The most revealing moment of the Iraq Inquiry so far – probably the most revealing moment we will ever get – occurred yesterday in the evidence of Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff. A stark sun ray of truth burst through for just a few seconds before the Committee allowed it to be closed over by the fog of chummy complicity that has characterised these evidence sessions.
Asked whether he agreed with Sir Jeremy Greenstock that more time for diplomacy would have been helpful before the invasion started. Powell bluntly disagreed. As there were in fact no Iraqi WMD, more time would have weakened, not strengthened the case for war. That would have been unhelpful.
WHAT?
Powell had just sliced clean through the mound of lies constructed by himself, Alistair Campbell and Sir David Manning (you can tell when Manning lies – his lips move). After a huge pile of verbiage claimimg that the War was only about WMD, Powell had just admitted that they were absolutely bent on war whether there were WMD or not – indeed WMD were a problem, as the lack of them weakened the case for war.
This is where any person of average intelligence on the committee would have siezed on what Powell had just said. He had just admitted they wanted war irrespective of whether Saddam might have any WMDs. But the committee failed completely to pick up on the point. They moved swiftly on. They allowed the clouds of obfuscation to roll swiftly back in.
That is because the entire committee at abse agree with Powell. They accept the premiss that the war was a good thing. The composition of the committee, entirely from known pro-war advocates, is a national disgrace.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/11/iraq_inquiry_th.html
That nobody should even put to Powell the thought that perhaps, as Iraq had no WMD, the war was not neceassary, is as revealing of the Committee’s guilt as it is of Powell’s. Similarly, Powell was permitted several times to refer to 9/11 as leading to the war in Iraq, without anybody on the Committee ever putting to him the lack of connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
No matter how stubborn the truth may be, it is not beyond the committee and the media to ignore it.
Which helps account for the quite astonishing fact that 32% of the electorate apparently think that Tony Blair genuinely believed in Iraqi WMD. It is a great pity that we don’t have any breakdown on the other social and political attitudes of these extraordinary people.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ibGYwlSSoYuPSO7_qBm54sKjWvYQ
I am going to spend the next few weeks sitting on the tube wondering which third of the passengers is dull enough to buy that.
Powell, meantime, appears to have taken lessons from that other war criminal, Radzvan Karadzic, on image makeover.
@ Chris Dooley
Knowing the shit bLiar, he would have said “Hail ON Mary” and justified that by pretended Mary had wmd concealed in her tunic and met with the Sicarii in Jerusalem.
Tony and others,
Thanks for the feedback. I’d forgotten about Wilmshurst. I wonder if she’ll be called by the Chilcot enquiry?
Any half-decent QC would use her statements to pry open the shield wall of lies the central conspirators have constructed to protect themselves from attack, only getting anyone close enough to ask the proper questions seems impossible, so instead we have the Chilcot diversion, designed to manage the damage, and delay real enquiry in the hope that the public will eventually tire of the whole affair.
and tiring they are, afterall, for most of them it wasn’t their kids that were burned to a crisp so why boother huh? Welcome to the 21st century.
Angrysoba,
my question was rhetorical, and had the desired effect.
Wilmshurt is being called.
dreolin & everyone interested in Haiti, good informative Mark Steel piece, though very sad:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-consider-the-risks-before-you-send-your-cash-to-haiti-1873076.html
Also on Haiti,
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/01/there-are-no-security-issues.html
I don’t think I know enough at this stage to have an independent opinion (apart that it looks like the same set of issues that raised their ugly heads over hurricane Katrina in New Orleans), but at least he gives references.
“I don’t think I know enough at this stage to have an independent opinion (apart that it looks like the same set of issues that raised their ugly heads over hurricane Katrina in New Orleans), but at least he gives references.”
I don’t know about that.
In New Orleans the issue was that Bush was too slow off the mark and didn’t send the troops in quick enough.
This time around the armchair pundits are suspicious that Obama has been too quick to send the troops in.
Nothing will please some people.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34949077/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/19/haiti-earthquake-un-extra-troops
“Nothing will please some people.”
Did you read the link ? I meant the stuff about some people going ‘Violence! Chaos! Looting!” and other people going “But we’re here, and it isn’t like that”.
correction:
They NEVER thought these “background” issues (the WMD’s) would actually get so much focus and so the stories surrounding them were sloppy and flawed.
@angrysoba: “This time around the armchair pundits are suspicious that Obama has been too quick to send the troops in.”
But with a track record like the USA’s it’s easy to understand why people should be suspicious.
Look what the murdering tricksters did to Panama:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-446387292666223710#
I think the 32% might not be entirely wrong. Tony Blair was certainly lying and probably knew he was lying, but to be a really convincing liar requires ‘internalising the lie’ or believing it yourself – and i think (though obviously i can’t prove it) that Tony Blair is good at convincing himself that whatever is most expedient is what’s morally right and whatever it’s most expedient for him to believe is the truth. So he convinced himself his lies were the truth so he could suck up to whoever was in the White House at the time.
I’m not saying that makes it better – he’s the worst kind of person to have as Prime Minister (though i don’t even think any single person should ever have all the powers a Prime Minister has – it should be divided among a cabinet of all parties and none or parliament as a whole)
January 21, 2010
“A Haiti Disaster Relief Scenario Was Envisaged by the US Military One Day Before the Earthquake”
by Michel Chossudovsky…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17122
George,
Thank you for point out that:
1) Coincidences occur once in a while; and
2) The U.S. military cares about the world.
@Larry: “Coincidences occur once in a while”
Yes, and sometimes a great number of them occur in a very short while.
“The French minister in charge of humanitarian relief called on the UN to “clarify” the American role amid claims the military build up was hampering aid efforts.”…
http://tinyurl.com/y8e7ka2
“U.S. Using Relief Mission As Pretext to Occupy Haiti”…
tinyurl.com/ycgsepu
22 January 2010
“Haitians dying by the thousands as US escalates military intervention”…
http://tinyurl.com/ya5nf8w
“This Is a Must See!! US Contractors sent to Haiti to Kill Cvilians After Earthquake!!”…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycLVYtRRxjA