Iraq Inquiry – The Smoking Gun Moment 156

This is the moment when Jonathan Powell admitted that Downing St was set on war irrespective of whether Saddam had WMD or not. This admission contradicted all the carefully constructed lies of key war criminals David Manning, Alistair Campbell and Jonathan Powell himself.

The implications of this passage could not be more stark. The aim was war. Whether or not Iraq had WMD was irrelevant. There was no interest in knowing the truth about WMD. Indeed to know the truth would be negative.

A ten year old could understand the crucial importance of what Powell said here. But the hand picked committee of pro-war cronies failed completely to pick up on it.

SIR RODERIC LYNE: I mean, Sir David Manning and

8 Sir Jeremy Greenstock both said, but differently, that

9 they would have liked to have had more time, but you

10 don’t agree with that?

11 MR JONATHAN POWELL: No, we asked for more time repeatedly

12 from January onwards of the President, and we got more

13 time in each case. Eventually, by the time we got to

14 midMarch, he wasn’t going to give us more time and the

15 French veto knocked any chance

16 SIR RODERIC LYNE: He wasn’t going to give us more time. If

17 we had had more time, if the inspectors had had longer,

18 there had been longer to build up the picture and you

19 had continued these extraordinary diplomatic efforts

20 that you described, would there not have been a chance,

21 at that stage, of actually gathering the international

22 support that we had not managed to gather by then?

23 MR JONATHAN POWELL: No. I mean, if you think about it,

24 Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. We were

25 wrong. The intelligence was wrong. So, no matter how


1 long you had carried the inspections on, they weren’t

2 going to find anything, and, from what we know of

3 Saddam, it is extremely unlikely that he would have

4 cooperated. So we would have been in exactly the same

5 situation for months and months and months. There would

6 have been no discovery of weapons of mass destruction,

7 but 8

SIR RODERIC LYNE: But one way or the other they might have

9 built up a more convincing picture, if they had had more

10 time.

11 MR JONATHAN POWELL: A convincing picture of what?

12 SIR RODERIC LYNE: Well, a picture to convince the people

13 who weren’t not convinced by our arguments in March.

14 MR JONATHAN POWELL: But if there weren’t weapons of mass

15 destruction, we wouldn’t have been able you are

16 asking me in retrospect, “Would we have had more time?”

17 The answer is more time would have achieved nothing.

18 SIR RODERIC LYNE: Thank you very much.

156 thoughts on “Iraq Inquiry – The Smoking Gun Moment

1 2 3 6
  • lwtc247

    I wonder what Lyne is really saying here:

    “Well, a picture to convince the people

    13 who weren’t not convinced by our arguments in March.”

    It’s not just the word ‘our’ that makes my think he’s a suitable member of the shillcot inquiry, but the fact that he seems to be suggesting if the people were convinced then the war would have been OK.

    Bloody hell! That’s exactly what the bLiar coven was trying to do.

    Are these people giving testimony under oath? Can they be recalled for (initial) interrogation, or are they just to give their stupid million lives spin?

  • tony_opmoc

    I actually watched Hoon today at the Chilcot enquiry, but after around 30 seconds of it, I felt rather ill.

    I am expecting a much better performance from Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, but would recommend that he and all parties involved, have at least 3 full rehearsals, of the entire performance in advance. It has to be extremely well scripted and be convincing enough to get them all off the possible hook of a full War Crimes Trial at the Hague.

    We wouldn’t want that now would we?

    It would be a complete disgrace to the UK government and also seriously embarrass the former and current Nazi’s in the Whitehouse.


  • Leo

    They blatantly forgot they were talking about whether the war was legal and switched to talking about how they could have tricked people differently in the inevitable run-up to war, WMD or not.

    I’ll never have respect for UK government or law while people who conspired and committed crimes of this magnitude not only walk free but are richly rewarded and respected.

  • Ruth

    Four not three of the five members of the Chilcot Inquiry are Privy Counsellors. Three of them were made Counsellors just one week before the start of the Inquiry.



    The Rt Hon Lord Mandelson (Lord President)

    The Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP

    The Rt Hon Dawn Primarolo MP

    The Rt Hon Mike O’Brien MP

    The Rt Hon Christopher Geidt

    Privy Counsellors Three Orders recording that The Right Honourable Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, The Right Honourable Sir Roderic Lyne, and The Right Honourable Sir Nicholas John Patten, were sworn Members of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council.

    An Order recording that The Right Honourable Sir Martin Gilbert was sworn as a Member of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council.”

    Just before the Lockerbie trial two of the three trial judges were made Privy Counsellors, and henceforth made a judgment beyond comprehension.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    Off topic Craig, but I’m sure you’ll understand – your ideological leanings have led you to appear at the same event as Christopher Bollyn.

    Do you currently know where Christopher Bollyn is?

  • AJS

    Craig. I think you and your pals are missing the point. He was asked if we could have made a better case with the international community if we had waited longer, and he is being honest, saying that in hindsight it wouldn’t have made any difference since there were no weapons to uncover.

    He isn’t saying that he knew that at the time, just that he knows it now, so when answering if a bigger coalition could have been built with more time, the clear answer is no.

    Is this not straight forward?

  • Larry from St. Louis

    Craig, digging slightly deeper, now I’ve found out that you spoke at a conference partially sponsored by the American Free Press. The AFP? Really?

    Would you speak before a Neo-Nazi group if they gave you a plane ticket?

  • AJS

    Also, Ruth’s point is naive – they are made privy counsellors so that they can be cleared to access certain information, not as a bribe! Honestly…if they were being bribed they might at least save it til after!

  • technicolour

    I would very much like to see Mr Murray, or indeed, anyone sane, talking to a Neo-Nazi group. I’m not sure they’d listen.

  • Craig


    But if he had genuinely only wanted to go to war because of WMD, he would have answred that it would be helpful to have more time, because then we would have learnt there were no WMD and not have needed to go to war.

    It is a point you only miss if you are a blind supporter of the war. Like Powell. Like the committee. Like you, AJS.


    I have no idea who the person and organisation you refer to are, having never met nor heard of either of them. I am not going to defend an alleged association with someone I have never met or heard of.

    Actually I will speak to almost anyone – your friends if you invite me. I do not vary my own beliefs by audience.

  • Ruth


    Why wasn’t the fifth member made a Privy Counsellor then?

    Is ‘certain information’ being kept from her?

    Why wasn’t the third judge in the Lockerbie trial made a counsellor

    Was ‘certain information’ kept from him?

  • Larry from St. Louis

    Perhaps you remember the “Axis for Peace” conference. You might remember that Helga Zepp-LaRouche and David Shayler were also there.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Sorry to be a stick-in-the -mud, but I can’t see anything resembling a smoking gun here. Powell is being asked whether more time would have been desirable and he’s saying no, there were no WMD to find, so more time searching would have been pointless. But he’s saying this with hindsight, he’s not saying they knew at the time there were no WMD.

    Of course, I have no doubt that WMD was just the pretext, in fact Paul Wolfowitz confirmed this long ago when he admitted WMD was just the ‘One reason [for invading Iraq] that everyone could agree on.’ However, I’m equally sure they chose this pretext because they really believed the WMD existed and were genuinely shocked when they failed to turn up. After all, they would have been daft to choose a pretext that time would reveal to be bogus. (Which, of course, is precisely what happened.)

    In my darkest moments of the night I fantasize about how awful it would have been, how unbearably insufferable Blair, Campbell and Co. would have been, if the WMD had turned up.

    All we who opposed the war would have been ridiculed and completely stuffed.

    The failure of the WMD to materialize almost makes me think there may be a God after all. And that He has a sense of humour.

  • Roderick Russell



    It seems that Larry can libel me with impunity and yet my response gets removed from the site. Nothing of mine appears in Google or on your site, but Larry’s extraordinarily nasty lie does. Here is what appears:

    ####### What Larry from St. Louis Says: 1 day ago – Also, that Roderick Russell character – you certainly egged him on in his deranged thoughts. Posted by: Larry from St. Louis at January 19, 2010 2:07 PM … ######

    I think that I should be entitled to point out the untruthfulness of Larry’s statement and that it is part of an ongoing strategy to professionally smear me. Yes, our comments were off topic, but I only posted mine in response to Larry’s very disgusting SMEAR which was posted on your blog. The decision to smear was Larry’s not mine.Unlike Larry, everything I write is analysed, and referenced to source material.

    SMEARS are untruthful rumours spread to serve a purpose in Zerzetsen: (1) to provide an excuse for not investigating (smear might be – he is deranged, etc.) (2) To isolate him from the community (smear might be – he is a pedophile, or he committed a fraud, etc.). MI5/6 & CSIS use a technique for smearing that is sometimes called The Big Lie Strategy.

    The blogger “CARTOONIST” described what they get up to in an earlier comment. On Craig’s site when he defined the former East German Secret Police “The STASI” technique for smearing, quoting in translation from the original German. He writes ?” “It’s about manipulating people or groups of people by typical STASI methods (hearsay, gossip, lies, spreading rumours about someone … the list goes on. It’s basically what has been done to Craig by the UK Government, funnily enough, although I fail to see the funny side)”.

    The only thing the Smears have in common is that if you check them out there is not an iota of truth in any of them. All it proves is you are a victim of an intelligence operation. I’ve been accused of practically everything under the sun (at least a dozen smears over 2 decades), ranging from ?” he is involved in the international drug trade, to he is mad.

    To see this latter SMEAR, click on my signature to bring up my WIKI, in the left hand margin of the Wiki, click under Table of Contents on item 4. and it will bring you to a chapter headed “Government Cover-Up Conspiracy ?” UK & Canada. Scroll down until you come to a topic headed – “MI5 smear using a crooked Judge to provide their smear with a false show of credibility “?” which summarizes it all. If you want more detail continue scrolling down until you come to a topic headed ?” “C: The Crooked English Judge ?” Assisting an MI5 smear campaign” ?” which provides the detail of this smear and how they did it. If you clip on Table of Contents Item 3 you will see an overview of MI5/6 & CSIS’s use of the Big Lie Technique with explanatory quotes from Academic sources and Mein Kampf that show the assumptions that underlie the big lie technique.

    You will note the considerable amount of evidence that is available to back up my statements. Some of the documentary evidence is enclosed with the wiki, and you can see it for yourself.

    If you know someone who has a problem with the intelligence services and suddenly a horrible rumour appears about him, I would take it with a pinch of salt.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    Roderick, please provide your 2 best pieces of evidence for your torture.

    And so you now, if I write a letter to Obama telling him that frog people are after me, that does not serve as evidence that frog people are after me.

  • technicolour

    The points I take from this are:

    1. MR JONATHAN POWELL “we asked for more time repeatedly from January onwards of the President, and we got more time in each case. Eventually, by the time we got to mid-March, he wasn’t going to give us more time”

    – The UK had to go to war because the US President told them to. Very simple.

    2. SIR RODERIC LYNE: Well, a picture to convince the people who weren’t not convinced by our arguments in March.

    – “our arguments”

  • tony_opmoc

    Making personal attacks on anyone, on the basis of whether or not they have, associated with anyone of a political view you don’t personally approve of shows a distinct lack of intelligence.

    The entire basis of intelligence agencies is to associate and infiltrate whoever the opposition is considered to be.

    But even at a social level, if you actually want to change the point of view of someone diametrically opposed to you, its a good idea to talk to them.

    I have never been to a BNP meeting, but have spoken to many members of the BNP at a social level, and have gained great pleasure winding them up particularly with regards to their racist views when they are dancing to a reggae band and they are trying to scrounge a cigarette.

    Nah – you won’t one of these mate – as I show them the Arabic writing on the packet.

    If you actually talk to people – even Scousers – you can find common ground and laugh together.

    You ain’t going to change anyones views just by going to your local church.

    A lot of conflict in this world is because some people actually enjoy fighting each other. Football supporters are a classic case – but afterwards they are quite happy to drink together at a neutral pub. They have got lots in common. They like football grounds. They like drinking lots of alcohol – and they like beating the shit out of each other.


  • Craig


    You are tiresome. Look in what I say in the comments on that link:

    “I am not endorsing – or commenting at all – on the accuracy of anything in Mr Bollyn’s journalism. I can’t recall having read anything else by him. I am not endorsing the idea that Israelis were warned to stay away from the Twin Towers – I simply have no idea if that is true or not. I have never made a close study of 9/11.

    For what it is worth, my uninformed view is that official explanations gloss over a great deal, but the conspiracy theories would need too many people involved to be practical…

    But the allegation that a dissident journalist in the US has been beaten up by police is important. That is why we posted it. Has anyone seen the police side of the story?”

    The Helga you mention is yet another person I have never met. David Shayler is a friend of mine, who sadly has apparently lost his metal balance after relentless state persecution.


    I am not doing anything to your posts.

  • tony_opmoc

    Roderick Russell,

    There is growing evidence that Larry from St. Louis is not actually a real person. If he is a real person it is highly unlikely that he is an agent of an Intelligence Organisation who is trying to Professionally smear you, because what he writes is totally lacking in any Intelligence.

    I now think that it is entirely possible that Larry is actually a computer program – a chat bot.

    So its best to ignore him if he bothers you. If you ignore him or it, you will come to no harm. If you react, your blood pressure may rise which may eventually cause a health problem if you don’t do enough exercise.


  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    I can see that Craig (Even though I cannot read)!

    On day that the United States invaded Iraq, President Bush said that we were doing so “reluctantly” but that “our purpose was clear” ?” to get rid of Saddam’s ‘weapons of mass murder.’

    (Note: Bush did not say “purposes.” According to Bush, there was only one purpose.)

    In an interview with Brit Hume, he said he would have invaded even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction.


    BUSH: I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision.

    HUME: So, if you had had this ?” if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?

    BUSH: Absolutely.


    Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly ?” yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

    YOU LYING BASTARD – Dr David Kelly knew the truth – is that why he was murdered!

    oops – conspiracy theory – watch out for Larry!

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq


    Jeez – I didn’t know David was mentally unwell. I spoke with Annie Machon last year and she didn’t mention that. Annie has helped me enormously with information since she viewed my website in 2008 – Bless her – what a brave women and beautiful to boot!

  • Roderick Russell

    Mark Golding – I responded to you in detail on Craigs “Missing You” blog on January 19, 2010 1:00 AM. And then I put a further response on the same blog to MJ at 3.49.

    Tony – You don’t surprise me. His purpose is to spread smears about me, and also about you all and Craig’s blog.

    Craig, Something I posted yesrerday on the smears got eliminated unless I have missed it. No matter. My internet connect is malfunctioning, and so I am using a library computer and have to sign off now. Best wishes. Roderick

  • tony_opmoc


    2 or 3 years ago, I went to the Eastern Haze Music festival and took my wife, daughter and her friend.

    It was quite a big festival – about 10,000 I guess and went on for 3 or 4 days.

    There were about 15 different stages and events – and there was also a 9/11 Truth tent. I didn’t go to any of the meetings, but spoke to a bloke on the stall, and he said Annie turned up, but that David had gone off his head and didn’t show.

    There have since been numerous media reports about David Shayler living in various posh squats and looking like Peter Gabriel dressed as a Sunflower in his earlier days (or a close approximation)

    Peter Gabriel who I have seen on numerous occasions shows little sign of being insane.

    Whether David Shayler is or is not, is of course open to question.

    People do react to tremendous stress in various different ways.

    I saw Shayler on a Sunday morning program shortly before this with one of the journalists from the Mail, and he was making far more sense than was the journalist with regards to false flag attacks. I think Griffin was on too.

    Now of course, he could have been got at, and fed LSD in his pint, or he could have simply lost it.

    As a result of whatever happenned, he has lost a lot of weight, so I very much doubt if he is entirely faking it.

    But if he wants to dress as a Sunflower then why not?


  • Larry from St. Louis


    So where did you hear of Christopher Bollyn? OK, so it wasn’t the Axis for Peace conference you were both at – you seem to claim that you got that info from somewhere else.

    But you call this guy a “dissident journalist”. Why – because he believes the Jews did 911?

    It’s good that you confirmed that you think of these conspiracy thinkers as conspiraloons.

    In any event, it’s quite sick of you to go to bat for, of all people in the U.S., a Jew-hater. Quite telling.

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq


    Thanks mate – I will try and contact Annie and find out about David. I am sure she will know if his mental state is OK – sunflower or not, maybe he has overdone dieting – I don’t think David (because of his training) would fall for LSD in the pint.

1 2 3 6

Comments are closed.