The Iraq Inquiry - Chilcott's Circus Clowns Come to Town

[David Guyatt]

Chilcot has announced that his report will now not be published until after the next general election in May. The fear is that Blair, and others ("key establishment figures), are thought to be working behind the scenes to water-down the report and lessen the criticism.

Such have been the delays in publishing this report that it is hard not conclude that a very nasty level of self-enrichment took place over the Iraq war -- as indeed appears to have been the case over the Arms to Iraq version 1, back in the 1980's, and the corresponding less than hard hitting Scott report.

The latter clearly demonstrated that the Thatcher government armed Saddam even as the air war phase of the 1st Iraq (Gulf) war was happening. And then sent in British tanks to face British made anti-tank shells (train loads of 155 millimetre sabot discarding). Who got rich from this and the earlier Iran-Iraq war of the mid 1980's, I wonder?

Corruption in politics is a very nasty thing. Massive party-wide and establishment-wide corruption completely undermines democracy. I fear that this is the reason for these continuing delays. And based on the comments of both the Lib-Dems and Conservatives, those who have most to lose are Tony Blair and, as a consequence, the Labour Party. Both are fairly silent over the delay in Chilcot's report and the assumption must be that both are bringing pressure to bear on diluting the report and delaying its publication until after the May election. This pressure could, realistically, impact on hitherto unknown aspects of prior arms scandals that could still damage the Conservatives, so frankly, I don't buy into the Conservatives crocodile tears over this delay announced today. The Conservative party - the original "Self-Enrichment party" started the illegal arms game back in the 1980's with the Iraq-Iran war. Blair, it seems, carried it on? And who knows what is happening in the current Conservative Party when it comes to arms exports?

From bbc.co.uk/news:

Newspaper headlines: Chilcot Inquiry delay and page three debate rumbles on

By Andy McFarlaneBBC NewsContinue reading the main storyAs it emerges the Chilcot inquiry into the 2003 Iraq War will not report until after May's election, some newspapers record the outrage of those who have been demanding its conclusions. The Independent quotes former Lib Dem minister Norman Baker calling it a "betrayal of the British public".
Continue reading the main story

1/12

Sir John Chilcot's decision to delay publication of the report into the UK's involvement in the 2003 Iraq War until after May's general election provokes strong front-page reaction.
The Independent points out Sir John chaired the inquiry's last session in February 2011, closing with a promise to report back in "some months". Given the hearings began in 2009, former shadow home secretary David Davis tells the paper: "Frankly this isn't good enough. It is incomprehensible as to why this is being delayed. We need to know why."
"Much of the most recent delay was understood to be down to protracted disagreements between Whitehall and the US State Department over declassifying communications between George W Bush and Tony Blair before, during and after the Iraq war," the paper says.

According to the Guardian, some arguethat their publication "would represent an unprecedented breach of confidence concerning one of the most sensitive episodes in British foreign relations". It adds: "Chilcot is understood to have sent 'Salmon letters' to those who were to be criticised to give them an opportunity to respond before the report's publication, which will have led to further delays following objections from those criticised."
Former Prime Minister Mr Blair has insisted he is not behind the delay and is "determined to rebut the argument that he lied to parliament" over intelligence he used to present the case for war to parliament, the paper says. The Daily Mail pictures Mr Blair smiling among British troops in the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr during the conflict in May 2003.
Senior Whitehall figures had warned the report would be too politically contentious to publish close to polling day, says the Mail. "Labour strategists are said to have been concerned at the prospect of the spectre of Iraq being raised in the months before the election, since the conflict was blamed for driving many of its voters in of the arms of the Liberal Democrats in 2005 and 2010," it adds.