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

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, 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

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, 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....>>>>>

Inside a Prison Outside the Law

Mother Jones {MoJo} Drumbeat brings the link to the site for the book The Guantanamo Lawyers: 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

Iraq War Inquiry, Day Three

On Sept 11 2001 Condi Rice, within hours of the devestation, was already sure al Qaeda did the hijackings and attacks but was also Already Mentioning Iraq as being Involved, or hoping so! To me I keep seeing a picture forming that they weren't interested At All in seeking out bin Laden nor even al Qaeda members, but Were Hell Bent On Regime Change In Iraq, which was already being discussed and pushed prior to Sept 11 2001. They had no concern for seeking out those who were a part of this extremely destructive criminal act against our Nation and it's Citizens, nor seemingly concern or thought as to the victims of the three extremely destructive acts, Saddam was on their minds!!

Iraq inquiry hears about Blair shift on regime change

George W. Bush and Tony Blair appeared to have "converged" on regime change in Iraq after talks at the U.S. president's Texas ranch in April 2002, a former British ambassador to Washington said on Thursday.

Snip

"I know what the Cabinet Office says were the results of the meeting but to this day I am not entirely clear what degree of convergence was, if you like, signed in blood at the Crawford ranch," Meyer told a British inquiry into the Iraq war.

Snip

"There are clues in the speech that Tony Blair gave the next day ... To the best of my knowledge, I may be wrong, this was the first time that Tony Blair had said in public 'regime change'," Meyer said.

"What he was trying to do was to draw the lessons of 9/11 and apply them to the situation in Iraq which led -- I think not inadvertently but deliberately -- to a conflation of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein."

Snip

Meyer said that on Sept. 11, 2001, he spoke to Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, who said there was no doubt the attack on America was an al Qaeda operation and agencies were looking into possible connections with Iraq.

Snip

The former ambassador said that the "unforgiving nature" of the military timetable for an invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not give time for U.N. weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix to do their job in Iraq.

"It was impossible to see how Blix could bring the inspection process to a conclusion, for better or worse, by March," Meyer said.

"... you had to short-circuit the inspection process by finding the notorious smoking gun ... We found ourselves scrabbling for the smoking gun, which was another way of saying 'it's not that Saddam has to prove that he's innocent, we've now bloody well got to try and prove that he's guilty.'"

"And we -- the Americans, the British -- have never really recovered from that because of course there was no smoking gun."..>>>>>

From "The American Conservative":

Britain’s Iraq Inquiry

We are only two days in, and already we have “learned” that (for the benefit of the American market) there was no link to 9/11, that there were no WMD, and that Saddam Hussein would have been toppled by an internal coup anyway.

Snip

And why doesn’t everyone on the British Right who admires the American neoconservatives ask what it is about them that makes them so attractive to Tony Blair, of all people? If he loves them so much, then why do they? Likewise, to the Bush supporters now accruing to Palin, do some digging into Blair’s domestic record. If Bush loved Blair so much, then why did and why do you love Bush?...>>>>>

Reporter's Podcast: Britain Launches Iraq War Inquiry

A British inquiry opened this week looking into the country's participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Paul Davies of Independent Television News describes testimony that the Bush Administration mentioned Iraq on the day of the 9/11 attacks...>>>>>

Iraq inquiry's game-changing evidence

Sir Christopher Meyer's evidence has surely made it impossible to claim that Iraq was about WMD and not regime change

Snip

At the Iraq inquiry this morning, Sir Christopher Meyer has let so many cats out of the bag that it is hard to keep up with them all. He has confirmed that by the time Tony Blair met George Bush at Crawford, Texas in April 2002, Blair had already agreed to regime change. Meyer and others had told the US administration about this change of heart in March 2002. The "UN route" was a way to justify the war but the inspectors were never given the chance to do their job.

Or did we know all that already? Ever since the war, there has been a massive gulf between what various leaked documents have shown and the official version. Previous inquiries have failed to close that gap. Now Meyer, who was the UK ambassador to Washington at the time, has done exactly that.

Snip

Meyer said that the plan initially worked perfectly, with the passing in November 2002 of UN security council resolution 1441, which put the emphasis on Saddam Hussein. The US hoped that it would provide a tripwire to justify war but it did not. As we know now, there were no WMD.

This turned 1441 on its head. The military timetable, with war slated for March 2003, did not allow the inspections to work. There was a desperate scrabble for a smoking gun and attention turned to claims of Iraqi non-co-operation. Unfortunately, in March 2003, Hans Blix reported increased co-operation.

Snip

It looks as if Sir John Chilcot was right – in Meyer's case – to expect candour, given the mountain of evidence that the inquiry has. Meyer made clear that he was aware of these papers, none of which have yet been officially published. Unfortunately, Meyer said that many of his dispatches, warning of problems to come, are missing from the inquiry's otherwise excellent archive, which is of course dependent on disclosure by the government.

It looks as if the cover-up is continuing, but being botched this time....>>>>>

Christopher Meyer at Iraq war inquiry: Minute-by-minute coverage of Sir John Chilcot's investigation into the war in Iraq

The Downing Street Documents

Text of the Christopher Meyer Letter - March 18, 2002 memo from Christopher Meyer (UK ambassador to the US) to David Manning (UK Foreign Policy Advisor) recounting Meyer’s meeting with Paul Wolfowitz (US Deputy Secretary of Defense).

Sky News: Iraq Inquiry - Day 3

There was intrigue today from the moment it began - or didn't. Sir Christopher Meyer was late for his appearance delaying the start for some 40 minutes. He stated that it was for "reasons almost out of my control." Almost? What could he mean? He didn't elaborate.

"That George Bush was Calling the Shots"


Anyway - he got straight into a fascinating account of his time as the UK's man in Washington. And he didn't disappoint.

His task was to explain the relationship between Bush and Blair, how that relationship developed and how the stance of both America and the UK changed towards Iraq between 2001 and the invasion in March 2003...>>>>>

Iraq inquiry: stand up and be tweeted

After day three of the Iraq war inquiry, a picture is emerging of America's determination to invade - and the details are getting the Twittersphere spinning.

He is famous for being the man sent to Washington to "get up the arse of the White House and stay there".

But now Sir Christopher Meyer has told the Iraq war inquiry "there was a large chunk of time" in which no adviser was present as Tony Blair and George W Bush discussed the grounds on which to invade Iraq...>>>>>

It was all about Blair

The evidence on Iraq is now clear. The former PM was dizzied by Bush, and misled gullible MPs

The limitations of the Chilcot inquiry are obvious. It is a group of establishment trusties, evidence will not be on oath and the government is doing its best to keep key documents from the inquiry. Even yesterday, in the very first week of the inquiry, former British ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, mentioned four key documents that he knew existed but the Chilcot inquiry had not seen.

But despite everything, the truth is coming to light. One key revelation from Meyer's evidence is that Washington decided they wanted to invade Iraq and then scrabbled around for supporting evidence. As he put it: "The real problem, which I did draw several times to the attention of London, was that the contingency military timetable had been decided before the UN inspectors went in under Hans Blix." In other words, the inspections were a charade. The Americans were never much interested in the results. They had made up their minds...>>>>>

Chilcot inquiry: Tony Blair decided on Iraq war a year before invasion - envoy

Chilcot inquiry: Tony Blair's government never considered opting out or opposing George Bush's plan to invade Iraq. Photograph: Luke Frazza/EPA

Tony Blair's government decided up to a year before the Iraq invasion that it was "a complete waste of time" to resist the US drive to oust Saddam Hussein, opting instead to offer advice on how it should be done, the former British ambassador to Washington said today.

Sir Christopher Meyer, testifying to the Chilcot inquiry into Britain's role in the war, made it clear that once the Bush administration decided to take military action, the Blair government never considered opting out or opposing it...>>>>>

Britain 'had to prove Saddam was guilty'

The US had wanted to depose Saddam Hussein for years before the invasion, the war inquiry has heard. (AFP)

The Iraq war inquiry in London has been told that the United States' insistence on going to war left Britain scrabbling for evidence of dangerous weapons to justify the invasion.

The former British ambassador to the United States, Sir Christopher Meyer, has been giving evidence on the third day of hearings.

Sir Christopher arrived in Washington in 1997 and held his role as chief conduit between London and Washington until 2003.

He told the inquiry that regime change in Iraq was US policy under the Democrats led by Bill Clinton.

He recalled conversations with the former US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz during which the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was first mentioned...>>>>>

They may be still trying to coverup some of what was going on, as mentioned earlier about talk of regime change long before 9/11, but with these pieces of information being spoken that coverup will fall apart rather rapidly, too many heads were in the game of criminality of the coming terror to be wrought on the Iraqi people and continuing on the Afghans as the drums beat away from al Qaeda and bin Laden!!

Iraq Inquiry Digest Everything about the Chilcot Inquiry in one place

Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war Follow the action as inquiry into one of the most contentious decisions of modern times begins hearing evidence

We Shall Remain: After the Mayflower

Program: American Experience
Episode: We Shall Remain: After the Mayflower, Pt. 1 of 5

In March of 1621, in what is now southeastern Massachusetts, Massasoit, the leading sachem of the Wampanoag, sat down to negotiate with a ragged group of English colonists. Hungry, dirty, and sick, the pale-skinned foreigners were struggling to stay alive; they were in desperate need of Native help.
• Visit the We Shall Remain: After the Mayflower, Pt. 1 of 5 webpage

Thanks on Thanksgiving

Message of 'teabaggers' {some being veterans} is heard, those meager taxes you don't want to pay, nor want your corporate sponsors to fork over, hit the issues like Veterans Care in shortfalls of treasuries! How are those magnetic ribbons, faded can't read now, gone never replaced, and them purple heart bandages?

Support?, in words and cheap symbols only!!



Governor Vetoes Soldiers' Home Funding

For the past few weeks veterans and health care workers at the Soldiers' Home have rallied in Western Mass. and Boston, fighting for Gov. Deval Patrick to restore funding. All were disappointed to learn the governor would not be sending funds their way.

"Closing this place would just be a sin on someone's soul," veteran Paul Camrye said...>>>>>

A chest full of medals and a head full of nightmares

Dr. Kernan Manion, a psychiatrist who was fired after he complained about conditions for his PTSD patients at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, N.C. (AP Photo/Jim R. Bounds)

Veterans with PTSD have a lot to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. The Veterans Administration has made remarkable progress in identifying and treating veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and the Department of Defense is finally doing something to find out how and why active duty servicemen and women get PTSD....>>>>>

Be better if we would not send our soldiers into Wars and Occupations of Choice, but after four plus decades and two more occupations the country has a growing understanding of the results, till the masses push those realities out once again!

Iraq War Inquiry

Lest anyone forget, even though these are being held in Britain, that the cheney/bush administration, especially rummy, were telling the Inspectors they knew Exactly where the Chem and Bio weapons were located but as the Inspectors kept calling for those locations the administration kept saying they couldn't release that information to them as it would Compromise Intelligence Gathering, and we all remember Powell at the UN, talk about intelligence?!!!!

Iraq war inquiry hears intelligence on Saddam 'patchy' in run-up to conflict

The department's officials told how ministers heard that knowledge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programmes was "sporadic" in the years up to the invasion of 19-20 March 2003. In September 2002 the intelligence "remained limited", they heard. Yet Blair that month described Saddam's banned weapons programme as "active, detailed and growing" and said the picture emerging was "detailed and authoritative"...>>>>>

Nick Clegg: crying wolf in 2003 destroyed all trust in Britain's leaders

The opening of the inquiry into the Iraq war reminded me that one of the greatest tragedies of Labour’s foreign policy is that they focused on Iraq, not Afghanistan. They focused on winning the argument for an unjustified war, instead of winning a justified war....>>>>>

One point, raised the last two days and heard again at the end of the video report, is the talk of regime change in Iraq prior to 9/11 having ramped up and going from the U.S. State Department and sanctions to the Pentagon and regime change, directly after that tragic day. I'm getting the picture, already had but clearer now, the Administration wasn't concerned at all with al Qaeda and bin Laden, thus 9/11, they wanted Saddam gone, reason the Ghost Enemy has grown, al Qaeda, and bin Laden and the so called top leaders of are still out there!

Iraq wasn't the biggest threat, war inquiry hears

The Iraq war inquiry in London has heard that Britain's international security chiefs considered Iraq was not as big a threat as three other rogue states.

The Chilcot inquiry has now heard two days of evidence from the most senior Foreign Office officials who received and analyzed intelligence on Iraq for two years before the war and in the year after the invasion.

It has emerged that Britain's Foreign Office also told former prime minister Tony Blair that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction had been dismantled, 10 days before Britain invaded Iraq.

Overnight, the head of international security in that office, Sir William Ehrman, told the inquiry that Britain had never found any evidence to substantiate claims coming from the White House that Saddam Hussein had a link to Al Qaeda.

Snip

"After 9/11 we concluded that the Iraqis had actually stepped further back, that they didn't want to be associated with Al Qaeda," he said.

Snip

Not only were there no nuclear or chemical weapons considered dangerous, but the UK's intelligence community ranked Iraq fourth on a list of states posing the greatest risk to Britain's national security.

Iran, North Korea and Libya were all thought to be bigger threats...>>>>>

Iran has only grown in that region, North Korea has only continued to advance as well, especially in long range rocket development, but Libya a more dangerous threat then Iraq, and now the United States and Libya are good friends according to the cheney/bush administration, Hmmmmm!!

British Officials: Little Pre-War Evidence of al-Qaida-Iraq Link

Two senior British officials say there was no evidence of serious cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida after the 2003 Iraq invasion, and only sporadic contacts in years before

Snip

Dowes told panel members there was little new intelligence on Iraq or its capacity for weapons of mass destruction since the late 1990s. He said analysts determined those early contacts did not look like collusion, and said he believed U.S. operatives shared that assessment.

Ehrman said there was scattered evidence that Iraq may have possessed disassembled components of chemical-biological weaponry. But he described that data as inconclusive and said analysts generally doubted Baghdad had the technology to deliver such payloads...>>>>>

Britain knew Iraq destroyed weapons but proceeded to invade, inquiry told

SECRET INTELLIGENCE was received by Britain in the days before the Iraq invasion was launched in 2003, indicating Saddam Hussein had destroyed chemical weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq inquiry was told yesterday.

Sir William Ehrman, a senior foreign office figure, said: “We were getting, in the very final days before military action, some intelligence on chemical and biological weapons – that it was dismantled and that Iraq might not have the munitions to deliver it.”...>>>>>

Iraq inquiry focusing on Bush-Blair relationship

Many UK politicians criticised Tony Blair's closeness to George Bush

Tony Blair "sealed his reputation" in America by his support for the US after 9/11, the UK's former ambassador to the US has told the Iraq war inquiry.

Sir Christopher Meyer said Mr Blair and President George Bush "got on" from the moment they met in 2001 and that their relationship "warmed" after that...>>>>>

Iraq Inquiry Digest Everything about the Chilcot Inquiry in one place

Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war Follow the action as inquiry into one of the most contentious decisions of modern times begins hearing evidence

Military Debt Protection

Military Debt Protection Could Hold Lessons for Congress, Consumers

A special collaboration between the NewsHour and Frontline looks at how a military program aims to protect consumers from amassing too much debt.



JIM LEHRER: Next tonight: a special Frontline/NewsHour collaboration on how to protect consumers from too much debt. Advocates say the military could teach Congress some lessons on that subject.

Frontline correspondent Lowell Bergman reports...>>>>>Full Transcript

The above is a part of a PBS Frontline Report The Card Game
aired on Nov. 24, 2009

FRONTLINE and The New York Times join forces to investigate the changing nature of the consumer credit business. With new regulations coming, what are the new terms and products banks will be offering customers?...>>>>>

Follow link above to view the whole program and find more links to the report on this issue.

More on the 'The Family'

If you didn't catch this today you may want to, finding out what some in and out of our government are doing as to International Policy, In Our Names, like anti-gay legislation in Uganda, but not through the channels and agencies our Government has established.

The Secret Political Reach Of 'The Family'

November 24, 2009

You may recognize these names from recent headlines: Sen. John Ensign, Rep. Bart Stupak and Rep. Joe Pitts. Stupak and Pitts have become familiar names through the media's health care overhaul coverage; their abortion funding amendment introduced an 11th-hour twist as the House of Representatives approached a vote on a landmark health care bill.

Snip

Sharlet returns to Fresh Air to talk to host Terry Gross about Ensign, Stupak and Pitts, and about new developments concerning the Family...>>>>>

"The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power" By Jeff Sharlet who is also the author of "Killing the Buddha: A Heretic's Bible", a travelogue based on a year he and Peter Manseau spent exploring the margins of faith in America.

British Inquiry Into Iraq War

This is what this Country, the United States, should be doing now or had already done during the previous administration, investigating towards Impeachment and possible Indictments, depending on what evidence of crimes and lies surfaced. Especially if we really are what we like to think and demand others to believe we are and if our Constitution still exist as the leading Representative Democracy on this planet. But leave it up to 'Old Europe', hopefully, to seek answers that should be in the light of day and a part of the physical history added to the already known.

But it's never to late for us to try and minimize the blowback from our extremely destructive policies, or is it!

Rose Gentle seeks truth from Iraq inquiry

The Glasgow mother, whose son Gordon was killed in the Iraq War, has been speaking ahead of the opening of Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry.


{this isn't the video from this report, the news video at link}

The mother of a Glasgow soldier who was killed in Iraq has spoken ahead of the inquiry into why the war began.

Rose Gentle, whose 19-year-old son Gordon died in Basra in 2004, spoke to STV News before travelling down to London for the beginning of the inquiry on Tuesday.

Rose has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq conflict and helped set up the group Military Families against the War...>>>>>

Tuesday 24 November 2009 - Opening of Inquiry

Iraq Inquiry Opens Amid Whitewash Claims

The chairman of an official inquiry into the Iraq war has used his opening remarks to rebuff claims it will be a whitewash and insisted it will be a "fair and frank" investigation.



Sir John Chilcot said he will not will not shy away from being critical in his wide-ranging, televised probe into how the UK came to invade the country in 2003...>>>>>

Chilcot inquiry told UK did not consider Iraq regime change before 9/11

Whitehall refused to engage in talks about toppling Saddam but shared US concerns that containment policy was failing



British officials decided not to get involved in talk about regime change in Iraq in 2001 even though some parts of the new Bush administration began to discuss the possibility two years before the invasion, the opening hearing of the UK inquiry into the war heard today.

But Whitehall was, like Washington, concerned that the policy of containing Saddam Hussein was failing before the September 11 attacks on the US, senior civil servants said....>>>>>

Saddam options 'discussed a year before Iraq war'

British officials privately discussed the prospect of "regime change" in Iraq in late 2001 - more than a year before the invasion - the Iraq War inquiry was told today.

Giving evidence on the first day of public hearings, Sir William Patey, a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office official, said the idea of ousting Saddam Hussein had been discussed in an internal FCO paper...>>>>>

Iraq Inquiry Digest Everything about the Chilcot Inquiry in one place

Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war Follow the action as inquiry into one of the most contentious decisions of modern times begins hearing evidence

Iraq Inquiry: Day 1

Well, after just six hours of evidence at an Inquiry that will last over a year and, already, some interesting disclosures.

The top lines are these:

1. There were "drum-beats" of war with Iraq coming from elements of the Bush Administration in early 2001

2. The UK discussed regime change in an internal Foreign Office "options paper" in 2001 but quickly dismissed it as illegal.

The focus of today was context: an effort to establish what the UK's position on Iraq was in 2001 - prior to the 9/11 attacks...>>>>>

"We were conscious that there were other voices in Washington, some of whom were talking about regime change," Ricketts said, citing an article written by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice warning that nothing would change in Iraq until Saddam was gone."...>>>>>

No 10 - Blair - Cover up - Iraq

Leaked documents reveal No 10 cover-up over Iraq invasion

• Inquiry to hear how Blair hid true intentions for war

• Military 'ill-prepared' for aftermath of invasion

Military commanders are expected to tell the inquiry into the Iraq war, which opens on Tuesday, that the invasion was ill-conceived and that preparations were sabotaged by Tony Blair's government's attempts to mislead the public.

They were so shocked by the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the invasion that they believe members of the British and US governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes by breaching the duty outlined in the Geneva convention to safeguard civilians in a conflict, the Guardian has been told.

The lengths the Blair government took to conceal the invasion plan and the extent of military commanders' anger at what they call the government's "appalling" failures emerged as Sir John Chilcot, the inquiry's chairman, promised to produce a "full and insightful" account of how Britain was drawn into the conflict...>>>>

Self Injected Botox, Watch Out!!

Don't know if the rest of the country's news outlets are reporting this, they've been showing this the last couple of days here in Charlotte, but whether or not others are More Need To See the video and report about this really potential dangerous practice. In todays world there are way to many sheep, especially here in the states, that would quickly fall for this then scream bloody murder if they caused their own damage, blaming everyone but themselves!!

People are going to great lengths to look young these days, but what we found will shock even die-hard plastic surgery junkies.

A Charlotte doctor is leading the fight against a Web site that offers step-by-step instructions to inject yourself with Botox.

"I am here today, I am going to show you how I do my Botox," says a woman in the video.

We found the video on a Web site that sells a product similar to Botox called Dysport...>>>>>

Changing The Jobs Debate with Dean Baker & John Nichols

The Nation's John Nichols , author of "Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy" calls the unemployment crisis a "social, economic and political threat," writing of the growing sense of urgency within an administration facing a purported recovery that hasn't extended to everyday people. Around the country, decaying manufacturing towns and communities are suffering in ways that are hidden by the statistics, and a rising GDP doesn't do much for Main Street. Economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and author of "Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy" wrote:...>>>>> {or at Blip TV}

In all this time of collapsing, and bailing out those who caused it as well as their economics of the expanded reaganomic ideology, there has been Extremely Little to None private capital being reinvested to grow the economy! We were sold the idea that that's exactly what we would get, constant flow of investment from the top trickling down to bring economic stability. It was the Extreme Con some stated it would be, and we're still collapsing only slower!!

What Is So Patriotic About Hysteria?

The loudest voices on the right never tire of telling us that they are the truest patriots. They claim to be the deepest believers in our system, the strongest defenders of our Constitution, the most upbeat, bold and courageous Americans anywhere. But now that the government is finally prepared to put the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on trial, these same patriots are the first to spread doubt, instigate anxiety and abandon constitutional principles.

When did fear-mongering in a time of war become an act of patriotism?...>>>>>