If it's election confusion, it's Iraq

Yesterday came news of a decision reached by a ruling body in Iraq on the elections issue. Already Nouri is striking back at the decision. To recap, we'll note this from yesterday's snapshot:

On Al Jazeera's Riz Khan yesterday, the issue of the elections were addressed with Riz Khan asking, "How free and fair is an election when a government bans certain people from running? Iraq goes to the polls on March the 7th but has barred more than 500 candidates which could ultimately plunge the country into chaos, even civil war." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) reports today that the government has managed to avert "a political crisis of its own making" as a result of the ban being overturned today "by a panel of seven judges". The Economist calls it "Best news in weeks." Margaret Coker (Wall St. Journal) explains, "The decision now opens the way for full-fledged campaigning to begin, as scheduled, on February 7. It wasn't immediately clear how many of the banned candidates would accept the compromise decision, or how the decision might affect the election outcome itself." Scott Peterson (Christian Science Monitor) adds, "But if the ruling stands, there's a catch: those blacklisted will still be subject to investigation after the vote for past ties to the regime of Saddam Hussein." And what would happen then? Caroline Alexander and Kadhim Ajrash (Bloomberg News) observe, "Election Commission official Hamdia al-Husseini told Agence France-Presse that those later found to have links to the Baath Party would be 'eliminated.'" Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports, "The ruling enraged the architect of the blacklist, Ali Faisal al-Lami, who is a close aide of the head of the former ­de-Ba'athification Commission, Ahmed Chalabi. That commission, which was a signature body of the post-Saddam Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), evolved into a contentious group known as the Accountability and Justice Commission." And to clear up a nasty rumor, there is no known sex tape of Ahmed Chalabi and his boy pal Ali al-Lami being distributed in Basra. Absolutely not. Nasty, hurtful rumors. Unless a tape should surface. Ammar Karim (AFP) notes, "Chalabi, who has close ties to Iran, was appointed deputy prime minister after the invasion but intelligence he provided in support of those claims in the run-up to war later turned out to be flawed and he subsequently fell out of favour with Washington." The decision is still being studied and Al Jazeera notes Saleh al-Mutlaq, of the sectarian National Dialogue Party and who was one of the banned, "declined to give an immediate comment."

Reuters reports this morning that Nouri's mouthpiece, Ali al-Dabbagh, posted to his website the following: "Postponing implementing the law of the Justice and Accountability Commission till after the election is illegal and not constitutional." Anyone else hear Donna Summer when they look at Nouri? Specifically, "Cats Without Claws"? Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reports that Nouri's "accidental rise to power" has not brought him a huge number of supporters leaving him "politically isolated and regionally estranged" and she explains:

Iraq has a multiparty parliamentary system. Lawmakers choose the president, who in turn gives the largest coalition in the parliament the first opportunity to choose the prime minister and form the government. If Maliki's bloc can win the largest number of seats, a majority in the parliament will still be needed to endorse his government. Without alliances, that could prove impossible.
"He has to manage to get alliances with others or he's done," said Askari, the independent Shiite politician.
Erstwhile allies say they will not support Maliki this time around.

She goes on to note that Moqtada al-Sadr supporters are among those who feel burned by Little Nouri. No surprise there after his assault on Basra which also added an assault on Sadr City at the same time (2008) when protests began there against the Basra assault. Distanced from many Shi'ite sects, never embraced by Sunnis and no friend to the Kurds, cue the film, Little Nouri in Big Trouble.


You're sitting on the fence crying out to the moon
The day goes by too fast and the night comes too soon
You bet your life and you sell your soul
Give it all up for beggar's gold
And the hidden city has its own laws
Produces a species: cats without claws
-- "Cats Without Claws" written by Donna Summer and Michael Omartian, from Summer's album of the same name.

Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) looks at the decision and some of those objecting to it:

The ruling still has to be upheld by Iraq's electoral commission, which is due to publish the final list of candidates within the coming days.
Ali Lami, executive director of the separate Accountability and Justice Commission, which ordered the disbarments, condemned the judges' decision as representing "American interference" in Iraqi politics, and vowed to fight it in the courts.
U.S. officials have charged that Lami has close ties to Iran. The chairman of the accountability commission is Ahmad Chalabi, who was once a Pentagon favorite but fell from grace after he was suspected of passing information to Iran.
The ruling appeared to represent the crystallization of intensive backroom diplomacy by U.S. and United Nations officials to avert a crisis that could have called into question the legitimacy of the entire poll.

In the Unitd States, Minneapolis and St. Paul's 5 Eyewitness News reports 2,500 members of the state's National Guard who were promised bonus pay in 2007 for serving 16 months straight in Iraq have still not received the payment:

Rep. John Kline brought up the issue Wednesday during a congressional hearing. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was on Capitol Hill to address the 2011 Pentagon budget.
Kline said, "Nobody's received a dime, not a single dime. So the question is, when can these soldiers expect to receive these PDMRA payments?"

Kevin Diaz (Minnesota Star Tribune) writes of the news that payments might be made shortly:

That would be good news to Red Bull tank commander Jason Malley. The U.S. government owes him $4,400 in overtime pay for a deployment that was extended to 23 months during the 2007 Iraq surge ordered by former President George W. Bush.
Malley, a 37-year-old database administrator from Crystal, considers himself one of the lucky ones. His employer held his job for him.
As many as a third of the 34th's soldiers weren't so lucky; their unemployment rate is more than four times the state average.

In other things Iraq-related in the US, we don't link to AlterNet -- for obvious and stated reasons. But we will note that Barry Lando thinks he's writing about something this morning. What exactly? Who knows? Sample paragraph: "The latest exampe is an Op Ed piece Kissinger just wrote for the New York Times warning American leaders that they are no longer giving Iraq the attention it deserves." First off, can we just try getting the facts right? There are op-ed pages. Kissinger wrote a column. Op-Ed stands for Opinion and Editorial. Kissinger wrote a column. If you like, you can call it an opinion piece. But editorials in newspapers? They tend to be sounded out by an editorial board (and then written by one person). Kissinger has long bored but he's not, in and of himself, an editorial board. Second of all, if you read it -- and presumably, writing about it means you at least glanced at it -- how did you not know what paper you were reading?

We noted the Kissinger column yesterday when it appeared in print:

Today's joke of the day? War Criminal Henry Kissinger at the Washington Post offering advice on the Iraq War. On withdrawal which makes it even funnier in a demented way (for those who don't get it, think of Kissy's Vietnam 'negotiations'). It's even funnier if you consider Paul Bremer's connection to Kissinger and that Bremer impelemented (he says at the White House direction) the de-Ba'athification policy that continues to set tensions ablaze in Iraq. Hey, if we all praise Henry, insist the advice is amazing and needs to be heard widely so he should hop on a plane and go through Europe giving speeches on it, would he do that? Oh, no, he can't. He has to be very careful when leaving the US because he doesn't want to be arrested for his War Crimes.

Again, we don't link to that site -- we have a general rule that when adults try to spy on 14-year-old boys, we think you're crazy at best, perverted at worst.

Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and a noted professor. We'll close by noting his "Bush To the Hague:"

International Criminal Court Complaint Filed Against

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice and Gonzales

INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANTS REQUESTED

Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. has filed a Complaint
with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W.
Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the
“Accused”) for their criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” perpetrated upon about 100 human
beings. This term is really their euphemism for the enforced disappearance of persons and their consequent
torture. This criminal policy and practice by the Accused constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the
Rome Statute establishing the I.C.C.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless the Accused have ordered and been
responsible for the commission of I.C.C. statutory crimes within the respective territories of many I.C.C. member
states, including several in Europe. Consequently, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction to prosecute the Accused for their I.
C.C. statutory crimes under Rome Statute article 12(2)(a) that affords the I.C.C. jurisdiction to prosecute for I.C.
C. statutory crimes committed in I.C.C. member states.

The Complaint requests (1) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor open an investigation of the Accused on his own accord
under Rome Statute article 15(1); and (2) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor also formally “submit to the [I.C.C.] Pre-Trial
Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation” of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3).

For similar reasons, the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration risk the filing of a follow-up
Complaint with the I.C.C. if they do not immediately terminate the Accused’s criminal policy and practice of
“extraordinary rendition,” which the Obama administration has continued to implement.

The Complaint concludes with a request that the I.C.C. Prosecutor obtain International Arrest Warrants for the
Accused from the I.C.C. in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), 58(1)(b)(i), 58(1)(b)(ii), and 58(1)(b)
(iii).

In order to demonstrate your support for this Complaint you can contact the I.C.C. Prosecutor by letter, fax, or
email as indicated below.

The Honorable Luis Moreno-Ocampo
Office of the Prosecutor
International Criminal Court
Post Office Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague
The Netherlands
Fax No.: 31-70-515-8555
Email: OTP.InformationDesk@icc-cpi.int

January 19, 2010

Dear Sir:

Please accept my personal compliments. I have the honor hereby to file with you and the International Criminal
Court this Complaint against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet,
Condoleezza Rice , and Alberto Gonzales (hereinafter referred to as the “Accused”) for their criminal policy and
practice of “extraordinary rendition.” This term is really a euphemism for the enforced disappearancesof
persons, their torture, severe deprivation of their liberty, their violent sexual abuse, and other inhumane acts
perpetrated upon these Victims. The Accused have inflicted this criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary
rendition” upon about one hundred (100) human beings, almost all of whom are Muslims/Arabs/Asians and
People of Color. I doubt very seriously that the Accused would have inflicted these criminal practices upon 100
White Judeo-Christian men.

The Accused’s criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” are both “widespread” and “systematic”
within the meaning of Rome Statute article 7(1). Therefore the Accused have committed numerous “Crimes
against Humanity” in flagrant and repeated and longstanding violation of Rome Statute articles 5(1)(b), 7(1)(a), 7
(1)(e), 7(1)(f), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i), and 7(1)(k). Furthermore, the Accused’s Rome Statute Crimes Against
Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues even as of
today.

The United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless, the Accused ordered and were
responsible for the commission of these I.C.C. statutory crimes on, in, and over the respective territories of
several I.C.C. member states, including many located in Europe. Therefore, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction over the
Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes in accordance with Rome Statute article 12(2)(a), which provides as
follows:

Article 12

Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction

…

2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the
following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with
paragraph 3:


(a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred …

So the fact that United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute is no bar to the I.C.C.’s prosecution
of the Accused because they have ordered and been responsible for the commission of Rome Statute Crimes
against Humanity on, in, and over the respective
territories of several I.C.C. member states.

Consequently, I hereby respectfully request that the Court exercise its jurisdiction over the Accused for these
Crimes against Humanity in accordance with Rome Statute article 13(c), which provides as follows:

Article 13

Exercise of Jurisdiction

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the
provisions of this Statute if:

…

(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.

Pursuant to Rome Statute article 13(c), I hereby respectfully request that you initiate an investigation proprio
motu against the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute article 15(1): “The Prosecutor may initiate
investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.” My detailed
Complaint against the Accused constitutes the sufficient “information” required by article 15(1).

Furthermore, I respectfully submit that this Complaint by itself constitutes “a reasonable basis to proceed with an
investigation” under Rome Statute article 15(3). Hence, I also respectfully request that you formally “submit to
the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation” of the Accused under Rome Statute article
15(3) at this time. Please inform me at your earliest convenience about the status and disposition of my two
requests set forth immediately above.

Based upon your extensive human rights work in Argentina, you know full well from direct personal experience
the terrors and the horrors of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture. According to
reputable news media sources here in the United States, about 100 human beings have been subjected to
enforced disappearances and subsequent torture by the Accused. We still have no accounting for these
Victims. In other words, many of these Victims of enforced disappearances and torture by the Accused could still
be alive today. Their very lives are at stake right now as we communicate. You could very well save some of
their lives by publicly stating that you are opening an investigation of my Complaint.

As for those Victims of enforced disappearances by the Accused who have died, your opening an investigation
of my Complaint is the only means by which we might be able to obtain some explanation and accounting for
their whereabouts and the location of their remains in order to communicate this critical information to their next-
of-kin and loved-ones. Based upon your extensive experience combating enforced disappearances of persons
and their consequent torture in Argentina, you know full well how important that objective is. The next-of-kin,
loved-ones, and friends of “disappeared” human beings can never benefit
from psychological “closure” unless and until there is an accounting for the fates, if not the remains, of the
Victims. In part that is precisely why the Accused’s enforced disappearances of about 100 human beings
constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues as of today and will continue until the fates of all their Victims
have been officially determined by you opening an investigation into my Complaint.

Let us mutually suppose that during the so-called “dirty war” in Argentina the International Criminal Court had
been in existence. I submit that as an Argentinean human rights lawyer you would have moved heaven and
earth and done everything in your power to get the I.C.C. and its Prosecutor to assume jurisdiction over the
Argentine Junta in order to terminate and prosecute their enforced disappearances and torture of your fellow
Argentinean citizens. I would have done the same. Unfortunately, the I.C.C. did not exist during those darkest of
days for the Argentine Republic when we could have so acted. But today as the I.C.C. Prosecutor, you have
both the opportunity and the legal power to do something to rectify this mass and total human rights annihilation,
and to resolve and to terminate and to prosecute the “widespread” and “systematic” policy and practice of
enforced disappearances and consequent torture of about 100 human beings by the Accused.

Unfortunately, the new Obama administration in the United States has made it perfectly clear by means of public
statements by President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder that they are not going to open any
criminal investigation of any of the Accused for these aforementioned Crimes against Humanity. Hence an I.C.C.
“case” against the Accused is “admissible” under Rome Statute article 1(complementarity) and article 17. As of
right now you and the I.C.C. Judges are the only people in the entire world who can bring some degree of
Justice, Closure, and Healing into this dire, tragic, and deplorable situation for the lives and well-being of about
one hundred “disappeared” and tortured human beings as well as for their loved-ones and next-of-kin, who are
also Victims of the Accused’s Crimes against Humanity. On behalf of them all, as a fellow human rights lawyer I
implore you to open an investigation into my Complaint and to issue a public statement to that effect.

Also, most regretfully, the new Obama administration has publicly stated that it will continue the Accused’s policy
and practice of "extraordinary rendition," which is really their euphemism for enforced disappearances of human
beings and consequent torture by other States. Hence the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration
fully intend to commit their own Crimes against Humanity under the I.C.C. Rome Statute – unless you stop them!
Your opening an investigation of my Complaint will undoubtedly deter the Obama administration from engaging
in any more “extraordinary renditions” -- enforced disappearances of human beings and having them tortured
by other States. Indeed your opening of an investigation into my Complaint might encourage the Obama
administration to terminate its criminal “extraordinary rendition” program immediately and thoroughly by means
of issuing a public statement to that effect. In other words, your opening an investigation of my Complaint could
very well save the lives of a large number of additional human beings who otherwise will be subjected by the
Obama administration to the Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons
and their consequent torture by other States, inter alia.

The lives and well-being of countless human beings are now at risk, hanging in the balance, waiting for you to
act promptly, effectively, and immediately to save them from becoming Victims of Rome Statute Crimes against
Humanity perpetrated by the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration as successors-in-law to the
Accused by opening an investigation of my Complaint. Otherwise, I shall be forced to file with you and the I.C.C.
a follow-up Complaint against the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration. I certainly hope it will not
come to that. Please make it so.

Finally, for reasons more fully explained in the Conclusion to my Complaint, I respectfully request that you obtain
I.C.C. arrest warrants for the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), article 58(1)(b)(i),
article 58(1)(b)(ii), and article 58(1)(b)(iii). The sooner, the better for all humankind.

I respectfully request that you schedule a meeting with me at our earliest mutual convenience in order to discuss
this Complaint. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

This transmission letter is an integral part of my Complaint against the Accused and is hereby incorporated by
reference into the attached Complaint dated as of today as well.

Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.

Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law


FRANCIS A. BOYLE is a leading American expert in international law. He
was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of
1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological
Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty
International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the
World Court. He served as legal adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to
the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993. In 2007, he
delivered the Bertrand Russell Peace Lectures. Previous Russell
Lecturers have included E.P. Thompson, Elena Bonner, Edward Said,
Ramsey Clark, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Joseph Rotblat, Johan Galtung,
and Noam Chomsky. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the
University of Illinois, Champaign and is author of, inter alia, The Future of
International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World
Order, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Palestine, Palestinians and
International Law, Destroying World Order, Biowarfare & Terrorism. And Tackling America’s Toughest
Questions.
He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in
Political Science, both from Harvard University.

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

iraq
reuters
the washington post
leila fadel
donna summer
liz sly
the los angeles times
5 eyewitness news
kevin diaz
francis a. boyle

Iraq snaphsot

Wednesday, February 3, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq is slammed with another deadly blast, the Iraq Inquiry may be hitting the road (that is not a joke), sexual assaults get some attention from the US Congress, election news out of Iraq, and more.   Iraq has been slammed with another bombing resulting in mass fatalities today. Yousif Bassil and CNN report a Karbala motorcycle bombing has claimed 20 lives and left at least one-hundred-and-seventeen people wounded. Tom Bonnet (Sky News) notes that, "Women and children were among the dead after the explosives-packed vehicle blasted through the crowd on the outskirts of Kerbala, 68 miles south of Baghdad." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) cites Iraq's al-Iraqiya TV's report that the bombing took place "near the Institute of Art" and says the death toll and wounded numbers are coming from the Ministry of the Interior. Al Jazeera says the motorcycle bombing was actually a suicide bomber on a motorcycle and quotes Saad al-Muttalibi ("an adviser to the Iraqi council of ministers") stating, "The security forces need to be more proactive and more aggressive in fighting these Wahhabi groups. The prime minister [Nouri al-Maliki] hands are completely tied, putting him in a very weak position to question his ministers and hold them accountable for their misconduct." Leila Fadel and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) report, "At 11 a.m. Wednesday, a parked motorcycle loaded with explosives detonated, ripping through a crowd of walking pilgrims on the city's northeast perimeter, a source from the Ministry of the Interior in Baghdad said. [. . .] The scene of the carnage, near the Technical Institute, remained blocked off Wednesday afternoon. Vehicles were stopped on the outskirts of the city and pilgrims walked the rest of the way." Citing police sources, Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the death toll is 21 and the number wounded 128. Issa notes that some say it was a parked car, Muhanad Mohammed, Sami al-Jumaili, Ahmed Rasheed, Aseel Kami, Jack Kimball and Michael Christie (Reuters) note that others say the bomb was in a cart the motorcycle pulled.   Bombings?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left three people wounded, a second Baghdad roadside bombing resulted in three people being injured, a Twereej bicycle bombing left twenty-two people injured and, dropping back to Tuesday for all that follows, a Hamdaniyah roadside bombing left four people injured and a Mosul bombing (homemade grenade) wounded one police officer and one bystander. Reuters notes a Tuesday night Kerbala sticky bombing ("attached to a military vehicle") which claimed 3 lives and left twenty-one people injured.   Shootings?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul home invasion in which 1 person was killed. Reuters notes 1 police officer shot dead in Kirkuk.   On Al Jazeera's Riz Khan yesterday, the issue of the elections were addressed with Riz Khan asking, "How free and fair is an election when a government bans certain people from running? Iraq goes to the polls on March the 7th but has barred more than 500 candidates which could ultimately plunge the country into chaos, even civil war."  Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) reports today that the government has managed to avert "a political crisis of its own making" as a result of the ban being overturned today "by a panel of seven judges". The Economist calls it "Best news in weeks."  Margaret Coker (Wall St. Journal) explains, "The decision now opens the way for full-fledged campaigning to begin, as scheduled, on February 7. It wasn't immediately clear how many of the banned candidates would accept the compromise decision, or how the decision might affect the election outcome itself."  Scott Peterson (Christian Science Monitor) adds, "But if the ruling stands, there's a catch: those blacklisted will still be subject to investigation after the vote for past ties to the regime of Saddam Hussein." And what would happen then?  Caroline Alexander and Kadhim Ajrash (Bloomberg News) observe, "Election Commission official Hamdia al-Husseini told Agence France-Presse that those later found to have links to the Baath Party would be 'eliminated.'" Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports, "The ruling enraged the architect of the blacklist, Ali Faisal al-Lami, who is a close aide of the head of the former ­de-Ba'athification Commission, Ahmed Chalabi. That commission, which was a signature body of the post-Saddam Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), evolved into a contentious group known as the Accountability and Justice Commission." And to clear up a nasty rumor, there is no known sex tape of Ahmed Chalabi and his boy pal Ali al-Lami being distributed in Basra.  Absolutely not.  Nasty, hurtful rumors.  Unless a tape should surface. Ammar Karim (AFP) notes, "Chalabi, who has close ties to Iran, was appointed deputy prime minister after the invasion but intelligence he provided in support of those claims in the run-up to war later turned out to be flawed and he subsequently fell out of favour with Washington." The decision is still being studied and Al Jazeera notes Saleh al-Mutlaq, of the sectarian National Dialogue Party and who was one of the banned, "declined to give an immediate comment." al-Mutlaq did have a comment on Chalabi when he appeared yesterday on Al Jazeera.   Riz Khan: Let me ask you then how you regard the role of Ahmed Chalabi who's the head of the de-Ba'athification commission?  I mean, he's, uh, is he conducting a witch hunt? Is he trying to basically exclude those he doesn't like, his political enemies? Is he arbitarily picking those he doesn't want taking part in the election here?   Saleh al-Mutlaq: Ahmed Chalabi deceived the whole world and deceived the United States and convinced them some, some years ago that there was mass destruction equipment in Iraq. And he led, I mean he convinced the United States to go -- to invade Iraq.  And now he's also leading a project to destroy Iraq again -- to destroy Iraq by letting people lose hope in this political process and go to the violence again. To bring us back to the first square. So Ahmed Chalabi is a very dangerous person. Ahmed Chalabi is wanted by the Jordanian government and if the United States is serious enough, they should remove the cover from him and then he will be taken by -- he will, he will be in jail for the rest of his life because he's been wanted by the law. But unfortunately he's being protected in this country.  Ahmed Chalabi is not doing his own agenda but an outside agenda which he is the agent to do it in Iraq and nobody is stopping him from this-this decision.   The de-Ba'athification policy was implemented by Paul Bremer and he states (no reason to doubt him -- despite Colin Powell's whispers to the press) that he did so at the direction of the White House.  Paul Bremer is mentiioned in the Iraq Inquiry more than any other American (that includes Bush, Tommy Franks, Condi Rice, Blot Powell and all the rest).  After the start of the illegal war, in May of 2003, Tony Blair named Ann Clwyd to be England's special envoy on human rights to Iraq. We'll jump in at this section of her testimony today where she is speaking about the job and what she brought to the job.   But obviously I saw it -- because of my contact with Iraqis over the years, you know, I now knew people that were in government in Iraq, like the President Jalal Talabani, like Latif Rashid, the Water Resources Minister, Hoshyar Zerbari, the Foreign Minister, and many, many others who had been members of CARDRI and who had support INDICT, Hamid Al-Bayati and others. So I felt that I did have a particular friendship with those Iraqis and that, if I could help in improving the culture of the perception of human rights in Iraq, that really that should be one of the main issues, because obviously, you know, a country that has been absued for 35 years, human rights is not a phrase that trips lightly over the lips. So I felt -- and I still feel actually -- it takes a long time to change those perceptions -- it can't be done in a short time -- and so I started -- I also -- originally, detention issues was not in my terms of reference, but I did argue that they should be, because, you know, I knew that what happened to people in detention needed an outside voice to actually blow the whistle on occasions, and so there was some resistance but eventually it was put into my terms of reference. So, of course, I started visiting prisons, I talked a lot to Americans, because the Americans were sharing the same building in Baghdad at that time and Mr Bremer was in charge of the operation there and the British were there and so we talked about some of these issues. One of the first things that struck me was -- because, again, because of my friendship with Iraqis, one of my Iraqi friends had [been] a General in Saddam's army. He was now in a staff college, but he was a General, and immediately after 2003, my friend rang me up and he said, "Do you know what is happening with the military? Because there are lots of the military that my brother knows who would help the British. There are 50 to 100 senior Iraqi officers who are ready to help the coalition."  Well, obviously, I passed that information on. But, you know, the army wasn't there anymore, but they were queuing up in very hot weather for their pensions, for their stipends, and I discovered that the man -- the brother of my friend had been queuing up every day for two weeks, and he was a senior, you know, army officer, and yet had nevr got to the front of the queue. He said -- I spoke to him eventually, and he said to me, you know, "If they want to humiliate us, this is the way of doing it." [. . .] So I was telling the Americans and the British but the Americans were mainly in charge in Baghdad and so I would go straight to Bremer and tell Bremer what was going on and he argued with me. He said, "Oh, nonsense, all the -- you know, the senior people have received their pensions". So I said, "Well, they haven't". So I gave him the name and address of the person I was talking about, and somebody went away and came back half an hour later and said, "Sorry, they must have slipped through the net". Well, I think many people slipped through the net actually, senior people, who could have been used in those early stages to help the coalition and wanted to help the coalition.   At the end of Clwyd's testiomony, Chair John Chilcot declared of Iraq: "We do hope very much to visit. We can't commit yet. To visit Iraq before our Inquiry is complete."   We'll come back to today but right now, yesterday, Clare Short testified to the Iraq Inquiry and covering the Inquiry in this community last night were Mike ("Tony Blair gets served"), Stan ("Grab bag") and Elaine ("Clare Short at the Inquiry").  One of the few US outlets to regularly devote attention to the Inquiry is The Pacifica Evening News which airs on KPFA and KPFK (as well as other stations) from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. each Monday through Friday.   John Hamilton: Former British Minister Clare Short accused Tony Blair of lying over the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and stifling discussion in the Cabinet in the run up to the war. Short is a long time critic of Blair who served as International Development Secretary in his government. She disputed evidence the former prime minister gave last week to an inquiry into the war. Short voted of the 2003 invasion but quit Blair's government shortly afterwards because she said Blair had conned her into thinking the UN would play a lead war in post-war Iraq. Speaking today before the Chilcot Inquiry, which is examining Britain's role in the war and its aftermath, Short accused the former Attorney General Peter Goldsmith of not telling the Cabinet of his doubts about the illegality of the war nor that senior Foreign Office lawyers believed it would be illegal without a second UN resolution on Iraq.   Clare Short: I think for the Attorney General to come and say there's an unequivocal legal authority to go to war was misleading. And I must say, I never saw myself as a traditionalist but I was stunned by it because of what was in the media about the view of the international lawyers but I thought "This is the Attorney General coming just in the teeth of war, to the Cabinet, it must be right." And I think he was misleading us.   John Hamilton: Goldsmith has said he initially doubted the war's legality and only concluded it would be lawful without such a resolution a week before the invasion -- days before the Cabinet was briefed. Short told the Inquiry today she believed Goldsmith had been pressured by Blair -- something that both men deny -- but she had no direct evidence to back this up. Last Friday, Blair defended his decision to go to war telling the Inquiry that Saddam Hussein had posed a threat to the world and had to be disarmed or removed. He said there had been substantive discussions with senior ministers in the Cabinet but Short told the Inquiry that she had been excluded from talks and that Blair had not wanted Iraq discussed in the Cabinet because he was afraid of leaks to the media . Clare Short: There was never a meeting that said: "What's the problem, what are we trying to achieve? What are our military, diplomatic options?"  We never had that coherent discussion of what it is that the problem is and what it was that the government was trying to achieve and what our bottom lines were. Never.   John Hamilton: Short accused Blair of being frantic to support the United States and said claims the French would have vetoed any second UN resolution in authorizing military action had been untrue.    We're stopping there, not because Hamilton's made a mistake (they did a fine job as usual in covering the Inquiry) but because we are short on space and we can move over to Elfyn Llwyd on Clare Short's assertion that Blair was frantic to support the US.  Tomas Livingstone (Wales News) reports MP Elfyn Llwyd has stated that the the 2002 Crawford ranch meeting  is where Blair and Bush agreed to go to war -- no hesistations, no  ifs, just to go to war.  He tells Livingstone that a memo exists noting this agreement and that he will gladly testify before the Inquiry eitehr in private or in person.   On Clare Short, you can refer to Iain Martin (Wall St. Journal -- he doesn't like Short and doesn't believe her, he's been covering the Inquiry regularly so we will link to him),  Simon Hooper and CNN, Jason Beattie (Daily Mail -- always an outstanding job of coverage by Beattie), Iraq Inquiry Blogger offers thoughts here, Rosa Prince (Irish Independent via Independent of London), David Brown (Times of London), John F. Burns (New York Times),  Philip Williams (AM which airs on Australia's ABC) and Mark Hennessy (Irish Times). If someone was omitted (especially someone requesting to be included), I either forgot or made a judgment call that you do not matter.  Which is one reporter we'll be noting in a bit (not naming, not linking to) and which is one web site that wants a link but is too damn lazy to blog about the Inquiry so they post a paragraph of John F. Burns' report and then say 'read the rest at the New York Times'.  Honestly, the Gabor sisters worked harder so I think we should all lay off comparing you know who to a Gabor sister.   The Inquiry continued today. Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger gives this run down of the witnesses: "Sir Kevin Tebbit returns for a brief spin to round off evidence about his period as MoD Permanent Secretary 2001-05. Dr John Reid has served many different government briefs but attends today as Secretary of State for Defence 2005-06, effectively completing our MoD card-hand after Geoff Hoon, John Hutton & Des Browne. And Ann Clywd worked as the prime minister's (or rather prime ministers') special envoy to Iraq from 2003-09." Video and transcript options for the three witnesses here. Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger live blogged today's hearing at Twitter and Sky News' Glen Oglaza live blogged John Reid's testimony.   Gary Gibbon (Channel 4 News) reports that Tebbit stated the current Prime Minister of England, Gordon Brown, "guillotined" the military budget when he was serving as chancellor: "Sir Kevin, who was MoD permanent secretary from 1998 to 2005, stressed that defence chiefs saved resources needed for Iraq but admitted the cuts had a long-term impact." Sky News reports he stated, "The Treasury felt that we were using far too much cash and in September 2003 the Chancellor of the day (Mr Brown) instituted a complete guillotine on our settlement. It meant that we had to go in for a very major savings exercise in order to cope with what was effectively a billion reduction year-on-year in our resource." In what would appear to back up that testimony, Francis Elliott, Deborah Haynes and Tom Coghlan (Times of London) report, "Gordon Brown demanded immediate and deep cuts to military spending only six months after the invasion of Iraq, a letter seen by The Times reveals."     Biggest laugh in England today?  The reach around between eternal suck up Petey Kyle and his uber dom Alastair Campbell. In the internet version of snowballing, Petey sucks him off and spits it back in Alastair's mouth -- Petey writes that it's awful, just awful (no link to that trash -- and Labour better get it through their heads that apologists like Petey are going to mean death at the polls) how the media's treated poor Tony Blair.  He writes it, Alastair reposts it at his vanity blog and then they both Tweet on it.  Somebody get those two to the chapel already. No links, they've echoed one another enough.  Also of note, a certain reporter for a non-right wing paper, non-Murdoch paper, who repeatedly reports wrong on the Inquiry?  Maybe his editors should ask him about his contact with Alastair because Alastair's bragging to Labour Party members that he has said reporter in his pocket. Very few are covering it in the US. Kelly B. Vlahos (Antiwar) notes some of the silence: Don't know much about any of this? Not surprising, because the American mainstream media has practically blacked-out the story on this side of the pond. It's amazing, after seven years and a growing reservoir of evidence that the Bush administration deliberately manipulated intelligence and the emotions of the American public to invade Iraq -- for which it had no comprehensive plan to stabilize or reconstruct -- the corporate press is still doing its best impression of the debauched idiots in The Hangover:           Stu: "Why don't we remember a G**damn thing from last night?"           Phil: "Obviously because we had a great f**king time."                      When the press isn't treating us all like morning-after marshmallows who would prefer a cold-compress of Sarah Palin and updates of The View on the head to a clinical X-ray of how the Bush White House marched our nation into a trillion-dollar war of choice, it takes on a gratingly condescending tone. In fact, the media view jibes quite well with the standard Republican spin: that any criticism or inquiry into party-supported policies from 2001 to 2009 is "looking backward" or "rehashing the past," or worse, "we've been there, done that," when really, no, there hasn't been any "been there, done that," not anything compared to what's going on in London right now.   Turning to Iraq, Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports an agreement reached between Iraq and China in which China would "write off 80 percent of Iraq's" $8.5 billion debt. In other agreements Iraq is entering into with other countries, Anne Tang (Xinhua) reports Iraq declares it is willing to turn 46 Jordanian prisoners over to Jordan and notes the Arab Organization for Human Rights, "According to the organization, there are 46 Jordanians jailed in Iraq, of whom many are held with no charges and are either students or traders." While those talks between Iraq and other governments continue, Today's Zaman reports the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, is in Ankara meeting with Turkey's Interior Minister Besir Atalay. Alsumaria TV quotes Odierno stating, "It is important that we develop a common unerstanding of the root causes of violence, so we can assit in determining political, economic and security measures that will contribute to increased security and safety of the Turkish and Iraqi people." Scott Fontaine (The Olympian) reports on increased tensions between US forces and Iranian forces on the Iraqi border.   Yesterday in the US, the Senate Armed Services Committee spent a little over an hour addressing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. All three broadcast networks' evening news covered the story. Some did better than others.  We'll note highlights. NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: Brian Williams: 62 years ago today, President Truman ordered the Defense Secretary to take the needed steps to remove discrimination in the military. He was talking about race. Today the topic was sexual orientation, specifically the Clinton era policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- a policy that is now on borrowed time. More on this story from our Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski. Jim Miklaszewski: In a hearing today on Capitol Hill, the nation's top military commander revealed the worst kept secret in the armed services. Adm Mike Mullen: I have served with homosexuals since 1968. Jim Miklaszewski: Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen said it's time to scrap Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the law that prohibits gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military. Picking up with  ABC World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer:   Martha Raddatz: Lt Dan Choi is a West Point graduate, an Iraq veteran and one of the few Arabic speakers in the military. Like thousands of others, he now faces dismissal from the army for saying publicly that he is gay. Lt Dan Choi: I was living in the closet. Then I realized, no, this is really a violation of the honor code which, on the first day of West Point, we learned: You will not lie or tolerate those who lie. And I believe in that honor code. Martha Raddatz: Lt Choi's case is still pending but he also told us if you're actually thinking about national security first and you're saying that it's okay to fire Arabic speakers because somebody's uncomfortable with gays, then you have your priorities in the wrong place. And wrapping up with CBS Evening News with Katie Couric::   David Martin: Today's testimony made clear it will not happen any time soon -- certainly not this year, if at all. For one thing, Gates wants a year to study . . .. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: What the-the men and women in our armed forces really think about this. David Martin: For another, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a law enacted by Congress. Senator John McCain: I'm happy to say that we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to pass a law to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. David Martin: Right now with the military fighting two wars, there are not enough votes to repeal.   PBS' NewsHour, like Diane Sawyer, led with the issue while the other two broadcasts buried the story further into the mix. Margaret Warner offered the best report of any of the correspondents. She also offered more variety in her report when quoting from the hearing -- except for Jim, all the above reports had quoted from the opening statements plus Saxby Chambliss -- and why did everyone  Click here for transcript as well as audio and video options of Warner's report. We covered the hearing in yesterday's snapshot and other community coverage:  Wally was at the hearing and guest blogged at Rebecca's site with "Armed Services Committee, Heroes" and, like Warner, he quoted from Burris -- who probably had the strongest and most moving remarks. Trina focused on Mike Mullen's opening remarks "Senate Armed Services Committee DADT" -- and Trina's take is like David Martin's, nothing's happening. That was our take based on the hearing and based on speaking to a few aids and senators after the hearing. You can especially see that in Kat's "Barack pretends to care about Don't Ask Don't Tell." Marcia takes this issue very personally and quizeed all of us (including Ava) at length before writing about it in "Not doing cartwheels right now."   Today the House Armed Services' Military Personnel Subcomittee held a hearing where the witnesses were Louis V. Iasiello and Brig Gen Sharon K.G. Dunbar of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services and, as noted, the two were present speaking on behalf of the Defense Task Force, not for any branch of the military.  Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis called the hearing to order and noted that they held two hearings on this issue last year in addition, she stated:   I do not want to steal the thunder of our witnesses, but there is a recurring theme in their report that needs to be mentioned from the outset while the [Defense] Department has done much in recent years to address sexual assault in the military, much more remains to be done. Thankfully, due to the work of this task force and others, we have a much clearer understanding of the problem. It is important that we make significant improvements to how the Department deals with sexual assault and that we do all we can to avoid inadvertently making things worse in the process.  Sexual assault within the ranks is antithetical to the trust and camaraderie that defines military culture. Any sexual assault undermines the moral foundation of our armed forces and does irreparable harm to unit cohesion. Hopefully today's hearing will help us chart a legislative course to make progress in our goal to eliminate sexual assaults in the military.   We'll note this exchange which took place after opening statements.     Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis: One of the recommendations that you've had -- and especially as we move forward -- is to place a sexual assault  prevention and response office under the Deputy Secretary of Defense for at least a year and you thought that would give them a chance to kind of aprise what is happening.  Our experience has been that they just aren't really in a position to-to be able to do that. It's not the staff -- they're not designed for that kind of oversight.  I'm wondering if you've had any additional thoughts about that?  If you feel that -- if you looked at that and felt that this was the only way to give this a kind of stature perhaps that we're looking for?  There is a concern that they're just not ready to do that. We had an experience as well with oversight of the process at Walter Reed.  You know there's really a lot of questions as to whether that's the best place to put this additional responsiblity and for oversight?   Louis V. Iasiello: It was our-our thought as we put forward that recommendation that after 2005, each of the services sort of took off in their own direction trying to answer this issue and trying to confront this issue in the best way possible and we applaud that initiative that each of the services took in sort of taking this forward.but-but what I think I speak for the Task Force membership when I say that we would really like to see a strategic leadership role taken by the SAPRO office at the DoD. That would help to bring together these incredible efforts that we see now from the leadership of the different services. [. . .]     Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis: think what we're just wondering is if a decision was made that perhaps they don't have the ability now, the capacity, to provide the kind of oversight that we're really seeking here, was there some other thoughts about how this might be done?  What I think I hear you say very strongly is that you want to have more authority, more oversight and certainly raise the level of -- I'm not sure that the word is competency, I think it's the capacity to deal better and to be seen as an office that really means exactly what it says here and we're struggling a little bit to sort of define that better   Brig Gen Sharon KG Dunbar: Yes, ma'am, I think the intent behind the recommendation is to provide higher oversight and I think that there are a number of ways to do that. The recommendation was geared to highlight the fact that that oversight is necessary. And so that it one recommendation but there are clearly other ways of doing that. And we indicated in the report one of the areas that we found a shortcoming in was just in the staffing alone of the SAPRO office in order for it to do what is required. And I think when you look at  some of the issues that drove that recommendation it stemmed from the under resource nature in terms of staffing the office that, frankly, if you go back to the inception of the office, it was geared more towards response. And now it needs to expand into prevention training and other areas and in order to do that quickly, higher level oversight at a level whether it is the level recommended in the report or elsewhere, we believe is prudent.   Louis V. Iasiello: And if I may, we see it as critically importnat that there be uniformed members as part of that staff. People in uniform. And people that have had the experience of leading and understand. We are also asking for a seasoned JAG officer from one of the military services to be part of that staff and to have a designated Victim Advocate on staff with the expertise to handle the issues at that strategic level.   Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis: I was going to ask if there are professionals and you mention the JAG officer experience level, education level that you feel would contribute greatly to that kind of stature and authority that the -- that it would have. Is there anything in addition to that?   Brig Gen Sharon K.G. Dunbar: Principally the leadership of the office and the recommendation that we make is that it be led by a General Flag Officer or a civilian equivalent.   You can check other community sites tonight for coverage -- Trina, Wally and Kat were at the hearing as well (Kat plans to cover US House Rep Loretta Sanchez). TV notes. NOW on PBS begins airing Friday on most PBS stations (check local listings): Has the Democratic Party abandoned support of reproductive rights? Next on NOW. To gain their historic control of Congress, Democrats fielded moderate candidates who didn't always follow the party line, especially when it came to abortion. Now that the Democratic Party has the legislative upper hand, are they willing to negotiate away reproductive rights for other political gains? On Friday, February 5 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW goes to Allentown, Pennsylvania to ask: Are abortion rights now in jeopardy at the very hands of the party that has historically protected them? Among those interviewed are pro-life Democratic U.S. Representative Bart Stupak and former DNC Chairman Howard Dean. "If there was a bill on the floor to reverse Roe vs Wade, and says 'life begins at conception,' I would vote for it." Congressman Stupak tells NOW. Jen Boulanger, director of the often-protested Allentown Women's Center, says, "I would expect more from the Democratic Party, to stick to their ideals, not just throw us to the curb." Has the Democratic Party traded principles for power? Next on NOW.     iraq cnn yousif bassil sky news tom bonnett bloomberg news caroline alexander al jazeera mcclatchy newspapers sahar issa the washington post leila fadel qais mizher aseel kami the new york times steven lee myers scott peterson the guardian martin chulov the economist sinan salaheddin xinhua anne tang todays zaman the olympian scott fontaine the pacifica evening news john hamilton kpfk kpfa the times of london david brown cnn simon hooper the daily mail jason beattie abc philip williams the irish times mark hennessy rosa prince   abc world news tonight with diane sawyer diane sawyer cbs evening news with katie couric katie couric nbc nightly news with brian williams brian williams pbs the newshour margaret warner martha raddatz david martin jim miklaszewski kelley b. vlahos antiwar

Elfyn Llwyd says Blair promised Bush at Crawford (July 2002) they'd go to war

[Correction to title: Crawford Ranch meet up was April 2002.]




Tony Blair "leaned on" the Attorney General to mislead the Cabinet by saying the Iraq invasion was legal, Clare Short told the Chilcot inquiry yesterday.
The former International Development Secretary made a damning attack on Labour's "unsafe" style of Government -- accusing it for "secrecy and deceit" and saying too much power now rests with the Prime Minister.
Ms Short told the Iraq Inquiry that Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor, was "very unhappy and marginalised" in the weeks before the invasion, fearing he would lose his job in a reshuffle after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

The above is from David Brown's "Blair lied in build-up to Iraq invasion, claims Clare Short" (Times of London). Yesterday, Clare Short testified to the Iraq Inquiry and covering the Inquiry in this community last night were Mike ("Tony Blair gets served"), Stan ("Grab bag") and Elaine ("Clare Short at the Inquiry"). Before we get back to Short's testimony, the Inquiry continues public hearings today and Kevin Tebbit, John Reid and Ann Clywd are the witnesses. Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger gives this run down of the witnesses: "Sir Kevin Tebbit returns for a brief spin to round off evidence about his period as MoD Permanent Secretary 2001-05. Dr John Reid has served many different government briefs but attends today as Secretary of State for Defence 2005-06, effectively completing our MoD card-hand after Geoff Hoon, John Hutton & Des Browne. And Ann Clywd worked as the prime minister’s (or rather prime ministers’) special envoy to Iraq from 2003-09." Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger live blogs today's hearing at Twitter.

Simon Hooper and CNN note of Short's testimony, "Clare Short, who was Blair's international development secretary until she quit over the Iraq invasion, said Attorney General Peter Goldsmith withheld his own 'doubts and changes of opinion' in giving the go-ahead for war." Jason Beattie (Daily Mail) opens with:

Tony Blair "lied" to ministers and shouted down critics of the Iraq War, Clare Short dramatically claimed at the Iraq war inquiry yesterday.
The ex-International Development Secretary told how a "deceitful" Mr Blair silenced Cabinet colleagues who questioned his plans for the 2003 invasion. She said she was jeered by Mr Blair and his pro-war "mates" when she raised objections.

Michael Savage (Independent of London) adds:

"I'm not saying he was insincere," she said. "I think he was willing to be deceitful about it because he thought it was right."
Ms Short, who became the first MP to be given a round of applause after her evidence, told the Iraq Inquiry that Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney Generalral who gave the legal green light for military
action, misled the Cabinet in doing so. While Lord Goldsmith told the Cabinet on 17 March that the war would be legal, just 10 days earlier he had advised the Prime Minister that while a "reasonable case" could be made for the invasion's legality, he could not guarantee that a court would agree. "I think for the Attorney General to come and say there's unequivocal legal authority to go war was misleading," she said.

On the applause, Iraq Inquiry Blogger adds, "Conspiracy theorists will long debate why we got to hear applause at the end of her performance (Elizabeth Wilmshurst’s was faded out) but hearing it fair sent tingles down one's spine, just a little like the impromptu clapping after Charles Spencer’s Diana speech. Or maybe I've just spent too long within the QEII's austere walls. Probably." Rosa Prince (Irish Independent via Independent of London) also notes the applause. Philip Williams (AM which airs on Australia's ABC) notes Short delivered a "harsh assessment" and Mark Hennessy (Irish Times) notes she testified "that normal cabinet government had broken down under Mr Blair".

Meanwhile Middle East Online notes that Paulo Coelho (Brazilian author) has decreed Tony Blair a War Criminal. Elizabeth Schulte (US Socialist Worker) files what may be the periodical's first article on the Inquiry. She focuses on Tony Blair's testimony from last Friday (no mention of Short) and also quotes a sex offender (Pig Ritter) so keep that in mind if you don't want to give traffic to those too cowardly to call out a sex offender (a repeat sex offender). We'll note this section:

WHAT LAST week's hearings make clear is that the goal of the U.S. and Britain was to oust Saddam Hussein, and building a case for why the Iraqi regime might be a threat was only important insofar as it achieved that aim.
Top among the long list of Blair's lies was the "evidence" that the Iraqi government had access to "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD)--stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. In September 2002, the Blair government released a "dossier" that "established beyond doubt," in the words of a foreword written by Blair, that Saddam had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.
The 173-page dossier, it turns out, was based on conjecture, rumors and an out-of-date doctoral thesis--even its typographical errors found their way into the dossier.
Yet in September 2002, Blair told the House of Commons that the dossier was proof positive "that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes."

Hopefully the US Socialist Worker plans that to be the start of some serious coverage. No fan of Laura Flanders but she is supposed to be covering it on her show and if I have time to watch any of the discs supplied, I'll try to note something from her show (now airing on WBAI on Monday mornings). Very few are covering it in the US. Kelly B. Vlahos (Antiwar) notes some of the silence:

Don't know much about any of this? Not surprising, because the American mainstream media has practically blacked-out the story on this side of the pond. It’s amazing, after seven years and a growing reservoir of evidence that the Bush administration deliberately manipulated intelligence and the emotions of the American public to invade Iraq -- for which it had no comprehensive plan to stabilize or reconstruct -- the corporate press is still doing its best impression of the debauched idiots in The Hangover:

Stu: "Why don’t we remember a G**damn thing from last night?"

Phil: "Obviously because we had a great f**king time."

When the press isn't treating us all like morning-after marshmallows who would prefer a cold-compress of Sarah Palin and updates of The View on the head to a clinical X-ray of how the Bush White House marched our nation into a trillion-dollar war of choice, it takes on a gratingly condescending tone. In fact, the media view jibes quite well with the standard Republican spin: that any criticism or inquiry into party-supported policies from 2001 to 2009 is "looking backward" or "rehashing the past," or worse, "we’ve been there, done that," when really, no, there hasn't been any "been there, done that," not anything compared to what's going on in London right now.

It's not just the MSM that's being silent. (And the Wall St. Journal, Time magazine and CNN have regularly been reporting to give credit. The Los Angeles Times has filed several articles as well and we'll note one from the New York Times in a second.) It's also Panhandle Media that's been silent. Exceptions have been KPFA's The Morning Show and the Pacifica Evening News (which covered Short's testimony and we'll try to note that in the snapshot today) and the KPFA Evening News (which airs on Saturdays and Sundays). Free Speech Radio News showed a brief interest and then went elsewhere and deserves no credit. There are a lot of people -- including Amy Goodman -- who can do a segment on a lot of things, on anything, except the Iraq Inquiry. And, see Friday's snapshot, reality the MSM doesn't know a damn thing about the Inquiry -- as demonstrated by the second hour of that day's Diane Rehm Show when Diane asked "the purpose of this Chilcot Inquiry" and not one of her three guests -- James Fallows (Atlantic Monthly), Tom Gjelten (NPR) and Susan Glasser (Foreign Policy) -- could answer. (Though they all tried to stumble around and fill time.) Former British diplomat Hugh Cortazzi writes about the Inquiry at the Japan Times.

Great Britain's Socialist Worker has regularly covered the Inquiry and Pru notes this that went up last night:

Blair: No regrets and I’d bomb Iran

by Sian Ruddick

“The decision I took—and frankly would take again—was if there was any possibility that he could develop weapons of mass destruction we should stop him.

“That was my view then and that is my view now.”

Those are the chilling words of mass murderer Tony Blair, giving evidence at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war on Friday last week.

He went on to say that the same logic would mean support for war on Iran. He named Iran 58 times in his testimony.

Blair refused to express any regret for the war. This was an insult to the military families sitting in the public gallery, and the unrepresented millions of Iraqis killed and injured in the war.

Deception

“This isn’t about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception,” Blair told the inquiry.

In fact, it was a lie when he said there were weapons of mass destruction. It was a conspiracy with George Bush to attack Iraq.

It was a deceit that Saddam Hussein could attack in 45 minutes and it was a deception that Iraqis would welcome the occupying forces as liberators.

So far the Iraq inquiry, chaired by Lord Chilcot, has gone over evidence in the public domain. It has cross-examined witnesses on the basis of written evidence and witness testimonies.

But the sessions with Blair will come to define the inquiry.

They were cosy chats among the establishment, not a serious examination of fact and contradiction.

Blair may still be recalled over a contradiction between his evidence and that of former attorney general Peter Goldsmith.

The biggest lies went completely unchallenged. Blair was allowed to get away with saying that it didn’t matter if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. “Potential” was enough for him.

Such justifications could be used to launch wars anywhere in the world.

Blair claimed that if Saddam Hussein had not been removed he would eventually have got the weapons.

Then, “with an oil price not $25 but $100 a barrel, he would have had the intent, he would have had the means, and we would have lost our nerve.”

“We face the same problem about Iran today,” Blair concluded.

On Monday of this week it emerged that the US had moved missile defence shields to countries neighbouring Iran—Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait.

This is all part of ramping up tension against Iran and the US trying to reassert its power in the region.

The logic opens the door to more war and a spread of the “war on terror”.

Blair may no longer be in charge, but the wars he started continue to scar the Middle East.

Gordon Brown will soon give evidence to the inquiry. He will be put in a difficult position.

He will either have to say that he was sidelined by Blair, and so had little to do with the run-up to the war.

Or if he claims he was a leading figure, he will be admitting to having blood on his hands.

---

© 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

Though the Inquiry should call Hans Blix to testify, they appear to be resistant to that. Now news emerges of another person they should call for testimony -- someone who's saying he will testify publicly or privately as the Inquiry determines. Tomos Livingstone (Wales News) reports:

A SENIOR Welsh MP said last night he knew “for certain” Tony Blair and George Bush struck a deal to invade Iraq at their notorious Crawford Ranch meeting in 2002 -- a year before war was declared.
Elfyn Llwyd, Plaid Cymru’s parliamentary leader, said he had seen a confidential memo to that effect, although he would not divulge its exact contents.
Critics of the military action in Iraq have long suspected Mr Blair and President Bush came to an agreement at the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas in April 2002, a claim Mr Blair denied in evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry last week.

As noted before, the New York Times has filed a report on the Inquiry before and we'll note
John F. Burns' New York Times report today (Burns filed the previous report for the paper):

Ms. Short, who quit as international development minister two months after the invasion in 2003, repeatedly accused Mr. Blair of "misleading" her and other cabinet ministers about the advice he was getting from government lawyers who questioned the legality of invading Iraq.
On that issue, and on her written warnings of a "humanitarian catastrophe" in the invasion's wake, she said that Mr. Blair had effectively circumvented cabinet debate. Instead, she said, he had relied on an inner circle of "his mates" in government, having "little chats" with outsiders like herself and plying what she called a "poodle-like" relationship with the United States.
She also accused Mr. Blair of deceit in his argument shortly before the invasion that France had said that it would veto a so-called "second resolution" in the United Nations Security Council approving military action against Iraq, and that it would not shift from that position under any circumstances. That allowed Mr. Blair to say he had exhausted the diplomatic possibilities for dealing with Mr. Hussein and cleared the way for fulfilling his pledge to fight at America's side.


World Socialist Web Site is among those who have regularly covered the Inquiry. Today James Cogan covers the escalating tensions over the banning of candidates before the intended March 7 election:

The campaign for the March 7 election in Iraq is unfolding under conditions of heightened sectarian tensions within the country’s already bitterly divided political establishment. Hundreds of candidates who were nominated by Sunni-based and secular-orientated parties have been barred from standing in an attempt to undermine opposition to the Shiite fundamentalist parties that have dominated all the parliaments formed under the US occupation.
The bans were imposed by the Justice and Accountability Board, formerly known as the de-Baathification Committee. It was established by the US occupation regime in 2003 to purge tens of thousands of members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party from the Iraqi state and military.
Last month, the Board ruled that over 500 nominees for the coming election had past Baathist links or had promoted Baath “ideology” and were therefore ineligible to stand for parliament. A number of them had taken part and won seats in the December 2005 election, including the defence minister, Abdul Kader al-Obeidi, and Saleh al-Mutlaq, the head of the Sunni-based National Dialogue Front (NDF), which holds 11 seats in the current parliament.

Today's joke of the day? War Criminal Henry Kissinger at the Washington Post offering advice on the Iraq War. On withdrawal which makes it even funnier in a demented way (for those who don't get it, think of Kissy's Vietnam 'negotiations'). It's even funnier if you consider Paul Bremer's connection to Kissinger and that Bremer impelemented (he says at the White House direction) the de-Ba'athification policy that continues to set tensions ablaze in Iraq. Hey, if we all praise Henry, insist the advice is amazing and needs to be heard widely so he should hop on a plane and go through Europe giving speeches on it, would he do that? Oh, no, he can't. He has to be very careful when leaving the US because he doesn't want to be arrested for his War Crimes.

TV notes. NOW on PBS begins airing Friday on most PBS stations (check local listings):

Has the Democratic Party abandoned support of reproductive rights? Next on NOW.
To gain their historic control of Congress, Democrats fielded moderate candidates who didn't always follow the party line, especially when it came to abortion. Now that the Democratic Party has the legislative upper hand, are they willing to negotiate away reproductive rights for other political gains? On Friday, February 5 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW goes to Allentown, Pennsylvania to ask: Are abortion rights now in jeopardy at the very hands of the party that has historically protected them? Among those interviewed are pro-life Democratic U.S. Representative Bart Stupak and former DNC Chairman Howard Dean.
"If there was a bill on the floor to reverse Roe vs Wade, and says 'life begins at conception,' I would vote for it." Congressman Stupak tells NOW.
Jen Boulanger, director of the often-protested Allentown Women's Center, says, "I would expect more from the Democratic Party, to stick to their ideals, not just throw us to the curb."
Has the Democratic Party traded principles for power? Next on NOW.


We'll close with this from Sherwood Ross' "Why is America In So Many Wars? Part 1" (Veterans Today):

America is "a nation that seeks war" and if it doesn’t change it could end up destroying itself, a law school dean warns.
Given all the wars the United States has waged, "It is preposterous but true that we do not see ourselves as a nation that seeks war," writes Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. "We see ourselves as a peace loving nation" and that message is constantly drummed into the public by government and media.
Since World War Two, an indisputably necessary conflict, Velvel points out the U.S. has fought the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, secret wars in Laos and Cambodia, the First Gulf War, Afghanistan, and the Second Gulf War in Iraq. It has also invaded, bombed or "quarantined" Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Haiti, Somalia, the Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia and Libya, and has "declared" a global war on terrorists.
"If the United States were a man instead of a country, we would say he must be schizophrenic, or at minimum deeply mentally disturbed, to believe he is peace loving in the face of a record like this," Velvel writes in "The Long Term View," a journal of informed opinion published by his law school.

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

iraq
the times of london
david brown
cnn
simon hooper
the daily mail
jason beattie
the independent of london
michael savage
abc
philip williams
the irish times
mark hennessy
rosa prince
the socialist worker
elizabeth schulte
sian ruddick
kelley b. vlahos
antiwar
wsws
james cogan
wales news
tomos livingstone
the new york times
john f. burns
sherwood ross
pbs
now on pbs