Ex-spy chief Sir John Scarlett has told the Iraq war inquiry there was "no conscious intention" to manipulate information about Iraq's weapons.

He denied being under pressure to "firm up" the September 2002 dossier which contained the claim Iraq could use WMD within 45 minutes of Saddam's order.

But he said it would have been "better" to have made clear it referred to battlefield munitions not missiles.

He was not asked about an MP's claim a taxi driver was the claim's source.

Tony Blair has said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public.

The former prime minister made the confession during an interview with Fern Britton, to be broadcast on Sunday on BBC1, in which he said he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

"If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?" Blair was asked. He replied: "I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]".

Significantly, Blair added: "I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat." He continued: "I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons in charge, but it's incredibly difficult. That's why I sympathise with the people who were against it [the war] for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, in the end I had to take the decision."

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

..."use and deploy different arguments"? Isn't this a euphemism for lying? If one lie does not work, let's concoct another one and another and another till we don't really need a lie to go and wage stupid war...

The sad part is that Tony Blair does not see how delusional he was and is, having given himself the right to go to war, kill and dispose of the rule of law to satisfy his own views... and go along with the delusions of George W Bush and that of our own John Howard.

All liars — all liars and possibly psychopaths of the first order. The Europeans did not have any choice but to turf him out of the race for the European presidency... Anyone with a conscience, including businesses should cease any contact with him — otherwise they become associated with promoting Tony's porkies... Same with John Howard and George Bush...

Key parts of Tony Blair's evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War will be held in secret, sources close to the hearings revealed last night.

His conversations with President George Bush when he was prime minister, and crucial details of the decision-making process that led Britain into war, will fall under the scope of national security and the protection of Britain's relations with the US.

But there are also suggestions by well-placed sources that anything "interesting" will also be shrouded in secrecy, leaving his public appearance containing little more than is already known.

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

People like Tony Blair believe in their own self-importance — that of being a bullshitter with a conscience... It does not wash. So the justification for the lies that he has spread over the populace with the help of his parners in crime to go to war in Iraq, will be heard in secret so it all can be swept under the carpet of "national interest"  and of maintaining friendship with the other bullshitter-with-no-idea, George W Bush, and our own bullshiter-with-coincidences, John Howard...

They will bullshit till they die...

Before they went to war, I established (and latter wrote on this site) why they had to know there were no weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam, despite all the noise these three clowns were making...

Imagine going to war against an enemy you know has weapons of mass destruction and that your armies do not know were these weapons are... Your commanders would think you're nuts to launch an attack. End of story.

TO LAUNCH THE ATTACK ON IRAQ, THE US, THE UK AND AUSTRALIAN ARMIES HAD TO KNOW THERE WAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION... Despite the bullshit preparation such as gas mask and other gear as theater for a guilable public, the armies knew there was no WMDs.

LONDON: Hans Blix, who led the UN team of inspectors looking into the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has strongly criticised Tony Blair after the former British leader's comment that he would have found other arguments to invade Iraq in the absence of such weapons.

The weapons claim was the primary justification for invading Iraq in 2003, and was subsequently proved to be untrue.

Mr Blix told the BBC he believed Mr Blair used the excuse as a ''convenient justification'' for the war and said the remarks gave ''the strong impression of a lack of sincerity''.

''The war was sold on the weapons of mass destruction [claim], and now you feel, or hear that it was only a question of 'deployment of arguments', as he said. It sounds a bit like a fig leaf that was held up, and if the fig leaf had not been there, then they would have tried to put another fig leaf there,'' Mr Blix said.

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

see toon at top and read comment above

From Unleashed

Tony Blair's latest admission on Iraq raises, yet again, the need for a genuine inquiry here in Australia about that misbegotten war.

Even before Britain's Chilcot inquiry has concluded, it has spurred a fresh round of revelations. Britain, we now know, had decided upon war long before all the shenanigans with UN weapons' inspectors. Now Blair has acknowledged that, for him, the war was always about regime change, despite everything he said at the time.

What about the Australian government? Did Howard and Downer know that the date for the invasion had already been fixed way back in 2002, and that the arguments about WMDs were never more than a pretext?

If so, they lied to the Australian people and to the parliament. If not - if they were kept in the dark about the plans of their supposed allies - well, what does that say about Australia's military alliances, the cornerstone of bipartisan defence policy?

Either way, don't we deserve to know?

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

Gus repeat: Before they went to war, I established (and latter wrote on this site) why they had to know there were no weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam, despite all the noise these three clowns were making...

Imagine going to war against an enemy you know has weapons of mass destruction and that your armies do not know were these weapons are... Your commanders would think you're nuts to launch an attack. End of story.

TO LAUNCH THE ATTACK ON IRAQ, THE US, THE UK AND AUSTRALIAN ARMIES HAD TO KNOW THERE WAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION... Despite the bullshit preparation such as gas mask and other gear as theater for a guilable public, the armies knew there was no WMDs.

see toon at top...

G'day Gus,

 Repeating the old saying that “truth will out” – just what do we do about governments which have unnecessarily caused the disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq and – are even now planning an attack on Iran? It is the criminal unholy alliance of the US/Zionists that is currently causing people to realise that these wars are planned just as would be any business.

The crime of the Taliban, the government of the sovereign state of Afghanistan,was that they said they knew where Osama bin Laden was and would only turn him over to an independent Court.  That is not US control and such a reasonable attitude caused an illegal war (including Howard’s Australia) which, in my opinion, will only fill the pockets of the US weapon dealers. 

Meanwhile, the technology that the US uses to convince their gullible people that it will quickly get rid of these patriots who oppose US dominance in this dying world of ours - continues to be given credibility. 

The crime of Saddam Hussein was that, as a US puppet, he tried to free his administration from the choking grip of the US oil pirates and even had the audacity to suggest a deal with Russia!  With his nations’ own oil – how dare he?  Free trade?  Democracy?

The irony could be that the Bush administration of illegal war; illegal redemption; illegal torture and acts of their government which, in its very nature, intends to remove from any independent nation the right to decide their own issues – is even now considered by the capitalist media to be a demonstration of democracy.  And we support them? Fair dinkum?

The little-known behavior of the Americans during Gough Whitlam’s efforts to “buy back the farm” were never given the truthful exposure that they deserved.  Only the orchestrated media fear campaign was, and will be recorded in the future, as an  independence lost.

I believe that Kevin Rudd’s appearance and visits to various countries of the world is not an indication of his arrogance, but an attempt to mitigate the damage that the Howard "New Order" did to our  He must be trying to deny the servile attitude of the Howard years.  

During the US and media’s campaign to keep their Howard puppet in power, our national identity and credibility degenerated as did that of his mentor GW Bush.

Like the famous American elder statesman said “I weep for my country”. When the Howard "New Order" took over, our foreign debt was about $190 billion and when they left it was $700 billion.  Why is that not mentioned even by the Rudd Labor governnent?

Will I see our country free of foreign control in my life-time? I doubt it.

God Bless Australia.  N E OUBLIE.

One of Tony Blair's most senior civil servants has launched a savage attack on the former Prime Minister over the Iraq war.

Sir Ken Macdonald, who was director of public prosecutions for much of Mr Blair's premiership, accused him of "sycophancy" towards Washington and using "alarming subterfuge" to mislead the British people into the conflict.

Referring to Mr Blair's weekend interview with former This Morning host Fern Britton in which he defended his role, the former prosecution chief wrote in The Times: "This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage."

Sir Ken said the US seat of power "turned his head and he couldn't resist the stage or the glamour that it gave him".

He added: "It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn't want, and on a basis that it's increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gE_Nywv-o4hR4B1y6XpKWJmrpNyw

Has anyone seen rattus or bushit?

 'Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war '

Gus: YES!!! Yes... and it has been my beef since 2002, when one could smell the inevitable artificial odor of war from the three stooges, no matter what... See a potted history... see Babylon and the other Babylon. Buying the war in Iraq part one two and three got wiped out from this site by whatever... One day I will reinstate the comments...

See the lying Blair at top...

However, Bushit is nowhere to be seen while the stink of his Presidency still grips the entire world.

We know that he and his family stole the Presidency and it was only the gesture by Al Gore in not forcing his claims to that position which allowed Bushit and Cheney to use the resources of the US to wage never-ending war against the innocent and unprepared.

Tony Blair was part of the “axis of evil” as indeed was Rattus.  The latter was known for his belly-up attitude to bullies right from his school days at Canterbury High.  His history as a selfish and opinionated moron was always skewed to the rich and famous that could assist his lust for power. And they did.

That was evident even during his treacherous behavior to undermine several of his Party’s leaders.  There was no limit to this person’s bastardry including his inability to tell the truth.  Core and non-core was his answer even if he gave one, which was rare and mostly a lie anyway.

If I remember correctly, Bomber Beazley would have unseated him in 1998 except for the Nationals gaining 15 seats.  During his next tour, he set about getting rid of the Nationals and so began the rot of that group. 

And now the Nationals have their own liar – Barnaby Joyce.  This person was elected in Queensland on the ticket of refusing to sell Telstra.  He voted for its sale.  Recently we have been sickened by his red-neck bleating in which he claimed he was worried about the “working families”.  He voted for “WorkChoices”.  He also voted against Labor’s attempt to make politicians responsible for their actions – that would certainly have hurt him and Rattus.

The only good thing to come out of the Bushit/Cheney regime is the clear indication that America’s financial empire is crumbling and any feeling of loss by any true democratic citizen of that nation should be a sufficient wake-up call.

The problem John is that all nations involved in WW II allowed the profits of the US from that war to be used to maintain their Military/Corporate and the results of that ignorance, and the emasculated United Nations, has put this entire world in dire straits.

I support the attacks on that lying hypocrite Tony Blair and continue to hope that Rattus is also investigated – but not by Howard’s stooges. Or his media bullies.

God Bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.

From the Guardian

The former foreign secretary Jack Straw is to face potentially explosive questioning at the Iraq inquiry next month over a private letter he sent to Tony Blair on the eve of the invasion, urging the prime minister to look at options apart from pressing ahead with British military involvement in the attack.

It is understood that the inquiry is to receive a copy of the personal letter sent by Straw, written after discussions with Sir Michael (now Lord) Jay, the Foreign Office permanent secretary, on 16 March 2003, two days before the Commons voted to back the war.

Straw was yesterday named by the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war as one of its star witnesses next month. Ten serving or former cabinet ministers have been called, including Tony Blair, the former attorney general Lord Goldsmith and the former defence secretary Geoff Hoon.

While before that...

Tony Blair and George Bush are "clinging to straws" to justify the war in Iraq, Hans Blix has said.

The former UN chief arms inspector was writing in the Independent on Sunday following the release of the Iraq Survey Group's report on Wednesday.

The report found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but Mr Blair said it made clear Saddam Hussein had "every intention" of developing them.

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

Meanwhile the third turd in this trio is keeping mum... He should be judged for having told fibs to the Australian public... There is no two ways about it: Bush, Blair and Howard knew that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction but they went along with concocting a clever double cross... see toon at top.

Former Prime Minister Sir John Major has criticised Tony Blair's handling of the Iraq war and his presentation of the case for invasion in March 2003.

Sir John said he had reluctantly backed the war because he believed what Mr Blair had said as prime minister.

But now, he said, big questions had been raised by the unfolding evidence to the Chilcott Inquiry into the war.

He told the BBC the argument that Saddam Hussein was a bad man and must be removed was an "inadequate" one.

Sir John said it now seemed there were doubts before the invasion about whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

see toon at top...

If British Prime Minister Gordon Brown were genuinely interested in finding out why his predecessor followed George Bush into the Iraq quagmire, his appointment of Sir Lawrence Freedman to the five-member Chilcot Inquiry was an odd choice. As the political editor of the BBC's Newsnight programme, Michael Crick, pointed out, "Critics of the war might argue Sir Lawrence was himself one of the causes of the war!"

Crick was referring to a Freedman memo which formed the basis of Tony Blair's 1999 Chicago speech, "The Doctrine of the International Community." In what became known as the "Blair Doctrine," Freedman had offered an answer to the specious question: "When was military action justified for liberal, humanitarian reasons?"

In addition to the Freedman Doctrine's justification of military intervention in "rogue states" such as Iraq, Freedman has admitted that he "instigated" a pre-war seminar for the British Prime Minister, because he was "aware of misgivings among some specialists in Iraq about the direction of policy." Clearly, Freedman has no such "misgivings" himself about the illegal invasion of Iraq. It was, he claims, motivated by "rather noble criteria."

In his recent book, A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East, Freedman is dismissive of those who suspect less "noble" motives for the war.

"Another popular theory," he writes, "is that U.S. foreign policy was effectively hijacked by a group of neoconservatives with a grand design to reshape the Middle East. A conspiratorial version of this theory argues that the aim was to help Israel, by removing a leading rejectionist state from the scene."

http://www.countercurrents.org/ocathail040110.htm

Jack Straw privately warned Tony Blair that an invasion of Iraq was legally dubious, questioned what such action would achieve, and challenged US claims about the threat from Saddam Hussein, it was revealed today .

Straw, foreign secretary at the time, gave what now seems prophetic advice in a letter marked "secret and personal", 10 days before Blair met George Bush at the US president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002. That was nearly a year before the invasion.

In his letter, about which he is expected to be questioned when he testifies at the Chilcot inquiry this week, Straw warned Blair, then prime minister: "The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few … there is at present no majority inside the PLP [parliamentary Labour party] for any military action against Iraq."

Straw warned of two legal "elephant traps". He said, "regime change per se is no justification for military action", and "the weight of legal advice here is that a fresh [UN] mandate may well be required".

Despite the warnings, a previously leaked briefing paper for a meeting of the war cabinet in July 2002 states: "When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change."

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

Impeach Bush, prosecute Blair and shoo Howard into oblivion... They lied through their teeth. see toon at top.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal, a former senior legal adviser to Britain's foreign ministry at the time of the conflict has told a public inquiry.

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

Jack Straw rejected advice in the run up to war

that invading Iraq without UN backing would break international law, the Iraq inquiry heard.

Mr Straw's chief legal adviser at the time, Sir Michael Wood, told the then foreign secretary it would "amount to the crime of aggression".

But Mr Straw told him he was being "dogmatic" and that "international law was pretty vague", Sir Michael said.

Ministers used the attorney general's advice on the war's legality instead.

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

Remember the pommy attorney general advice was iffy at best... Here our Rattus did not concerm himself with whatever legality. He lied like Blair and Bush on the subject of WMDs.

Two days from now, the spirit of the newly deceased Erich Segal will hover over the Queen Elizabeth Centre when Mr Tony Blair makes his feverishly awaited appearance before the Chilcot inquiry. A love story between a cocky, preppy Frat Boy with Roman numerals after his name and his feisty yet adoring social climbing inamorata will again be dissected. And for the latter, self-love will still mean never having to say you're sorry.

What fresh revelatory nuggets Sir John and the gang tease from Mr Blair will be conflated into front-page headlines, but expect no serious blunders from him. As adept at legalistic flim-flam as his great mate Bill Clinton, he has been staying up until 3am to prepare for this ordeal, we're assured, anticipating every imaginable line of enquiry and rehearsing every possible reply in finest detail.

Recalling that he had to be woken soon after midnight to be told that the invasion of Iraq had begun, you may detect a vicious little irony here. That he could sleep peacefully as his troops went into harm's way then, but dare not sleep when poised to explain why now, is an indecently cute vignette of a warped morality.

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

Blair will tell crafted porkies, coated with sweet talk and idiotic brilliant belief... as if believing in something is good enough for war... Remember, no decent army chief would have gone to war unless they knew there was no WMDs in Iraq... see toon at top...

from the BBC — comments

------

Imagine if China with the backing of Russia invaded Spain because E.T.A launched an attack in Beijing? That would be the equivalent of Afghanistan.

Then imagine if Russia and China invaded France as well, saying there are links to E.T.A. That would be the equivalent of Iraq.

And even if USA and Britain condemned it, Russia and China still went ahead.

Would we be understandable about it because E.T.A attacked Beijing?

Of course we wouldn't because only we(USA/UK) can police the world!

Paul Smith, Leamington Spa, United Kingdom

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

from the Guardian

This morning's failures have turned to fiasco. Over one issue after another, the members of the Chilcot inquiry proved entirely unwilling or unable to challenge – or apparently even recognise – Tony Blair's most damaging admissions, obfuscations and falsehoods on the Iraq war.

How come none of them pressed the former prime minister over the fact that most Iraqis opposed the occupation and supported the inevitable and predicted armed resistance? Instead, they allowed him to claim the opposite and insist it was all a problem of "outside elements, al-Qaida and Iran". Nor did they seem to remember that it was the invasion that brought both into Iraq.

When Blair claimed it was terrorists who were responsible for Iraq's bloodbath, no one thought to mention that for the first couple of years at least the majority of civilians were killed by the occupation forces, as Jonathan Steele pointed out.

What about the impact of the aggression against Iraq in fuelling terror attacks in Britain and elsewhere? Not a word. And when Blair claimed "we didn't end up with a humanitarian disaster" in Iraq and cited a string of misleading statistics on Iraq's "remarkable" progress, the inquiry members seemed happy to accept that too, whatever the UN might say.

There were startling admissions: "unfortunately, what we thought would be the problem wasn't the problem" after the occupation began, Blair said. Al-Qaida and Iran had "nearly caused the mission to fail" – but, in the end, he declared, "it didn't". The US troops had gone in "too hard, too heavy" in Falluja. If anything, his Atlantic love affair has deepened since he left power.

Britain's inquiry into the Iraq war has been dealt a severe blow by a pro-Israel activist on the inquiry committee who has given an interview to a Jewish settlers' radio accusing his critics of "anti-Semitism".

The Iraq Inquiry, led by former civil servant John Chilcot, was set up by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in June 2009 in order to "identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict". It began its deliberations in November.

On 22 November 2009, as the inquiry, was preparing to convene, a former British ambassador, Oliver Miles, wrote an article in the Independent on Sunday newspaper expressing concern at the fact that two out of the five members of the inquiry's committee, Martin Gilbert and Lawrence Freedman, were "strong supporters of Tony Blair and/or the Iraq war". He also pointed out that both Gilbert and Freedman were Jewish, and that "Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism".

Writing in the Independent newspaper a week later, Richard Ingrams wondered whether the Zionists' links to the Iraq invasion would be brushed aside.

http://www.redress.cc/stooges/redress20100129

from the American Conservative...

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has taken to a new defense of the Iraq war, "what if." He argues that that the world would be worse off today if Saddam Hussein were still alive. Yet, the "What if" defense does not hold water when you really consider all the possibilities of "what if", argues Gwynne Dyer.

Blair's Poor Iraq Defense

By Gwynne Dyer

LONDON — At the Iraq inquiry in London on Jan. 29, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair found a new way to defend his decision to join George W. Bush in invading Iraq in 2003: the what-if defense. What if they hadn't invaded Iraq, and Saddam Hussein had remained in power there?

see toon at top...

The more I learn about the filth of politics is universal and only the honest people cannot succeed.

It is surely a condemnation of us all if we even give a modicum of credibility to the Blair "excuse".

Where are we - what are we - when we allow people like Blair, Bush, Howard and Netanyahu to strut this earth with the proud boast of being responsible for the murder and massacre of tens of thousands of people?

Let me say that it is not of great concern to me to put my faith in Rudd and his new government - the alternative is really scarry.

However, the spectre of the Bush America is still resonent in my mind and I resent the suggestion that we are dependant on their patronige to survive a "world at war" which they have created and will continue as long as the rest of the world allows it.

What if?  America closed down all of its Military/Corporate - even slowly - and replaced it with infra structure projects to maintain the "leader of the world" in peaceful technology?

Oil? OK they seem to have that locked in - what is their excuse now?

How well I remember the retirement speech of the old warrior Ike Iesenhower and I quote some of this man's wisdom"

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.