How Gove Promoter a war under false pretences

1. Why do we feel able to call the Secretary of State Gove a Warmonger in This Headline
The war in Iraq is responsible for well over 100,000 deaths, many of these victims were
innocent civilians. If the war of Iraq was illegal and started using a spurious story concocted
between corrupt politicians and irresponsible press then this is a matter that could be
considered as an international crime against humanity. If you want to work in a school you
need to be checked by the police in terms of your past. We suggest that Secretary State for
Education Gove who is in charge of our nation’s schools must therefore be someone who
needs a very thorough vetting before he is allowed to take charge of the nation’s children.
We should state that the issue discussed here is not if the war in Iraq was a positive thing for
humanity but about how it was instigated and suggestions that this was with lies, collusion
and cover up, the same issues central to the story we are publishing. We have assessed the
timelines and information release that lead to a UN resolution authorising a war in Iraq based
on false intelligence. We believe that this suggests that Gove who worked for the Times
during this period was a central figure in developing the misinformation that led to the false
intelligence being used by the United Nations.
In early 2002, Gove was advocating invasion. On 2 March, his column praised Iain Duncan
Smith for his willingness to contemplate military action against Iraq.
On 2 April, he followed this up with a piece in which he wrote:
…[T]he allies have failed to make a proper case for removing Saddam Hussein; the need to
forestall Saddam’s development of weapons of mass destruction before he blackmails the
West is compelling. The argument is not yet won, as it will be, because it has not yet been
made as it should be.
On the 19/07/2002: Tony Blair Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell sends letter explaining that
public opinion on war on Iraq is fragile and we need a “Rolls Royce” info campaign for war
(Panorama 10/03/2013).
On the 28/08/2002: Gove made the argument for war in his Times column “We have no
alternative but to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq to prevent Saddam completing his
drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction”, Gove states. “Military force must be deployed
to remove Saddam’s regime”.
On the 29/08/2002, the day after Mr Gove publishes his article M16 receive the falsified
45 minute intelligence report that was stated by Lord Butler as most misleading claim
for war “Panorama (10/03/2013).
On the 24/09/2002 the Government dossier is published re WMD (Panorama
10/03/2013)
Then in February of 2003; Powell speech to UN and US use false intelligence to say Iraq
has WMD (Panorama 10/03/2013)
Then on the 20/03/2003 the invasion starts based on Powel Speech (Panorama
10/03/2013)

2. Gove then states that he loves Blair based it seems on their agreement to get this war off
the ground.
Then in March 2004 governments admit that the intelligence was wrong (Panorama
10/03/2013)
See also Lord Butler Investigation
See also
http://www.ldfp.eu/2009/11/01/views-expressed-by-michael-gove-mp-on-iraq-and-
palestine/
Iraq – Were the Conservatives misled by Blair, or did they follow Gove?
Gove is quite unrepentant over his support for the Iraq war. On 28 December 2008, he
referred in The Times to the “liberation of Iraq” as “that rarest of things – a British foreign
policy success.” It hard not to think that in the run up to the invasion Gove influenced the
direction of Conservative party policy. He was not then an MP, but his prominence in the
Conservative Party and status as one of the country’s leading right-wing columnists makes it
hard indeed for Conservatives to argue that they were only duped by Blair into supporting the
war. It is likely that, thanks to Gove’s efforts, the Tories led Blair from the front.
In early 2002, he was already showing himself as an advocate for the invasion. On 2 March,
his column praised Iain Duncan Smith for his willingness to contemplate military action
against Iraq. On 2 April, he followed this up with a piece in which he wrote:
…[T]he allies have failed to make a proper case for removing Saddam Hussein; the need to
forestall Saddam’s development of weapons of mass destruction before he blackmails the
West is compelling. The argument is not yet won, as it will be, because it has not yet been
made as it should be.
appeasers in the 1930s (a recurrent theme in his writing – anyone who opposed the invasion
or stands up for Palestinian rights is an “appeaser