(9 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
Catching this, not much up yet, gives me a chance to catch up on the Brit Iraq War Inquiry, still ongoing.
First the Brits with theirs, next the Dutch and theirs and now some very prominent Aussie’s are calling for their own! Could the pressure start mounting on the Power that controlled the whole extremely failed policies of the previous decade? Time will tell but most residents of this country are apathetic and arrogant as to most everything especially baring their guilt and guilty in mass, as the The pitbull in lipstick said at the no American Flags tea gathering, “We don’t want to look back'”!
With all the questions that need to be answered, especially as to the growing lists of proof debunking much of what was stated in the lead up to and continued occupation of there’s one I never hear asked nor can find anything on, how much did it cost this country to buy the so called ‘coalition of nations’ that signed on their support to our countries leadership?! Especially the many who only sent a few military troops or most who sent none!
The Medical Association for Prevention of War has called for an independent inquiry into Australia’s involvement in the Iraq War.
MAPW president Dr Bill Williams said: “It’s time to quiz the men and women who sent Australians to war in Iraq. Let us scrutinise their reasons. Were they valid? Was our intelligence accurate? Was our participation legal? >>>>>
February 05, 2010
Does Australia need its own commission of inquiry into its decision to invade Iraq? >>>>>
That’s it so far on hopefully a growing Australian story and better yet their own Inquiry, but we can help these doctors and the Australians in support of their call!
Now to catch up on the British Inquiry, since my last.
The Listening Post – Media coverage of the UK’s Iraq war inquiry – Part 1
2 February 2010 Former international development secretary Clare Short accuses Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, of misleading the Cabinet over the legality of the Iraq war. Katie Razzall reports.
4 February 2010 BLAIR lied over Iraq. The four words you’d think would dominate any inquiry into the war.
But amidst all the soft-soaping and issue-dodging, it came down to one brave woman to say them. Clare Short.
Her ovation from the gallery was well deserved.
But it will be scant consolation for a career lost because there’s no room for principles in our politics any more. >>>>>
6 February 2010 Clare Short believes she was right not to resign sooner over Iraq: ‘If I’d wanted to be popular, I just would have gone’. Photograph: Eamonn McCabe
Clare Short’s failure to resign before the Iraq war drew criticism. This week, she was applauded after giving evidence at the Chilcot inquiry. Now about to leave parliament after 27 years, does she have any regrets?
For once, the timing couldn’t have been better. It wasn’t just, as Clare Short points out, that the Chilcot inquiry gave her a full three hours, “so I could say the whole thing”; it was also that she’s standing down at the next election, and “it felt really good to go out and sit there and say my piece, put it on the record,” before she leaves. >>>>>
Not Holding Leaders Responsible
One reason the U.S. is continuously at war is that its leaders “are never held to any criminal responsibility for their actions,” a law school dean writes.
The U.S. hanged World War II German and Japanese war criminals “but no American leaders are held to criminal responsibility by America, no matter how dastardly their conduct,” writes Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.
“And we of course will not let any other country or body hold them to criminal responsibility for horrendous conduct,” writes Velvel, in his school’s “Long Term View” magazine. Indeed, he noted the President George W. Bush “with unaccustomed foresight refused to let America support and ‘participate’ in the International Criminal Court lest Americans be triable for their actions.” >>>>>
5 February 2010 More Dostoevsky please! Rowan Williams says ex-PM needs more soul-searching after evidence to Iraq war inquiry
The archbishop of Canterbury has renewed his criticism of Tony Blair by urging the former prime minister to recognise his “absurdity” in the wake of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war – and suggesting he read more Dostoevsky.
Repeating a previous quip that Blair is “very strong on God, very weak on irony”, Rowan Williams said the former prime minister had perhaps not done enough soul-searching. >>>>>
Tony Blair asked “the 2010 question” at the Iraq War Inquiry: where would we be if we hadn’t invaded in 2003? His self-appointed apologist Richard Madeley claims that no one has answered the question. Well, let’s try.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian victims of war would not be dead, two million would not be refugees in Jordan and Syria. 179 British servicemen would be alive. Untold billions of taxpayers’ money would have been spent on the NHS or schools.
There may be a downside. Tony Blair could still be Prime Minister, with Richard Madeley his yapping Pekingese in Downing Street. But you can’t have everything. >>>>>
A few more points are made in the above.
5 February 2010 If there is any hint of whitewash in the Iraq inquiry, it will only exacerbate an already inflamed situation
As we watch the unfolding drama of the Chilcot inquiry, we should be aware that this is not simply an act of domestic cleansing. Whatever the implications for our political and judicial institutions, it is crucial that the British people learn how we came to go to war. But Muslims are also waiting for the outcome of the investigation, and this makes the inquiry an opportunity that we can ill afford to lose. >>>>>
The above is the reason the United States Must hold their own Inquiry but better yet hearings leading to possible indictments, for we have caused the hatreds to grow and shown exactly what others once only used as their propaganda towards us proving it wasn’t propaganda but truth. It would minimize the blowback that continues and will for the coming decades, especially in those just born or not born yet having not grown up, this past decades within the death and destruction wrought, as we try to become what we say and think we are!
Last September I testified before the Dutch inquiry, which was equivalent to the Chilcot inquiry. I believe only two foreigners testified, Hans Blix and myself. I was grilled for about three hours. It had seven members, four of whom were legally qualified. They were extremely knowledgeable and well organised. That inquiry was presided over by a former chief justice of the Dutch supreme court, a respected authority.
They certainly knew how to ask questions. It was a stark contrast to the kind of questioning from the Chilcot inquiry, perhaps with the exception of Sir Roderic Lyne. It’s true, the composition doesn’t look ideal when you look at background and identities. But you learn to keep an open mind on these things, and the proof will be in the pudding. Let’s see what they report.
The Dutch inquiry reported three weeks ago. It concluded in a unanimous report that the Dutch government had taken an early decision, not based on justifiable intelligence, and that it was an illegal act that violated international law. >>>>>
4 February 2010 THE Prime Minister’s special envoy to Iraq said last night she had backed the 2003 invasion after becoming convinced Saddam Hussein was again planning to use chemical weapons against his own people.
Ann Clwyd, the MP for Cynon Valley, told the Chilcot Inquiry into the conflict that other avenues for dealing with the Iraqi regime had been exhausted.
As a human rights campaigner she had worked with Iraqi exiles in the Indict movement to get member of the Saddam government tried for war crimes but despite passing files to Scotland Yard no action was taken. >>>>>
That last sentence leads to another question I’ve had this one since Gulf War !, “Why didn’t the United States and that Coalition of Nations bring charges in the Hague against Saddam at that time or right after his military was destroyed on the Highway of Death retreating back into Iraq from Kuwait?”. Some of that may have had to do with the fact that those that gave Saddam the wink and nod to invade Kuwait were his most ardant supporters for years and some having helped place him in power in the first place.
And now maybe a trial or another Inquiry looms on the British
6 February 2010 Lawyers for 66 Iraqis, claiming torture and abuse at the hands of UK soldiers, started legal action Friday calling for a single inquiry into Britain s detention policy during the Iraq war.
There are now so many cases and claimants that the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Royal Military Police and the Court cannot hope to deal with them all individually within any sort of reasonable timescale, said Public Interest Lawyers (PIL).
Thus, it will be argued in this fresh judicial review that the only rational approach now is for a single and independent public inquiry into all the issues and cases, PIL said in a statement obtained by IRNA. >>>>>
Photo: phxpma; Edited: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t
With each passing day, it becomes more and more astonishing to encompass the fact that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their henchmen from the prior administration have managed thus far to escape any accounting whatsoever for the massive battery of criminal activity committed during their time in office. More than a year has passed since these men had their hands on the levers of power, and evidence of their myriad crimes and frauds is laying all over the countryside, yet nothing has come of it.
The British government has been running a wide-ranging inquiry into the manner in which the UK and United States were led to war in Iraq by then-President Bush and then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. An astonishing amount of damning evidence and information has been uncovered and publicly aired, including the following statements delivered by a senior member of Parliament (MP) on Tuesday: >>>>>
Still going through some articles, it’s frankly amazing how well the British media not only is covering this Inquiry but actually does pretty extensive reporting on many issues, hell most of the best reporting of facts during the previous decade has come forth from the Brits and others, them times are long gone here across the pond!