Reply #6: Well, I went there, and there isn't much at the DU site. You have to go to the Daily Mail link [View All]

[Peace Patriot]

and sort through the text--which I am posting here (and will post at the other DU thread).

------

(SNIP)

Already, the inquiry has provided us with devastating details of events in the run-up to Iraq.

Sir William Ehrman, former Director of Defence and Intelligence at the Foreign Office, told it this week that British spies reported ten days before the invasion that Iraq had 'disassembled' what chemical weapons it had. Yet Tony Blair nevertheless pressed ahead with the war.

Then came former Washington ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer's claim that Tony Blair and George W. Bush had signed a secret deal 'in blood' to topple Saddam Hussein almost a year before Iraq was invaded, and that officials found themselves scrabbling to find 'a smoking gun' to justify going to war.

But, despite these compelling accounts of what happened, the truth is that we already know the main lessons of Iraq: Britain was taken unprepared into war on false grounds, and the inevitable result was the destruction of Iraq, enormous loss of life and continuing political turmoil in the Middle East. Worse, the war has radicalised Muslim opinion against the West throughout the world, even spawning terrorism on the streets of London.

(SNIP)

Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and more than 4,500 soldiers from coalition forces have been killed during almost seven years of the occupation - and probably ten times that number have been injured. Two million Iraqis have fled their country and another two million have been internally displaced.

Up to $3 trillion has been spent on the war by America - a staggering sum that is likely to have played a significant part in the collapse of the American banking system and helped create the present difficulties facing the world economy.

(SNIP)

....the West's efforts in Afghanistan have been almost fatally damaged by the decision to concentrate on Iraq...

(SNIP)

Blair's misuse of intelligence in the run-up to war is but one of at least two vital issues where the Iraq inquiry should be seeking to determine whether he is guilty of deception.

First, the then Prime Minister (Blair) clearly stated before the invasion that regime change would never be the reason for going to war - yet it is already beginning to emerge from the Iraq inquiry that this was almost certainly the real reason for invading Iraq.

On this issue, at least, it seems as if Blair misled Parliament and, indeed, the country.

Second, according to accepted international law of war, no country should go to war unless it is the action of last resort; its actions are proportional to the threat; and unless the end result is justified by the means used - in other words, that the situation in the country after the invasion will be an improvement, in human and security terms, on the original state of affairs.

The war in Iraq represents a clear breach of these three basic requirements: the UN believed there was no justification for going to war in March 2003, as we had not reached the point of 'last resort'; there was no threat whatsoever from Iraq in the absence of chemical weapons; and the woeful failure to commit proper resources to the post-war situation meant Iraq inevitably descended into a spiral of disorder, violence and chaos from which it has still not recovered.

(SNIP)

...it seems more than probable, from the grotesque fiasco of the 'dodgy dossier', that Blair was quite happy to use any intelligence that suited his case - and ignore warnings about its quality.

Already, the inquiry seems to be confirming our worst fears about events leading up to the war against Iraq in 2003. Already, a prima facie case could be made that the invasion of Iraq was in significant breach of international law and might constitute a war crime.

(SNIP) (the author cites several examples of British leaders honorably "falling on their swords" after disastrous decisions...)

In contrast, Blair today swans about the world making millions from business contracts and lectures. And, to make matters still more distasteful, much of these earnings are only made possible because of the American and Middle Eastern contacts he made as a result of his unconditional support for Bush during the Iraq war.

In going to war, against the will of the people, Blair has gravely damaged democracy in this country.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231540/Why-I-believe-Blair-stand-trial--face-charges-war-crimes.html#ixzz0YFxebOXf

(my emphases)

---------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

I'm glad to see such an important establishment figure in England speaking the truth about these matters. It is absolutely appalling--and a flashing red alarm that our own democracy has been, not just damaged, but fatally damaged, by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & junta--that NO establishment figure here has said such things and challenged the establishment to act on them, nor has there even been an inquiry into Bushwhack lies, let alone an attempt to "learn lessons" or hold anyone to account.

This top British general's withering criticism of both Blair's toadying to the Bushwhacks and his despicable war profiteering are even truer here, of our war criminals. Yet silence reigns, and our President says we need to "look forward not backward"--the lamest excuse of all. (Do we "look forward not backward" on ordinary, individual murders--or on minor drug possession, Barack? Jeez.)