Iraq war: Chilcot warns Blair he faces criticism over invasion
But the potentially explosive letters between Blair and Bush look set to stay
private, despite Cameron's wishes
Iraq war: Chilcot warns Blair he faces criticism over invasion
But the potentially explosive letters between Blair and Bush look set to stay private, despite Cameron's wishes
RECENT COLUMNS
PUBLICATION of the long-awaited Chilcot Report has moved a step closer with the inquiry chief Sir John Chilcot
expected to write within days to Tony Blair warning that he will be criticised. But Chilcot is still stymied by the
government's refusal to allow the crucial Bush and Blair correspondence to be published.
The letters between Blair and President George W Bush were written in 2002 and are believed to show that
Blair was offering to support America if Bush decided to attack Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein long before
the Cabinet or the Commons gave their assent to the war. And long before the sexed-up report on Saddam's
Weapons of Mass Destruction and phoney intelligence were found to give the invasion a legal fig-leaf.
Chilcot is still battling to stop the correspondence being kept secret. He said in a letter to David Cameron,
which was put on his inquiry website this week, that he has "begun a dialogue" with Jeremy Heywood, the
Cabinet Secretary, about the release of the documents.
Cameron in his letter of reply says Heywood is helping Chilcot with his inquiries. That has produced a
hollow laugh among Chilcot watchers because everyone knows the Whitehall mandarins are dead set
against publishing the Blair-Bush correspondence.
Heywood's predecessor, Lord (Gus) O'Donnell, a Treasury guru during Gordon Brown's time as Chancellor,
has warned that release of the documents would undermine relations with America. O'Donnell consulted
Blair before telling Chilcot the correspondence must remain secret.
The row over the release of the letters is the reason the inquiry has been making such glacial progress.
Daily Telegraph deputy editor Ben Brogan tweeted it was so slow, it would be "one for the historians".
Chilcot watchers were stirred from their slumbers by Chilcot's letter which says: "The inquiry intends to
write to the relevant individuals at the end of this month informing them that the committee has concluded
that there are areas in which some aspect of the part they played means the inquiry is likely to make a
criticism.
"The inquiry recognises the seriousness with which any criticism of an individual is likely to be regarded
by that individual and it is determined to adopt an approach which is balanced, considered and fair."
It would suit Cameron to have the damaging correspondence out in the open, especially in the run-up to
the general election, because it would damage Labour. But his hands are bound by the Whitehall protocols
on secrecy which the mandarins are determined to uphold.
Without the letters, the Chilcot inquiry looks set to be another Whitehall Whitewash, just like the two
previous public inquiries into matters surrounding the Iraq war - the 2003 Hutton Inquiry into the
death of the weapons expert David Kelly and the 2004 Butler Review into the intelligence on weapons
of mass destruction.
Cameron will be hoping that Chilcot gets his way. Don't bet on it. ·
Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/54210/iraq-war-chilcot-warns-blair-he-faces-criticism-over-invasion#ixzz2ZUcdUKt3
====================================================
HOW BLATANT CAN YOU GET? ...
... THIS MAN WAS MURDERED BY THE STATE
Ain't that right Tony? Ain't that right Blair buddy and 'flatmate', Charlie boy?
The David Icke Newsletter Goes Out On Sunday
For people to understand the world they are living in they have to grasp the true nature of what is called 'The State' all over the world. 'The State' is not there for the benefit of the population because 'The State' is an organised crime syndicate and operates in the same way.
Crime syndicates can only function by employing criminals and others who are terrified of the consequences of defying the orders of the criminals. The State is just the same. Crime syndicates survive by destroying the opposition and killing anyone with the knowledge and inclination to bring them down. The State is just the same.
The great advantage that State organised crime has over the other variety is that while crime syndicates can have insiders on the payroll within the police here and there the State owns the police, the military and the intelligence networks. This makes them Super Crime Syndicates with those officially charged with protecting the people from organised crime being employed by the ultimate in organised criminality.
The State not only owns and controls those who engage in its criminal activities - like the murder of David Kelly - but also those who are supposed to investigate the crime and find the criminals. It also largely owns the media that is reporting the crime and so the official narrative is the one that dominates public perception.
But with David Kelly the official story is so outrageous and his death so perfectly timed to benefit the invasion of Iraq that there is widespread public opinion that Kelly was murdered to shut him up and there is good reason for this view because he was.
Posts
