It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that this whole enquiry would be a complete waste of time. Can you not do something to bring these lies to their attention?

Well, the enquiry is also being taken quite seriously by the mainstream media. With high levels of self-deception and cognitive dissonance, the guilty parties are being given a golden opportunity to cover their behinds. A sickening show indeed.

Slightly OT, though involving the same double-standard. This week my firm sent around an email urging support for the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Haiti. I've donated, but did wonder why they didn't do the same for another DEC appeal just over a year ago, when it was Palestinians who needed the humanitarian support.

Have you written to Sir John Chilcot setting out these facts? If not, I urge you to do so forthwith - and certainly before Blair's appearance.

Soz Craig - but Labour politician in bullshit shock isn't that shocking. From the very top they have manipulated the British state to breaking point.

Every conceivable things these lot have touched is fucked, everything. From the role of mothers, to the diminution of extended families, the economy, the world, our competetive advantage, public services, the NHS (swine flu rather than MRSA or Cdiff).

I appreciate that this remains a personal and professional piece of New Labour mendacity (and, one which will have generational implications) but i've got disgust fatigue.

All the best, hope you have a lovely weekend.

As ever, you are better placed than any of us to eviscerate Jack Straw's lying. The only surprise to me is that it took you till this afternoon to write a post on the latest untruths.

Don't know if you caught Newsnight last night, but they had a pretty useless discussion about Straw's testimony, and the insidious John Rentoul took the opportunity to spread unchallenged further misinformation. He claimed first of all that the Commission had no remit to look into the legality of the war.

Strictly, that may be true, but Chilcot is specifically tasked to examine the run-up to the war - where if legality isn't a central question, there is basically no public inquiry to be had (save to investigate military planning).

He also said that legality was an immaterial point - because once Goldsmith said it was legal, that was that.

He also chided "hysterical" media reporting, for focusing only on the fevered months of early 2003 - going further to suggest there are a more relevant aspects to the inquiry such as what went wrong once we were in Iraq.

But the absolute shitbomb in Rentoul's commentary was that the question of legality was moot anyway, because there isn't a judicial authority before which these questions can be addressed.

None of these points were countered, there was a gentle apology only that no-one had the legal background to fully explore these issues.

I'm no legal expert either, but I do know that when humankind has needed to create ad hoc tribunals for monumental criminality, we have done so. And to quote Justice Robert Jackson: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

That's what earlier generations died to put an end to, that's what John Rentoul wants you to think is an irrelevance.

"I was copied all or nearly all of the telegrams" - so, in fact, you don't know the full facts of the internal machinations, and it is pretty pompous to suggest you do.

Eddie,

Even for a blind New Labour hack, that is a pathetic defence of Straw.

"blind New Labour hack"

Haha. Nice one.

I heard Straw on the Today programme referring in his testimony to a lesson learned from Suez - pathetically, it was that the UK should always take the side of the US. (I was in the shower so not sure about the exact wording.)

It immediately brought to my mind the fact that Straw, Blair et. al. will come out even worse than Eden in the pages of History.

I'm so grateful to Jack Straw for having planted that comforting thought in my mind!

I remember quite clearly the phrase that there was no 'automaticity' in 1441 for war, so it was OK for countries very uncomfortable with the idea of waging war to go along with it. I also remember 1441 as being the most extensive jury-knobbling case in history. Blair was getting somewhat manic in his insistence that there would definitely be a second resolution, but then it became pretty obvious a war was going ahead anyway (as if it had taken on a life of its own), so the second resolution apparently became moot.

Anyone else recall the UK ambassador to the US, Sir C. Meyer, saying (in writing) that we (the British) needed to "wrong-foot" Saddam Hussein into starting a war, and suggestions for this included the possibility of painting a military plane with UN colours in the hope Iraqi forces would fire on it?

http://downingstreetmemo.com/publishednews.html

Blair was/is insane, fanatical and a traitor. Straw is one of the most cowardly, murderous, weaseling excuses for a human being politics has ever produced. His sort is exactly what Eichmann had in mind when contemplating the 'banality of evil'. I do wonder what Brown's position was in all of this.

Sue said:
'It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that this whole enquiry would be a complete waste of time.'

I disagree. For the Establihment/those who really make decisions it is a set agenda to placate public disgust at the war.
A great fuss is stirred up over an issue ie the Diana inquest or Lockerbie. Once the public have been served a morsel (in this case it'll be that Blair made a mistake) all goes quiet. The public get bored very quickly.
It's up to us to continue the pressure and press for charges of genocide against Blair and his cabinet.
Moreover, it's up to us to get rid of the parliamentary system that gives the semblance of democracy but serves the interests of the Establisment and those who really dictate policy.

What about running for the European Parliament?

My eyesight is not bad Craig, although I wear glasses like you. My point being, that you give the impression that you were party to all the behind the scenes discussions, but you clearly were not and it is pompous of you to suggest so. You were just an ambassador.

"I do wonder what Brown's position was in all of this".

So do I.

"My eyesight is not bad"

I note you do not refute the "New Labour hack" bit.

Yep, eddie, just as you didn't retract the lie that Craig was sacked for incompetence on another thread, but repeated it.

"Yep, eddie, just as you didn't retract the lie that Craig was sacked for incompetence on another thread, but repeated it."

Not the only instance.

Could I suggest "blinkered" instead of blind ? He sees the bits that offer a platform for going through the tape-loop talking points yet one more time, but acts as though he's somehow completely unaware that there's anything outside of that restricted range of vision.

Perhaps he really does need protecting, maybe a fuller vision really would have him bolting in panic. I don't know. Don't really care. I have work I should be doing ...

Dear Eddie

Your comment 'just an ambassador' is pretty petty even by your low standards.

Envy is destructive.

Craig has achieved quite a lot, can you say as much?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

CM isn't "just an ambassador", eddie. He was an honest one, with the courage to do the right thing. That's a distinction which makes him vanishingly rare. As for yourself, we know you're not honest of course, but is there anything that makes you a "somebody" ?

Eddie,

I can offer you irrefutable evidence to back up my own evidence that all the FCO material at the time of the adoption of UNSCR 1441 and for weeks afterwards right up until March, took the view that UNSCR 1441 did not provide legal grounds for the invasion.

It is the resignation letter of Deputy FCO Legal Adviser Elizabeth Wilmshurst in which she stated:

"I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678. I do not need to set out my reasoning; you are aware of it.

My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.) "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4377605.stm

All FCO instructions in the period to which I refer would have had to be in line with the view expressed by FCO legal advisers at that time. That view was precisely as I have stated it to be in my article.

On the Powell thread I asked a number of questions of Eddie about a potential psychological duality between supporting New Labour generally and the discomforting notion that ones favoured leaders may be liars trying to save their own skin after all.

@eddie - not trying to have a pop at you, but am trying to understand your motivation. I think you have abandoned all curiosity and questioning in favour of allegiance, which is rarely a good thing. I think in the wider case - such as why the unions have not abandoned New Labour for a new workers party - this examination is instructive.

Well said, Craig.
Another lie and, in my view, not a minor one, is Straw’s “interpretation” of the observations made by Chirac regarding the possible use of a veto in the interview that the French President gave on 10th March 2003
(transcript available at: http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais_archives/interventions/
interviews_articles_de_presse_et_interventions_televisees/2003/
mars/interview_televisee_du_president_de_la_republique_sur_tf1_et_france_2.935.html )

At the Chilcot inquiry both Freedman and Lyne comment on the ambiguity of Chirac’s words but in the context of the full interview there is no ambiguity - as another former ambassador, Sir Brian Barder, has pointed out: http://www.barder.com/tony-blair-and-iraq-some-texts

Straw, in his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, continues to peddle the same mendacious nonsense that he and Blair and other ministers used in March 2003 to blame France for the failure to obtain a second resolution eg http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/15/france.politics

Chilcot 21.01.10
4 Sir Lawrence, if you are asking me at what moment
5 did I think this was not going to be possible, it is
6 the moment when I turned on the television and saw
7 President Chirac saying that, whatever the
8 circumstances, France would veto a second resolution.

and:

2 RT HON JACK STRAW: Sir Lawrence, I know there has been some
3 textual analysis of the use by President Chirac of the
4 word "Le soir", but I watched him say this and I took
5 this as no more than saying, "This evening", comma, and
6 then he announces, "France will, whatever the
7 circumstances", he says, right? If he was saying,
8 "Look, just for tonight, we are going to veto, but not
9 tomorrow", he would have said that, but this was a great
10 Chiracian pronouncement. "Whatever the circumstances",

It’s an important lie because it was included in the Government motion passed by the House of Commons on 18 March 2003:
“That this House … regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances;”
In proposing the motion, the Prime Minister identified the Permanent Member as France, which, he said,had undermined support for a second resolution:
“Last Monday [10 March], we were getting very close with it [the second resolution]. We very nearly had the majority agreement. If I might, I should particularly like to thank the President of Chile for the constructive way in which he approached this issue.
“Yes, there were debates about the length of the ultimatum, but the basic construct was gathering support. Then, on Monday night, France said that it would veto a second resolution, whatever the circumstances.”
From: http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/b-liar-e2.pdf

Craig just beccasue the FCO felt it was not legal does not mean it was not legal. The FCO is just one department of state, and a pretty wet one at that. Remember Kosovo and Bosnia and their appeasement of Milosevic.

So is the wikipedia entry on you wrong Craig? It says you were charged with gross misconduct and that you effectively jumped ship before you were pushed. If gross misconduct is not incompetence what is it? If you had nothing to worry about why did you go? So why is it a lie to allege incompetence?

Jon, playing the amateur psychologist again. I have answered your question. And George Laird, who has still not explained what human rights are being attacked at Glasgow University.

Dear Eddie

"Jon, playing the amateur psychologist again. I have answered your question".

Are you opposing his right to free of expression?

You may have supplied an answer to his question but was it the right answer?

"And George Laird, who has still not explained what human rights are being attacked at Glasgow University".

If you are interested in my story then surely going to my website and reading about it is the correct course of action.

Mind you, details of facts don't appear to interest you much, it's why you're Labour!

Long narratives can't be absorbed by you either it seems.

You need to be repeatedly told the same information time and time again.

Which is why you are so angry.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Eddia,

I was found not guilty on all charges of gross misconduct - which were trumped up to try to get rid of a critic. You know that full well.

On questions of international law, it is the FCO view that counts, Eddie.
First you say that the FCO view was not, as I say, that a seond resolution was needed. Now you concede I am right, and say that the FCO view was not important. Eddie which Ministry is better placed than the FCO, in your view, to pronounce on UN Security Council Resolutions. Where do you think UNSCR 1441 was actually drafted?

Obviously, it's a lie, or an untruth, if your prefer, to say that someone was 'sacked for incompetence' when they were not 'sacked for incompetence'.

I shouldn't think anyone is particularly impressed by the question 'if gross misconduct is not incompetence, what is it?', but I note your further attempt to conflate 'being charged with' with 'being sacked'.

Sigh.

"As Ambassador in an Islamic country, I was copied all or nearly all of the telegrams of instruction on the diplomatic efforts to secure a second resolution."

Why would it be necessary that only ambassadors to "Islamic countries" (whatever that means) be privy to these communications? Doesn't it have to be the case that ambassadors to all countries be privy to these communications?

Larry,

Good questions. Not all diplomatic telegrams go to all posts. They are copied around by subject.

There are key "routeing indicators" to make this easier. Self-evident examples might be "EU Posts" and "Security Council Posts". "Islamic Posts" is such a routeing indicator. It included Tashkent, and the "Islamic Posts" indicator was routinely used on telegrams connected to the Iraq dispute.

To be plain, the indicators are not exclusive - you use them in combination to get the distribution you need.

Eddie, it's getting on almost a year since yo told us Pilger has been sacked from the New Statesman. Pilger must be in denial then as he keeps writing articles for them. The New Statesman must be in denial too as it keeps publishing them.

Oh Eddie. Dear Eddie. Dear dear Eddie.

@eddie, you were being nearly reasonable in the other thread, but to persist with the questioning about professional misconduct when you know this is not true is a bit much for someone who claims to stick to the facts.

Yes, still playing at amateur psychologist - I take that as a complement. I think the exercise is worthwhile, in the wider case at least.

For what it is worth, I have replied to you on the other thread.

Craig,

I must read your book as suggested - but thank-you for your stance and information. I wish you had copies of the correspondence. I hope to try and get another statement from Elizabeth; before she appears on Tuesday.

I have the problem that I think Lord Goldsmith will interject to swing the scales towards legality at his interrogation if pushed. Here is the argument.

Lord Bingham, one of Britain's most distinguished jurists, is of course right: the invasion of Iraq was illegal because no UN Security Council resolution expressly authorised it.

What follows from that? None of the consequences which Lord Bingham claimed follow - as you can see by considering the case of Nato's bombing of Serbia in 1999. Nato's "invasion of Serbia's national sovereignty" was certainly illegal under international law. It was not endorsed by the UN Security Council and, unlike the invasion of Iraq, there was no Security Council resolution which could even remotely plausibly be interpreted as justifying it. Indeed, there was no UN Security Resolution at all. That was because at least two permanent members of the council, China and Russia, had stated publicly that they would veto one.
Britain and the US nevertheless thought it important to stop Serbia from massacring Kosovans, so they decided to bomb Serbia in order to persuade the Serbian government to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Since they could not get a UN Security Council resolution endorsing that action, they simply went ahead without one.

Were they wrong to do so? Lord Bingham is committed to the position that they were: in his terms, the action, as a violation of the international legal order, qualified as reversion to "the rule of the jungle". But Goldsmith has indicated that far from destroying international moral order, Nato's illegal action bolstered it. As a result of the bombing, hundreds of thousands of Kosovars were spared the awful fate the Serbs were preparing for them; Slobodan Milosevic, the tyrant ruling the country, was forced from power; and Serbia itself attempted to behave like a responsible member of the international community.

I am playing devil's advocate of course and I am interested in Craig's response.

I will fight tooth and nail for Anthony Blair be held jointly responsible for this massacre - I owe it to the children of Iraq for whom I have pledged justice.

I should have added of course Lord Goldsmith will be referring and comparing to the gassing of Kurds in his argument.

Craig. Wiki says you were charged with gross misconduct and then left the FCO. It does not say you were cleared of gross misconduct. If this is the case then I suggest that you update wiki. If not, I suggest you tell us what actually happened. Just to be clear, you and others on here are CONSTANTLY saying that Blair is a war criminal and yet he has NEVER been either charged or found guilty of anything, so I think your defence is slightly hypocritical, don't you. One rule for you and another for Blair?

George Laird I think the 9th word on your website probably sums it up. If you can't be arsed to explain in words of one syllable why your human rights have been compromised I don't see that I can bothered to read your tedious website.

Jon the spelling is compliment.

And Craig, I know enough about employment law to understand that, if someone is charged with gross misconduct and they choose not to stay and fight such charges but instead choose to bugger off with a significant payoff that, as the old saying goes, there is no smoke without fire. You know full well that employers will often take this option, even when they know that their case is cast iron, just to avoid all the hassle and publicity of an ET. So why did you choose to go exactly? I accept that you were not "sacked for incompetence" but as near as.

Dear Eddie

The 9th word on my website starting from the top, going left to right is 'in'.

My blog is in?

What does that mean?

Is it rude to ask, did you finish school?

Finally,can I ask you to stop being rude to me.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

ps the 18th word is s**t, rather like your ability to count

Eddie,
What are your motives in attacking Craig so personally and in doing so diverting attention away from the real issues under discussion?
Are you an employee of HM or a mate of Tim Spicer or what?

Eddie,

Wikipedia "In January 2004, the FCO, after a four-month investigation exonerated him of all 18 charges, but reprimanded him for speaking about the charges."

I did stay for the entire investigation procedure. I was cleared on all charges after a full formal process and a hearing. I am sorry, but anything else your New Labour pals tell you is not true.

Would you want to continue to work for an employer who was colluding in torture, and who had tried to frame you on charges some of which were very grave and criminal?

Their efforts to frame me failed. That is why they were forced to give me six years salary as severance.

Now how about forgetting the diversion and discussing the subject of the Post?

That is rather disingenuous of you Craig. A few sentences later Wiki says this:

"A few days later he was charged with "gross misconduct" by the FCO[19]. Having negotiated a settlement whereby he was paid six years' salary payment in compensation, Murray agreed to resign from the FCO in February 2005"

If that is untrue I suggest you get it changed. As I say, a charge of gross misconduct would not be made lightly. So why did you decide to go and not fight if you were innocent? And why is it ok for you to accuse Blair of being a war criminal when he has neither been charged nor convicted, yet it is NOT ok for me to suggest that you were sacked for incompetence when you WERE charged with gross misconduct? Double standards son. The subject of the post is that you and those like you are wasting your time. This is the fifth inquiry and you are getting increasingly desperate. It's like the old debate about angels on a pinhead, you are struggling for semantic justification for your point of view.

George you must be reading a different website. The 8th word is Uni and the 9th is Shit on the site I am reading. And you still haven't answered the question about human rights. You are involved in the campaign for human rights AT glasgow university. So again, what human rights abuses have been perpetrated at glasgow university exactly? Can't you answer a simple question?

Oh for God's sake, eddie. I'm not suprised people are questioning your motives. To say the least, you show considerable discourtesy to your host.

The ad hominem attack is hardly surprising. New Labour (including most of its mouthpieces) has become a heartless, dead-eyed machine staffed with the soulless minions of orthodoxy. Hundreds of thousands of human beings died in Iraq as a direct consequence of the Blair government's actions for which they express not a scintilla of remorse, guilt or shame. The performances of Hoon, Campbell, Blair et al, constitues a mere dance of politesse dressed up as a Serious Inquiry. If Chilcot had had the slightest ability (or indeed purpose) to question harshly and issue legal censure, Blair wouldn't have gone near it with the proverbial. Thus it is ultimately worthless.

Sure, history will show them up for the gory charlatans they are, but that's too late for my liking.

The government and its agencies have a habit of not only smearing people, charging people and even convicting people who threaten them.

Richard Robinson Well it's easy to evade the question if you choose not to respond to difficult points. I didn't realise that one was supposed to be courteous to the owners of websites. Perhaps someone should tell CiF. He hasn't been very courteous to his former hosts, and the fact that this site is funded by taxpayer's money suggests to me that he has no monopoly on courtesy.

Mike Cobley - yawn. You sound like yet another scratched record. Genocide, war criminal, illegal, Bliar, etc etc (cont p 94) yawn. Time for bed.

Anyway I'm off to the pub to meet some real people.

John Rent-Tool's grinning death mask has been appearing a lot on recent discussion programmes, acting as an apologist and propagandist not only for Blair but also the banks in recent days. Now that Obama has given detailed proposals to curb the obscene excesses of the latter, New "Labour" are having to invent new excuses for their total lack of action.

Eddie

I was charged with 18 counts of gross misconduct in July 2003, after in 2002 and 2003 querying the policy of obtaining intelligence from torture.

Those charges of gross misconduct were fully investigated and a hearing held. I was found not guilty on all counts in Jan 2004.

In Sept 2004 one of my telegrams condemning the use of intelligence from torture was leaked to the Financial Times (not by me). I was immediately dismissed as Ambassador because of this.

I had already told the FCO that if I were dismissed as Ambassador I would resign from the FCO. So when I was dismissed as Ambssador, I immediately went on the Today programme to tell the whole story.

The new charge of "Gross Misconduct" you refer to was purely for appearing on the Today programme and telling people about intelligence from torture, after I had already decided to resign.

I then proceeded to take legal and trade union advice on fighting the FCO for constructive dismissal, which given their earlier efforts to frame me with ludicrous allegations of visas for sex, would have been extremely embarassing to them. So they offered me 6 years salary to settle.

At the time I had been diagnosed as having between six months and three years to live. I needed the cash for my family, so I accepted as I was not expected to have a good chance to live to see the case through.

I said to you a year ago that if you really wanted to intervene on behalf of New Labour every time I came up with a pretty damning post, and try again to smear my reputation, then the least you might do is actually read Murder in Samarkand.

The fact that you won't is to me sufficient evidence that you don't actually hold any of the values of the original Labour Party founders, which you claim to espouse.

Eddie,

'Real people' are here trying to expose lies told to justify murder of the innocent, hegemony, theft and save their own skins. So why go 'off topic' in an attempt to slur character?

You don't have to read secret telegrams:

"We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" - the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as one of the co-sponsors of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution"

Sir Jeremy Greenstock (November 8, 2002). [http://www.un.org/webcast/unitedkingdom110802.htm "Explanation of Vote by Sir Jeremy Greenstock KCMG, United Kingdom Permanent Representative"]. United Nations Secretariat. http://www.un.org/webcast/unitedkingdom110802.htm.

Craig's recollection of the run-up to the attack on Iraq is spot on.

"Automaticity" was the key word and the one used to dupe the reluctant signatories to Resolution 1441.The machinations of Greenstock at the UN and Goldsmith in London were vomit-inducing.

Inernational law is perceived by such actors to be a malleable tool pressed into the service of long-term geopolitical strategy which employs war as its major instrument.

The UN is their ultimate stage.The place where their deception and duplicity,their inducements and threats come into their own.Manipulations,bribes and murders are run in tandem with the promotional work for war conducted at the UN in NY.

It was ever thus.The League was designed by those who saw war as central to their plans for a final Pax Judaica.

http://sweeetliberty.org/perspective/jewishpersecution4.html

Straw,and now Milliband,work to the same game-plan.

You don't have to read secret telegrams:

"We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" - the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as one of the co-sponsors of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution"

Sir Jeremy Greenstock (November 8, 2002). [http://www.un.org/webcast/unitedkingdom110802.htm "Explanation of Vote by Sir Jeremy Greenstock KCMG, United Kingdom Permanent Representative"]. United Nations Secretariat. http://www.un.org/webcast/unitedkingdom110802.htm.

Hoowhee, wot a card that Eddie is, eh? "You sound like yet another scratched record. Genocide, war criminal, illegal, Bliar, etc etc (cont p 94) yawn." Well, let me tell you, sir, I thought we`d heard some cracking examples of callous irrationality from you but...damn, you've surpassed yourself! I can just imagine you round at your pub, sharing your online derring-do with your chums - "Genocide... bwah hah hah hah ... war criminal ... ho ho hee hee hee har Har Har....illegal...and then I said 'continued p94....HAAARGH HAAARGH HAAARGH!"

Oh man, I can barely keep the chuckles of wonderment from my lips. But hey, maybe your iridescent prose is being read this very moment by someone in Iraq, maybe someone who lost a son or a mother, and I`m sure they`re reaction will be as clear cut as you'd expect.

And with my special writer's powers, I can actually predict your response to this comment of mine. Yes....it goes something like this....

"Yaah ... bombs falling on restaurants .... huh, phht .... bombs on marketplaces .... heh heh hur hur ... blood spattered pavements .... ho ho heh heh ... body parts .... Har Har HAAAAAH HAAAAAAH (honk snort)..."

I can't wait for your next lesson in humanity.

"So why go 'off topic' in an attempt to slur character?"

And why now, considering Eddie's been around for so long?

"Richard Robinson Well it's easy to evade the question if you choose not to respond to difficult points."

Lancet !
Lancet !!
Lancet !!!

FFS. I hope you _are_ getting paid, the way you humiliate yourself.

Don't worry, I won't address you further.

"It is the most perverse of lies by Straw to argue that the fact that the Germans and French did not table their draft proved that 1441 authorised war, when we had told them not to table their draft because 1441 did not authorise war."

Brilliant!

Thanks Tim. I think that conclusively proves the truth of what I posted, even down to the precise languade used.

Craig,

What on earth are you doing engaging in a "debate" with this chap "eddie" for? His personal attacks on your character are beneath contempt, and should be answered with merely a shrug and disdain. I realize this is easy for me to say, and that it's damned irritating to be smeared and compared to fucking war criminal like Blair by this... this twit.

On a more serious note. I too remember the attempt to smear Chirac and twist and edit his words, to provide an excuse or cover-story for the collapsed attempt to railroad the security council into passing a second resolution which would have been prostituted and spun into a justification for war with Iraq.

Chirac never said France would veto *any* second resolution for always, therefore, according to the UK, there was no point anymore in going down the UN route because France would use it's veto no matter what. This was an absolutely outrageous twisting of what was really happening. Truly shameful, and so easily refuted, if only the UK media had bothered to look at what Chirac actually said, surely french is that much of barrier, even among the hacks?

France, like most others knew that the UK and the US was intent on attacking Iraq, no matter what. Their tactic was to try and delay any decision in the securiyt council until the inspectors had time to report back that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Only the UK and US never wanted the inspectors to finish their work, because they too knew what the result would be. The UK and the US knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. All that was just propaganda for the public, the media, and parliament.

Chirac never said he wouldn't support an attack on Iraq under any circumstances, or use the veto to protect Iraq if it was shown that they had weapons of mass destruction. Yet the myth and lie continues still.

Surely the Chilcot committee has the resources to examine Chiracs statements and confront Straw over this? But then it would have to be an impartial, competent, and fair enquiry, dedicated at revealing the truth, instead of what it is, the opposite.

"International law is perceived by such actors to be a malleable tool pressed into the service of long-term geopolitical strategy which employs war as its major instrument." Steelback.

Too true. Sadly, International Law is often just the Law of the Jungle, which, being a subsection of the Laws of Nature, is merely descriptive of reality, (reality as in Realpolitik), rather than prescriptive or proscriptive.

how's cambridge eddie?

http://www.kingshs.org.uk/about.html

"In his first six years, Blair had ordered British troops into battle five times — more than any other prime minister in history".

Hmmm. Curious that Blair is an even bigger warmonger than PMs who were managing the largest empire the planet has ever seen.

"I think if you have faith about these things, you realise that judgement is made by other people … and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

"In an interview with Michael Parkinson broadcast on ITV1 on 4 March 2006, Blair referred to the role of his Christian faith in his decision to go to war in Iraq, stating that he had prayed about the issue, and saying that God would judge him for his decision".

I'm just an ordinary bloke and all, and don't know much about politics, but shouldn't society be protected from nutters like this.

I mean, it's not as if like he don't have a lot of previous and all...

Just a couple of press releases (few days old) but relevant here:

- from the office of Dr Bill Wilson MSP
Dr Bill Wilson, an SNP MSP for the West of Scotland, today announced that he had written to the Lord Advocate, the Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC, asking her to investigate the conclusions of a Dutch commission of inquiry into the invasion of Iraq with a view to the potential prosecution of Tony Blair for waging a war of aggression. His letter cited Lord Advocate’s Reference No.1 of 2000 (30th March 2001) to make the point that “a rule of customary international law is a rule of Scots law”.

Dr Wilson said, “I have also lodged a motion making the same point and highlighting the carnage associated with the Iraqi misadventure. Data gathered by Opinion Research Business in 2007 suggested a million or so Iraqi civilians had died as a result of it.

“Now the independent Dutch committee, investigating the issue at the request of Dutch ministers, has said that UN Security Council 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 authorization from the Security Council’. This is another way of saying that the invasion was illegal.

“Those responsible for misleading the public and initiating such bloodshed should be brought to book. I look forward to seeing the detention and trial of Tony Blair, and I urge the Lord Advocate to look into the matter.”

Short Title: The Illegality of the Invasion of Iraq and the Detention of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair

S3M-05525 Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): That the Parliament welcomes the finding of an independent Dutch commission that UN Security Council 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 authorization from the Security Council”; notes that data gathered by Opinion Research Business indicated that, in September 2007, approximately one million Iraqi citizens had died as a result of the invasion of that country; further notes that, according to media reports, Hans Blix considers that the invasion was illegal and believes that the former UK Prime Minister and former US President misled the public; acknowledges that, according to the High Court of Justiciary in Lord Advocate’s Reference No.1 of 2000, “a rule of customary international law is a rule of Scots law” and considers that, this being the case, the appropriate Scottish law enforcement agencies have the power to investigate the conclusions of the Dutch commission and the role of the former UK Prime Minister, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, in waging a war of aggression, and looks forward to his detention and indictment.

(Must take another trip Amsterdam - I can't remember the last one?) But good-on-yer Bill.

onrery person: Blair wasn't the only religious nutter involved here, and this gets back to CM's blog yesterday:

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200905/donald-rumsfeld-administration-peers-detractors

Dubbya had headings on his daily briefings, reassuring the miserable, deluded giggling killer that he was doing God's own work, eg:

- Soldiers praying, readying for battle, "It is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. (1 Peter 2:15)"

- Next to a picture of a US tank, "Open the gates that the righteous nations may enter, The nation that keeps faith. Isaiah 26.2"

- A picture of two soldiers praying, and "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us. Here I am Lord, send me! Isaiah 6:8"

- A picture of a US tank at sunset, and "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Epheisians 6:13"

Dubbya claimed that he and Blair prayed with each other. This was before the invasion, and Blair was "on a mission" by that point. Did all this stuff really not come up? Was Blair under the illusion this invasion was all in the name of "Gaaad"?

Hardly, Blair waas carrying out orders and will be protected financially and phsically by those who instructed him

Yeh well here's my message to godly Blair - from the boys and gals that never came back from Iraq who now observe and wryly smile at the circular time-line as it burrows it's inevitable path through the cosmos:

"You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go."

— Siegfried Sassoon

"We tabled a draft, which, as I set out in this memorandum, and which Sir Jeremy Greenstock confirms in his memorandum, was aimed to be selfcontained, in the sense that, if very important conditions were met through failures by the Saddam regime, that of itself would provide sufficient authority for military action."

Shame there's no Walter Wolfgang on the commitee to shout "Nonsense!" at this arrogant hypocritic.

Where we live is very traditional English and we celebrate various old pagan English festivals

We have an old traditional harvest festival where after collecting all the proceeds of the summer - our food gift from God - The Sun, and we store the food for the winter and have enough straw feed for the animals...

We collect the surplus Straw and we construct a Strawman. He is so big and well constructed, that a real strong man gets inside him and The Straw Man Dances and We Bang Our Old Traditional English Drums and We Play Our Old Traditional Musical Instruments and We Sing Our Old Traditional Songs

And We Spend All Day Travelling Round All The Local Pubs In Our Village in Traditional Old English Costumes

And During The Wenching and Gluttonous Feasting of The Best Meat and Fruit Of Of Our Beautiful Country England

We Celebrate Our Harvest

By Doing It

No - We Really Do

We Burn The Straw Jack

Its a bit like the Film The Wicker Man

But they didn't quite get it right

They had Edward Woodward Inside

Tony

Craig,

You must put yourself in front of the inquiry. I trust the Official Secrets Act cannot apply when public interest and the reputation of our nation is at stake.

I too remember the new word "automaticity" - isn't it funny how this has been (conveniently) forgotten in almost all debate on the war and the current inquiry?

Anyway, bravo. Thank goodness there are still a few decent, honest people like yourself. I would love to see Peter Goldsmith rot in a gaol for the rest of his miserable life too...

Simply stated:-

" I was not in any doubt about that and neither was Jeremy Greenstock, and for very good reasons, which is that there had been talk by the French and Germans of a draft which would have required a second resolution, but they never tabled it."
- The artful dodge!

Bold words Craig:-

"I defy anyone to read Murder in Samarkand and say Straw is not a liar."

Either he sues you or you remain the man that you are.

Ed,

No - "He also said that legality was an immaterial point - because once Goldsmith said it was legal, that was that."

The illegaity and war of aggression are the real issues. Simply read Article 2 of the UN Charter, and there are significant cases on point.

War criminals without a doubt!

I think I may have deleted all the evidence.

You see, it was a very long day, and there were all sorts of things going on at the time

I thought I had copied all the contents of my camera memory cards to the computer...

But I just kept the camera going during the wenching bits and I didn't tell her, in the pub when she too was drunk she told me her most intimate thoughts and feelings and she is a shy innocent Irish Girl - nearly 40 years old but she was just too honest

She shouldn't have been saying the most intimate things about her life to me, whilst I was recording everything she said on camera

It simply was not right

So I think I deleted the entire thing - of the whole day

So you are O.K. Jack Straw

You got off the hook

It never happenned

You didn't do it and we didn't burn you at the stake

However We will be having another Harvest Festival This Year

Tony

Dear Eddie

I feel I must take you to task on the issue regarding the 9th word on my website, while it is true that the 9th word written by me is s**t, it actually appears as the 18th word from the top of the page.

You have forgotten to count the words in the header.

As to your opinion that my website is s**t, thank you, feedback is always welcome.

IP address 194.60.38.10, Houses of Parliament, someone popped in for 16 hrs 37 minutes and 59 seconds.

For information on the human rights abusers at Glasgow University, then please read my website posts on the subject, that would be most appropriate.

Finally, with regard to answering a simple question, that would depend on the question. What is simple for someone maybe hard for someone else, education and life experiences play a key role in the ability to respond to questioning.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

And as Old Labour goes down, kicking and screaming against the reality of its new masters, and while everyone else is engaged in the sad spectacle, a pleasant little post sneaks over unnoticed from Stormfront:

"The UN is their ultimate stage.The place where their deception and duplicity,their inducements and threats come into their own.Manipulations,bribes and murders are run in tandem with the promotional work for war conducted at the UN in NY.

It was ever thus.The League was designed by those who saw war as central to their plans for a final Pax Judaica."

Yeah! Take that, Topol! We see through your hollow attempts to entertain and enchant the masses. "Topol's Treasury of Jewish Humor, Wit and Wisdom", indeed. "Topol's Treasury of HOW JEWS ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER AND DESTROY THE WORLD", more like it.

Ah, it was ever thus.

Aye. Straw is a cunt. He always has been a cunt, and he always will be one.

Nope, according to someone he used to babysit for, he was OK when he was a teenager. According to one of his former aides, he was even OK as an MP for a while, before he started surrounding himself with people who only told him what he wanted to hear. It is, admittedly, pretty awful watching what Jack Straw's become, but I think it's a process (and a warning to everyone in politics).

Iraq first had to miss its final opportunity to comply. That's what was meant by no automatic trigger. There wasn't a war straight away - that happened six months later.

Crime and the consequences of crime:

"Iraq littered with high levels of nuclear and dioxin contamination, study finds

• Greater rates of cancer and birth defects near sites
• Depleted uranium among poisons revealed in report"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/22/iraq-nuclear-contaminated-sites

Anyone remember that creepy way Jack Straw used to act when he was hanging round Condi Rice, all tongues, blushes and teenage smirks?

He even started wearing contact lens during that period, and took La Rice for a date in his constituency.

He was demoted after that.

Poor Jack. Never a Bill. Always second violin.

It's a real challenge, trying to bring the powerful men who rule us to account, and eventually justice for their actions.

It appears that equality before the law has been another casualty of the invasion of Irag and the war on terror. This isn't just an esoteric, or academic, discussion. If Blair and his co-conspirators can get away free and easy after launching a war of agression, arguably one of the worst international crimes, then we are in really bad place in relation to how our democracy functions, because equality before the law is one of the bedrocks of democracy.

The war on terror has shredded so many of our hard one democratic rights. It's amazing really. Who would have thought that the right not to be subject to torture and murder, without even a trial would disappear so quickly? Then there's habeus corpus, another foundation of modern democracy, a fundamental right we've had, more or less, for a thousand years; now it's gone. The US president can put men in prison for ever, and not only can he choose not to give them a fair trial, he can deny them the right to even know what they are charged with, making a defence virtually impossible.

Writerman, have you written a book or anything? I'd like to read one, so please do, if you haven't.

And here in the UK the first trial is taking place without a jury. So the defendants will sadly have to rely on the integrity of the judge. And if the case involves state crime they don't have a chance.

"Talk - Naomi Wolf - The End of America"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

Craig

As a Libertarian I have suspicion of Government ingrained in my DNA, and any functionary of the State once he opens his mouth.

The very fact that you found yourself used and abused by your political masters only enhances your pronouncements, not the fact you were an ambassador at the time. I recently had cause to contact the Ambassador to France who had been placed in an embarrassing position, by the amateur flim flam men that pass for a government
at present.

The nu labour hacks remind me of the unedifying hacks who surrounded Maxwell, all of who slunk away when he was revealed as a world class criminal.

Lets get down to brass tacks, Chilcott is a show trial of the worse kind. It has been set up to give the pretence of accountability.

If Chilcott was red in tooth and claw, Blair,Brown,Straw et al would be standing in peril of losing their Liberty, not Straw offering cough sweets to the chairman. Campbell showed his utter contempt for Chilcott.

It is just a 'spectacle' to serve the needs of political elite. We know they are lying, they know we know they are lying. However without sanction, this is an utterly pointless PR exercise.

"We know they are lying, they know we know they are lying."

Spot on.

I do write for a living, and have done for a long time. But I'm not all that keen on stepping forward, as I kind of like to keep a safe distance between my work and political stuff like this. We live in stange times. Currently I'm writing a new novel, tentatively entitled "Secrets of the Sand" or maybe just "Sand." I kind of like "Sand" better, because it can be seen as a metaphore as well. It's about the undead and Afghanistan, and the war on terror. Hopefully it should ruffle a few feathers. Though my agent, dear thing, thinks it's a Bad idea.

Either sounds good. You certainly use worlds well.

Craig

Juan Cole, the distinguished American Middle Eastern scholar, comments on this thread:

"...Craig Murray, then a UK ambassador to a Muslim-majority country who was copied with diplomatic positions from London, confirms that the initial position of the Blair government was that previous UNSC resolutions did not provide an automatic trigger for war. The British inquiry into the Iraq War, which sheds loads of illumination on the Bushies' lies and crimes, is being studiously ignored by US mass media.

There was no UNSC authorization, and no issue of self-defense. The most egregious violation of the post- World War II international order by a major Power we have yet seen. I said all this in my first blog posting here at Informed Comment in April of 2002.

You kind of hope it means Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley and the Neocons can never safely vacation in Europe again.."

http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/iraq-war-was-illegal-dutch-panel-rules.html

More on the attempt by the group of doctors to get a inquest for Dr Kelly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245599/David-Kelly-post-mortem-kept-secret-70-years-doctors-accuse-Lord-Hutton-concealing-vital-information.html

PS Spot the headline to the right of the article. Cherie Bliar spares a thug as he is a 'religious man'. Will Bliar (also a 'religious man'!) be spared when he finally get to the Hague and the Chilcott sham is over and forgotten?

David Kelly...

http://tinyurl.com/yaes2ta

"You kind of hope it means Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley and the Neocons can never safely vacation in Europe again."

I wonder what Straw thinks now of that business with Pinochet a few years back ?

"Nobody expects the Spanish Extradition !"

"Iraq Chilcot Inquiry debate, June 24 09, Clair Short speech (part 1)"...

http://tinyurl.com/yeg373l

Part 2...

tinyurl.com/y9ezf7y

I sense that Jack Straw is in deep doo-doo so is willing to say just about anything to save his skin.

1 His story that "the French and Germans would have tabled a motion ..... " makes no sense at all.

2 All the evidence suggests that the non-permanent members had no intention of supporting the second resolution. Valerie Amos went twice to Angola in three weeks and got a very dusty answer. The Angolan national assembly supported unanimously the government position of not supporting the second resolution. The envoys got nowhere with all of the countries they visited because they all considered that the inspections were still in progress.

Dear Craig,

We have met a couple of times - we shared a platform at a Green Party conference some years ago (2005, I think), and met again at a media conference in Cambridge in 2006. I was struck both times by the honesty and sincerity with which you spoke and would urge you now to write to Chilcot with your observations above. This whole point about the promises made by the UK/US that 1441 would not be an 'automatic trigger' needs to be repeated publicly, very loudly.

Jack Straw, for one, must surely resign - but then I expect he'll be out of office at the General Election anyway.

Maverick award winning filmmakers Bill Maloney and Lilly Starr expose Jack Straw clearly lying about children in care - Hear Straws lies on tape!
In the lead up to the general election 2010 the Sun newspaper has introduced a regular slot for a London Black Cabbie to ask major politicians questions from 'the man on the street'. The Cabbie happens to be a personal friend of Bill Maloney who trained him to act almost five years ago. Last week Jack Straw took the back seat in the London cab and answered a number of questions. The Cabbie had recently seen a video report by Maloney and was keen to hear Jack Straws answer to this question:
Cabbie: "JACK! I HAD THIS FILMMAKER BILL MALONEY IN THE BACK OF MY CAB YESTERDAY. HE'S DOING A DOCUMENTARY ON CHILD ABUSE AND HE TOLD ME THAT LAST YEAR YOU CHANGED A LAW SO THAT IS NOW MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR CHILDREN IN CARE TO SPEAK OUT, EVEN IF THEY FEEL THEY ARE BEING MALTREATED - IS THAT RIGHT JACK?"
Jack Straw: "NO! NO! ........ ONE HAS SO MUCH TO REMEMBER, OCCASIONALLY YOU HAVE MEMORY LAPSES AND I THINK I WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED THAT!"
Watch the full report to believe it. BILL MALONEY POINTS THE FINGER DIRECTLY AT JACK STRAW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ktZl2AW7HA