ARTICLE: How Chilcot will whitewash the Iraq War

4333958843_9e871cc40d_b-770x470

Hat tip: http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/05/heres-chilcot-will-whitewash-iraq-war/

The long awaited report from the UK government’s inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq is going to be released on Wednesday.

But make no mistake: the process was designed from the start to let decision-makers off the hook for their roles in an illegal invasion that has destroyed a country and paved the way for the rise of the Islamic State.

A hint at the report’s findings were revealed by Lord Butler, who led a previous 2004 Iraq inquiry, which concluded that while Tony Blair had been “wrong” about Saddam Hussein’s WMD capacity, he did not deliberately deceive anyone:

“You can see the mistakes that deceived the intelligence community into thinking Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I have talked to the agencies and I hope that they have learnt the lessons from that,” said Butler.

Conflict of interest

Sir John Chilcot, who chairs the current inquiry, was a member of Butler’s team for that previous inquiry. The secretary of the current inquiry is Margaret Aldred, who was previously deputy head of Defence and Overseas Secretariat (subsequently Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat).

According to the Cabinet Office Annual Report and Resource Accounts for 2004/5, when Aldred began her role:

The Defence and Overseas Secretariat (DOS) has been at the forefront in coordinating the Government’s policy in Iraq following the end of the conflict with regular meetings of ministers, senior officials and video conferencing with officials in Iraq. Over the past year, DOS has coordinated policy development on Iraq.

Yet Aldred herself, despite being someone involved in the government’s Iraq policy, has not been called as a witness to the inquiry – although her successor in the same post was.

Chilcot and his aides refused to disclose information on Aldred’s own role in government policy on Iraq. As noted by Chris Ames, editor of the Iraq Inquiry Digest which has tracked the inquiry since it began:

The Inquiry’s willingness and ability to reveal the extent of her role is clearly compromised by the fact that she is its secretary. In concealing the conflict of interest, the Inquiry is concealing the truth of what happened.

Ames noted that the inquiry would have “little credibility” if it refused to come clean about its own connections to the government’s Iraq policy.

The first casualty

This should not be a surprise given that the first inquiry by Lord Butler was already a bankrupt whitewash of the highest order.

Butler’s report (6.4 para, p. 499), for instance, claimed it was “well-founded” that Saddam Hussein was trying to illegally obtain uranium for his so-called advanced nuclear weapons programme, from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The allegation was based on forged documents, which Butler claimed the British had no idea were forged.

Butler’s pathetic, fantastical version of events is so astonishingly absurd that it is not taken seriously by any journalist or historian who actually understands the Niger uranium intelligence scandal. Yet somehow in legitimate public discourse, it is still considered credible – and Butler receives ample air time with a straight face, without a single question about his role in obscuring the facts.

Don’t worry, you’re not going mad. This is the exceptional state of British journalism today.

In 2012, I and a team at the Institute for Policy Research & Development conducted our own peer-reviewed independent investigation into the public record data concerning Saddam’s alleged efforts to get uranium from Niger.

In our reportExecutive Decisions: How British Intelligence was Hijacked for the Iraq War – which was submitted to Chilcot’s inquiry – we pointed out that Britain’s White Paper on Iraqi WMD made the uranium claims, despite the British having being warned by George Tenet, head of the CIA, not to include them.

The claim traces back to ‘intelligence’ that was examined and discredited way back in 1999. Falsified documents were discovered in the form of written correspondence between officials in Niger and Iraqi agents. The documents had been submitted to the CIA by British officials.

But the documents were quickly dismissed at the time and found to be crude forgeries containing laughable errors: names and titles not matching individuals in office at the time; the Niger government’s letterhead being obviously cut and pasted, and the signature of a government official who had retired long ago having been forged.

Senior officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) described the documents as “so bad” that he could “not imagine they came from a serious intelligence agency.” The IAEA confirmed the forgery within hours.

But years later, this rank bullshit still made it into Britain’s official ‘intelligence’ assessment of the state of Iraq’s WMDs. It was then conveniently quoted by President Bush in his State of the Union address to Congress in 2003, helping to rile up public support for war.

Sadly, you won’t find the self-righteous pundit class lambasting the venal culture of self-serving power that allowed the systematic concoction of such “conspiracy theories” against official enemies to flourish in the heart of Whitehall.

Lies? What lies?

And here lays bare the methodology of vindication to be deployed by Chilcot and his friends: admit real failures, loudly condemn officials for failing, but contextualise the decisions leading up to the failures as entirely unintentional, then ultimately blame the failure on faulty systems across government.

The most that Blair and his warmongering friends can be accused of, then, is bad management.

But here’s the reality: the regurgitation of discredited forged nonsense as ‘British intelligence’ – which had already been rejected by the CIA and IAEA – speaks not to ‘faulty intelligence’ but to the deliberate ‘politicisation of intelligence.’

But false intelligence did not make its way inexplicably into the intelligence system because our intelligence agencies are underfunded and badly organised, and really, really believed what they were saying, poor darlings.

It made its way in, because political leaders made pre-conceived, ideological decisions about going to war.

Those decisions were untenable if the intelligence wasn’t there to back their decisions. So they exerted massive pressure on the intelligence community to find or make that intelligence.

Cherry picking

In leaked UK government memoranda between March and July 2002, references are repeatedly made to “poor” intelligence about WMD, and the “thin” case for war that it presented.

Indeed, then head of MI6, Richard Dearlove, confirms that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of regime change, “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”

Senior intelligence officers in MI6 and the CIA also confirmed that intelligence was being deliberately manufactured to support “the opposite conclusion from the one they have drawn.”

One MI6 officer said:

You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence. Yet that is what the PM is doing.

And a CIA official concurred:

We’ve gone from a zero position, where presidents refused to cite detailed intel as a source, to the point now where partisan material is being officially attributed to these agencies.

Chilcot’s abject failure to get to the bottom of this reveals the extent to which our democratic checks and balances in foreign policy decision-making are fundamentally broken – and confirms the institutional lack of accountability that allows this broken system to continue unabated.

The Chilcot report will be used to let the people who lied their way into war off the hook. It will also reinforce the idea that they did so with unquestioned benevolence, despite terrible and regrettable failures of management and judgement.

Don’t be surprised to find much of the pundit class – who, by the way, overwhelmingly and shamelessly clamoured for the invasion – chorusing in agreement.

They have blood on their hands too.

(2016) Liberal Democrat Clement Freud -PAEDOPHILE

Clement Freud

Sir Clement Freud, the former broadcaster and politician, was exposed on Tuesday night as a paedophile who sexually abused girls as young as 10 for decades.

Freud, who died in 2009, spent years abusing a girl who he brought up as a daughter, and violently raped a teenager while he was an MP.

His widow, Lady Freud, has apologised to his victims, saying she is “shocked, deeply saddened and profoundly sorry” for what her husband of 58 years did to them.

Detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have been alerted to the fact that Freud had a villa in Praia da Luz, Portugal, the resort where the three-year-old went missing in 2007.

He befriended the McCanns in the weeks after their daughter went missing, entertaining them at his house on two occasions and keeping in contact by phone and email.

The McCanns are said to be “horrified” by the discovery that Freud was a paedophile.

His family, who include the PR executive Matthew Freud, have said that Freud was not in Portugal at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance and that they have not been contacted by police.

Read on:

ARTICLE: Oppression Finally Arrives in the British Police State

untitled

Hat-tip: http://www.westernspring.co.uk/gagging-camerons-counter-extremism-measures/

“Over generations, we in Britain have built something extraordinary: a successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy. Our country today is more vibrant, buoyant and diverse than ever before in our history.” These are the opening words of our Prime Minister David Cameron’s forward to the document presenting his government’s ‘Counter Extremism Strategy’, and all people grounded in reality will recognise at once how delusional they are. While the population of Britain are indeed more ‘diverse’ than ever before, no-one outside of a funny-farm, and certainly no-one with first-hand experience of life in our inner cities, could possibly describe our society as currently more vibrant, or more buoyant than ever before.

David Cameron then goes on to talk about the ‘British values’ of freedom, inclusivity and democracy that we have, according to him, come to cherish.

One might think that with all the ‘vibrancy’ and ‘buoyancy’ that our increased ‘diversity’ has brought us that we British people would be falling over ourselves to welcome even more ‘diversity’, and that there would be no need for duress on the part of the Government to persuade us that we must accept more. All is not as David Cameron pretends however, because the ‘Counter Extremism Strategy’ aims to prevent the polarisation of our society in which disparate communities and disparate individuals reject the government’s insistence that we must all live happily, cheek-by-jowl with people who are alien to our way of life. In short, the Counter Extremism Strategy is intended to intimidate communities into accepting the imposition of multiculturalism and multiracialism that few people actually want.

If we truly had built something ‘extraordinary’, a ‘successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy’, with greater ‘vibrancy’ and ‘buoyancy’ than ‘ever before in our history’, there would be no need for the government’s Counter Extremism Strategy. This whole issue therefore, and the government’s position is predicated on a lie.

David Cameron goes on, “One of the greatest threats we face is the scourge of extremism from those who want to divide us. We see it in sickening displays of neo-Nazism, Islamophobia, antisemitism and, of course, Islamist extremism”, oh, of course!

David Cameron says, “… of course, Islamist extremism”, in order to emphasise the only form of extremism that the indigenous British are actually concerned about. His focus here on ‘Islamist extremism’ is intended to distract us from the real intention of the legislation being proposed and to provide the Draconian measures planned with an element of ‘sugar coating’, making them easier to swallow.

Cameron states that government has in the past been “too tolerant of intolerance”, and with regard to Islamic extremism he is right, however with three Race Relations Acts, in 1965, 1968 and then 1976, and finally the Equalities Act of 2010, each act ratcheting-up the restrictions on our freedom of action and freedom of speech regarding race, government have already taken very oppressive steps where so-called right-wing extremism is concerned.

At any time over the last sixty or seventy years government could have almost completely defused the race issue in this country, by simply halting mass immigration from the Third World and by allowing people the freedom to discriminate as we see fit. This would have significantly limited the impact of non-White immigration on our society and by not forcing disparate peoples into contact with each other, public resentment would have greatly diminished. This would have been the response of a moderate government, but sadly, successive governments have not been moderate, they have sought to flood our country with non-White immigrants and to force us to interact with them at every step and turn of our lives. We have been governed by a succession of extremist governments, with the extreme aim of forcibly creating a multiracial society and inducing our people miscegenate.

Oppression 1The Race Relations Act 1965 represents the measures that the Labour government of Harold Wilson thought appropriate in 1965. The measures contained were considered the limit of what could be achieved in terms of coercing the British people forcing us to submit to the presence of a significant non-White population in this country. By 1968 however, the Wilson government thought they could get away with more and they introduced more extreme measures, and by 1976 the Labour government of James Callaghan introduced even more extreme measures.

Finally, came the Equalities Act 2010, which creates an onus on every government department and every public body to take active steps to promote ‘diversity’ and suppress any expression of opposition. The race relations regime established by the Equalities act creates a rigid legislative framework making discrimination virtually impossible and making public dissent from the ostensible goals of tolerance and diversity so costly as to be untenable.

The measures incorporated within the Equalities Act however, were thankfully only designed to punish those who break the law, and this is where the governments proposed counter extremism measures go right off the ‘Richter scale’ of law enforcement measures as far as civilised Western nations are concerned. The new measures include measures to ‘disrupt’ the lives of people who have not broken the law, but who are judged by the authorities to hold and disseminate views with which the government disagrees.

“We will disrupt extremists, aggressively …” says David Cameron, “We will disrupt all those who seek to spread hate and we will prosecute all those who break the law”, adds the Home Secretary Theresa May. Let us be clear, when a government imposes measures that disrupt the lives of its citizens simply because those citizens hold beliefs that are contrary to those of the government, and in circumstances where the citizens concerned have neither employed violence nor broken the law, this is not ‘law enforcement’, it is not ‘protecting the people’, it is not ‘good government’, it is out-and-out oppression!

Illustrating the hypocrisy of these new measures, the government document detailing the proposed counter extremism strategy begins Chapter One with the words: “Life in our country is based on fundamental values that have evolved over centuries, values that are supported and shared by the overwhelming majority of the population and are underpinned by our most important local and national institutions. These values include the rule of law, democracy, individual liberty, and the mutual respect, tolerance and understanding of different faiths and beliefs”.

It does not seem to have occurred to David Cameron or Theresa May that ‘the rule of law’, means that government does not act outside of the law by persecuting with disruption orders, those who have been law abiding. It does not occur to them that a central tenet of ‘democracy’ is the right of freedom of expression, a freedom that successive rafts of so-called hate-speech legislation has already substantially curtailed, or that ‘individual liberty’ confers upon people, freedom of belief, and freedom of conscience. That is, the freedom to hold beliefs not shared by the government and in some instances directly opposed to those of the government, providing the people holding those beliefs act within the law.

In Chapter Two of the government document, it states under the heading ‘Disrupting Extremists, “We will create new targeted powers, flexible enough to cover the full range of extremist behaviour, including where extremists sow division in our communities and seek to undermine the rule of law”. Furthermore, in Chapter Five, dealing specifically with ‘Disrupting Extremists’, it continues, “there remain extremists in our society who cause an immense amount of harm, while being careful to stay just the right side of the law. In addition to strengthening our use of existing powers against such extremists, we will introduce new, carefully targeted powers to challenge the most active and persistent individuals and groups”.

Bear in mind here, the government are not talking about terrorist groups being targeted for disruption, nor are they talking about criminal organisations that break the law, they are talking about ‘disrupting’, that is, persecuting people for simply holding and disseminating dissident beliefs. These are the sort of tactics which a generation ago, and perhaps even a decade ago would only be associated with totalitarian regimes, or autocratic governments in Africa or Asia.

Gagged 1The government document continues: “The police have a range of powers to deal with extremists. However these powers are neither comprehensive nor are they always flexible enough to respond to the risk. For example it is not currently possible to ban groups which stir up racial hatred, or to stop the activities of extremists who deliberately set out to sow divisions between communities and encourage young people to reject the fundamental values and institutions on which our society is based.

“We will therefore introduce new powers to: ban extremist organisations that promote hatred and draw people into extremism; restrict the harmful activities of the most dangerous extremist individuals; and restrict access to premises which are repeatedly used to support extremism.”

When we realise how low the threshold is becoming in terms of the authorities deciding what is considered to be racial hatred, the implications of the above two paragraphs become frighteningly clear. The ‘working definition of anti-Semitism’, which is currently being promoted in government circles by Jewish groups, asserts that, “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations”, amounts to anti-Semitism, and as we all know, in the minds of Judeophiles, anti-Semitism is the most heinous form of racism. Therefore, we can expect to see certain nationalist organisations banned under the government’s new measures.

The measures that have already been vested in the Home Secretary under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, include:

House arrest;
Travel restrictions and/or denial of passport;
Exclusion from certain geographical areas;
Denial of banking or other financial services;
Banning from buying or selling property;
Banning the use of computers or telephones;
Banning association with certain other individuals;
Proscribing certain kinds of work or study; or
Electronic tagging and/or curfews.

Refusal to comply with such a disruption measure would of course be an arrestable criminal offence.

Most importantly, we must make as many people as possible aware of these new measures and the way in which they deviate into naked oppression in a way that the law in the UK has not done for hundreds of years or more. These measures will undermine democracy in the name of protecting democracy; they will undermine the rule of law while professing to do the opposite and they will similarly undermine freedom of belief and freedom of conscience, and we must make our people beyond the nationalist community aware of this. We must make them understand that if government find they can behave in such a cavalier fashion without any adverse repercussions, this kind of crude and lazy law enforcement will increase, sweeping aside the civil rights of everyone and sooner or later we will all find ourselves living in a police state.

(2016) Lib-Dem MP Nick Clegg: Financial Fraud

clegg

Guido can reveal that Nick Clegg overspent by £17,652 in his Sheffield Hallam short campaign, then cooked the books so his declarations came in under the limit. Clegg’s official declarations claim he spent £14,138.77 in his short campaign:

Yet a second internal budget schedule obtained by Guido reveals Clegg’s true expenditure in Sheffield Hallam. This bombshell document admits Clegg actually spent £36,852.89 in his Sheffield Hallam short campaign. Astonishingly, under the column headed “What you’ve got left”, the figure “- £17,652.89” appears. This is prima facie evidence that Clegg broke electoral law – Clegg overspent by over £17,000…

CLEGG2

Clegg disguised his overspend by declaring £14,120.31 of his Sheffield Hallam spending as part of the national campaign. His Election Address – which by statute, namely the Representation of the Peoples Act, explicitly states is for the local candidate’s spend only – was declared as part national spend. His vehicle hire, room hire and agent costs were all declared as national spend. A further £5,913.45 was then “offset” for local elections and future campaigns. This is classic cooking the books – the document we have obtained admits that in reality all this spending was part of the “Sheffield Hallam Short Campaign Budget”.

A LibDem spokesman says spending was apportioned correctly to the national and other local campaigns in Sheffield Hallam:

“The figure of £-17,652 that you refer to is the amount spent above an indicative figure in a draft template budget. It does not relate to spend over and above an election spend limit. Any claim or suggestion of an overspend on the constituency return is misleading and factually inaccurate… We are confident that all spend has been correctly attributed to the appropriate return.”

It’s there in black and white – “What you’ve got left: -£17,652.89” – that looks like the true figure to Guido…

(2016) Conservatives: David Cameron’s former aide Patrick Rock guilty of making child sex abuse images

patrick-rock

A former aide to Prime Minister David Cameron has been found guilty of five counts of making indecent photographs of children.

Patrick Rock faced 20 charges of making an indecent photograph of a child, including downloading pictures of girls as young as 10 in sexual poses.

The 65-year-old, of Fulham, London, had claimed the 20 images downloaded on to his iPad over three days in August 2013 were not indecent.

The jury at Southwark Crown Court took more than eight hours to convict Rock of five counts. He was acquitted of three similar charges.

Jurors have been unable to agree on 12 other counts and were discharged, meaning the charges will lie on file.

The court heard the youngest of the girls in the pictures was aged 10 years and four months when he downloaded the image, meaning she was even younger when it was taken.

None of the girls were naked in the pictures, but prosecutors claimed they were in “sexualised” poses in revealing clothing, including swimwear and bras.

Rock is due to be sentenced at a later date.

Read on:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/david-cameron-former-aide-patrick-rock-guilty-of-making-child-sex-abuse-images-a7059966.html

Referendum Fraud: EU Citizens Given Polling Cards

euref-polling-card

Multiple reports are emerging that EU citizens have been sent polling cards despite not having a vote in the referendum. Jakub Pawlowski, a Polish citizen living in Kingston, Surrey, tells Guido:

“I have been living in UK since 2006 but never applied for British citizenship. I recently bought a house and in December 2015, right after completion, filled the form to get registered on electoral roll. I have selected there that I’m a Polish citizen. I could therefore vote in London mayoral elections this month, however recently I got a polling card for the upcoming referendum on EU membership.”

Non-British EU citizens do not have a vote in the referendum…

Kingston council told Jakub that he was erroneously in their database as a British citizen. But this appears to be a widespread problem:

Another stunning success for the Electoral Commission…

UPDATE: Kingston council say:

“When applying to be included on the Register of Electors the elector in question indicated his nationality as British and, thus, was issued with a polling card for the Referendum. Instances such as this are taken extremely seriously and we are working closely with, and under the guidance of, the Electoral Commission.”

Read on:  http://order-order.com/2016/05/31/eu-citizens-sent-referendum-polling-cards/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guidofawkes+%28Guy+Fawkes%27+blog+of+parliamentary+plots%2C+rumours+and+conspiracy%29