Sunday, January 31, 2010

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "If It Stared In Her Face"

If It Stared In Her Face

Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "If It Stared In Her Face." Gossip columnist Amy Goodman, fresh from 'reporting' at the Sundance Film Festival, insists, "I do real reporting! What movie were you in?" War Criminal Tony Blair, fresh from testifying Friday at the Iraq Inquiry, tries to convince her he is someone of interest, "Blimey! Amy Goodman, it's me Tony Blair! Don't you know news when you see it!" Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.







Posted by at

And the war drags on . . .

The more I've watched the Chilcot inquiry, the clearer the answer has become. All those ferocious arguments of seven and eight years ago have swum back into focus: the friendships destroyed; the disillusioned party workers who walked away; the broken trust running like a crevasse through the Labour party. The Iraq war destroyed many people's trust in politics. It destroyed many lives, and that's the most important thing. But among the collateral damage has been New Labour itself. It died in Iraq.

The above is from Jackie Ashley's "Here lies New Labour -- the party that died in Iraq" (Guardian). Friday War Criminal Tony Blair testified before the Iraq Inquiry in London and it was and is big news and continues to dominate the news cycle. Self-identified 'liberal interventionist' Hawk Andrew Rawnsley (Observer) whines that the next Iraq War will be so hard to sell to the British people -- his whine, by the way, is the closest the Guardian and Observer readers have ever gotten to a confession for why the papers ignored the Downing Street Memos. Stop The War offers a variety of reactions to Blair's strutting on Friday and we'll note this from Rose Gentle, mother of Iraq War veteran Gordon Gentle, killed in Iraq June 28, 2004:

When I got into the room, I was shaking and my stomach was churning, because I couldn't say anything to him. I wanted to say: "Tell the truth. Why lie? Why not put your hands up and say you made a mistake?"

The last bit, at the end, was disgusting. Sir John Chilcot asked him if he had any regrets and he said no. There were [bereaved] families in there, but there was not a bit of compassion, not a bit of anything like that. It was very hard to take.

He just sat with his back to us, and refused to meet us afterwards, which is typical of him. I am glad I saw him, but I would have preferred to see his face. He wouldn't look at us.

I think he got a lot of good questions put to him, but he didn't really answer any of them. He kept bringing things back to the paper, the dossier and he even tried to put the responsibility for the 45 minute claim on the media.

I don't think we have learned anything new, and when the inquiry ends there's not much we can do.

I will never forgive him and I believe he should stand trial. I will be angry with him for the rest of my life.



Meanwhile Clare Short, who testifies to the Inquiry this week, tells the BBC (link has video) Blair's testimony was unbelievable and short on the facts. Roland Watson (Times of London) reports that Short stated current prime minister of England Gordon Brown was kept out of the inner planning circle by Tony Blair. The Times of London offers readers reactions to Blair's appearance on Friday here, the Guardian here. Chris Ames (Iraq Inquiry Digest) offers his take on Blair's performance.

They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4374. Tonight? 4375.

In some of today's reported violence . . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured three pilgrims, a Baghdad grenade attack which injured six pilgrims, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured four pilgrims and a Falluja roadside bombing which wounded one 'suspect.'

Shootings?

Reuters notes 1 'suspect' shot dead by "Iraqi forces backed by U.S. advisors" with four more arrested in Mosul and, dropping back to Saturday, 1 woman was shot dead in Mosul.

Returning to the Iraq Inquiry, Tony Blair will be recalled for additional testimony. Richard Norton-Taylor and Patrick Wintour (Guardian) explain:

The panel are concerned in particular about his evidence relating to the legality of the invasion, the Guardian has learned. Blair's evidence seemingly contradicted that given by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general at the time, about the number of discussions the pair had about issues of law between 7 March and 17 March 2003, three days before the attack on Iraq.
Blair also told the inquiry that the question of whether military action would be lawful was "always a very, very difficult, balanced judgment". Yet the panel has heard he told Lord Boyce, then chief of the defence staff, that it was his "unequivocal" view that an invasion would be lawful.
Blair told Goldsmith to pass on the message after Boyce demanded a yes or no answer to whether it would be legal. Boyce had been concerned about Goldsmith's view that only "a reasonable case" could be made in favour of an invasion.

Bob Marshall-Andrews (Guardian) walks through what the Inquiry has learned from the testimonies -- mainly Tony Blair's and Peter Goldsmith (Goldsmith was the Attorney General):

He produced on 7 March 2003 a written opinion for the prime minister. In it he acknowledged that a "reasonable case" could be made for legality without the UN resolution but (and it is of course a huge "but") he "could not be confident that this view would succeed in a court of law". In other words, put plainly, legality was doubtful.
The effect of this was potentially seismic. Had this view been known to the cabinet or parliament, votes for the war would have been unthinkable. Had this unvarnished view been known to our military command and armed forces, many, if not all, would have refused to fight. Had it been known to contractors, civil servants and unions engaged on war work many, if not all, would have withdrawn their labour and support.
At this point 40,000 British troops were massed on the borders of Iraq and war was three weeks away. On 17 March the attorney general attended cabinet. The purpose of his attendance was to provide his opinion that the war was legal. His own doubts and equivocations 10 days earlier received no mention. As to the very existence of a written opinion there was total silence. The following day he repeated his unequivocal view on the law to the House of Lords, whence it came to the Commons. As to the very existence of a written opinion there was, again, total silence.

Tony Blair lied repeatedly and consistently. He never wanted a second resolution from the United Nations Security Council. He misled those serving with him and the public. That's why he browbeat Goldsmith until Goldsmith finally came around and agreed to pretend the Iraq War would be legal without a second resolution.


New content at Third:



Isaiah's latest goes up after this. Pru notes this from Great Britain's Socialist Worker:

This article should be read after: » Tony Blair is guilty of mass murder

Blair and Brown have blood on their hands

The real legacy of the war in Iraq has been exposed this week.

This, together with the appearance of Tony Blair in front of the Chilcot inquiry, has reignited anger over the Iraq war.

Many people are rightly sceptical about the outcome of Blair’s hearing—it will not be the grilling the majority wants. But the lies and horror of the war continue to seep out.

An official Iraqi study found more than 40 sites across the country were contaminated with high levels of radiation and toxins.

These are the result of the use of depleted uranium shells by US and British forces in Iraq.

Iraq’s energy resources continue to be sold off. The Iraqi government has signed a deal with oil giants Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell PLC to develop a major oil field in the south of the country.

This gives ownership of the oil fields to the companies for 20 years. There are an estimated 8.6 billion barrels of oil in West Qurna.

The oil giants will pay the Iraqi government $1.90 for each barrel of oil they extract. But when this is refined and sold on the world market it will fetch $78 a barrel at present prices.

George Bush and Blair’s war has left a trail of destruction. There are 4.5 million Iraqi refugees inside and outside the country. Electricity supplies have dropped dramatically in Baghdad.

In 2008, 61 percent of Iraqis said that they believed that the US military presence made the security situation worse. Many want the occupiers out of their country as soon as possible.

The price for the Iraq war has been paid by the one million killed—the estimate of the most credible surveys. Blair is responsible for this—and Gordon Brown signed the cheques.

On Monday at least 36 people died in coordinated suicide bomb attacks in Baghdad and in shoot-outs between security forces.

The police threat to impose a ring of steel around the Chilcot inquiry on Friday when Blair appears is another attempt to protect the guilty.

Undaunted the Stop the War Coalition organised a whole day of events outside the inquiry. They include a protest in the morning, then speeches, performances and music throughout the day.

A naming of some of the many war dead was also to be held. Those reading the names included members of Military Families Against the War, who have lost loved ones in Blair’s wars.

The Iraqi people deserve a voice in this inquiry, to tell their side of the story.

As they have been deprived of this right, it is the role of the anti-war movement to make Blair’s appearance a nightmare.

The following should be read alongside this article:
» Tony Blair is guilty of mass murder
» Afghanistan: London conference will not stabilise the 'good war' gone bad
» Chilcot whitewash brings out the dirt
» Attempt to ban protest outside Tony Blair’s appearance at Iraq inquiry
» Protesters greet warmongers’ London Afghanistan conference
» Army drops several major charges against Joe Glenton
» Tony Blair’s judgement day starts at Chilcot inquiry


© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.

Share this story on:

Delicious | Digg | reddit | Facebook | StumbleUpon

If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.

» comment on article | » email article | » printable version



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.






















Posted by at

Saturday, January 30, 2010

War Criminal Tony Blair

Watching Blair answering questions of the Iraq public inquiry commission was fascinating for the same reason it was frustrating. It's British.
Fascinating, because of the precise and disciplined way the five member commission probed the former prime minister about the way in which he arrived at the decision to go to war along side the United States and how he co-managed it with President Bush.
Frustrating, because the commission is an internal British inquiry with limited mandate - not an international court of justice - one that is commissioned to review and reconstruct the political process behind the war, or the politics behind the policy.

The above is from Marwan Bishara's "Tony Blair: Poodle or Bulldog?" (Al Jazeera) and yesterday War Criminal Tony Blair gave testimony to the Iraq Inquiry in London. While Blair was spinning and lying, the people were gathered outside. Henry Chu (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Even as he spoke in a hearing room across from the imposing Westminster Abbey, dozens of protesters outside called Blair a murderous liar who deserved to be tried for war crimes. Many Britons believe he dragged their country into an unpopular and unnecessary war under false pretenses, a conflict in which 179 British service personnel have died." The UK's Stop The War offers this photo of some of the demonstrators.

Stop The War

Mick Brown (Telegraph of London) reports:

It was 7.30am, the rain was falling, the groups of protesters decanting from rental vans bearing their banners of judgment: "Bliar Lied Thousands Died".
A man grabbed a megaphone, with a let's-get- down-to-business manner. "Tony Blair ..." he shouted. The crowd answered, like the response in a Pentecostalist church. "War criminal!"
Against a barrier, Ernest Rodker, a 72-year-old furniture maker from London, methodically assembled a facsimile of a jail cell from slatted wood, "to put Tony Blair in before the end of the day". And what did Mr Rodker think were the chances of that? "Pretty good. I'm an optimist. I think he'll be so ashamed of what he's done that he'll walk in himself.
"To be truthful, I don't think he has any shame."
For a moment, the shouting stopped and the growing silence seemed even more condemnatory. Now a man moved through the crowd, grim-faced, smartly suited, a row of medals pinned to his chest. John Brown's son, Nicholas, a 34-year-old SAS trooper, had died in Tikrit. Mr Brown, himself a former SAS officer, was among the families of Servicemen allocated a ticket for the hearing. He said he came in the hope of meeting Mr Blair.
What would he tell him? "I don't think there'd be a lot of talking." He had fashioned a small badge from cardboard: "Nicholas James Brown: Blair The Liar. Victim 176." There was a moment's deference. "I don't know if they'll let me wear it inside."

Of the hearing, Michael Goldfarb (Global Policy) noted Committee Member Usha Prashar's questioning of Blair on the issue of the Crawford meetup between Bully Boy Bush and Blair in April 2002: "She asked him if he had given a private undertaking then to overthrow Saddam. Blair avoided a direct answer, she interrupted and asked him again. 'I said nothing in private that I wouldn't say in public.' She pressed him again. 'Look,' Blair said. 'This is an alliance we have with the U.S. not a contract,' with everything clearly delineated by lawyers. When he finished that answer he nodded his head firmly ... it was the one moment so far when the certainty and self-righteousness that makes him so unshakeable really bubbled up." Ann Treneman (Times of London) offers this view, "Tony Blair arrived on the huge screen before us in the public viewing gallery looking extremely tense. I have watched the Tanned One for what must be hundreds of hours but I have never seen him this nervous, taut, defensive. His hands trembled, even shook at times, hovering over his two indexed notebooks. He didn't, as he always does, take off his jacket to dazzle us with the whiteness of his shirt. Nor did he flash that smile. Instead he sat looking serious if not grim, skin stretched over cheekbones." Andrew Gilligan (Telegraph of London) emphasizes the first and only resolution, "When the inquiry returned to the point - asking the pertinent question of why, if the first UN resolution legalised the war, did Mr Blair need to get a second one? - he appeared rattled for the first time. They pressed hard - surely the UN timetable was subordinate to the military one? How could he claim to be enforcing the UN's wishes by going to war before the weapons inspectors had finished their work?" AA Gill (Times of London) notes the mismash of 'facts' Blair offered, "Blair now makes sandwiches of many unlikely ingredients: regime change and weapons of mass destruction become the same thing with a threadbare piece of sophistry. One United Nations resolution becomes the same as two UN resolutions and possibly as efficient as no UN resolutions. They're produced with a sleight of hand like a card trick: 'Pick a resolution, any resolution -- don’t let me see it. Is this the resolution you first thought of?'" British Gen Richard Dannatt (Telegraph of London) offers his opinion of the biggest cost of the Iraq War as trust: "I am afraid there is only one word, and that is trust. When the British soldier fixes his bayonet and goes forward in battle, he must believe that what he is doing is absolutely in the national interest. There can be no equivocation. The generals tell the officers, who tell the soldiers, that this is what we are doing and why – and that what we are doing is really important. And, as an Army, we trust each other, because we all know that our personal liability is unlimited. The ultimate risk is a flag-draped coffin, and now a few minutes' recognition in Wootton Bassett." Richard Woods (Times of London) offers key points here. Michael Holden, Keith Ware and Janet Lawrence (Reuters) offer highlights here.

War Criminal Blair used his time to try to sell war on Iran. Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) observes, "Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Tehran, dismissed the former prime minister's claims and added that future government leaders should show much greater integrity when dealing with global security issues." Iran's Press TV also emphasizes that section, "However, the highlight of the night came as Mr. Blair forced the testimony, which was being aired on national television, in a new direction by taking advantage of the platform and pitched for opening a new battlefield as he mentioned Iran 58 times."


The Inquiry continues with public hearings scheduled for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in which Air Chief Marshall Jock Stirrup, Bill Jeffrey and others will testify. Hilary Been will get significant press attention and Peter Ricketts may as well but the one that will probably attract the most attention will be Clare Short who was against the Iraq War, remained in the cabinet for a short while after the illegal war started and then stepped down due to the war. The Inquiry has already heard that she was kept out of many key meetings due to her being against the proposed war and they've also heard her slandered by Alastair Campbell (a slander other witnesses have called out). The week after next, the witnesses will include Jack Straw (Straw will be making a second appearance). And the big-big now that Tony Blair has testified (he may be recalled) is Gordon Brown, the current prime minister of England. Clare Short is already in the news. Jonathan Oliver and Richard Woods (Times of London) report, "CLARE SHORT, the former minister, will this week disclose that Gordon Brown feared that Tony Blair planned to exploit the Iraq war to remove him from the cabinet. Short is expected to tell the Chilcot inquiry into the conflict about private conversations she had with Brown in which he expressed anxiety at the potential personal consequences of an invasion."

Toby Helm (Guardian of London) offers this on Brown's impending testimony:

The prime minister will come before the inquiry only weeks before a general election. During the inquiry, he has been accused by some of having, as chancellor, failed to provide funds for British soldiers to ensure they were properly equipped. It has also become increasingly clear that he was fully signed up to the overall project, even if he was not as closely involved in the key decisions as some. Brown will have awkward question to answer. He will also, for political reasons, need to be more aware of how he comes over to the public.
So will he offer just a little of the contrition that Blair failed to show? Will he try to empathise where Blair refused to do so?
One Labour source said the aim would be to appear more reflective than Blair and to talk more of how he respected those with different views, and felt the pain of those who had lost loved ones. But to offer any form of apology would be a mistake. "If you apologise in politics, it never puts you in a better place. In this business, it is really about conveying conviction." Another disagreed, saying Brown had to show contrition. "I think it will show strength if he does. It will be cathartic."

John Kampfner (Times of London) adds:

Brown stalled for as long as he could before convening the inquiry on Iraq. He then tried to limit its remit as much as possible. To the fury of Sir John Chilcot and his team, key documents remain classified.
Yet for all the obstacles, for all the frustration about the panel’s soft questioning of its witnesses, the committee has brought Iraq back into the public eye. The hearings will harm Labour’s already dim prospects at the forthcoming general election. The only question is by how much.

To close, we'll return to Tony Blair's testimony yesterday by noting this from Chris Marsden's report (WSWS):

Regarding the issue of UN authorisation and the requirement for a second UN resolution, he baldly insisted that Resolution 1441 -- passed in 2002 -- gave war legitimacy. But he was forced to acknowledge that the US was always ready to act unilaterally. He too eventually gave up on a second UN resolution because it was "very clear" that France and Russia would not agree to such a resolution, which had "disintegrated" the possibility of securing a majority on the Security Council. This was an admission that Britain had also acted unilaterally because it could not get what it wanted from the UN, which is in contravention of the UN Charter.
Blair was left to fall back on the fact that he had secured the approval of the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith for war on the basis of 1441, repeatedly dismissing the fact that this was only at the eleventh hour and was against what was put to him as the "consistent and united advice" of the Foreign Office legal team that fresh UN authorisation was required.




The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.




























Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)