Blix On Blair

Hans Blix, the weapons inspector chief humiliated by Blair and Bush in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, gives his view (largely implicitly) on Blair's pretty chilling Chilcot grilling, during which he heavily hinted that not-only would he do it again in Iraq, with or without the WMD lies, but that he would have followed it up with an attack on Iran. While I don't agree with some of Blix's views, particularly on what I regard as Israel's entirely understandable - and genuine - security fears, he talks a heck of a lot of sense about the folly of taking on Iran without international agreement and a bloody good reason (an example of which certainly does not exist, at least yet). He also gives the lie to Blair's 2010 counterfactual pseudo-justification for the Iraq war, namely, that had there been no war then Saddam would now be locked in an arms race with Iran and Israel. Iraq would be as crippled now under Saddam as it was in 2003, Blix suggests. In other words, Blair was talking through an alternative orifice to his cakehole.

As for his point about a nuclear-armed Iran. Tell you what, I think he's right. Iran with nukes would certainly be extremely uncomfortable, but the fact remains that with the responsibility that comes with possession of the Bomb comes a sea-change in national outlook and identity. Using it as an aggressive weapon is literally suicide, given the guaranteed swiftness and totally devastating response to such a crime. Blix implies that not even the current regime in Iran is that crazy, for all its wild words and posturing. And I agree, mainly because he's probably right, but partly because just hearing a mollifying voice of reason after the endless propaganda and ignorant, one-eyed, 'blood price,' warmongering lunacy of liars like Blair is a hell of a relief.



You may disagree.

Yeah, Right

History's Most Honest Leaders

" I will fight corruption..."

"I will tell the truth at the Chilcot inquiry."

"I vill honour ze Munich Agreement with ze Pritishers"

Oh, and we mustn't forget the most compulsively honest man in the world, of course:

"It started in America..."

"We saved the world..."

"[fill in the blank - there's hundreds more to choose from]"

With men as honest as these, folks, you just know we're in safe hands.

Yeah. Right.

To Blair: How Much Money Have You Made Since You Were PM?

Kelvin Mackenzie was just asked on the Sky News paper review what question he wants to be put to Blair when he faces Chilcot. He was absolutely fuming - as I seem permanently to be these days when it comes to Liebour generally - and came up with a real doozy. He said he wanted to cut through all the non-oath, lawyerless BS and get to heart of things. The question, he said, should be: "How much money have you [Blair] made since you were Prime Minister?"

Last thing I read about this, it was something like £15 million - and still rapidly rising (and it's a figure that doesn't take into account his various nefarious business arrangements or his truly massive international property portfolio). He's the wealthiest ex-PM in modern history and he made that money simply because he fooled enough people into voting for him - three times. Exploitation of office? Personal agendas? Utter corruption? You get it all with Tony Blair - and all who supported (and still support) him. Alastair "David Kelly" Campbell, for one.

But Blair's clearly been well-rewarded for being Bush's Wormtongue. Lying to the British people and to parliament about some mythical need for "regime change" in Iraq was all he had to do. And he went about the task with truly nauseating alacrity.

Whatever millions Blair, in his insatiable greed, has scammed since being pushed out by his even-worse, long-term rival, Brown, every single penny of it is blood money. And the blood is the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and hundreds of brave British soldiers. All sacrificed on the altar of an evil Labour leader's vanity, greed and megalomania. (With Brown, of course, I suppose you can omit the greed, but not the vanity and megalomania.) But, as a Conservative-voting relative of mine said to me just the other day, "It's really very simple...Blair is a war criminal."

The other upshot is that not-only Blair, but the entire rotten edifice that is the Labour party must never, ever be let off the hook for this terrible evil that their leader(s) perpetrated, and virtually all of them went along with. All the way to the first bombing raid and beyond.

It won't be forgotten or forgiven by an abused, humiliated and exploited British people for decades to come, that's for certain. And rightly so.

Arrest Blair

His many crimes, committed while he held office, are finally beginning to emerge. And they are most definitely crimes (in the sense that, you know, he broke the law, right - so, hey, he's not actually a pretty straight kind of guy after all. Right). But hang on, if they are crimes, and crimes they are, then arrest the shit, right?

Anyway, this dynamite litany of Blairite deceit will be revealed in tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph so people can then make their own minds up about whether we've been led by crooks, incompetents and liars for the past 13 years (or not).

On the eve of the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath, The Sunday Telegraph has obtained hundreds of pages of secret Government reports on “lessons learnt” which shed new light on “significant shortcomings” at all levels.

They include full transcripts of extraordinarily frank classified interviews in which British Army commanders vent their frustration and anger with ministers and Whitehall officials.

The reports disclose that:

Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change” and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002.

The need to conceal this from Parliament and all but “very small numbers” of officials “constrained” the planning process. The result was a “rushed”operation “lacking in coherence and resources” which caused “significant risk” to troops and “critical failure” in the post-war period.

Operations were so under-resourced that some troops went into action with only five bullets each. Others had to deploy to war on civilian airlines, taking their equipment as hand luggage. Some troops had weapons confiscated by airport security.

Commanders reported that the Army’s main radio system “tended to drop out at around noon each day because of the heat”. One described the supply chain as “absolutely appalling”, saying: “I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert.”

The Foreign Office unit to plan for postwar Iraq was set up only in late February, 2003, three weeks before the war started.

The plans “contained no detail once Baghdad had fallen”, causing a “notable loss of momentum” which was exploited by insurgents. Field commanders raged at Whitehall’s “appalling” and “horrifying” lack of support for reconstruction, with one top officer saying that the Government “missed a golden opportunity” to win Iraqi support. Another commander said: “It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves.”

The documents emerge two days before public hearings begin in the Iraq Inquiry, the tribunal appointed under Sir John Chilcot, a former Whitehall civil servant, to “identify lessons that can be learnt from the Iraq conflict”.

Senior military officers and relatives of the dead have warned Sir John against a “whitewash”.

The documents consist of dozens of “post-operational reports” written by commanders at all levels, plus two sharply-worded “overall lessons learnt” papers – on the war phase and on the occupation – compiled by the Army centrally.

The analysis of the war phase describes it as a “significant military success” but one achieved against a “third-rate army”. It identifies a long list of “significant” weaknesses and notes: “A more capable enemy would probably have punished these shortcomings severely.”

The analysis of the occupation describes British reconstruction plans as “nugatory” and “hopelessly optimistic”.

It says that coalition forces were “ill-prepared and equipped to deal with the problems in the first 100 days” of the occupation, which turned out to be “the defining stage of the campaign”. It condemns the almost complete absence of contingency planning as a potential breach of Geneva Convention obligations to safeguard civilians.

The leaked documents bring into question statements that Mr Blair made to Parliament in the build up to the invasion. On July 16 2002, amid growing media speculation about Britain’s future role in Iraq, Mr Blair was asked: “Are we then preparing for possible military action in Iraq?” He replied: “No.”

Introducing the now notorious dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, on Sept 24, 2002, Mr Blair told MPs: “In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options but, of course, it is important — should we get to that point — that we have the fullest possible discussion of those options.”

In fact, according to the documents, “formation-level planning for a [British] deployment [to Iraq] took place from February 2002”.

The documents also quote Maj Gen Graeme Lamb, the director of special forces during the Iraq war, as saying: “I had been working the war up since early 2002.”

The leaked material also includes sheaves of classified verbatim transcripts of one-to-one interviews with commanders recently returned from Iraq – many critical of the Whitehall failings that were becoming clear. At least four commanders use the same word – “appalling” – to describe the performance of the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.

Documents describe the “inability to restore security early during the occupation” as the “critical failure” of the deployment and attack the “absence of UK political direction” after the war ended.

One quotes a senior British officer as saying: “The UK Government, which spent millions of pounds on resourcing the security line of operations, spent virtually none on the economic one, on which security depended.”

Many of the documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph deal with key questions for Sir John Chilcot and his committee, such as whether planning was adequate, troops properly equipped and the occupation mishandled, and will almost certainly be seen by the inquiry.

However, it is not clear whether they will be published by it.

It's the worst, most profligate, incompetent, deadly, destructive, arrogant and shameless government we've ever had inflicted upon us - and still the polls remain slightly volatile, nonetheless.

But not after this Iraq stuff fully comes out, though, so there's really no need to worry. Brown and Labour are still dead in the water. And Blair really should be arrested.

Curious Casualty

Bare-faced Liar-In-Chief in action

The first casualty of war is the truth, so the saying goes. That may be so, but now it seems the lies themselves, once the truth is KIA, can claim the odd victim, too, or so Sky News reported this morning...

A former spin doctor is to sue the Government, claiming years of being made to tell lies over the war in Iraq made him ill.

The press officer felt torn over the safety of the army's Snatch Land Rovers

John Salisbury-Baker was responsible for supporting dead soldiers' families, attending funerals and dealing with the media.

He claims holding back information about troops' safety led him to develop stress-related illnesses.

The 62-year-old is set to sue the MoD for disability discrimination.

While working at Imphal Barracks in York he told the media army vehicles such as Snatch Land Rovers could withstand roadside bombs.

He then "felt responsible in some way" when soldiers were killed, his partner Christine Brooke said.

She explained: "It goes back to the fact he felt torn because he had a moral dilemma based on the fact he knew a little bit more about the situation than the people he was dealing with whose sons had died."

Ms Brooke added: "We're all aware that some of the personal protection equipment wasn't of as good quality as it might have been and there were things missing, I think that's sort of common knowledge, but perhaps the families weren't as aware.

"John felt that he was holding back, being frugal with the truth.

"I think it's caught up with him really, it pushed him over the edge as far as his levels of stress were concerned."

Mr Salisbury-Baker was diagnosed with stress-related angina in 2007 and PTSD a year later.

But while Salisbury-Baker fights for his compensation for the 'damage' to his mental health being a mouthpiece for Labour's endless lies about our troops' equipment he claims has caused (yes, mate, it's called a guilty conscience), the lies go on and the troops keep dying, as umpteen reports and blog entries have shown just today. Here, for instance.

For myself, I would simply point out that if this bloke knew he was telling lies on behalf of a government hell-bent on keeping the truth about their incompetence from the nation when he was in post, and if he knew our troops were dying as a direct consequence of that government incompetence, then he should have had the courage to speak out about it in public at the time. That he didn't says as much about him as the lies themselves speak volumes about this Labour government (under both lying leaders, Blair and Brown).

He's a coward, isn't he? Yes, more or less. So it's pretty straightforward really: set aside the money he would be awarded if (ridiculously) he won his case for the genuinely wounded and the families of the war dead. After all, his willing dissemination of Labour's lies contributed to their plight, whether he liked it or not.

I wonder if Labour cabinet ministers will be trying-on the same scam once they're out of a job next summer. I wouldn't put it past them.

Blair Running Scared

The Observer's just broken this pretty shocking story. What's the real reason for Brown opting for a secret Iraq whitewash inquiry? Is it that Brown has something to hide himself? Probably, but no, not quite that. Is it because there was pressure brought to bear by a US government keen not to reopen old wounds? Absolutely not.

The real reason for the secret inquiry is that Brown did a deal with - guess who - Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. According to the Observer:

Tony Blair urged Gordon Brown to hold the independent inquiry into the Iraq war in secret because he feared that he would be subjected to a "show trial" if it were opened to the public, the Observer can reveal.

The revelation that the former prime minister, who led the country to war in March 2003, had intervened will fuel the anger of MPs, peers, military leaders and former civil servants, who were appalled by Brown's decision last week to order the investigation to be conducted behind closed doors.

Blair, who resisted pressure for a full public inquiry while he was prime minister, appears to have taken a deliberate decision not to express his view in person to Brown because he feared it might leak out.

Instead, messages were relayed through others to Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, who conveyed them to the prime minister in the days leading up to last week's inquiry announcement.

The other parties are already up in arms about this, and Nick Clegg's reaction was pretty blunt:

"If this is true about Blair demanding secrecy, it is simply outrageous that an inquiry into the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez is being muzzled to suit the individual needs of the man who took us to war - Tony Blair."

Quite. It's another stitch-up from beginning to end. Just like the referendum on Europe, out-of-control public finances as Brown tries to buy himself a general election, the expenses scandal and a whole clutch of others. I suppose we should not expect anything more from the most corrupt and incompetent government in the history of Britain.

The Tories offer a faint glimmer of hope, though, as they have 'threatened' to widen the scope of the inquiry if Brown doesn't immediately perform an about-face. Good for them.

But Brown. Ah, Brown. Lying once again to House of Commons. Doing shady deals with his nemesis. Spinning his way into another media disaster. What a numpty.

"Security" was his excuse for holding a secret investigation, with no powers of subpoena and no witness oath, with a panel tainted by previous inquiries and a report delayed for a year. Well, people, now we know the real reason: one more small favour for his predecessor; one more giant insult to the people of the United Kingdom. Mind you, I doubt he did it willingly. Brown thought he had finally killed-off Blair once he'd knifed him in the back and stolen his crown. But it's never that easy with regicide. Ask Menzies Campbell.

As the only suitable role model for Brown I can think of would say:

The time has been,
That when the brains were out the man would die,
And there an end; but now they rise again,
With twenty mortal murders on their crowns,
And push us from our stools.

Blair's ghost has returned to haunt the usurper, mad McBrown. Seriously, though, just when you think this government cannot get any worse, something like this pops up. Incredible. Surreal.

Sickening.

Hutton II

The Grauniad's chief 'security' correspondant, Richard Norton-Taylor has written a thoughtful piece on the subject of Brown's latest attempt to pour oil on the turbulent water that is the Labour Party just now. After the announcement of a 'review' of the planned Post Office privatisation (designed to appease the Left) and Sunday's preparation for a U-turn on ID cards (designed to appease just about everyone in the country) we now have another half-baked policy shift, this time on Iraq. With the latter, though, it appears Brown has completely, rather than only partically, miscalculated public anger. Iraq is not Mandy's Mail or the no-brainer that is "NO2ID". Iraq was a terrible business, shady and perverse, organised by people who would go to any lengths to create the conflict and motivated by a combination of personal vengeance (on the part of Bush and his political allies) and utter, brainless, deadly vanity (on the part of Blair and his).

Norton-Taylor voices the scepticism any sane person will feel about Brown's latest volte-face this time on the subject of a new inquiry into Britain's worst war.

There really is no legitimate reason now for any of the inquiry into the invasion of Iraq to be held in private. Extremely sensitive information, intelligence material in particular, has already been disclosed, either here or in the US, by official inquiries or leaks.

The reason why the government wants it to be held behind closed doors – a weapon allowing Whitehall to control proceedings – is to enable it to protect itself, and individuals, from embarrassment. To drive home the point, the members of the inquiry, led by Sir John Chilcot, the epitome of a Whitehall mandarin, will be made privy counsellors, told to swear an ancient oath of secrecy.

We already know a great deal about how the Iraqi banned weapons dossier was manipulated by Whitehall officials and intelligence chiefs, at the behest of their political masters – most notably, Tony Blair. We know from a leaked Dowing Street memo, marked " secret and strictly personal – UK eyes only", that, at a meeting Blair chaired on 23 July 2002, nearly a year before the invasion, Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, warned that in Washington "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"; and Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, said "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action ... But the case was thin."

Lord Butler told the Guardian that his committee set up to investigate the use and abuse of intelligence in the build-up to the invasion had seen the document. He said his report did not refer to its contents on the grounds that they related to US use of intelligence, which was outside his terms of reference. The explanation is one reason why a fresh inquiry needs to be held in public. That Chilcot himself sat on the Butler committee hardly inspires confidence that this new inquiry will be any more penetrating.

Other leaked documents, which we can assume were also seen by Butler, include a letter in March 2002 from David Manning, then Blair's foreign policy adviser. He told Blair that he said to Condoleezza Rice: "You would not budge in your support for regime change [an objective Blair was advised was unlawful] but you had to manage a press, a parliament, and a public opinion which is very different than anything in the States". A few days later, Sir Christopher Meyer, our ambassador in Washington at the time, told Manning of the need to "wrongfoot Saddam on the [UN] inspectors".

The 23 July 2002 document also revealed that ministers were warned by their officials and the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, that an invasion to topple Saddam would be unlawful. Goldsmith eventually advised that invasion was lawful by reinterpreting an entirely different set of circumstances – namely, the scope of past UN security council resolutions.

We have a good idea through leaked documents that Blair made it pretty clear to Bush two years before the invasion that he would commit UK troops. We know, because senior MoD officials have admitted it, that equipment for British troops was ordered late because ministers did not want to suggest to MPs or the public they had decided to go to war months before the March 2003 invasion.

We know from leaked documents that some ministers warned Blair of the need to prepare for the consequences of an invasion. The warnings were ignored because Whitehall, and the Foreign Office in particular, did not have the stomach to take on the US. To prepare adequately for occupation of a foreign country is a duty imposed by the Geneva Conventions. Senior military officials have suggested Blair, and others, could be prosecuted for war crimes on this ground alone.

These are very serious issues to which answers have not been given by those, ministers and officials alike, directly involved. Senior diplomats and security and intelligence officers were deeply opposed to the invasion. This should been their opportunity to speak publicly for the first time. Alas, it will not be.

Brown's and Labour's motives for all these ridiculous policy shifts are eminently evident. There isn't a principle in sight. These are all sops to a variety of troublesome constituencies, such as the Left of their party. But this latest whitewash inquiry is the most cynical of the three. As Norton-Taylor says, all the civil servant yes-men will be made privy councillors (effectively members of the judiciary) and will have to swear an "ancient oath". But he omits to mention who the President of Privy Council now is, as of June 5th 2009. Yup, folks, it's the Prince of Darkness himself, Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham. He is now in charge of an inquiry into a war for which he almost certainly helped to lay the political groundwork and then build a huge patio of lies and spin on top of it.

You can just imagine the scenes in Downing Street last week: "It's alright, Gordon. Don't worry about Iraq. Just make me head of the judiciary and I'll handle it. We'll make it secret and tell them it's a national security matter. It won't report until after the election anyway so we're in the clear." That's how powerful the unelected have become now that Brown (unelected-in-chief) has finally bust not only our economy, but our democracy too.

"Hutton II" will be an even bigger stitch-up than Hutton I and Butler put together. Yet another terrible, terrible day for Britain. I'm sorry to say that I have no confidence David Cameron will nail Brown for this latest travesty. So, the abuse goes on.

Iraq Inquiry: Whitewash Part 74

As far as I can tell from Brown's gabbled statement to the House of Commons right now, the latest Labour-inspired pseudo-inquiry into the Iraq war will cover the entire occupation, so its terms are so wide it will have no real focus. It will be secret so no one will know who testifies or what they actually say. It will take over a year for it report (the Franks inquiry only took six months). There will be no political representation, so, as Brown puts it, it will not be permitted to 'apportion blame'. So Tony Blair will once more will not be held to account for lying to the House. And so it goes on. As Cameron put it a few moments ago, it's just another Establishment stitch-up.

Sorry, none of this is good enough.

It's not good enough that it is to be held in secret. It's not good enough that it will not include senior politicians from all parties (this is a democracy, isn't it?). It's not good enough that no one will know who testifies to what. It's not good enough that no blame will be apportioned for what was, after all, a war fought on the basis of a lie. It's not good enough that Brown has dodged the issue once more by making sure this inquiry will take so long, over a year will pass and there will be a general election before it reports.

This is a just another bit of expensive, lousy, fake 'lesson learning' (whitewashing) by Labour's lying leadership and, as such, is yet another insult to the Armed Forces. Members of the inquiry board will be hand-picked by Brown and, as Clegg has just said, it will not be held in secret to protect British security, it will be held in secret to protect Blair's, and therefore Brown's, reputation. Clegg's right: only a public inquiry can heal the wounds to our democracy and to the reputation of our Armed Forces inflicted by Blair's terrible, vain, arrogant decision to take us into a war of aggression on the basis of untruths and without the slightest provocation from the 'enemy'.

But what do we get from Brown? More stinking politics from Britain's most stinking politician.