Former British PM Accused of Interfering in Iraq Inquiry

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown seems certain to face fresh criticism from fellow politicians and the public alike after revelations that he may have allowed his predecessor Tony Blair to influence his decision to hold the Iraq War inquiry in private.

Fearful perhaps that any public inquiry might have a detrimental effect on his future political ambitions, previous British Prime Minister Tony Blair is said to have avoided expressing his concerns directly to his successor but instead asked intermediaries to make his feelings known to Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell, who would then brief Mr Brown on the matter. The often unequivocal support that former US President George W Bush received from then British PM Tony Blair for his decision to invade Iraq in March 2003, support that was unpopular enough at the time in Britain and which has proved even more so as the invasion has turned in to a longer than expected occupation, will almost certainly form as great a part of the latter man's legacy as it will of the former. Now it seems the man, who is currently the Envoy to the Middle East on behalf of a quartet consisting of the United Nations, European, the USA and Russia might be intent on limiting any further damage to that very same legacy. And then, according to the Independent , there is the question of Mr Blair's ambition to become President of the European Union, for which he will require the backing of nations who did not support the Iraq invasion. As the Independent further notes, should Mr Blair be called to appear before the inquiry, being chaired by Sir John Chilcot, his supporters are concerned that he may be subjected to what they term "mob justice". Such a scenario in itself would not do wonders for Mr Blair's reputation but if he was compelled to provide information which in any way contradicted that which he provided prior to, or even after, the invasion his reputation might lay completely in tatters. After Mr Brown first announced last Monday that the inquiry would be held in private, following an adverse reaction to the announcement that it would be a private inquiry from both British army generals and the families of soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq, he confirmed on Thursday that some sessions may receive a public airing. Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to Washington in the time leading up to the invasion and another potential witness at the inquiry, is one prominent figure who believes the proceedings should be held in public, saying in the Guardian:

I think it should also have powers of subpoena and people should give evidence on oath. I would be perfectly comfortable with that.

Sources close to Mr Brown and Mr Blair are remaining relatively tight lipped on the matter, although the Prime Minister's office did issue this statement:

We have always been clear that we consulted a number of people before announcing the commencement of the inquiry, including former government figures. We are not going to get into the nature of those discussions. Sir John Chilcot will make recommendations on how he believes the inquiry would be conducted effectively.

Whatever the eventual conclusions of the inquiry, before it has even begun, it seems to have already called into question the integrity of two men whose political careers have been inextricably linked for many years. After it has presented it's conclusions, both Mr Blair and Mr Brown may find that they no longer have political careers to speak of.