Iraq war inquiry: Britain heard US drumbeat for invasion before 9/11

guilty

A beautifully drawn cartoon I don´t get. Senility (mine) must be getting younger.

The cartoon's message is simple. Sir John Chilcot will be sat on by Number 10, represented by Gordon's arse.

The only detail I don't get is the blue stripe.

Okay, the Inquiry logo has a lilac stripe. Bell's stripe is too prominent.

http://www.channel4.com/news/media/images/Channel4/news/articles/24_chilcot_g_k.jpg

This issue will NEVER rest until Blair is properly and absolutely freely cross examined by the best barristers in front of a competent judge.

There is a saying: better a bad peace than a good war. And everyone knows that it's easy to start a war but difficult to finish it.
The international community is very regrettable that the United States and Britain launched a war against Iraq. For the war the U.S. has the official reason. But there's George W. Bush and informal, about which many guessed.
George W. Bush is famous as a cunning politician, and, using this persuaded the Prime Minister Tony Blair's support in the UN to launch aggression against Iraq. Tony Blair has proved to be naive, trusting D. W. Bush about the threat to peace posed by Iraq. U.S. president assured of Tony Blair that his intelligence report that Iraq possesses the atomic bomb, but he has not been given any evidence. This is very sad that Mr Blair believed his word and pulled into this senseless war on his people, who trusted him.
Many now understand that D. Bush went to war against Saddam Hussein is not for this reason, and because of the hostile personal relations.
As you know, before the onset of these events, Saddam Hussein insulted George Bush senior. And probably younger Bush simply wanted revenge.
Also, the informal reason for going to war was that before the war, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, as the largest oil suppliers, were of different trade policy towards the U.S. and OPEC. Saddam was a very uncooperative partner for the United States, but a convenient partner for some European (France, Belgium, Italy), Russian and Chinese oil companies. These countries opposed the war.
However, the official reason for going to war was that the White House Administration held that in Iraq there is no democracy and that democracy there can be done with the bombing aircraft on residential homes. Tony Blair could save the world if Bush said that democracy is not in very many countries, and therefore will have to bomb and other states. To all, Condoleezza Rice pushed politicians, declaring that Saddam Hussein was a very long time sitting in the chair the president, and that should help the people of Iraq to remove him from this seat. Blair was aware that in many countries, presidents and monarchs, led by the country being relieved for several terms, and that the internal affairs of these countries.
Also, the official reason for the U.S. for the war was that Iraq started a war against Kuwait. In fact, putting Iraqi forces in Kuwait was provoked by the United States. As we know the U.S. ships were arrested, all Iraqi merchant ships under the guise that they were imposed in violation of the international embargo on Iraq through the Persian Gulf carry their loads. All Iraqi ships carrying food, have been arrested and locked up in Kuwaiti ports. At the repeated requests of the Iraqi government for the release of their ships, Kuwait denied them, citing the UN resolution on the embargo of Iraq. But this cargo was received by Iraq on the program: "oil for food". Thus, Saddam Hussein had the power to collect your goods from Kuwaiti ports. However, civilians and houses of Kuwait did not suffer.
The Criminal Code provides for the USSR was responsible for exceeding the limits of extreme necessity. Thus, one can assume that Prime Minister Tony Blair has exceeded the limits of extreme necessity, went to war against another state, then how can it be evaluating the situation to take other measures.
I think that the fault of Tony Blair is quite obvious, and would like to convey through your newspaper, Mr. John Chilcot, that the hope that it will conduct a thorough investigation and make a fair decision that would prove that the British democracy than any individuals, and that the United Kingdom not a double policy. It expects the world community and waiting for the decision.
In addition, I would like through your newspaper to invite Mr. John Chilcot to create international public tribunal in which to consider the violation of other politicians who have committed war crimes against the person.
Sincerely, Marlene.

All the dead,mutilated and dispossessed humans make this very much a crime against humanity.When will we stop these wars of aggression as there is no end to this job these warmongers are expediting.
The criminals are our leaders while our boys suffer fighting for a lie propping up the military-industrial complex.We are shown images of bombmakers in compounds making IED's while munitions fly of the shelves in our factories dealing a new curse with depleted uranium warheads.
Sanity and wisdom is sorely lacking in our civilization as we torture confessions from the lips of near dead Internees.Dealing death by predator and reaper drone in sunny far off climes.
History is littered with genocide dressed up as liberation for this or that reason by some elitist psychopath.You can turn off and watch TV and a great story will be told but it your heart you will know this to be true.
Peace love and light to all

Of course they planned it beforehand, who's surprised by that? When will the taxpayer wake up to the fact that terrorism is largely caused by the combination of the policies of #10 and the White-house, and opportunists like bin Laden who tap into it. The world is blighted by the numerous disastrous wars waged by the empire and its successors. When will the tax-payer take responsibility and when will they stop exploiting the rest of the world?

There are a few other reasons George Bush went to war--he thought it would be fun to be a "war president." His government was entirely beholden to the manufacturers of military hardware. His economy was in large part beholden to the manufacturers of military hardware (most of the rest of US industry has moved abroad).Having never experienced war, George W. Bush could not imagine or foresee the suffering involved, and anyway, he wasn't going to be the one to suffer. Dick Cheney wanted to go to war and Donald Rumsfeld wanted to try out his ideas about a smaller but nevertheless successful army. Oil Oil Oil. Everyone in Washington at the time viewed the all-volunteer army as a sort of privately owned mercenary force, to be used by corporate America for getting access to other people's resources. The army did not actually disagree with them. The army didn't know s*** about actually fighting the war. The US military has been infested with evangelical beliefs, who thought that killing a few Muslims would bring about the rapture all that much quicker, and be kind of fun, too. The war was fought by everyone at every level for specious, thoughtless, grandiose, self-centered, and evil reasons. Those who started it should be put in jail. Dick Cheney should be executed.

I think George Bush went to war (for oil or whatever) because he thought America's military might would carry all before it. And to begin with it did. Managing the peace never came into his calculations.

Tony Blair sucked up to this plan because he wanted to associated with a triumph which would augment his popularity and assure yet an other election success. He too never thought about the peace, nor of all those who would die or have their lives ruined.

If lying to the British people was the price he had to pay for this 'triumph' , I don't suppose he gave it a moments thought either. Lying is second nature to Mr. Blair.

Warning. Chilcot emphasised again that this isn't a trial and he isn't a judge.
The alarm bells are deafening. Get ready for another planned whitewash that will then be used forever more as the 'last word on the Iraq war'.
Even the promise of Blair having to answer questions about Iraq will fall flat when the time comes. Let's not forget that Blair is as slippery as a snake and with considerably less conscience. Even if they nail him to the floor he will still come out a free man grinning and claiming vindication for his murderous illegal war.

This will be a trial, all right. A trial of endurance.

However, look on the bright side. It will soon be the season to be jolly.

Visitors to the West End will have the opportunity to witness a carefully choreographed charade to compliment the pantomimes just up the road.

PeterNW1:

Thank you. Obvious really.

Another great cartoon Steve.

What I would like to know is, given the public outrage about this, why countless thousands of pounds (millions?) are being wasted on an enquiry?

If no one is guilty, surely they have nothing to fear? Why not use the normal courts system? Indeed, given the gravity of the situation, why not use the much vaunted Supreme court?

After all, the UK has an international reputation to uphold and would wouln't want to give the impression of a cover up, would we?

I wonder if Dave and his mates would do this any differently? Now there's a challenge...

I do like what Sir Peter Ricketts claims to have said to Straw at the time, when the US were trying to join imaginary dots between 9/11 and Saddam;

"It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam."

That sums it all up, really.

Is the blue stripe to symbolise the infuence of the Israelis Lobby in all of these wars? The article about the London based arms dealer that gave money to them not long ago maybe?

If any element of the British establishment is involved you can be sure that public enquiries will never deliver the whole truth, at least while any of the main players is still in business. It'll be buckets of whitewash all round. Next year, a third of a century too late, we will probably be finally and officially told the truth about Bloody Sunday. It's a truth that the dogs in the street have known since the day after the event but of course it could not be acknowledged until everybody who might be prosecuted, imprisoned, fired or disgraced is safely off the premises.

anybody called "sir" anything is compromised. what we need is an inquiry by a mister or ms and i suggest shami chakrabarti would be a good choice. oh damn, i see she's taken the queen's shilling as well (cbe). what's the bloody point, it's a waltz with the dead.

ACTUSREUS

A public inquiry is a modern form of a which hunt, it leads to nowhere and is designed to be a vengeful and public humiliation for some at monetary benefit to some others.

No-one testifies under oath, No Galloway to give a fuller narrative, No one on the panel has any credibility.

It's not a witch hunt - it's a whitewash.

"I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman."

There is always a hope (and it is really the only hope I have) that the inquiry asks the right people the right questions.

I have my strong opinion about the war. It's an opinion I will tell my kids as will many other around the country. And it is this that may be the only saving grace - that these people will never be lauded. Instead they will be hounded and ridiculed.

But I have to be open that I may...and this one hurts...be wrong as well. My deep seated bitterness to towards Blair and Bush overides any sense of objectivity - I fully admit to that. Which brings us back to the inquiry - to the people who are asked to attend - and the questions they are asked.

"sound good noises" to calm the voting masses are not justice!

Lobbycrats increasing the paranoia to indulge into nationalist armament industry support through long lasting war zones are psychopathic killers.

Neglecting one million of citizen saying clearly..NO...is..disdainful determinism, not a living democracy.

As long war is a speculative business,
let see who should be named with the politicians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

It will be a very British affair; we have been at it too long. Exporting our wars and coping with the white mans burden which is after all what Iraq was all about. No taking to the streets of London against the ensuing chaos in Afghanistan strangely?

Chilcot is too late and the outcome all too predictable,in that there won't be an outcome, fudge. Lets face it not enough people care anymore; if enough of us did in the first instance. The world has moved on and the chief protagonists are home and dry or indeed dead.

In any event Tony now has God on his side and George did from the outset.

I thought that browns massive arse was just a blue curtain until peternw1 pointed out what it was supposed to be.

Actusreus, this isn't a witch hunt, it's actually the exact opposite. In a witch hunt, an obviously innocent person is punished for a non existent crime; in an enquiry, obviously guilty people are not punished for a very real, very grave crime.

The number of dead as a consequence of the invasion of Iraq exceeds (even by the most conservative estimates) the number killed in the atomic explosions at Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.

That blood is on someone(s)' hands. This inquiry MUST identify them.

What a total waste of time, effort and money.

Everyone has made up their minds already. Can't see this changing them much.

I knew the invasion was on the cards from the very first day that Bush came into office. Every other speech he made he was banging on about Iraq and "weapons of mass destruction". Nothing new hear.

here

While the actual cause for the wars -Iraq and Afghanistan- are somewhat less clear it's generally acknowledged on the basis of those indisputable facts generally recognised that the execution was both illicit and excessively aggressive - we should therefore be in little doubt that this pseudo-legal inquiry cannot do other than seek to manipulate these facts, inevitably resulting in yet another huttonised charade. It obviously serves NuLab's interests to get this cynical exercise out of the way before a general election loses them the ability to control the proceedings and outcome.

Since this whole affair is also a hideous embarrassment to the Tories, as legislative parties to the launching of the illicit wars, be sure once this huttonisation process is concluded - should they gain office- they too will resist any attempt to set-up a further legal inquiry arguing that -in the absence of `substantial new evidence' which they will ensure doesn't emerge- there would be no justification since all relevant facts had been exhaustively considered by this inquiry in reaching its conclusion: therefore no one will be punished for what have been major crimes against humanity; while the wretches responsible, here and in America, can continue on their tawdry way, never held accountable for their heinous crimes. I think Steve Bell captures that scenario rather well. Appalling isn't it?

Another bulls-eye, Steve; it may be the last laugh we get as this sorry spectacle declines into farce.

Another bulls-eye, Steve; it may be the last laugh we get as this sorry spectacle declines into farce.

Great cartoon.

Who would have guessed that an arse could be so recognisable?

I hope this provincial theatre leads to the show moving on to the international stage at the Hague

The real shock for me came in May 2005. By then everybody knew that Blair and his cabinet had delberately lied and caused the subsequent misery and death BUT the brits still re-elected him.
Since then I have felt I live in an alien country and I cannot meet anybody who voted Labour then without feeling slightly sick.

Do the right thing and indict Bush and Blair for crimes against humanity. Until that happens justice is not served.

The EU in dodging Blair did the world a favour as we can only wonder what nation would next be on the hit list.

Almac2 Me too. When we marched with our kids in the biggest demonstration of public feeling in our history and they still went to war, I decided never to vote or take part in politics ever again. Waste of time. Democracy = oligarchy with icing round the edges. Chilcot is more of the same. Tony and his pals

Why is it being conducted in the smallest room in Britain? only 10' by 10', only eight journalists are allowed.

Top marks to Clegg and Cameron on PMQs.

I not that keen on Clegg but he certainly had a direct hit today.

Teflon Tony - nothing sticks to him.

Why do newspapers continue to support such a corrupt Goverment? Everbody associated with deceiving parliament and the country - should be tried for war crimes.

If there's one thing that will surely come out of this enquiry; it's going to be a profitable time for Crown, and Dulux, et al.

Why do newspapers continue to support such a corrupt Goverment?

not just support but remain compliant .

ideologically they want the same outcome. politically they want the power.

media lied as much as government .

boil them in the same pot.

Sorry, I would never have worked out that that was Brown's arse.It looks like a blue wall.Totally baffling at first.

If any of you don't really know why we went to war in Iraq, i suggest reading confessions of an economic hitman by John Perkins. If you want a commentary by the author, watch the zeitgeist addendum on youtube and go to about 20 mins in. (The first 20 mins give a good foundation of the capitalist/banking system so watch the whole thing).

There are 3 ideologies in this world. Capitalist, Communist and Islam.

Research all 3 (be careful about your sources with Islam)

Then join me in condemning the creation of the word Islamophobia. (Ever heard of Judaeaphobia or christiaophobia? No... Because the only real threat to the capitalist system is Islam, and who wants to live in peace and harmony anyway..)

Astafirullah!!!!

Islam is not Arab, and the Chinese are no longer communists. It's really all frightfully complicated, but the main thing to remember is this; there's no such thing as society.

The inquiry should be led by a parent of one of the soldiers who have have been killed in Iraq.

It is being led by a whitehall insider who is considered to have a safe pair of hands. No prizes for guessing what the outcome will be.

Great job Steve.