The truth will always out -eventually. Seems the regime (“government”) doesn’t have the control it would like on the secret services. Perhaps MI5 might like to start to question to whom its loyalties really lie (the innocent people or their aggressor, corrupt, plutocratic “government”).
A former head of MI6 has threatened to expose the secrets of the ‘dodgy dossier’ if he disagrees with the long-awaited findings of the Chilcot Inquiry into the UK’s role in the Iraq War.
Sir Richard Dearlove, 68, has spent the last year writing a detailed account of events leading up to the war, and had intended to only make his work available to historians after his death.
But now Sir Richard, who provided intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) that was apparently ‘sexed up’ by Tony Blair’s government, has revealed that he could go public after the Chilcot Inquiry publishes its findings.
Sir Richard is expected to be criticised by the inquiry’s chairman, Sir John Chilcot, over the accuracy of intelligence provided by MI6 agents inside Iraq, which was used in the so-called ‘dodgy dossier’.
Now the ex-MI6 boss, who is Master at Pembroke College, Cambridge University, has said: “What I have written (am writing) is a record of events surrounding the invasion of Iraq from my then professional perspective.
“My intention is that this should be a resource available to scholars, but after my decease (may be sooner depending on what Chilcot publishes)
“I have no intention, however, of violating my vows of official secrecy by publishing any memoir.”
Sources close to Sir Richard said that he insists Chilcot should recognise the role played by Tony Blair and the Prime Minister’s chief spokesman Alastair Campbell in informing media reports which suggested Saddam could use chemical weapons to target British troops based in Cyprus, a claim which led to Britain entering the war in Iraq.
Sir Richard is said to remain extremely unhappy that this piece of intelligence, which his agents stressed only referred to battlefield munitions which had a much shorter range, led to media reports that UK bases were under threat.
However, he accepts that some of MI6’s information on the WMDs was inaccurate, the Mail on Sunday reported.
Mr Blair and Mr Campbell have repeatedly denied making misleading statements about WMD.
Last week it was revealed that Sir John had written to Prime Minister David Cameron informing him of his intention to write personally to those individuals he intends to criticise, with Tony Blair reported to be among those on Sir John’s list.
Sir Richard has taken a sabbatical from his duties at Cambridge University to research and write his record of events, and is expected to resume his Master’s role at the start of the new academic year.
A security source told The Mail on Sunday: “This is Sir Richard’s time-bomb. He wants to set the record straight and defend the integrity of MI6. And Sir Richard has taken a lot of personal criticism over MI6’s performance and his supposedly too-cosy relationship with Mr Blair.
“No Chief of MI6 has done anything like this before, but the events in question were unprecedented.
“If Chilcot doesn’t put the record straight, Sir Richard will strike back.”
Last night the committee’s chairman, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was appointed in 2010, offered Sir Richard his support, saying: “I have never heard of a former MI6 chief putting something out there in these terms but I would be interested in what Sir Richard has to say in response to the Chilcot Inquiry which is clearly going to have some meat in it.
“I know Sir Richard and worked with him in the Foreign Office many years ago. He is a very able man of the highest character and a man of his own opinions. We shall have to wait to see what he says.”
Last night, Alastair Campbell and the office for Tony Blair declined to comment on Sir Richard’s account.
Historian expresses fears after chapters by serving generals excised from book criticising operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A leading military historian has accused the Ministry of Defence of putting the lives of British soldiers at risk by stifling debate and preventing serving generals from publicly expressing their views on the conduct of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sir Hew Strachan, Chichele professor of the history of war at Oxford University, blames the decision to suppress their views on “official paranoia”. His outspoken comments appear in a series of essays, British Generals in Blair’s Wars, which contains devastating criticism from senior officers who have recently retired, but none from those still serving.
Debate and potential reform are therefore stifled at source “for fear of reputational damage and political controversy”, writes Strachan.
The book has fallen victim to “official paranoia”, he says referring to six chapters written by serving officers that were withdrawn on the orders of the MoD.
Strachan, an adviser to the chief of the defence staff, General Sir Nick Houghton, adds: “These fears put at risk lives in theatre. Like many armies in the past, the British army struggles to foster effective debate within a hierarchical command chain.”
The editors, including Strachan, make clear in their book – published by Ashgate more than a year late because of the need to find replacement authors – that the final decision to ban serving officers from contributing to it was taken by the defence secretary, Philip Hammond.
Generals prevented from publishing their views include Houghton, who took over as chief of the defence staff from Sir David Richards on Thursday, and Lt Gen Sir Richard Shirreff, Nato’s deputy supreme commander. Shirreff, a former commander of British troops in Basra, told the Chilcot inquiry that more than three years after the invasion of Iraq, the MoD was still incapable of delivering equipment badly needed by UK troops there.
The failure to provide troops with the resources they needed “beggars belief”, he said.
The opening salvo in British Generals in Blair’s Wars castigates the former Labour prime minister for not providing sufficient resources to those he sent to war. Jonathan Bailey, formerly responsible in the MoD for developing military doctrine, says Blair “does not appear to have thought through the consequences of his policies, committing the UK to prolonged conflicts intended to reorder other countries’ underlying cultures”.
The book exposes sharp disagreement between British commanders on the root causes of attacks on British troops in Basra. Jonathan Shaw, commander of British forces in south-east Iraq in 2007, came under fierce criticism for doing a deal with the Jaysh al-Mahdi, the militia led by the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and for taking the view that violence was more criminal than ideologically or politically inspired. “I judged Basra to be more like Palermo than Beirut,” he writes.
Richard Iron, an adviser to Iraqi army commanders in Basra, writes: “Nothing could be further from the truth: Jaysh al-Mahdi was an extremist movement that controlled Basra by force.” British intelligence analysts failed to appreciate the depths of “malign Iranian influence”, says Iron.
An underlying theme in the essays by former generals and senior British staff officers is the almost complete lack of preparedness and failure to provide enough resources, in terms of both money and men, in Iraq. The failures, the authors write, were not learned and were repeated in Afghanistan.
Iron says that five years after the invasion of Iraq, “there was still arrogance and hubris among the British. A sense of ‘we’re here to teach you so you’d better listen'”.
Britain’s failures led to bitter disputes behind the scene with US commanders, whose marines took over from the British in Basra, and, later, in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. Alexander Alderson, former special adviser to the head of the Afghan armed forces, says that in Iraq the different tactics and attitudes of the two countries came to the point “where the UK’s military credibility was in question”.
The book describes the growing frustration among military commanders about inter-departmental rows within Whitehall and inadequate co-operation with the Foreign Office and Department for International Development. The much-mooted “comprehensive” approach – co-operation on conflict prevention, peacemaking, and peacekeeping – has not materialised. Tim Cross, the senior British officer in the US-led post-invasion reconstruction office in Iraq, writes: “We do need to have a fairly radical shakeup, both in the [defence] ministry but also pan-government.”
Strachan told the Guardian: “The MoD has got to get real … Differences and debates need to be properly gone over. Otherwise we are none the wiser”.
Western imperialism knows no bounds. The “British” government is a direct threat to your safety. The people that have, are, and will suffer because of the “British” government’s gun running and regime change will naturally seek revenge on the aggressor nation. The guilty politicians will not, of course, suffer the consequences. They never do. Only the British people will suffer as they did on 7/7. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Revenge will one day be upon us.
Define irony? Here is one, or rather two, tries.
Back in the 1970s, it was none other than the US that armed the Taliban “freedom fighters” fighting against the USSR in the Soviet-Afghanistan war, only to see these same freedom fighters eventually and furiously turn against the same US that provided them with arms and money, with what ended up being very catastrophic consequences, culminating with September 11.
Fast forward some 30 or more years and it is again the US which, under the guise of dreams and hopes of democracy and the end of a “dictatorial reign of terror”, armed local insurgents in the Libyan war of “liberation” to overthrow the existing regime (and in the process liberate just a bit of Libya’s oil) – the same Libya where shortly thereafter these same insurgents rose against their former sponsor, and killed the US ambassador in what has now become an epic foreign policy Snafu.
But it doesn’t end there as according to Russia, it is the same US weapons that were provided to these Libyan “freedom fighters” that are now being used in what is rapidly becoming a war in Mali, involving not only assorted French regiments, but extensive US flip flops and boots on the ground.
Russia said on Wednesday the rebels fighting French and African troops in Mali are the same fighters the West armed in the revolt that ousted Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
“Those whom the French and Africans are fighting now in Mali are the [same] people who overthrew the Gaddafi regime, those that our Western partners armed so that they would overthrow the Gaddafi regime,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a news conference.
“It’s important to lift one’s head a bit and look over the horizon, look at all those processes more widely, they are interconnected and carry very many threats,” Lavrov said, speaking of unrest across the Middle East that could play into the hands of militants.
“This will be a time bomb for decades ahead,” he said.
That is our definition of irony.
For a closer analysis of Chairman Cameron in relation to this issue see the video below (18 minutes in):
President Nazarbayev said he had been watching Cameron and praised him for ‘the way he protects the interests of the British people all over the world’
he final day of David Cameron’s visit to central Asia was overshadowed by political embarrassment today after Kazakhstan’s hardline ruler said he would vote for the Prime Minister if he had the chance.
President Nursultan Nazarbayev said he had been watching Mr Cameron and publicly praised him for “the way he protects the interests of the British people all over the world”.
The controversial Kazakh leader, who recorded 95.5 per cent of the popular vote at his last election, added: “Personally, I would vote for him.” A visibly squirming Mr Cameron, who had spent much of the previous 24 hours with the President, replied: “That’s one [vote]; I just need another 20 million and I’m in business.”
The Prime Minister, who had proclaimed that the relationship between the two countries was moving “to the next level”, was also forced to apologise after it emerged that a Kazakh artist with no hands had been denied a UK visa because he had not provided fingerprints.
The unwelcome interventions dominated a press conference held in the presidential palace in Astana, to rubber-stamp a series of agreements on trade and a “strategic partnership” between the two countries. Mr Cameron, who had travelled to the oil-rich state with a delegation of British firms including BP, Shell and Rolls-Royce, said Kazakhstan was “a dynamic country that is poised to become a high income country by the end of this decade”.
The Prime Minister spent much of the previous 24 hours with the President, travelling in his private jet and drinking with him in an “Irish Bar” where Guinness sells for £11 a pint. He confirmed that he had raised the issue of human rights in Kazakhstan, including “credible allegations” that the Nazarbayev regime was guilty of torture and curbs on religious and press freedoms.
In light of the pan-Middle Eastern conflicts currently ongoing at the behest of the West and its private army, the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation (N.A.T.O.), it is disingenuous to claim that Cameron is promoting British defence firms. Who, during conflict, “promotes defence firms”?
This is nothing short of gun-running.
Cameron’s previous crimes especially:
David Cameron has insisted he made “no apology” for flying to the Gulf to bang the drum for British defence firms despite the poor human rights record in the region.
The Prime Minister faced heavy criticism for his three-day visit to Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates last week, which was partly aimed at clinching orders for Typhoon jets.
Amnesty International accused him of a “deeply-disturbing trade-off” between trade and strategic interests and the promotion of human rights.
But delivering the annual Mansion House speech, Mr Cameron retorted: “We must support all sectors of the economy where we have a comparative advantage – and that includes defence.”
He said he understood why some critics were “a bit squeamish” about defence deals, but he insisted Britain had the most rigorous arms export licensing regime in the world.
He added: “Every country in the world has a right to self-defence. And you cannot expect every country to be self-sufficient in providing the tanks, ships and planes needed.
“So when Britain has a very strong defence industry, with 300,000 jobs depending on it, it’s right we should be at forefront of this market, supporting British jobs and British allies.”
He said 300,000 jobs depended on the Typhoon contracts, which are worth around £6bn.
In the speech, regarded as the Prime Minister’s main foreign affairs address of the year, he argued that Britain had to fight vigorously for a share of trade in rapidly-growing export markets.
Since coming to office, he has led trade missions to Africa, Indonesia, China, India, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Japan and Malaysia.
“I know there are some people who say that’s not real foreign policy. Or worse still, it’s just globetrotting. But I say there is a global race out there to win jobs for Britain and I believe in leading from the front. So I make no apology for linking Britain to the fastest growing parts of the world.”
He announced the appointment of trade envoys to promote British businesses in Mexico, South Africa, Morocco, Indonesia, Kuwait, Vietnam, Algeria and Kazakhstan.
He also mounted a strong defence of the City of London against critics whom he accused of wanting to “trash” the banks.
He pointed out that the financial services sector contributes one-eighth of Britain’s tax revenue and underpins jobs for two million people.
“Yes, some utterly terrible mistakes were made and they need to be addressed properly so they can never happen again.
“But those who think the answer is just to trash the banks, would end up trashing Britain,” Mr Cameron said.
“I say – recognise the enormous strength and potential of our financial sector, regulate it properly and get behind it.”
Read on: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-makes-no-apology-for-controversial-visit-to-the-gulf-to-promote-british-defence-firms-8307188.html
A “EUROPE4ALL”? Where then is the swastika? Keen observers will also note that the Hammer and Sickle appears the most times on this poster.
Question: Why is it illegal to fly the Nazi swastika flag but is more than acceptable to fly the flag of the Soviet Union, the Hammer and Sickle?
Answers below, please.
Take a close look at this promotional poster. Notice anything? Alongside the symbols of Christianity, Judaism, Jainism and so on is one of the wickedest emblems humanity has conceived: the hammer and sickle.
For three generations, the badge of the Soviet revolution meant poverty, slavery, torture and death. It adorned the caps of the chekas who came in the night. It opened and closed the propaganda films which hid the famines. It advertised the people’s courts where victims of purges and show-trials were condemned. It fluttered over the re-education camps and the gulags. For hundreds of millions of Europeans, it was a symbol of foreign occupation. Hungary, Lithuania and Moldova have banned its use, and various former communist countries want it to be treated in the same way as Nazi insignia.
Yet here it sits on a poster in the European Commission, advertising the moral deafness of its author (I hope that’s what it is, rather than lingering nostalgia). The Bolshevist sigil celebrates the ideology which, in strict numerical terms, must be reckoned the most murderous ever devised by our species. That it can be passed unremarked day after day in the corridors of Brussels is nauseating.
By Daniel Hannan M.E.P.