Brit War Chief: We Underestimated Cheney
Says VP Had More Influence On Bush Than U.K. Thought; Despite Bad Planning, Defends Going To War
-
Photo
British Prime Minister Tony Blair talks during a meeting in London in this March 8, 2007 file photo. At far right is Blair's Minister for Europe, Geoff Hoon, the former British Defense Secretary, and in the middle, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. (CBS/AP)
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Interactive
Second In Command
A closer look at Vice President Dick Cheney's career and his much-publicized health problems.
-
Fast Facts
United Kingdom
Learn about the people, economy and history.
But Geoff Hoon, who was defense secretary in Prime Minister Tony Blair's government from 1999 until 2005, said intelligence officials had believed that Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction and that the allies did not lie about why they went to war.
In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Hoon said that "we didn't plan for the right sort of aftermath."
"Maybe we were too optimistic about the idea of the streets being lined with cheering people. Although I have reconciled it in my own mind, we perhaps didn't do enough to see it through the Sunni perspective. Perhaps we should have done more to understand their position," Hoon was quoted as saying.
Hoon said the British side had not comprehended Cheney's influence in the U.S. administration.
Even when Blair and President Bush had agreed on some matter, "sometimes... the decision actually came out of a completely different place."
"And you think: what did we miss? I think we missed Cheney," Hoon was quoted as saying.
He did not cite any examples of decisions apparently reversed by Cheney.
Hoon, who is now minister for Europe in the Foreign Office, said Britain had opposed the wholesale dismissal of Iraq's army and police forces.
"We certainly argued against," Hoon was quoted as saying. "I recall having discussions with Donald Rumsfeld, but I recognized that it was one of those judgment calls. I would have called it the other way. His argument was that the Iraqi army was so heavily politicized that we couldn't be sure that we would not retain within it large elements of Saddam's people."
However, Hoon defended the decision to go to war on the basis of intelligence that believed Iraq was building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction — intelligence he now accepts was wrong.
"I've been present at a number of meetings where the intelligence community was fixed, and looked in the eye and asked are you absolutely sure about this? And the answer came back 'Yes, absolutely sure,"' Hoon was quoted as saying.
"I saw intelligence from the first time I came into office, in May 1999 — week in, week out — that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ... I have real difficulty in understanding why it was, over such a long period of time, we were told this and, moreover, why we acted upon it," he was quoted as saying.
"Whatever else I did, even if people say it was catastrophically wrong, I wouldn't agree with it, but I could live with it," he added. "But I can't live with the idea that I was telling lies, because I wasn't."
Hoon said he felt no need to apologize.
"You can say 'it did not turn out as we expected' and 'we made some bad calls,' but at the end of the day I defy anyone to go through what we went through and come to a different conclusion," he was quoted as saying.
The public, Hoon said, was not interested in perceptions in 2003 or subtle arguments over intelligence or policy.
"I think, especially when British soldiers are being killed, that the public have got to be pretty confident as to why. I think they're not any longer confident, and want us out of Iraq. That's why Tony gets the blame," Hoon said.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam
- Latest in Iraq After Saddam
- Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
- Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
- Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary



- 1
- 2
- next
See all 57 CommentsJust accross the pond, the Crooks will continue to protect their own sort. The B&B boys are joined at the hip, in the murder of over 3,000 American kids, and Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi, citizens. They can spin the web any way they want, but they will ultimately bore the price.
In other words the public after 9-11 was still in a state of shell shock, hysteria and did not question it nor did the respective government bodies question the intelligence that led us in to the war in Iraq.
Hoon is a disgrace, he turned a respected fighting force into a band of "Borrowers". Whatever members of the current British government say this week can be assesed as damage limitation prior to elections for local government to be held on Thursday this week. It is quite unbelievable that only two years ago the British people voted in favour of Blair and after serving half his term both he and his band of idiots are on the run, leaving office prior to the S H I T hitting the fan and making excuses for being responsible for the deaths of thousands. They should all HANG.
Posted by kesac4650 at 05:51 AM : May 02, 2007
You don't have to pretend on this at all not even a little bit.
They said it was suicide, there are many who believe he was murdered to shut him up. Assasinated! To allow them to proceed with their bogus excuses to go to war in Iraq. Whether it be Hoon, Blair, Bush or Cheney there is little difference, they are as evil as is Bin Laden and of no benefit of our respective nations. These are the people we have employed and payed to care for us and our families, Liars, Cheats and Thieves.
"Yeah, but it is a lot more fun to pretend thst the bad guys took over the country, to make their buddies rich."
Are you saying that ******** Cheney isn't making money out of Halliburton etc - especially as they are getting a huge amount of contracts over other companies?
Are you saying that companies who basically paid for GW Bush to become President haven't been awarded no-bid contracts?
To all of you who supported and voted for Bush hang your heads in shame and for all of you who have bravely opposed this military-industrial take over of our Republic...fight on for you were and are intellectually and morally correct that this premptive war was and is an abomination fostered upon us by arrogant and ignorant men and women with no sense of history or caring of the horrors they have unleashed through their ineptness.
American Public : We too !
Even Eisenhower had problems with Israeli groups but he did not let them buy him!
READ AS THEY BRAG ABOUT THEIR INFLUENCE ON OUR GOVERNMENT!
http://www.aipac.org/forms/
join_aipacClubs.htm
Founded in 1953 by Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen, AIPAC's original name was the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs. According to UCLA political science professor and author, Steven Spiegel, "the tension between the Eisenhower administration and Israeli supporters was so acute that there were rumors that the administration would investigate the American Zionist Council. Therefore, an independent lobbying committee was formed, which years later was renamed [AIPAC]." [SPIEGEL, p. 52].[citation needed] Today, AIPAC has over 100,000 members.[1]
Activities and stated goals AIPAC's stated purpose is to lobby the Congress of the United States on issues and legislation "to ensure that the U.S.-Israel relationship is strong so that both countries can work together" to meet the challenges of "stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, fighting terrorism and achieving peace".[2] The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East."
Too bad none of these foreign policy geniuses thought to ask the "man on the street" how the typical person (yes, Iraqis are people) would react to a foreign occupying power. Even if the Chinese Army invaded to throw out Bushit and Chickenshit from the US government, most of us would soon tire of their presence, I'm sure.
Except, the dupe realized he was president now and, deciding that he was "the decider", got away from the program, much to the chagrin of his handlers. Now you have these two forces pulling at each other, which is why you have these sometimes conflicting views coming from the White House all the time.
No proof of this, but it makes you wonder what's going on in the White House.
See that look on his face the day of 9/11/01, while he is reading my pet goat? People think he is just looking stunned or scared--he was looking neither. He probably was thinking--"I wonder if I can look shocked enough or if anyone will see through this and realize I must have killed all those people so's I could start a war"
Go back and look at the speeches following 9/11, note Bush always looking up warily before he begins his address. Those looks keep wondering if the "jig" is up. But don't worry, Jr--most Americans refuse to believe you were involved in 9/11--because it is just too surreal and horrific to accept and just too "conspiracy theory" they reacted and continue to react just like you hoped.
All the world should see what we have elected to run the "American democracy." Don't let him hide forever behind his mask of secrecy.
And at the same time, examination of his mental state for fitness to rule should be made by a board of psychiatrists.
If Mr. Hoon thought Cheney was wagging the dog, he should have spoken up when it really mattered. Otherwise, take a seat at the back of the bus with George Tenet.
As for Bush being run by Cheney, the Brits should have figured that one out. Bush can't tie his shoes without help. If not for his Dad, he would have been bounced out of politics ages ago.
Come on guys, I'm waiting to hear how "they found the WMD but suppressed the news" or "Chlorine is WMD" or "The WMD was moved to Syria" or "Satan hid the WMD with his invisible cloaking device" or...
Everyone knows that Cheney is the unelected president.
And it is amazing how someone could be so scared to avoid going to war himself, but is now the authority of sending other people into civil unrest in the Middle East.
Shouldn't our leaders lead by example???
Same as Israel now wants the US & UK to invade Iran.
ExxonMobil & British Petroleum (and other oil companies, war profiteers) also wanted the US & UK to invade Iraq. And, also want the US & UK to invade Iran. Keeps those oil prices up and unearned profits rolling in.
Those are the only reasons the US & UK organized the illegal invasion of Iraq. And, is currently demonizing Iran the same way they demonized Iraq.
If the UN Security Council had authorized the invasion, it would have been the "right thing to do." They did not, so it was not.
It was not the "right thing to do," it is a war crime. And all those responsible should be charged with those crimes.
Posted by toldyouso21 at 09:09 AM : May 02, 2007
I so agree with this, and to add to it a little, they want our millions and billions in hand-outs. Foreign aid that perhaps acts in dual fashion, to appease those who would otherwise oppose us, and/or to use to buy our military wares. I've lost track of how much money is given to foreign welfare-states, as if we owe them. But the World Bank can give 40% salary increases to the girlfriend of the of its President. Maybe it's all a Casino--Jackpot!!
snip
Posted by gkc99
It wouldn't matter to him if he was under oath. He would still lie with that damnnned smirk on his ugly mug and figure that he was untouchable as far as being tried for perjury.
Posted by toldyouso21 at 08:51 AM : May 02, 2007
Give me a break. It's not only absurd, it's downright ignorant to impose such illusions. You had so many bright things to say, and now you've gone and made a point that is utterly foolish. Get some balance will you.
(HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT)
Posted by mascarponi at 11:30 AM : May 02, 2007
You forget Congress voted to go to war in Iraq which would make all of the US congress equally guilty by your logic. And while I'm not opposed to throwing them all out of office and starting over the slippery slope of giving American independence over to the UN is very dangerous. The UN is filled with self serving power hungry tyrants that would love to drag the US through the mud
"We underestimated Cheney power blah blah blah...."
Are you joking??? Cheney's been in American politics for 50 years, as a senator, as a cabinet member, an now as VP. They didn't verify the intel on Iraq, nor the intel on Cheney.
And furthermore, how can the Iraq invasion be legally justified?
Posted by clestes
If not for his Dad, all of his speeches would end with "WANT FRIES WITH THAT?"
Posted by superchez1 at 01:13 PM : May 02, 2007
Political affiliations aside, if you realize that Sadaam was put in place by the U.S, then we are to blame for the 2.5 million deaths. If the U.S was really upset about 9/11, it would have launched missiles against Saudi Arabia or Jordan, because those were the original source countries of those enemy combatants. Your flippant view that Democrats are to blame if we bring our troops home shows me what a dumb f*ck you are, thinking that the immediate result would be the blowing up Times Square.
But look at Rwanda, or the Congo, or Sudan, or Ethiopia, or Bosnia, or even Nazi Germany. People make up their own reasons for mass murder. The Spanish Inquisition gave Jews two options, conversion or death. It%u2019s all senseless, except for those who profit.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 57 Comments