war, it merely shows that in the event that war was agreed the armed forces would be ready and able to act.
The fact that he delayed training to avoid political fall out is perhaps understandable, but imo more damning.

Right on the money. You don't wait until your other efforts fail or succeed before you start thinking of contingency plans.

The war plans probably just told Blair that if we have to go in, this is how we are going to do it.

I didn't see a thing in there that even implied that Bush and Blair had conspired to start a war, no matter what.

The longer in advance the war plans are thought out and rethought, the better, in my opinion.

Are we criticizing the two for planning ahead?

[ruthie]

What do you think ruthie, do you intend expressing an opinion. Or is it just a cut and paste job.

I've no opinion at the moment..because I am not familiar with UK politics...this is why I asked..

[Rat Faced]

UK politics at the moment...

Summary...

Tories: Deamons that wrecked the country, and havent been forgiven or forgotten. Driven into 3rd place in many parts (4th place in some Local Elections)...

Labour: Dominant at the moment, hijacked the Compassionate Conservative platform that Thatcher abandoned when she took over the Tory Party.

LibDem: 3rd Party. Classed as a wasted vote by many. Have actually taken over as the 2nd party in quite a few parts of the country.. often 2nd in Parliamentary Elections. If we had Proportional Representation (as promised by Labour, and never delivered) would hold a lot more Parliamentary Seats. Strangely do very well in Local Elections in all parts of the country.. and recently won a lot of Local Councils from both Tory and Labour Control.

[bigboab]

Leave Tony Blair alone RF. He is entitled to use an Ouija board just as much as President Bush.

I see in this mornings news that my old regiment is going in to the front line, the Scots Guards. So I wont be online much over the next few days. Waiting on that call and sorting out my old equipment. Not that I have done that good a job sorting out my other 'old' equipment.