ARTICLE: How Chilcot will whitewash the Iraq War

4333958843_9e871cc40d_b-770x470

Hat tip: http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/05/heres-chilcot-will-whitewash-iraq-war/

The long awaited report from the UK government’s inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq is going to be released on Wednesday.

But make no mistake: the process was designed from the start to let decision-makers off the hook for their roles in an illegal invasion that has destroyed a country and paved the way for the rise of the Islamic State.

A hint at the report’s findings were revealed by Lord Butler, who led a previous 2004 Iraq inquiry, which concluded that while Tony Blair had been “wrong” about Saddam Hussein’s WMD capacity, he did not deliberately deceive anyone:

“You can see the mistakes that deceived the intelligence community into thinking Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I have talked to the agencies and I hope that they have learnt the lessons from that,” said Butler.

Conflict of interest

Sir John Chilcot, who chairs the current inquiry, was a member of Butler’s team for that previous inquiry. The secretary of the current inquiry is Margaret Aldred, who was previously deputy head of Defence and Overseas Secretariat (subsequently Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat).

According to the Cabinet Office Annual Report and Resource Accounts for 2004/5, when Aldred began her role:

The Defence and Overseas Secretariat (DOS) has been at the forefront in coordinating the Government’s policy in Iraq following the end of the conflict with regular meetings of ministers, senior officials and video conferencing with officials in Iraq. Over the past year, DOS has coordinated policy development on Iraq.

Yet Aldred herself, despite being someone involved in the government’s Iraq policy, has not been called as a witness to the inquiry – although her successor in the same post was.

Chilcot and his aides refused to disclose information on Aldred’s own role in government policy on Iraq. As noted by Chris Ames, editor of the Iraq Inquiry Digest which has tracked the inquiry since it began:

The Inquiry’s willingness and ability to reveal the extent of her role is clearly compromised by the fact that she is its secretary. In concealing the conflict of interest, the Inquiry is concealing the truth of what happened.

Ames noted that the inquiry would have “little credibility” if it refused to come clean about its own connections to the government’s Iraq policy.

The first casualty

This should not be a surprise given that the first inquiry by Lord Butler was already a bankrupt whitewash of the highest order.

Butler’s report (6.4 para, p. 499), for instance, claimed it was “well-founded” that Saddam Hussein was trying to illegally obtain uranium for his so-called advanced nuclear weapons programme, from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The allegation was based on forged documents, which Butler claimed the British had no idea were forged.

Butler’s pathetic, fantastical version of events is so astonishingly absurd that it is not taken seriously by any journalist or historian who actually understands the Niger uranium intelligence scandal. Yet somehow in legitimate public discourse, it is still considered credible – and Butler receives ample air time with a straight face, without a single question about his role in obscuring the facts.

Don’t worry, you’re not going mad. This is the exceptional state of British journalism today.

In 2012, I and a team at the Institute for Policy Research & Development conducted our own peer-reviewed independent investigation into the public record data concerning Saddam’s alleged efforts to get uranium from Niger.

In our reportExecutive Decisions: How British Intelligence was Hijacked for the Iraq War – which was submitted to Chilcot’s inquiry – we pointed out that Britain’s White Paper on Iraqi WMD made the uranium claims, despite the British having being warned by George Tenet, head of the CIA, not to include them.

The claim traces back to ‘intelligence’ that was examined and discredited way back in 1999. Falsified documents were discovered in the form of written correspondence between officials in Niger and Iraqi agents. The documents had been submitted to the CIA by British officials.

But the documents were quickly dismissed at the time and found to be crude forgeries containing laughable errors: names and titles not matching individuals in office at the time; the Niger government’s letterhead being obviously cut and pasted, and the signature of a government official who had retired long ago having been forged.

Senior officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) described the documents as “so bad” that he could “not imagine they came from a serious intelligence agency.” The IAEA confirmed the forgery within hours.

But years later, this rank bullshit still made it into Britain’s official ‘intelligence’ assessment of the state of Iraq’s WMDs. It was then conveniently quoted by President Bush in his State of the Union address to Congress in 2003, helping to rile up public support for war.

Sadly, you won’t find the self-righteous pundit class lambasting the venal culture of self-serving power that allowed the systematic concoction of such “conspiracy theories” against official enemies to flourish in the heart of Whitehall.

Lies? What lies?

And here lays bare the methodology of vindication to be deployed by Chilcot and his friends: admit real failures, loudly condemn officials for failing, but contextualise the decisions leading up to the failures as entirely unintentional, then ultimately blame the failure on faulty systems across government.

The most that Blair and his warmongering friends can be accused of, then, is bad management.

But here’s the reality: the regurgitation of discredited forged nonsense as ‘British intelligence’ – which had already been rejected by the CIA and IAEA – speaks not to ‘faulty intelligence’ but to the deliberate ‘politicisation of intelligence.’

But false intelligence did not make its way inexplicably into the intelligence system because our intelligence agencies are underfunded and badly organised, and really, really believed what they were saying, poor darlings.

It made its way in, because political leaders made pre-conceived, ideological decisions about going to war.

Those decisions were untenable if the intelligence wasn’t there to back their decisions. So they exerted massive pressure on the intelligence community to find or make that intelligence.

Cherry picking

In leaked UK government memoranda between March and July 2002, references are repeatedly made to “poor” intelligence about WMD, and the “thin” case for war that it presented.

Indeed, then head of MI6, Richard Dearlove, confirms that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of regime change, “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”

Senior intelligence officers in MI6 and the CIA also confirmed that intelligence was being deliberately manufactured to support “the opposite conclusion from the one they have drawn.”

One MI6 officer said:

You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence. Yet that is what the PM is doing.

And a CIA official concurred:

We’ve gone from a zero position, where presidents refused to cite detailed intel as a source, to the point now where partisan material is being officially attributed to these agencies.

Chilcot’s abject failure to get to the bottom of this reveals the extent to which our democratic checks and balances in foreign policy decision-making are fundamentally broken – and confirms the institutional lack of accountability that allows this broken system to continue unabated.

The Chilcot report will be used to let the people who lied their way into war off the hook. It will also reinforce the idea that they did so with unquestioned benevolence, despite terrible and regrettable failures of management and judgement.

Don’t be surprised to find much of the pundit class – who, by the way, overwhelmingly and shamelessly clamoured for the invasion – chorusing in agreement.

They have blood on their hands too.

14/6/15: ARTICLE: U.K. Squanders £5.2 million of YOUR Money on Foreign Celebrity Jolly

original (2)

  • Former foreign secretary spent four days hosting London summit last year But no summit on the 1,400 children who were raped and sexually abused in Britain.
  • Food bill came to £299,000 while taxis, hotels and transport cost £576,000 This amount totals £875,000 that could be spent on investigating the 1,400 children who were raped and sexually abused in Britain. 
  • Foreign Office annual budget to tackle sexual violence in conflict is £11m What about spending £11million on tackling rape and sexual abuse in the U.K.?
  • American Bar Association in Congo said rape prosecutions had fallen They are falling in the U.K., too, because the government, judiciary, and police are actively covering up the crimes and wasting money elsewhere to deflect attention.
This is what YOU are voting for.
William Hague faced criticism as it emerged that a high-profile summit he held with Angelina Jolie about rape in war zones cost more than £5million.The former foreign secretary spent four days hosting the lavish summit in London last summer, which he said would help to eliminate the scourge of sexual violence in conflict.The food bill alone came to more than £299,000 while spending on taxis, hotels and transport for dignitaries came to £576,000, according to figures obtained under Freedom of Information laws.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3123755/William-Hague-s-three-day-global-rape-summit-Angelina-Jolie-London-summer-cost-5-2million-host-rate-sexual-violence-conflict-zones-increasing.html#ixzz3d4vgPO8n

(Tue 9/6/15) Article: Expenses and sex scandal deleted from MPs’ Wikipedia pages by computers inside Parliament

 

liblabcon

The Expenses Scandal 2009: Remember all these crimes committed that we the People would have been imprisoned for? http://eotp.org/expenses-09/

References to ‘chauffeur-driven cars’ and a criminal arrest wiped from online biographies in run-up to election

Expense claims and a Westminster sex scandal were deleted from MPs’ Wikipedia pages by computers inside Parliament before the election, The Telegraph has found.
Details of a police arrest, electoral fraud allegation and the use of “chauffeur-driven cars” were also been wiped by people inside the Commons.
The revelation will raise suspicion MPs or their political parties deliberately hid information from the public online to make candidates appear more electable to voters.

More than a dozen online biographies of sitting MPs were doctored from computers with IP addresses owned by the Houses of Parliament in the run-up to the election.
Requests for comment were made to all the MPs in question via their party press offices, but just a handful replied to say the changes had nothing to do with them.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, an online encyclopaedia kept up to date by users. However each change is tracked and linked to an IP address – a unique string of numbers that identifies each computer using an internet network.

By looking at the changes made by computers with IP addresses owned by the Houses of Parliament it is possible to see what edits are being made from inside the Commons.

The Telegraph has discovered persistent changes to MPs’ biographies made from Parliament in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to hide embarrassing information from the electorate.

(Mon 8th June, 2015) ARTICLE and VIDEO: MI5 blackmailed politician child sex abusers

paedoWestminster

Some reports suggest that the British Security Service, MI5, shielded pedophile politicians from prosecution to blackmail them back in the 1970s.

 “There’s now substantial evidence that the Security Service were condoning that, they knew of it and made use of it so as to blackmail the abusers and prevent some of the abusers being brought to book at the time,” Belfast Telegraph quoted a lawyer for one of the child abuse victims as saying.

The revelation was made in Belfast High Court during the hearing of the Kincora Boy’s Home case.

The victims of the abuse at the Kincora boys’ home in Belfast have filed the legal action with the aim to force a full independent probe that would have the authority to compel the secret service to hand over documents and witnesses to give testimonies.

‘Utterly scandalous’

Meanwhile, Amnesty International announced that investigation into child abuse at Kincora Boys’ Home in east Belfast should be investigated by the UK parliament.

Read on and watch the video:  http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/06/03/414199/MI5-BLACKMAIL-PEDOPHILE-SEX-ABUSE

ARTICLE and VIDEO: ‘Britain may call off Westminster child sex abuse inquiry’

paedoWestminster

Reports say the British Home Secretary has considered disbanding an investigation into allegations of child sex abuse by Westminster lawmakers.

A confidential letter from the Home Secretary, Theresa May has revealed that she was considering disbanding the current panel, and that May outlined three possible plans to give further powers to the historic abuse inquiry, only one of which did not involve its dissolution, RT reported on Monday.

The inquiry has already begun investigations, but is currently without a chairperson after May’s top choices, Fiona Woolf and Baroness Butler-Sloss, both stood down.

This is while survivors of alleged Westminster child sex abuse have called on the government to replace the current inquiry with a more powerful body.

Now Human Rights Activist Lee Jasper says: “The government’s unwillingness can be understood in terms of the vested interests of the rich, the powerful, the judiciary, the policing, the Westminster and the military… some of whom will be determined to ensure that such an inquiry doesn’t go ahead. The government along with MPs are…slow and unwilling to launch a timely and professional investigation into these accusations, because the whole of Westminster will be affected.”

Jasper also pointed out to Press TV’s UK Desk that “the perpetrators should be brought to justice, but in this case what we are witnessing, is a wealthy powerful elite who were involved in the routine sexual abuse of children, particularly young people in children’s homes, and they’ve conspired to make sure that no successful investigations have taken place today, even though these allegations stand from the mid-1970s.”

Meantime, a spokesperson from the Home Office has reportedly claimed that Secretary May was torn between pressure to make progress and “the need to get this right.”

The Home Secretary has been heavily criticized by the Labour Party for her alleged lack of progress.

The inquiry is already investigating three murders in relation to the historic sex abuse scandal, and reports suggest they are looking into five separate pedophile rings which operated at the heart of Westminster and included many “highly influential” figures.

Read on http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/12/22/391390/uk/

ARTICLE and VIDEO: Two more ministers accused in the VIP child abuse scandal: MP wants Secrets Act lifted to let police speak out

original (2)

 

  • Two politicians join 22 others named in allegations of abuse in 1980s
  • Form part of powerful ring of Westminster paedophiles, it is claimed
  • MP John Mann said he was approached by victim who says he was abused 
  • Called for retired detectives to be granted amnesty from Secrets Act 
  • Scotland Yard is investigating allegations made by handful of ‘victims’
  • The men, all now adults, say they were routinely abused by politicians 

 

Scotland Yard has been handed the names of two more former Government ministers accused of sexually abusing children.

Campaigning MP John Mann said he was approached last week by a victim who claims to have been abused by the politicians – one a peer – in the 1980s and has passed the detailed allegations to detectives.

The latest phase in his search for the truth about a suspected Westminster child sex ring came as he called for retired detectives to be granted an unprecedented amnesty from the Official Secrets Act to help lift the lid on alleged VIP abusers.

Allowing former Special Branch officers who witnessed the alleged events to speak out could be central to bringing prosecutions, said Mr Mann. He has now called on Home Secretary Theresa May to lift Official Secrets Act restrictions.

The new allegations of child abuse emerged after the Bassetlaw MP handed a carefully-researched dossier about five paedophile rings to police with the names of 22 MPs. It includes 13 ex-ministers, at least two of whom are claimed to have gone to ‘abuse parties’ held at Dolphin Square, the luxury riverside estate in Pimlico which has been home to dozens of MPs.

However, Mr Mann said the latest claims, which involve two former politicians who are still alive, are ‘entirely separate’. ‘Someone has contacted me with some very precise allegations – not just the names but the basis of the allegations – and it is going straight to the police,’ he said.

He said the key to unlocking the truth behind the saga lies with retired Special Branch detectives who witnessed events and could be ‘absolutely critical’ in providing information to an investigation.

He said ‘a number’ of officers have contacted him, including one who has read a 50-page dossier of evidence amassed by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens which is now said to be missing.

He added: ‘It is clear there are a lot of people who could provide a lot of information, potentially vital information, to support ongoing criminal investigations.

‘But they are not doing so because of the Official Secrets Act. They are fearful of not only breaking the law but the potential effect on their pension. This is absolutely crucial if we are to get some of these ex-officers coming forward and to get prosecutions of some of the former MPs.’