Iraq War Inquiry, Day Six

As we wait to hear President Obama we already know that he will be increasing military troops in Afghanistan. We now need to hear just what the plan is now going to be, i.e. Exit Strategy, once a mainstay meme of the so called Strong on National Defense GOP. Even a certain State Governor called on the meme: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is," - George W. Bush, Texas Gov., 1999

But that was before they increased the hatreds and thus possible enemies towards us a thousand fold and for the coming decades!

I have had on my own mind, especially as I've been catching these reports out of the Inquiry, that we and the U.N. had military troops in Afghanistan already fighting and supposedly searching for the ghost enemy al Qaeda and Especially, "wanted dead or alive", bin Laden, while the drums started beating towards Iraq, We've learned those drum beats started right on 9/11 only hours after the destruction and death, mentioned by Condi Rice and then some three days later by President Bush himself.

This has started raising some more questions we need to hear answers for. We had promised, and not only us but the other western countries, once ridding Afghanistan, and still going after bin Laden, that monies and help would start coming into that country helping them to rebuild, something we promised once before but never kept, after their years of war with the Soviets and the damage we inflicted after 9/11.

One question, with all the beating drums, Who was talking about Afghanistan, securing the country and helping them rebuild? We all know what wasn't done, but was there even any mention of, or were they all so focused on an innocent country Iraq and an old friend Saddam, friend no more, and he knew too much! We may get a chance to find out if there was mention of the Afghan's.

Iraq Inquiry - Day 6

Today, for the first time since the Inquiry began last week, we got a clear sense of a developing narrative... and it is this:

In the run-up to war - those key months between 9/11 (when the Bush Administration's grumblings about Iraq turned to more distinct drum-beats) and the invasion in March 2003 - the UK was determined to lead America down the 'UN route'.

All the witnesses have cited numerous occasions when Tony Blair, with the help of his diplomats and ambassadors, pushed an increasingly disinterested American Administration back to the UN table.

And it worked - to a certain extent.

Snip

They tried, they said, to tell the Americans that there needed to be a plan for what would happen after the invasion. But their message was not getting through.

Sir Peter Ricketts described it like this: "I don't think in the summer of 2002/3... they [the Americans] were putting a great deal of thought into the aftermath period. I think that only really picked up steam in the autumn, when our own discussions with them began to intensify.... it wasn't until the autumn, I think I'm right in saying, that we started to really engage the Americans in a serious discussions of this."

But, by the Autumn, it was the Pentagon, not the State Department taking the lead on all the Iraq planning - invasion and after. And, according to Edward Chaplin - the Pentagon may have been listening, but it was not accepting anyone's advice:

"They [the Pentagon] didn't take many steps to involve their own colleagues in the administration in planning! On the other hand, they were perfectly happy to listen to us..... So it wasn't that they didn't listen, and they were grateful for the papers that we provided and the ideas that we provided, but I don't think the main ideas we were putting forward... got much traction where they counted, which was with the Pentagon."

Snip

The Inquiry is not sitting tomorrow but on Thursday it's the turn of the military chiefs and MoD civil servants. Key questions for them: when were they asked to prepare for military action? What were they asked to prepare for? Was it the right plan? And crucially - to what extent was the UK military participation governed by an inflexible Rumsfeld-driven American military machine?...>>>>>

Maybe on thursday the Military Chiefs and MoD civil servants might be asked, and will answer, what they were talking to their counter parts in the U.S. Military and the Pentagon as they were jumping further into the Iraq invasion plans and searching for the right set of excuses to use, we all know they kept changing so did the U.N.. Was anyone even thinking about bin Laden, al Qaeda, and Especially helping the Afghan People??

Chilcot inquiry: US said Iraqis would welcome invasion

• Post-war plans lost due to 'blind spot' in Washington

• Legality of war questioned by top cabinet members

British attempts to persuade the US to plan for the consequences of an invasion of Iraq foundered on a "blind spot" in Washington where senior officials thought "everyone would be grateful and there would be dancing in the streets", the Chilcot inquiry into the war was told today.

There was "a touching belief [in Washington] that we shouldn't worry so much about the aftermath because it was all going to be sweetness and light", added Edward Chaplin, head of the Middle East department of the Foreign Office at the time.

It was assumed that all would be well, especially if power was handed to an exiled opposition spokesman such as Ahmed Chalabi. "We said [to the Americans] they had very little credibility in Iraq," Chaplin told the inquiry.

Snip

Senior figures in Whitehall said the failure to draw up a proper plan to protect the civilian population after Iraq was occupied was a prima facie breach of the Geneva conventions.

Today, Chaplin and Sir Peter Ricketts, then political director at the FCO, said they were dismayed by the way the Bush administration failed to take the issue seriously, despite personal appeals from Tony Blair to George Bush...>>>>>

I'll bet that some once friends, probably not real bosom buddies, won't be talking to each other across the pond, as the testimony is really not making the U.S. leadership look very good, not at all, and Rightfully So!

A 'real blind spot' and 'dancing in the streets'!

British attempts to improve postwar planning for Iraq 'ignored by US'

A US marine watches a statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled in Baghdad on 9 April 2003. Photograph: Jerome Delay/AP

Iraq inquiry told by diplomat Edward Chaplin that senior Washington figures had 'real blind spot' and assumed there would be 'dancing in streets' after invasion

British attempts to improve "dire" planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion were repeatedly ignored by the US, the inquiry into the war heard today.

Tony Blair raised concerns directly with George Bush amid alarm in Whitehall at the state of the Pentagon's preparations.

But senior figures in Washington had a "real blind spot" and assumed there would be "dancing in streets" when the invasion took place, senior diplomat Edward Chaplin told the inquiry.

"We tried to point out that was extremely optimistic," he said.

Chaplin, who was head of the Middle East section of the Foreign Office at the time of the March 2003 invasion, said there was "a pretty dire state of lack of planning".

There was "a touching belief [in Washington] that we shouldn't worry so much about the aftermath because it was all going to be sweetness and light"....>>>>>

Law lord: Iraq inquiry should issue interim finding that war was illegal

Lord Steyn says it would be a mistake for issue of legality to be kicked into the long grass until after the election

The Iraq inquiry should publish an interim report before the general election declaring the war illegal, a former law lord said today.

Writing in the Financial Times, Lord Steyn said that it would be a mistake for the issue of the legality of the war to be "kicked into the long grass for party political reasons until after the election".

Steyn also criticized the prime minister for not putting a lawyer or a military figure on the inquiry.

Snip

Steyn also said that the inquiry ought to conclude that the war was illegal.

"I would expect the inquiry to conclude – in agreement with Kofi Annan, former secretary-general of the United Nations – that in the absence of a second UN resolution authorizing invasion, it was illegal," he said....>>>>>

And there are some press outlets picking up the inquiry here in the states.

U.S. troops did not expect postwar role, Blair aide says

A mask depicting former Prime Minister Tony Blair is burnt by a demonstrator outside the Iraq-war inquiry in London. KIRSTY WIGGLESWORTH / Associated Press

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 yesterday.

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 that 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.

Snip

(Reviving terrorism allegations against the Hussein regime, the Czech Republic's counterintelligence service said yesterday that in 2000 it disrupted plans by the dictator to attack the offices of U.S.-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague to halt its broadcasts into Iraq.)...>>>>>

This short piece, below, by a Mostafa Zein, closes out what has been presented so far very well, with more to come from the inquiry but also the voices of more Mostafa Zein's, I'm sure.

Liars Who Always Speak the Truth

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has returned to the media forefront. He is now the best example of the old philosophical debate about lying and the truth. The committee tasked with investigating him will focus on his violation of laws, falsification of the facts, failure to listen to intelligence advisers, and reliance on a silly university thesis to prove the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Snip

At the time (2002), Blair was unwilling to hear any opinion that contradicted his policies. The shouting from President George Bush, appearing like an Old Testament prophet, was louder than anything else, and more important than any legal pretext. This shouting, and Bush’s decision to return Iraq to the Stone Age and his threat to anyone who disobeyed his orders, were the law. Bush found no better partner than the British Prime Minister, who outdid Bush and took it upon himself to gather pretexts and excuses to justify the war. He was smarter than Bush, but was also under his spell. No one else was taken by the charisma of the US president; the British press labeled Blair “Bush’s spoiled puppy.” His decision to take part in the war provoked the public. More than a million demonstrators walked the streets of London to protest his decision. Blair’s foreign minister, Robin Cook, resigned. However, none of this dissuaded him from helping “our grandchildren across the ocean,” as Margaret Thatcher used to say....>>>>>

Iraq War Inquiry, Day Five

Caught the first piece earlier today, lays out similar to what many in our country have been saying for years, especially the recent years, and similar to other countries that are supposed to be leaders on this planet.

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!

Iraq War Inquiry: Analysis and Push Back Grows Against any Coverup

But first we have the release of a scathing report from the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, {46 page PDF} How we failed to get bin Laden and why it matters today

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?...>>>>>

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?...>>>>>

What were they hiding?

Their arguments have always been, and continue to be especially from their propaganda machines, TV and Radio, that what they did was cleared by the administrative lawyers, as I heard one say this morning "Highly experienced Lawyers!", and they were are then legal!

The George Washington University National Security Archives have posted up the reports, side by side, from the Bush administration, in May 2008, and the newly released same report from the Obama administration, August 24th 2009.

A side-by-side Comparison of the Bush and Obama Versions of the CIA Inspector General's Report on Torture

Posted - August 25, 2009

Posted below is a side-by-side comparison of the Bush and Obama administration versions of the 2004 CIA Inspector General Report on Torture..............To View Visit Here

So if this was all legal, and they were comfortable to carryout these practices, In This Countries Name, what were they hiding when they redacted so much in their release of!

From the University E-Report sent on 8.25.09:

Washington, DC, August 25, 2009 - Today, the National Security Archive posted a side-by-side comparison of two very different versions of a 2004 report on the CIA's "Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities" by Agency Inspector General John Helgerson. Yesterday, the Obama administration released new portions of the report including considerably more information about the use of torture and other illegal practices by CIA interrogators than a version of the report declassified by the Bush administration in 2008.

New revelations include:

* Details on "specific unauthorized or undocumented torture techniques," including the use of guns, drills, threats, smoke, extreme cold, stress positions, "stiff brush and shackles," waterboarding, mock executions and "hard takedown."

* A look at the legal reasoning behind the Agency's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and the development of Agency guidance on capture, detention and interrogation.

* A brief discussion of the history of the CIA interrogation program, including the "resurgence of interest in teaching interrogation techniques" in the early 1980s "as one of several methods to foster foreign liaison relationships."

* The conclusion that, while CIA interrogations had produced useful intelligence, the "effectiveness of particular interrogation techniques in eliciting information that might not otherwise have been obtained" is not "so easily measured."

The National Security Archive also announced today the publication of the Torture Archive -- more than 83,000 pages of primary source documents (and thousands more to come) related to the detention and interrogation of individuals by the United States, in connection with the conduct of hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in the broader context of the "global war on terror." The goal of the Torture Archive is to become the online institutional memory for essential evidence on torture in U.S. policy. {JS: my highlighting}

With support from the Open Society Institute and the JEHT Foundation since 2006, this initial launch of the Torture Archive includes the complete set of declassified Combatant Status Review Tribunal and Administrative Review Board files from the Pentagon, and thousands of documents resulting from FOIA litigation brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Archive and other plaintiffs. The Torture Archive will continue to add documents as they are released through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation or Executive discretion.

The National Security Archive

The Torture Archive

There's a wealth of information right at the finger tips, with backlinks and your own ability to take it even further.

TORTURE:

BLACK EYE FOR THE RED WHITE AND BLUE

Interrogation used to be an art taught to the "best and brightest." The CIA even has an interrogation manual called KUBARK, long on the internet (google it) showing how to classify "subjects" and get them to spill their guts. Most of the methods are psychological and those with the most to tell, respond to psychological ploys much better than being beaten.

Really tough people will lie to you for years. If nobody has noticed, we are fighting really tough people. Intelligence is only "timely" for 48 hours or as soon as your enemy knows you have someone who can put them in danger. They move, they hide, they cover their tracks. This game is 4000 years old and will never end. >>>>>>Read More

Much more than a "Blackeye", Much Much More!!

Boehner didn't always defend CIA

Boehner: “Either I don’t have confidence in what they told me several months ago or I don’t have confidence in what they’re telling me today.”

EXCLUSIVE: Documents

Describe Prisoner Abuse Photos Obama is Withholding

U.S. Army soldiers in Afghanistan took dozens of pictures of their colleagues pointing assault rifles and pistols at the heads and backs of hooded and bound detainees and another photograph showed two male soldiers and one female solider pointing a broom to one detainee “as if I was sticking the end of a broom stick into [his] rectum,” according to the female soldier’s account as told to an Army criminal investigator.........

Becoming What We Seek to Destroy

We are morally no different from the psychopaths within the Taliban, who Afghans remember we empowered, funded and armed during the 10-year war with the Soviet Union. Acid thrown a girl’s face or beheadings? Death delivered from the air or fields of shiny cluster bombs? This is the language of war. It is what we speak. It is what those we fight speak............

Iraqis shrug off concerns over photos of U.S. abuse

While President Barack Obama argues that releasing photos of U.S. soldiers abusing detainees could incite violence against American troops abroad, a prominent Iraqi leader called for their publication and others cast doubt on the U.S. administration's warnings.

And why, you may ask, because the Blowback on the soldiers already occurred well before We Here Even Heard Or Saw, the loss of stature and in most cases the believability of what we say or do is already gone! That was just One of the Defeats of what one Must Do after Invading, "Winning Hearts and Minds!!"

"Nothing would happen," he said. "This is a very old issue, and we Iraqis have seen much worse than just photos."

This isn't about politics, nor is it only about Iraq and Afghanistan, though we owe much more than Apologies, this is about Who and What we really are as a Country!! Not just catch phrase words and condemnation of others, it's about our Soul and Standing on this Planet of Nations!!

"In Our Names", As Our Countries Policy!!

Ex-Guantanamo Guard Details Prison Abuse

Brandon Neely was a military police officer at Guantanamo when the camp opened. He's now out of the Army, and unlike other former guards, he has been speaking about what he saw there.

NPR Player to Listen

Guantanamo

The video is a combination of three BBC News reports on Guantanamo from Dec. '08 to Jan '09, it's about 141/2 minutes long, the links to each individual video at their site found below.

Guantanamo "Abandoned Our Values and Defiled Our Constitution!"


Guantanamo 'a stain on US military' Dec 3rd '08

Guantanamo closure plan ordered Dec 19th '08

Former guard on Guantanamo 'torture' Jan 9th '09

The Special Prosecutor Petition

In the bush Exit Speech 1-12-09

"The most urgent threat that he'll have to deal with and other presidents after him will have to deal with is an attack on our homeland," Bush said. "You know, I wish I could report that's not the case, but there's still an enemy out there that would like to inflict damage on America."

For once I agree with this incompetent,immoral, unrepentant little man, he's created tens of thousands that didn't exist before, who now wish this Country and It's Citizens Harm, "Mission Accomplished"!!

What's next for Republic Windows & Doors Workers?

What happened at that Chicago manufacturing plant brought back alot of memories of how extremely talented workers fought for what they knew were their rights, decent wages for their labor, on the job safety, trading wages for benefits like health and welfare directly and much much more. Fights that shouldn't have really happened in a real model of capitalism where all should share directly in the quality and growth of their work and the companies they work for.

We need to return to that pride in company and product, quality products and customer service, correcting the defaults, and growth for all, owners, workers, and investors.

We like to use the term 'Strong on National Security' and one political party tries to lay claim to the phrase, trouble is having others build and produce the products and services, in other countries, leaves ours without the experiance and knowledge, thus without the ability to get that security if ever needed. And that political party is the one leading in pushing our trades and knowledge to offshore venues, we have already lost many trades and abilities over these last couple of decades, those who did that work are gone or will be!

Lets look at what's asked in the subject title:

Well it looks like they've got a plan, and a plan that can be followed by others, but first lets look at what they got for their nonviolent action for their rights, rights under the law of this land:

After 6 days occupying the plant, workers at Republic Window and Doors in Chicago voted to accept a settlement late last night.

The settlement totals $1.75million. It will provide the workers with:

* Eight weeks of pay they are owed under the Federal WARN Act

* Two months of continued health coverage, and

* Pay for all accrued and unused vacation.

JPMorgan Chase will provide $400,000 of the settlement, with the balance coming from Bank of America. Although the money will be provided as a loan to Republic Windows and Doors, it will go directly into a third-party fund whose sole purpose is to pay the workers what is owed them. In addition, the UE has started the "Window of Opportunity Fund" dedicated to re-opening the plant.

As the Local 1110 leaders characterized the settlement, "We fought to make them pay what they owe us, and we won." Read more about the settlement here.

They also sent along a "Thank You":

We want to extend a big THANK YOU to all of you who participated in this campaign. The tremendous support and solidarity from the thousands of people like you around the country - and the world - who took the time to send messages to Bank of America and who rallied at banks across the country was crucial in winning this victory.

This is truly an historic victory for workers in the United States.

But this struggle is just the beginning! As the economic crisis deepens we need to launch a working class fight back. Rallies for a "People's Bailout" will continue today and throughout the rest of the week. Click here to find an action near you {updated daily}. You can also take action online.

* Tell Congress: We Demand a People's Bailout

* Save Autoworker Jobs

* VOTE NOW for Grinch of the Year

Thanks again for all that you do! You can see photos, video, and press clips from the Week of Action here.

In todays Chicago Tribune they lay out what is on the workers minds, they won their fight for their rights but like many in this collapsing economy they are now out of jobs.

The six-day sit-in by former workers at the shuttered Republic Windows & Doors plant won them money and benefits, but they're still out of work, leading them and others to say they'll try to reopen the factory as they hope what they did provides a spark of hope for a beleaguered labor movement.

While they tried,

Union negotiators were unable to obtain a commitment from the parties to reopen the Goose Island plant, said United Electrical Workers organizer Mark Meinster. So the union has decided to forge ahead to find someone new to run the plant, he said, using some of the money donated from around the world during the sit-in.

City officials have voiced their support for work to resume in the building, which is owned by Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co.

"There are assets in there," said Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd), who said he has contacted companies to see whether they are interested in moving into the plant.

The deal struck for the workers was hailed by some as a symbolic victory for American workers facing a difficult economic climate. Robert Bruno, a labor expert at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said the peaceful occupation might set an example for others faced with abrupt layoffs.

And as a Representative of his Districts People says:

"This Republic Windows saga, I'm sure, is reverberating throughout boardrooms in America," said U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez {D-Ill.}, who moderated the negotiations.

And it shouldn't be only because of the action taken by these workers to force The Law of This Country to be Followed, laws are not only to be followed by some they are to be followed by all!

And this spin, propaganda, group think, that passes as fact should end, that Labor Costs, Wages and Benefits are what takes down companies and economies, while we Totally Ignore the Packages of the Executives, from top down throughout the executive structure and the wheeling and dealings on Wall Street and in our Governments, Federal, State and Local, the greed and incompetence across all these must stop, and rewarding those who are incompetent and fully behind the greed must also stop, especially as workers wages and benefits are stagnant across the board for many years while corporate leadership aren't, for as we're watching and living That's What Brings Down Companies and Economies!

While it will be extremely difficult to obtain financing to restructure companies with the worker input, and that's a must, we need to rebuild a new system, a real Capitalist System where All benefit not just the hand full, we are seeing the results of that last, Everyone Loses, Everyone!!

Oh and a not so little secret, for it's what built this countries economy up till some twenty to thirty years ago, not everyone wants nor needs a piece of paper telling them and others they gained knowledge from so called places of Higher Education. Skills and Experience aren't taught there, skills many feel they have or have developed through their own interests they seek to develop further and get compensated as well as feel good about using and developing those skills. Interests outside of work are sought not only to satisfy a curiosity but a need to learn more about them. Education is a lifelong experience and want for most, it just depends on how one seeks out that education and not being forced into.

Coming Home - 60minutes Sunday 11-02-08

Reservists' Rocky Return To Job Market
60 Minutes Report Also Examines Costs Borne By Employers Of Deployed Citizen Soldiers

Coming Home

Citizen soldiers returning from active military duty are entitled by law to get back their old jobs or at least the same salaries, but many are still having trouble. Leslie Stahl reports.

With the Pentagon relying so heavily on the National Guard and Reserve to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan - 650,000 have been called for active duty since 9/11 - the least you'd expect is that after they serve, they get their old civilian jobs back.

There's a law, called USERRA (Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act), that says their employers have to take them back at the same pay.

But what 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl found is that despite the law, thousands of guards and reservists come home to find themselves demoted or penalized, or out of a job completely.

Digg It Here

"Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations"

The House Judiciary Committee today, Friday, July 25th, will put Impeachment squarely back "on the table" and restored to its prominent place in our Constitution.


Wednesday 07/25/2008 - 10:00 AM
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Full Committee
By Direction of the Chairman


The first panel Friday morning will include Congressman Dennis Kucinich making a case for impeachment based on the articles of impeachment he has drafted against Cheney and Bush.


The Cheney/Bush links takes you to the pages over at After Downing Street.org where Diavid Swanson has the pertinant links to much more information.


The rest of that first panel will include: Hon. Maurice Hinchey U.S. House of Representatives 22nd District, NY, Hon. Walter Jones U.S. House of Representatives 3rd District, NC, And Hon. Brad Miller U.S. House of Representatives 13th District, NC.


Then the second panel convenes and will include: Hon. Elizabeth Holtzman Former U.S. House of Representatives 16th District, NY Department of Justice, Hon. Bob Barr Former U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 7th District, GA, Hon. Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson Founder and President High Roads for Human Rights, Stephen Presser Raoul Berer Professor of Legal History Northwestern University School of Law, Bruce Fein Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82 Chairman, American Freedom Agenda, Vincent Bugliosi Author and Former Los Angeles County Prosecutor, Jeremy A. Rabkin Professor of Law George Mason University School of Law, Elliott Adams President of the Board Veterans for Peace, Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr. Senior Counsel Brennan Center for Jutice at NYU School of Law.


The links above will give you each persons testimony, in PDF, after the hearings are over and they are posted to the House Judiciary Committee site.


Elliott Adams, President of Veterans for Peace, and a descendant of American revolutionary Sam Adams, will deliver this prepared testimony, in it he will tell America:

Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention of 1787 –
Ben Franklin was asked: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
Dr. Franklin replied: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

He will tell them who Veterans For Peace are:

Veterans For Peace has members from every war our country has fought back to and including World War II. VFP is 23 years old, has over 120 chapters spread around the country, has an NGO seat in the UN, and a small share in the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. Our members help 85,000 Iraqis get safe drinking water, gave 54,000 free phone cards to patients in 148 VA hospitals, help Agent Orange victims both US soldiers and Vietnamese civilians, aided Hurricane Katrina victims, supports schools and orphanages in Afghanistan & Vietnam, have worked extensively in Central American for freedom and fair elections, and bought appropriate body armor for soldiers in Iraq when the government could not supply it.

But many of our members have set aside all these other important works to defend our democracy by calling for impeachment.

He will also let America know:

"For us veterans, when our time came, we volunteered our very lives for this republic; for the principle of freedom for all, for equal opportunity for all, to defend the Constitution and the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and to guarantee the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, Congressmen, it is your time, and I hear there is not enough time! Now is your time, and I hear it will not be good for one party or the other party! Now is your time, and I hear there is not enough political will around you! When our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence they were not worried about political will, or how much time there was, or about any parties' political future, they were just worried they were going to be hanged by the neck. But they did what was right. Now it is your time to standup. Einstein said – 'The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.'"

Upon joining the United States Military Branches we take an Oath, and in that oath we say these words: "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.", as veterans we still take oath very seriously!


Unless you came here as an immigrant from another country, the greater majority of the citizens of this country aren't required to take an oath, most will say the Pledge of Alligence to the flag, but even that is not a required oath. Your oath is the written Bill of Rights and the Constitution and in those it lays out the what this country was founded on and what it must do when these are violated.


We are supposed to be a Land of Law and when our Laws are Violated and Broken we must take the nessary actions to uphold the Constitution and the Qualities this Nation strives for and lead by the example we set for ourselves!


Bruce Fein, Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82, in his testimony will than tell the American people:

"If President George W. Bush had knocked to enter the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787, presiding convention president George Washington would have denied him admission. Thereby hangs an alarming tale. The executive branch has vandalized the Constitution every bit as much [sic] the barbarians vandalized Rome in 410 AD. The executive branch has destroyed the Constitution's time-honored checks and balances and raced the nation perilously close to executive despotism. The executive branch rejects the basic philosophical tenets of the United States. It does not accept that America was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that sovereignty in a republican form of government lies with the people; that there are no vassals or serfs in the Constitution's landscape; that every man or woman is a king or queen but no one wears a crown; and, that the rule of law is the nation's civic religion. The Founding Fathers fashioned impeachment as a remedy for attacks against the constitutional order."

Many of you have been right along side those who threw Impeachment, that should have occurred long ago, off "the table", and the only reason is your fear that the political party letter you follow will not gain the control of power, for your hired representatives, you crave.


We Veterans have served this Country in times of relative Peace but especially in those times of War and Occupation, right or wrong, that you have sent us into.


Reason; We Took An Oath to Defend and Protect the Constitution of this Country and to serve Honorably, and we have, and once that Oath was taken it was never forgotten, like our experiances in service to.



It's long past time for the Citizens to stand up and Defend their Constitution and Country, it's time You Did Your Service and hold those destroying the Constitution and Country, from within, Accountable for the Laws Covered, and Broken, by that Extremely Important Document, the document we live by and leads us above others as to the example we should be setting for all to see!

The day before the hearing, some of those impeachment advocates gathered at the National Press Club, David Swanson, Ray McGovern, Bruce Fein, Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia Papermaster, and Crystal Kim. Videos of what they had to say, and their questions and answers with the media, are posted at YouTube

Over at After Downing Street

David has a post up now for Live Blogging from the Hearing on Impeachment!

You can go over and leave any comments, and he'll probably be giving updates from the hearing chamber when it begins!

Not The U.S. I Grew Up In - No More!

Guantanamo Unclassified



Blue Man Group on Global Warming