Tag Archives: Iraq invasion

Blair Lied, Bush Lied, Nothing New To The Iraq Story!

The Chilcot inquiry in the United Kingdom as to the real story behind the ill fated invasion of Iraq continues and with each passing day it becomes clearer and clearer that both Tony Blair and George Bush lied about the rationale for military intervention. The Chilcot inquiry released a letter written by Blair to George Bush. “We share the analysis, we share the concern, we are going to be with you in making sure that Saddam Hussein is faced up to his obligations and that Iraq is disarmed.” Alastar Campbell told the inquiry that he was informed by Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee on April 28, 2003, a month after the invasion there were no weapons of mass destruction.

A separate Dutch inquiry after studying reasons for their nation’s participation in the Iraq war concluded the Dutch government was given incorrect information by the United States and that “the military action had no sound mandate in international law.” The real question is why is anyone surprised that Bush and Blair lied?

British Doubted Iraq Invasion Explanations

Newly released documents indicate there was widespread doubt among many members of the British government in 2003 when Tony Blair presented reasons for the invasion of Iraq. An email from an official speaks sarcastically about claims Iraq is engaged in nuclear development by saying, “Dr. Frankenstein, I presume..” There were efforts on the part of some to hedge their bets by using language suggesting the lack of certainty about Blair’s claims. One official suggested to others working on the rationale for invasion, “you need to hedge your judgments,” and use language to indicate there was no certainty about the supposed nuclear or other activities of Saddam Hussein.

It is clear Tony Blair wanted to receive arguments in support of invading Iraq and he wanted officials to find reasons to doubt opposing arguments. And, despite this history, Tony Blair is currently working on “peace” in the Middle East.

Turkish Anger Escalates Over Kurdistan Attacks

The attack a few days ago by members of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party(PKK) provides incentive for war advocates in Turkey to escalate demands that only military action is the solution in dealing with legitimate grievances of Kurds in their country. Last Friday’s attacks which resulted in the death of about a dozen Turkish soldiers came just as Parliament was discussing giving its nation’s military even more leverage in striking into Iraq in pursuit of rebel forces. It is now clear just about every political party in Turkey is ready to give the military almost unlimited power to attack where they so desire regardless if it means sending thousands of troops into Iraq.

Ironically, the European Union was urging Turkey to focus on domestic efforts to deal with needs of its Kurdish population, but since the PKK attacks, it will cease playing a role of restraint and join the movement toward military solutions of problems. The Turkish military was talking about domestic solutions, but it is now determined to use full force in crushing the PKK. As always, when terrorism is handled by military tactics, human rights suffer and wise diplomacy gets lost in the shuffle to invade and kill the enemy.

Canadian PM Trapped By Plagiarism And Bush

George Bush has a tremendous ability to ensure anyone who comes in contact with him eventually winds up being hated by the people of his country. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been a strong supporter of Bush and loyally backed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It has now been revealed by Own Lippert, who wrote Harper’s speech backing the Bush invasion of Iraq, that the speech was copied large sections from a speech given by another Bush supporter, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Lippert apologized fo being “over zealous in copying segments of another world leader’s speech” and that Harper was not aware of what happened.

One is left wondering if Harper pays any attention to what other world leaders say on such an important issue as the Bush invasion of Iraq. How could he have failed to recognize that his words were close to those of John Howard? In one sense, the issue is minor, in another sense, it represents a major problem in 2003 when many leaders accepted everything Bush said about Iraq and never did their own investigations.

Russian Leader Denounces Bush On Terrorism War

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called on nations of the world to unite in the fight to end global terrorism and move away from the Bush administration whose policies have seriously damaged that struggle. He noted in the aftermath of 9/11, “the solidarity of the international community fostered on the wave of struggle against terrorism” because of Bush’s invasion of Iraq which had nothing to do with defeating terrorism or proliferation of nuclear weapons. Lavrov blamed the Bush administration for attempting to assume leadership as a serious mistake because it allows a single nation to decide what one must or cannot do in fighting terrorism.

In a direct attack on United States foreign policy, the Russian diplomat said there needs to be world unity in fighting terrorism under the UN and there has to be an end to “double standards “when we fight against violations of international law such as the Georgia invasion of South Ossetia. He also called for a new European treaty dealing with security issues.

Lavrov has a Russian agenda, but there is no doubt the invasion of Iraq was the single worse decision regarding fighting terrorism.

Truth Shall Set Ye Free-Publish Cabinet Meeting Notes

Great Britain’s information minister, Richard Thomas, said cabinet meeting minutes in which the Blair government discussed the legality of invading Iraq should be published and made known to the public. He believes the papers should be made public because “there is a widespread view that the justification for the decison on military action in Iraq is either not fully understood or that the public was not given the full or genuine reasons for that decision.” Thomas believes public interdest in disclosure outweighted the principles thatnormally allow the government not to have to publish minutes of cabinet decisions.

At the time of the invasion, the then attorney-generl, Lod Goldsmith, published a nine pararaph opinion claiming the invasion was legal. But, it subsequently appeared in a much longer legal opinon written 10 days earlier, Goldsmith expressed reservations about the legality of the attack. Thomas emphsizes “that a decision on whether to take military action against another country is so important that accountability for such decision-making is paramount.” He did agree if the minutes were published, the government had the right to delete certain sections due to security reasons.

Hopefully, a Democratic president next February will allow information that has been kept hidden by the Bush administration to be published so Americans can finally learn the ratinale for the invasion of Iraq.