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

VIDEO: We’re at War!

The rank hypocrisy of Tony Blair: He threw open Britain to millions of immigrants, but now sneers at Ukip

ARTICLE: Assassinating a Prime Minister's Reputation: Ten Ways to Blackmail Tony Blair

One of the foremost enemies of the people is Tony Blair

There is a particular tone of voice that BBC presenters use when announcing that the airwaves are to be cleared for an interview with Tony Blair.

A solemn preamble conveys the sense that after that morning’s tawdry squabbling of contemporary pygmy politicians such as Nigel Farage, this is the main act.

In truth, very few of us outside BBC headquarters want to hear anything more from Mr Blair, apart, that is, from him uttering one single word. Which is why I stay tuned, in the forlorn hope that I might one day hear Blair say: ‘Sorry.’

That is, sorry for leading us into ill-judged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with thousands of casualties on all sides; sorry for permanently damaging our country’s diplomatic standing by fatuously endorsing President George W. Bush’s cack-handed statecraft; sorry for changing, through a purposeful policy of mass immigration, the cultural fabric of our country without first asking if there was a consensus to do so.
Gabble

Mr Blair is a man who will gabble silkily for lucrative corporate bonding sessions or cosy media interviews.

But he will never utter what we actually want to hear from him – the faintest hint of contrition to those of us living in the country that he seems effectively to have abandoned.

Presenter Jim Naughtie was full of credulous deference towards Mr Blair on yesterday’s Radio 4 Today programme.

Inevitably, Mr Blair was not actually in the BBC studio. On this occasion he was ‘joining us from Berlin’ – a change from Ramallah or Dubai or the other places between which he flits on private jets, and from which he tends to broadcast when taking a break from his crowded schedule of lectures delivered for a vast fee.

The most striking aspect of Blair’s performance yesterday was his assumption that the spectacular progress made by Ukip in last week’s local and European elections came out of the blue sky and had nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with him or the policies of the government he led.

‘I’ve always said you have to have proper controls in place on immigration,’ Mr Blair intoned, unchallenged.

This peculiar assertion is punctured by the research of Migration Watch, which estimates that immigration during the New Labour years added three million to our population.

It also ignores the account of a former Blairite speechwriter, Andrew Neather, that from late 2000 onwards the deliberate policy ‘was to open up the UK to mass immigration’.

More than that, New Labour’s open-door immigration policy was designed, Mr Neather said, to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

Well, the consequences of that shamefully irresponsible politicking are now to be seen, both in the eastern European migrants crammed six to a room in East London, and in Ukip’s electoral progress.

Nigel Farage would not be grinning at us from the pages of our newspapers with an empty pint glass on his head were it not for Mr Blair’s policies.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2641199/Tony-Blairs-rank-hypocrisy-He-threw-open-Britain-millions-immigrations-sneers-Ukip.html#ixzz33i7mporI

ARTICLE: Iraq Inquiry: why Sir Jeremy Heywood should be stripped of his role immediately

As the Telegraph reports today, Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, is blocking the publication of correspondence between George W Bush and Tony Blair ahead of the Iraq War, together with later correspondence between Gordon Brown and Mr Bush – thus effectively stalling the already heavily delayed Iraq Inquiry.

No security issues are at stake. The blocking of the correspondence between Downing Street and the White House is an affront to democracy and prevents us from forming a judgment about the most disastrous war in recent British history. Sir Jeremy Heywood should now be removed from all decisions relating to the Iraq Inquiry, because he was himself deeply involved in the flawed government process in the run-up to and after the invasion of Iraq.

Sir Jeremy was appointed Tony Blair’s principal private secretary in 1999. Within a short space of time (as his senior colleagues have told me in detail) he became an intrinsic part of the collapse of the process of government which took place after 1997.

As Sir Robin Butler graphically described, the principles of sound, accountable administration were abandoned and replaced by “sofa government”. Decisions were made informally by a small coterie including Blair, Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Powell and Anji Hunter. Sir Jeremy was the only civil servant who was granted full access to the sofa.

The sloppiness of this new Downing Street machinery became manifest in the summer of 2003 when the Hutton Inquiry into the death of David Kelly tried to reconstruct the process which led to the release of the name of the MOD scientist in national newspapers. Lord Hutton learnt that four meetings, all involving senior officials and cabinet ministers, each chaired by the prime minister, took place in Downing Street to discuss Dr Kelly in the 48 hours before his name was released. In an amazing breach of normal Whitehall procedures, not one of these meetings was minuted at the time.

In the normal course of events it should have been the job of the principal private secretary to the prime minister – ie Jeremy Heywood – to draw up these minutes. Yet he did not do so.

This episode shows that Sir Jeremy Heywood is much too implicated in these matters to be permitted to make decisions of deep sensitivity concerning the White House/Downing Street correspondence.

David Cameron must now urgently intervene to strip Sir Jeremy of his role, and take control of the decision himself. If he fails to do this, the Prime Minister himself risks becoming complicit in what now looks more and more like a giant cover-up involving elements of the British establishment and political class to prevent the truth becoming known about how we became involved in the Iraq War.

Hat tip: Peter Oborne http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100244895/iraq-inquiry-why-sir-jeremy-heywood-should-be-stripped-of-his-role-immediately/

ARTICLE: Greville Janner, VIP child abuse and the mysterious death of Frank Beck

Hat tip: The Coleman Experience: http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/the-mysterious-death-of-frank-beck-2/

whitemoor_prisonjannerJanner Geller JacksonBlairCharie Blair and JannerFreinds ReunitedJanner Book Tony BlairJanner EnquiryJanner and GellerMagic Circle

In 1994, Frank Beck died in Whitemoor prison whilst serving a staggering 5 life sentences for alleged child abuse.

Frank Beck had been implicated in the abuse of boys in Leicestershire care homes.

Frank Beck had always maintained his innocence and claimed he was imprisoned because he’d exposed alleged abuse by a high-profile politician.

Frank Beck was appealing against his conviction and sentence.

Leave to appeal and legal aid were granted in January 1993 and Anthony Scrivener QC, one of Britain’s most eminent lawyers and former chairman of the Bar, agreed to take the case.

Frank Beck’s solicitor said at the time of his death

‘He was very impatient for the appeal to go ahead. His death came out of the blue. Normally the case would lapse and die with him but his family and close friends are discussing the possibility of carrying on with the appeal. This would not be unprecedented.’

Beck was convinced there was enough new evidence and material that was not put before the original court due to non-disclosure by the prosecution which would have made the original conviction unsafe and proved his innocence.’

In 2011 the following anonymous comments were left on a blog which was discussing his death:

In 1991, after accusing Janner of paedophilic behaviour with a teenager, Frank Beck was arrested and charged with the sexual and physical abuse of children in his care over a thirteen-year period.

At his trial Beck stated that: – “One child has been buggered and abused for two solid years by Greville Janner“.

Immediately after this, Janner who just happens to be, ironically, a long time member of the boy scouts association, and Sir David Napley, his solicitor, went to Police headquarters in Leicester.

Whereupon, the following statement was issued:

“We have advised Mr. Janner that he is prevented from making any statement at this stage”.

Shortly afterwards, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alan Green, let it be known that “for lack of evidence”, Janner would not be prosecuted, even though Paul Winston, who was just thirteen when he and Janner first met, was able to describe Janner‘s home, the hotel rooms they had shared, and Janner’s habits and person in detail.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, himself, was arrested for kerb-crawling in Kings Cross a little while later.

Green had come to the attention of the police previously for this same misdemeanour and was quietly given a formal warning.

The scandal prompted his resignation from public office and the suicide of his wife.

In court, Paul Winston, who was, at the time of Beck’s trial, a married man with children, stood up for him, as did several other witnesses, paying credit to his achievements and behaviour and confirming his anti-Janner testimony.

He said Beck had counselled him over his relationship with the MP, and had brought the affair to an end.

He also stated that he had had a beneficial effect on his life. According to Winston’s evidence, he was invited to Janner’s home near Golders Green, whilst Janner‘s wife was away, and this led to his sharing Janner’s bed where they “cuddled and fondled each other”.

Thereafter Winston testified that, over the next two years, he was regularly sodomised by Janner.

Beck discovered what had been going on after Winston was put into his care, at which point, he informed his superiors at Leicester Social Services.

At one point, Janner visited the care home with a new bicycle for Paul but Beck denied him entry and would not allow the gift to be passed on. This was confirmed by another witness at the trial.

Nevertheless, Beck was found guilty and sentenced to twenty-four years in prison, with five life sentences to run concurrently for his “crimes”.

Janner was never brought to court, nor was he ever called upon to testify.

Frank Beck died suddenly of a “heart attack”, shortly before his appeal was due to begin.

He was, by all accounts, a fit man at the time of his death.

He never stopped protesting his innocence and Janner’s guilt.

His two main solicitors, who admitted to being sceptical in the first instance, believed him at the time that he was found guilty.

One of these solicitors has since been killed in a road accident, and the other has been subjected to police harassment on a major scale.

Frank Beck was a resident of Braunstone in Leicester when the events described above were taking place.

When Janner was ennobled in 1997, he took the title, Lord Janner of Braunstone.

The man responsible for ennobling Greville Janner was Tony Blair.

The following very interesting comments were left :

I was in the courtroom when beck gave his evidence in full :his death by food poisoning in custody was very convenient for all those he said he had supplied the boys to in the local area .”

Blair had a macabre sense of humour as Braunstone is the area Frank Beck used to live in. Beck was guilty. But he almost nailed Greville Janner.”

Isn’t it about bloody time the police looked again at the mysterious death of Frank Beck?

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/the-mysterious-death-of-frank-beck/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/the-mysterious-community-security-trust/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/the-magic-of-greville-janner/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/who-is-uri-geller/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-black-magic-of-peter-mandelson/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/tony-blair-bp-elton-john-rentboy-barbados-magic-circle-lockerbie/

http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/category/leicestershire-frank-beck/page/2/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/cliff-richard-cherie-blair-melvyn-bragg-operation-fernbridge-friends-in-high-places-and-the-barbados-connection/