LONDON – The United States was "hell bent" on a 2003 military invasion of Iraq and actively undermined efforts by Britain to win international authorization for the war, a former British diplomat told an inquiry Friday.
Jeremy Greenstock, British ambassador to the United Nations from 1998 to 2003, said that President George W. Bush had no real interest in attempts to agree on a U.N. resolution to provide explicit backing for the conflict.
The ex-diplomat, who served as Britain's envoy in Iraq after the invasion, said serious preparations for the war had begun in early 2002 and took on an unstoppable momentum.
As diplomats frantically attempted in early 2003 to agree upon a U.N. resolution approving a military offensive, Bush's key aides grew impatient — criticizing the process as an unnecessary distraction, he said.
Grumbling from Washington "included noises about 'this is a waste of time, what we need is regime change, why are we bothering with this, we must sweep this aside and do what's going to have to be done anyway — and deal with this with the use of force,'" Greenstock testified before the inquiry into the Iraq war.
Several nations had hoped to stall the invasion of Iraq to allow U.N. weapons inspectors more time to search for evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the key justification for the war. No such weapons were ever found.
Full Story Link: UK diplomat: US was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion - Yahoo! News
UK diplomat: US was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion
UK diplomat: US was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion
This is news?
UK diplomat: US was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion
joey2000;1266857 wrote: This is news?
No, it was absolutely obvious at the time - as was the lack of a real and present danger
No, it was absolutely obvious at the time - as was the lack of a real and present danger
UK diplomat: US was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion
Yeah, I'm sure you "knew" that at the time. :rolleyes:
UK diplomat: US was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion
joey2000;1268211 wrote: Yeah, I'm sure you "knew" that at the time. :rolleyes:
Not only knew so but stated so publicly on several occasions.
In order for there to be a real and present danger to either the UK or the US there would have to be :-
Weapons capable of doing real damage - there was no evidence that these existed
The capability to deliver those weapons - demonstrably non-existent
The intent to use those weapons - there was no sign whatsoever of any intent or any preparatory moves
It was blatantly obvious that the reason for going to war had nothing to do with any danger of Iraq attacking us - the concept is laughable.
Not only knew so but stated so publicly on several occasions.
In order for there to be a real and present danger to either the UK or the US there would have to be :-
Weapons capable of doing real damage - there was no evidence that these existed
The capability to deliver those weapons - demonstrably non-existent
The intent to use those weapons - there was no sign whatsoever of any intent or any preparatory moves
It was blatantly obvious that the reason for going to war had nothing to do with any danger of Iraq attacking us - the concept is laughable.