After many years of trying to publish documents relating to the run up to the Iraq War conflict we now find out that full transcripts of Tony Blair’s conversations with US  President George Bush will be withheld; effectively stymying the Chilcot enquiry and making it a complete waste of time and money - or as some have said 'a whitewash'

Sir John Chilcot - in a letter, told the Cabinet Secretary:

‘.. My colleagues and I judge that this material is vital to the public understanding of the inquiry's conclusions ..’

Furthermore, these documents could form the foundation of impeachment proceedings against Tony Blair and a motion was tabled in Parliament on 25 November 2004 as follows:

CONDUCT OF THE PRIME MINISTER IN RELATION TO THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ

That a select committee of not more than 13 Members be appointed to investigate and to report to the House on the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to the war against Iraq and in particular to consider

(a) the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group that in March 2003 Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction and had been essentially free of them since the mid 1990s,

(b) the Prime Minister’s acknowledgement that he was wrong when in and before March 2003 he asserted that Iraq was then in possession of chemical or biological weapons or was then engaged in active efforts to develop nuclear weapons or was thereby a current or serious threat to the UK national interest or that possession of WMD then enabled Iraq to inflict real damage upon the region and the stability of the world,

(c) the opinions of the Secretary General of the United Nations that the of Iraq in 2003 was unlawful, and

(d) whether there exist sufficient grounds to impeach the Prime Minister on charges of gross misconduct in his advocacy of the case for war against Iraq and his conduct of policy in connection with that war

Let us not forget that the Chilcot enquiry was set up by Gordon Brown in an attempt to head off any attempt to impeach Tony Blair and accordingly this is hardly a satisfactory conclusion after all these years - as they say in the insurance industry ‘time and distance’ can solve most issues

Therefore, it would seem as though the Cabinet Secretary is potentially interfering in areas outside his remit and thereby protecting Tony Blair from the consequences of his actions by preventing him being held to account

Under the deal that has been thrashed out, the information being disclosed of discussions between Mr Blair and Mr Bush will be limited to “quotes or gists” and the inquiry's use of the material “should not reflect President Bush's views

Clearly I am missing something here – but WHAT DEAL? Surely this is the tail wagging the dog because something of this nature should not be subject to a bartering/deal process? We have an enquiry underway which has every right to expect full disclosure on all the facts and yet Mr Blair and his cronies have once again managed ‘covertly’ to supress information that could implicate him in a conspiracy; thereby preventing the electorate from judging the issue for themselves – all under the dubious guise of sensitively handling the UK/US Head of Government channel

Does this mean that the US sanctions withholding evidence of possible collusion by Tony Blair in an attempt to take the UK to war in Iraq?

Perhaps someone could explain at what point ‘sensitively handling the UK/US Head of Government channel’ becomes a cover-up because it very much looks as though this line has been crossed? Furthermore, by this cover-up, Mr Blair has also managed to avoid possible impeachment and so as far as he is concerned this is a win-win situation, never mind the fact that this decision is an absolute disgrace and not necessarily in the best interests of the UK

Interestingly enough this latest arrangement has all the hallmarks of the Dr David Kelly cover up which also involved Tony Blair and related to the Iraq War - UK Secret Courts Bill Sneaking In Via Back Door

Frankly it is actions such as this that give WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and  Edward Snowdon a good name and becomes in danger of vindicating their actions – although, this is probably precisely the opposite effects to those intended by the security services

Finally, we come to Sir Jeremy Haywood part in all this - he was principal private secretary to Mr Blair in 10 Downing Street in the run-up to the war and is hardly an impartial arbiter in this process, although he obviously does not believe in recusing himself from being a party to any decision. The extraordinary thing is that no one in authority has told him to sit this one out and remain on the side-lines over this decision – WHY NOT?

References:

A Case to Answer- Produced for Adam Price MP August 2004

Tags: , | Categories: UK Government
Comments are closed