David Morrison, 17 November

"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq" Paul Wolfowitz, Baghdad, 21 July 2003


"There is no justification for
Iran or any other country interfering in Iraq …" Tony Blair, Downing Street, 6 October 2005

Julie-ann Davies, November 25, 2005

On November 7, 2004 the American-led siege of the Iraqi city of Fallujah began. The attack continued for two weeks and it was estimated that over 1,200 insurgents were killed and up to 250,000 civilians were displaced.

 

Hospitals, schools, power supplies and water lines were destroyed as the city was dragged to its knees. Reports filed from the area were scant. Most journalists present were embedded with troops and their movements were tightly controlled. Allegations that American forces were using chemical weapons in Fallujah were widely ignored by the mainstream media.

Jonny Burnett and Dave Whyte, 7 December 2005

In January 2005 a British and an Iraqi civilian were killed just north of Baghdad whilst working for security contractors Janusian Security Risk Management Ltd.   The employees were apparently riding in a convoy near to the power station they worked at when they were ambushed.  Janusian is one firm amongst multitude of private military companies providing armed guard and escort services in Iraq who, according the US Department of Defence, now employ around 25,000 people.  It was apparently the first Western private military outfit to have an operational office and manager stationed permanently in Iraq.

Wednesday, 07 December 2005 14:09

The Crude Spoils of War

By
Andy Rowell, 7 December 2005

This month, the Iraqi people will vote in elections that will decide their future and their fate. It will be the next stage in their tortuous journey from oppressed people to a free nation. If everything goes smoothly, the elections should signal the beginning of the end of the occupation.  The country will have a new government, a new assembly, a new constitution, and a new future.

The elections will be seen as a vindication for those in Washington and London who advocated this bloody and brutal war and who pushed for the removal of Saddam Hussein. In a great co-incidence, as the Iraqi people go to the poles, Saddam Hussein will be on trial. But even his trial, like the war, is built on flaws and lies. Last week, the Independent gave ten reasons why “justice may not be served,” for Saddam. This includes his length of time in detention, the level of proof, the impartiality of the trial and the fact it could be just a show trial that results in Saddam receiving the death penalty. What the trial is unlikely to do is unravel the real reasons why we went to war.

Saturday, 04 March 2006 21:03

Blair solidly with Bush

By
David Morrison, 4 March 2006

On 2 February 2006, Channel 4 News carried extracts from a note describing a meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in the White House on 31 January 2003. The next day’s Guardian [1]covered the same ground. The information was supplied by Philippe Sands to publicise the new paperback edition of his book Lawless World. Sands is a professor of international law at University College London and a barrister in Matrix chambers (with Cherie Blair).

The meeting between Bush and Blair took place at a time when UN inspectors were operating unimpeded in Iraq, but were turning up little by way of proscribed material. As a result, Bush and Blair were at a bit of a loss for a presentable justification to terminate inspections in order to take military action.

David Morrison, 11 March 2006
David Morrison, 28 August 2006

Civilian deaths in Iraq are not as a result of the invasion of Iraq or the removal of Saddam Hussein.  This was the Prime Minister’s extraordinary assertion at the Liaison Committee on 4 July 2006, in response to a question by Conservative MP, Edward Leigh.

Leigh said to Blair [1]:

"I have only been to Baghdad once, years ago before the invasion. I walked around and there was no question of any threat to me personally or anything else. Nobody in this room would dare walk around Baghdad now."

to which Blair responded:

"Hang on a minute, Edward, you might have been able to walk around in Baghdad because you were a Westerner there. If you were someone who disagreed with Saddam’s regime you ended up in a mass grave. … 300,000 people are in mass graves there."


'Under NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] rules, there is nothing illegal about any state having enrichment or reprocessing technology –processes that are basic to the production and recycling of nuclear reactor fuel – even though these operations can also produce the high enriched uranium or plutonium that can be used in a nuclear weapon. An increasing number of countries have sought to master these parts of the "nuclear fuel cycle.'

These are words of the Director-General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, in an interview with the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram (6-12 April 2006) [1].

Specifically, on Iran'’s enrichment programme, he told Reuters on 30 March 2006 [2]: 'Nobody has the right to punish Iran for enrichment. We have not seen nuclear material diverted to a nuclear weapon'.

It could hardly be clearer.  By engaging in uranium enrichment-related activities to produce nuclear fuel, Iran is acting within the NPT.  And the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is diverting nuclear material for weapons purposes.  In short, Iran is not breaking any of its NPT commitments.

Two of America's savants have uttered pronouncements about the final days of the presidency of George Walker Bush.  In his magisterial statement succinctly titled, "Bush's Thousand Days," Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. pointed out that we have just crossed a significant date, for now less than one thousand days remain of the beleaguered Bush presidency. Schlesinger raises grave issues facing the deeply unpopular president.  In his analysis of "The Passion of George W. Bush," Sidney Blumenthal dubbed this darkening period the "endgame."  Taken together, these two essays present a disturbing image of a presidency in the throes of decline and desperation. These two essays urge us to consider the likelihood of a political collapse that could lead to disastrous consequences for America and Britain.
 
Blumenthal dissected the faded and now tattered dreams of the president and his wunderkind, Karl Rove.  Gone with the wind is their vision of an Imperial America modelled on the pompous presidency of William McKinley, whose dream of the transcendence of American corporate monopolies and global military hegemony was thrown into the incinerator by FDR when he re-wrote the American social contract in the first one hundred days of the New Deal.

Andy Rowell, 15 August 2006

As a fragile ceasefire holds in Lebanon, and Britain’s airports struggle with the latest security threat, the government is coming under increasing pressure to change its foreign policy in the Middle East. Over the weekend a letter signed by three Muslim MPs, three peers and 38 community groups, said the UK Government’s stance on the region is “putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad”.

 However Foreign Office minister Kim Howells rejected this idea and condemned the letter. But many people in the UK believe that British foreign policy now favours US interests above all else. At the height of the crisis between Israel and Hezbollah last month a public opinion poll found that nearly two-thirds of the British population believed that the relationship between the UK and US was too close, especially over the Middle East.

Page 7 of 7