Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Soldiers and Families, Fort Carson
U.S. Soldiers, Families Brace for More Deployments
In Colorado, Tom Bearden visited Fort Carson Army base to speak with troops ahead of President Obama's unveiling of his new Afghanistan plan....Transcript and audio video links here
The dust track-turned-highway from Kabul to Torkham, on the Afghan-Pakistan border, is a journey of pleasure and peril. CNN's Jonathan Wald captures the trek on this featured post in CNN's new blog, Afghanistan Crossroads.
Labels: Afghanistan, Afghanistan Buildup, Deployments, Fort Carson, PBS NewsHour, Tom Bearden, U.S. Soldiers
Monday, November 30, 2009
Iraq War Inquiry, Day Five
Whose foreign policy is it anyway?
Disillusionment with Britain's actions abroad will only intensify without a democratic reassessment of foreign policy principles
Britain is deeply involved in an escalating war in Afghanistan. The legacy of the Iraq war lives on with the drip-drip of revelations emerging from the Chilcot inquiry. This month the first EU foreign secretary was appointed. A general election is months away. These factors constitute a perfect storm that should result in a public debate about the future direction of foreign policy.
Snip
Without accountability we have apathy and frustration. An active, effective and truly participatory debate on the fundamentals of how we conduct politics beyond our national borders will stimulate a broad discussion ranging from issues of national identity to dealing with the foreign policy challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to the threat of sub-state terrorism....>>>>>
Then we get into day five of the inquiry with an aid to Tony Blair testifying, and probably suspected trying to put the best face on the actions taken then and disavowing some previous testimony. But he did make some more interesting points, now on the record, as to what was going on in the minds of our Highest Representative in the Halls of Power the White House!
Blair Aide: 'US Focus On Iraq Days After 9/11'
George Bush raised the issue of Iraq with Tony Blair just three days after the 9/11 attacks, Mr Blair's former foreign policy adviser has said.
He said the former US President told Mr Blair during a phone conversation on September 14, 2001, that there could be a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda...>>>>>
Three days later, Condi brought it up on 9/11, and this would be right around the time all the photo's of all the hijacker's hit the news media and even what planes they were on, and none were Iraqi!
Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair asked for war plans to be prepared in June 2002
Tony Blair asked for war plans to be secretly drawn up in June 2002, almost a year before the invasion of Iraq, his former foreign policy adviser Sir David Manning has told the Iraq Inquiry.
Snip
Sir David said the former prime minister asked defence chiefs to prepare a list of options for military support of a US-led invasion after being told President Bush had set up a “cell” dedicated to planning for a war.
Sir David also disclosed that President Bush and Mr Blair first discussed a possible link between Saddam and the 2001 terrorist attacks on the US just three days after 9/11.
Snip
“At this stage we are aware that military planning is going ahead, that this cell had been set up in Florida, and he was anxious to know what sort of options do we have.
“In July 2002 a letter was sent to the Prime Minister from the defence secretary’s office saying there were three options if we found ourselves involved in military action."...>>>>>
War plans, for an invasion on Iraq? Go figure, and cheney/bush had set up a military cell in the Florida command center to study same back in early 2002. Was this a part of "We're gonna get him dead or alive!" as to bin Laden or Saddam, only the little cowboy would know, or his handlers!
Chilcot inquiry hears Bush began Iraq war drumbeat three days after 9/11
Blair foreign policy adviser David Manning says US president talked up possible links between Saddam and al-Qaida
George Bush tried to make a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida in a conversation with Tony Blair three days after the 9/11 attacks, according to Blair's foreign policy adviser of the time.
Sir David Manning told the official inquiry into the war that Bush, speaking to Blair by phone on 14 September 2001, "said that he thought there might be evidence that there was some connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida."The prime minister's response to this was that the evidence would have to be very compelling indeed to justify taking any action against Iraq," Manning said.
Blair followed up the conversation with a letter stressing the need to focus on the situation in Afghanistan, where the attacks originated.
But by the time Blair went to visit Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002 the British were "very conscious that Iraq would be on the agenda", Manning said...>>>>>
Blair adviser: US did not expect to stabilize Iraq
A mask of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is burnt by a demonstrator outside the Iraq Inquiry in London, Monday, Nov. 30, 2009
American troops did not expect to play a role in stabilizing Iraq after overthrowing Saddam Hussein, a key adviser to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Monday.
David Manning, who served as a Blair's top foreign policy aide before being appointed ambassador to Washington in 2003, told a British inquiry into the Iraq war the American military did not believe peacekeeping was their responsibility.
"The American military thought that they were fighting a war and when the war was over they were expecting to go home," he said.
Manning said British troops in Basra talked to local people, but that American troops were not willing to do the same.
Snip
Jeremy Greenstock, the former British ambassador to the United Nations, told the inquiry on Friday that the U.S. was "hell bent" on war with Iraq from the very beginning and undermined efforts by Britain to win international authorization for the invasion. Manning's predecessor as ambassador to the United States, Christopher Meyer, also testified that the U.S. was looking for connections between Iraq and Sept. 11 within hours of the attacks.
Manning echoed Meyer's claim, saying that then-President George W. Bush talked about possible links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, right after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, but that Blair had counseled caution...>>>>>
Well the above is now widely known especially by the tens of tousands of Iraqi dead and their survivors and the millions of refugee's who fled in country or to neighboring countries, not to mention the rest of the World. And here the brains, civilian and military, thought when the War was over Home would be where the soldiers ended up, tell that to those who've done multiple tours since, especially the dead and maimed and their families!
Blair 'sought UN solution' for Iraq
Tony Blair was committed throughout the Iraq crisis to achieving an international solution through the United Nations, his key foreign policy adviser has said.
Giving evidence to the official inquiry into the war, Sir David Manning denied Mr Blair and George Bush had secretly agreed on military action during talks at the President's Texas ranch 11 months before the invasion in March 2003....>>>>>
Iraq inquiry – live, Day Five Minute-by-minute coverage of what could be the most interesting hearing yet
Manning is also interesting because he is the author of at least two leaked memos which are likely to be discussed this afternoon. The first was written in March 2002 and the full text is available on the Downing Street memo website. Manning wrote it after a dinner with Condoleezza Rice, George Bush's national security adviser at the time, and it shows that Blair was declaring his support for regime even before he met Bush at Crawford in April. This is the key quote:
I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result.
Manning also wrote a memo, described as the "Manning memo" on Wikipedia, describing the outcome of a meeting that took place between Blair and Bush in the White House on 31 January 2003. The memo shows that Bush was, by then, determined to invade regardless of what happened at the UN and that the two leaders discussed the idea of getting Iraq to shoot down an American spy plane painted in UN colours to create a pretext for war. Philippe Sands, the British law professor who revealed the existence of the memo, said it raised "some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law"...>>>>>
Who ya gonna believe, we'll see as this progresses now won't we (?)
Goldsmith was not bullied into declaring Iraq invasion legal, says Blair
Former prime minister denies claims that then-attorney general had been pressured to change stance over legality of conflict
Iraq inquiry team pulls its punches
David Manning, Blair's foreign policy adviser in the run-up to war, was given the safest of rides at the Chilcot inquiry
It is easy to second-guess the Iraq inquiry and, as one watches it unfold live on the internet, to think of all the questions its distinguished members fail to ask. It is also easy to be upset by their manifest unwillingness to use a more forensic style. But today's session of the Chilcot inquiry with Sir David Manning, Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser in the run-up to the war, was truly disappointing.
Snip
Yet he was given the safest and most deferential of rides. Two issues cried out for deeper scrutiny. One was the so-called UN route to tightening the pressure on Saddam Hussein and the consequences of the UN route's failure. Manning laid out the case – which Blair will no doubt repeat when he faces the inquiry next year – that throughout 2002 and early 2003, the PM pressed hard for Bush to take the international coalition approach through the United Nations, while also emphasizing that if it failed, the UK would be at Bush's side in going for war.
Snip
There always was another definition of UN failure, and it was at least as likely as defiance by Saddam. Yet the inquiry members never asked about it. This was the possibility that the UN, for whatever reason, would refuse to authorize war in accordance with Bush's preferred timetable for action.
And this, of course, is what happened. Bush was the man who defied the UN....>>>>>
What will turn up as the days progress? We'll see!
Labels: British Iraq Inquiry, Chilcot Inquiry, Crimes, David Manning, George W Bush, Gordan Brown, Intelligence, Iraq, Iraq War Illegal, Iraq War Inquiry, Law, saddam hussein, Tony Blair
Counting the War Dead, Daily
Michael White says he didn't anticipate casualities continuing at this pace, or the toll his Web site would take on him.
Every day, White, 51, updates a Web site he launched in 2003, icasualties.org, to keep count of the dead: American troops, coalition troops, contractors and Iraqi civilians. He eventually began documenting deaths in Afghanistan as well.
Snip
Nor could White have predicted the toll his task would take on him. As the numbers climbed, the dead came back to life on his screen. They weren't just statistics anymore...>>>>>
Labels: Afganistan, icasualties.org, Iraq, Michael White, Occupations Casualties, OEF, OIF, War Casualties, War Dead
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Iraq War Inquiry: Analysis and Push Back Grows Against any Coverup
As I've said in a few posts, the past week of the hearings, the picture coming out was our administration then especially, and others, weren't focused on bin Laden, al Qaeda nor the Taliban who were harboring them in Afghanistan, their almost complete focus prior to 9/11, as to that region, was a growing want to have regime change in Iraq, that became the total focus on the same day as 9/11, as has been noted by Condoleezza Rice mentioning Saddam as a possible suspect behind the 9/11 attacks or supporter of al Qaeda, which he never was.
Here is an analysis of the released report:
Report savages 'lost opportunity' to stop bin Laden
A report from a US senate committee has criticized the failure of Bush administration to use all available military means to pursue and capture the Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden eight years ago.
Snip
But the military strategy was faulty and its failure meant a lost opportunity to defeat international terrorism.
"The decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide," the report says.
"The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism, leaving the American people more vulnerable to terrorism, laying the foundation for today's protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan.">>>>>
Millions around the World knew, as soon as the drums started beating, that Afghanistan stopped being about 9/11, bin Laden, al Qaeda and the help Afghanistan needed to rebuild their country after the promised help, never kept, following the Soviet occupation and war and the rule of the Taliban!
The World, especially Iraqi's and the Afghans, seek answers as to why the start of this century turned so deadly and possibly turning the coming decades of into a much more Dangerous World Stage. They seek Accountability for the crimes committed, by those setting policy thousands of miles away, and all the innocent lives lost and maimed, the instability wrought with the changing of their people's way's of life and their countries destructions.
The British people, especially families of their fallen, have pushed for this inquiry. The American People, on the other hand, have moved on with their lives, their political infighting and games as well as their lives and apathy towards others, seeking no answers, no accountability and laying blame on others when something devastating and destructive occurs, criminal terror. Oh ya and the really important and seemingly growing new past time of some seeking their reality, even ex vice presidential candidates, on 'Reality TV' by doing possibly extremely dangerous stunts, and using inflammatory speak, in seeking their 'trickle down wealth' while America watches and holds it's collective breath in anticipation of more to come.
The British people, now that the Inquiry has opened and more has been stated then known before, only suspected, want it to become a wide open investigation of everything, as it should, and the calls for grow!
Iraq: The war was illegal
Then Attorney General Goldsmith was 'pinned to the wall and bullied into keeping quiet' while the Prime Minister kept the Cabinet in the dark.
Tony Blair will be quizzed over a devastating official memo warning him that war on Iraq would be illegal eight months before he sent troops into Baghdad, it was claimed last night.
Snip
But Mr Blair refused to accept Lord Goldsmith's advice and instead issued instructions for his long-term friend to be "gagged" and barred from cabinet meetings, the newspaper claimed. Lord Goldsmith apparently lost three stone, and complained he was "more or less pinned to the wall" in a No 10 showdown with two of Mr Blair's most loyal aides, Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan. Mr Blair also allegedly failed to inform the Cabinet of the warning, fearing an "anti-war revolt"....>>>>>
And so far {from link above}
Critical evidence from key figures to Chilcot inquiry
Sir Peter Ricketts "We quite clearly distanced ourselves from talk of regime change... that was not something we thought there would be any legal base for."
Sir William Patey "We were aware of those drumbeats from Washington [about regime change]. Our policy was to stay away from that end of the spectrum."
Sir Michael Wood "[Establishing no-fly zones over Iraq] was very controversial ... The US government was very careful to avoid taking any real position on the law."
Sir William Ehrman "We did, on 10 March, get a report that chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and Saddam hadn't yet ordered their assembly."
Sir Christopher Meyer "Suddenly, because of the unforgiving nature of the military timetable, we found ourselves scrabbling for the smoking gun."
Sir Jeremy Greenstock "I regarded our participation in the military action against Iraq in March 2003 as legal, but of questionable legitimacy."
And the push back for all that went on has been growing:
Iraq and the sarin gas of spin: An extraordinary eyewitness account of the regiments of spin doctors sent to Baghdad
Front Line: Stephen Claypole with a young local boy in front of a tank in Iraq
In the pre-dawn darkness of an April morning in 2003 an American C-130 Hercules transporter made a forced zig-zag descent through a potentially hostile sky and came to a screeching halt in an arc of armoured vehicles at Baghdad international airport.
On board – as well as me – was a human cargo of the first civilian administrators in post-Saddam Iraq led by Jay Garner, a retired US Army General.
Snip
They were not going to do much to overhaul Iraq’s creaking power stations. But the reality was that they were in control.
There was Larry Di Rita, one of the right-hand men of US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and later Pentagon chief spokesman; Margaret Tutwiler, a former State Department spokesman and Republican campaigner who helped to end the 2000 Florida recount impasse in George W. Bush’s favour; Dan Senor, a former White House assistant Press secretary; Emily Hands, a Downing Street Press officer; and Charles Heatly, a young Arabic-speaking British diplomat who was acting as a pair of eyes and ears for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
Forget the oxygen of publicity. This was about the sarin gas of spin and ‘information operations’. It came to me that just as the Spanish-American War in 1898 had been a newspaper proprietors’ war, the invasion of Iraq was a spin doctors’ war...>>>>>
Gordon Brown urged to lift Iraq inquiry secrecy
Fears most explosive documents related to beginning of war will not be aired at Chilcot hearing
Gordon Brown is facing demands to change the rules of the Iraq inquiry this weekend amid fears that the most explosive documents explaining why Britain went to war will not be made public.
As the inquiry enters its second week, the prime minister is under pressure to make key evidence relating to secret government discussions public, including minutes showing how the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, changed his mind about the legality of the war.
The demands are made in a letter to Brown from the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, who insists that unless the lid is lifted on secrecy, the Chilcot inquiry will fail to satisfy the public's demands for honesty...>>>>>
Iraq Inquiry bombshell: Secret letter to reveal new Blair war lies
Pressured: Lord Goldsmith leaves No10 in March 2003 after talks with Blair
An explosive secret letter that exposes how Tony Blair lied over the legality of the Iraq War can be revealed.
The Chilcot Inquiry into the war will interrogate the former Prime Minister over the devastating 'smoking gun' memo, which warned him in the starkest terms the war was illegal.
The Mail on Sunday can disclose that Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wrote the letter to Mr Blair in July 2002 - a full eight months before the war - telling him that deposing Saddam Hussein was a blatant breach of international law...>>>>>
Diary of deceit ... and how the Attorney General lost three stone
Blair 'knew WMD claim was false'
Has this Inquiry had an effect on decisions as to Afghanistan and the British presence there, as the U.S. looks to be ramping up forces in a conflict and occupations that mirrors the one many of us served in some four decades ago, Vietnam, and our Country and Military never learned the real lessons of, especially those of the previous administration and congresses and their outside of government co-conspirators, most never having served in that occupation nor even the military, it looks that way with the following Gordon Brown announcement:
Troops may begin Afghan pull-out in a year, says Gordon Brown
The Prime Minister is responding to growing public opposition to the war
Gordon Brown yesterday set out a timetable for British troops to start pulling out of war-torn Afghanistan by this time next year.
The Prime Minister responded to growing public opposition to the war by signalling that within 12 months, five of the deadliest provinces currently occupied by British and American soldiers will be returned to Afghan control.
‘It is at that point that we would look at whether there is the need for British troops,’ Mr Brown said – the first sign of a clear exit strategy after an eight-year campaign in which 235 have died and thousands more have been injured...>>>>>
While it reads as not being set in stone, it is interesting that his timetable comes just before this countries President speaks to the Nation on the new Afghanistan strategy, or will President Obama be making a similar call, we'll know soon, and so will the Afghans.
These next couple of links and cuts I had posted with some others yesterday which seem to be leading to others coming forward in the peoples push of Accountability.
Why I believe Blair should stand trial - and even face charges for war crimes, by General Sir Michael Rose
Without blame: The Chilcot Inquiry will not hold leaders to account
The inquiry into the Iraq War is not a court and no one is on trial. So said Sir John Chilcot, chairman of the inquiry, in his opening statement. He added that he was not there to determine the guilt or innocence of those responsible for the invasion of Iraq.
The object of the inquiry is simply to identify the lessons that should be learned from Iraq in order to help future UK governments who may face similar situations.
Snip
But although these are worthy objectives, they fall scandalously short of the crucial issue which millions of people in this country - myself included - believe this inquiry should be about.
With respect to Sir John, there is really no point in holding a further inquiry unless it does apportion blame, unless it does hold to account those who led us into this unnecessary, unwinnable and costly war in Iraq.
The inquiry should be the first step in a judicial process that brings those responsible for the disasters of the Iraq war before the courts - and could, as I shall explain, ultimately result in Tony Blair being indicted for war crimes.....Read the Rest of what General Sir Michael Rose writes
General Sir Michael Rose was commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. He is shortly to appear as a witness in the Karadzic war crimes trial in The Hague.
The World Waits, but more Importantly the Iraqi People Deserve Their Day in Court and Much More, as the World needs the Accountability:
Iraqis' stories must be heard
Four years ago, I traveled to Iraq to talk with its besieged people. Chilcot cannot ignore them now
Four years ago this week I was kidnapped in Baghdad. My trip to Iraq had been motivated by frustration at the government's deafness to all voices of reasoned opposition to the war in Iraq. I went to meet Iraqis to reassure them that most people in Britain did not regard them as enemies. Today, the lead-up to that war is back in the spotlight with the Chilcot inquiry. This is more than just an academic exercise to many. Anyone – in Britain, Iraq or elsewhere – who had a relative killed in the conflict will feel an intense personal need to discover the truth. They will be listening to testimony that appears to gravely undermine the official justification for going to war. They will want to learn the reaction by the then government to the advice of Middle East diplomats who knew about the conflicts within Iraqi society, conflicts that Saddam had suppressed but were always likely to explode on his removal. If you are going to war, ignorance of the probable effects on the country in the aftermath is inexcusable. Why else do you have a large diplomatic and intelligence force in the area?...>>>>>
Baghdad Garden Becomes Graveyard, Full of Grieving
An Iraqi woman at the grave of a relative behind Baghdad's Abu Hanifa mosque, the most hallowed place of worship for Sunnis in Iraq.
BAGHDAD — In the gardens of the living and the dead, the war goes on; not so much with enthusiasm as with resignation.
Snip
Thousands of mourners throng the headstones in what only three years ago was a community garden on the banks of the Tigris River. This is a relatively new tradition in Iraq, paying respects to the dead between morning prayers and the feast held later in the day. On this one day, the garden of the dead overflows with the living.
Snip
Now this garden, known as the Martyrs of Adhamiya since it became a cemetery in 2007, is so densely packed with graves that it is often difficult to walk between the rectangular capstones that cover each one (out of reverence, no one dares tread on top). Six months ago, the authorities counted 9,000 graves, but many more have been added since. Nearly all are victims of Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence of one sort or another — terroristic bombings, sectarian killings, political assassinations...>>>>>
The Pandora's Box, of an innocent country and people, different religious sects, ancient trible communities, political ideologies, ethnicity, heritage, all living together under a U.S. supported dictator. We not only opened but totally destroyed and that it take decades to be rebuilt, if ever!
Scott Ritter: The truth of UK's guilt over Iraq
Until Chilcot hears UN weapons inspectors' testimony, the fiction of Britain honestly seeking a WMD smoking gun prevails
With its troops no longer engaged in military operations inside Iraq, Great Britain has been liberated politically to conduct a postmortem of that conflict, including the sensitive issue of the primary justification used by then Prime Minister Tony Blair for going to war, namely Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or WMD.
The failure to find any WMD in Iraq following the March 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of that country by US and British troops continues to haunt those who were involved in making the decision for war. The issue of Iraqi WMD, and the role it played in influencing the decision for war, is at the centre of the ongoing Iraq war inquiry being conducted by Sir John Chilcot....>>>>>
Some may want to close by reading this as posted on the 26th at the Veterans Today online News Site:
GENERAL MCCHRYSTAL, WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?
ILL INFORMED, ILL ADVISED AND ILL PREPARED MCCHRYSTAL SENDS OTHERS OFF TO WAR
You could ask, how do you get to be a General if you haven't had one second of combat in an entire career spanning decades? Was being born the son of a General a help? Did kissing up to Dick Cheney help? Did a lifetime of telling people what they wanted to hear, no matter how stupid or what the cost, help? Do we want to turn the lives of our children over to this man, someone who is 90% politician and 10% soldier?
Where does McChrystal get his information? Does he get it from Karzai, defacto president of ten square miles of Afghanistan? Who is McChrystal planning on defeating?...>>>>>
Labels: Afghanistan, Brit AG Lord Goldsmith, British Iraq Inquiry, Chilcot Inquiry, Crimes, George W Bush, Gordan Brown, Intelligence, Iraq, Iraq War Illegal, Iraq War Inquiry, Law, Tony Blair, United Nations
Friday, November 27, 2009
Iraq War Inquiry, Day Four
This Inquiry is confirming, though already done but not all by the spoken words of the participants, what went on especially behind the closed doors and placing it with what's already been into the public realm. No hiding in todays world, especially when the little notes come forward like a puzzles small pieces! It's easier to keep silent if nobodies asking any questions, but there are to many involved that when questions are asked, recorded into record and on film, it's the little parts of the answers that ring out.Like it was really interesting the other day to find out that Iraq was forth on the Brits list of worry, Libya was first, and who's the United States new good buddy now, why Libya, as made so by the cheney/bush duo!! Then yesterday in the immediate hours of 9/11, while no one knew where the bush was, and the rest should have been really worried about the people of this Country, they represented, and monitoring the devastation that occurred coordinating with others as to the needs etc., Condi was already saying it was al Qaeda {she must have paid attention? to the Clinton people? and read the Intel reports?, maybe} but also started wondering if Saddam had anything to do with these hijackings and devestating plane crashes! She would have also known that the Intel had him as not a friend or allie of bin Laden nor al Qaeda!
These are the little pieces of the already known, and more will sure surface, that have been missing and not spoken even in other investigations. Others testifying will bring more forward into the light, though you can bet that Blair won't bring any when he testifies, or will he!
November 25, 2009
Iraq inquiry hears regime change claim
British Iraq inquiry hears Bush admin. discussed toppling Saddam two years before the 2003 Iraq invasion
U.S. followed own timetable on Iraq war: UK envoy
The United States followed its own military timetable for the 2003 invasion of Iraq rather than allowing diplomacy to run its full course, the former British ambassador to the United Nations said on Friday.
Jeremy Greenstock told a British inquiry into the Iraq war that he did not think that U.N. inspectors had been given enough time to search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD), cited as the reason for war, before the March 2003 invasion.
Snip
In an opening written statement, Greenstock said only U.S. President George W. Bush was in a position to "switch off" the planning ahead of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
"The U.S. and the UK had, well before then, decided that the threat from Iraq, which was genuinely perceived as including the potential threat of the use of WMD, could only be terminated either if Saddam Hussein conceded absolutely everything the resolutions demanded or if his regime fell."
"If this was to be achieved through a U.N. route, that had to happen on a U.S.-ordained timing," he added...>>>>>
Read this: "Greenstock said only U.S. President George W. Bush was in a position to "switch off" the planning" as meaning the cheney had to pull the strings!
November 27, 2009
Iraq inquiry: Blair deal on regime change?
UK former ambassador to Washington tells Iraq inquiry he was excluded from Blair and Bush talks in 2002
How to Spin the Spin, i.e. freshman propaganda, you be the judge:
Iraq war based on "questionable legitimacy," says former UN envoy
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was of 'questionable legitimacy' but the momentum for action from the US was 'much too strong' for Britain to counter, London's former ambassador to the United Nations
said Friday.
Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's representative at the UN discussions in the run-up to the war, said he had considered resigning over the failure of the US and Britain to win support for a second UN resolution that would have authorized military action.
Snip
'I regard our participation in the military action in Iraq in March 2003 as legal but of questionable legitimacy in that it did not have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states, or even perhaps of the majority of people inside the UK,' he said.
'If you do something internationally that the majority of UN member states think is wrong, illegitimate or politically unjustifiable, you are taking a risk in my view,' said Greenstock...>>>>>
Invasion lacked legitimacy, Sir Jeremy Greenstock tells Chilcot inquiry
The invasion of Iraq was of “questionable legitimacy” because of the lack of international and public support, Britain’s Ambassador to the United Nations at the time told the official inquiry into the war yesterday.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock threatened to resign if Tony Blair gave in to American pressure and agreed to an invasion before a new UN resolution on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was obtained. The former diplomat was kept in the dark over a change in policy when Mr Blair agreed with President Bush to seek the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a year before the invasion....>>>>>
Pay attention spineless america a scathing call for Reality, Indictments of the Guilty:
Why I believe Blair should stand trial - and even face charges for war crimes, by General Sir Michael Rose
The inquiry into the Iraq War is not a court and no one is on trial. So said Sir John Chilcot, chairman of the inquiry, in his opening statement. He added that he was not there to determine the guilt or innocence of those responsible for the invasion of Iraq.
The object of the inquiry is simply to identify the lessons that should be learned from Iraq in order to help future UK governments who may face similar situations.
Snip
But although these are worthy objectives, they fall scandalously short of the crucial issue which millions of people in this country - myself included - believe this inquiry should be about.
With respect to Sir John, there is really no point in holding a further inquiry unless it does apportion blame, unless it does hold to account those who led us into this unnecessary, unwinnable and costly war in Iraq.
The inquiry should be the first step in a judicial process that brings those responsible for the disasters of the Iraq war before the courts - and could, as I shall explain, ultimately result in Tony Blair being indicted for war crimes.....Read the Rest of what General Sir Michael Rose writes
General Sir Michael Rose was commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. He is shortly to appear as a witness in the Karadzic war crimes trial in The Hague.
The World Waits, but more Importantly the Iraqi People Deserve Their Day in Court, at the very least, and the Accountability:
Iraqis' stories must be heard
Four years ago, I traveled to Iraq to talk with its besieged people. Chilcot cannot ignore them now
Four years ago this week I was kidnapped in Baghdad. My trip to Iraq had been motivated by frustration at the government's deafness to all voices of reasoned opposition to the war in Iraq. I went to meet Iraqis to reassure them that most people in Britain did not regard them as enemies. Today, the lead-up to that war is back in the spotlight with the Chilcot inquiry. This is more than just an academic exercise to many. Anyone – in Britain, Iraq or elsewhere – who had a relative killed in the conflict will feel an intense personal need to discover the truth. They will be listening to testimony that appears to gravely undermine the official justification for going to war. They will want to learn the reaction by the then government to the advice of Middle East diplomats who knew about the conflicts within Iraqi society, conflicts that Saddam had suppressed but were always likely to explode on his removal. If you are going to war, ignorance of the probable effects on the country in the aftermath is inexcusable. Why else do you have a large diplomatic and intelligence force in the area?...>>>>>
Who decides if a war is legal?
In a careful performance at the Iraq inquiry Sir Jeremy Greenstock claimed to have been ill-informed, not naive
Sir Jeremy Greenstock's questioning of the legitimacy – as opposed to the legality – of the Iraq war raises two pretty big questions of politics and international and law. Who decides if a war is legitimate? Who decides if it's legal? Are these just matters of opinion, to be determined ultimately by whoever has the most power, ie the US? In the case of Iraq, it's clear that Tony Blair subcontracted the decision to George Bush in early 2002.
Appearing at the Iraq inquiry this morning, Greenstock was less overtly critical of government policy than Sir Christopher Meyer was but both seem to have come to the same conclusion – that the diplomatic process was undermined by the military timetable and the commitment that Blair had given Bush that Britain would back regime change if it came to it....>>>>
Chilcot's Iraq war inquiry off to promising start
Sir John Chilcot and his team have started as they mean to continue
The sceptics might say the Iraq inquiry, chaired by Sir John Chilcot, is another pointless investigation, a colossal waste of time, and likely to be a whitewash.
But in the first week, some fascinating evidence has already emerged from these public hearings into the background to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
It is perhaps too early to say if it will be a definitive account of the war. But for those predicting some sort of cover-up, the initial signs suggest otherwise....>>>>>
Iraq Inquiry Digest Everything about the Chilcot Inquiry in one place
Day Four, Iraq Inquiry Minute-by-minute coverage of today's session of Sir John Chilcot's investigation into the Iraq war, which is hearing evidence from Sir Jeremy Greenstock
Baghdad Garden Becomes Graveyard, Full of Grieving
BAGHDAD — In the gardens of the living and the dead, the war goes on; not so much with enthusiasm as with resignation.
Snip
Thousands of mourners throng the headstones in what only three years ago was a community garden on the banks of the Tigris River. This is a relatively new tradition in Iraq, paying respects to the dead between morning prayers and the feast held later in the day. On this one day, the garden of the dead overflows with the living.
Snip
Now this garden, known as the Martyrs of Adhamiya since it became a cemetery in 2007, is so densely packed with graves that it is often difficult to walk between the rectangular capstones that cover each one (out of reverence, no one dares tread on top). Six months ago, the authorities counted 9,000 graves, but many more have been added since. Nearly all are victims of Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence of one sort or another — terroristic bombings, sectarian killings, political assassinations...>>>>>
The Pandora's box, of an innocent country and people, we not only opened but totally destroyed that will take decades to be rebuilt, if ever!
Scott Ritter: The truth of UK's guilt over Iraq
Until Chilcot hears UN weapons inspectors' testimony, the fiction of Britain honestly seeking a WMD smoking gun prevails
With its troops no longer engaged in military operations inside Iraq, Great Britain has been liberated politically to conduct a postmortem of that conflict, including the sensitive issue of the primary justification used by then Prime Minister Tony Blair for going to war, namely Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or WMD.
The failure to find any WMD in Iraq following the March 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of that country by US and British troops continues to haunt those who were involved in making the decision for war. The issue of Iraqi WMD, and the role it played in influencing the decision for war, is at the centre of the ongoing Iraq war inquiry being conducted by Sir John Chilcot....>>>>>
Labels: British Iraq Inquiry, Chilcot Inquiry, Condoleezza Rice, General Sir Michael Rose, Intelligence, Iraq, Iraq War Inquiry, president bush, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Tony Blair, United Nations, WMD
Inside a Prison Outside the Law
Read exclusive excerpts from narratives by the attorneys who have represented Guantanamo Detainees, at above link
About The Guantanamo Lawyers
This new book contains over 100 personal narratives from attorneys who have represented detainees held at “Gitmo” as well as at other “black sites” such as Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
“One of the most inspiring features of the post-9/11 world has been the willingness of lawyers from all walks of life to volunteer to represent those condemned to indefinite detention at Guantánamo. This book provides an invaluable birds-eye view of what it’s like to fight for justice in a law-free zone, representing men who the government has labeled the worst of the worst.”—David Cole
“This is a fascinating and revealing behind-the-scenes account of the human stories inside Guantánamo, told candidly by some of America’s best, and most public-spirited, lawyers.”—Jane Mayer
Review: "The Guantanamo Lawyers: Inside a Prison Outside the Law"
"This collection of stirring narrative, government data and testimony, edited by two of the lawyers for those detained by the Bush administration as unlawful combatants at Guantnamo, puts America on notice about the issues of civil liberties and constitutional freedoms. Denbeaux and Hafetz have edited together accounts from 100 other detainee advocates into a chronological narrative of legal battles: to gain access to their clients, to establish the detainees' right to habeas corpus, to describe the occupants of 'Gitmo' (at its peak, 750 from 40 countries) and the torture and mistreatment of detainees. They describe their clients as underlings, working stiffs and not the high officials of any terrorist group. Plowing through legal red tape, bureaucratic mumbo jumbo and political maneuvering, Denbeaux and Hafetz fight for the men who are isolated without diversions or outside contact. The desperate words, quoted here, of Gitmo detainees on torture grab the heart and do not let go. This compelling book on the American penal colony and its residents is a cautionary tale of overzealous executive wartime power and the awful mess it sometimes leaves behind." Publishers Weekly
Justice as Paradox: Civilian Trials for 9/11 Suspects
Jonathan Hafetz has a blog post up at Balkinization. A Short excerpt is below.Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement Friday that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and four other individuals allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks would be brought to trial in federal court takes an important—if long overdue—step towards restoring the rule of law. No longer are these men “high value detainees,” a label invented out of whole cloth to sanction their previous disappearance into a secret CIA prison and torture. After resurfacing at Guantánamo in September 2006, they are now, finally, defendants in the U.S. criminal justice system, which has shown repeatedly that it is well-equipped to handle terrorism cases while protecting legitimate national security concerns. This was the result advocated by the ACLU’s John Adams Project, and it is a welcome one.
You can also listen to a radio interview Jonathan did at The Takeaway about civilian trials for terrorists.
Or listen here:
The Book: "The Guantanamo Lawyers: Inside a Prison Outside the Law"
The Site: The Guantanamo Lawyers: Inside a Prison Outside the Law
Labels: A. G. Eric Holder, Constitution, Domestic Law, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Guantanamo Lawyers, International Law, Jonathan Hafetz, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Lawyers, Mark Denbeaux, Mother Jones, Prison, Torture
