Could the Brit Iraq War Inquiry be Expanding?

But probably not here in the states, for we're a Nation of Arrogance and Apathy, but Fear and what we call our Politics rules our critical thoughts and common sense and especially fear of bringing possible extreme criminal leaders, and their support groups, to justice!

The Chilcot Iraq War Inquiry is on a break for the holidays. Holidays of celebrating the birth of the 'prince of peace' from one religious ideology as well as other celebrations from this worlds other religious ideologies, all of these based on a number of religious themes and teachings but one stands out that isn't followed 'tolerance' of each other and even outside of religions the racial and religious makeup of others.

The other holiday will see the end of a very destructive decade! It started out very questionable towards greater world peace, a goal everyone is supposed to want and led by this country, the United States, as we preach our rhetoric of democracy and freedom for all from that once big house on the top of the hill of power, then went rapidly downhill from there! We've possibly created the decades of hate and retaliation from our failed policies and extremely failed moral judgments to come. The death and destruction wrought, the hatreds raised, the feeding of the reality into that which others have described us as really being was the decade passing into the coming decades of possible criminal terror that knows no border and has ghost named groups as enemies!

But the reason for the subject title comes from a little article, one of many, after apparently a radio news announcement in one of the countries of the 'coalition of the willing' that have been coming out after the first couple of weeks of the British Iraq War Inquiry before the break for the afore mentioned Happy Holidays.

JAPANESE LAWMAKERS DEMAND INQUIRY INTO SUPPORT FOR IRAQ WAR

Politicians from Japan’s ruling coalition are to demand an inquiry into Japan’s decision to support the Iraq War.

Lawmakers from the Democratic and Social Democratic parties have criticized the decision by the cabinet of then-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to support the United States’ use of force in Iraq...>>>>>

They say they will be seeking a third party inquiry next year.

Why could this be important especially if other countries, who might have changed governments and or feel a guilt from being participants in the death and destruction, come forward seeking answers?

There are an awful lot of questions still needing answers or pieces of the already known to fill in some blanks, we've already seen some filled and now on the record in public testimony as to what was going on within our administration starting even before Sept 11.

One of those questions still out there and rarely mentioned, if at all, was how much did it cost us as a Nation to gather the other countries, some sending handfuls of military troops most not, to support the invasion and destruction of Iraq based of falsified intelligence and a want for regime change of a once friend of this country and control of that country and it's resources. Which in turn caused the abandonment of helping the Afghanistan people after the overthrow of the Taliban and walking away from really seeking out and destroying the perpetrators of the Sept 11th hijacking attacks on this country, the purpose of which is why we went to War in the first place.

What were given to these small countries, many with little power nor military to offer only the support sought by the corrupt administration here in the United States who were collecting and cheery picking intelligence and spin to justify their wants of not only regime change, and possibly hiding the failed policies of the past forever, but control as an added member of an empire with our military based in country for the coming decades.

Did it cost us, from our empty treasury, to garner the British support as well? Probably, but that may never come out as it's already been mentioned in the Inquiry that Iraq was already on a short list, near the bottom, of potential trouble countries as seen by the Blair government at the time and I'm sure they, empire builders of old, were seeking a cut of the lucrative monetary wealth the U.S. was also seeking from the oil and more!

If more of these countries of the 'coalition of the willing' come forward with their own inquiries, or individuals of do same, we may get the answers to what we promised and gave them in return for their support and especially those who sent their own military troops in many sacrificing their lives on our failed whims of total power and control of others and greasing the wheels of the military industrial complex with more enemies to profit off of for years to come.

These Inquiries may just minimize the blowback sure to come from our failed policies, we may have been witness yesterday, Christmas day, of an act of retaliation and blowback, hopefully a singular attempt! But since the past decade began, as we finish it out with the coming year, there have already been many forms of criminal terror in many countries.

Below are a few other picks of articles coming out of the British Inquiry and before they reconvene.

Press TV/News Analysis/Iraq war inquiry/12/11/2009


Blair to Testify Before Iraq Inquiry

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is scheduled to testify before an independent inquiry on his nation's involvement in the Iraq war early next year, United Press International reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 18)...>>>>>

To this decade of deception, goodbye and good riddance

Just over 10 years ago I was waiting on top of the Mount of Olives, notebook in hand, for the end of the world. It was December 1999, and newspapers were peddling the spectre of a catastrophe to mark the dawn of the new millennium.

In Jerusalem the story was that a fringe Christian sect would commit mass suicide or blast open the Golden Gate in the Old City walls, unleashing a torrent of blood.

Snip

The clearest example is the response of the US after the al Qa’eda attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001. A clear-eyed analysis of the goals of Osama bin Laden shows that his aims were, and always have been, regime change in the Islamic world, starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, rather than any grand plan to destroy the United States. But bin Laden was elevated by the US to the status of global threat, unleashing the full force of the US military into a “war on terror”, starting in Afghanistan, which was probably justified, and then moving to Iraq, which was a disastrous sideshow...>>>>>

Grieving mother grills Iraq inquiry

THE mother of an East Bierley soldier killed in Iraq travelled to the capital on Friday to pose questions to the Iraq Inquiry.

In an open letter to the former prime minister Tony Blair, Pauline Hickey asked him to explain the government's reasons for invading Iraq in March 2003.

Snip

Mrs Hickey said Mr Blair had a "moral duty as a renowned committed Christian" to meet the families of the fallen and explain his stance.

The anti-war campaigner has never managed to speak to Mr Blair, but as reported in the Spenborough Guardian last year, she did meet Gordon Brown and Defence Secetary Des Browne, but got "no direct answers."...>>>>>

THE mother of the first woman soldier killed in Iraq has slammed the Government - branding ministers THICK.

She hit out as fury erupted after Gordon Brown was told he will not give evidence to the Iraq war inquiry until AFTER the general election.

Mrs Manning said: "The MoD are not interested. To them, our kids are numbers. If only they would listen to us, answer our questions. We actually went to see Des Browne when he was defence minister, and asked quite a few questions. He came out with a stupid quip like, 'Well I don't know anything until I'm told'. I mean, how thick are these people?"

Her daughter, Staff Sgt Sharron Elliott, 34, died when her boat hit a bomb mounted on a bridge near Basra in November 2006....>>>>>

Tony Blair costs British taxpayers £6m a year to protect

Tony Blair is costing British taxpayers £6 million a year to protect – more than the current Prime Minister, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Snip

Whitehall insiders are becoming increasingly concerned over the security costs as Mr Blair travels the world on lucrative private sector work.

It is feared that Mr Blair’s security will become even more costly next year following his appearance before the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war which could make him more of a terrorist target.

Mr Blair is typically abroad most weeks and the average bill for his close protection team of bodyguards is more than £16,000 a day, according to Whitehall sources. The protection bill is three times higher than previous public estimates....>>>>>

Did you have a 'Merry Christmas'?, well have a 'Happy New Year'? and the years to come!!

Here's hoping the Japanese follow the British lead and that answers are forth coming to the many questions!!

Watch the Inquiry Live when in Session

Written Transcripts by Date

Oral: The Video's by Date

See how the Inquiry is unfolding on the Sky News Timeline

BBC Iraq inquiry - day by day timeline of evidence given

Remnants of War, Just One

There are many for if there is an end it doesn't come for decades later for those invaded and occupied by others. The innocent are the ones who suffer the most and in greater numbers by the destruction and death from the moment of invasion and decades later with what's left behind by those who are ordered to invade and then occupy in these Wars of Choice based on lies or for reasons of material worth a small country can add to a power that wants to control.

This is just one of many of the long running destructive remnants of our generations War of Choice, an extremely destructive Weapon of Mass Destruction, Dioxin, Agent Orange and the others used as we occupied a small country Vietnam for over a decade. Destructive not only to the Vietnamese Civilians, then and now, but also to many soldiers who served in country and elsewhere, where it was stored and packaged for shipment to Vietnam and stored at bases to be sprayed over the country at the whim of the commanders of war.

Scientists have been raising the alarm about dioxins since the 1960s....>>>>>

Agent Orange Continues to Poison New Generations in Vietnam

Deformed fetuses at Ho Chi Minh City's Tu Du Hospital, where doctors blame the high incidence of deformities on the use of Agent Orange during the war. STR New / Reuters

This lonely section of the abandoned Danang air base was once crawling with U.S. airmen and machines. It was here where giant orange drums were stored and the herbicides they contained were mixed and loaded onto waiting planes. Whatever sloshed out soaked into the soil and eventually seeped into the water supply. Thirty years later, the rare visitor to the former U.S. air base is provided with rubber boots and protective clothing. Residue from Agent Orange, which was sprayed to deny enemy troops jungle cover, remains so toxic that this patch of land is considered one of the most contaminated pieces of real estate in the country

Snip

After years of meetings, signings and photo ops, the U.S. held another ceremony in Vietnam on Dec. 16 to sign yet another memorandum of understanding as part of the continuing effort to manage Agent Orange's dark legacy.....>>>>>

In 2007 and 2009, the US Congress allocated a total of US$6 million for efforts to ease the impact of dioxin in Vietnam.

The sum comprises US$2 million under cooperative agreements on providing health, education and social services for the handicapped in Danang. It is part of a larger sum of over US$46 million that the US has provided for assisting Vietnamese people with disabilities.

In September 2009, the US spent $1.9 million helping Vietnam set up a project to treat and contain dioxin left in the Danang airport after war...>>>>>

Put those monetary figures above into perspective, and just on the economic impact to those companies who's products are used in waging and fighting our Wars of Choice. Just take one years, out of the last couple of decades and more, compensation paid to the corporate heads of these companies add in the company perks, written off as company expenses, and the bonuses given. Now think of same for all the executives under these corporate leaders, and these are given out even if these executives prove to be incompetent or try and cover up the known within that corporate world. And that's not even looking at the wealth made from investors especially the big investors!

"If those were in Canada or in the U.S., they would require immediate cleanup," Boivin says.

Snip

But critics believe the U.S. is playing a grim waiting game: waiting for people to die in order to avoid potentially costly lawsuits. For a country currently engaged in two wars, accepting comprehensive responsibility for wartime damages could set an expensive precedent. "They know what the problem is and where it is," says Chuck Searcy, country representative of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. "Why do they now need an environmental impact assessment? They are studying this to death."

Snip

Dow and Monsanto, the chemical's largest manufacturers, eventually shelled out millions in damages to U.S. troops who were exposed to it while it was being used as a wartime defoliant from 1961 to 1971. The U.S. government still spends billions every year on disability payments to those who served in Vietnam — including their children, many of whom are suffering from dioxin-associated cancers and birth defects. In October, the Department of Veterans Affairs added leukemia, Parkinson's and a rare heart disease to the list of health problems associated with Agent Orange. Yet U.S. official policy maintains that there is no conclusive evidence that the defoliant caused any health problems among the millions of exposed Vietnamese or their children....>>>>>

Still, the Vietnamese people (and the government, though more quietly) contend it's the U.S. that should be doing more — much more. Some point out that the U.S. spends only a fraction on Agent Orange cleanup compared to the $50 million it spends every year on searching for the remains of American soldiers missing in action. Thao Griffiths, country director of Vietnam Veterans of America, which works on lingering war issues, points out that the legacy of each is equally painful. "The issue of MIAs for Americans holds the same importance that Agent Orange does for the Vietnamese," she says. And until the issue is resolved, the legacy of the war will continue to haunt both sides....>>>>>

Many Vietnam Veterans, like the VVA, have worked with the Vietnamese in trying to resolve the issues, and guilt, of what our country did to theirs as we occupied it for a number of years. Many were, and still do, travel to Vietnam in that advocacy even before this country finally normalized relations with we once called our enemies.

Faces of Agent Orange {2page pdf}

For Gary Jones, the puzzle that is Agent Orange can be explained, or more to the point, not explained, by two words — “circumstantial” and “coincidence.” The words are at once the core and the conundrum of his Agent Orange experience....>>>>>

Also members of Veterans for Peace helping to build and support orphanages and other needed facilities within Vietnam for the Vietnamese and what we left behind and our Government has yet to compensate for the death and destruction wrought. Like the Veterans Viet Nam Restoration Project and the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign, in this there has been ongoing help in fighting the Chemical Companies in the United States Courts over these past decades.

The Chicago Tribune has a five part series on the legacy of the Dioxins, Agent Orange, left behind and still contaminating the Vietnamese people as well as the American Soldiers, our brothers, who haven't yet perished from their contact with while In-Country or handling it anywhere.


Photo Gallery: The Legacy of Agent Orange

Memories of the Vietnam War are dimming, but veterans and Vietnamese nationals who were exposed to Agent Orange and other dioxin-laced defoliants are still experiencing devastating health effects, and birth defects have brought the impact into a second generation. Yet the U.S. government has yet to make full amends, either in the U.S. or overseas.

Part 1 of 5: For U.S., a record of neglect

U.S. veterans exposed to Agent Orange face delays and a maddening bureaucracy as they seek compensation for related illnesses. In Vietnam, where untold numbers of people suffer from the same maladies and the chemicals continue to poison the environment, government officials wonder how the U.S. can ignore the ongoing effects of the defoliants....>>>>>

Part 2: 'Insult to injury'

For many U.S. veterans, the bureaucratic fight to be compensated for health problems linked to Agent Orange amounts to a new and unexpected war, long after the shooting ended overseas....>>>>>

Part 3: Born into controversy

The most contentious question surrounding the use of defoliants in the war is their impact on citizens, particularly the suspected link between the herbicides and birth defects....>>>>>

Part 4: A poison still potent

New research finds former U.S. airbases in Vietnam remain polluted from defoliants, underscoring the urgency of a solvable problem. The U.S. has done little to clean up the hot spots....>>>>>

Part 5: Danger not averted

The Tribune unearths documents showing that decisions by the U.S. military and chemical companies that manufactured the defoliants used in Vietnam made the spraying more dangerous than it had to be....>>>>>

At each, and on the main page, there are links to video's as well as side links to other information and photo's.

These are the Weapons of Mass Destruction used in mans waging of War and Occupations on others, long lasting, and the defoliants are only one of many remnants of these wars. As we are still occupying two other small countries, in this new century and generation, we are leaving behind many of these same remnants and even more in our use of the modern weaponry or just needs, like burn pits, as we occupy them.

These not only contaminate the ground but also the water supplies as well as getting into the air that is breathed, once in the air they can travel for miles as they are now in our atmosphere, collecting and trapped there and continually moving around the planet.

Add to them the contaminations and pollutions man produces, or uses, especially in industrialized nations, making that which we need or just the materialistic items we crave, and we are contaminating much of our earth, soil, the waters we drink and gather a food supply from, and the air we all breath, collecting and trapped in the atmosphere that sustains not only our lives but that which is living on this planet.

The more we contaminate the faster the planet evolves and that evolution, with the contamination by man, not only continues to kill after our wars but will cause and disfigurements and death of all living things on this planet many already gone and never to return. And we don't know what many benefits they might have had as to disease or in helping sustain a planet of life.

Iraq War Inquiry, Day 15, Breaks for 'Merry Christmas'

We lead off with the ending of the first part of the Chicot {British} Iraq War Inquiry, as we will shortly celebrate the day of the birth of the 'Prince of Peace' around the World, or at least that's the now myth I was taught all these years. Myth because apparently with the birth of Jesus as well as in other religious beliefs Religious Ideology is invoked and we ask to be protected and blessed by God as we all Blow Each Other Up when ever possible and when reasons can be fixed to engage our War Machines. For modern christians?, just like those of old, the religious ideology has been turned on it's head, Jesus son of God can't be a 'Prince of Peace' not to believers of who cheer on destructive Wars and Occupations of others, for any reason, as they raise the rhetoric of Intolerance, sounds exactly like the other major religious ideologies doesn't it, coming from the ones who are on the extremist fringes of them preaching their cherry picked religious quotes to justify their hate and intolerances, non religious, towards others they fear, so much for Peace!

A damning picture painted by the Chilcot inquiry

From politics to planning, the invasion of Iraq was a disastrous business

The mandarins have spoken. The first evidence-gathering session of the Chilcot inquiry into the disastrous Iraq war has come to an end after three weeks of testimony from senior civil servants, generals, diplomats, advisers and intelligence chiefs. Some of that testimony has been self-serving; an attempt to deflect blame for the shambles that occurred after the invasion. But valuable information has emerged too.

Snip

Of course we need to be sceptical of attempts by British generals and diplomats to pin the blame for the disastrous fate of the Iraq occupation on American stupidity, a line that handily absolves them of responsibility for the disaster that unfolded....>>>>>

In the above we find this sentence: "Predictions that this inquiry would yield nothing of any worth" which hasn't been the case especially if on this side of the pond and looking for the little pieces of the criminal intent puzzle, conspiracy among the players civilian and military who would give the orders for, War Crimes, never mentioned in a public forum and that fit well into what was thought and spoken by many starting before the invasion, and not only much has been proven since but none has been disproved, and over these years of the occupations of two countries not just Iraq.

Chilcot says Iraq war inquiry is not entertainment

Chairman responds to critics by says he was not out to 'ambush witnesses or score points'

The chairman of the Iraq inquiry today defended the way he has conducted the hearings, saying he was not out to "ambush witnesses or score points". He added: "We are not here to provide public sport or entertainment."

In a statement issued as he and his panel held the last session before a Christmas break, Sir John Chilcot also said he would seek the publication in the new year of highly classified documents during questioning of former and serving ministers, most notably Tony Blair....>>>>>

Waging War On The Brain: Psycho Neurological Consequences Of War

War is hell, as the old saying goes — with loss of life and limb, destruction of infrastructure and the environment, and devastating costs. Recent biomedical research has shed light on another pernicious consequence of military conflict: psychological and neurological conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. At the same time, researchers have worked to uncover some of the motives and meanings of war.

The 89th Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease (ARNMD), organized by the ARNMD in collaboration with New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center and held today at The Rockefeller University, examines the psychological and neurological aspects of war from a variety of perspectives — from the experience of a Marine colonel during wartime and a presentation on “the mind of the terrorist,” to a lecture on preventing mass violence given by Weill Cornell Medical College’s Dr. David A. Hamburg, a leading expert on genocide....>>>>>

The travails of the young war criminal

That may seem a bit harsh, for never has an alleged war criminal seemed more sincere, more open, even more innocent. As he said about his 2003 decision to involve Britain in the American invasion of Iraq in his resignation speech four years later: "Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right." But EVERYBODY does what they think is right.

They may mean pragmatically right, or morally right, or even ideologically right, but one way or another people will find ways to justify their actions to themselves: Even Pol Pot believed that his actions were justified. When people's choices lead to the deaths of others, they must eventually be judged by more objective criteria than mere sincerity. That is now happening to Tony Blair.

Snip

Yet the mere existence of the Chilcot inquiry has so shaken Blair that he has made an extraordinary admission. He admitted on December 13 that he would have invaded Iraq even if he had known at the time that the "intelligence" about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq was wrong.

Now, I realize that you must be wondering why I am devoting all this space to a discredited ex-leader whose country once played a minor role in the invasion of a middle-sized Arab country. The war is mostly over now, the dead cannot be brought back to life, and we have lots of new things to worry about. The point is that there is a law, and they deliberately broke it. Since 1945, it has been a crime to invade another country: That was the main charge brought against the Nazi leaders at Nuremberg. The new rule was written into the United Nations Charter, principally at the behest of the U.S., and there are virtually no exceptions to it.

You have the right to defend yourself if another country attacks you, but you are not allowed to attack another country on the grounds that it has a wicked ruler, or follows policies you disapprove of, or even because you think it might attack you one of these days. No unilateral military action is permitted, and even joint action against a genuinely threatening country is only permissible with the authorization of the UN Security Council....>>>>>

That 'wicked ruler' was installed with our help and then supported for many years as he waged destruction on his own people as well as waged war on a neighbor! Those 'policies' held and practiced by that 'wicked ruler' were given a wink and a nod and excused as they were brought into the meme of helping our National Security!

More than six years later, what was the aim of invading Iraq?

Although Britain tried desperately to get some kind of authorization from the UN Security Council as a legal basis for armed action, its efforts to do so failed

Before the Iraq War was launched in March 2003 the world was given the impression by the US and Britain that the goal was to eradicate weapons of mass destruction.

Recent comments by former British prime minister Tony Blair suggest, however, that regime change was the essential aim. He would have thought it right to remove former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein even if he had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD), he said, but he would obviously have had to “deploy” different arguments.

Must we not conclude that the WMD arguments were “deployed” mainly as the best way of selling the war? Blair’s comments do not exclude a strong — but mistaken — belief in the existence of WMD even when the invasion was launched. However, given that hundreds of inspections had found no WMD and evidence had fallen apart, such a belief would have reflected a lack of critical thinking....>>>>>

Britain Under Bush: Chilcot Inquiry

In an early leading article on the Chilcot inquiry, the Guardian observed:

"What is already clear from the first week alone is that the decisions, secret or otherwise, that led to war were the product of systemic failure. Intelligence analysts, diplomats, in fact the entire machinery of the British government, proved supine against Washington's will. Under that pressure, almost everyone buckled." (Leading Article: Iraq inquiry: Dancing to American drums,' The Guardian, November 28, 2009)...>>>>>

Snip

Buckling Under Bush

Unfortunately, almost no-one had cared to study anything. Former chief UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, put the issue in perspective last month:

"As of December 1998, both the U.S. and Britain knew there was no 'smoking gun' in Iraq that could prove that Saddam's government was retaining or reconstituting a WMD capability. Nothing transpired between that time and when the decision was made in 2002 to invade Iraq that fundamentally altered that basic picture.

"But having decided on war using WMD as the justification, both the US and Great Britain began the process of fabricating a case after the fact. Lacking new intelligence data on Iraqi WMD, both nations resorted to either recycling old charges that had been disproved by UN inspectors in the past, or fabricating new charges that would not withstand even the most cursory of investigations."

He added:...>>>>>

Blair accused over WMD evidence

Tony Blair faced fresh accusations that he covered up evidence that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction before invading Iraq.

The father of a serviceman killed in the conflict alleged that the former prime minister used WMD as a "way in" to the war despite being told by former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix that the weapons did not exist.

Richard Green urged members of the Iraq Inquiry to look closely at how arguments about WMD were used in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion.

His son, Royal Navy Lieutenant Philip Green, 30, from Caythorpe, Lincolnshire, was one of seven personnel killed when two Sea King helicopters collided over the northern Arabian Gulf two days after the start of the war.

Speaking at a special session of the inquiry in central London for bereaved families, Mr Green said: "It is the weapons of mass destruction that this centres upon. I believe that Blair used this as a way in. He couldn't do it with regime change because that would not have been allowed."...>>>>>

Witnesses for the prosecution: how Blair is suffering trial by Chilcot

As the Iraq inquiry pauses for the Christmas break, Michael Savage reviews the growing evidence against the former PM

Yet, as its first four weeks of public hearings draws to a close, Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the decision to invade Iraq has already exposed a string of failings within the British Government during the 70 hours of testimony given by the 38 witnesses that have appeared so far. One theme has emerged above all others.

"This time, in contrast to previous inquiries, where it becomes essential, they are prepared to leave Blair in the firing line,"

Snip

Though Mr Blair has been left exposed by his decision to back the US-led invasion, the early weeks of the inquiry have laid bare that both he and his Government were given precious little influence in return. Sir Christopher Meyer, the former ambassador in Washington, said Britain had gained almost nothing, save for the "applause factor" it garnered Mr Blair and British diplomats. "It is wonderful stuff being applauded wherever you go," he said. "I said to London, 'The key thing now, quite apart from Iraq, is to translate this popularity into real achievements'. We failed."

Snip

Five questions that Blair needs to answer

* When did he decide that he would back the US in any military action? Was it as early as his meeting with President Bush in April 2002?

* Does he accept that his foreword to the September 2002 dossier, which said that Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD was "beyond doubt", was overstated?

* Why did he appear to throw away the influence he had over President Bush as his main ally in the war?

* Why did he not delay the invasion after the warning from Maj Gen Tim Cross, two days before the invasion, that post-war planning wasn't ready?

* Did he receive any intelligence that contradicted his claims in the 2002 September dossier on Iraq's WMD? It's alleged that he did in March 2003...>>>>>

Former PM 'will give evidence in public'

Speaking at the end of the first session of public hearings, Sir John also said that "most witnesses" had been "open and candid". Sir John Scarlett, the former head of MI6, has been accused of being misleading over the reliability of intelligence on Iraq.

He attempted to quash speculation that Mr Blair would be allowed to give evidence behind closed doors. "Evidence will only be heard in private in the narrow circumstances we have set out in the protocols on our website," he said. "But I would like to be absolutely clear about this – evidence sessions with key decision-makers, including the former Prime Minister, will be in public."

The hearings will resume in the New Year, when Mr Blair, Geoff Hoon, former Defence Secretary, and Clare Short, former International Development Secretary, will appear....>>>>>

Sir John Chilcot's closing statement, 17 December 2009

The Inquiry has now completed its first four weeks of public hearings, examining 38 witnesses over 23 sessions. Since July we have received more than 40 thousand Government documents (more than 12,000 from No.10 alone); and have held two public seminars, six meetings with families and veterans with a further one tomorrow.

This is no more than the end of the beginning. We expect to hold five more weeks of public hearings in the New Year: a further week to complete the narrative, covering the period 2007 to 2009, and then four weeks in January and February with the most senior decision-makers. This will mark a new phase to this round of public hearings but in subject matter we will be returning to examine more closely many of the issues that have been raised in the past few weeks....>>>>>

Watch the Inquiry Live when in Session

Written Transcripts by Date

Oral: The Video's by Date

See how the Inquiry is unfolding on the Sky News Timeline

BBC Iraq inquiry - day by day timeline of evidence given

Merry Christmas to those who celebrate the Birth of The Prince of Peace, not of War, and Holiday Wishes to others who actually not only believe in but try to live their lives by the ideologies of their religious beliefs and not the fanaticism of extremist religious ideology under the recognized main religions on this planet, Peace and Tolerance to All!!

For You 'wacky!' 'fundy!' christian's?

Of the late 20th and now 21st century, under the politically correctness of the day and season of 'Merry Christmas', the Crucifixion thus the Cross Have Nothing To Do With The Celebration of the 'Birth' of Christ!!!

Angry 'Stop-Loss' Hip Hop Song=Jail

Marc Hall jailed for angry 'Stop-Loss' Hip Hop song

By Courage to Resist. Updated 16, 2009

Stop-lossed Army Specialist Marc Hall (aka Hip Hop artist Marc Watercus) was placed in the Liberty County Jail Friday, December 11 for speaking out against the continuing policy that has barred him from exiting the military, including recording an angry and explicit song. He was shipped off to jail after talking to to his Ft Stewart, Georgia commander Captain Cross about not wanting to redeploy...Who To Contact to Help Marc Out

The 'Sycophant' Tony Blair

I really like that descriptive name used as to Mr Blair, fits him well, editorial link for same below along with others.



Will the statements open up what others will say or bring forward as they might try and distance themselves from him?

"Iraq War was right even if there were no WMDs"

Tony Blair would have invaded Iraq even if he had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction in the country, he has admitted.

Mr Blair replied: "I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean, obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."

He added: "I can't really think we'd be better off with him and his two sons still in charge but it's incredibly difficult... and that's why I sympathise with the people who were against it for perfectly good reasons and are against it now but, for me, in the end I had to take the decision."

Snip

At a memorial service in St Paul's Cathedral in October to honour British military and civilian personnel who served in Iraq, Mr Blair offered his hand to Peter Brierley, whose son, Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley, was killed in 2003. Mr Brierley told him: "I'm not shaking your hand, you've got blood on it."..>>>>>

Now what with him coming out and over explaining to spin his side of the story it makes one wonder, what with came out already, will others start speaking their minds as to what really went down as the heat starts boiling under the Blair.

Blair Iraq war admission sparks fresh outrage

Tony Blair's admission that Britain would have backed the Iraq war even if he knew it did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) sparked outrage Sunday and calls for his prosecution for war crimes.

The former prime minister, who backed the US-led invasion in 2003, told the BBC it would "still have been right to remove" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein because of the threat he posed to the region.

Lawyers representing the deposed Iraqi leadership said they would seek to prosecute Blair following his remarks, while one newspaper commentator said it was a "game-changing admission" for the ongoing official inquiry into the war...>>>>>

Not yet scathing enough for you, stay tuned.

'Sycophant' Tony Blair used deceit to justify Iraq war, says former DPP

Tony Blair used "deceit" to persuade parliament and the British people to support war in Iraq, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, said today.

In an article in the Times, Macdonald attacked Blair for engaging in "alarming subterfuge", for displaying "sycophancy" towards George Bush and for refusing to accept that his decisions were wrong.

Macdonald's comments about Blair's decision to go to war are more critical than anything that has been said so far by any of the senior civil servants who worked in Whitehall when Blair was prime minister.

Macdonald was DPP from 2003 until 2008 and he now practises law from Matrix Chambers, where Blair's barrister wife, Cherie, is also based.

Snip

Macdonald wrote: "The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions, and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage.

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

Macdonald said that Blair's fundamental flaw was his "sycophancy towards power" and that he could not resist the "glamour" he attracted in Washington...>>>>>

See I told ya, oh he says much more, it was getting hotter under the blair and this is just the beginning, We Hope!

Who will turn the heat on Tony Blair over Iraq?

If it has achieved nothing else, Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the Iraq war has at least brought Tony Blair out of the woodwork.

Only two weeks ago, Mr Blair was saying to CNN: "I think the best thing with this inquiry is actually to let us all give our evidence to the inquiry… I think the appropriate place to [go through the issues] is at the inquiry."

Snip

Blair's remarkable pre-emptive strike comfortably overshadows anything so far said to Sir John Chilcot. It goes to the very nub of the issue Sir John is considering: was the war necessary, and was the prime minister's official justification, weapons of mass destruction, merely a pretext for something decided long before?

Mr Blair's statement that he wanted rid of Saddam all along, and would simply have "deploy[ed] different arguments" to do so in the absence of WMD, is his clearest admission to date that the famous weapons were indeed a pretext. His belief that a war on Iraq would have been necessary even without WMD is both significant – and highly questionable.

Snip

The task for Chilcot and his panel is now rather different than it was last week. Mr Blair's game-changing admission gives them a licence to be tougher and more prosecutorial. The question for Sir John and his panel is whether they can match the interrogative skills of Fern Britton; whether they can extract such important confessions of their own from their guests on the Iraq Inquiry sofa...>>>>>

Blair sold Iraq on WMD, but only regime change adds up - Hans Blix

The PM seems to have deployed arguments as they suited him. Our weapons inspections were telling another story

Before the Iraq war was launched in March 2003 the world was given the impression by the US and Britain that the goal was to eradicate weapons of mass destruction. Recent comments by Tony Blair suggest, however, that regime change was the essential aim. He would have thought it right to remove Saddam Hussein even if he had known that there were no WMD, he said, but he would obviously have had to "deploy" different arguments. Must we not conclude that the WMD arguments were "deployed" mainly as the best way of selling the war? Blair's comments do not exclude a strong – but mistaken – belief in the existence of WMD even when the invasion was launched. However, given that hundreds of inspections had found no WMD and important evidence had fallen apart, such a belief would have been based on a lack of critical thinking.

Snip

Many are convinced that the American and UK military plans moved on autopilot, and the inspections were a charade. I am sure that many in the Bush team felt that way. It seems likely that British and American leaders expected that UN inspections would again be obstructed or that Iraqi violation of the draconian new resolution 1441 would persuade the security council to authorise military action to remove the regime. For my part, I tended to think of the war preparations rather as a train moving slowly to the front and helping to make Iraq co-operative. If something removed or reduced the weapons issue, the train, I thought, might stop.

Snip

Unlike the US, the UK and perhaps other members of the alliance were not ready to claim a right to preventive war against Iraq regardless of security council authorisation. In these circumstances they developed and advanced the argument that the war was authorised by the council under a series of earlier resolutions. As Condoleezza Rice put it, the alliance action "upheld the authority of the council". It was irrelevant to this argument that China, France, Germany and Russia explicitly opposed the action and that a majority on the council declined to give the requested green light for the armed action. If hypocrisy is the compliment that virtue pays to vice then strained legal arguments are the compliments that violators of UN rules pay to the UN charter....>>>>>

Iraq - Phase Four!!

Blair’s critics are asking the wrong questions

All the talk is of WMD, lies and the decision to go to war. But the Chilcot inquiry is uncovering a much bigger scandal

Snip

One is a recollection from my own private meeting with Sir John Chilcot, some weeks ago, as part of his meticulous trawl through the people he thought might have something to add or suggest. He told me then, as he reminds each witness now, that the inquiry team has already received and sifted through thousands of documents, many of them with the top level of classification. This means that some of the questioning is much less innocent than it sounds.

One should recall here that the removal of the sovereign government of Iraq left the invaders with the full moral responsibility for the country in the immediate postwar period, a responsibility given legal force by UN Resolution 1438. What was to happen after the war was no detail to be tacked on after a military campaign, but a major strategic question that would affect that country and the future of the whole region. It was reasonable to expect that massive effort would go into planning that future.

Listening to the questioners at the inquiry, and particularly Sir Roderic Lyne, it seems to me they are asking some uncomfortable questions about the resources and co-ordination that were put into Phase Four...>>>>>

And right the writer is except I wouldn't place it as bigger but very equal to everything connected with this Historic Debacle of Death and Destruction that will affect the coming decades!!

What the British do with what has been coming out of the Chilcot Inquiry, as to their Countries reputation and accountability for those involved are theirs to make. My interest, across the pond here, are the tidbits coming out about what was going on here in the States as to their American Counterparts in our Government and what they were and were not doing in leading to their wanted invasion and occupation of Iraq and regime change of the once good friend of many involved, like these:

Drip, drip, drip, ""He recalled noting that: "the dog didn't bark - it grizzled." Don't forget - this 'grizzling' for regime change was 6 months BEFORE 9/11."". drip, drip, drip, ""But there was a 'sea change' in attitude after the atrocities, with former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice targeting Iraq on the very day of the outrage."", drip, drip, drip, ""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."", drip, drip, drip, ""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"."", drip, drip, drip, ""Boyce mentions the "dysfunctionalism" of Washington. He says that he would find himself briefing his American counterparts on what was happening in different parts of the US adminstration. Rumsfeld was not sharing information"", drip, drip, drip...........!

And the Blair statements, along with the earlier ones about what was known, add to the above as it opens the window a crack to what he was being told to do by his counterpart president bush, or is that cheney!!

Ex Senator Faced '2nd Vietnam'

Former Sen. Max Cleland Details Political War Wounds in Memoir: Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome

Vietnam Vet Tells ABC News' David Muir: 'I Went Down Into Almost a Death Spiral'

As a young Army platoon leader in Vietnam, Max Cleland sent hours of audio dispatches home to his parents not knowing just how true his words would become.

"I'm definitely coming back a little bit differently than when I came here," he said on tape.

On April 8, 1968, just days from the scheduled end of his tour in Vietnam, Cleland spotted a hand grenade in the grass as he jumped off a helicopter. It had been dropped by another soldier, and Cleland reached for it, not knowing it was live.

In a flash of fire, Cleland lost both legs, his right arm and, almost, his life.

Snip

Cleland's descent began after he lost a bruising battle for re-election to Republican Saxby Chambliss in 2002. Losing was tough enough, but the way he lost added to the pain. Chambliss' campaign questioned Cleland's "courage to lead" in a campaign ad that flashed pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Snip

Playing on television screens at Walter Reed was the inspirational video Cleland had starred in as a senator to help the newly injured returning from war.

"The irony was overwhelming," he said. "I mean, you know, because I could see myself saying those things and they were great and accurate at the time, but I hadn't received the second wound, the second Vietnam, the second loss of sense of meaning and purpose and direction in life.

"I would look down the hall," he added, "and I would see a younger generation, you know, missing arms, legs ... and I thought, 'Oh my God.'"..>>>>>

Max Cleland talks to David Muir


Max's Book: "Heart of a Patriot: How I Found the Courage to Survive Vietnam, Walter Reed and Karl Rove"

Click here to read an excerpt of Cleland's book, "Heart of a Patriot," in PDF form

The Effects of War One in six Americans soldiers suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder



US: Soldiers Forced to Go AWOL for PTSD Care

With a military health care system over-stretched by two ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, more soldiers are deciding to go absent without leave (AWOL) in order to find treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Snip

"What I saw and what I did in Iraq caused my PTSD," Jasinski, 23-years-old, told IPS during a phone interview, "Also, I went through a divorce - she left right before I deployed - and my grandmother passed away when I was over there, so it was all super rough on me."

In addition, he lost a friend in Iraq, and another of his friends lost his leg due to a roadside bomb attack.

Snip

During his pre-deployment processessing "they gave me a 90-day supply of meds to get me over to Iraq, and I saw a counsellor during that period, and I told him "I don’t know what I’m going to do if I go back to Iraq."

"He asked if I was suicidal," Jasinski explained, "and I said not right now, I’m not planning on going home and blowing my brains out. He said, ‘well, you’re good to go then.’ And he sent me on my way. I knew at that moment, when they finalised my paperwork for Iraq, that there was no way I could go back with my untreated PTSD. I needed more help."...>>>>>

Operation Free

We are packing our bags and heading east next week to join the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. A delegation of veterans from OpFree will be there to make sure the world understands the grave threat climate change poses to global security. We know that climate change makes the world a more dangerous place and that dependence on oil makes America vulnerable. That's why it's time for America to get on the team with the rest of the world and lead by example to combat this threat

We'll be livecasting our press events and updates from the conference.

To keep up to date on activities, sign up here for reminders to watch and/or listen to our broadcasts: "Live from Copenhagen with Operation Free."

Our veterans will bring personal stories and a front-lines perspective to the national security threat, a vital and oft-overlooked aspect of the ongoing negotiations. Most of the veterans served during the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We hope you'll join us in Denmark.

Thanks for all you do,

Operation Free

Jon Powers

Iraq War Inquiry, Day 12

First a few commentaries as this Inquiry moves along and the information and charges drip, drip, drip..............out.

Iraq-Afghanistan-Afghanistan-Iraq............

Leader: Our craven calculations in Iraq must not infect Afghanistan

The Iraq war was a ruinous mistake. The lessons from it have not yet been learned.

Two hundred and thirty-seven British troops have died in Afghanistan since the start of the war in 2001 - but the name of Lance Corporal Adam Drane should never be forgotten. The 23-year-old soldier from the 1st Battalion the Royal AnglianRegiment became the 100th UK casualty this year when he was shot dead near Nad e-Ali on 7 December. It is the first time that 100 or more British soldiers have been killed in a single year since the Falklands conflict in 1982, when 255 servicemen died and, as Sir David Richards, the British army chief, has acknowledged, it reopens the debate as to whether "the sacrifice of another British soldier is worth it". The sacrifices are not over. The number of the British dead will continue to rise. We have argued that the Afghan conflict, though its origins may have been just and necessary in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, has since become unwinnable and counterproductive, and the government should set a date for a strategic withdrawal...>>>>>

The biggest mistake was already made as to Afghanistan by leaving to Invade Iraq and not securing and funding the needs of the Afghans as to the promises to rebuild after the fall of the Taliban! It stopped being about 9/11 at that moment in history and isn't about now, making the keeping of the promises much more difficult and more important now as to the future security everywhere!!

Iraq: the crime of the century

The purpose of the Chilcot inquiry is to normalise an epic crime by providing enough of a theatre of guilt to satisfy the media.

He came to mind when I saw a picture in the paper of another Foreign Office official, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was Tony Blair's ambassador to the United Nations in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It was Sir Jeremy, more than anyone else, who tried every trick to find a UN cover for the bloodbath to come. Indeed, this was his boast on 27 November to the Chilcot inquiry, where he described the invasion as "legal but of questionable legitimacy". How clever. In the picture he wore a smirk.

Under international law, "questionable legitimacy" does not exist. An attack on a sovereign state is a crime. This was made clear by Britain's chief law officer and attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, before his arm was twisted, and by the Foreign Office's own legal advisers, and subsequently by the UN secretary general. The invasion of Iraq is the crime of the 21st century. During 17 years of assault on a defenceless civilian population, veiled with weasel monikers such as "sanctions" and "no-fly zones" and "building democracy", more people have died in Iraq than at the height of the slave trade. Set that against Sir Jeremy's skin-­saving revisionism about American "noises" that were "decidedly unhelpful to what I was trying to do [at the UN] in New York". Moreover, "I myself warned the Foreign Office . . . that I might have to consider my own position . . ."

It wasn't me, guv...>>>>>

BBC Iraq inquiry - day by day timeline of evidence given

A UK inquiry into the 2003 Iraq war is looking at the run-up to conflict, whether troops were properly prepared, how the war was conducted and what planning there was for its aftermath. Here are the key players and a timeline of all the evidence:...>>>>>

This Sir John Sawers, who now heads the British M16, speaking as a part of Blairs team, talked about what was going on as to any Regime Change talk but not yet, supposedly, reaching any talk of taking saddam down Militarily. He mentioned the sanctions and taking with the Russians and others. But he also mentioned the reaching out to ex Iraqi pats who opposed the Saddam regime, reason they were not living in Iraq and hadn't for many years, not once did I hear him say anything about any talks with opposition leaders or people living Inside of Iraq not only then but for the years previous.

US in 2001 'did not discuss military invasion of Iraq'

Tony Blair's ex-foreign policy adviser Sir John Sawers said the US was not talking about war with Iraq in early 2001. Sir John, the current head of MI6, visited Washington in January that year for informal talks with the incoming Bush administration. George W Bush and the then UK prime minister held their first meeting at Camp David in the February. There was agreement that their policy of "containment" of Iraq through sanctions and no-fly zones was "unsustainable", Sir John said. And while there was talk of "regime change", there was no discussion of military intervention...>>>>>

As the drip, drip, drip, of information slowly falls so does the name dropping and not so supportive descriptions of those who's names come forth. Today, once again, Bremers name comes up often but also add now Ret. Gen Jay Garner, he like Bremer apparently didn't make to many friends working with their counterparts, frankly this is the total opposite of what we were taught in CI/SERE before being sent into 'Nam, but then again they weren't working with Iraqi's they were working with American appointee's brought in to do the bidding of the administration and pentagon with the decisions coming from Washington and the Military in Central Command Florida.

Sir John Sawers tells Chilcot inquiry US ignored warnings on Baath sackings

Sir John Sawers gives evidence to the Chilcot inquiry

Tony Blair’s senior diplomat in Baghdad was ignored when he urged the Americans not to sack 25,000 Baathist officials, the Iraq inquiry was told today.

Sir John Sawers, now the head of MI6, revealed the chaos he saw in post-invasion Iraq on his arrival in the capital in early May 2003.

He said that the de-Baathification programme and the disbandment of the Iraqi Army, which many critics claim triggered the Sunni insurgency, had been agreed in Washington — apparently without prior consultation with Britain, America’s principal ally in the war against Saddam Hussein.

Sir John said that the Government had supported plans to remove the top three tiers of the Baathist regime — a total of 5,000 officials — but not the 25,000 lower-grade Iraqis on the fourth tier of the regime, many of whom were teachers.

Snip

At that stage a retired US general, Jay Garner, was in charge of the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. Sir Roderic described it as a “shambles”.

“I was very disappointed by the quality of the senior figures who were mainly retired Vietnam-era US generals,” Sir John said.

He found himself having to sleep in a dormitory with a lot of other people. “There were no doors to the bathrooms. There was intermittent water and electricity, it was pretty grim,” he said...>>>>>

MI6 boss: US military's 'Darth Vadar kit and wraparound shades' alienated Iraqi locals after invasion

U.S. Army soldiers from 1st Squadron, 40th Cavalry on patrol near Baghdad. Their ;Darth Vadar; kit and sunglasses have been criticised in the Iraq inquiry today

The head of MI6 today attacked the US's use of 'Vietnam-era generals' and 'Darth Vader kit' for turning post-war Iraq into a shambles.

Sir John Sawers, who took over as spymaster 'C' last month, said the wraparound sunglasses and flak jackets used by rank-and-file American soldiers only served to distance themselves from the Iraqis.

Sir John also revealed he found 'serious disorder' when he was sent to Baghdad as the UK's special representative in 2003.

He told the Chilcot inquiry that the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs (ORHA) was not well led by Jay Garner, a retired US Lieutenant General...>>>>>

Britain cut out of key decisons on Iraq says MI6 chief

The United States made key decisions about the future of Iraq without consulting Britain, the chief of MI6 has said.

Sir John Sawers, a former foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair who is now the head of Secret Intelligence Service, was drafted in as Britain’s Special Representative to Iraq with less than a week to prepare.

He said Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, had decided he wanted “someone senior” on the ground who could “impose some common sense.”

Snip

“In retrospect, it seems that principal decisions were taken in advance in Washington,” Sir John told the inquiry.

Asked if there had been a “stitch up in Washington” over the Ba’ath party he said: “When I was doing calls in London the previous week, it was not an issue that had been raised with me.”

Sir John told the inquiry that in 2001 Iraq was just one of the countries where Britain hoped to see regime change.

He said when he was Tony Blair's private secretary for foreign affairs, discussions took place on political actions which could help undermine Saddam Hussein’s regime short of military action...>>>>>

Iraq inquiry hears Washington called the shots on postwar government

MI6 chief says key decisions including banning Saddam's Ba'ath party from new regime 'were taken in advance in Washington'

Washington made the key decisions on Iraq's new administrative and military structures in the weeks after the 2003 invasion, the Iraq inquiry was told today.

Sir John Sawers, Britain's special representative in Baghdad in the aftermath of Saddam's fall and now head of MI6, initially said he could not say there was a "stitch-up" over the banning of top members of the dictator's Ba'ath party from the replacement regime.

But despite this cautious response to a question from inquiry panel member Sir Roderic Lyne, he later said: "In retrospect it seems the principal decisions were taken in advance in Washington."

Snip

The then head of the British army, General Sir Mike Jackson, had suggested a battalion of British paratroops be sent to the capital to help. "Part of the problem was the posture of the US army in their tanks, in their Darth Vader kit with the wraparound sunglases and helmets and flak jackets and everything else. There was no real rapport between the US army and the ordinary citizens."

Senior military advisers in London eventually vetoed the idea. "Unfortunately the idea had gained some traction with the Americans both in Washington and Baghdad … in a sense we marched them up to the top of the hill and then marched them down again."

He had been "pretty shocked" by Britain's small contribution of staff to running Iraq when he arrived in Baghdad...>>>>>

US did not involve Britain in crucial Iraq decisions, Chilcot inquiry told

MI6 chief and former Blair adviser Sir John Sawers says British military commanders were furious at lack of consultation

Britain was not consulted about crucial decisions on Iraq, despite hopes that by contributing so many troops to the invasion it would be able to influence US policy, the Chilcot inquiry heard today.

Sir John Sawers, the recently appointed head of MI6 but then a close adviser to Tony Blair, made it clear that the decisions to disband the Iraqi army and dismiss thousands of members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party were taken by the US alone. Britain's military commanders, with 46,000 troops taking part in the invasion, were furious about the decisions...>>>>>

While condemning being left out of the decision making Sir John does talk extensively on the de-Baathification and how deep down it went, teachers, doctors etc. etc., along with the Iraqi military and tries to put a good spin of the need to do so on the whole policy, carrying the Blare bucket of water like a good soldier.

Watch the Inquiry Live when in Session

Written Transcripts by Date

Oral: The Video's by Date

See how the Inquiry is unfolding on the Sky News Timeline

Iraq War Inquiry, Day 11

Today the British Military goes after the civilian government ministers sent in or making decisions after the invasion to try and apparently bring order to chaos building another government or to keep the country functioning so it wouldn't completely fall into an Insurgency, I mean after all the U.S. expected throngs of people throwing flowers and kisses. Oh ya, even Bremer is mentioned, he apparently isn't to great in the social circles, or war theaters, as to making friends with his counterparts.

Iraq details for aid workers 'were scanty before war'

UK aid officials had "scanty" evidence of the situation in Iraq in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion, a senior civil servant has said.

Sir Suma Chakrabarti, ex-Department for International Development permanent secretary, said contact with UN staff had been banned until October 2002.

This restriction had been put in place to avoid revealing that military action was possible, he told the Iraq Inquiry.

This meant most knowledge was "desktop information" only, he said.

The UK had no diplomatic relations with Saddam Hussein's Iraq for 12 years leading up the invasion...>>>>>

General: Amateurs ran post-conflict Iraq

Inexperienced officials were put in charge of post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq at the expense of lives and treasure, a London war inquiry heard.

British Lt. Gen. Federick Viggers, the top British military
representative in Iraq in 2003, told a London inquiry into the Iraq war on Wednesday that British planners were not prepared for the swift overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, London's Telegraph newspaper reports.

"That was a stunning military operation but in so doing it took everyone by surprise," he said. "We suffered from a lack of any real understanding of the state of that country post-invasion."..>>>>>

Hmmm, amateurs sent in by Blair and his company, they probably felt right at home with the American ones, like the ones coming out of the administration contacts as well as the political party connections. Or how about all those civilian contractors, sans the mercs I would hope, seeking those six figure salaries to do jobs for the military personnel, or instead of, as well as drivers etc. who probably never served in a combat theater much less an occupation quickly evolving into the expected insurgency, now thems amateurs, and like the Lt Gen below says "lives had been lost as a result"!

Army chief lambasts 'amateurs' in post-invasion Iraq

A senior official has told the inquiry into the Iraq war that "amateurs" who did not have the experience to perform were put into key roles in the country.

Lt Gen Frederick Viggers, Britain's senior military representative in Iraq, said lives had been lost as a result.

He said senior officials, including ministers, needed more training to deal with the complexities involved in mounting an invasion.

The inquiry is examining UK policy towards Iraq between 2001 and 2009.

The first few weeks have focused on policy in the run-up to the war, the UK's assessment of Iraq's weapons capacity, military preparations for the invasion and post-war planning.

'Huge responsibility'...>>>>>

Iraq Inquiry: 'amateur' ministers to blame for soldier deaths in Afghanistan

Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Viggers Photo: MOLLY BINGHAM / WPN

British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan because of decisions made by "amateurs" in the Government, Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Viggers, one of the Army's most senior officers, has told the Iraq Inquiry.

Lt Gen Viggers, who was the senior British military representative in Iraq from May to September 2003, said ministers had learned nothing from their experience of the Iraq war and are "not living up to the responsibility" placed on them.

He launched into his astonishing attack on the Government when he was asked whether he felt ministers and senior civil servants should have training in military strategy before taking up key positions.

Complaining that the job of post-war reconstruction in Iraq had suffered from a "lack of a sense of direction from the outset", He said: "We have not really progressed at the strategic level. I am not talking about the soldiers and commanders and civilians...who did a great job...>>>>>

Iraq Inquiry: war officials were 'amateurs'

Britain's top military representative in Iraq at the time tells the Iraq Inquiry that amateurs were put into top planning jobs in post-invasion Iraq, costing peoples' lives as a result. Alex Thomson reports...>>>>>

General: British troops killed by amateurism

Sir Frederick Viggers led British forces in Iraq in 2003

Lack of expertise at the top had fatal consequences in Iraq, inquiry told

British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan because of the "amateur" handling of the operation by the Government, one of Britain's most senior military officials has said.

Lt-General Sir Frederick Viggers, who led British forces in Iraq in 2003, said that lessons had not been learnt from the mistakes made during that campaign, which had suffered from a "lack of a sense of direction from the outset".

He told the Chilcot Iraq inquiry that problems in the planning of military action, such as that currently being carried out in Helmand province, Afghanistan, persisted because those at the top of Government did not have the necessary expertise. "We have not really progressed at the strategic level," Sir Frederick said. "I am not talking about the soldiers and commanders and civilians... who did a great job...>>>>>

Amateurs, from the cheney/bush administration and rubber stamping republican party, sent into a War Theater, surprised?, Well Duh Yaaaa, just think of the Justice Department, Torture, Stepping All Over Our Constitution, Ignoring Ours and International Law {we helped write}, Hurricane Katrina, Walter Reed, Army Barracks, lowering of standards as to recruitment, raising the age for recruits, stop loss and we can go on and on right up till they left, but as to these theaters just look at Afghanistan today or even Iraq, we're still in both and though Iraq isn't as destructive as it was our soldiers are still there and dying, the only ones from the coalition of the willing, and deaths of hundreds of Iraqi's, by bombings, are still happening!

UK military chief told 'when not if' over Iraq invasion

UK troops encountered less opposition than expected, the generals said

The man who led UK troops into Iraq in 2003 says he was told 10 months earlier that it was a matter of "when not if" the US would pursue military action.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge said General Tommy Franks, commander of US forces, told him in May 2002 that he hoped the UK would be "alongside".

He told the Iraq inquiry the campaign was conducted to minimise the impact on Iraqi civilians and key infrastructure.

The inquiry is examining UK policy towards Iraq between 2001 and 2009...>>>>>

INQUIRY TIMELINE

November-December: Former top civil servants, spy chiefs, diplomats and military commanders to give evidence

January-February 2010: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and other politicians expected to appear before the panel

March 2010: Inquiry expected to adjourn ahead of the general election campaign

July-August 2010: Inquiry expected to resume

Report set to be published in late 2010 or early 2011

And now some are having second thoughts, looking for absolution,probably, but way too many have died, way too many enemies have been created and the world has become much more dangerous because of!!

John Prescott on Iraq war: how did I go along with it?

John Prescott: 'I do wonder, looking back now ... how did I then go along [with it]?' Photograph: Dan Chung

Former deputy prime minister admits asking himself how he was persuaded to back British involvement in the Iraq war

John Prescott has admitted he wonders how he agreed to go along with Britain's participation in the war in Iraq.

In an interview to be published tomorrow in the New Statesman the former deputy prime minister says: "I do wonder, looking back now, having the privilege of discussing with Tony [Blair] about all this: how did I then go along [with it]?"

Prescott also acknowledges that Lord Goldsmith – the attorney general at the time – was troubled by the war.

"If you say, 'Was Goldsmith a happy man about this?' No, he wasn't," Prescott says, adding: "That's quite different from saying, 'No, I'm sorry, my view is that it's illegal, I'm not supporting it.'"

Goldsmith's advice to the government that the war was legal remains controversial and his views have been discussed at the current Chilcot inquiry...>>>>>

Analysis: Inquiries are academic to Baghdad's people, under attack yet again

IN THE smoke, dust and screams of multiple Baghdad street bombings, and in the hushed intent of the Chilcot Inquiry hearings, the disparate, distasteful strands of the Iraq conflict's planning and aftermath were brought the fore once again.
Even as Sir John Scarlett pushed himself a little further from the "dodgy dossier", the people of Baghdad were focused on a rather more immediate question – who was visiting this violence upon them once again?

The sectarian and ethnic fault lines that the invasion caused to shift so violently are still there. The distrust between the Sunni Muslims who controlled Iraq under Saddam Hussein and the majority Shia, who now dominate, persists. The previously persecuted Kurds in the north, sitting on massive oil deposits, still have aspirations towards self-government...>>>>>

Was Taxi Driver Source for Key Saddam WMD Claim?

It sounds like a bad joke but it may be a true story: one of the most sensational claims made by the British government in the run-up to the Iraq War about Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction may have come from an Iraqi taxi driver based on a conversation he overheard from passengers in his backseat two years earlier.

That’s what happened, according to Adam Holloway, a conservative member of Parliament reputed to have “close links” to intelligence officials, in a paper published this week. The claim raises new questions about the origins of pre-Iraq war intelligence at a sensitive time for the British government. An official United Kingdom tribunal is currently examining how and why former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government chose to join the invasion of Iraq...>>>>>

This below sounds interesting, it comes from the second link directly above. Alright all you cheney cabalers raise your hands, who's willing to come clean? Just think you don't have to worry about being prosecuted here nobody seems interested about All those New Enemies we've created, especially among the young, who will now be around for the next couple of decades. So at least you can clear your concious, even though, as to Iraq, you're no better then Saddams henchmen, that's how you'll be thought of not only in Iraq but the region. And we Americans, well for many, especially the kids who have and are now growing up in the devestated countries and especially who've had family and friends killed and maimed, well they're not going to be any to friendly towards us nor our policies!

British Iraq Inquiry Likely to Seek Testimony from U.S. Witnesses

A U.K. government inquiry investigating Britain's involvement in the Iraq War may want to take testimony from U.S. citizens, a British government official has confirmed to NEWSWEEK. The U.K. investigation, which began public hearings late last month, is examining why the British government decided to participate in the operation to oust Saddam Hussein...>>>>>

Iraq War Inquiry, Day 10

You apparently also go to War with the leaders you have!!

You'll see what I mean, below.

This is some of what happened on day ten of the Inquiry with a few reports and commentary coming out because of the Inquiry.

Family of murdered British hostage ‘betrayed’ by Chilcot inquiry

The family of the murdered British aid worker Margaret Hassan said that they have been “betrayed” by the official inquiry into the Iraq war after it spent just three minutes yesterday discussing her kidnapping.

Snip

“We came to find out the truth, even though we were skeptical, because we were told this would not be a cover-up. We have been betrayed.

“The authorities did not do one thing to help her when she was kidnapped and they are now doing nothing to find out why. As for Ken Bigley, it was almost as if he didn’t matter at all. He was an innocent man who was murdered for no reason.”

Snip

The criticism follows allegations last week that Gordon Brown was engineering a new cover-up of the Iraq war by handing Whitehall departments the right to block the inquiry from releasing secret documents about the war.

Mrs Hassan, 59, known as the Mother Teresa of Baghdad for her work with the poor, had lived in Iraq for 30 years and was the country director for the aid agency CARE International when she was kidnapped in October 2004. She was killed the following month but her remains have still not been recovered.

Mr Bigley, 62, a civil engineer from Liverpool, was kidnapped in Baghdad in September 2004 and held captive for four weeks before his murder. A video of his beheading was later released...>>>>>

Inquiry Highlights Divisions Between US, Britain on Iraq

Senior British officials questioned in wide-ranging inquiry on Britain's role in Iraq war

Witnesses in the second week of Britain's wide ranging inquiry into the Iraq war have revealed differences between the United States and Britain in the days running up to the war. The head of Britain's military say he was only given authority to plan for the war at a late stage.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair's top political advisor in 2002 was David Manning. He told the Inquiry panel here in London Friday that Mr. Blair made a decision in the spring of 2002 that Britain would stand by America. "He expected to be with the United States until the end," Manning said. "But this would only be possible if the United Nations were the channel to get to the end."

Manning says Mr. Blair began to ask for military options in June 2002, nine months before the war got underway...>>>>>

From Day 9 Testimony


The Iraq Inquiry
Sky News: See how the Inquiry is unfolding on the Sky News Timeline

Was Iraqi cabbie the source of the dodgy dossier?
MP's report claims 'intelligence' on Saddam's WMDs came from back of a taxi

Dodgy dossier: The controversial Government report that stated a case for war

Gossip from an Iraqi taxi driver was a key source for Tony Blair's 'dodgy dossier'.

A report by a respected MP claims that the unlikely secret agent was one of MI6's top sources when it was building a case to justify the invasion.

He provided the information that Saddam Hussein could fire chemical weapons at British targets within 45 minutes.

Snip

Intelligence from the cab driver allegedly bolstered the suggestion that weapons of mass destruction could be fired at British targets in Cyprus - a central plank of the dodgy dossier.

Mr Holloway's report says that analysts at the Secret Intelligence Service quickly decided the cab driver's information about missiles was 'verifiably' false and warned that the agent was not reliable.

But a carefully-worded footnote in an MI6 report was apparently brushed aside by Downing Street officials when the dodgy dossier was put together in September 2002.

Snip

Sir John Scarlett, the former MI6 chief who was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee before the war, is expected to be quizzed about the dossier when he gives evidence to the Chilcot committee today - though he is not expected to go into details about MI6 sources in public...>>>>>

Taxi driver X So why exactly did we go to war again?

An Iraqi taxi driver loads up his vehicle Photograph: JEROME DELAY/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Age: Unknown.

Appearance: Brief but crucial.

Ah, I think I know that guy. It was only a five-minute trip home but he kept insisting he "knew a short cut" and drove me around a roundabout for nearly an hour. No, I'm talking about the Iraqi taxi driver who was the source of the 45-minute WMD claim.

I had to pay him £60. No, listen, that was someone else.

Oh. Who's this guy then? Possibly the most important taxi driver in the history of the world. According to Conservative MP Adam Holloway, the famous claim that the Iraqi military was capable of deploying "chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so" was overheard from a pair of military officers by an Iraqi taxi driver...>>>>>

Well isn't it a true fact that if one wants to know what's really going on damn the expensive technology toys, Ask A Cabby!



Iraq WMD claims not manipulated: ex-U.K. spy chief

British intelligence officials did not intend to mislead anyone by releasing documents in 2002 claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Britain's former spy chief said Tuesday.

John Scarlett, chair of the joint intelligence committee during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and later head of Britain's, Secret Intelligence Service (known as MI6), was testifying before an ongoing inquiry into the U.K.'s role in the invasion.

He told the inquiry he was not pressured into exaggerating information that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that could be deployed in under an hour, according to the Guardian newspaper.

Earlier Tuesday, a British opposition MP released a reporting suggesting British intelligence acquired that particular information from "an émigré taxi driver on the Iraqi-Jordanian border" and that it was unreliable.

Snip

After the dossier was published on Sept. 24, 2002, several British newspapers included the claim in their stories. London's Evening Standard headline read: "45 minutes from attack" while the Sun carried the headline: "Brits 45 mins from doom."

Britain joined the invasion of Iraq six months later.

Scarlett told the inquiry that WMD in this document did not refer to ballistic missiles and that the matter "would not have been lost in translation" if they had used the term "munitions" rather than "weapons."...>>>>>

Scarlett hangs Blair out to dry

Sir John Scarlett giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the war in Iraq today. Photograph: PA

Sir John Scarlett's evidence at the Chilcot inquiry must mean Tony Blair can no longer hide behind the intelligence services

Former spy chief Sir John Scarlett hung Tony Blair out to dry this afternoon. He drove a mobile weapons lab through Blair's longstanding excuse on Iraq – that his false claim that intelligence had "established beyond doubt" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was cleared by the intelligence experts. What they seem to have said at the time was that if Blair wanted to make such an assertion, he should not pin it on them. Now Scarlett has – very late in the day – said the same.

In the short time they gave themselves, the Iraq inquiry committee made a pretty good job of putting Scarlett on the spot about the September 2002 Iraq dossier. They asked him some tough questions. He dodged some of them, claimed a faulty memory from time to time, but he said enough to put the blame on Blair...>>>>>

Spy Chief: We Knew Iraq Dismantled Weapons

The UK knew Iraq had dismantled its long-range missile before the war, an intelligence chief has told an official inquiry into the invasion.



Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee when the conflict began, said Iraq had taken apart a weapon capable of reaching Israel by 2003.

A weapon with that reach could have posed a threat to British military bases in Cyprus.

To reassemble it would have taken one or two days, he told the public hearing.

Sir John, who went on to head MI6, was responsible for the September 2002 report which became popularly known as the "dodgy dossier".....>>>>>

U.K. believed Iraq dismantled weapons

Britain believed Iraq had dismantled its chemical and biological weapons in the run-up to the 2003 invasion but thought it was possible they could be reassembled, the former head of the country's Joint Intelligence Committee said Tuesday.

John Scarlett, who chaired the committee from 2001 to 2004 before moving to MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence agency, told a panel of inquiry that it had long been believed that Iraq had been dismantling weapons in order to conceal them.

On March 7, 2003, Scarlett said an intelligence report revealed that "Iraq had no missiles which could reach Israel and none which could carry germ or biological weapons. The leadership had ordered the dismantlement of the missiles known as al-Hussein ... to avoid discovery, and they thought they could be quickly reassembled."...>>>>>

Blair was warned to expect Iraq disorder

A top intelligence adviser warned Tony Blair to expect “serious disorder”, revenge attacks and a potentially hostile reception from Iraqis in the event of military action to topple Saddam Hussein, the Iraq inquiry heard on Tuesday.

Sir John Scarlett, former chairman of the joint intelligence committee, said he delivered a “blunt” assessment of the political aftermath of regime change less than three months before the outbreak of war.

Yet in spite of these concerns, other senior Whitehall officials revealed on Tuesday that there were no detailed preparations to administer southern Iraq before the UK embarked on the five-year task...>>>>>

Blair 'did not respond to crucial intelligence reports'

Tony Blair received two secret intelligence reports saying that Saddam Hussein did not have working weapons of mass destruction just days before ordering the invasion of Iraq.

Sir John Scarlett, the former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, told the official inquiry into the war today that the Prime Minister did not respond to the reports, which had crucial military significance.

He also distanced himself from Mr Blair’s claim six months before the invasion that “intelligence had established beyond doubt” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD)....>>>>>

Open up the Iraq war inquiry

I published my submissions to the Hutton and Butler hearings in a spirit of openness that I feel is lacking in the Chilcot inquiry

I have published all my witness submissions to the Hutton inquiry and Butler review on the Iraq Inquiry Digest website to add to public understanding of the two issues on which I feel best qualified to comment: weapons of mass destruction and intelligence analysis. These are complicated matters, and there is a risk that the Chilcot inquiry will miss significant facts.

So far the inquiry has provided precious little documentary evidence as background to its hearings. It is not clear whether this is the inquiry's decision or a consequence of the protocols imposed by the government. However, the result is that there is uncertainty about the sources the inquiry is using and the assumptions it may be making about their evidence...>>>>>

And the following has been rising up as these testimonies have gone into this second week, especially being called for another investigation the last couple of days.

UK doctors say David Kelly did not commit suicide

The fact that Britain is once again investigating its role in the Iraq blunder is praiseworthy.

The previous Hutton and Butler inquiries were disappointing to put it mildly. Perhaps because they were undertaken at a time when the British establishment was still on the defensive and when preserving the reputation of the prime minister took precedence over exhuming the truth. Or, alternatively, because they took place when British troops were still in theater when damaging revelations could have seriously affected morale and/or relations with Britain’s Washington ally...>>>>>