IRAQ-Current Continuing Conflict

[Philip]

Video link of the Baghdad blasts here.Death toll could be in the hundreds.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 801571.ece

[vishwakarmaa]

Never saw this thread...

X-Posted from International Terrorism Watch

Attacks in Iraq kill 48, injure 250

---
Seems like Al-Qaeda wants America to stay in Iraq...

Al-Qaeda = CIA funded Islamic fundamentalists around the world, which gives an excuse to USA to intervene in military way and grab control on the region.

This al-Qaeda will last for a long time in Iraq until the USA establishes its economic grip over that Iraq's Oil economy and regional oil, gas pipeline economy. When this is achieved then suddenly Al-Qaeda will reappear in a new country.

In similar way, RSS is funded by CIA in India. It gives them political maneuvering space in India, just like anywhere else in world.

[vishwakarmaa]

What is really intriguing is that the number of marriages between sunni and shia were 40% before the war. If there was really animosity between them, would it be that high?

Sunni and Shia in Iraq were together in fight against USA army initially. But later, USA used divide and conquer strategy and made them both clash with each other. This way USA is making iraqis kill each other and save american army lives.

[shravan]

In similar way, RSS is funded by CIA in India.

I don't know if RSS is funded by CIA but in the future if i read those links I will not be surprised.

[vishwakarmaa]

I can't understand why they would do it, because the Abu Ghraib scandal for example went right up to the higher ups of the pentagon and bush officials! Doesn't make sense to me unless they are playing to the Muslim audience.

Its soft power game. Now, USA will prosecute its own soldiers, only some 500 of them(Actual criminal cases - 10,000) for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and issue sentences(majorly small ones - fines, 2 year jail terms, no death penalties for crimes like genocide of kids,women! and death to a few(if at all?), for major media showups).

This will be shown and published in big way by western media to target world audience(good hearted audience who falls easily to soft power games) and once again USA will claim to be undisputed "inspector" of the world and noone will then appose her saying "hey, you are racist killers!".

In short, this move by Obama is pre-planned strategy of American planners for - "Image making operation after war".

[vishwakarmaa]

More on the Blackwater scandal,where its founder,now facing trial for murder,etc., wanted to start another "Crusade" to finish off MUslims.
(Blackwater chief 'wanted crusade against Muslims' )

I understand that BRF folks are not big fans of the US and/or the West. I also understand that India has been on the receiving end of the West in the past. I further understand that US and British policy of coddling Pak since 47 has hurt India, and clearly there has been at best a fairly extensive disregard of India's interest by the West in pursuing what is perceived as its (West's) own self interest in the subcontinent. Is that such a great sin ?....

{{ Pakiness Alarm }}

[shravan]

At Least 20 Dead in Two Iraqi Bus Bombings
Published: August 24, 2009

BAGHDAD — Insurgents exploded bombs on two buses traveling from Baghdad to the mainly Shiite city of Kut on Monday, killing at least 20 passengers and raising renewed concerns about the Iraqi government’s ability to provide security following the withdrawal of American combat troops from this country’s cities.

[svinayak]

http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2007/04/19 ... _viol.html

The “export death and violence” Bush quote

by ***Dave on 19-Apr-07 11:57am

in 9-11, Geopolitical Brouhaha, Media - Books, Politics & Law, Writing and Language

I was digging into my referrer logs today, just for giggles, and ran across some Usenet references. I followed them, and found this page on, of all things, alt.guitar.amps. It linked to this page of my blog, where I refute (shamefully, without citation) this quote attributed to George W. Bush:

George W. Bush did not say:

We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.

The quote is from Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, and sometimes this is mentioned (Woodward’s name giving it a certain cachet).

But Woodward never attributes this quote to Bush. Instead, he records it as being said by an unindentified CIA or Special Forces trooper at a 9/11 memorial they’ve built in the Afghan mountains during the first mission into Afghanistan.



And Woodward ends the book with another quote from the president, in which he again reflects the obsessive chaos theory of the neoconservatives surrounding him like sentinels and for whom Iraq has become the sina quo non of political existence: “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.” Whew.

One of those armchair psychoanalysis efforts on Bush also mentions the quote in order to prove a point:

Bush has rather unconvincingly denied that he holds the end times view that Christ’s return will be heralded by a cataclysm in the Middle East. But there are signs that he may hold this apocalyptical idea of world history and that he may be both seeking to avoid the biblical cataclysm and to “bring it on.” In his Jan. 10, 2007, speech he called the Iraq war part of the “decisive ideological struggle of our time” and described the absolute catastrophe he is sure would ensue from “failure” in the Iraq war. He has said repeatedly that he believes he is engaged in a mission to “rid the world of evil” and told Bob Woodward that he would willing to “export death and violence to the four corners of earth in defense of this great nation,” which to him is clearly a Christian nation.

That reference actually has a citation, a foreign policy paper by Stephen Zunes:

Even more disturbingly, Bush has stated repeatedly that he was “called” by God to run for president. Veteran journalist Bob Woodward noted, “The President was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God’s Master Plan,” wherein he promised, in his own words, “to export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil.”

[ramana]

Nightwatch comments 8/25/09

Iraq: "We worked ourselves out of a job," according to a US military officer, referring to the sharp drop in violence over the past two years. "This is what the end of a counterinsurgency looks like."

Actually the US officer is incorrect and looking backwards, not forwards. The next stage of the insurgency is just beginning. It features a violent breakout from US-enforced power sharing, but the US now is de-fanged by common consent and on the side lines. The Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds want to slug it out without the US as the referee. This is not success, just postponement of the end game.

The unfinished business is political control of Baghdad, between the Sunnis and the Shias. The US is no longer relevant to this smoldering grudge match, by common consent. The Shia backed by Iran should win, on the numbers, thanks to the US military effort to support majority rule, but the bloodletting is likely to get much, much worse.

In other words we will eventually see a Shia belt from Iran to Iraq. Can Eastern KSA be far too behind?

[shravan]

12 killed, over 40 wounded in northern Iraq attacks
August 29

[Philip]

Iraq is unravelling.Gen.Petraeus' strategy will eventually fail as each invaded country will grow tired of their invading masters and finally see them as being worse than any tyrant of their own kind.Iraq will in all probability end up with the US and its allies controlling the oilfields/pipelines by force while letting the rest of the country savage itself.However,if a strong Shiite leader,acceptable to the Sunnis also,emerges to joins hands with the Iranians to throw out the US,there could be quite some fun watching the US beat the retreat.

[ramana]

Cut and run underway

Turkey: Preparations at Incirlik Air Base are under way for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, DPA reported 31 August, citing Turkish newspaper Aksam. Approximately 100,000 of 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will return to the United States. U.S. forces are preparing prefabricated housing for the withdrawal that will begin in December.

For those who thought the US was staying for a long time, the Turks don’t think agree.

[shravan]

Baghdad car bombs kill at least 90

Two massive car bombings in central Baghdad this morning killed more than 90 people and wounded an estimated 600 in the biggest attack in two months.

The bombers targeted a government area just north of the fortified Green Zone, hitting the Justice Ministry and the seat of the Baghdad provincial administration, which is 500 metres away.

The renewed flare-up of violence comes in the run-up to elections planned for January. The US military had last week warned of a rise in violence.

[Philip]

Poor devastated Iraq.150+ killed and 500+ injured in just one day alone! I wonder whether Dubya Bush has any conscience at all.His silence after his reign's ignominious end is deafening.The US's "Govt. of the Green Zone" is as much in control as the eunuch's eunuch

Car bombs kill 147 in Iraq as militants target official buildings ahead of election• More than 700 wounded in second attack since July
• Sunni militants suspected of being behind violence

"After the foreign ministry, they had promised to protect us," he said. "What message does it send when a government can't protect its own people in its own buildings?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oc ... bs-baghdad

[Johann]

Iraq is unravelling.Gen.Petraeus' strategy will eventually fail as each invaded country will grow tired of their invading masters and finally see them as being worse than any tyrant of their own kind.Iraq will in all probability end up with the US and its allies controlling the oilfields/pipelines by force while letting the rest of the country savage itself.However,if a strong Shiite leader,acceptable to the Sunnis also,emerges to joins hands with the Iranians to throw out the US,there could be quite some fun watching the US beat the retreat.

Philip, did you actually ever read or listen to what Petraeus or others actually involved ever said?

The counter-insurgency strategy was based on placing US forces in every community a third party force that maintained the peace by going after every kind of extremist, Sunni or Shia. That even-handedness allowed them to establish a better relationship with Sunni Arabs, whom they had previously treated as the enemy.

It can work only as long as one of two conditions are fulfilled
- Iraqi forces gain the ability and the will to be as evenhanded in dealing with Sunni and Shia, Kurd and Arab, etc
OR
- US forces remain

Obama is withdrawing US troops in order to be able to send them to Afghanistan and perhaps Pakistan.

The Iraqi government will not be able to maintain security until it eats humble pie the way that the Americans did, and work with the Sunni tribal sheikhs. For example in the areas of Anbar where the Iraqi government has taken over from the Americans it has *refused* to continue to pay the tribal forces, and has also refused to incorporate them in to government forces.

What do you think the now unemployed gunmen are going to do? Will the Sheikhs try to stop them from working with Al-Qaeda? Or even inform the Shia government about them? This refusal to share power at the local level plays well with Iraqi Shia elsewhere, but it is suicidal.

If you treat entire communities as the enemy, they will flock to those who fight you.

[Philip]

Johann,what are the Shiite clerics doing to prevent Iraq from fracturing into a Shiite vs Sunni battle where everyone loses? Secondly,has there been a serious attempt to bring back the former uniformed Baathists into the Iraqi military,who have experience of "crowd control"? I am also surprised that Obama has not resorted to bringing the UN into the picture as he is not tainted like the Bush regime and gradually replace through UN peacekeepers,US forces with a multi-national UN force that includes elements from "responsible" Muslim states,say like Egypt.He might even find that some European nations would prefer to have their troops present as peacekeepers under a UN flag,allowing the US to concentrate on the unfinished job at hand in Afghanistan and Pakistan.Elections could then be held under UN auspices with greater legitimacy to results.Japan's decision to stop mere logistic assistance to US naval forces in the region is a sad commentary on the US's ability to hold its allies together in the "cause",the so-called war on terror.

[Johann]

Hi Philip,

- The ayatollah with the greatest spiritual authority in Iraq, Ali al-Sistani has essentially withdrawn from politics. There is a long tradition of quietism among Ithna Asharai Shia clergy when things get really bad, going back to the third Imam.

- The Iraqi Army is relatively non-sectarian, with many former IqA officers back in service, but the interior ministry, and the government overall is still heavily sectarian. Hence the shortsightedness in dealing with the political and security realities in Sunni Arab provinces. Until the mindset of Iraq's shia parties (and by extension the Iraqi Shia who vote for them) changes, there will be problems.

- The UN doesnt want to get involved because member states dont want to touch Iraq.

The Europeans have no desire or ability to put in 100,000 troops, or even half as many in Iraq in what would have to be a peace-enforcement (not simply peace-keeping) role. The US would also be hard pressed to replace all of them in Afghanistan

Egypt is a Sunni-majority state openly critical of growing Shia influence in the region, and would be unacceptable to Shia Iraqis, as well as Iran. Turkey might be more acceptable to regional states, but their attitude towards the Kurds would threaten Arab-Kurdish reconciliation in Iraq.

Countries like India, China, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, etc would be acceptable, but there's no sign that they have any enthusiasm for such a mission.

[AnimeshP]

Well ... looks like everyone in the US who supported the Iraq war had an angle ...
U.S. Adviser to Kurds Stands to Reap Oil Profits

Peter W. Galbraith, an influential former American ambassador, is a powerful voice on Iraq who helped shape the views of policy makers like Joseph R. Biden Jr. and John Kerry. In the summer of 2005, he was also an adviser to the Kurdish regional government as Iraq wrote its Constitution — tough and sensitive talks not least because of issues like how Iraq would divide its vast oil wealth.

Now Mr. Galbraith, 58, son of the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars as a result of his closeness to the Kurds, his relations with a Norwegian oil company and constitutional provisions he helped the Kurds extract.

A blogger's take on this issue:

The New York Times today details the unbelievably sleazy story of Peter Galbraith, one of the Democratic Party's leading so-called "liberal hawks" and a generally revered Wise Man of America's Foreign Policy Community. He was Ambassador to Croatia under the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s and, in March, 2009, the Obama administration (specifically, Richard Holbrooke, Galbraith's mentor) successfully pressured the U.N. to name Galbraith as the second-in-command in Afghanistan. The NYT does a good job today of adding some important details to the story, but it was actually uncovered by Norwegian investigative journalists and reported at length a month ago in pieces such as this one by Helena Cobban. In essence, this highly Serious man has corruptly concealed vast financial stakes in the very policies and positions he has spent years advocating while pretending to be an independent expert.

Galbraith was one of the most vocal Democratic supporters of the attack on Iraq, having signed a March 19, 2003 public letter (.pdf) -- along with the standard cast of neocon war-lovers such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Danielle Pletka, and Robert Kagan -- stating that "we all join in supporting the military intervention in Iraq" and "it is now time to act to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power."

..................

After playing a key role in enabling the invasion of Iraq, Galbraith first became one of a handful of U.S. officials who worked on writing the Iraqi Constitution, and after he resigned from the government, he then continuously posed as an independent expert on the region and, specifically, an "unpaid" adviser to the Kurds on the Constitution. Galbraith was an ardent and vocal advocate for Kurdish autonomy, arguing tirelessly in numerous venues for such proposals -- including in multiple Op-Eds for The New York Times -- and insisting that Kurds must have the right to control oil resources located in Northern Iraq. Throughout the years of writing those Op-Eds, he was identified as nothing more than "a former United States ambassador to Croatia," except in one 2007 Op-Ed which vaguely stated that he "is a principal in a company that does consulting in Iraq and elsewhere." When he participated in a New York Times forum in October, 2008 -- regarding what the next President should be required to answer -- he unsurprisingly posed questions that advocated for regional autonomy for Iraqis generally and Kurds specifically, and he was identified as nothing more than the author of a book about the region.

What Galbraith kept completely concealed all these years was that a company he formed in 2004 came to acquire a large stake in a Kurdish oil field whereby, as the NYT put it, he "stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars." In other words, he had a direct -- and vast -- financial stake in the very policies which he was publicly advocating in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and countless other American media outlets, where he was presented as an independent expert on the region.

source

[Philip]

Long article in a Lankan paper on the true reasons for the invasion,capturing Iraq's oil.Discussed here many moons ago.More revelations of alleged abuses by allied troops in the Uk media.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 20545.html

Britain's Abu Ghraib: Did Britain collude with US in abuse of Iraqis?

By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Saturday, 14 November 2009

Claims that British soldiers recreated the torture conditions of Abu Ghraib to commit the sexual and physical abuse of Iraqi civilians are being investigated by the Ministry of Defence.


The fresh allegations raise important questions about collusion between Britain and America over the ill-treatment of Iraqi prisoners during the insurgency. In one case, British soldiers are accused of piling bodies of Iraqi prisoners on top of each other and subjecting them to electric shocks, an echo of the abuse at the notorious US detention centre at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.

One claimants says he as raped by two British soldiers, and others say they were stripped naked, abused and photographed. For the first time, British female soldiers are accused of aiding in the sexual and physical abuse of detainees.

Related articles
Robert Verkaik: Evidence mounts that practice was rampant
Search the news archive for more stories
The 33 new cases, which form part of a pre-action protocol letter served on the MoD last week, include allegations of other torture techniques widely employed by the Americans, including mock executions, dog attacks and exposure to *****.

In one of the most disturbing cases, Nassir Ghulaim, a young Iraqi, says his torture was based on the photographs taken from Abu Ghraib. He says he was playing football with friends in April 2007 when he was approached by British soldiers in Jeeps. Their interpreter told two of the Iraqis the soldiers wanted them to go with them to a British base.

When he arrived at the camp his blindfold was removed and he was surrounded by six to eight soldiers, he says. "The soldiers asked us to pick fights with one another, or fight them. The soldiers were laughing and taking photos. The soldiers then made us squeeze together in a pile, while a soldier stood on top of us and shouted and laughed."

Mr Ghulaim says the soldiers then forced a younger Iraqi male to strip naked and started playing with his penis and taking photographs. When Mr Ghulaim refused to fight, a soldier kicked him hard on his back and he fell on the floor. "A soldier started hitting me with a baton on my knees and used an electric baton on various parts of my body," he adds. After three days of detention, Mr Ghulaim was freed without charge.

Hussain Hashim Khinyab, 35, who has three children, was arrested in April 2006. He claims that he was badly tortured at the British camp at Shaaibah and later sexually abused by female personnel. He alleges that when he was moved from solitary confinement to the camp's detention halls he saw male and female soldiers engaging in sexual intercourse in front of the prisoners. He says this was done to deliberately humiliate the inmates.

In May 2003, a 16-year-old Iraqi was among a group of Iraqis taken to the Shatt-al-Arab British camp to help fill sandbags. When the Iraqi youth, who wishes to remain anonymous, and his friends had filled the available sandbags, a British soldier indicated that he should enter a room, from where he assumed that he was to retrieve more sand bags, he says.

On entering the room, he claims he saw two British male soldiers engaged in oral sex. As soon as the two men saw him enter, they started to beat and kick him, he alleges. When he fell to the floor, one of the men held a blade to his neck while the other soldier stripped him naked. Although he screamed in protest, the two British soldiers, one after the other, raped him.

In the legal letter to the MoD, Phil Shiner, the lawyer representing all the Iraqis, said: "Due to the wider access of information and disclosure in the US, we do know that sexual humiliation was authorised as an aid to interrogation at the highest levels of the US administration. Given the history of the UK's involvement in the development of these techniques alongside the US, it is deeply concerning that there appears to be strong similarities between instances of the use of sexual humiliation."

Mazin Younis, a leading Iraqi human rights activist working in the UK, said a lot of the new cases he had seen included allegations of sexual humiliation techniques which were part of what he said was a wider culture of abuse. He added: "This is very similar to what was happening at Abu Ghraib and was clearly employed to try to break the will of the detainees. Hundreds of soldiers must have witnessed this abuse but must either think this was acceptable behaviour or were told by their superiors to turn a blind eye."

Mr Shiner says that the new cases became known after the British withdrawal from Iraq this year. He added: "Many of these Iraqis were frightened to come forward and only now have been able to gather the courage to do so. That is no mean feat given what they have been through."

An MoD spokesperson said: "Over 120,000 British troops have served in Iraq and the vast majority have conducted themselves to the highest standards of behaviour, displaying integrity and selfless commitment. There have been instances when individuals have behaved badly but only a tiny number have been shown to have fallen short of our high standards.

"Allegations of this nature are taken very seriously but must not be taken as fact. Formal investigations must be allowed to take their course without judgements being made prematurely."

In London, the public inquiry continues to hear more evidence into the death of 26-year-old hotel receptionist Baha Mousa, who was beaten to death by British soldiers in 2003. A post-mortem revealed that he had sustained 93 different injuries.

The testimony: 'They made us pile up like at Abu Ghraib'

Nassir Ghulaim, 24, a recently married labourer, recalls what happened after his arrest in April 2007.

"I was playing football with my friends. We always stood by the main street awaiting someone to pick us up for labour work. British Jeeps approached us and stopped. Soldiers got off the Jeeps and headed to us. They had no interpreter with them. They pointed to myself and my friend [Salam] to accompany them in the Jeep. They did not force us.

We did not struggle not to go with them as we thought they are picking us for some paid work. In 2004 they did pick me to do some work in clearing a building. We were not blindfolded or handcuffed.

After a short drive we were transferred to an APC. Now they handcuffed us with plasticuffs and blindfolded us. We had no clue what the reason was for this action.

The APC drove for less than an hour and stopped in a place which we realised later was Camp Akka in Al-Zubayr. We were taken to a hall where soldiers started stripping us of our clothes. We were left in just the shorts. Then we were given some drink which started causing us dizziness and headache. It may have been a drug of some kind.

They took off our blindfolds and I could see that we were surrounded by seven or eight soldiers. There were five of us. They asked us to pick fights with one another, or fight them. They were laughing at us and taking photos with digital cameras. They made us squeeze in pile-up, as in Abu Ghraib prison photos, while a soldier stood on top of us and started shouting and laughing. I felt so humiliated and treated as a toy they messed up with.

They picked further on a younger man who was good-looking. They made him strip naked and started messing with his penis and taking photos. On one occasion I refused to pick a fight, then a soldier kicked me hard on my back, which made me fall on the floor. He started hitting me with a baton on my knees. Then he used an electric baton on different parts of my body."

'A soldier exposed herself in front of me'

Hussain Hashim Khinyab, 35, married with three children, was arrested on April 2006.

Hussain claims that he was tortured at the British camp at Shaaibah, where he says he was also sexually abused by male and female personnel.

In his statement he recalls: "Soldiers used to play ***** movies during evenings and at dawn. I also noticed that every time I started praying or reading Koran they would play very loud music to distract me and probably other detainees." Mr Khinyab, a carpenter, adds: "While squatting in the toilets or in the showers, a female soldier used to expose her breast or parts of her body, or mess with another soldier in a sexual way in front of me. Another one gestured that she wanted to have sex with me. I was a practising Muslim and this behaviour was very shameful and humiliating for me. Also, a soldier in the observation tower used to point the laser spot of his gun at my penis while I was squatting in the toilet."

He alleges that when he was moved from solitary confinement to the detention halls he saw male and female soldiers engaging in sexual intercourse in front of the prisoners.

He says this was done to deliberately humiliate the inmates. Later, he claims he was sexually abused by a nurse while he was recovering in hospital.:

[Philip]

When the US blitzed Fallujah,in a 21st century version of the annhilation of Dresden,in response to the killing of a few "contract killers" by he Iraqi resistance,Fallujah became a dirty word,scarcely used in western media reports on Iraq.Here is one exception.Will the war criminals responsible please stand up to be counted?

Huge rise in birth defects in FallujaIraqi former battle zone sees abnormal clusters of infant tumours and deformities
Buzz up!
Digg it
Martin Chulov in Falluja
guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 November 2009 19.24 GMT
Article history

The children of Falluja Link to this video Doctors in Iraq's war-ravaged enclave of Falluja are dealing with up to 15 times as many chronic deformities in infants and a spike in early life cancers that may be linked to toxic materials left over from the fighting.

The extraordinary rise in birth defects has crystallised over recent months as specialists working in Falluja's over-stretched health system have started compiling detailed clinical records of all babies born.

Neurologists and obstetricians in the city interviewed by the Guardian say the rise in birth defects – which include a baby born with two heads, babies with multiple tumours, and others with nervous system problems - are unprecedented and at present unexplainable.

A group of Iraqi and British officials, including the former Iraqi minister for women's affairs, Dr Nawal Majeed a-Sammarai, and the British doctors David Halpin and Chris Burns-Cox, have petitioned the UN general assembly to ask that an independent committee fully investigate the defects and help clean up toxic materials left over decades of war – including the six years since Saddam Hussein was ousted.

"We are seeing a very significant increase in central nervous system anomalies," said Falluja general hospital's director and senior specialist, Dr Ayman Qais. "Before 2003 [the start of the war] I was seeing sporadic numbers of deformities in babies. Now the frequency of deformities has increased dramatically."

The rise in frequency is stark – from two admissions a fortnight a year ago to two a day now. "Most are in the head and spinal cord, but there are also many deficiencies in lower limbs," he said. "There is also a very marked increase in the number of cases of less than two years [old] with brain tumours. This is now a focus area of multiple tumours."

After several years of speculation and anecdotal evidence, a picture of a highly disturbing phenomenon in one of Iraq's most battered areas has now taken shape. Previously all miscarried babies, including those with birth defects or infants who were not given ongoing care, were not listed as abnormal cases.

The Guardian asked a paediatrician, Samira Abdul Ghani, to keep precise records over a three-week period. Her records reveal that 37 babies with anomalies, many of them neural tube defects, were born during that period at Falluja general hospital alone.

Dr Bassam Allah, the head of the hospital's children's ward, this week urged international experts to take soil samples across Falluja and for scientists to mount an investigation into the causes of so many ailments, most of which he said had been "acquired" by mothers before or during pregnancy.

Other health officials are also starting to focus on possible reasons, chief among them potential chemical or radiation poisonings. Abnormal clusters of infant tumours have also been repeatedly cited in Basra and Najaf – areas that have in the past also been intense battle zones where modern munitions have been heavily used.

Falluja's frontline doctors are reluctant to draw a direct link with the fighting. They instead cite multiple factors that could be contributors.

"These include air pollution, radiation, chemicals, drug use during pregnancy, malnutrition, or the psychological status of the mother," said Dr Qais. "We simply don't have the answers yet."

The anomalies are evident all through Falluja's newly opened general hospital and in centres for disabled people across the city. On 2 November alone, there were four cases of neuro-tube defects in the neo-natal ward and several more were in the intensive care ward and an outpatient clinic.

Falluja was the scene of the only two setpiece battles that followed the US-led invasion. Twice in 2004, US marines and infantry units were engaged in heavy fighting with Sunni militia groups who had aligned with former Ba'athists and Iraqi army elements.

The first battle was fought to find those responsible for the deaths of four Blackwater private security contractors working for the US. The city was bombarded heavily by American artillery and fighter jets. Controversial weaponry was used, including white phosphorus, which the US government admitted deploying.

Statistics on infant tumours are not considered as reliable as new data about nervous system anomalies, which are usually evident immediately after birth. Dr Abdul Wahid Salah, a neurosurgeon, said: "With neuro-tube defects, their heads are often larger than normal, they can have deficiencies in hearts and eyes and their lower limbs are often listless. There has been no orderly registration here in the period after the war and we have suffered from that. But [in relation to the rise in tumours] I can say with certainty that we have noticed a sharp rise in malignancy of the blood and this is not a congenital anomaly – it is an acquired disease."

Despite fully funding the construction of the new hospital, a well-equipped facility that opened in August, Iraq's health ministry remains largely disfunctional and unable to co-ordinate a response to the city's pressing needs.

The government's lack of capacity has led Falluja officials, who have historically been wary of foreign intervention, to ask for help from the international community. "Even in the scientific field, there has been a reluctance to reach out to the exterior countries," said Dr Salah. "But we have passed that point now. I am doing multiple surgeries every day. I have one assistant and I am obliged to do everything myself."

Additional reporting: Enas Ibrahim.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/no ... th-defects

[Philip]

The truth is "outing",as secret papers showing Britain's apalling decision making hits the stands.

At least four commanders use the same word – “appalling” – to describe the performance of the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.

Iraq report: Secret papers reveal blunders and concealment
The “appalling” errors that contributed to Britain’s failure in Iraq are disclosed in the most detailed and damning set of leaks to emerge on the conflict.

By Andrew Gilligan
Published: 9:58PM GMT 21 Nov 2009

British Prime Minister Tony Blair (R) with US Secretary of State Colin Powell outside 10 Downing Street Photo: PA

Tony Blair is accused of presiding over 'significant shortcomings? at all levels

On the eve of the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath, The Sunday Telegraph has obtained hundreds of pages of secret Government reports on “lessons learnt” which shed new light on “significant shortcomings” at all levels.

They include full transcripts of extraordinarily frank classified interviews in which British Army commanders vent their frustration and anger with ministers and Whitehall officials.

Related Articles
Secret plans for war, no plans for peace
Britain 'unprepared' for nation building
Troops 'rushed' into battle without armour or training
Saddam 'had escape plan'

The report discloses that Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change” and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002.

The need to conceal this from Parliament and all but “very small numbers” of officials “constrained” the planning process. The result was a “rushed”operation “lacking in coherence and resources” which caused “significant risk” to troops and “critical failure” in the post-war period.

Operations were so under-resourced that some troops went into action with only five bullets each. Others had to deploy to war on civilian airlines, taking their equipment as hand luggage. Some troops had weapons confiscated by airport security.

Commanders reported that the Army’s main radio system “tended to drop out at around noon each day because of the heat”. One described the supply chain as “absolutely appalling”, saying: “I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert.”

The Foreign Office unit to plan for postwar Iraq was set up only in late February, 2003, three weeks before the war started.

The plans “contained no detail once Baghdad had fallen”, causing a “notable loss of momentum” which was exploited by insurgents. Field commanders raged at Whitehall’s “appalling” and “horrifying” lack of support for reconstruction, with one top officer saying that the Government “missed a golden opportunity” to win Iraqi support. Another commander said: “It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves.”

The documents emerge two days before public hearings begin in the Iraq Inquiry, the tribunal appointed under Sir John Chilcot, a former Whitehall civil servant, to “identify lessons that can be learnt from the Iraq conflict”.

Senior military officers and relatives of the dead have warned Sir John against a “whitewash”.

The documents consist of dozens of “post-operational reports” written by commanders at all levels, plus two sharply-worded “overall lessons learnt” papers – on the war phase and on the occupation – compiled by the Army centrally.

The analysis of the war phase describes it as a “significant military success” but one achieved against a “third-rate army”. It identifies a long list of “significant” weaknesses and notes: “A more capable enemy would probably have punished these shortcomings severely.”

The analysis of the occupation describes British reconstruction plans as “nugatory” and “hopelessly optimistic”.

It says that coalition forces were “ill-prepared and equipped to deal with the problems in the first 100 days” of the occupation, which turned out to be “the defining stage of the campaign”. It condemns the almost complete absence of contingency planning as a potential breach of Geneva Convention obligations to safeguard civilians.

The leaked documents bring into question statements that Mr Blair made to Parliament in the build up to the invasion. On July 16 2002, amid growing media speculation about Britain’s future role in Iraq, Mr Blair was asked: “Are we then preparing for possible military action in Iraq?” He replied: “No.”

Introducing the now notorious dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, on Sept 24, 2002, Mr Blair told MPs: “In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options but, of course, it is important — should we get to that point — that we have the fullest possible discussion of those options.”

In fact, according to the documents, “formation-level planning for a [British] deployment [to Iraq] took place from February 2002”.

The documents also quote Maj Gen Graeme Lamb, the director of special forces during the Iraq war, as saying: “I had been working the war up since early 2002.”

The leaked material also includes sheaves of classified verbatim transcripts of one-to-one interviews with commanders recently returned from Iraq – many critical of the Whitehall failings that were becoming clear. At least four commanders use the same word – “appalling” – to describe the performance of the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.

Documents describe the “inability to restore security early during the occupation” as the “critical failure” of the deployment and attack the “absence of UK political direction” after the war ended.

One quotes a senior British officer as saying: “The UK Government, which spent millions of pounds on resourcing the security line of operations, spent virtually none on the economic one, on which security depended.”

Many of the documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph deal with key questions for Sir John Chilcot and his committee, such as whether planning was adequate, troops properly equipped and the occupation mishandled, and will almost certainly be seen by the inquiry.

However, it is not clear whether they will be published by it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... lment.html

[Philip]

Apart from Tony B.Liar being confirmed as a monumental liar of the worst kind,in that the gameplan all along was "regime change" in Iraq and not removing Saddam's non-resistant WMDs,the hostility betyween British and US military men is another shocking scandal.

"Europeans chat to each other, whereas dialogue is alien to the US military… dealing with them corporately is akin to dealing with a group of Martians."

Hostility between British and American military leaders revealed
The deep hostility of Britain’s senior military commanders in Iraq towards their American allies has been revealed in classified Government documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

By Andrew Gilligan
Published: 10:00PM GMT 22 Nov 2009

British soldiers secure the site where a military vehicle was destroyed in the southern city of Basra in 2006 Photo: AFP / GETTY

In the papers, the British chief of staff in Iraq, Colonel J.K.Tanner, described his US military counterparts as “a group of Martians” for whom “dialogue is alien,” saying: “Despite our so-called ‘special relationship,’ I reckon we were treated no differently to the Portuguese.”

Col Tanner’s boss, the top British commander in the country, Major General Andrew Stewart, told how he spent “a significant amount of my time” “evading” and “refusing” orders from his US superiors.

Secret papers reveal Iraq war blunders At least once, say the documents, General Stewart’s refusal to obey an order resulted in Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Sir David Manning, being summoned to the State Department for a diplomatic reprimand - of the kind more often delivered to “rogue states” such as Zimbabwe or the Sudan.

The frank statements were made in official interviews conducted by the Ministry of Defence with Army commanders who had just returned from Operations Telic 2 and 3 – the first, crucial year of “peacekeeping” operations in Iraq, from May 2003 to May 2004.

A set of classified transcripts of the interviews, along with “post-operational reports” by British commanders, has been leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

The disclosures come the day before the Chilcot inquiry is due to begin public hearings into Britain’s involvement in Iraq. Among the issues it will investigate is the UK-US relationship.

The leaked documents paint a vivid picture of the clash between what General Stewart described as “war-war” American commanders and their British counterparts, who he said preferred a “jaw-jaw” approach.

General Stewart bluntly admitted that “our ability to influence US policy in Iraq seemed to be minimal.” He said that “incredibly,” there was not even a secure communication link between his headquarters in Basra and the US commander, General Rick Sanchez, in Baghdad.

Col Tanner said that General Sanchez “only visited us once in seven months.” Col Tanner also added that he only spoke to his own US counterpart, the chief of staff at the US corps headquarters in the Green Zone, once over the same period.

Top British commanders angrily described in the documents how they were not even told, let alone consulted, about major changes to US policy which had significant implications for them and their men.

When the Americans decided, in March 2004, to arrest a key lieutenant of the Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr – an event that triggered an uprising throughout the British sector – “it was not co-ordinated with us and no-one [was] told that it was going to happen,” said the senior British field commander at the time, Brigadier Nick Carter.

“Had we known, we would at least have been able to prepare the ground.” Instead, “the consequence [was] that my whole area of operations went up in smoke… as a result of coalition operations that were outwith my control or knowledge and proved to be the single most awkward event of my tour.”

Among the most outspoken officers was Col Tanner, who served as chief of staff to General Stewart and of the entire British division during Operation Telic 3, from November 2003 to May 2004.

He said: “The whole system was appalling. We experienced real difficulty in dealing with American military and civilian organisations who, partly through arrogance and partly through bureaucracy, dictate that there is only one way: the American way.

“I now realise that I am a European, not an American. We managed to get on better…with our European partners and at times with the Arabs than with the Americans. Europeans chat to each other, whereas dialogue is alien to the US military… dealing with them corporately is akin to dealing with a group of Martians.

“If it isn’t on the PowerPoint slide, then it doesn’t happen.”

Gen Stewart was more diplomatic, but said: “As the world’s only superpower, they [the US] will not allow their position to be challenged. Negotiation is often a dirty word.”

Gen Stewart added: “I spent a significant amount of my time ‘consenting and evading’ US orders… Things got sticky…when I refused to conduct offensive operations against [al-Sadr’s] Mahdi Army as directed [by the US]. This resulted in the UK being demarched by the US, by [Paul] Bremer [the US proconsul in Iraq] through State [the US State Department] to the UK Ambassador in Washington.”

A “demarche” in this context was a formal diplomatic reprimand of a kind not normally handed out to friendly allies such as Britain. Gen Stewart said that the US military “were mortified” that it had got so far and said he “was always fully supported in the UK by the Chief of Defence Staff and Chief of Joint Operations.”

Yesterday the Sunday Telegraph told how leaked “post-operational reports” detailed major shortcomings in the planning and execution of the war and peacekeeping phases.

Most of the documents – apart from some which might compromise sources – referred to yesterday and today are published online at Telegraph.co.uk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ealed.html

[Philip]

More controversy for British forces over this pic.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... heory.html

Does this picture show British soldiers broke Geneva Conventions?

Public inquiry to be launched into allegations of abuse against Iraqi civilians at UK-run detention camp

By Robert Verkaik, Home Affairs Editor
Tuesday, 24 November 2009

This picture was taken by a British soldier after a firefight near Al Majaar Al Kabir in southern Iraq on 14 May 2004. The Iraqis were interrogated at a British military facility known as Camp Abu Naji

A photograph handed to The Independent claims to show Iraqi civilians captured in southern Iraq being mistreated by British soldiers in breach of international law and the Geneva Conventions.

The incident is to be investigated at a public inquiry to be announced tomorrow by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, which will also examine evidence of one of the worst atrocities ever carried out by the British Army.

It is claimed that hours after the picture, left, was taken, the four men were transferred to a UK-run detention camp where they were badly beaten and where 20 other civilians were murdered by British soldiers.

Related articles
Video: Iraq Inquiry begins
Chilcot inquiry must investigate abuse claims, say lawyers
Leading article: The crucial questions that the Iraq inquiry must answer

Lawyers for the men say the photograph, held by the Army since May 2004 but only disclosed this year, supports evidence of the routine abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

The covering of a prisoner's face and rear handcuffing on the ground is a breach of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits the humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees.

When this is done to support interrogations, as in this case, it also contravenes Article 31: prohibition of physical and moral coercion. It is also a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the Army's own rules on the hooding of prisoners.

The International Committee of the Red Cross raised concerns about similar breaches in February 2004 when it warned the UK and US governments of these practices. The new evidence will add to calls for a full and proper public inquiry into 33 further abuse cases involving allegations against the British Army in Iraq between 2003 and 2008.

Last night, Lord David Ramsbotham, a former commander of the British Field Army and a former chief inspector of prisons, said he believed the picture showed inhuman and degrading treatment. He told The Independent: "There can be few people who have not been sickened, and saddened, by the images of Iraqi citizens being subjected to what is well described as inhuman and degrading treatment, at the hands of certain British soldiers.

"Sickened because this is not the kind of treatment associated with a nation that calls itself civilised; saddened because it besmirches the reputation of the British Army, so carefully preserved by so many people in many different circumstances," he said.

Kevin Laue, the legal adviser to Redress, which works with victims of torture, said: "In my view, what the photograph shows could well constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment ... they appear to have been blindfolded to such an extent that almost their whole face has been covered, including the nose and even the mouth, which if so would obviously make normal breathing difficult...

"The photograph raises numerous questions which would need to be asked and answered to decide if the treatment could be justified. On the face of it, it is wrong," he said.

Phil Shiner, the lawyer who pushed for a public inquiry into the alleged massacre and mutilation of 20 Iraqi civilians in the aftermath of the Battle of "Danny Boy", which involved British forces, near Basra in May 2004, said: "The MoD conceded an inquiry not simply because of late disclosure, but because much of that disclosure supported our clients' allegations.

"This evidence had gone uninvestigated by the Royal Military Police, undermined the MoD's case and showed how it had been misrepresented to the court. An inquiry is essential so that lessons can be urgently learned and, where necessary, perpetrators brought to justice in relation to this incident and the hundreds of other cases involving civilians that we now know went uninvestigated in Iraq."

Government lawyers admitted in the summer that in 2004 the Armed Forces minister had written a draft confidential letter, addressed to No 10, which referred to complaints made by the International Committee of the Red Cross in connection with the alleged ill-treatment of detainees held by the Army after the battle. It was the discovery of this correspondence which led the Government to withdraw its defence to a judicial inquiry into the alleged massacre and abuse of the Iraqis.

Lawyers for the Iraqis and the families of those who died said the case raised allegations that were among the most serious in modern British military history. Tomorrow, Mr Ainsworth will tell Parliament the name of the judge chosen to head the inquiry, referred to as Al Sweady after the lead claimant in the case.

The Government has always maintained that the victims were all killed in battle while their families' lawyers say they were innocent farmers who tried to flee the fighting.

An MoD spokesman said: "We have found no credible evidence that those detained, as a result of the attack on British troops and prolonged fire-fight at the Danny Boy checkpoint, were mistreated.

"The treatment of the detainees shown in the photograph does not amount to a breach of the Geneva Conventions, it is important to remember that our first priority at the end of such attacks is to protect our personnel from further threats.

"The events that followed will, in due course, be considered by the Al Sweady inquiry."

Geneva Conventions

*Hooding, cuffing and forced to lie in stress positions in the sun:

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees.

*Article 31 of the Conventions prohibits physical and moral coercion techniques used to support interrogations.

*Article 3 of the European Conventions on Human Rights bans inhuman and degrading treatment.

The Army's own rules forbid hooding of prisoners and handcuffing their arms behind their back on the ground.

Covering the faces in this way restricts breathing, and to all intents and purposes, is the same as hooding. Its use in May 2004 contradicts the assurances given by the Armed Forces minister in 2004 and General Brims in 2006 to the Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Committee that hooding/face covering had been effectively outlawed.

*Handcuffing to the rear restricts breathing, has been known to lead to deaths in custody and renders a prisoner unable to break his fall if pushed.

[Philip]

Continuing Iraq revelations from the British Iraq inquiry.Blair knew before invasion that Saddam's WMDs were dismantled!!!
Saddam and Iraq ranked only 4th on the most damnegrous list!

Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair told ‘days before invasion’ WMD had been dismantled

Tony Blair received intelligence that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction had been “dismantled” 10 days before Britain invaded Iraq, the inquiry into the 2003 war has been told.

By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter

Sir John Chilcot sitting as chairman of the Iraq war inquiry Photo: BBC
The Foreign Office did not believe Iraq had nuclear missiles, but Mr Blair told parliament that Saddam was a threat to security in the Middle East because he still had chemical and biological weapons which could be launched at 45 minutes’ notice.

However, Sir William Ehrman, director of international security at the Foreign Office from 2000 to 2002, told the inquiry: “We were getting in the very final days before military action some (intelligence) on chemical and biological weapons that they were dismantled and (Saddam) might not have the munitions to deliver it.

Iraq only fourth on WMD danger list, inquiry hears
Iraq Inquiry: British officials discussed regime change two years before war
Iraq inquiry: Foreign Office chiefs to face WMD questions

Defence Secretary criticises Obama over Afghanistan “On March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn’t yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents.”

The issue of Iraq’s ability to produce or use weapons of mass destruction is central to the inquiry, which must determine whether the former prime minister Tony Blair misled parliament over the reasons for going to war in 2003.

Sir William was asked by Sir Lawrence Freedman, one of the Iraq Inquiry’s five panel members, why the last-minute intelligence did not lead to an urgent re-assessment of the decision to go to war.

He said: “Did it make you wonder whether, at this late stage, more care and attention might be given, that maybe it wasn’t too late to stop the war?”

Sir William replied: “There was contradictory intelligence, so I don’t think it invalidated the point about what weapons he had. It was more about their use. Even if they were disassembled the (chemical or biological) agents still existed.”

The inquiry also heard that ministers were warned there were “huge” gaps in the UK's intelligence about Iraq's WMD programmes.

Sir William listed a series of briefings from between 2000 and 2002 which included major caveats, all of which were “flagged up” to ministers.

In April 2000 the picture was described as "limited to chemical weapons", in May 2001 the knowledge of WMD and ballistic missile programmes was "patchy", in March 2002 the intelligence was "sporadic and patchy".

In August 2002 a briefing noted that "we know very little" about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons work since late 1998, when weapons inspectors were ejected, and in September 2002 the intelligence "remained limited".

Sir William said: "The biggest gap in all of that, and one which ministers were extremely well aware of and used extensively, was the lack of interviews with scientists."

He added that both Foreign Secretaries in this period received regular briefings.

"I certainly never felt either with Robin Cook or with Jack Straw that they didn't understand the picture that was being given to them on intelligence," he said.

The inquiry was told that Iraq was ranked by the Foreign Office as only the fourth most dangerous of rogue states trying to develop weapons of mass destruction in 2001.

Iran, North Korea and Libya were of greater concern to officials, who were confident that weapons inspections during the 1990s had dismantled Iraq’s nuclear capability.

Strict sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein made it virtually impossible for him to re-start his nuclear programme, the inquiry heard, and even if sanctions were lifted it was likely to take five years before Iraq could build a nuclear weapon.

Sir William said: "In terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq."

Tim Dowse, head of counter-proliferation at the Foreign Office from 2001 to 2003, said: "It wasn't top of the list. In 2001 and early 2002 I was probably devoting more of my time to Iran, Libya and (the rogue nuclear scientist) A Q Khan than I was to Iraq.

“The main effort in Iraq was to get smart sanctions and an agreed review list of what Iraq could import.

On the second day of the inquiry at the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre in Westminster, Mr Dowse said: “We regarded the effect of WMD weapons inspectors until 1998 as effectively disarming Iraq.

“In terms of nuclear we were pretty confident that the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) did succeed in dismantling such a capability. With chemical weapons and biological weapons we were less confident. We thought that Iraq was still pursuing chemical and biological activities.”

One of the arguments used by the Government to justify the war in Iraq was that WMDs could fall into the hands of terrorists, but Mr Dowse said that, while Saddam Hussein had supported Palestinian terrorist groups, the assessment was that the Iraqi regime's contacts with groups linked to al Qaeda were "quite sporadic".

"There had been nothing that looked like a relationship between the Iraqis and al Qaeda," he said.

"In fact, after 9/11 we concluded that Iraq actually stepped further back. They did not want to be associated with al Qaeda. They weren't natural allies."

The two civil servants were also asked about the notorious claim - contained in the so-called “dodgy dossier” published by the Government before the invasion - that Iraq had WMDs which could be used within 45 minutes.

Mr Dowse said he had not placed any great significance on the 45-minute claim at the time, as he assumed it to refer to battlefield weapons, rather than inter-state missiles.

He said: “When I saw the report I didn’t give it any particular significance because it didn’t seem out of line with what we generally assessed to be Iraq’s capability in terms of weapons.

“I assumed it was referring to multi-barrelled rocket launchers that could be rapidly deployed in a battlefield. It subsequently took on a rather iconic status that I didn’t think those of us who saw the initial report gave it.”

Asked about suggestions that the 45-minute claim referred to WMDs which could be used by Iraq to strike another nation, Mr Dowse said: "I don't think we ever said that it was for use in a ballistic missile in that way."

Inquiry panel member Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman pointed out: "But you didn't say it wasn't."

[Philip]

Bush and Bliar's "blood pact"!

"Iraq inquiry: deal might have been ‘signed in blood’ by Blair and Bush in 2002
Tony Blair and George Bush might have “signed in blood” their agreement to topple Saddam Hussein a year before the Iraq war, according to Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain’s former ambassador to Washington.

By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
Published: 12:43PM GMT 26 Nov 2009

Sir Christopher Meyer told the Iraq Inquiry that the two men spent an afternoon meeting in private at the former president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, which appeared to lead to a shift in the then Prime Minister’s stance on Iraq.

Sir Christopher said: “I took no part in any of the discussions and there was a large chunk of that time when no adviser was there.

Related Articles
Iraq inquiry: Texas meeting was a 'turning point'
Blair needed WMD to get the UN's backing
Iraq inquiry: WMD had been dismantled

“The two men were alone in the ranch so I’m not entirely clear to this day what degree of convergence (on Iraq policy) was signed in blood, if you like, at the Crawford ranch.

“But there are clues in the speech Tony Blair gave the next day, which was the first time he had said in public ‘regime change’. He was trying to draw the lessons of 9/11 and apply them to the situation in Iraq which led - I think not inadvertently but deliberately - to a conflation of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

“When I read that I thought ‘this represents a tightening of the UK/US alliance and a degree of convergence on the danger Saddam Hussein presented’.”

Sir Christopher, who was Britain's ambassador to the US between 1997 and 2003, was called to give evidence about the changing nature of British and American policy towards Iraq in the two years before the invasion of March 2003.

Before the September 11 attacks on the US, Iraq was a low priority for the Bush administration, which was already “running out of steam”, said Sir Christopher.

But the terrorist attacks immediately elevated Iraq towards the top of the US agenda.

“On 9/11 itself in the course of the day I had a telephone conversation with (then national security adviser) Condoleezza Rice and I said ‘who do you think did it?’ She said: ‘There’s no doubt it was an Al-Qaeda operation.’ At the end of the conversation she said: ‘We’re just looking at the possibility that there could be any link to Saddam Hussein.’

“That little reference to him, by the following weekend, turned into a big debate between Bush and his advisers.”

Sir Christopher said hardliners in the Bush administration became increasingly convinced that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda, largely because of intelligence which proved to be wrong.

He said: “Paul Wolfowitz (then US deputy defence secretary) was quite convinced that there was a strong connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. There was a constant reference to the fact that Mohammed Atta (one of the 9/11 hijackers) had met Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague. That wasn’t true, but you couldn’t dig it out of the bloodstream of certain members of the US administration.

“There was another idea that there was an Al-Qaeda camp on the Iraqi border where Saddam would allow them to do things. That wasn’t true either.”

Sir Christopher said the US Department of Defense became so “irritated” by the CIA’s “bias” against this incorrect intelligence that a “rival and replacement” in-house intelligence unit was set up by the White House.

The former ambassador said that when he first met President Bush in 1999, before he was elected, Mr Bush told him: “I don’t know much about foreign policy. I’m going to have to learn pretty damn fast. I’m going to have to surround myself with good people.”

Sir Christopher said Mr Bush’s key advisers at the time – known as the Vulcans – included Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz.

Mr Bush and Mr Blair immediately struck up a good relationship when they first met in 2001, said Sir Christopher, and during subsequent international conferences “Condoleezza Rice once said to me that the only human being (Bush) felt he could talk to was Tony, and the rest were creatures from outer space”.

Sir Christopher said Tony Blair’s speech immediately after 9/11, in which he promised to support America in its hour of need, “sealed Tony Blair’s reputation in America, which remains sealed to this day”.

“Wherever you went, people would rise to their feet and give you a warming round of applause. You had to be careful not to be swept away by this stuff.”

Sir Christopher said Mr Blair’s decision to support the US invasion was not “as poodle-ish” as has been suggested by critics, as he was “a true believer about the wickedness of Saddam Hussein” as early as 1998.

After Tony Blair came out in support of regime change in April 2002, Britain hoped Saddam could be removed by a combination of diplomatic pressure and the threat of force, which Mr Blair hoped would lead to Saddam either stepping down or being toppled by an internal coup.

But after President Bush set out a timetable for an invasion, the shortage of time meant that “instead of Saddam proving his innocence we had to prove his guilt by finding a smoking gun. We have never really recovered from that because there was no smoking gun”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -2002.html

[Philip]

Iraq invasion illegal-Inquiry told!

Iraq inquiry: war ‘not legitimate’, Sir Jeremy Greenstock tells inquiry
The Iraq war was not “legitimate” because Britain and the US failed to win international support for the 2003 invasion, Sir Jeremy Greenstock has told the official inquiry into the war.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... quiry.html

[arun]

:

Fellow Iraqi turns tables on Bush shoe-thrower

Tue Dec 1, 2009 5:05pm EST

PARIS, Dec 1 (Reuters) - An Iraqi reporter imprisoned for throwing his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush found himself on the receiving end of a similar footwear attack in Paris on Tuesday.

Muntazer al-Zaidi, whose flare-up against Bush last December turned into a symbol of Iraqi anger, was speaking at a news conference to promote his campaign for victims of the war in Iraq when a man in the audience hurled a shoe at him.

It hit the wall next to his head and a scuffle ensued in the audience, television footage showed.

French media said the attacker was an exiled Iraqi journalist who spoke in defence of U.S. policy, accusing Zaidi of siding with a dictatorship, before throwing his shoe. .......................

rEUTERS

[abhishek_sharma]

In this article, Stephen Walt argues that Muslim rage against the West is not entirely unjustified:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/200 ... t_30_years

Couldn't find better thread for this link.

[Philip]

Was UK weapons expert Dr.Kelly murdered? Several doctors say that his death was not suicide and want the case reopened.Dr.Lelly was reportedly unconvinced about Saddam's WMDs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 34794.html

Doctors take legal action to demand Kelly inquest reopened

By Margaret Davis, Press Association
Saturday, 5 December 2009

Six doctors are taking legal action to demand that the inquest into the death of weapons expert David Kelly is reopened because there is not enough evidence to prove he committed suicide, it was disclosed today.

The Government scientist's death was investigated by Lord Hutton, who concluded that he bled to death as a result of a cut to his wrist and an overdose of painkillers.

But Michael Powers QC, a former assistant coroner, said the cuts would not have caused him to bleed to death and that there was only a normal dose of co-proxamol present in Dr Kelly's body.

He said that for a coroner to reach a verdict of suicide there must be evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that they intended to kill themselves.

Dr Powers, an expert in coroners' law, said: "Suicide cannot be presumed it has to be proven. From the evidence that we have as to the circumstances of his death, in particular the aspect of haemorrhage, we do not believe that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he killed himself."

He said that there was not enough information to determine whether Dr Kelly was murdered or killed himself.

There was a rush to get an answer as to what had happened and the inquest should not have been left to Lord Hutton, who is not a coroner, Dr Powers said.


He went on: "There are many times in political life that the country needs to have an answer and the desire to have an answer overwhelms the desire to get the right answer. There is that pressure to find a conclusion.

"I have no doubt that many of us when we read about this thought that he had killed himself. But you cannot be certain.

"Everyone's death is significant. This death had a significance which was greater and I feel that the process of the investigation of death ought to have been a thorough one. That was not provided for him."

The other five experts involved are trauma surgeon David Halpin, epidemiologist Andrew Rouse, surgeon Martin Birnstingl, radiologist Stephen Frost, and Chris Burns-Cox who specialises in internal general medicine.

They have instructed solicitors Leigh Day and Co, who are expected to approach the Attorney General Baroness Scotland to try to get the matter considered by the High Court.

Dr Kelly had some signs of heart disease which was not bad enough to have killed him, and it was never made public how much blood he had actually lost, Dr Powers said.

Although there was very little co-proxamol in his body, three packets of ten were found nearby with just one pill left.

An ulnar artery in Dr Kelly's left wrist had been cut, but this would not have caused him to bleed to death, Dr Powers said.

"Any doctor, any medical student will tell you that if you want to kill yourself by haemorrhage that is not the way to do it. Kelly was not silly," he added.

[Philip]

Another savage day for Baghdad.The legacy of the US led invasion,built upon a tissue of flasehoods, keeps on wounding the country deeply still.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/de ... explosions

More than 100 killed in Baghdad explosionsBombs go off in quick succession across Iraqi capital, wounding more than 190 people

Mark Tran and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 December 2009 11.55 GMT

Aftermath of the bomb attacks in Baghdad
Iraq today suffered one of its worst days of violence this year as insurgents struck government buildings in Baghdad, killing at least 112 people and injuring up to 197.

The explosions happened within minutes of each other, with police saying there could have been as many as four or five. Insurgents, who included suicide bombers, detonated powerful explosives near the labour ministry building, a court complex near the Iraqi-protected Green Zone and the new site of the finance ministry after its previous building was destroyed in attacks in August.

An interior ministry official said at least 99 people were killed and 192 injured in those three assaults.

"We had entered a shop seconds before the blast, the ceiling caved in on us, and we lost consciousness. Then I heard screams and sirens all around," Mohammed Abdul Ridha, one of the 197 wounded in the blasts, told Reuters.

About an hour before those blasts, a suicide car bomber struck a police patrol in the mostly Sunni district of Dora in southern Baghdad, killing at least three police officers and one civilian, and injuring five people.

The explosions underlined the precarious nature of security in Baghdad ahead of an auction of oilfield contracts at the weekend and with elections due in February. Iraqi and US military officials fear that insurgents will step up their attacks to weaken the authority of Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, ahead of elections that are meant to showcase Iraq's return to political stability.

Although violence has declined sharply recently – the health ministry last month reported the lowest monthly death toll of civilians in six and a half years – insurgents continue to target Iraqi security forces and civilians.

Today's attacks are the deadliest in Baghad since late October, when at least 155 people died in car bomb attacks outside municipal offices.

That attack, and a similar bombing in August, marked a change of tactics. Rather than frequent small-scale attacks against soft targets, such as markets or mosques, insurgent groups have recently carried out far more spectacular and lethal attacks against heavily defended government buildings.

Iraqi authorities blamed the October attacks on loyalists to Saddam Hussein's banned Ba'athist party, and paraded on national television three suspects who gave what officials termed confessions. But there are questions over whether Iraqi leaders are seeking to divert attention from a possible resurgence of Sunni insurgency led by al-Qaida in Iraq. A rise in violence could undermine the government's claims that it can provide security without the help of US troops.

On Sunday, Iraqi MPs approved plans to hold parliamentary elections early next year, seen as an important step towards political reconciliation and easing the withdrawal of US troops. The vote, during an emergency session, followed marathon talks to break an impasse over balloting provisions that would satisfy the country's rival groups.

In an attack yesterday, at least eight people died in an explosion outside a primary school in a Shia district of Baghdad yesterday. Six children, aged between six and 12, were among the dead.

.....and this is simply hilarious if it were not for the monumentally tragic consequences posted above.

45-minute WMD claim 'came from an Iraqi taxi driver'Tory MP and defence specialist Adam Holloway says MI6 got information from a taxi driver who had heard Iraqi military commanders talking about weapons

Andrew Sparrow, senior political correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 December 2009

Jack Straw, the then-foreign secretary, opens the debate on war with Iraq in February 2003, as Tony Blair and John Prescott, then the prime minister and deputy prime minister respectively, look on. Photograph: PA

An Iraqi taxi driver was the source of the discredited claim that Saddam Hussein could unleash weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a Tory MP claimed today.

Adam Holloway, a defence specialist, said MI6 obtained the information indirectly from a taxi driver who had overheard two Iraqi military commanders talking about Saddam's weapons.

The 45-minute claim was a key feature of the dossier about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that was released by Tony Blair in September 2002. Blair published the information to bolster public support for war.

After the war the dossier became hugely controversial when it became clear that some of the information it contained was not true. An inquiry headed by Lord Butler into the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war revealed that MI6 had subsequently accepted that some of its Iraqi sources were unreliable, but his report did not identify who they were.

Today, in an interview with the Daily Mail, Holloway said the key piece of information about 45 minutes came from an Iraqi officer who was using a taxi driver as his own sub-source.

"[MI6] were running a senior Iraqi army officer who had a source of his own, a cab driver on the Iraqi-Jordanian border," said Holloway, a former Grenadier Guardsman and television journalist.

"He apparently overheard two Iraqi army officers two years before who had spoken about weapons with the range to hit targets elsewhere in the Middle East."

Holloway made his comments to coincide with the publication of a report he has written claiming that MI6 always had reservations about some of the information in the dossier but that these reservations were brushed aside when Downing Street was preparing it for publication.

According to the Mail, Holloway says in his report: "Under pressure from Downing Street to find anything to back up the WMD case, [MI6] were squeezing their agents in Iraq for anything at all.

"In the [MI6] analysts' footnote to their report, it flagged up that part of the report describing some missiles that the Iraqi government allegedly possessed was demonstrably untrue. The missiles verifiably did not exist.

"The footnote said it in black and white. Despite this the report was treated as reliable and went on to become one of the central planks of the dodgy dossier."

Holloway claims that MI6 was not to blame for the fact that the footnote was ignored. "It seems that someone, perhaps in Downing Street, found it rather inconvenient and ignored it lest it interfere with our reasons for going to war," his report says.

The report is due to be published on the first defence website.

Butler concluded that, although the claims in the Iraq dossier went to the "outer limits" of what the intelligence available at the time would sustain, there was no evidence of "deliberate distortion".

Today Sir John Scarlett, the key figure responsible for the preparation of the dossier, will give evidence to the Iraq inquiry. Scarlett was chairman of the joint intelligence committee at the time and he went on to become head of MI6.

He is expected to be asked about the dossier, although he is unlikely to provide detailed information about MI6 sources in public. The inquiry has said that, if witnesses want to discuss confidential issues relating to national security, they can do so in private.

The September dossier did not specify what weapons Iraq could deploy within 45 minutes. Intelligence officials subsequently revealed that it was meant to be a reference to battlefield weapons, not long-range missiles.

But, when it was published, some British papers interpreted the dossier as meaning that British troops based in Cyprus would be vulnerable to an Iraqi attack. At the time the government did not do anything to correct this error.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... axi-driver

[Philip]

More exposes from the Iraq Inquiry.

Blair claim on Iraq WMDs was overtly political, Scarlett tells inquiryFormer spy chief says it was not his place to change then PM's foreword to discredited intelligence dossier

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/0 ... lett-blair

[Philip]

Blair comes clean,admits that he would've invaded Iraq whatever the status of Saddam's WMD's.Earlier exposes showed that he had planned two eyars in advance to invade Iraq!

Tony Blair: Iraq War was right even if there were no WMDs
Tony Blair would have invaded Iraq even if he had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction in the country, he has admitted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -WMDs.html

[Philip]

Blair's "sycophancy" towards Bush and "subterfuge" saw him take Britain to war.

British involvement in Iraq war blamed on Blair’s ‘sycophancy’
Philip Webster, Political Editor

British soldiers were sent to their deaths in Iraq because of Tony Blair’s “sycophancy” towards Washington and the failure of the governing class to speak the truth, a former prosecutions chief says today.

The Chilcot Inquiry will be held in contempt if it does a “whitewash” by omitting to disclose details of a “foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions”, Sir Ken Macdonald, QC, Director of Public Prosecutions until last year, says in an article for The Times.

In perhaps the most serious charges levelled by a former public servant against an ex-Prime Minister, Sir Ken says Mr Blair engaged in an “alarming subterfuge” with George Bush, and then misled and cajoled the British people into a war they did not want.

Mr Blair’s fundamental flaw was his sycophancy towards those in power, he says. “Perhaps this seems odd in a man who drank so much of that mind-altering brew at home. But Washington turned his head and he couldn’t resist the stage or the glamour that it gave him.”

Related Links
Intoxicated by power, Blair tricked us into war
Blair ‘would have gone to war without Iraqi WMD’
Iraq 'in chaos' after US ignored Blair envoy

Mr Blair’s mantra that he did what he thought was right was a “narcissist’s defence” because self-belief was no answer to misjudgment and no answer to death.

In his most savage passage, Sir Ken, who was appointed in 2003 under the Blair government and practises at the same London Chambers as the former Prime Minister’s wife, writes that the heart-rending sacrifices made by British forces would become the stuff of poetry and song in future years. But none of that would sprinkle any starlight on Mr Blair. “On the contrary it is entirely the work of warriors cast carelessly into death’s way by a Prime Minister lost in self-aggrandisement and a governing class too closed to speak truth to power.”

Sir Ken’s intervention comes after Mr Blair’s declaration in a BBC interview that he would have favoured removing Saddam Hussein regardless of whether he had possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The inquiry yesterday insisted that Mr Blair would give evidence in public, after reports that he might not. A spokesman for the inquiry said: “Mr Blair will be appearing very much in public and will be questioned in detail on a wide range of issues.”

Sir Ken suggests that the inquiry’s performance so far has been generally unchallenging and he goes close to warning of an Establishment cover-up. “In British public life loyalty and service to power can sometimes count for more to insiders than any tricky questions of wider reputation. Disloyalty, on the other hand, means a terrible casting out.”

It was the privately arranged nature of British Establishment power that had brought politics so low. “If Chilcot fails to reveal truth without fear in this Middle Eastern story of violence and destruction, the inquiry will be held in deserved and withering contempt.”

Mr Blair secured support from the Commons for the Iraq war largely on the ground that it was needed to remove weapons of mass destruction.

Bob Ainsworth, Defence Secretary, who was deputy chief whip at the time of the vote in March 2003, said yesterday: “I supported the war in Iraq based on the arguments that were put at the time and a big part was — and I firmly believed that they existed — the existence of WMD.” Asked if he was surprised by Mr Blair’s remarks, Mr Ainsworth replied: “A little bit.”

Mr Blair refused to comment.

[rohiths]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/world ... lobal-home

BAGHDAD — A series of car bombs exploded in central Baghdad on Tuesday morning near the Green Zone, government ministries and the Iranian Embassy, killing four people and wounding at least 14 others, Iraqi police officials said.

[Philip]

More chicanery and falsehood emerging out of the Inquiry.

Excerpt:

Exclusive: Scarlett accused of misleading inquiry

Former MoD expert contradicts claim that Iraq evidence was reliable

By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent

Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee at the time of the invasion, gives his evidence to the inquiry

Britain's former spy chief has misled the Iraq inquiry by exaggerating the reliability of crucial claims about Saddam Hussein's ability to launch weapons of mass destruction, according to the leading Ministry of Defence expert who assessed the intelligence behind the decision to go to war.

Sir John Scarlett, who was responsible for drafting the Government's controversial 2002 dossier outlining the case for invading Iraq, claimed last week that intelligence indicating Iraq possessed missiles that could be launched within 45 minutes was "reliable and authoritative". But Scarlett's evidence is contradicted by the most senior WMD analyst who saw the original intelligence. Brian Jones said that it was vague, inconclusive and unreliable.

Dr Jones, who was head of the nuclear, chemical and biological branch of the Defence Intelligence Staff in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, told The Independent that it was "absolutely clear" that the intelligence the Government relied upon was coming from untried sources. The 45-minute claim was one of the key assertions that convinced MPs to take Britain to war.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 41968.html

[Philip]

The buck stops with Blair,as the Iraq inquiry is fast resembling a trial of Blair.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 44259.html

Witnesses for the prosecution: how Blair is suffering trial by Chilcot

As the Iraq inquiry pauses for the Christmas break, Michael Savage reviews the growing evidence against the former PM

Friday, 18 December 2009
Tony Blair meets British troops at an Army base in Basra in December 2004. The former Prime Minister's role in the war has come under scrutiny

It has made a steady stream of diplomats, army generals and senior mandarins rake over their role in one of the most disputed foreign policy decisions in modern British history, while its proceedings have attracted controversy over soft questioning, misleading witnesses and missing evidence.

Yet, as its first four weeks of public hearings draws to a close, Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the decision to invade Iraq has already exposed a string of failings within the British Government during the 70 hours of testimony given by the 38 witnesses that have appeared so far. One theme has emerged above all others.

"This time, in contrast to previous inquiries, where it becomes essential, they are prepared to leave Blair in the firing line," said Brian Jones, a former Ministry of Defence intelligence analyst. It is not just disgruntled civil servants or under-resourced military chiefs hitting back, either. Even former advisers have left the inquiry ensuring that Mr Blair has more awkward questions to answer.

While the former head of MI6, Sir John Scarlett, told the committee that Mr Blair had been made aware of last-minute intelligence that Saddam Hussein's weapons had been dismantled, his personal adviser also weighed in this week. Sir John Sawers, foreign affairs adviser to the former Prime Minister, said he did not share Mr Blair's confidence that invading had been the right decision. "Frankly, had we known the scale of the violence, it might well have led to second thoughts about the entire project," he said. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who served as a special representative in Baghdad, added that Mr Blair had told him to make improving the media image of the situation in Iraq a priority, and accused him of giving him an unrealistic target for training Iraqi police.

Cut out by the US

Though Mr Blair has been left exposed by his decision to back the US-led invasion, the early weeks of the inquiry have laid bare that both he and his Government were given precious little influence in return. Sir Christopher Meyer, the former ambassador in Washington, said Britain had gained almost nothing, save for the "applause factor" it garnered Mr Blair and British diplomats. "It is wonderful stuff being applauded wherever you go," he said. "I said to London, 'The key thing now, quite apart from Iraq, is to translate this popularity into real achievements'. We failed."

When it came to tackling the aftermath of the invasion, British officials were cut out of the loop. Sir Jeremy, who arrived in Baghdad in 2003, was blocked from becoming a deputy administrator in Iraq because Washington wanted to hold on to the decision-making. Paul Bremer, the US administrator of post-invasion Iraq, vetoed Sir Jeremy's appointment.

Catastrophic lack of planning

The failure by the US to plan for the aftermath of the war meant the growing insurgency became unmanageable. Mr Blair himself realised that the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), set up by the US to oversee the reconstruction effort, was "a shambles". But others have revealed there were also failures much closer to home.

Major General Tim Cross said the British Government failed in their own planning, leaving him isolated in the ORHA. Lt Gen Sir Robert Fry, deputy commander of the coalition forces after the invasion, said there was a "disappointing degree of traction" in Government planning. He painted a picture of a Cabinet split on the Iraq invasion paralysing decision-making. "Neither the nation nor Parliament, nor even the Cabinet were unified on the war," he said. Gordon Brown was also fingered for failing to provide the funds needed to cope with the worsening security situation in Basra, where British troops were based.

The missing questions

questions remain about Iraq's weaponry and the identity of the source of the claims about missile stockpiles and the 45-minute timeframe. It is possible much of the intelligence relied upon to make the case for war was handed to the intelligence services by reliable sources, who were repeating the information second-hand. This is something the inquiry will be under pressure to reveal. The extent to which the Treasury withheld funds for the reconstruction effort has also become an important issue. As for Mr Blair, answers are needed on when he decided to back the war.

The inquiry committee has been criticised for its lack of rigour, but interested onlookers are hoping to be proved wrong. "Maybe everyone is being lulled into a false sense of not expecting much and they will come up with something rather more," Dr Jones said. "I hope so."

Five questions that Blair needs to answer

* When did he decide that he would back the US in any military action? Was it as early as his meeting with President Bush in April 2002?

* Does he accept that his foreword to the September 2002 dossier, which said that Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD was "beyond doubt", was overstated?

* Why did he appear to throw away the influence he had over President Bush as his main ally in the war?

* Why did he not delay the invasion after the warning from Maj Gen Tim Cross, two days before the invasion, that post-war planning wasn't ready?

* Did he receive any intelligence that contradicted his claims in the 2002 September dossier on Iraq's WMD? It's alleged that he did in March 2003.

[Philip]

The skeletons of the Iraq War are fast tumbling out of the cupboard both in Britain and in Holland.In both countries it is now obvious that the decision to invade was made a long time before the so-called threat from Saddam's (non-existant) WMDs was anno8nced.The entire rationale for going to war was based upon grand lies and chicanery of the worst order that makes the Nazis falsehoods look like the work of errant boy scouts.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 984753.ece

Dutch PM clings on as inquiry finds invasion had no mandate
(Marcel Antonisse/EPA)
Willibrord Davids presents the report to the Dutch Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende

David Charter, Europe Correspondent

The Dutch Prime Minister insisted yesterday that he acted honourably in supporting the Iraq war despite the verdict of an independent inquiry that the invasion had no mandate under international law.

In a devastating rejection of the position of the Dutch Government, the inquiry, led by the former head of the Netherlands Supreme Court, decided that the UN resolutions did not provide a legal basis for the use of force.

Like the US and British governments, Jan Peter Balkenende relied on UN Resolution 1441 of November 2002 as the legal basis for supporting the Iraq war. This resolution threatened serious consequences if Saddam Hussein did not fully comply with his obligations to disarm.

However, the Davids commission in the Netherlands concluded in its 551-page report: “Despite the existence of certain ambiguities, the wording of Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council’s resolutions without authorisation from the Security Council.”

Related Links
Now Hoon savages PM over Afghan war
Live: Alastair Campbell at the Iraq Inquiry
Forces chief faces calls to stand down early
Davids Commission Conclusions

Mr Balkenende rejected calls to resign last night and said that he disagreed with the commission. “The Cabinet’s view has always been that a new Security Council resolution [authorising the invasion] was desirable but not necessary,” he said.

Dutch ministers were further criticised by the commission, which sat for ten months, for using intelligence from Britain and the US that showed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, rather than the “more nuanced” assessment of its own secret services.

The inquiry, which was ordered by Mr Balkenende in February after six years of pressure, cleared his Government of providing active military support to the invasion of March 2003.

It said that it could find no evidence to support rumours that Dutch special forces had helped the US-led attack on Iraq, a claim that has been repeatedly denied by Mr Balkenende, whose Government gave political but not military support to the invasion.

Allard de Rooi, of Transparency about Iraq, said: “I cannot imagine a world in which the Prime Minister of a Western country just ignores the verdict of senior judges in a inquiry which he ordered.

“He has got to resign. He is saying that there are two kinds of law — one for him and one for the rest of the world.”

[Philip]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 76388.html

Head of bomb detector company arrested in fraud investigation

Sounds familiar,like Karkare's "bulletproof jacket"

Government announces ban on export of devices to Iraq and Afghanistan

By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent
Saturday, 23 January 2010

Hundreds of people have been killed in horrific bombings in Iraq after a British company supplied "bogus" equipment which failed to detect explosive devices.

The head of the company, which has made tens of millions of pounds from the sale of the detectors, has now been arrested and the British Government has announced a ban on their export to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Related articles
Kim Sengupta: This is an act of terrible betrayal

But questions were being raised last night about why action had not been taken sooner on the supply of the detectors which leading weapons specialists had condemned months ago as "useless and dangerous". The equipment, which operates on a "dousing" principle and has no electronic components – was also sold to Pakistan, Lebanon and Jordan, all countries suffering deaths and injuries through terrorist bomb attacks.

Iraqi families who have suffered in the blasts last night condemned their own government as well as the British authorities for allowing the extraordinary security failure. Among the attacks that the detectors, it is claimed, had failed to prevent were suicide bombings in October last year which killed 155 people and blasts two months later which resulted in 120 more deaths.

Jim McCormick, a 53-year-old former police officer, was arrested by Avon and Somerset police on Thursday after Chief Constable Colin Port ordered an investigation. The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has also ordered an inquiry into the purchase of 1,500 of the ADE 651 detectors by his officials who paid £45,000 apiece for the equipment when they were on sale elsewhere for about £15,000 each.

Last night it was announced that Lord Mandelson had asked the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ban the export of the ADE 651 device to Iraq and Afghanistan. In a statement the department said: "The reason the ban is limited to these two countries is that our legal power to control these goods is based on the risk that they could cause harm to UK and other friendly forces. The British embassy in Baghdad has raised our concerns about the ADE 651 with the Iraqi authorities. We have offered co-operation with any investigation they may wish to make into how the device came to be bought for their military as bomb detection equipment."

Mr McCormick, who served with Merseyside police before becoming managing director of the company ATSC, said that his "highly successful" ADE series was based on a similar principle to dowsing – the belief that certain types of woods can detect water underground.

He claimed recently: "We have been dealing with doubters for 10 years. One of the problems we have is that the machine does look a little primitive. We are working on a new model that has flashing lights."

Avon and Somerset police said Mr Port became aware of the problem through his role as the chairman of the International Police Assistance Board. A spokesman stated: "We are conducting a criminal investigation and as part of that a 53-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of fraud by misrepresentation. That man has been released on bail pending further inquiries. The force became aware of the existence of a piece of equipment around which there has been many concerns and in the interests of public safety launched its investigation. Given the obvious sensitivities around the matter ... we cannot discuss it any further at the moment."

The "bomb detector", a small hand-held wand, with a telescopic aerial on a swivel, is used in dozens of checkpoints in Iraqi cities including Baghdad. It is claimed that it had failed to detect two tonnes of explosives used by suicide bombers to murder 155 people and destroy three ministries in October last year. There was a similar alleged shortcoming when 120 people were killed in another series of bombings in December.

ATSC's sales literature claims that the device can detect minute quantities of explosives from 1km away on land and up to 3km away from the air. Mr McCormick had held that a "card reader" in the device can detect anything "from explosives to elephants".

However Sidney Alford, a leading explosives expert, who has advised the UK and US military, told the BBC's Newsnight programme that an examination of the card showed it had "nothing to do with detection of TNT. There is no microprocessor, there is no digital memory, there is no way to store any information... This is a very cheap tag which I would estimate would cost about two or three pence." Mr Alford added that he was "horrified" that the device had been exported from the UK. "It could result in people being killed in the dozens, if not hundreds."

Major General Richard J Rowe, of the US army, who oversees the training of Iraqi police in Baghdad, stressed that the American forces did not use the ADE 651. He said: "I don't believe there is a magic wand that can detect explosives. If there was, we would all be using it. I have no confidence that these work." The American professional magician James Randi has charged that the detectors were a "blatant fraud" and offered Mr McCormick $1m if he could prove that they work.

However the device has some defenders in Iraq. Major General Jihad al-Jabiri, the head of the Interior Ministry's directorate for combat explosives, said: "Whether it's magic or scientific, what I care about is detecting bombs. I don't care what they say. I know more about bombs than the Americans do. In fact, I know more about bombs than anyone in the world."

Iraqis who have suffered from bombings are angry at the "fiasco" surrounding the devices. Hakim al-Safi, a 48-year-old teacher whose son Haidar died in the October bombings, said: "I am angry. I do not know who I am angry with more, the people who made these stupid things and then made money or our government officials who paid so much money for these things which failed to protect us. And the British Government, did they not know what was being done from their land?"

[Philip]

BLIar learns nothing,regrets nothing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 83651.html

To gasps from the gallery, Blair said we should be proud of the war

Shouts of 'murderer' and 'liar' as the man who took us into Iraq states his case

By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor

Tony Blair gives evidence to the Chilcot inquiry yesterday

His voice was hoarse from six hours of questioning. But still he was unrepentant. To gasps of anger from grieving relatives Tony Blair used the final moments of his evidence to the Iraq war inquiry to justify leading Britain in one of the country's most divisive conflicts in its history.

Asked by the inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, whether he had any regrets, he replied: "Responsibility but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein. I think that he was a monster. I believe he threatened not just the region but the world. And in the circumstances that we faced then, but I think even if you look back now, it was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office."

Sir John appealed for calm as a heckler shouted: "What, no regrets? Come on!" His voice fading, Mr Blair insisted that Britain – especially its armed forces – should feel an "immense sense of pride" over the Iraq war.

Blair attacked over Iran stance
Tony Blair and his oh-so-clean conscience
Leading article: Unrepentant and assured, Mr Blair sees nothing to learn
Simon Carr: 'Secret' note makes mockery of evidence
Into the valley of death, then back to the safety of home
A six-hour defence of his fateful decision
The irresistible pull of a fading star enjoying his comeback show
Persuasive he may be, but devil lurks in the detail he ignored

He added: "I had to take this decision as Prime Minister. It was a huge responsibility and there is not a single day that passes by that I don't reflect and think about that responsibility." He insisted that the war, which cost the lives of 179 British soldiers, was justified despite the failure to uncover any weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Blair even predicted that Western leaders might be forced to invade Iran, as it presents as serious a threat today as Iraq did under the rule of the "profoundly wicked, almost psychopathic" Saddam seven years ago.

The former prime minister closed his long-awaited appearance before the Chilcot inquiry by arguing that the world was a safer place following the war. Members of the audience, who included the families of dead servicemen and women, yelled "murderer" and "liar" at him, while several were led out of the hearing in tears.

Mr Blair admitted making mistakes in preparing for the aftermath of the invasion and in presenting the case for war. But he was otherwise unrepentant about joining the US-led military action in March 2003, making plain he was preparing to send British troops into Iraq long before the invasion began. Although weapons of mass destruction were never uncovered in Iraq, Mr Blair argued that Saddam "retained absolutely the intent and the intellectual know-how to restart a nuclear and a chemical weapons programme". He repeatedly singled out Iran as he warned the current generation of world leaders that they face a similar dilemma today, adding that his fears at the time – that failed or highly repressive states with WMD "become porous, they construct all sorts of different alliances with people" – were even stronger now "as a result of what Iran particularly is doing".

Police mounted a massive security operaton outside the QEII Conference Centre in Westminster as Mr Blair was smuggled in through a rear entrance to give evidence. Before the cross-examination began, Sir John Chilcot, appealed to members of the audience not to heckle Mr Blair – and warned his witness to be truthful.

Once the questioning began, the former prime minister fiercely denied misleading the country in the count-down to war. He said: "This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It's [about] a decision."

Mr Blair dismissed claims by Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington, that he had secretly committed to join an invasion when he met George Bush at the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002 – almost 11 months before the war began. He insisted that he had said nothing in private that he was not saying in public – adding that Sir Christopher was not at the meeting.

Mr Blair said that during the meeting he was still pressing – despite US scepticism – for a fresh attempt to bring Saddam to heel though the United Nations. But when asked what message he believed Mr Bush took from the talks, he said: "Exactly what he should have taken – if it came to military action because there was no way of dealing with this diplomatically, we would be with him."

Mr Blair told the inquiry he believed the "calculus of risk" posed by rogue states changed completely following the attacks of 11 September 2001. Before then the international community had relied on a "hoping for the best" strategy of containing Saddam Hussein through targeted sanctions and enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq. But he admitted that it was the "risk calculation" that had altered since 9/11, rather than the intelligence about WMDs.

Apparently contradicting assertions at the time about the "growing" threat from Saddam, Mr Blair said: "It wasn't that objectively [Saddam] had done more ... It was that our perception of the risk had shifted."

Later Mr Blair said he stood by his use of the word "growing" in the September 2002 dossier making the case for war, pointing to claims (that were subsequently disproved) that Saddam had mobile units for unleashing biological weapons. Mr Blair, who said the dossier was regarded as "somewhat dull and cautious at the time", also maintained he was right to assert in the document that it was "beyond doubt" that Saddam had developed WMDs. Mr Blair told the inquiry: "I did believe it. I did believe, frankly, beyond doubt."

Mr Blair did acknowledge that the Government should have made clear that the notorious claim Saddam could launch weapons within 45 minutes referred to battlefield munitions rather than long-range missiles.

He said newspaper reports focusing on the 45-minute claim should have been corrected. But in a reference to the battle between the Government and the BBC over the claim, and the death of weapons scientist David Kelly, he said the issue took on a "far greater significance" in the light of later events.

He admitted that the coalition made two crucial mistakes in planning for the aftermath of the invasion – not catering for "the absence of properly functioning civil service structure" and that "people did not think Iran and al-Qa'ida would play they role [in Iraq] that they did".

He did strike a note of contrition, saying he was wrong to suggest in a recent interview with Fern Britton that he supported regime change regardless of whether Saddam had WMDs.

The protests: ‘Lies, deceit, evasion’

Murderer, liar, war criminal, coward. Few attendees of a public hearing can have been met with such naked fury, but these were the words which greeted Tony Blair as he arrived at the Chilcot Inquiry yesterday.

As the former prime minister slipped quietly through a side entrance of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in Westminster, a crowd of 200 anti-war protesters chanted: "Blair lied, thousands died." Yesterday, their numbers diminished from the two million who marched in protest before the Iraq invasion, but they made their voices heard.

"He does not have the integrity to come and face the people. Sliding in by a back door entrance is typical of his lies, deceit and evasion," said Lindsey German, convener of the Stop The War Coalition.

Campaigners bearing placards calling for the prosecution of "Westminster War Criminals" and sporting "Jail Tony" T-shirts mingled with a fancy-dress parade of wig-clad "judges" carrying the pictures of dead Iraqi children.

But amid the circus, a sombre, dignified note was struck as campaigners solemnly read out the names of soldiers who had died in the conflict, while the families of some listened silently in the drizzle.

Inside the inquiry, families watched uncomfortably as the man they blame for their relatives' deaths spoke. One father walked out, proclaiming it was a "complete waste of time". Theresa Evans, whose 24-year-old son Llywelyn was among the first to die in the invasion in a helicopter crash, said: "I would simply like Tony Blair to look me in the eyes and say he was sorry. Instead he is in there smirking."

Others heckled Mr Blair as he finished his evidence. One of the audience shouted, "You're a liar" to which a second added, "and a murderer".

In the final twist, Grace McCann was held back by police as she attempted to perform a citizen's arrest on Mr Blair on his way out of the building. Inspired by a website, arrestblair.org, she insisted her actions were the only thing worthy of a "war criminal".

Terri Judd

[Philip]

content deleted - copyright