Blair just said “You would be hard pressed to find anyone who in September 2002 doubted that Saddam had WMD”.
It wouldn’t have been that hard. If he had asked members of the Near East and North Africa Department of the FCO, the Middle East experts in the FCO’s Research Analysts, or in the Defence Intelligence Service, he would have found absolutely no shortage of people who doubted it, whatever position No 10 was forcing on their institutions.
One of the many failures of this Inquiry has been a failure to ask individual witnesses before it whether they personally had believed in the existence of any significant Iraqi WMD programme. I know for certain that would have drawn some extremely enlightening answers from among the FCO and probably MOD participants.
Sir Martin Gilbert allowed Blair to conflate Iran, Iraq, Al-Qaida, WMD and terrorism in a completely unjustified way. When Straw tried exactly the same trick, Rod Lyne did not allow him to get away with it.
A further stark contrast with Straw is that both Blair and Straw were asked about the failure of the UK to secure movement in the Middle East peace process by using our role in Iraq to influence the USA. A major, detailed and fascinating part of Straw’s answer was that Israel’s – and specifically Netanyahu’s – political influence in the USA had prevented progress.
By contrast, Blair did not even mention Israel in response to the questions on the failure to achieve progress in the Middle East. He solely blamed the Palestinian Intafada. He has been anxious to widen the discussion beyond Iraq at every opportunity, and frequently referred to destabilising factors in the Middle East, and again and again pointed to a growing threat from Iran and Iranian sponsorship of terrorism, and to Palestinian terrorism (including Saddam Hussein’s past sponsorship of it).
He has made not one single comment about Israel’s behaviour as a contributing factor in Middle East instability. Given Blair’s official position as Middle East envoy, this lack of any bare pretence at impartiality is most revealing.
writerman,
I love bravery – somehow we will win
Clark,
Chin up, we/us here are the revival
mary,
You have show us the way, we now need to convey your thoughts.
Tony,
..scratches head?
What would a USUKIS army Health and Safety Risk Assessment / Method Statement read like? Zone 0: no dangers permitted at any time. Zone 1: records to be maintained of all serious accidents. War zone: no standards apply.
At least if Tony Blair was incarcerated, he might have a chance to discover what that means.
I have received this, it is personal communication, I have stuck my neck out to show you all:
“Dear Mark Golding,
Many thanks for your comment in our website. We would be pleased if you we have more comments from you. I also visited your website. And the photos are very painful.
If it is possible, we would like our website is linked in your site and in turn we also link your website. Please let me know your view in this regard.
Regards
IRIB English Service
Mohammad B. Khoshnevisan”
DEATH SQUAD TO HIT AMERICAN CITIZEN
It this a sign of the times? Is this what awaits our children?
“Over the past several years, Awlaki has gone from propagandist to recruiter to operational player,” said a U.S. counter-terrorism official.
Awlaki’s status as a U.S. citizen requires special consideration, according to former officials familiar with the criteria for the CIA’s targeted killing program. But while Awlaki has not yet been placed on the CIA list, the officials said it is all but certain that he will be added because of the threat he poses.
“If an American is stupid enough to make cause with terrorists abroad, to frequent their camps and take part in their plans, he or she can’t expect their citizenship to work as a magic shield,” said another U.S. official. “If you join the enemy, you join your fate to his.”
The complications surrounding Awlaki’s case provide a rare window into the highly secretive process by which the CIA selects targets.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to comment, saying that it is “remarkably foolish in a war of this kind to discuss publicly procedures used to identify the enemy, an enemy who wears no uniform and relies heavily on stealth and deception.”
Other current and former U.S. officials agreed to discuss the outlines of the CIA’s target selection procedures on the condition of anonymity because of their sensitive nature. Some wanted to defend a program that critics have accused of causing unnecessary civilian casualties.
Decisions to add names to the CIA target list are “all reviewed carefully, not just by policy people but by attorneys,” said the second U.S. official. “Principles like necessity, proportionality, and the minimization of collateral damage — to persons and property — always apply.”
I have remembered the password to my forum now.
arsalan,
I forgot to bookmark – what is the forum URL again?
The link to Anwar al Awlaki
http://tinyurl.com/CIA-cross-hairs
unite.iwannaforum.com
Clark,’this has to be approached constituency by constituency. Anti-war voters have to vote for whichever anti-war candidate stands the best chance of being elected. In certain constituencies, this will be the Labour candidate.
The third, fourth and lesser parties should really be thinking of standing aside and fielding just one candidate between them, to best oppose the supporters of war.
If you can find a single Labour MP that agrees to defy a three line whip and vote against any future war conducted by his party, then you are right.
This is not the time to throw lesser parties into working together, they should have done this by now, but, we both know that politics are conducted in a bipartisan way, that the system doe not allow for a fair vote, so to demand union between lesser parties is quiet a hurdle to put into voters way.
Ideally I would like to see the Lib Dems and Greens presenting us with a real third choice, but because of the FPTP system, their past animosities at local level, some petty reasons really, both parties feel they cannot act up to their PR policies or show us what they mean by coalition building.
Still a vote for the Lib Dems, where they are the only real opposition to the Tories, should result in a lesser chance of us going to war with Iran.
Were there is no choice, because the ‘lesser parties, as you call them, cannot afford to field a candidate, we will be given the main parties a leg up.
As for todays Claire Short evidence, she has made it perfectly clear that the cabinet under Tony Blair was merely rubberstamping and nodding to his dictatorial agenda. She did well to question the legal advise sought from America, when the FCO is full of excellent lawyers, I’m also glad that some one is stressing to get Blair into the Hague.
China has shown great strength in resisting war and sanctions…
http://tinyurl.com/plastic-ducks
Please inwardly digest.
Anyone watch Clare Short slamming Blair, Goldsmith, et al? She doesn’t put a tooth in it. I feel much the same about her as I do about Galloway — whether or not one agrees with their views, I admire their guts in taking on the establishment in the straight-talking way that they do. She has bluntly accused Blair of being a liar.
“She has bluntly accused Blair of being a liar” (me)
among many other things she said this morning at Chilcot.
ingo
Sound advice, I understand now I only offered half a picture when I spoke of LibDems.
Dreoilin,
Good-afternoon
Strength of integrity of a good woman?
Short’s appearance at the Chilcot inquiry, gives us a flavour, a view behind the facade of cabinet government; and it’s not a pretty sight.
Blair treated the cabinet in much the same way he treated the inquiry when he appeared before it. He totally dominated it, and had close to contempt for anyone who dared to oppose him.
The problem with wanting to oppose Blair from inside the cabinet was that the Westminster system has developed mechanisms for denying access to top positions to the kind of person who would have the will, stength, and ability, to oppose a rogue Prime Minister determined to get his way on an issue like going to war, in the atmosphere of war-hysteria that ruled.
Parliament has become a mere rubber stamp, and is totally dominated by the executive, and in our day the PM in his role as de facto dictator.
Today we don’t really have a parliamentary system anymore, we don’t even have cabinet government. We have a system which has become closer to presidential, yet arguably the British PM has more real power than the US President domestically. Increasingly, over time, and especially over the last thirty years, the role of the PM has changed into that of a monarch.
“Blair Getting Away With Murder”
http://tinyurl.com/yfvlyzq
Ken Livingstone has just said, “Don’t judge a man by the affairs he had, Robin Cook had an affair and condemned the Iraq war, Tony Blair did not and murdered 600,000 Iraqis.
I’m not so sure, there is no evedence that he didn’t have an affair?
True, there is this in the ‘Rumormill’ remember; Scandal or heresay?
http://tinyurl.com/Blair-rumours
The bounty (one quarter of the total pot at the time of application) can be claimed by anyone who meets the following conditions:
1. He or she attempts a citizen’s arrest of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair.
2. The attempt is non-violent and causes no injury to Mr Blair or those around him.
3. The attempt is reported in at least one mainstream media outlet in a bulletin, programme or article (ie not just a comment thread). The judgement of what is mainstream is at the discretion of those running this site. The purpose of this condition is to ensure that the attempted arrest has political consequences. Links to the report(s) must be sent with the application for the award.
4. The claimant provides proof that he or she is the person mentioned in the report(s).
5. The claimant applies for the award within 28 days of the attempt.
6. If several people are involved in a single arrest attempt, one quarter of the total pot will be shared between them.
7. The bounty is not payable to friends, family or colleagues of the founder of this site.
The decision of those running this site is final.
Though this is not a condition, anyone attempting an arrest of Tony Blair is encouraged to work with existing campaigns for international justice (you will soon find some on the links page) to help the public understanding of why this course of action is necessary. If the government of your country has not incorporated the crime against peace (or crime of aggression) into domestic law, you are also encouraged to campaign for it to do so.
Your attempt to arrest Mr Blair takes place at your own risk. But please follow the guidelines on this site to minimise the danger to yourself or anyone else.
http://www.arrestblair.org/performing-a-citizens-arrest
WRITERMAN ?” Just commenting on your quote “Today we don’t really have a parliamentary system anymore, we don’t even have cabinet government. We have a system which has become closer to presidential” I don’t think our system is either Presidential or Parliamentary, but the worst of both worlds. It is certainly not Presidential since the Prime Minister is not elected by the Country and is not subjected to the checks and balances that an independent Congress adds in the US.
Prominent journalist ANDREW COYNE writing in Macleans under the headline “CANADIAN DEMOCRACY is BROKEN’ said this ” The impotence of ordinary MPs, the irrelevance of Parliament, the near dictatorial powers of the Prime Minister: if we were writing about a Third World country with a system like ours, we would be careful to refer to the “largely ceremonial” Parliament and “sham” elections. Only force of habit prevents us from applying the same terms here.” If anything, the Westminster Parliament is even more of a sham than the Canadian one, since Canada at least has a written constitution. The issue described in my own WIKI more than supports the view that democracy in those countries is a myth; since there can be no democracy unless there is also Rule of Law.
Incidentally based on comments, including those on Craig’s blog, I HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY REVISED MY WIKI ?” Click on my signature to look at it. Chapter 1 now covers the whole issue in more readable detail (some of the changes have actually appeared here first as comments). Chapter 2 shows precedent of where zerzetsen has happened to others (there are lots of cases), and explains why zerzetsen (or zersetzung) is defined as a serious human rights abuse, and legally constitutes torture. Chapter 4 has been revised to more substantially show proof of the cover-up conspiracy.
But Writerman, one thing is certain ?” the issues of DEFAMATION, THREATS, HARASSMENT by MI5/6 and cover-Up that are described on my WIKI could not happen in an honest parliamentary democracy.
writerman
I don’t believe that Blair was on his own during this period. There was an alternative cabinet supporting him to aggression against Iraq.
Even the admirable Mark Golding posted the other day that the UK military effort was securing Pakistan’s nuclear facility, which could have come straight out of Blair’s mouth if he wasn’t so busy sweeping his war-crimes under the carpet. The UK government is generally pretty keen on looking after the UK’s interests at all costs. A nasty breed, which will never command popular respect again however much Gordon Brown shuffles the cards.
The contempt that the ever excellent Clare Short described, was the contempt of British governance in general for democratic opinion. The official advisors and the elected government were sufficiently jingoistic to give Blair the benefit of the doubt even though they expressed their reservations. We are not talking about a rogue Prime Minister but a weak Prime Minister having his arm very severely twisted by a warped establishment including the Zionist bankers who call the shots in the economy.
The credit crisis shows us that not only are the bankers sacred idols, but, I believe, active gods issuing orders in the corridors of power.
I thought Nick Griffin was Blairs bit on the side?
Was there a rumour that he was about to get a divorce so he could go in to a civil partnership with Griffin, but then he saw the light and became Catholic so now he can’t get divorced any more.
I lost a lot of respect, to hear her say it would be wrong and she’d resign if it happened, and then hear her say she’d changed her mind & would stay on, when it did. It must have been a difficult decision, right enough, but I felt let down by it. (One could imagine a whole chain – Blair claiming to have hung on to the USA in hopes of making it a bit less bad, Short hanging on to Blair ditto …)
But she was sounding good, what I’ve heard today.
A civil partnership with Nick Griffin? Good idea.
February 1, 2010
“Afghan “Geological Reserves Worth a Trillion Dollars”…
http://tinyurl.com/yzk2fdc
Richard,
Don’t be too hard on her. As a shrewd female, I believe the question of wrath lay within. Scores had to be settled no matter how much water went under the bridge. She is still fighting, still hanging on in there, despite the premature death of Robin, a bitter blow for her. Robin (I am repeating) told me “I have to get out of politics Mark – MY WIFE HAS WARNED ME,I must.” He indeed was a frightened man!
“Iraq Inquiry told Goldsmith misled Cabinet”…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQXerabg9Gw
Shit. That is terrifying. But was it said to mean that she was warning him that he’d become ill or that their relationship would suffer if he kept on in politics, or that he was in imminent danger? How did he say it to you – what was he implying?