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

[David Guyatt]

Tony Blair says the quest for a 'conspiracy' is behind Iraq Inquiry

Wow!

Reduced to repeated resorts to the dreaded "C" word eh? He must be rattled.

I notice he was interviewed by the US media - his natural constituency and the only ones left, I think, who remotely buys into his messianic bullshit.

[Peter Lemkin]

I predict a Palin / Blair Administration next.....his British citizenship will be dealt with with stealth.....he's as tricky as was Dicky. :girl:

[David Guyatt]

A sort of contemporary twist on "Dumb & Dumber" you mean?

But I suppose it would have to be called Dumb & Cunning...

[Peter Lemkin]

A sort of contemporary twist on "Dumb & Dumber" you mean?

But I suppose it would have to be called Dumb & Cunning...

Tony will provide the articulate and received English declarations of State, Sara will entertain the American proletarian masses [especially of the XY variety] with something to focus their eyes and medullan minds upon...as NOTHING she has to say can be focused upon by an educated human or simian......

[Jan Klimkowski]

Tony "I'm a pretty straight sort of guy" Blair has always tried to categorize those who oppose his "honest" judgements as "conspiracy theorists".

Here's a prime example from the run-up to "Shock and Awe":

Blair: Iraq oil claim is 'conspiracy theory'

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 15 January 2003


Tony Blair today derided as "conspiracy theories" accusations that a war on Iraq would be in pursuit of oil, as he faced down growing discontent in parliament at a meeting of Labour backbenchers and at PMQs.
The prime minister's double defence of Britain's backing of president Bush came as one of Tony Blair's oldest political allies, Peter Mandelson, insisted that the US and British governments did not need a second UN resolution to justify an attack on Iraq.

The MP for Hartlepool, traditionally used as a back channel for No 10's thinking, insisted that only his questioners on the BBC Radio 4's Today programme were asking for a new UN resolution - not France, Russia or China, the other members of the security council.

Instead Mr Mandelson insisted that a breach of the existing 1441 resolution could justify an attack on Saddam Hussein.

His intervention in the ongoing political debate on Iraq comes as Church of England bishops issued their strongest criticism yet of plans for military actions.

The drumbeat of war sounded louder today after Downing Street also announced that Mr Blair would fly to Washington for talks with president Bush at the end of January. Most military experts are currently predicting an attack in February.

At a private meeting of the parliamentary Labour party at Westminster this morning the PM underlined his uncompromising message that Saddam Hussein's regime had to be disarmed one way or another.

Afterwards, one anti-war MP, Glenda Jackson, said the meeting was split 70-30 in Mr Blair's favour.

Another who did not wish to be named said it had been more like 50-50, with the meeting evenly split on support or opposition to the government's position.

A Labour Party spokesman said after Mr Blair's hour-long grilling: "The Prime Minister got a very warm reception for what he had to say.

Mr Mandelson told Today that there could be circumstances in which securing a second resolution would be impracticable.

He said: "Now if that is the case, there is no question at all of America or Britain or anyone else acting outside the UN. They would be acting firmly and directly and explicitly on the basis of the UN's authority as expressed in resolution 1441."

Meanwhile, Church of England bishops issued a statement saying a conclusive case has yet to be made in favour of military action against President Saddam and without compelling new evidence a war could not be "morally justified".

A statement from the house of bishops said: "We do not believe that the evidence presented to date suggests a clear link exists between Iraq and al-Qaida or that Iraq poses an immediate threat to international security."

"Without compelling new evidence to the contrary, we contend that military action could not be morally justified."

The bishops said that it was crucial that the work of the UN weapons inspectors should be allowed to run its course.

To launch military action while there remained the potential to secure a peaceful resolution would be "ill-judged and premature", they said.

The Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev Richard Harries, warned the prime minister that any military action against Iraq could only be justified if there was a fresh UN resolution.

He told the BBC: "I do think that Iraq is a threat ... but the point is that we have contained this threat over the last 10 years by a policy of deterrence and containment, and there is absolutely nothing new now which would justify us going over the awesome threshold of war with all the unpredictable consequences in the Middle East and the almost certain rise of terrorism around the world and in this country."

Last month the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, attacked the government over its apparent readiness to launch military action against Iraq.

In his Christmas message, Dr Williams recalled the biblical story of the three wise men as he mocked strategists who end up creating "yet more havoc and suffering", despite their intimate knowledge of politics.

However, General Wesley Clark, a former Nato supreme allied commander, said he believed military action would be forthcoming.

Asked when he expected any action, he told Today: "Mid to late February, it looks like."

Asked for his assessment of the likelihood of action, he added: "I would say it is high. It is not 100%, because there is the possibility that Saddam Hussein will back down and flee the country before then."

The prime minister was today accused of being too scared of Labour back-bench opposition to his policy on Iraq to have a full-scale Commons debate on the crisis.

The accusation came from the Scottish National party whose Westminster leader, Alex Salmond, contrasted "meaningless" discussion of Iraq policy in the Commons with tomorrow's debate on the issue in the Scottish parliament on a motion tabled by the SNP.

"The Scots parliament is pursuing proper democracy, not the hypocrisy of Westminster," Mr Salmond said.

The SNP motion says that the UN security council resolution providing a mandate for weapons inspection in Iraq does not authorise military action.

Any such use of force would breach international law, it says.

It continues: "No commitment of UK forces should be made without a specific mandate for military action in Iraq in the form of a further security council resolution based on clear, published and compelling evidence provided by the UN inspectorate of a material breach of the resolution."

The motion also expresses "deep and serious concern" that the government is pursuing an inevitable path to war.

Mr Salmond said: "While Westminster is to have another meaningless and inconclusive adjournment debate on the Iraq crisis, the Scottish parliament is having a real debate based on a real motion from the SNP.

"That is a powerful contrast.

"Tony Blair is frightened of a substantive debate in the Commons because he is scared of the extent of support on the Labour benches for the fundamental point that military action in the name of the UN must be specifically authorised by the UN."

Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for Linlithgow and father of the House of Commons, said: "It is ironic that the Scottish parliament can find the means of having a meaningful debate on Iraq, while the Commons is refused."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/...npolicy.uk

By trotting out the "conspiracy theory" meme and attaching it to claims that the second Iraq War was motivated by western and multinational geopolitical interests, such as Iraq's oil, Blair was attempting to render discussion of such claims as beyond the pale.

Outside the permitted space for MSM consensus discussion.

His tactic largely succeeded, and MSM took his and Campbell's lies at face value.

[Magda Hassan]

[size=12]Email to Iraq Inquiry[/SIZE][size=12] Posted by The Editors on February 8, 2010, 3:21 pm[/SIZE]
Sent to: secretariat@iraqinquiry.org.uk

Dear Iraq Inquiry

Former chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has been making headline news commenting on your inquiry: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8503454.stm

Has Blix been invited to appear before your inquiry? If not, why not, please?

Best wishes

David Edwards


Dear Mr Edwards

Thank you for your suggestion that the Iraq Inquiry should hear from the former head of UNMOVIC, Dr Hans Blix. The Iraq Inquiry Committee have not yet announced the full list of people they will wish to speak to during the course of their work. Your suggestion has been noted.

Amy Harland

For the Inquiry

Email number 2:
[size=12]Re: Email to Iraq Inquiry[/SIZE][size=12] Posted by The Editors on February 8, 2010, 7:23 pm, in reply to "Email to Iraq Inquiry"[/SIZE]
Dear Amy Harland

Many thanks. You should also call former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. And also former senior UN diplomats Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck.

Best wishes

David Edwards

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/...57000.html

[David Guyatt]

Dear Mr. Edwards,

Thank you for your follow up email message. In the event that there was a misunderstanding, allow me to repeat that "the Iraq Inquiry Committee have not yet announced the full list of people they will wish to speak to during the course of their work".

When we do announce the full list you'll be the first to see that your suggestions have been ignored.

Sincerely,

For the Inquiry.

[Magda Hassan]

Blair warned in 2000 Iraq war was illegal

Secret papers withheld by Chilcot inquiry reveal Foreign Office fears over invasion
By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent

Tuesday, 2 March 2010


REUTERS
Tony Blair gives evidence to the Iraq Inquiry in Westminster on 29 January

.firstcolumn {font-family: verdana; font-size: 11px; border-bottom: 5px solid #7D704D; color:#000000; margin-bottom:10px;} .firstcolumn div{padding-left:2px;} .firstcolumn .title {font-size: 13px; margin-top: 2px; margin-bottom: 2px; color:#7D704D; font-weight: bold; text-transform:uppercase;} .firstcolumn .title a{ color:#7D704D;} .firstcolumn .description {font-size: 11px;} .firstcolumn .thumbnail {float:left; margin-right:5px; border:0px;} .firstcolumn .commercialpromo {border-top: 5px solid #CEB669; margin-bottom: 10px;} .firstcolumn .clear {clear:both; height:1px; overflow:hidden;} .firstcolumn .mainheading {border-top: 5px solid #7D704D; margin-bottom: 0px;} .firstcolumn .mainheading .title{margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px;} .firstcolumn a{color: #125581; text-decoration: none;} .firstcolumn a:hover{color: #125581; text-decoration: underline;} .firstcolumn a:visited{color: #125581;} .firstcolumn .dotted {background-image:url(http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/...on:bottom; padding-bottom: 4px;} .firstcolumn .yh{font-weight:bold;}.clearbutton { /* generic container (i.e. div) for floating buttons */ overflow: hidden; width: 100%;} .firstcolumn .yahoo {overflow: hidden;} .firstcolumn .yahoo ul {list-style-type: none; margin: 0; padding: 0;} .firstcolumn .yahoo ul li {FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 180px; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: none; padding-left: 20px; background-image: url(http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/...264a.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 5px; font-weight:bold; }
An invasion of Iraq was discussed within the Government more than two years before military action was taken – with Foreign Office mandarins warning that an invasion would be illegal, that it would claim "considerable casualties" and could lead to the breakdown of Iraq, The Independent can reveal.
The extent of Whitehall opposition to the policy eventually backed by Tony Blair emerges just three days before Gordon Brown will appear at the Iraq Inquiry, where he will be asked to explain his role in the Government's decision to invade.
Secret Foreign Office strategy papers drawn up by senior civil servants at the end of 2000 have been obtained by this newspaper and are published for the first time today. The Iraq: future strategy document considers options for dealing with the belligerent Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. It is one of the key documents that Sir John Chilcot's Iraq Inquiry has declined to release.
Related articles

• Hung parliament looms as Tory poll lead cut to 5 points
  
• John Curtice: Voters are looking afresh at Gordon Brown
  
• Search the news archive for more stories
  

A policy of "regime overthrow" is proposed, but roundly condemned. In an eerily portentous assessment of the consequences of taking military action, it states: "Such a policy would command no useful international support. An overt attempt to be successful would require a massive military effort, probably including a land invasion: this would risk considerable casualties and, possibly, extreme last-ditch acts of deterrence or defiance by Saddam."
The mandarins add: "It would also be illegal. Covert attempts, on the other hand, seem very unlikely to succeed and run the risk of fragmenting Iraq, which runs clearly contrary to our wider interests in the region." Iraq descended into violence in the wake of the March 2003 invasion. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the aftermath, as well as more than 100 British troops.
The document also calls into question Mr Blair's claim that using troops to bring down Saddam Hussein was only discussed after the 9/11 terror attacks on New York – and will increase pressure on the inquiry to call Mr Blair back to give further public evidence this summer.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' leader, said it was "yet more damning evidence" against Mr Blair's decision to take Britain to war in Iraq. He also warned that the fact that the document had not been published by the Chilcot inquiry raised "serious questions" about its powers to reveal sensitive material. The Government has retained the power to veto publication of classified documents. Protocols agreed between the Chilcot team and Whitehall hand the final say on publication of disputed documents to the head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus O'Donnell.
Requests to secure the document using the Freedom of Information Act were initially refused. However, the Foreign Office eventually agreed to release a redacted version – with the views of the United States and other countries blacked out – after The Independent demanded an internal review. "Releasing the paper would make Government more accountable and increase trust," the Foreign Office conceded. "There is public interest in being able to assess the quality of advice being given to ministers and subsequent decision-making."
Critics of the decision to go to war pounced on the document. "Days before Gordon Brown will try to defend his role at the heart of the Government that took us to war, this is yet more damning evidence against the attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq," Mr Clegg said. "The Foreign Office was clearly advising against regime change as illegal and counter to our national interest."
The strategy paper was commissioned by Sir William Patey, then head of Middle East policy at the Foreign Office, ahead of the November 2000 presidential election which brought George Bush to the White House.
It states that a 1999 United Nations resolution, demanding that weapons inspectors be given access to Iraq, was "beginning to fray at the edges", and would soon "lose credibility" should Saddam fail to co-operate with inspectors. However, it recommends that the policy of "containing" Saddam, and perhaps loosening the sanctions imposed on the Baghdad regime, remained "the best option for achieving our policy objectives towards Iraq". It concludes: "Other alternatives remain unattractive at this stage."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pol...14293.html

[David Guyatt]

The document also calls into question Mr Blair's claim that using troops to bring down Saddam Hussein was only discussed after the 9/11 terror attacks on New York – and will increase pressure on the inquiry to call Mr Blair back to give further public evidence this summer.

Thus:

The strategy paper was commissioned by Sir William Patey, then head of Middle East policy at the Foreign Office, ahead of the November 2000 presidential election which brought George Bush to the White House.

Smoking gun anyone?

[Magda Hassan]

Gordon Brown tells Iraq inquiry: I fully backed the war

Gordon Brown has said that he was "fully in line" with the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.



By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Published: 11:53AM GMT 05 Mar 2010







Speaking at Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the war, Mr Brown gave his most explicit endorsement yet for the conflict.
He also insisted that he had fully funded the Armed Forces as they prepared for war.

Related Articles


Brown has rarely spoken about his role in the events leading up to the war, which cost 179 British lives.
Some Labour supporters believe Mr Brown either harboured private doubts about the war, or was shut out of the decision-making process by Tony Blair, then the prime minister.
But in his evidence, Mr Brown rejected both those ideas, insisted he had actively backed Mr Blair in his decision to invade.
Mr Brown was adamant that he had been "in the loop" of Mr Blair's decisions. He said he had five private briefings from the intelligence agencies, which persuade him that Iraq was an "aggressor state."
He said: "I had full information. There is no sense in which I had inadequate information. I was fully engaged in the discussions which had taken place. I was involved in the financial discussions in relation to the military options.
He added: "In terms of my relationship with the Prime Minister, I was fully in line with what was being done."
Mr Brown said he asked for briefings about Iraq's military programmes before the war.
"I had five meetings with the intelligence chiefs. These were very full briefings," he said. "The information I was given was about the weaponry that the Iraqi government held."
The failure to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq showed that ministers should not rely too much on intelligence, Mr Brown said.
"I think we have learned that intelligence can give us insights into what is happening, but we have got to be more sure, as people have recognised, about the nature of the intelligence we were receiving from certain people."
Mr Brown, who was Chancellor at the time of the invasion, will face questions later about his funding of the Armed Forces.
The early questioning focused on the build-up to the war. Mr Brown insisted that he had told the Ministry of Defence that he would fund whatever commanders believed was needed for military action.
"At every point, I made it clear we would support whichever option the military decided on," he said.
Mr Brown also said that his Treasury had been involved in planning for post-war Iraq. He suggested that the US government was mainly to blame for the chaos that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.
He said: "It’s one of my regrets that I wasn’t able to more successful on pushing the Americans further on this issue.
"I cannot take personal responsibility for everything that went wrong. I did a paper for the Americans saying that this needed to be done."