A defiant Tony Blair defended his decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 following the publication of a devastating report by Sir John Chilcot, which mauled the ex-prime minister’s reputation and said that at the time of the 2003 invasion Saddam Hussein “posed no imminent threat”.

Looking tired, his voice sometimes croaking with emotion, Blair described his decision to join the US attack as “the hardest, most momentous, most agonising decision I took in 10 years as British prime minister”.

He said he felt “deeply and sincerely ... the grief and suffering of those who lost ones they loved in Iraq”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-crushing-verdict-tony-blair-iraq-war

 

BULLSHIT !

The intelligence was manufactured to suit the poop bag

 

 

Andrew Wilkie: Howard, Blair and Bush should appear before international court – politics live

Independent MP, who resigned as intelligence officer during the Iraq war, says ‘damning’ report contains lessons for Australian government.

---------------

 

 

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie has called for former prime minister John Howard and members of his cabinet to face war crimes trials over the 2003 Iraq invasion and blamed the invasion for attacks on Australians, including the Lindt Cafe siege.

Until we have an effective inquiry into Iraq, people like John Howard and Alexander Downer won't be properly scrutinised or held to account 

Mr Wilkie was speaking on Thursday after the release of a damning British inquiry into the blunders of the 2003 invasion, which renewed calls for a more thorough look at Australia's involvement in the disastrous occupation strategy.

 

 

read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/chilcot-report-andrew-wilkie-blames-iraq-invasion-for-lindt-cafe-siege-as-inquiry-sets-off-aftershocks-in-australia-20160707-gq0e7j.html

 

---------------------

 

The point which many of the commentariat miss when they talk or write of "incompetence" is that it was not incompetent. It was deliberate act of sabotage of international relations. It was a criminal war enacted by thugs.

 

And they sold it to the rabid MMMM (mediocre mass media de mierda) which was enamoured with biffo. THERE WAS NO INTELLIGENCE FAILURE. THE INTELLIGENCE and its "ANALYSIS" WERE CLEVERLY (well no so cleverly) MANUFACTURED TO SUIT THE INVASION.

 

-------------------------

 

The three buccaneers took leave of their senses in invading Iraq – George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard.

The truth is that this trio wanted to invade Iraq because they thought it would be easy. 

The former British Prime Minister earns a rare place in history's crosshairs as one of just two on the planet who might have stopped crazy man Bush – the other being Bush's hapless Secretary of State, Colin Powell. By not restraining the US president, each was an enabler in Washington's worst-ever foreign policy blunder.

 

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/chilcot-report-the-mindboggling-incompetence-of-bush-blair-and-howard-laid-bare-20160706-gq06hy.html

 

 

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating has called for John Howard to "hang his head in shame" over his involvement in the Iraq War, which he says brought "the spectre of terrorism and racial strife" to Australia.

Mr Keating, a Labor Prime Minister who served for two terms and was succeeded by Mr Howard in 1996, said Mr Howard should "atone for his actions and those of his government" after a UK government report found the 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on flawed intelligence.

read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/paul-keating-says-john-howard-should-hang-his-head-in-shame-over-iraq-war-20160707-gq12fq.html

 

The intelligence was not flawed. It had been deliberately concocted to suit the war. We have been on this since day one, even before the war started in 2003. Gus knew in 2002 that the "dossiers" used by Tony Blair for war were a lot of made-up rubbish. The three amigos should be in prison. They should be joined in prison by Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the CIA analysts who concocted this atrocity.

 

A fake intelligence source fooled MI6 with false reports based on the action movie ‘The Rock’, which ended up being used to justify Britain’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Chilcot report has revealed.
The Chilcot report into Britain’s involvement in the invasion of Iraq is highly critical of the UK intelligence services, claiming it provided the government with “flawed” information, including about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - the basis for going to war.

In September 2002, MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove reported the agency was on the edge of a “significant breakthrough” after finding a new source inside Iraq with “phenomenal access” to information about suspected WMDs.

The source claimed senior scientists in Iraq were working seven days a week on stepping up the production of chemical and biological weaponry, and the regime was concentrating its efforts on the production of anthrax and chlorine gas.

The source’s information was not included in the government’s 2002 war dossier, which was published a few days after that information came to hand, amid fears Saddam would start locking up scientists.

However, it is said to have underpinned “key judgments” in the report. Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair was said to have been personally briefed on the information.

A second report later that month, based on the same source, claimed that VX, sarin and soman nerve agents were being produced at a facility in Al-Yarmuk, where they were loaded into containers of various sorts including “linked hollow glass spheres.”

However, questions were soon raised about the new agent’s claims, when it was pointed out his description bore a striking resemblance to a scene from the 1996 action movie, The Rock, starring Nicolas Cage and Sean Connery.

“It was pointed out that glass containers were not typically used in chemical munitions, and that a popular movie (The Rock) had inaccurately depicted nerve agents being carried in glass beads or spheres,” the Chilcot report says.

“The questions about the use of glass containers for chemical agent and the similarity of the description to those portrayed in The Rock had been recognised by SIS.”

MI6 later discovered the source had been lying “over a period of time.”

 

read more: https://www.rt.com/uk/349894-mi6-rock-chilcot-intelligence/

 

See also: British spies gave faulty intelligence on Iraq, then quietly withdrew it - Chilcot

---------------------

 

Gus has it from good authority and experience that MI6 and the CIA and the other 30 spy agencies combined between American (25), England (4) and Australia (1) that such formidable assemblage could not be "fooled" by fake intelligence. The Europeans knew the intelligence was fake, bogus or poor at best.

The European agencies would have told their "concerns" to their counterparts in the English hegemony. They did so as well when Powell went to the United Nations with his pitiful dossiers. 

 

It is imperative practice that a) intelligence does not rely on one source and b) such intelligence has to be verified by other independent sources, including "european" sources. and c) intelligence agencies are experts in the "art of deception" and double-cross. They cannot be fooled for more than a couple of hours during which an enormous amount of personnel would be used to analyse and collect real intel.

 

Considering that a lot of the intelligence came from the Ahmed Chalabi network, known to be on the CIA pay-roll, what does this tell you.

 

Considering that the NUKE dossiers were proved to be fakes, by the husband of a CIA operative who was exposed as payback.

 

Considering that David Kelly was suicided in the UK.

 

Considering that the ANTHRAX attack was US home made as proven by the FBI (which was not in the loop). 

 

Considering that Bush was still pinning 9-11 on Saddam way after the blame had moved onto Bin Laden.

 

The intelligence of MI6 and the CIA was concocted not to fool the governments, nor by "governments of fools" (as some in the press are starting to call Bush, Blair and Howard), but the intelligent was concocted to suit the governments' desire for war.

Who concocted it and who ORDERED favourable intelligence for war in not opened to conjecture: The Bush machine to which B-liar became complicit and to which Howard became a party to as well, despite his protestations. The resignation of Alan Wilkie in Australia was a small tell tale. There was many indicators that the intelligence was bogus, but the mood for war was cleverly maintained by the three amigos and their propaganda through the Murdoch press. The other MMMM (mediocre mass media de mierda) followed suit as not to be left behind in the race to "sell" news. 

The army generals HAD TO KNOW THAT SADDAM DID NOT HAVE ANY WMDs and had been secretly briefed. Otherwise they could not have launched an attack in which the number of US and its "allies" casualties possible (up to 50,000) — "CONSIDERING THE US DID NOT KNOW WHERE THESE WMDs WERE", would have made the uncertainty of battle too great a risk. 

 

THIS IS WARFARE 101.

Intelligence cannot make such mistakes. But it was cleverly disguised as to make those not in the loop, such as cabinet members and members of parliament, tighten their butts. Blair, Bush and Howard knew that the intelligence WAS BOGUS. They might not take their secret to their grave as somoen in the milirary will eventually talk — and this could be Powell. Watch this space.

 

 

 

Presently, similar goofy intelligence is being manufactured by the US spy agencies to create a "fear of Russia"... The next step is unthinkable.

 

See also: brexit, looters by royal appointment and by presidential decrees...

John Howard's continued lies about the reasons for invading Iraq in the face of the scathing Chilcot Report remind us of his deep dishonesty and poor judgement, writes deputy editor Sandi Keane.

BACK IN 2004, the “who can you trust” slogan was effective. It won Howard the election. Such was George W. Bush’s admiration, he stole the line for his own campaign.

But Howard and trust parted company when we found out Australia had invaded Iraq in 2003 on the basis of a lie. He had exaggerated the threat of Sadam Hussein. There were no weapons of mass destruction. This information was known to the U.S., Britain and Australia almost two years before the Coalition of the Willing's invasion of Iraq (see below).

After the release of the Chilcot Report, Britain is now confronting its ties to the United States as one of the Coalition of the Only Too Willing that cost British lives. A contrite Tony Blair responded by saying:

"I express more sorrow, regret and apology that you can ever know or believe"

whilst maintaining he'd made the right decision. 

But unlike even Tony Blair, Howard says he has no regrets about Iraq. Australians are unlikely to ever see him apologise. It isn't within his "little man" character to ever apologise for his dishonesty and poor judgement. His failure to repent is a character flaw. Jumping on the Bush bandwagon and "shirt-fronting" Saddam Hussein from the safety of his Canberra bunker would have given Howard the chance to shake off his little man image and become the people's hero. As I will later demonstate in this article, by way of evidence, his memoir 'Lazarus Rising' is full of boastful flights of fancy (like claiming to be East Timor's "liberating hero") and is, as such, a litany of lies. 

read more: https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/chilcot-howards-continued-lies-about-iraq-remind-us-of-his-deep-dishonesty-and-poor-judgement,9217

 

Porkie inc

Hot on the heels of Brexit comes the Chilcot report on the serious moral failures of UK government. Dr Alison Broinowksi, currently in London, asks what Chilcot's findings mean for Australia's unblinkered alliance with the U.S.

THERE IS a sense in Britain that its very foundations are shaking. Just weeks since the Brexit decision, the prospect of recession is real, the value of the pound and the price of real estate have dropped out of sight, credible leaders are lacking, and uncertainty threatens the future of Great Britain itself.

Piled on top, now, is the Chilcot report on the war in Iraq. Its revelations about the moral failures of government in the UK are so serious that some feel they could bring the whole edifice crashing down.

How has it come to this and what does Chilcot mean for Australia?

Cynics expected Sir John Chilcot to produce the fifth in a series of British whitewash reports relating to the war. Three inquiries had already dealt with secret intelligence and one with the “suicide” of an Iraq weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly.

But Chilcot has surprised commentators by not letting his past role as the senior official responsible for Northern Ireland, where Tony Blair’s early triumph gained him a reputation as a peace-maker, get in the way of polite but pointed conclusions about the Iraq war, sprayed at top people at MI6 and Blair in particular.

#Chilcot Report declassified the Downing St Memo showing that British intel knew Bush admin were cooking WMD claims https://t.co/W0EB3kujuD

— Lee Fang (@lhfang) July 6, 2016

These include:

• the intelligence agency failed to make clear that the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was not beyond doubt;
• Blair took Britain to war before other options were exhausted;
• he repeatedly misled the Parliament and the media about the threat of the WMD he claimed Saddam Hussein had;
• he publicly distorted the advice he was given in order to make the case for war; he should have known that invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam would unleash civil war and terrorist attacks against Britain;
• and he could have identified the prospect of a resurgent Iran and the rise of Islamic State because he was warned of both before the invasion.

We now know what many suspected, that Blair gave the U.S. President a unilateral undertaking in April 2002 that Britain would join the U.S. in attacking Iraq and that in July, eight months in advance of the war, he wrote to Bush ‘I’ll be with you, whatever’ (as reported in yesterday’s The Ageeditorial).

The palpable disgust of many in England is less about whether Blair really is a liar, or has merely misled them and the Parliament — it is more the confirmation that he was a sycophantic lapdog of one of the worst presidents America has had.

read more: https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/chilcot-report-shows-blair-and-howard-were-simply-bushs-lapdogs,9219

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/jul/06/it-isnt-about-a-lie-tony-blair-on-iraq-from-2001-to-2016-video