Iraq War: to try or not to try a former PM

[leclerc]

Re: Iraq War: to try or not to try a former PM

http://blair.3cdn.net/7c545e7dd16bfda1c8_aqm6ii5qy.pdf

Tony Blair statement in full....

[Openlaw15]

Re: Iraq War: to try or not to try a former PM

Thought I'd open the hornets nest and see if anyone want to discuss the Iraq War(or should I say Chilcott report before Corbyn reigns ).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36712735

OIL oil OIL....commercial interests more OIL. In 2002, even Chilcott concedes Iraq had 115 billion proven oil reserves. He didn't tell you USA/ Canada/ Mexico between them had only 20 billion (mainly USA). The entire European countries only have 5 billion. Simple math - 300 million US folk, 500 million Europeans versus Iraq's mere 30 million people. It's the same with Libya, it had much less than Iraq but according to the US Commercial interests (Cfr, according to a phd thesis I accessed, which confirms Cfr is a commercial interest run entity, so not just my own view), Libya simply had more potential for developing oil, even if less proven oil reserves than Iraq, or maybe anywhere on the planet. All the European tankers and North American continent tankers were shown on the UK's media news in Libya - jobs for the boys.

MI6 reported to mainstream media that Saddam can have WMD operating in 24 hours, which led to main news TV networks such ITV, including main newspapers reporting it as fact. MI6 didn't have the power to lead public support for war but the media is powerful enough to do that very thing. Good journalism involves questioning sources - were the media even mentioned as spreading the propaganda war machine in Chilcott's Report? No, ironically enough the media although to blame, ie the media conveys pictures, words, sensitive words, emotional words in their media pieces which has the effect of influencing the public, were reporting some of the material events on news all yesterday, that Chilcott stated in his 7-year-long Report. Isn't that a bit like someone who starts a propaganda war interviewing the general of the army who enacted that war albeit based on the 'best military (spy) intelligence, ie Military Intelligence 6 (MI6).

There is more to this whole thing than any PM or US President be it Tony Blair or Dubya Bush. The Chilcott enquiry never even mentioned names for 'illegal purposes' in proximity to Tony Blair or the UK intelligence agencies, what about the media? Not a sausage. In my view, this is a watered down investigation and Tony Blair - being a barrister - and his own barrister - the public interest of the real movers n shakers - likely came up with 'National Security for ensuring the public got a watered down investigation albeit they nevertheless were heard and the state, in their view, had taken action. MI6 apparently had 1 or 2 rogue MI6 operators - actually it was the senior MI6 spies who convinced the media about Hussein's alleged threat, not 2 rogue MI6 spies. It stinks to high heaven of a massive cover-up. It's more likely UK spies were working with US' CIA based spies on the weighty influences of the US' council of foreign relations (well North America, not the USA entirely) interests for a war. Look at the signatories of the Cfr.

It's simply so easy to blame the Prime Minister or any US President but the commercial interests like it when perhaps not very bright Presidents as Dubya gets into power. Winston Churchill was said to have left with an average secondary education and more likely to have got where got owing to who he was and who his family knew. Not many people with his mediocre academia would have got into a privileged Officer school. The UK was a creditor and the USA a creditor for, as the IMF puts it, Iraq's main economic asset. It in my view is corruption to high heaven.