Recent Posts and Categories

Chilcot report will be 'devastating' says No 10 as it emerges THIRTY are in the firing line of heavily critical Iraq Inquiry... and Blair's secret letters to Bush to be revealed in full

OWoN: Truth, while the Oily Slimebags in Politics today have delayed it for years, has a nasty habit of breaking free and telling all. Or enough to be clear who the lying, murdering, manipulative scumbags were. Be clear, allegedly a million or so have died needlessly because of these rotten people. The cover up went on long enough. It's also was past time Phony Tony was stripped of his protective blanket and brought to justice as a willing sycophant in horrendous War Crimes. This needs to be a Hague Trail where Bush, Blair and the whole dirty, rotten scoundrel team face a World Court of Justice - with their lives! See how Cheney faces that. Who speaks for the Dead? Do we want to clean up treacherous World Politics? Start here! Put these Nazi Bastards on trial and let Independent Prosecutors interrogate them. Was there ever a better way to smash the Cabal? It will expose the Bankers and Vatican. It will expose the lying Agencies.

How about the world say Yes, WE want our Nuremberg. Let Justice be heard!

Saddam was hung. Well???


Among the most explosive parts will be the details of 30 secret letters, notes and conversations between Tony Blair and former US President George W. Bush in the run-up to war


Chilcot report will be 'devastating' says No 10 as it emerges THIRTY are in the firing line of heavily critical Iraq Inquiry... and Blair's secret letters to Bush to be revealed in full

  • Thirty people, including Tony Blair, to be criticised by the Chilcot Inquiry
  • Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw among Labour figures sent letters
  • Million-word report on the Iraq War understood to be 'largely finished'
  • Report expected to be a 'devastating' indictment of the Blair Government
  • Most explosive parts will be secret notes between Blair and George Bush

Mail Online
By Simon Walters
7 February 2015

Thirty people, including Tony Blair,
are set to be heavily criticised
by John Chilcot's Iraq War inquiry
Thirty people, including Tony Blair, are set to be heavily criticised by the Chilcot Inquiry in its ‘devastating’ attack on the Iraq War.

Well-placed sources say that ‘approximately 30’ people have been sent letters by chairman Sir John Chilcot warning them that they will be criticised in his report into the 2003 invasion.

They include the former Prime Minister and ex-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, as well as a host of other Labour politicians, Whitehall mandarins, diplomats and intelligence officials.

The Mail on Sunday understands that Chilcot’s million-word report on the conflict is ‘largely finished’.

Sources close to the inquiry say its strongly worded criticisms of the way the war was handled make a nonsense of claims that it will be a ‘whitewash’.

Downing Street insiders expect the report to be a ‘devastating’ indictment of the Blair Government and large sections of the Whitehall establishment.

Among the most explosive parts will be the details of 30 secret letters, notes and conversations between Blair and former US President George W. Bush in the run-up to war.

Contrary to earlier claims, full details of the way that Blair privately promised Bush that he would go to war against Saddam – without telling MPs and British voters – will be published. Blair and Bush are said to have ‘signed in blood’ their agreement to oust Saddam Hussein in secret talks at the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, a year before the start of the war.

Blair’s candid words in their secret letters – with redactions to protect sensitive military and intelligence issues only – will be published word for word. Only the ‘gist’ of Bush’s comments will be published to avoid embarrassing a key foreign ally.

The disclosure that up to 30 people face being criticised is a major surprise. Chilcot was asked by MPs last week to say how many people had been told they will be criticised in the report, but he refused point-blank. ‘At the risk of being obdurate, I mustn’t,’ he replied. ‘If I start to give numbers people can work out who might be involved.’

Equally surprising is the disclosure of the severity of the criticism meted out to those responsible for the war. A source said: ‘The suggestion that it is going to be a whitewash is quite wrong. Downing Street expects it to be devastating.

Iraq inquiry by numbers
____________________________

15/06/2009: Date when the inquiry was announced by the then PM Gordon Brown

150: Number of witnesses who gave public evidence

02/02/2011: The date of the last hearing

7,000: Government documents to be included in the final report

30: Notes from Tony Blair to George W. Bush examined by the inquiry

£790: How much Sir John Chilcot was paid per day

£9,016,500: Total cost of the inquiry as of March 2014

2,070: Days since the inquiry was announced

461,000: Estimate of number of Iraqis who died as a result of the invasion

179: UK Service personnel who died during Operation Telic, as the Iraq War was known

‘It is also wrong to say Chilcot will only publish the gist of what Blair said. His words will be published word for word.’

‘There will be redactions where appropriate but it will be quite clear to see what he said and what he meant. Bush’s comments will be less detailed but that is necessary as it is not up to Britain to publish details of what a US President says.’ Sir John fought a dogged battle with Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell and his successor Jeremy Heywood to win approval to publish the comments. O’Donnell refused to give way and it took Sir John a year to force Heywood to agree.

It has led to claims of a conflict of interest involving Heywood, who worked in No 10 for Blair.

The dispute over publishing the confidential communications between the two leaders is the main reason for the delay in publishing the findings of the inquiry, which was set up in 2009.

It meant Sir John could not fulfil until recently his duty to send so-called ‘Maxwell letters’ to those whom he intends to criticise in his report. Some of the 30 or so have received letters running into hundreds of pages. One individual is said to have received a 1,200-page letter from the inquiry.


Horrifying: A British soldier escapes from a burning tank after it was petrol-bombed in Basra, Iraq


Questioned by MPs last week on the delays, Sir John stressed the importance of publishing the Blair-Bush correspondence in full: ‘The question of when and how the PM made commitments to the US about the UK’s involvement in military action in Iraq and subsequent decisions is central to our considerations.’ They were at the heart of the inquiry, he added, because they ‘illuminated the Prime Minister’s position at critical points’.

Sir John did not conceal his satisfaction at winning his power struggle with Heywood: ‘It came to the point where it was no longer possible to sustain the doctrine that these documents could not be disclosed, but it took a long time.’

He had ‘nibbled’ away until Heywood finally crumbled.

In an acrimonious Commons debate earlier this month, Straw, who was interrogated three times at the Chilcot Inquiry, appeared to strike a defensive tone. People who faced criticism had a right to ‘be given a proper opportunity and sufficient time’ to respond, he said.

And he revealed he feared Press reports that it would be a ‘whitewash’ could pressure Chilcot into drawing ‘more stark conclusions than the evidence would allow’.


____________________________


Top ten names on the Iraq war report hit list

Rebuked: Alastair Campbell at the
Chilcot Inquiry in 2010
Tony Blair, Prime Minister

FORMER Labour leader gave evidence twice to Chilcot and is accused of exaggerating the capacity of Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). He is said, with George W. Bush, to have ‘signed in blood’ an agreement to back a military invasion into Iraq in 2002 – a year before the conflict began. Blair is also accused of lying to Parliament about making such a pledge; of ignoring advice from his Attorney General that the war was illegal; of deliberately failing to consult Cabinet Ministers; and of falsely accusing French President Jacques Chirac of trying to sabotage a UN vote on the war.

Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary

Straw gave evidence to Chilcot three times. He expressed his ‘deep regret’ about the war and said he supported the decision to attack Iraq ‘very reluctantly’. He acknowledged he could have forced Blair to think again had he objected, but rejected advice from Foreign Office legal experts that to attack UN support ‘would amount to a crime of aggression’. Insiders say Blair made him Foreign Secretary as Blair was fed up with Robin Cook standing up to him on ‘ethical’ foreign policy issues.

Alastair Campbell, Downing Street Director of Communications

The spin doctor masterminded the September 2002 dossier about Saddam’s WMDs. His claim at the Chilcot Inquiry that it was not ‘a case for war’ prompted a sharp rebuke from Major General Michael Laurie, head of intelligence gathering at the MoD. He told Chilcot that Campbell was wrong: ‘Those involved in [the dossier’s] production saw it exactly as that, and that was the direction we were given.’ Campbell was responsible for a second ‘dodgy dossier’ in February 2003 based on out-of-date internet research. Jack Straw called it a ‘complete Horlicks’.

Sir John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)

Scarlett was head of the JIC when the September 2002 ‘dodgy dossier’ made its notorious ‘45 minutes from doom’ claim about WMDs. Critics say he let Alastair Campbell pressure him into ‘sexing up’ the document. A secret memo showed how Scarlett referred to ‘the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional’.

Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General Goldsmith consistently warned Blair that an attack on Iraq would be illegal, but the Cabinet was not told of his advice. Goldsmith revealed to Chilcot that in January 2003 he told Blair that he was ‘uncomfortable’ about declaring war on Saddam without the UN’s backing. Days before the war started, he changed his mind. He denies he did so after being ‘pinned against a wall’ by Blair’s senior No 10 aides Lord Falconer and Sally Morgan.

Jonathan Powell, Downing Street Chief of Staff

Shortly before the September 2002 dossier was published, Powell emailed Sir John Scarlett stating that there was no evidence of an ‘imminent threat’ from Iraq. In 2010 he told the Chilcot Inquiry that the dossier should never have been published. ‘Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction,’ said Powell. ‘The intelligence was wrong. We were wrong.’ He undermined Blair’s claim that intelligence on WMDs was proven ‘beyond dispute’, saying: ‘Intelligence isn’t hard evidence. It’s not something that proves something.’


Former Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon was criticised over flaws in equipment for British forces in Iraq


Geoff Hoon, Defence Secretary

Hoon was criticised over flaws in equipment for British forces in Iraq. Lord Boyce, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, said that Hoon ‘prevented’ him from addressing the issue in the run-up to the conflict ‘because of the concern of it becoming public knowledge that we were planning for a military contribution’. Hoon was also blamed for failing to make clear the ‘45-minute claim’ referred to battlefield weapons – not missiles that could strike as far as Cyprus, as the dossier implied.

Sir David Manning, Blair’s Chief Foreign Policy Adviser

Manning was present at meetings in 2002 in which Bush and Blair drew up secret plans for the invasion of Iraq. He delivered a letter from Blair to Bush in June 2002, in which Blair wrote: ‘You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I’m with you.’ In January 2003, he wrote a secret memo which said that the US invasion of Iraq would go ahead with or without the UK. It said ways of provoking Saddam to justify war were discussed.

Sir Richard Dearlove, Head of MI6

Dearlove could be challenged over MI6’s failure to stop Blair and Campbell using uncertain intelligence information about WMDs to suggest Iraq posed a genuine threat. In 2002, he warned Blair and Bush ‘intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy’. Dearlove is said to be preparing to speak out to ‘set the record straight’ if he thinks he has been misrepresented by Chilcot.

Sir John Sawers, Blair’s Foreign Policy Adviser

Gave evidence to Chilcot twice. He admitted that Blair may never have gone ahead with the war if the post-conflict chaos had been foreseen: ‘Frankly, had we known the scale of the violence, it might well have led to second thoughts. It was not thought through.’

link

8 comments :

  1. Wow!!! Huge gratitude for John Chilcot and his supporters. I'm sure Georgie and Tony are on their way to their hidey holes by now. I hope they are easily located and their accomplices in the U.S. also, for the Nuremburg Part Deux trials that I pray will happen ASAP.

    An extra "L" for all involved in this effort. Lol.

    CAL L. GIRL

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks to John, Mr. Chilcot, the English people, and the English government for doing what we currently cannot.

    Hopefully the Gowdy committee will show true American spirit, and not be afraid to give Hillary hell.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Be assured this is only the start. Watch the panic soon. Where are the Pay off accounts? We KNOW!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gordon Duff lays into Tony Blair and David Cameron in his latest article:

    The Color of David Cameron’s Underwear (updated)

    "Two British prime ministers are in danger from this act [Nuclear Explosion Act 1998], Tony Blair who received nearly $5 million in political payoffs. later returned, laundered through a source tied to Formula One racing. Blair’s cash came from Bradencamp and is assumed to have been his cut for keeping quiet about the source of what he was told were Saddam’s nukes. The Chilcott Inquiry was tasked specifically with tracking down those involved in “misplacing” these nuclear weapons."

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/08/the-color-of-david-camerons-underwear/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The other is Cameron. Both are assumed to have information tied to the Korean nuclear explosion and that, either through failure to act while in office or complicity in the transfer, they are culpable and potentially liable under provisions of the 2001 Security Act that apply to nuclear weapons. Enforcement of these provisions is “non judicial.”

      Delete
  5. I read that Jack Straw was to take his lords seat before the report was to be released, but then read that it would be delayed until after. That seems like good news.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let's not forget the Child Abuse Enquiry:

    Hoax? Bizarre Satanic Rituals Described by Children

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlgEvvG8v6c

    Comment on Youtube by Pedro de Paula

    there isnt only one video, there are dozens, https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Byzy22cCtwpdOEM2bG00eXE2eTg&usp=sharing#list
    it is most certainly not a Hoax.

    There are some sick, evil, twisted bastards around.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wonder when John Howard will be brought into this, or if he was complicit.

    ReplyDelete

If your comment violates OWON's Terms of Service or has in the past, then it will NOT be published.

Powered by Blogger.