| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Blair’s secret war meetings with Clinton |
| 2003-04-25 |
| Oh man, say it ain't so. Tony Blair took repeated secret advice from the former American president Bill Clinton on how to unlock the diplomatic impasse between Europe and the US in the build-up to the war on Iraq, the Guardian can reveal. In the crucial weekend before to the final breakdown of diplomacy in March, Mr Clinton was a guest of Mr Blair's at Chequers where the pair discussed the crisis. Maybe Tony should have listened to the current President instead? Mr Blair was battling to persuade the Chilean president Ricardo Lagos — a key figure on the security council — to back a second UN resolution setting a new deadline for Saddam to co-operate fully with the UN or face military action. Three days after his Chequers meeting, Mr Clinton made a rare public appeal to his successor, George Bush, to give the UN weapons inspectors more time. Wonder if Bill will now admit that he was wrong? Mr Blair and Mr Clinton met at least three times to discuss the war, underlining the extent to which Mr Blair rates Mr Clinton's analytical powers, despite the bond of trust he has also formed with the Republican White House. The two men met on the weekend of March 8, the weekend during which Clare Short, the international development secretary, exploded a grenade by accusing the prime minister of running a reckless policy towards Iraq. Maybe Clare knew about the visit? In a speech in Washington three days later Mr Clinton said the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, should set the timetable for compliance, adding: "I hope the United States would agree to that amount of time, whatever it is." Who is this guy working for? Was he in France as well? Mr Clinton was careful to say that Mr Bush was sincere in his pursuit of UN support, but added: "The question is, do they want the support bad enough to let Mr Blix finish his work and give enough time to do that?" Blixie had 12 years, and also had a resolution demanding immediate compliance. At that point, Mr Blair had been pressing the US in private to extend a deadline by which Saddam would have to shown to be co-operating with the UN. At the time of Mr Clinton's private visit to Chequers, Mr Blair was very close to winning the agreement of the Chileans to British proposals. The prime minister was so desperate to secure Chilean support that he told Mr Lagos that he was prepared to make the 7,230-mile journey to Santiago to clinch the support of the first centre-left leader of Chile since Salvador Allende. In practice, Mr Blair would not have made the 35-hour round trip unless he could be sure that he would not be returning empty-handed and humiliated. The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, had also expressed a willingness to travel to Chile, hoping that his earlier decision to arrest General Augusto Pinochet had given him some personal influence in the former dictator's country. Guess that didn't work. British efforts to secure a deal were scuppered when the French president, Jacques Chirac, gave a television interview saying he would veto a resolution authorising war whatever the circumstances. Mr Blair followed up the interview with a private call to Mr Chirac, in which the French president said he would not tolerate any resolution that contained an ultimatum to Saddam. Commenting on Mr Chirac's television performance, the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, told the Guardian: "He blew it. If he had said 'let's look at it again in two months time', we would have been in much greater difficulty." Especially with Billy Boy mucking around. Whatever happened to ex-presidents gracefully stepping back? |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #14 Blair's not afraid to cast the net wide with his brain-picking and consultations. Soon after taking office he had more than one head-to-head with Maggie, much to the horror of many Labourites. Don't read too much into this. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-04-26 07:30:00 |
| #13 As long as Clinton told Bush that he was going to be meeting with Blair and discussing policy, this seems like it's in line with past practice -- ex-Presidents have been involved with foreign policy before (notably Carter, but I do believe Nixon did some of this, too), but it's proper form to let the current President know that they're involved. Of course, knowing how much stock Clinton puts in following the existing norms (not knocking his successors in public, etc), I don't expect him to do so here... |
| Posted by: snellenr 2003-04-25 13:17:34 |
| #12 I do not know what the big deal is that Clinton talked to Blair. Blair ultimately makes the decisions. Someones trying to make a big issue out of a non-issue for headlines. Clinton makes the ideal "devil's advocate" ahem....hmmmm...ahrumm.... |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-04-25 11:37:48 |
| #11 All he was ever good at was talk. And once you learned you couldn't trust him, you could even tune that out. Let him talk. Who's listening other then some Dimbo true believers. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-04-25 11:30:16 |
| #10 There's a good side to everything. The more time Clinton spent talking to Blair, the less time he had to badmouth Bush and the goals of the Bush government. Tony may have been doing both himself and us a favor. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-04-25 11:14:50 |
| #9 I don't see what the damn problem. Blair and Clinton and friends, Blair trusts Clinton and often talks to him on political. If Clinton was to force his opinion down blair throat it's one thing, but if Blair wants to discuss things with Clinton its his choice. He is the democratically elected head of Government. I don't think he needs to ask for permission from Rantburg before making a decision or consulting someone he trusts. |
| Posted by: rg117 2003-04-25 09:19:05 |
| #8 This is another reason why Dimocrats should not be allowed to run the country. If Clinton had had another term or if Al Bore had won, we would still be negotiating with the Taliban and the lead negotiator would have probably been Jimmy Carter. |
| Posted by: Denny 2003-04-25 08:54:32 |
| #7 Clinton has always been a smart man and a good political tactician - i think even the Clinton haters can admit that. His weakness has been in the "steely resolve" department. Blair has plenty of "steely resolve" Clinton giving advice to Blair, which Blair decides how to implement, seems like getting the best of Clinton while avoiding the worst. And by the way, US private citizens routinely give advice to foreign govts - its called consulting - why its usually on technical matters, i dont think theres any legal reason it cant be on political (hey didnt both sides in recent Israeli elections use US campaign consultants?) and even diplomatic matters. Blair is an ally, so theres no aid or comfort to any enemy. Good thing all around. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-25 08:21:48 |
| #6 No government on this planet has 100% sterling membership, including ours. Senator Robert Byrd (D-KKK) and Senator Strom Thurmond (not dead yet), come to mind. The important thing is that Britain has been there when we needed them, even if they aren't all angels. Are there anti-Americans in the British government? Yup. You could say we have them in the State Department, too, by some of their actions. There is no indication from this article that Clinton is getting paid by the UN or Saddam to undermine our government. If you have some evidence to support that, I'd love to see it. That's a pretty damn serious charge to make about anybody. I can't stand him either, but unless I had some proof I wouldn't make that statement. The Ba'athists actually are an offshoot of European fascist parties from the 30's. While there was a lot of personality cult crap going on in Iraq, and a very strong police state, those aren't exclusive to communists. I wish Clinton would shut up, but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. Carter's still spouting off, and last time he was in office I was a tiny tot. Neither one of them had the class of Bush Sr when in office, so why does their current behavior shock you? I still stand by my previous post. Most people aren't going to care that Clinton was talking with Blair. IF Blair would have pulled out of the coalition, and it could be traced back to Clinton, that would be another story. New Yorkers are going to care more about Hillary's lack of response to constituent needs after 9/11. That's far more personal to them. |
| Posted by: Baba Yaga 2003-04-25 08:14:15 |
| #5 My point is what is a private citizen, albeit a former president, doing dealing with a foreign government. The constitutional role of our government for foreign policy rests with the president not an ex-president. I am pretty disgusted with leftists like Clinton, 'Baghdad' David Bonior, and Sean Penn, whose egos are so large they think they are so totally above the constitution; that no consequences should come from their dealings with a foreign government. Maybe an investigation is in order to look into the finances of these people to assure ourselves they were not in the pay of Saddam and his enablers in the United Nations. We now know that some members of Blairs party are communists, real live honest to goodness bolsheviks whose goal is the destruction of capitalism and freedom of which the United States is the target, who have shown to have absolutely no compunction to selling out their own country to advance their socialist agenda. The Ba'athists were also communists and it is inconceivable to me that word of the substances of the meetings between Blair and Clinton did not get back to them. It is hard for me to believe that someone like Clinton would also not take cash to mug for the cameras for the UN's and Saddam's sake. Paranoid? I would have been labeled paranoid had I suggested that anyone in Blair's party were in the pay of a foreign power, but now we know it is true; and it may well be only the tip of the iceberg. Were Clinton have been found to be in similar circumstances, can we not ask and receive answers to those questions? |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-04-25 07:38:20 |
| #4 badanov -- Ok, assuming it is all true (which I believe would be a first for the Guardian), it's not like Clinton was hanging around Chirac telling him how to backstab the US. He was talking with an ally. They were pretty tight when Clinton was president (remember?), so I'd be more surprised if Blair didn't meet with him. Hillary would have more 'splaining to do regarding the Drudge Report and Steven Brill saying that Charles Schumer did more for the victims of 9/11 than she did, even going to the point of making up contacts that never happened. |
| Posted by: Baba Yaga 2003-04-25 05:59:14 |
| #3 Not to defend Clinton here, but this doesn't sound so bad to me. Whatever he told Blair, Blair eventually did the right thing. Clinton is deeply loved in Europe so I think he might have helped bring the British closer. Some of what Clinton has said in the past few months (attempted to) undermined Bush, which is disgraceful, though not surprising. But he wrote a letter in the Guardian supporting Blair which may have helped strengthen Blair within his own party. Remember, Blair had a real struggle just before the war. Clinton is a hero to the British Labour party. Overall, I don't think this ranks as Carter-level perfidity. In a way, both ex-Presidents play an important role. Carter discredits all opposition, turning it into a parody and unifying all decent Americans in support of Bush. Clinton is a bone (ahem) to toss to Old Europe to distract them from their anti-American hissy fits. |
| Posted by: Tokyo Taro 2003-04-25 04:50:41 |
| #2 Slick Willy. Go away. Stop trying to fuck up the country for ANOTHER four years. |
| Posted by: g wiz 2003-04-25 03:43:26 |
| #1 Wonder how Hillary will explain this to her New York constituents: Did she know about Bill's dealings with a foreign power, and when did she know; and as she will invaiably deny knowledge, why didnt she know. She is married to the guy. Will we accept her explanation that her husbands affairs (pun intended) are his own business and she doesn't interfere? Additionally, how about the press asking this question to the democratic presidential field: If you become president, when you are out of office, will you pledge that you will not interfere in the president's foreign policy even as you may hold different views? Should we not hold the left now to a far higher standard than before? |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-04-25 02:50:48 |