Have you ever wondered why Blair Howard and Bush have ALL written their "autobiography"?... One could suspect a collusion. And there is. It is a well orchestrated way to frame the debate about the Iraq war in a sea of other titillating subjects — including the foetus of George W Bush's unborn sibling his mother kept in a pickle jar or the sexual celebration of Blair's political victory, with Cherie. Like in a well tuned orchestra, Blair, Howard and Bush, all play an Iraq tune, with counterpoints and slightly different notes BUT IN HARMONY... The theme tune of the song is that "Saddam deserved to be taken out" and the WORLD IS BETTER FOR IT. Conspiracy? You bet.

They have the knack to absolved themselves from the most heinous crime: an illegal war... And the worst part is that the media at large is letting them get away with it...

So far I haven't seen any serious journalists  — even the small gang of renegades, Fisk, Loyd, Pilger, whose works are sharp but not penetrating the main media stream and even Gore Vidal — explain like I have done here that the way the US, the UK and Australia attacked Iraq indicates that the weapons of mass destruction was a crock. My major premise as mentioned several times on this site, is that one does not attack a country that one claims to have strong armament when one knows zip about the position of such strong armament...

We also knew that Bush, Blair and Howard were lying before going to war against Iraq. The difficult part is to irrefutably prove this fact with proper DOCUMENTATION, and second, our debate "has been (still is)" framed by the mantra that Saddam was not a very nice fellow and that "we should be grateful" that Bush, Blair and Howard took him out.

Bollocks. The act is a war crime.

This was a very serious act. Many people died. A country got destroyed. Many people got exiled. For no other main reason than "for the oil" and a "we did not like the guy" whim. Super crock. Bush, Blair and Howard should be in the gallows.

Iraq was a sovereign country. There are very strong rules and regulations in regard to the "legality" of war. In the eyes of the United Nations, the war against Iraq was illegal — and was NEVER SANCTIONED. The war was never approved as a UN operation, even if some countries were swayed by the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction supplied by the US. It was never sanctioned even if some Lord Whatisname in the UK gave a "legal" document to Blair who asked for one as he knew he was treading on very thin ice. The "facts" of weapons of mass destruction having been amassed by Saddam and the dangers these presented to the world did not stack up at any stage. There were never any facts, just conjecture and hear-say. On this alone, the war was illegal.

First, Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors could not find any weapons of mass destruction. Despite following the "detailed" CIA instructions as to where these where, the inspectors saw NOTHING, nothing even remotely like WMDs. Some of the CIA maps were deliberately badly drawn. The lack of success by Blix and his team was dismissed by the US with the explanation that Saddam kept moving the WMDs around or that they were very well hidden. Thus at any one time, the US "intelligence" had no idea where these weapons were — if these really existed.

Saddam did not want war, thus he had released to the United nations a full dossier (10,000+ pages) on the elimination of his WMDs in 1991 and wanted Blix to carry on inspecting ANYWHERE Blix wanted to go and prove he, Saddam, did not have any weapons of mass destruction. Blix asked for an extra six months of inspection since Saddam had been more co-operative — a request which was denied by the US as the US wanted to attack Iraq before the summer kicked in, but in reality the US told Blix and his inspectors to get out of Iraq because the US did not want Blix to find "nothing anywhere" — because this would have proven that the US intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was a total crock. The US wanted war.

The French and the Germans knew it was a crock. They knew Saddam had nothing for them to worry about. The reality too was that Bush, Blair and Howard knew Saddam had nothing for them to worry as well. But they had to make the story stick to frighten the masses of stupid people out there: us. THEY WANTED WAR. When Colin Powell did his PowerPoint presentation at the United Nations, the French (they were laughing) and the Germans had to guess that either Powell was stupid by not knowing he had been given bullshit evidence by his "intelligence" outfits or that he was in collusion with them by deliberately promoting bullshit as evidence. Any serious analyst of "deception" could have picked that what Powell was dishing out was bullshit.

Blair's bluff got nearly unravelled with the David Kelly affair. David was about to expose (he had made some tentative noise about this but a journalist too eager for sensationalism exposed him too soon) that, in his field of expertise, Saddam DID NOT have any chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. David HAD THE PROOF. This proof was going against the "sexed-up dossier" that Blair was collecting against Saddam. So, David Kelly was "intimidated" (taken to court), "dismissed" (belittled as not knowing what he was talking about) then "eliminated" (even if David committed suicide, which is highly unlikely, he would have been subjected to very covert powerful psychological manipulations) so no proof against the "sexed-up" dossiers could be ever be considered properly. And Blair-the-liar could get away with saying that the dossier was not "sexed-up" in a very convincing manner only professional sociopath liars can get away with. (see double crossed)

Bush's bluff got nearly unravelled by the Valerie Plame affair. Her diplomat husband had discovered that documents used by the US government, to "prove" that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons, were fakes... She was exposed as a CIA agent by the said government as pay-back. That secondary event distracted the media away from the main game: in order to promote war, the US government was using fake documents — which the CIA and other spy agencies "had not found out they were fakes" — proving only three things: either the CIA and other agencies were STUPID OR they knew the documents were fakes but went along with them to promote the government's case OR they had created the fake documents in the first place. Either way, even before going to war, the "evidence" was that flimsy.

In Australia, Andrew Wilkie, a senior analyst at the ONA, was less than impressed with the "evidence". A career officer, he could see that most if not all "evidence" showed not a bit of evidence and only relied on HEAR-SAY from Iraqi "defectors" who were being coaxed and paid into saying what the governments of the US, UK and Australia wanted to hear. Most of these "defectors" were in the network of Ahmed Challabi, an exiled Iraqi, who was PAID $US350,000 per MONTH by the CIA for his good work of providing "defectors" who would say "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, BUT PROVIDED NO real PROOFS, no hard evidence of the WMDs (some provided "plans" but a solid analysis of these plans would have proven they were crap, old or fabricated for deception)... Some of these "defectors" were offered as "exclusive interviews" to a "naive" — mostly eager for war — media, via CIA's "front-shops". Often the journalists would have been cherry picked, even chosen for their anti-war attitude (in a media generally eager for war), so that the message would crush (or seed doubts in) this possible opposition to war. All cleverly done. Andrew Wilkie resigned and spilled as much of the beans as he could — placing his life on the line — revelations to which the Howard government dismissed him as a second rate underling with no access to the FULL PICTURE of intelligence. See how it's done? Wilkie was belittled into the ground. Had he revealed anymore, he would have spend the rest of his days in a prison for treason under the official secrets act.

When the "weapons of mass destruction" mantra started to loose a bit of traction, the conspirators added the new mantra of "regime change". A bit more sauce on the pie so to speak... That in itself is a no-no in the United Nations charter. That is fully illegal under international law and is punishable with 'war crimes" offence.

So how all this fudge came to be acted upon?

With 14 intelligence agencies, 175 governmental spy satellites and 88 "privately operated" spy satellites (citation to come), the US alone had an intelligence gathering facility of enormous clout. How could thereafter the invasion of Iraq and discover there was no weapons of mass destruction there, the US government blame this enormous "intelligence" apparatus for the complete failure? How can we be led to believe this massive "failure"? Such failure is not believable.

Any "intelligence" agency worth its salt is trained in the art of deception. That is the name of the game. Deception is their profession, whether in the analysis or the creation of. These agencies are geared to smell porkies 350 kilometres from above the earth. They are trained to flush a rat out of a sewer from 15,000 miles away. They have at least half a million of highly trained operatives with a skepticometer pushed to the max as not to be taken for fools... That one mistake is made is careless. That the "intelligence agencies" in three countries failed so miserably is a collusion of purpose. The brief from the US government was "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction — make it stick". They did, knowing well they were fudging beyond credibility.

One has to revisit these times in 2002, when standing on the ruins of the twin towers, Bush claimed with virulence that: "We will prove Saddam's guilt!". This of course was part of an orchestrated plot to claim that Saddam was involved in 9-11 — the destruction of the twin towers in New York and was friendly with Al Qaeda. Of course, while keeping a straight poker face, John Howard, tells us in his "memoirs" that Bush never claimed that Saddam was responsible for it. Bollocks! I have the front page of a reputable newspaper with the incriminating speech by Bush —also linking Saddam with Al Qaeda. Was Howard living on a different planet??? That is the kind of counterpoint that gives the other conspirators a bit of slack on the reality — all in order to sow doubt in our minds...

Nonetheless, the "anthrax affair" was also used by Bush to place more blame on Saddam while knowing within 24 hours that the strain of Anthrax came from US labs, not Saddam's labs. The investigation by the FBI led, several years later, to a lone weird guy who killed himself before the truth about the affair could come to light in court. How convenient. Although the FBI is nearly 90 per cent sure the fellow did it, there is no motive, nor reason for it to be done by him, especially in regard to provide an official tool for the government to link Saddam with 'evil" and terrorism... (see double crossed)

The last thing Saddam wanted was to promote terrorism on the US (or any other Western countries), as the US was his only safeguard against his "enemy" — Iran...

More to come... Please visit also double crossed... harlot's intelligence... and any other relevant posts on this important site.

------------------------

Note from double crossed:

A while after the beginning of the "war", Challabi was "tainted" by the CIA on false charges of fake currency dealing AND for "divulging sensitive information" to Iran (telling their codes had been broken by US intelligence —the Iranians knew that anyway but played along). In fact I believe the CIA was grooming him to become palatable in the eyes of the Shiite Iraqis so he could be elected to the Iraqi parliament and secretly carry on working for the US. The interesting factor here is that Challabi was tainted "TWICE" in order to reinforce his "liberation" from the exposed CIA clutches. To me it was a cheap trick. Sure, one needs more than one destructive aspect for a destructive attempt to be really successful. Striking from two directions at once, or in quick succession, is the way extinction works... Challabi's CIA's past was thus erased...

We have little chance of convincing enough "important" people in order for the UN to decide to charge Bush, Blair and Howard with war crimes. And the outcome may not be the one we wish for... "they could be exonerated... These three men are clever and sociopath enough to get away with it because the collusion was deep, very deep. To prove that they lied would involve exposing many CIA analysts and operatives, and wade through many complex legal arguments. More obvious criminals have escaped justice thus, especially when they are "powerful" and are well connected. Those who have supported them, would have to be charged as well as accessory to the facts... "Witnesses die". In the case of Bush, Blair and Howard, many witnesses have already died...
We cannot expect these former leaders to be repentant or to tell the truth anyway. They will lie till their grave and be lauded by many for what they say and did — despite being lies, lies, LIES and a useless war, as if lying and fighting like thugs were virtues. Their action stuffed up a country and there were other solutions to the problem they actually "invented" for a particular outcome: WAR.

So we have to live with these donkeys...

But we have to fight their exonerating lies.

We have to prevent the lies becoming legends or truths — or worse, historical facts, which these monkeys are trying hard to do in their fictitious memoirs on the subject...
Bush, Blair and Howard have to be exposed for what they are: ugly liars. Three world leaders who went to war under false pretences. We need to attack any journalist or publisher who gives any credence to these liars and their lies. We cannot allow Bush, Blair and Howard to carry on with lying as a way to absolve their sins. Not only they now lie about their lies, in their books, they want us to pay for the privilege of reading them lying to us again...
The duplicitous greedy bastards... Burn the books!

We need to convince at least some journalists, such as Laurie Oakes, those who claim to be serious journalists, to give up in believing these monkeys and say so openly: "you lied sir. YOU LIED, SIR!" and start doing a proper job: Investigative journalism... Dig deep, my friend, dig deep...

No more pandering, no more listening to the porkies... We need the truth. We need to throw shoes at them. They need to be in hiding... Then our memory of those who died, the 5,000 US soldiers and the hundred of thousand dead Iraqis can be laid in peace to rest. As well, those who have been maimed for life can become fiercely angry at these masters of deception and fudge...

We need to make sure they don't sleep at night anymore. Public exposure will be our weapon. Ridicule shall be thrown upon them and anyone with self-respect shall not buy their book of lies.

I believe one of the weak links in this conspiracy of lies is Dick Cheney. Dick was the conductor of the piece, while the composer was Paul Wolfowitz. But on his death bed, it's most likely that on his way to meet his maker, Dick, will demand a confessor to hear his sins in full... His lies and his actions that underpinned the lies of the "leaders", Bush, Blair and Howard.  He will spill the beans. He has too...
But then:
-----------------------
No criminal charges will be filed against CIA officials involved in destroying videotapes of harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects, the US justice department has said.

The CIA destroyed 92 tapes of al-Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Nashiri being waterboarded in 2005.

Jose Rodriguez, a former clandestine officer, approved the move out of concern the tapes could harm the CIA.

The investigation has spanned nearly three years.

Mr Rodriguez's order to destroy the tapes, which were held in a safe in a secret Thailand prison where the two al-Qaeda members were interrogated, countered instructions given to him by Central Intelligence Agency lawyers and the White House.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11723140

------------------

http://www.cageprisoners.com/learn-more/news/item/803-bush-says-waterboarding-saved-uk-lives

-----------------
See toon at top...

in Verbatim, SMH 13-14 November 2010
George W Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard were largely in lockstep during a decade of momentous world events...

On Iraq and WMD
Bush: The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false. No-one was more shocked or angry than I was when we did not find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

Howard: "After the regime was toppled I thought it would be only a matter of time before some WMDs were found. I had believe the intelligence which pointed overwhelmingly to Iraq possessing at least chemical and biological weapons. I and many others were disappointed."

Blair: "The intelligence on Saddam and WMD turned out to be incorrect. It is said — even if I have said — that how this came to be so remains a mystery. Why should Saddam keep the inspectors out for so long when he had nothing to hide?"

-------------------

Gus: THE LIARS... A Mystery???? More like a mastery... of deceit by Bush, Blair and Howard.

AS I HAVE MENTIONED ON THIS SITE MANY TIMES, THE US, THE UK AND AUSTRALIA WOULD NOT HAVE ATTACKED IRAQ, HAD IRAQ HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THE LOCATION OF WHICH WAS "UNKNOWN TO THE INVADING ARMIES".
The intelligence on Saddam's WMDs was deliberately flawed (concocted) to lead to WAR no matter what. Report on this WILL eventually emerge from the CIA, from Dick Cheney and from the US generals in charge of the invasion of Iraq. It is inconceivable that US generals (and UK and Aussie army chiefs) would send their troops into battle without knowing the full capability and deployment of the enemy's WMD — which was what the "intelligence" was suggesting: they had no idea of where these were... According to the "intelligence" Saddam had plenty of stockpiles of WMDs, but the "intelligence" could not find where these were "hidden". Had Saddam had "hidden" WMDs as inferred, US troops could not attack without loosing more than 15,000 personnel on the the first few days of invasion under a WMDs counter-attack. It's basic warfare 101. Loosing troops on such scale would have been an unacceptable catastrophic public relation disaster when "negotiations were still possible"... No-one, I repeat NO-ONE in their right mind, would have launched an offensive against Saddam without knowing he HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

Blair is talking TOTAL CRAP. In November 2002, Saddam gave carte blanche to the inspectors to find anything anywhere they wished. When Blix (the chief weapons inspector) was about to take the opportunity to inspect everywhere, the US STOPPED HIM DOING SO. THE US DID NOT WANT BLIX TO FIND NOTHING because that would have exposed the intelligence was "flawed" (concocted) BEFORE the attack on Iraq.

For our little Ratbag Rattus to say he was "like many others" disappointed is disingenuous to say the least. As usual, John Howard likes to associate himself with many others... Some of his favourite cons were to justify his gross ineptitude and lies by prefacing them with "everyone knows that..." when many knew to the contrary...

These three rat-bags are LIARS and the world should know that. They should be charged with war crimes. We cannot let them get away with murder. We cannot let them get away with the privilege of making us pay for perpetrating their lies in fake "memoirs" on this subject...

from wilipedia:

A study coauthored by the Center for Public Integrity found that in the two years after September 11, 2001 the president and top administration officials had made 935 false statements, in an orchestrated public relations campaign to galvanize public opinion for the war, and that the press was largely complicit in its uncritical coverage of the reasons adduced for going to war.[60][61] PBS commentator Bill Moyers had made similar points throughout the run up to the Iraq War, and prior to a national press conference on the Iraq War[22] Moyers correctly predicted "at least a dozen times during this press conference he [the President] will invoke 9/11 and Al Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America. But the White House press corps will ask no hard questions tonight about those claims."[62][63] Moyers later also denounced the complicity of the press in the administration's campaign for the war, saying that the media "surrendered its independence and skepticism to join with [the U.S.] government in marching to war," and that the administration "needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on."[63]

Police have been urged to start a murder inquiry into Dr David Kelly's death following further allegations that he did not commit suicide. Officers have been told the government scientist could not have taken an overdose of painkillers. This overdose was found by the original pathologist to be one of the causes of his death.

Dr Andrew Watt, an experienced clinical pharmacologist, says he has told Thames Valley Police it is not possible Dr Kelly could have swallowed more than a 'safe' dose of two coproxamol tablets because there was so little in his system after death....

Drug expert claims David Kelly was murdered as he could not have taken overdose

Agreed without acception. 

I quote your truth [with my suggested substitutes] which have been acknowledged even by the criminals Blair, Bush and Howard.

“AS I HAVE MENTIONED ON THIS SITE MANY TIMES, THE US, THE UK AND AUSTRALIA WOULD NOT HAVE ATTACKED IRAQ, HAD IRAQ HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THE LOCATION OF WHICH WAS "UNKNOWN TO THE INVADING ARMIES".

[Would this world of ours (or is it?) believe another such US/Zionist attack on false and concocted claims?]

The intelligence on Saddam's [IRAN’S] WMDs was deliberately flawed (concocted) to lead to WAR no matter what. Report on this WILL eventually emerge from the CIA, from Dick Cheney and from the US generals in charge of the invasion of Iraq. Let’s play substitutes….IRAN for Iraq…..

It is inconceivable that US generals (and UK and Aussie army chiefs) would send their troops into battle without knowing the full capability and deployment of the enemy's WMD — which was what the "intelligence" was suggesting: they had no idea of where these were... According to the "intelligence’ [IRAN] had plenty of stockpiles of WMDs, but the same "intelligence" could not find where these were "hidden".

Had (IRAN) "hidden" WMDs as inferred, US troops could not attack without loosing more than 15,000 personnel on the first few days of invasion under a WMDs counter-attack. It's basic warfare 101.

Loosing troops on such scale would have been an unacceptable catastrophic public relation disaster when "negotiations were still possible"... No-one - I repeat NO-ONE - in their right mind, would launch an offensive against [IRAN] without knowing whether or not it had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.  End of censored quote.

COMMENT: Or would they?  The Zionists have played the Nuclear “defence” card so many times to bluff; blackmail; invade; bomb; and commit many crimes against several nations without any retaliation, sanctions or resistance by the US/UN or the European Union.

If the principle above was applied equally to the situation in the Middle East, would the US stand by while the Zionists started a nuclear war by beginning an invasion against IRAN and the latter tried to defend itself with conventional weapons? 

Would the US take the “big stick” to the Zionists? And recover some dignity and pride in the so doing?  Or would they continue to back down and show the world who is really the Top Dog?  NE OUBLIE.

The Catholic Workers Movement is protesting against one of its own universities in Brisbane this morning.

They claim the appointment of Peter Cosgrove as Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University (ACU) is against the religion's morals and beliefs.

Spokesman Sean O'Reilly says as the former head of the Defence Force, General Cosgrove led troops into the Iraq war, but the Catholic Church was opposed to the conflict.

"He would have known quite well that the whole premise for invading Iraq - that there were weapons of mass destruction - was a lie," he said.

"So you know, he took our troops into a war that was immoral, illegal and had no support from his own church."

Another spokesman, Jim Dodrill, says the General ignored orders from churches in Australia and around the world.

"Pope John Paul II said that the war and attack or an invasion on Iraq was unjust, illegal and immoral," he said.

"Peter Cosgrove ignored those calls; he also ignored the warnings of international arms inspectors."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/28/3078564.htm?section=justin

Gordon Brown's Government secretly promised to limit the extent of the Iraq war inquiry to prevent damage to the United States, the leaked cables disclosed. The pledge – made last September as the Chilcot inquiry into the war started – threatens to damage the credibility of the investigation, which is due to report in the new year.

A message from Jon Day, then director-general for security at the Ministry of Defence, reassured American officials that "the UK had put measures in place to protect [US] interests during the UK inquiry into the causes of the Iraq war".

A separate document makes clear that Sir John Chilcot, who is chairing the investigation, felt his inquiries were being hampered. He expressed "frustration" that he was unable to refer to relevant documents during his questioning of Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General. British officials also warned the US there would be a "feeding frenzy" of interest in the UK about the inquiry, in contrast to the US, where the Iraq war was "no longer a major issue".

The disclosures will fuel charges that the inquiry, which has already heard evidence from Mr Brown and Tony Blair, is being constrained in its ability to gain the full intelligence picture. Originally, Mr Brown wanted the evidence to be heard in private, but he was forced to back down in the face of public and political anger. He had promised that the inquiry team would have full access to all the relevant intelligence material that did not jeopardise national security. But additional restrictions were imposed, including any disclosure of information that undermined Britain's economic interests.

There are also restrictions on data protection concerns, commercial sensitivities and fears that an individual's safety could be put in peril.

The move provoked fury, with Nick Clegg, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, claiming that the inquiry had been "gagged". In angry Commons clashes, the Liberal Democrat leader protested that the list of restrictions "outrageously gives Whitehall departments individual rights of veto".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-put-limits-on-iraq-inquiry-to-keep-the-us-happy-2148010.html

see image at top.

The cable concluded that because of "Brown's abysmal track record", Labour MPs seriously considered staging a coup.

In another memo dated March 3, 2008, Mr Tuttle suggested that Labour MPs sensed the party was "rudderless" following Mr Blair's departure.

"Even though Blair ended up unpopular, he was the sun around which the party orbited, and his speeches, no matter the content, sparked an emotional response," Mr Tuttle said.

"Brown's earnest and praiseworthy vision excites no opposition and yet it seems to excite no great enthusiasm either," he added.

Mr Tuttle pinpointed former foreign secretary David Miliband as the most suitable replacement following an electrifying speech at the 2008 Labour Party conference.

Mr Miliband eventually lost out to his younger brother, Ed, in the September 2010 leadership vote after Mr Brown resigned following a crushing defeat in May's general election.

"David Miliband provided rare moments of star power for a party that seems increasingly to miss Tony Blair's charisma," Mr Tuttle said in the March cable.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/gordon-brown-abysmal-us-ambassador-20101203-18j8x.html

------------------------

Gus: now, was Murdoch working for the US, when he decided to "not support Labour" anymore and his rags started to support the conservative party, of Cameron.

What deals had Murdoch made with Blair and Bush (he used to visit regularly in person) especially in regard to (the non-existant) Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?. We have to consider the rabid Murdoch press in 2002 and early 2003, with its extraordinary well-designed graphics and articles supporting the all-out war.

From misleading Parliament and the nation to marginalising his most senior legal adviser. The former PM faces the Chilcot Inquiry today...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-case-against-blair-15-charges-that-have-yet-to-be-answered-2190375.html

Rumsfeld remains largely unapologetic in memoir

By Bradley Graham

Washington Post Staff Writer

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, that master of the tart zinger, now concedes he went too far with some. The man who more than any other in the Bush administration personified bravado and self-assuredness has come to regret saying "Stuff happens" about the early looting in postwar Iraq. He admits his quip about "old Europe" - meaning Germany and France - not supporting the use of force in Iraq was hardly deft diplomacy.

As for declaring, as he did in the first days after the invasion of Iraq, "We know where they are," referring to suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - well, Rumsfeld would like to take that one back, too.

But Rumsfeld still can't resist - in a memoir due out next week - taking a few pops at former secretaries of state Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice as well as at some lawmakers and journalists. He goes so far as to depict former president George W. Bush as presiding over a national security process that was marked by incoherent decision-making and policy drift, most damagingly on the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020205505.html?hpid=topnews

Gus: the privilege of the sociopaths and liars... no apology necessary... not even excuses, no regrets. STUFF HAPPENS...

George Bush, the former US president, has cancelled a planned visit to Switzerland next week.

While human rights groups have said the cancellation was due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, organisers said they did not want to risk violence during protests by left-wing groups.

David Sherzer, Bush's spokesman, said the former president was informed on Friday by the United Israel Appeal that his February 12 dinner speech in Geneva has been called off.

Criminal complaints

Human rights groups said they had intended to submit a 2,500-page case against Bush in the Swiss city on Monday for alleged mistreatment of suspected militants at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. naval base in Cuba where captives from Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts in the so-called War on Terror were interned.

Pressure has been building on the Swiss government to arrest him and open a criminal investigation if he enters the Alpine country.

Criminal complaints against Bush alleging torture have been lodged in Geneva, court officials say.

Keren Hayesod, the organiser, announced on Saturday that they were cancelling Bush's participation on security grounds - not because of the criminal complaints.

Saturday's edition of Swiss daily Tribune de Geneve quoted the Jewish charity's lawyer, Robert Equey, as saying the visit was canceled because of the risk that protests by left-wing groups could result in violence.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/02/20112663331735188.html

----------------------------

Sure... blame the lefties for Bush having lied, being an idiot and having killed people by waging illegal wars... see picture at top...

"This is also where religious ideology comes to the fore. The role of religion has been both enormously positive, which a lot of people fail to appreciate, and negative, which more people are aware of. But the nature of the debate in both the secular and religious areas are ideological.

"You fight ideas with ideas. It is now up to institutions of higher education to engage directly on these issues - not only their students, but current world leaders in politics, finance, and international diplomacy, along with the general public.

"If universities begin to foster this kind of dialogue in the public sphere, they will create a safe and objective space for these questions to be addressed and explored, which will not only produce a better informed public but also force advocates of exclusive political or religious ideologies to support their positions with rigorous and convincing arguments - no small feat."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12597817

-------------------------------------

"religious ideologies to support their positions with rigourous and convincing arguments"!!!!???? CRAAAAAPppp!... Bollocks!!! On the strength of this statement alone, Blair should be in prison for having told massive porkies that led to the massacre of thousands of people... Religious ideologies are pulled apart by science daily, but most reasonable people and most scientists are too afraid (and persecuted) to let the cat out of the bag... I despair... Whatever happened to "enlightenment". Hijacked by the force of "evil"??? CON-vincing arguments? Bloody con artists...

The truth in scientific reality is not designed to control people, while the religious porkies about our world are... While some people can use science to control other people, relatively speaking, science is liberating. Too many people, though, are afraid of the freedom of thought, thus they huddle together in the bosom of godly fairy tales — using their strength in number to rule the cuckoo's nest...

As usual Tony is highjacking the floor-space with a devious benevolence...

see image at top...

From a Twitter hoax claiming McDonald's was charging black customers extra to a woman getting all her Facebook friends tattooed on her arm and a phoney Texas mass grave - it's been a good week for hoaxes.

And that's not to mention the Gay Girl in Damascus, who has sent political and gay activists into a lather after "she" was outed as a 40-year-old American aspiring novelist. Or the eHarmony user whose love of cats drove her to tears in her dating video.

Former prime minister delivers harshest verdict yet on his successor and warns party to avoid 'politics of protest'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/08/tony-blair-new-labour-gordon-brown

------------------------------

No Tony... It died when you actually went to war in Iraq... and lied and lied and lied and lied.... see toon at top and story below it...

They've hacked into the voicemail of a murdered teenager and the relatives of dead UK soldiers. They've paid police officers for information. The charge sheet against News International is a long and serious one.

But as shocking as the allegations of illegal news gathering have been, the greatest crime of Murdoch's UK newspaper empire has gone largely unreported. Namely that no other newspaper group has as much blood on its hands when it comes to propagandising for illegal and fraudulent military conflicts.

There hasn't been a war - or potential war - involving Britain in recent years that Murdoch's British titles haven't been gung-ho about.

More than two years before the publication of the government's dodgy dossier on Iraq's non-existent WMD, News International papers were already doing their best to convince the public of the dire threat from Saddam Hussein.

On Christmas Eve 2000, the Sunday Times published a story headlined 'Saddam builds new atom bomb' in which it was claimed that the Iraqi leader "has ordered his scientists to resume work on a programme aimed at making a nuclear bomb".

A couple of months later the same paper ran another piece entitled 'Saddam has tested nuclear weapon' based on the testimony of a mysterious Iraqi whistleblower named 'Leone'.

"Personally, I think the evidence is compelling," wrote the article's author, film-maker Gwynne Roberts.

There may never be another inside account quite like it: the first credible indications of how Rupert Murdoch encouraged Tony Blair to go to war; the most detailed version yet of one of those Iraq telephone conversations between President George W Bush and the British Prime Minister in the run up to the Iraq invasion; and a graphic if more fanciful portrayal of panic rising much later in Downing Street as the bankability of a key intelligence source for the presumed existence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction begins to crumble.

Sarah Helm's play Loyalty, which opened in London this week, does not scoop the Chilcot inquiry into the war, due later this year. But it may tell us more about the atmosphere in which the invasion of Iraq was launched and sustained than Chilcot ever will. And all from the extraordinary vantage point of the wife of Tony Blair's chief of staff Jonathan Powell, his closest aide throughout his premiership. A former Independent journalist who had worked in the Middle East, she took her two children to join the million-strong march against the imminent war which Mr Powell was professionally engaged almost non-stop, at Mr Blair's side, in prosecuting.

She says her play is a "work of fiction" but has also acknowledged it was "drawn from real events". As a whole the play is not a historical record, especially since the final denouement in the second half is the fruit of dramatic imagination. But it is unlikely that the call from Rupert Murdoch in which she depicts the couple, Nick and Laura (based on herself and Mr Powell) listening in on – in her case notebook in hand – is entirely made up. Even if a composite, it has a distinct ring of authenticity, reinforced by the Cabinet Office's admission in July 2007, shortly after Mr Blair left office, that the News Corp chairman made three separate phone calls during the March run-up to the invasion.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/inside-the-court-of-king-tony-2318496.html

Chilcot to damn Blair on Iraq war

The Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War is to "damn" then-prime minister Tony Blair on four main counts when it is published this autumn, reports the Mail on Sunday. They are: bogus claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, secretly promising George Bush to take the UK to war, making decisions without the Cabinet and having no plans for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

* Bogus claims made about the weapons of mass destruction allegedly held by the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein;

* The failure to tell the British public about his "secret pledge" with President Bush to go to war;

* The operation of a "sofa government" style, which kept his Cabinet in the dark over the planning for an invasion of Iraq;

* The failure to foresee the chaos that gripped Iraq following the invasion, and to lay realistic plans to deal with it. Officials are currently writing the report and all witnesses will be given the chance to respond to any inaccuracies.

Mr Blair led the country to war eight years ago amid nationwide protests. His successor, Gordon Brown, set up the Chilcot inquiry after criticism of previous probes.

Mr Blair mounted a vigorous defence of the 2003 invasion of Iraq when he appeared before the inquiry for the first time, insisting that he had no regrets over removing Saddam and would do the same again.

But critics of the war and families of the 179 British troops who died in the conflict condemned his evidence, saying he evaded the panel's questions and refused to admit his mistakes. He gave evidence a second time and was jeered as he said he "deeply and profoundly" regretted the loss of life in the Iraq war.

In his memoirs, A Journey, he said he was angry at the way he was asked whether he had any regrets about going to war. He wrote that the Chilcot inquiry was supposed to be about learning lessons but had "inevitably turned into a trial of judgment and even good faith".

Leaks from Sir John Chilcot's Iraq war inquiry suggest that Tony Blair may be in big trouble when it publishes its findings in the autumn according to the Mail on Sunday. Let's hope so.

Ronnie Biggs would be envious of Tony's escape record. He bamboozled both Lord Hutton and Lord Butler as they compiled their solemn but uninquisitive reports. He evaded the formidable analytical skills of Michael Howard, and his then sidekick David Cameron, who between them could find no ammunition in either report with which to damage Blair in the Commons.

We should not perhaps get too excited. The public's expectations of the inquiry are so low, and our distrust of politicians so strong, that we are pathetically grateful for anything that does not look like an establishment whitewash. After all, Chilcot and his panel are only playing catch-up with the man on the Clapham omnibus.

Anyway, it looks as though Tony will come in for scathing criticism on four counts:

At the moment, a court in Australia is trying to pinch David Hicks' royalties from his book:

Guantanamo My Journey was released earlier this year and has sold 30,000 copies and describes David Hicks‘s five years spent in the US military prison and contains allegations of torture. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has launched an action under the Proceeds of Crime Act in an effort to seize all money made from sales of the memoirs.

http://www.newsinsydney.com.au/3874/david-hicks-book-royalties-frozen-by-court/

---------------

In the same breath, one should also stop Blair, Howard and Bush profitering from their memoirs — whitewashing  their illegal war on Iraq... Sure some of these rich buggers may have given their royalties to charity (what's a few millions when one makes a killing) but a big wrong can never be rectified with a "generous" donation — especially when there is no mea culpa when there should be...

The crimes from Bush, Blair and Howard are FAR greater than that of Hicks. Hicks DIDN'T KILL ANYBODY...

Bush, Blair and Howard launched an illegal war that destroyed a country, killed many people and created a tidal wave of refugees — all for various concocted false excuses, when it was ABOUT OIL.

Their crimes are a billion time bigger that that of a silly young man who for whatever pigeon-shit was in his head at the time was prepared to fight alongside the Taliban (when the Taliban was STILL the official government of Afghanistan) but deserted like a scared rabbit at the first salvo... For this he was TORTURED and imprisoned ILLEGALLY and left to rot, by the HOWARD government, at Gitmo... Hicks pleaded guilty to anything under the sun (under specially newly created retrospective laws) so he could bargain an exit out the Gitmo illegal prison. The tribunal that "charged" him was since abandoned as it was deemed "unconstitutional"...

See toon at top...

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie wants former prime minister John Howard to explain to a parliamentary inquiry why Australia sent troops to Iraq in 2003.

At the time, Mr Wilkie was an intelligence officer with the Office of National Assessments (ONA) and resigned his post because he said the Government had no evidence Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

World leaders, including former US president George W Bush, British prime minister Tony Blair and Mr Howard all gave Iraq's possession of such WMDs as a reason for the invasion - a claim which was later discredited as no such weapons were ever found.

In March 2003 Mr Howard gave a major speech to the National Press Club saying with great force that the central issue in the case for disarming Iraq was the danger that it would provide Islamic terrorists with the means to attack with weapons of mass destruction.

But despite suggestions from within government that he would support the claim with evidence, he was unable to produce new intelligence.

Mr Wilkie, now a powerful independent MP, says an inquiry is needed to examine the "behaviour" of Mr Howard and former foreign minister Alexander Downer.

"They have never been made to sit down and explain why they, over many, many weeks if not months, argued about weapons of mass destruction and terrorism when it was very quickly apparent that that official case for war was a lie," Mr Wilkie told AM.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-11/wilkie-wants-iraq-inquiry/2834732

see picture at top and article below it.

The Government faces a legal challenge next week over its decision not to hold a coroner's inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve ruled one out in June after conducting an investigation that concluded there was 'overwhelming evidence' the Whitehall weapons inspector committed suicide.

Now a doctor who is suspicious of the official account of Dr Kelly's death has started proceedings for a judicial review of Mr Grieve's decision.

After an appeal just a week ago, hundreds of Daily Mail readers have contributed £33,000 to a fund set up to help secure an inquest.

Using this money to cover legal fees, papers will be lodged at the High Court by Thursday - the deadline for launching a judicial review.

Dr David Halpin, who has been co-ordinating a group of doctors fighting for an inquest since December 2003, will be the claimant in the action.

Documents for the judicial review are being prepared by barrister John Cooper QC and solicitor Jennifer McDermott.

It is understood the judicial review is likely to focus on the actions of at least one senior member of Tony Blair's government involved in the initial decision not to have a full inquest into Dr Kelly's death.

Fight for inquest on David Kelly is going to court after doctor launches legal challenge

Who Won the Iraq War?

 
As the troops come home, it’s time to count the cost.

By Eric S. Margolis | November 21, 2011

In October, 2002 I wrote in the first issue of The American Conservative an analysis of the impending Iraq War entitled “The Road to Folly.”

I observed, “A war that fails to achieve clear political objectives is merely an exercise in violence and futility.” Having covered 14 conflicts as a war correspondent, I’ve seen a lot of violence and futility.

The White House launched a thunderous, utterly shameless propaganda campaign about phony threats to America and the world from President Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction. And on cue, U.S. forces invaded Iraq in March 2003.

In America, the “bodyguard of lies” that Churchill said accompanies every war swelled into an army of liars. The Bush administration’s neoconservatives played a leading role in engineering the Iraq conflict. Media acted as megaphones for the war party. Thanks to the drumbeat of lies and insinuations, over 80 percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/who-won-the-iraq-war/