Rolled-up Trousers

Blair turned down Bush offer to stay out of Iraq

Tony Blair has admitted in his interviews with David Aaronovitch for the BBC's Blair Years, that George Bush offered to keep Britain out of the Iraq war before it began. Blair turned it down.

Can somebody in government please at last explain what this was all really honestly about? Clearly it was not to help the US because they did not need it, and said so. Blair was providing political cover for Bush, in a show of a coalition which didn't really exist.

Why? What did Britain get from taking this blood price from Iraqis and paying it from our own troops? What national interest was served? Was it oil as many say? Other theories say that US neocons had the security of Israel in mind. Was that in Blair's thoughts? If it was about the security of our country, was that served by inserting ourselves into Al-Qaeda's declared war against the US?

I commend this article by Linda Colley who ponders why Britain's connection with the EU is routinely questioned, but there is no equivalent debate about our relationship with the US:

Basra attacks down 90% since British troops left

Here's some news you might have missed.

Hat tip to Craig Murray

Gilligan on Campbell

I can understand, I think, why Campbell still feels so obsessed with the events of 2003. Although Hutton was, of course, a tactical triumph for him, with a knockout victory in the report and three good BBC scalps, it was an unparalleled strategic disaster. If his aim in taking us on was to disprove my story about the sexed-up dossier and restore trust in Tony Blair, it simply could not have been more counter-productive.

At Bournemouth this week, with only a handful of exceptions, Labour members and MPs have, as always, been friendly and even sometimes complimentary to me. Some of them know me from when I was a Labour activist. But mostly, of course, it is that over the dossier, almost everybody in the party, as in the country, accepts (broadly) my version of events, rather than Campbell's.

That, I'm sure, is why Campbell still feels compelled endlessly to revisit those events, even now. If he was genuinely innocent and victorious, he wouldn't need to keep protesting his innocence and victoriousness. People often complain to me that he and Blair escaped punishment. Although they did, of course, avoid the legal and judicial sanctions which they deserved, both received a harsher punishment - having their true natures exposed to the world - and a much more severe penalty: life sentences in the court of public opinion.
@CiF

Tony was listening

Tony Blair, Middle East peace envoy, on 4 June 2003:

I say, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that the fact is that in the end there have been many claims made about the Iraq conflict. It was claimed that hundreds of thousands of people were going to die in it; that it would be my Vietnam; that the middle east would be in flames; and—the latest claim—that weapons of mass destruction were a complete invention by the British Government. The truth is that some people resent the fact that it was right to go to conflict. We won the conflict; thanks to the magnificent contribution of the British troops, Iraq is now free, and we should be proud of that.
source

Courtesy of a comment on Blairwatch
 

Tony thinking he's doing the right thing

[Blair] did what he thought was right for his country, bless him. Big deal. So did Joe Stalin. So did Neville Chamberlain. So did John Wilkes Booth. Sincerity is no excuse. The world is full of people doing what they feel is right, which is why we judge on consequence not intent. Guess what? Every bankrupt business really believed in the product. Every referee that pointed to the penalty spot was absolutely convinced there had been a foul. And every leader that committed his country to a bloody and disastrous war was convinced of the opposite outcome.

From Martin Samuel in the Times, well worth also reading for his comparison of Blair with a sheepshagger

British soldiers and Iraqi prisoner abuse

The acquittal of Colonel Jorge Mendonca from war crimes charges in Basra was greeted by the British press with an air of indignation as to how such a smear could be levelled at British soldiers at all. The exercise was dismissed as a waste of time and money, while the Conservatives labelled it with the greatest insult of all – political correctness.

Nevertheless for anyone following the trial court martial, it is clear that there was substance to the grave charges that were pressed against seven British soldiers. They were answering charges regarding incidents surrounding a raid on a hotel in Basra, where detainees were alleged to have been “conditioned” or held in “stress positions”. Some would say tortured. The treatment resulted in the deaths of one of them, Baha Musa.

The proceedings started in Septmeber 2006 with Cpl Donald Payne confessing to being the country’s first war criminal. He pled guilty to the charge of inhumanely treating Iraqi civilians. It was a watershed moment which was also expected to have repercussions on the soldiers that were also with him at the time, and who according to witness testimonies, also took part in the beatings. There was also the question as to how far up the chain of command such procedures went, with British army testimony again indicating that the actions of Payne and others were approved from high up.

Murray smashes Cohen

No doubt you'll come across the fact that the latter has a book out about how the left are bad. Chief among his criticism of leftists currently is their association with Muslims. Stop the War's Andrew Murray says of this on CiF:

His method is not in the least bit novel. In one passage he suggests that since the Stop the War Coalition organised demonstrations with the Muslim Association of Britain, and the Muslim Association of Britain is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Muslim Brotherhood looks up to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and Qaradawi has made undoubtedly offensive remarks about gays and women ... then the Stop the War Coalition is sexist and homophobic. Even Senator McCarthy might have collapsed through exhaustion before arriving at Cohen's destination.

It's an easy game to play. Nick Cohen writes for the Evening Standard, which is published by Associated Newspapers, which owns the Daily Mail, which is not just homophobic but Tory so Nick Cohen is ... Conservative? Not yet, not yet.

Actually Cohen's links are a bit easier, as Murray mentions earlier in the article that he has been wined and dined by Paul Wolfowitz in the past.

Saddam's suspended sentence

Let's be clear in the preliminary. Those that opposed the war were accused of supporting Saddam's desire to develop WMD. We are no friends of Saddam and shed no tears on hearing of his death.

What is a shame is that the CIA man who was killed by pro-Iranian Shia factions was not tried for more deaths than the 148 people of Dujail in 1982. After all, remember what Tony Blair said in his speech to the Labour Party conference in Glasgow on 15 February 2003 - that historic day when two million took to the streets in protest against the neocon war:

If there are 500,000 on the march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.

As it was, he underestimated the numbers that actually turned up. And then he went on to ignore them and rival up to Saddam in the "number of people who died in the wars he started".

Jonathan Steele:

Baker-Hamilton contains some important warnings to policy makers. It points out that out of the 1,000 US embassy staff in Baghdad only six speak Arabic fluently. Fewer than 10 analysts in the Defence Intelligence Agency have more than two years' experience in charting the insurgency, so it is no surprise that they consistently misunderstand it.

The report says 61% of Iraqis approve of attacks on US and British forces. If one assumes crudely that Kurds (who form around 20% of the population) oppose such attacks, and Arab Sunnis (who also form about 20% of the population) support them, this means that two-thirds of Iraq's Shias also support them - a very high proportion among a population that suffered under Saddam and now dominates the government. Faced with such widespread hostility, is a US or British military presence sustainable?

US soldier admits raping Iraqi girl and killing her family

One of four U.S. soldiers accused of raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl last spring and killing her and her family pleaded guilty Wednesday and agreed to testify against the others.

(...)

Labour MPs are enemies of democracy

If Labour are trying to install the kind of democracy they have at Westminster in Baghdad, then not only is the method wrong, but they are entirely the wrong people to do it.

To say, as the governnment have, that now is not the right time for an inquiry because it would give succour those fighting British troops in Iraq, is to accuse the Americans of doing exactly that. Over the Atlantic, the Baker commission is right this minute looking into the details pre and post invasion.

All Parliament was asked to do last night was set up an inquiry to look at the government's conduct around the Iraq war. Even the Tories, who supported the war, backed it. Labour MPs, in extremely twisted loyalty to Blair, refused. They claim it's all been a big success, but don't want anyone to ask any questions about it.

As Simon Jenkins says in today's Guardian: "The Commons has become little more than an electoral college for the prime minister."

Grant Thoms has got a list of 12 MPs who backed the original Early Day Motion that brought forward this debate, but who then miraculously changed their minds last night e.g. Neil Gerrard. This would have reduced the government majority to 1. BSSC also lists the further 9 EDM signing "toadies" that didn't turn up to vote at all (explanations for absenses may roll in - one reason all MPs should have blogs). This would have meant a government defeat of 8.

And then we have the converts to the war. Yesterday, people that claim to be anti-war voted with the government and couldn't bring themselves to back a simple inquiry. Step forward Sadiq Khan and Shahid Malik for example. Gordon Prentice and Mohammad Sarwar did not turn up. But I also reflect on the fact that 138 Labour MPs rebelled on that famous vote on the eve of war. Admittedly some aren't there after the 2005 elections. But that doesn't account for the fact there are only 12 rebels yesterday who aren't even saying they were against war - just that there should be an inquiry. Has Labour opinion come more in favour of the war despite everything that's happened?

Opportunity lost - for now. Blair hasn't heard the last of this though.

Blair impeached today?

Iraq is set to be debated today for the first time in Westminster since 2003.

You'd think given everything that had happened, that in our democracy it would have come up sometime. But Labour, despite claiming it's been a great succes, have been somewhat reluctant at letting MPs loose on it.

SNP leader Alex Salmond has secured the debate, but it's not any old debate. The terms of it is that Tony Blair should be impeached using arcane Parliamentary rules. Well, at least it calls for a select committee of 7 MPs to be set up to investigate the government's conduct in the meantime.

From what I hear it seems there is a pincer movement forming. If the Lib Dems and the Tories back it, which they should, any kind of rebellion on the Labour benches could be significant.

If you have a hotline to your MP you can use at the lastminute, would be worthwhile getting in touch. Make sure you take your veil off before you phone or email though.

Lenin follows up on the BBC's promise to be at the court hearing yesterday into the BNP's bomb factory. I'm sure you were all overwhelmed with the media coverage. Also see Pickled Politics.

Also I think this barbed urgent appeal for humanitarian intervention is worthy of reproduction:

655,000 dead, government death squads wiping out families, mass starvation and malnourishment; the government is venal and corrupt, promotes fanatical sectarianism, and hides the true scale of deaths; so far 1.6 million people have had to become refugees.  I think we can safely call this a humanitarian catastrophe, so when are the Americans going to invade?

Oh, wait...

Blair campaigns in Iraqi elections

According to Bob Woodward's new book, Bush and Blair were set on having former CIA and MI6 agent Iyad Allawi elected as Iraqi President. Bush apparently couldn't swing a CIA operation in the US, so he hollered "Yo Blair":

That is when, according to Woodward, President Bush turned to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He reportedly assured Bush that he would take care of the matter. He dispatched two operatives to Baghdad to aid the election campaign of Allawi, then heading the Iraqi National Alliance composed primarily of secular Shias.

Quoting Dilip Hiro at CiF

How did these operatives aid the campaign? Woodward's allegations suggest Blair was at the steering wheel of this. Questions to answer.

British soldier admits war crime

Cpl Donald Payne has become the first British soldier to admit carrying out a war crime in Iraq.

His victim was Baha Mousa, father of two, who died after receiving 93 injuries during a 36 hour ordeal.

It gives the lie to the idea that the British were running a popular occupation in Basra. And it also raises the obvious question about how thin this wedge is (see this Guardian article from Feb 2004 for more). Others must have at least known what Payne was up to:

"The shouting, bawling, screams, must have been heard by numerous soldiers and officers in the camp and yet no one seems to have raised it as a concern." - Prosecuter Julian Bevan QC

At least we have some progress on the war crimes front - remember earlier this year, three British soldiers were cleared of drowning an Iraqi boy, despite it being not disputed that they threw him in the river.

Let's see tomorrow if there's more righteous indignation from the British tabloids about the idea that our troops could be engaged in war crimes.

Iraqis want troops out

Poll by University of Michigan. More at Lenin's Tomb and Abu Aardvark.

Iraqi resistance statistics

The above statistics, released by the occupiers in Iraq, show that the vast majority of attacks in the country are carried out against coalition targets. Many would have us believe that the violence is purely sectarian between Sunnis and Shias, but the statistics belie this. See Lenin's Tomb for more analysis.

'Hadji girl' marine to face no punishment

The US marine serving in Iraq who sang this will not face any punishment:

“I grabbed her little sister and put her in front of me. As the bullets began to fly, the blood sprayed from between her eyes, and then I laughed maniacally. . .I blew those little f**kers to eternity. . .They should have known they were f**king with the Marines.”

In his apology, Cpl Joshua Belile said it was written in good humor and not aimed at any party.

Meanwhile Aki Nawaz is expecting to get done under the anti-terror laws for his latest song.

450,000 Iraqi refugees

The Sunday Herald report that there is a hidden number of 450,000 refugees created by the war on Iraq. They highlight the case of one of the many young women believed to have been sold into sex slavery in Damascus and Amman.

Ann Maymann, a protection officer at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Damascus, asks: “Who in the international community wants to say there is a refugee crisis in Syria and Jordan? Because saying that is to admit that the US-led war created the conditions for this.”

Prayers for the people of Ramadi

It seems a Fallujah-style bombardment by US troops is imminent in Ramadi.

More with Lenin.

Why exactly were these soldiers cleared?

There seems to be jubilation at the not guilty verdict handed down to the three soldiers who were accused of drowning the Iraqi boy Ahmed Jabar Karheem. Sergeant Carle Selman, Guardsman Joseph McCleary, and Guardsman Martin McGing, were all acquitted by a military tribunal.

It has been presented that the key prosecution witnesses were unreliable. However, it was established at the trial that British troops were throwing Iraqis into the river. In this particular case no one has denied that this happened to the boy in question. Comments by lawyers involved with the trial hint that it was not that they didn't throw the boy in the river, it's just the the context apparently justified it:

Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer, the British Army's senior legal officer for the invasion, said: "There was a total failure to plan for the occupation. There was only enough time to prepare for war, never mind the occupation."

Fadi Daoud, McGing's solicitor, said: "The outcome is a complete vindication of a fine young man who has served his country admirably in a difficult environment without any proper training during a transitional period between combat operations and peacekeeping."

Jerry Hayes, one of the defending barristers, told the court: "If ever there was a charge which should have been strangled at birth this is it. Why are we here? This was a tragic accident [the soldiers were 'wetting' this boy]. These soldiers were the thin line between anarchy and law and order. They are decent young British soldiers doing their best to do their duty."

Doesn't seem to be an overwhelming vindication of the soldiers' honour does it? The Ministry of Defence have found it necessary to defend their training methods as a result. There's also the question of why a proper civilian court is not trying these cases rather than the military themselves.

Reaction to Haditha

Reuters Alertnet provide a very handy chronology of the Haditha massacre. In the immediate aftermath in Nov 2005 Captain Jeffrey Pool said:

"Iraqi Army soldiers and Marines returned fire killing eight insurgents."

Needless to say now, there were no Iraqi Army soldiers, no insurgents, but there were 24 innocents slaughtered.

Maybe the US could be forgiven for not having the details at that time, but then why say anything at all if you don't know? And why, when confronted with video evidence in Jan 2006, dismiss it as "Al-Qaeda propaganda"?

More evidence of US war crimes are now being unearthed. Yes, and why are these actions not being labelled "war crimes" by anyone?

But it's ok, because US soldiers are now going to be receiving ethics training of between two and four hours. As if people need to be taught that shooting 2-year-olds is wrong.

More - Ben White

UPDATE: The US have cleared their soldiers of any wrongdoing regarding the Ishaqi video I linked to from the BBC above

Six years of WMD intelligence

You must check out this post, ripping apart Geoff Hoon's claim on Newsnight last week that:

"I read, for six years, intelligence reports; every one of those for six years said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; every other country that looked at Iraq also came to the same conclusion."

Haditha and the need to get Iraqis cameras

The massacre at Haditha is at last getting some media coverage. Don't know why it's taken six months, but better late than never.

I remember an episode of the BBC's Spooks in the last series where the intelligence services decided to serve up one of their own as having carried out a crime so as to show transparency within the system. Dahr Jamail thus reminds us that there are daily reports of civilian abuse by US forces lest we think Haditha is a one off.

Maybe the difference is that someone had a camera to film the aftermath of Haditha. It just couldn't be ignored. The same way the only things people know about Abu Ghraib is what pictures have been released when it is known that more footage - even worse footage than what we've been exposed to - has been suppressed.

The best form of protection we can give to Iraqis then is cameras. But maybe we'd get bored of that footage after a while too. This letter in today's Herald summarises our despicable attitude to dead Iraqis:

"We think the price is worth it"

Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright yesterday condemned George Bush for "alienating Muslims".

Before we get carried away, I thought I'd post a quick reminder on her opinion regarding the genocide of Iraqi children during her tenure under Bill Clinton. In an interview with 60 minutes she was asked:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

Intelligence again confirms link between Iraq and terror

From the Sunday Times:

SPY chiefs have warned Tony Blair that the war in Iraq has made Britain the target of a terror campaign by Al-Qaeda that will last “for many years to come.”

A leaked top-secret memo from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) says the war in Iraq has “exacerbated” the threat by radicalising British Muslims and attracting new recruits to anti-western terror attacks.

The four-page memo, entitled International Terrorism: Impact of Iraq, contradicts Blair’s public assurances by concluding that the invasion of Iraq has fomented a jihad or holy war against Britain.

It states: “It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.”

It adds: “Iraq is likely to be an important motivating factor for some time to come in the radicalisation of British Muslims and for those extremists who view attacks against the UK as legitimate.”

The memo was approved by Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, John Scarlett, the chief of MI6, and Sir David Pepper, head of GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre.

Blackburn Mosque cancels Condi visit (updated)

I can't believe they agreed to it in the first place, but condiwatch.co.uk (via) have announced that Masjid Al Hidayah in Blackburn have withdrawn their invitation to Condoleezza Rice to visit their place of worship with local MP Jack Straw later this week.

UPDATE: Ibrahim Master, former chair of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, blamed antiwar protesters for the cancellation:

"The visit wasn't cancelled because we don't like Condoleezza Rice... What these people had threatened to do was invade the mosque during dawn prayers."

Funny why the security services didn't cancel the visit then. Master is a close friend of Straw's, and in the absence of a big loan to the Labour Party is probably trying to gain his peerage through different methods. What a sad man. Faced with the choice of siding with his antiwar community or those responsible for killing 100,000 people, he consorts with the warmongers.

We could say that this comment of Master's is typical New Labour spin. But using the s-word means there was some semblance of truth to the comment, which has then been manipulated. It is in fact just an outright lie and fabrication.

The local Stop the War group had stated on 28 March:

“Members of the mosque call on their Muslim brothers to come and join them for Jummah prayers at 1pm on Friday 31st March, and for Fajar Falah on the morning of Saturday 1st April at 6am. Remain seated after prayers for a dignified and peaceful protest”.

Moulana Hanif, one of the scholars who advised the mosque committee, said the following on after the decision: “No such invasion was planned. We believe the committee reached the decision because they realised how strong we and the local community felt about the issue”.

So as MPAC put it: "we will leave invasions to the specialists, Mr Straw and Ms Rice."

Blair looked "awkward and confused"

The Telegraph interviews Ali Abbas, the boy who lost his limbs in that iconic image from the bombing of Iraq. He is now 15 and living in London. He's since met Tony Blair:

At an awards ceremony, where Ali was named International Child of Courage, he met Tony Blair. It was not planned. According to his friend Alexandra Williams, a 33-year-old freelance journalist living in France, who introduced the two, Mr Blair looked "awkward and confused".

And not without good reason.

A story about Iraq, but what's the Telegraph's headline? 'I like it here, but the 7/7 attacks upset me. Those terrorists were not part of Islam'.

Do also check out the report of our erstwhile leader now pitching to Roman Abramovitch for a loan.

Iraqi independence

What price Iraqi democracy? The Independent reports:

President George W Bush has made it clear that he does not want Ibrahim al-Jaafari to remain prime minister of Iraq in a move likely to increase hostility between the US and the Shia community.

Mr Bush has written to the Shi'ite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shi'ite Alliance asking him to nominate somebody else for the post. "The Americans are very firm about this," said a senior official. "They don't want Jaafari at any price."