for more info do read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/15/iraq-war-inquiry

For those of us who have thought through the issues, this is not an entirely welcome development. “WMD” addresses a side-issue – which is how, to the chilling “write-off” of a human life, the senior echelons of British Intelligence connived at the manipulation of its lower echelons by United States Intelligence.

“WMD” incisively shows the mechanics and human cost of this manoeuvring – which led to the documentary base of parliamentary and media presentations, to the effect, some one would say, of deceiving the Great British Public.

How can all this be reduced to a “side-issue” ? Are we not confronted with a perversion of our democracy ?

Not really. Our democracy is nothing if not “representative”. And our “representative” in matters of international honour and national security is not Parliament but the “Queen-in-Parliament” – in other words, our executive authority. Consultation there must be, but thereafter the decision is discretionary.

That any parliamentary consultation may have been conducted on purposely-laid false premises is a pity. But it’s not the issue whether the UK should have gone to war.

John Emeric

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7963406.stm

Over the past few years, as the Americans, British and others got more and more bogged down in the tragedy that is Iraq, it’s nearly impossible not to wonder what leaders like Bush and Blair and Brown really think about all this.  Sure, we get the soundbites in the press, but can these men really look at themselves in the mirror and feel good about everything?  George Bush said this week that he could.  It’s hard to entirely believe that.  The Coalition of the Willing–remember that?–seems a long long time ago.  Yet, with President-Elect Obama not ruling out war crime charges for those that orchestrated the “tasks” in Iraq, one thing’s for certain: this isn’t over yet.

General Eric Shinseki was army Chief of Staff, only to be disregarded and later vilified by Penatgon chief at the time Donald Rumsfeld (he of the patronising ‘sneer’) and the deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (later indicted by a Grand Jury), for telling Congress in 2003 that keeping order in Iraq after in invasion would need several hundred thousand troops.

During the course of making this film of ours WMD it was extraordinary how many people who said they had supported the war now realise they were manipulated and lied to. Did you feel the same? 

There is a slowly growing public resentment…

As if hearing heard his call to arms, Plane Stupid www.planestupid.com/ invaded London’s Stansted airport today bringing flights to a halt, saying that for every minute the runway was closed four tonnes of greenhouse emissions were prevented. Just like the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings to secure equal voting rights for women protracted action of this sort is generally what motivates governments to act.

One could of course quote that emissions by the 40 industrialised nations are down 5% on 1990, but the drop has little to do with climate policies; the bilk of the decline is down to teh collapse of the soviet union the corresponding reduction of their carbon emitting heavy industries. Without this and and a similar reduction from euphemistically termed “economies in transition” greenhouse gas emissions have grown by almost 10% since 1990. Worrying. Is Obama going to make good his promises on reversing climate change or will he too waver? The US signed Kyoto, but President Bill Clinton never submitted it to a histile senate, which made it clear it would oppose on economic grounds any deal that did not set binding targets for the rest of the developing world – ie China.

As for President George W.Bush, no explanation for his sheer lack of motivation to do anything that appeared to adversely affect the economy, is needed. Perhaps God also told him that the profits of the large US corporations lobbying Washington were worth saving more than the very planet we live on (in case you’re reading Dubya its still the only one we’ve got. Screw this one up and we’re screwed, or didnt God tell you that too? Because I cant quite believe that. So maybe you were just asleep during that conversation, or pretending to listen and just watching the golf instead. We’ve all done it; “Sure God…mm..mm… I hear you…the planet.. very important…yeah…Wow, did you see that drive?!”. Yes, I bet it was probably something like that)

You can just imagine God throwing his hands up in despair something like this Eddie Izzard Greenpeace video : http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XLBDmhsDY3k

Here is a brief but comprehensive summary drawn from extensive research, of the political manoeuvring behind the closed doors of The White House and Downing Street, that led us to invade Iraq.

First The History…. 

• 1953 The US plays a significant role in overthrowing the popular Iranian prime minister, generating resentment. The Iran monarch Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi modernises Iran, recognises Israel and reduces the power of the sh’ia clergy.
• 1979 When Islamic revolutionaries oust the US backed Shah of Iran, the US, increasingly dependent on Middle Eastern oil and fearful of the spread of anti Americanism in the world’s biggest oil producing region, covertly supported Iran’s secular neighbour Iraq.
• 1980 Iraq starts the 8-year Iran-Iraq war by invading its neighbour.
• 1982 The US, France, USSR, UK, Germany, Switzerland and other states sell arms, components and chemical weapons agents to Iraq. The US exports Botulinum toxin and Anthrax to Iraq, supposedly for research, but they are used against Iran. www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=us_iraq_80s_810  www.janes.com/defence/news/jcbw/jcbw030417_1_n.shtml
• 1983 Donald Rumsfeld shakes Saddam’s hand when he visits Iraq.
• 1990 Saddam Hussein complains that Kuwait is drilling diagonally across its borders into Iraq to access Iraqi oil. The US Ambassador purportedly tells Saddam they have little interest in Arab-Arab conflicts and want the issue resolved quickly. Possibly taking this to imply the US will not intervene in any dispute Saddam invades Kuwait.
• 1990 The US led coalition kicks Iraq out of Kuwait, but having stated this as its only intention – in order to secure wide international support for the war – does not attempt to invade Iraq.
• 1990 After the war Iraq gives international inspectors the run-around, undoubtedly to perpetuate the idea that they do have Weapons of Mass destruction and thereby maintain an image of power in the region.
• 1991 Dick Cheney, Secretary Of Defence commissions Paul Wolfowitz to overhaul the pentagons basic strategic planning document. Wolfowitz’s new version suggested that the U.S. should discourage other nations “from challenging our leadership”, and said pre-emptive strikes might be necessary against states such as North Korea and Iraq to prevent the development or use of weapons of mass destruction.www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html

• 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam’s son-in-law, defects, confirming suspicions that Iraq did indeed possess WMDs up to the 91 Gulf War, but adding that they destroyed them all immediately after. Later, George W. Bush’s administration will repeatedly cite the first point, but not the second.
• 1998 UN Weapons Inspectors, frustrated at their lack of progress, pull out of Iraq.
• (NB In 2002, the Head of the UN Inspection team stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The Invasion Story:

·       The US Dependency On Oil

The US has 4% of the world’s population but uses 25% of its oil. Seven times per head more than Kuwait. It is an economy run on oil. www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

·       Dick Cheney’s Pre-election Ethos

Dick Cheney, 1999: “By 2010 we will need in the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day. So where is this oil going to come from?.…The Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies” www.energybulletin.net/node/559

·       Bush/Cheney – The First days In Power

January 2001 On his 10th day as vice president, Dick Cheney, instructed by the President, established a secret “Energy Task Force,” formally known as the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), for the purpose of making recommendations to President Bush on energy policy. The task force met secretly with lobbyists and representatives of the petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, and electricity industries. Many of these individuals work for energy companies which gave large campaign contributions to bus/Cheney 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_task_force

10 days after George W. Bush’s inauguration, at his first National Security Council meeting going after Saddam was topic “A” www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

·       The Iraq Hangover

During their early days in office “Cheney and others….would say things like, “Tell me about Iraq, tell me about Iraq, tell me about Iraq. What’s the status of their WMDs? What’s their support of terrorism?” When senior members of the intelligence community answered that they had little new information on Iraq–no smoking guns on WMDs or terrorism–the message would come back: “Try harder. Need to know more.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/timep.saddam.tm/ (excellent article about the wider reasons why Iraq was considered a threat)

·       The 9/11 Excuse

September 2001 The day after the 9/11 attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald “Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq, And we all said … no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan….And Rumsfeld said there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq” I said, ‘Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

“[President Bush] came back at me and said, “Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there’s a connection.’ And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer”

 www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

·       President Bush’s Changing Rhetoric 1

·       President Bush’s Changing Rhetoric 1

Jan 2002 President Bush’s State of the Union speech cites Iraq, North Korea and Iran and an ‘Axis of Evil’, threatening America and the world.

March 2002 George W. Bush privately says  “Fuck Saddam; We’re taking him out” http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004567,00.html

·       The British Influence On The Justification For War

July 21 2002 Leaked Downing Street Minutes reveal that the UK said it would join a US led invasion but could only do so with popular support at home. It continues that in order for the UK to get that popular support a legal justification for the invasion needs to be found, and lists three possibilities:

 1. Self defence

2. To avert a humanitarian disaster

3. If authorized by the UN Security Council

Obviously the first two aren’t possible, so UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw suggests they should “work up” an ultimatum about weapons inspectors that would “help with the legal justification”. Blair is recorded as saying that “it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors”. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387285.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article531957.ece

·       The Legal Route – The New UN Resolution

Nov 2002, probably as a result of British advice that a firm legal basis needed to be ‘worked up’ for an invasion, the US and UK jointly propose Resolution 1441 to the UN which would offer Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” that had been set out in several previous resolutions and stating that a failure by Iraq to comply with the implementation of the resolution would constitute a breach of the resolution; a solid UN endorsed legal justification for military action.

The resolution is passed.

The US ambassador added:“If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security”

·       President Bush’s Changing Rhetoric 2

Bush’s rhetoric changes from the melodramatic ‘Axis of Evil’ stance and now cites Iraq’s need to adhere to UN resolutions.

·       Iraq Countermove

November 2002 Iraq lets Inspectors back in – by complying with the UN resolution 1441 they effectively counter the US and UK’s attempt to secure a legal justification for military action.

·       President Bush’s Changing Rhetoric 3

By Jan 2003 when inspectors still have found no weapons, effectively negating the legal justification for invading (i.e. Iraq not complying with UN resolution 1441) Bush’s patience is probably wearing thin and his rhetoric now changes again. No longer is the main thrust Iraq’s non compliance with UN resolutions, but instead every speech on Iraq now heavily emphasises the only possible legal justification left: a direct threat to the US….

“[Iraq] could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.….. Saddam Hussein…..would be in a position to threaten America……We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon…..Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud…..The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons” George W. Bush Cincinnati 7^th October 2002

·       Bush Tries To Provoke Saddam Into Staring A War

Jan 31^st 2003 In a meeting with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair President Bush suggested painting a U2 spyplane in UN colours and flying it low over Iraq in the hope that it might provoke the Iraqis to shoot it down and thus provide a justification for retaliatory military action that could conveniently escalate into the invasion.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article725857.ece

·       Convincing The UN And The World

Feb 6^th 2003 Colin Powell is given the task of convincing the UN security council Iraq is in breach of resolution 1441, as President Bush knows he needs someone well respected to present his case. Powell is reluctant and skeptical of the evidence, but military man that he is, when asked by the President “Are you with me on this” does his job. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html

Powell mentions Curveball (known to be a fabricator), the uranium documents (obvious forgeries) the satellite photos (shown to be inaccurate), the aluminium tubes (stridently objected to by many US intelligence employees – some of whom are fired for speaking out). Jack Straw is seen nodding encouragingly every time legality is mentioned.

·       Abandoning The UN Route

March 2003 the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately “in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security” – effectively to authorize military action.

It quickly became apparent that a majority of the UN Security Council members would oppose any resolution leading to war. French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a “second resolution” was effectively abandoned at that point. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

·       The Legal Dispute In The UK

7^th March 2003 UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith – the senior authority on the law in the UK – is unconvinced that an invasion would be legal. Under pressure from the US and Prime Minister Blair, Goldsmith changes his mind ten days later, and confirms to Tony Blair that military action against Iraq is indeed legal. 

·       Invasion

20^th March 2003. The US and UK led force invade Iraq. 49 countries were part of the coalition, but only US UK Spain, Italy, Australia, Poland, Portugal, Denmark provided troops.

After the war:

·       The Judgement – “A Serious Violation Of International Law”

November 2008 Lord Bingham, the senior British Law Lord states that  the US and UK led invasion of Iraq was “a serious violation of international law” and that “the effect of acting unilaterally was to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed: the prohibition of force (save in self-defence, or perhaps, to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe) unless formally authorised by the nations of the world empowered to make collective decisions in the security council …” www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/18/iraq-us-foreign-policy

“Naturally the common people don’t want war…. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Herman Goering – Adolf Hitler’s Deputy and Legal successor

“War is a continuation of State policy by other means”

Carl von Clauswitz

Below is a list of other related sites. Listing them here does not necessarily imply we are endorsing any of them. We are merely trying to provide you, the interested reader, with a  deeper insight into the issues, the  interested parties and their motives, and the consequences, than you will get from most mainstream media.

• History Commons: www.historycommons.org/ A fantastic site. Compiles events from the confusing mass of news and other sites into an easy and correct chronological order. Also, brilliantly allows you to shrink or expand the depth of detail so you can see events as simply or as deeply as you choose. Highly recommended.
• (For starters I suggest typing: ‘former CIA operative suggest tie between Michael Ledeen and forged Niger Documents.’ In the search window.

• Global Security: http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html “An invaluable resource on military, intelligence and national security matters.” [Bob Woodward in Plan of Attack, Simon & Schuster, April 2004] “The website that puts you in the commander-in-chief’s chair.” [The Times (London)]. “With all the speculation about American intentions for Iraq, there has been one place where, to the chagrin of the administration, people can find a few hard facts.” [The New York Times September 22, 2002]

• Raw Story www.rawstory.com/ A good grassroots news website. Raw Story’s reporting has been referenced by the New York Times, the Guardian, L.A. Weekly, the New York Post. 
• (For starters try this: www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm – A good timeline of events leading up to the war from 1998)

• The Project for a New American century: www.newamericancentury.org/ A frighteningly neo conservative group that in its own words ‘is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.’ Famous for having sent President Clinton a letter in 98 (www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, urging “removing Saddam Hussein and his region from power”. Libby was later convicted on four counts of perjury obstruction of justice and making false statements to a US grand jury – only to have his sentence commuted by President Bush. The site also lists Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney, presumably as supporters.

• Nural Cubicle: http://nuralcubicle.blogspot.com/ News accounts on the current crises in the Middle East unpublished by the US press. Articles collected from Le Monde (Paris), Il Corriere della Sera (Milan), La Repubblica (Rome), L’Orient-Le Jour (Beirut) and occasionally from El Mundo (Madrid). (Includes the best summary I found of the story of Italian Reporter Elisabetta Burba; the first person given the forged uranium documents. In her own words http://nuralcubicle.blogspot.com/search?q=panorama+magazine+niger+yellowcake)

• The White House website: www.whitehouse.gov/ On the left hand menu go to news, more news and then you get a list of news by date where you can watch George Bush’s speeches. Seen in conjunction with the dates of the intelligence evidence in his own administrations investigation into the invasion (‘The commission on the intelligence of the united states regarding weapons of mass destruction:’) it is astounding to realise how the absolute certainty of his words about Iraq’s WMDs is at complete odds with the absolute lack of certainty of any evidence. It is interesting to note how blatantly he was misleading the public, and how the choice of words and phrases was deliberately designed to induce fear in the general population. 
• Try www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html for starter
•  
• Platform London: www.platformlondon.org/ A human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. (For starters try this easily readable and easily readable and authoritative document summarizing the post invasion scramble for Iraq’s oil. Highly recommended. www.carbonweb.org/showitem.asp?article=57&parent=4&link=Y&gp=3)  

• Sourcewatch.org: www.sourcewatch.org/ Documents the PR and propaganda activities of public relations firms and public relations professionals engaged in managing and manipulating public perception, opinion and policy. A good collaborative project that keeps an eye on developments not in the news.
• (For starters read the following on how billions of dollars of Iraqi oil revenue was quietly made to disappear: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Development_Fund_for_Iraq)

• Warchild: www.warchild.org.uk/  works with children affected by war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Democratic republic of Congo and Uganda.

• Amnesty International; www.amnesty.org.uk/ The international human rights organisation.

• After Downing Street www.afterdowningstreet.org excellent news and opinion site designed to hold politicians accountable named after the famous Downing Street memo stating that “In the US…the facts were being fixed around the policy”.

• Michael Moore.com www.michaelmoore.com Home of America’s most famous modern political activist, in no small way responsible for reminding ordinary people they can make a difference.

• Counterpunch: www.counterpunch.org/  One of the best online political magazines in the USA. Regularly have essential articles on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• Znet: www.zmag.org/znet Collects and publishes articles on wide range of progressive issues. Authors include Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Rober Fisk and Howard Zinn

• Open Secrets: www.opensecrets.org nonpartisan guide to money’s influence on U.S. elections and public policy.

·       Britishblogs.co.uk www.britishblogs.co.uk/ A great site that allows you to blog on everything from politics to sport

• Global Policy Forum: www.globalpolicy.org monitors policy making at the United Nation.

• The Rational Enquirer: www.rationalenquirer.org/ No longer running but still a great source for information gathered from a variety of newspapers. (For starters try: www.rationalenquirer.org/channels/iraq.php?rs=1740 ‘45 Minutes: Behind the Blair Claim. False Intelligence on Iraqi Weapons Had Dubious Origins, Fateful Omissions ‘ From A Washington Post Article)

• Common Dreams: www.commondreams.org  A grassroots news site.

• Dictatorship watch: www.dictatorshipwatch.com seeing the conflict and US and British policy from the Arab world

• Factcheck: www.factcheck.org/ American non-partisan site run by Pennsylvania University that has as its mantra “holding politicians responsible’.

• Words of Power: www.wordsofpower.net/ The Website of Richard Power. Deloitte Touche Tomatsu’s Former Director of Security Intelligence. The site bio writes that Power has delivered his briefing to business and government leaders in over thirty countries (and the blog: http://words-of-power.blogspot.com/)

• Voices UK: www.voicesuk.org/ Aims to provide information and raise awareness about US/UK policy on Iraq and to help organise and promote grassroots activism here in the UK in solidarity with the Iraqi people.

• Corpwatch: www.corpwatch.org Holding Corporations Accountable.

• Justice Not Vengeance: www.j-n-v.org/ An anti-war group which has developed out of ARROW (Active Resistance to the Roots of War). (For starters try typing TORPEDOING THE INSPECTORS AN ARROW ANTI-WAR BRIEFING, 10 JULY 2002)