As I posted a few days ago there has been a call for an Australian Iraq War Inquiry, so far not much news being updated on this recent call, but have found this:
The Iraq war must not remain a closed book
January 30, 2010
No act of a national government is more momentous than the decision to commit the nation to war. That is why the constitutions of many countries - though not of Australia - require the government to obtain the consent of parliament before doing so. And in the past decade, no military action has aroused more opposition within the countries supporting it than the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US-led ''coalition of the willing''. In Australia, the Howard government's decision to participate in the coalition sparked rallies and street marches on a scale not seen since the Vietnam War.
Snip
The remarkable thing about the Chilcot inquiry for Australians, however, is that it is being held at all. Australia has not conducted its own inquiry and does not seem likely to do so, yet the war was as divisive here as it was in Britain. The questions raised at the time about the evidence on which the Howard government relied in making its decision, about the kinds of pressure that may have been exerted on it by the Bush administration, and about its readiness to accept US assurances of the war's legality have never been satisfactorily answered. >>>>>
Blair was wrong. He still is. But let's not fetishise the UN
30 January 2010
Yesterday offered a raw reminder of the defining Labour foreign policy error – it should not be reduced to legal detail
"Blair lied, thousands died," read the placards. The truth is, he always said what he believed, over and over again, in parliament, in press conferences and to anyone who asked. "It's not about a lie, a deceit or a conspiracy or a deception," he says – though we shall never know how much he deceived himself. Conviction on stilts remains – in Iraq things did get better. His emotional peroration counted the babies saved, regretted nothing lost."I did it because I thought it right." And "frankly I'd do it again.".... >>>>>
Blair Iraq evidence leaves PM facing grilling
30 January 2010
Blair's unrepentant testimony sparked fury among military families
Tony Blair's evidence to the Iraq war inquiry, notable for a lack of any apology, sets up an awkward appearance within weeks for Prime Minister Gordon Brown, ahead of a likely May election.
Blair's unrepentant testimony sparked fury among military families and criticism from the press, reviving memories of what many commentators see as Labour's biggest blunder since taking power in 1997.
The former PM told the Chilcot inquiry that he accepted "responsibility but not regret for removing Saddam" -- prompting shouts of "liar" and "you're a murderer" from the public gallery. >>>>>
East London Muslims remain cynical on war's motives
30 January 2010
Resentment over the Iraq war still runs deep in the east London constituency of Poplar and Limehouse. But as the Chilcot inquiry heard testimony from its most prominent witness yesterday, its deliberations were compounding cynicism in the seat, which has the UK's second largest Muslim population, about the conduct of the conflict.
"Bush went into Iraq for oil and money, everyone knows that, they don't need an inquiry to tell them," said Belal Hussein, 35, who has always voted Labour. >>>>>
Ex-MI6 chief likely to give evidence to Chilcot inquiry behind closed doors
31 January 2010
MPs from all parties say his testimony should be heard in public
He presented to Tony Blair the intelligence, obtained from an agent known as "Curveball", that Saddam Hussein had mobile production facilities for chemical weapons. Blair told the Chilcot inquiry on Friday: "This did have an impact on me at the time, although this particular piece of intelligence turned out later to be wrong."
"Curveball" was an asset of the German intelligence service who was later discovered to be a fantasist. The UK was never allowed to question the spy personally. >>>>>
Defence chiefs 'threatened to resign'
2 February 2010
The heads of the armed services "had to draw a line" under a suggested round of cuts in 2004 and threatened to resign if government went ahead with them, the Iraq inquiry has heard.
Lord Walker, who became Chief of Defence Staff in 2004, told the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war that "there was indeed a list of stuff that we were having to make decisions about".
"I think we drew a line somewhere halfway down the page and said: 'If you go any further than that you will probably have to look for a new set of chiefs.
"It makes it seem as though we were happy with what was above the line," he said. 'We weren't happy with any of it but we have to draw a line."
Current Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Jock Stirrup said government had been warned prior to the invasion that there was a "serious risk" the military would not have sufficient equipment to invade Iraq because of a lack of preparation time. >>>>>
66 Iraqis launch torture cases against British troops
6 February 2010
Lawyers for 66 Iraqis, claiming torture and abuse at the hands of UK soldiers, started legal action Friday calling for a single inquiry into Britain s detention policy during the Iraq war. >>>>>
Angry Straw to tell Chilcot he didn't ignore Iraq advice
7 February 2010
Allies of Jack Straw say claims that he brushed advice aside are 'grossly unfair'
Furious Justice Minister hopes to clear his name over claims that he dismissed expert legal guidance
A furious Jack Straw will attempt to "set the record straight" when he returns to the Chilcot inquiry tomorrow, days after his former legal advisers claimed the Justice Secretary had ignored warnings that the invasion of Iraq
would be illegal.
Mr Straw has been recalled to the inquiry to further explain his actions, amid criticism of his conduct in the run-up to the war.
Mr Straw, who was foreign secretary in 2003, is believed to have been particularly upset by the evidence of his former chief legal adviser, Sir Michael Wood. The former civil servant told the Chilcot panel that Mr Straw had rejected his advice that invading Iraq without UN backing would break international law. >>>>>
SECTION 39: An act of aggression
7 February 2010
One of the problems for the British establishment with regard to the war in Iraq is its insistence that everybody honestly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), even if this was not in itself sufficient to make the invasion of Iraq legal.
But the truth is that everybody did not believe that Saddam had such weapons at all, let alone then United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair’s preposterous claim that these could be launched within forty-five minutes.
However many charts and maps the then United States Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Colin Powell, displayed to the United Nations in support of claims that Iraq had WMD, outside the charmed circles in Western countries, only those who really wanted to believe could have been truly convinced. >>>>>
And Millions all over the World who hit the streets, which means even more millions weren't buying, didn't buy any of their spin especially the lame UN testimony and side show of Powell, that should have sealed any intelligent human being from justifying a destructive desvestating invasion!
No comments:
Post a Comment