Thread: Chilcot Enquiry: The 2 Dirty Snakes that sold the west down the river.

Blair and Bush.

Let them have what they deserve people.

Tony Blair denies he delayed Chilcot Inquiry - Home News - UK - The Independent

Chilcot inquiry into Iraq war could report this year, says David Cameron | UK news | The Guardian

BBC News - Iraq inquiry delay very serious, says senior Tory

Iraq Inquiry: Sir John Chilcot agrees deal with US to release secret communications between Tony Blair and George Bush - Home News - UK - The Independent

what you expect blair is in bed with the world police.

What a surprise.

Both good patriots and Christians.
Defenders of the beloved Anglo-American civilisations.

Cameron is a bounder


In 2012, the government vetoed the release of the documents to the Inquiry detailing minutes of Cabinet meetings in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Concurrently, the British Foreign Office successfully appealed against a judge's ruling which had ordered disclosure of extracting a conversation between George W. Bush and Tony Blair days before the invasion. The government stated that revealing a phone call conversation between Bush and Blair days before the invasion would later present a "significant danger" to British-American relations..

The million word report of the Inquiry was due to be released to the public by 2014,[8] but difficult negotiations were continuing with the U.S. over the publication of documents relating to the US.


Iraq Inquiry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deal reached on release of 'gist' of Blair-Bush Iraq talks
Tony Blair with President George W. Bush in 2003
Discussions are taking place over the publication of confidential correspondence between Mr Bush and Mr Blair
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

Blair: I want Iraq report published Watch
Iraq inquiry: Day-by-day timeline
Details of the "gist" of talks between Tony Blair and George Bush before the Iraq war are to be published, the UK's Chilcot inquiry says.

But transcripts and full notes of conversations will remain secret, at the request of the government.

The agreement between the inquiry and Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood could clear the way for the report to be published this year.

It is thought to have been delayed by wrangling over what could be released.

The inquiry has been given access to full records of talks between the two leaders in the run-up to war but is being prevented by the government from publishing them in its final report, even after offering to block out sensitive parts.

The UK government's grounds for refusing the request to publish the full documents and transcripts is that it could prejudice future relations between the two countries.

The inquiry has instead been granted permission to "disclose quotes or gists of the content" to help explain its conclusions, inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot explained in a letter to Sir Jeremy.


more here

BBC News - Deal reached on release of 'gist' of Blair-Bush Iraq talks

Originally Posted by Yasojack

Deal reached on release of 'gist' of Blair-Bush Iraq talks

INdeed - basically the PR version, sexed up, to make them both look good and to ensure the truth is not released. You would have thought that obomba and camamoron would be anxious to hang these two out to dry! But that is also to assume that obomba and camamoron are any different, and not part of the same party as bliar and bush.

Did we really expect a full report on this monstrous attack on a country.
The bs and lies to be laid bare.
that it was all about the OIL.
now we get fobbed off with a watered down account.
What the feck have we done to ourselves.our world.


'Danger never calls ahead unless it's the IRA'.

The U.S. should just invade Britain.

Blair and Bush should be locked up for war crimes.

Maybe it is a very private conversation as it was between these two Christian leaders praying together to God.
God only must know what they prayed for together.

This issue was the subject of discussion on UKTV's Question Time on Thursday evening.

Just about everyone in the audience agreed that the parents of allied soldiers killed in the war should know the whole truth.

Indeed, why have an inquiry which fails to reveal the facts? The panel are not fit for the purpose they was selected to accomplish.

The widening gap of trust between government and the people is currently of chasmic proportions. I hope the British public will not take this quite dreadful decision lightly.

Chilcot report expected to single out senior British military figures

Among those facing criticism over Iraq are Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton, chief of defence staff, and Gen Sir Mike Jackson


General Sir Mike Jackson and General Sir Nicholas Houghton.

Senior military figures will be singled out for criticism alongside Tony Blair and other establishment figures in the long-awaited Chilcot report into the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which is due to be handed to Downing Street next week.

At more than 2m words in length, it is a damning critique, with military commanders expected to be reprimanded for allowing themselves to be bulldozed by No 10 in the run-up to the war.

Blair, former ministers, intelligence officers and top officials are also in focus, in a document that is is not expected to be published until after the EU referendum because it needs to be vetted and formatted for publication.

Those expected to be criticised include Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton, then head of military operations – and now chief of defence staff – and the then head of the army, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, according to sources with knowledge of the report. “The question is what proportion of blame is going to be on the politicians, on the military, and on the civil servants,” one of those who gave evidence to the inquiry said.

Ministers in focus will be the former defence secretary Geoff Hoon, former foreign secretary Jack Straw, and former international development secretary Clare Short, as well as Blair.

During a debate in the Commons on Thursday, a string of MPs from both sides called for publication in the first week of May, after the local elections. Some questioned whether the document was being delayed until after the EU referendum on 23 June so as not to distract from the remain campaign.

The Cabinet Office minister John Penrose said that the report was unlikely to be published until June or July. He said that when it arrives in Downing Street, intelligence officers will be given up to a fortnight to vet it to ensure there is nothing that could endanger any life, but not to censor it. More time after that would be needed to prepare it for printing.

A firmer date for publication will be announced by Chilcot after the intelligence services have completed their vetting, Penrose added.

The Conservative MP David Davis, one of those who wants the report published in early May, described a delay as “incomprehensible and unacceptable” and questioned why Sir John Chilcot could not just “press send”.

Senior members of the intelligence service are also in the firing line, including Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, and Sir John Scarlett, a former chairman of the joint intelligence committee.

Ben Barry, a former senior army officer who provided evidence to Chilcot and is now a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “If Chilcot is doing his job, I suspect many key New Labour figures will be criticised. Whilst many of them are not as active in politics as they once were, they are still figures who could make a positive contribution to Cameron’s campaign to remain in Europe. So delaying a report that might damage or even destroy their reputations might be an understandable judgment call.”

Most of the senior military figures involved in the run-up to the invasion have received draft passages of the report containing personal criticisms, the Guardian has learned. An internal Ministry of Defence report, written in 2004 by a senior official and provided to the inquiry, offers a flavour of the shambolic approach to the war.

“The department and PJHQ [permanent joint headquarters] were ... pretty rubbish at providing advice on timelines,” it said. It added: “The lack of preparedness in the FCO ... Many diplomats couldn’t believe that it would ever come to war, and behaved accordingly.”

The report continued: “The Treasury ... It is absurd to spend billions on a short, sharp, war and then try to run an area the size of France with hardly two pennies to rub together.”

In a telling passage, the report’s author wrote: “When I interviewed S of S [the defence secretary, Hoon] for the lessons process, his view was that if we had started all our preparations as early as some wanted us to, we would have had the best-prepared non-operation in history, because the government would have lost parliament.”

The Chilcot report is certain to point to Hoon’s instruction to the then chief of defence staff, Lord Boyce, to delay military preparations so as not to alert parliament and the public, that war was a given, as one well-placed source put it to the Guardian.

The report is unlikely to give a view on the legality of the invasion, if only because the Chilcot inquiry panel did not include a lawyer, sources said.

Chilcot report expected to single out senior British military figures | UK news | The Guardian

Saddam did indeed have and use WMD's (chemical weapons) against Iran there is a comprehensive study here : https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-.../npr/81ali.pdf

A question that is not answered is who supplied him with them or the chemicals to make them. The UK were the only backers of Iraq that denied supplying him both France and the US stayed silent.

However WMD's were only an excuse the real reason Saddam had to go was indeed to do with oil but not directly for Saddam started demanding Euros for his oil sidelining the Dollar. Plenty of evidence of this : Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks - TIME

Iraq: Baghdad Moves To Euro

The question was asked 'Was this the real reason he had to go" : Was the Iraqi Shift to Euro Currency to ?Real? Reason for War? | AMI (American Monetary Institute)

Was Iraq's decision to change payment for its oil from dollars to euros a reason for the US to attack Iraq? - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

The answer would have to be yes.
Iraq was invaded to protect the US Dollar.

The same goes for the invasion of Libya for Gaddafi was wanting to trade his oil in Gold : Gold, Oil, Africa and Why the West Wants Gadhafi Dead

Gadhafi?s Gold-money Plan Would Have Devastated Dollar

So two countries have been devastated, millions killed and IS created to protect the US Dollar.

Will these facts be in the Chilcot report ? Not a chance.

Originally Posted by Neverna

a document that is is not expected to be published until after the EU referendumbecause it needs to be vetted and formatted for publication.

now there's a surprise
just in case a few voters wake up ......

Originally Posted by Kurgen

Blair and Bush should be locked up for war crimes.

No, they should both be hung, drawn and quartered in front of the whole world.

Originally Posted by birding

France and the US stayed silent.

The US sold them to them. They almost insisted they had them and used them. Interesting aside, Iran never retaliated with similar despite Iraq attacking their country. Iran still holding the higher ground over the USA in almost absolutely everything.

^
Did Iran have them to use back then?

Also, any links showing the US sold them to Iraq? I am sure the world would like to see that evidence.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

^
Did Iran have them to use back then?

Also, any links showing the US sold them to Iraq? I am sure the world would like to see that evidence.

How Did Iraq Get Its WMD? -
We Sold Them To Saddam

The US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulismto Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Read more at:

How Did Iraq Get Its WMD? - We Sold Them To Saddam

I am sure you wont want to believe this one as it is from Iran but if you read through it you will find a solid list of references that can all be checked.

Iran Chamber Society: History of Iran: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement

Easy to see why Iran does not trust the US.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

It would be nice to hear some truth, but I doubt that will ever happen. My thought is that the US and the UK jutified the invasion because they were the ones who gave the WMDs to Saddam in the first place. They were both surprised when none were found since they are probably buried deep in the Iraqi desert.

There were indeed WMD's found in Iraq when it was invaded and soldiers were injured by them, but they were all old stuff left over from the Iran Iraq war and it was kept secret because to admit that they were found would have raised questions of how Saddam came by them.

Read for yourself :

U.S. Found Chemical Weapons In Iraq, All Right (The Ones We Gave Saddam)

U.S. Found Chemical Weapons In Iraq, All Right (The Ones We Gave Saddam) | Wonkette