It appears that American citizens curious about why we went to war in Iraq may soon get some answers . . . from London. The British inquiry into the war is now heading into a more advanced stage after the testimony of Tony Blair. Notably, the English want to interview Bush officials. I discussed the topic on this segment of MSNBC Countdown.
Blair’s testimony was quite revealing, including his confirmation that some basic understanding was reached in April 2002 on Iraq — though he denied specifically agreeing to the invasion. That date is far earlier than the time period previously discussed on the American side and undermines the WMDs as the rationale for the invasion.
John Chilcot, head of the inquiry, confirmed that they will ask to speak to Bush officials. Perhaps they will be more forthcoming with another nation. Blair notably tied the decision to go to war to 9-11, stating that he was no longer will to “take a risk” with Saddam after the attacks. The April meeting can up in the hearing. Former British ambassador to Washington, Christopher Meyer, told an earlier hearing that an agreement had been “signed in blood” by Bush and Blair during a meeting at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.
What is most striking for me is how these disclosures reinforce the wisdom of the Framers in demanding a declaration of war from Congress. These leaders continue post hoc rationalizations about their decisions while members of Congress continue to deny they ever really wanted to go to war in their resolution.
For discussion of the story, click here.
British Torture Summary Released – Binyam Mohamed
By: Bill Egnor Wednesday February 10, 2010 7:00 am
One of the reasons I have always argued for a full investigation of the treatment of prisoners by the U.S. government is that the truths is going to come out sooner rather than later. For those who want to hide from accountability under the law later is always the better goal. The longer it takes for the abuses of the Bush Administration torture program to come to light the less likely there is to be an outcry and the more likely those who ordered and carried out torture are to elderly or dead.
Today the British government lost its appeal and was forced to disclose a new piece of the torture puzzle. In 2002 a British subject by the name of Binyam Mohamed was arrested in Pakistan. He claims he was tortured there, then sent to Morocco where he was also beaten and finally in 2004 sent to Guantanamo Bay. If Mr. Mohamed’s name seems familiar to you, it should. He is the man who claims he was tortured by a scalpel slicing his genitals
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/29109
Also very important: A court in the UK has ruled that certain materials relating to the “treatment” (read: “torture”) of a detainee must be released:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8507852.stm
The backstory to this and related cases is that UK officials have claimed that US officials threatened that if such materials related to the abuse of detainees was released, then the US would be less cooperative regarding the sharing of intelligence. The UK officials were called on this supposed threat, and it seriously damaged their credibility with the court:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/23/david-miliband-binyam-mohamed-torture
(For all we know, the US really did go through the motions of issuing such a threat in hopes that it would provide cover for the UK government and judges, and that the judges didn’t play along. At whatever level this BS originated, it was pathetic – but in the Bush/Blair era, that kind of crap worked. But it doesn’t any more.)
So, the UK is not only going to do our hard work in investigating the leadup to the Iraq invasion, they are also going to do our hard work with the investigation of torture.
If I have my bets in place and yes you can bet on anything. I think Earl Warren is going to be heading this commission, with Hoover and Ford over looking their shoulders.
Was there really one shooter in Dallas? I don’t know the main part of the report is still sealed. I believe this time at Caroline Kennedy’s request.
Sorry to have to disappoint you all, but one thing our leaders have become very adept at is the art of the “whitewash”. And this is what we have in progress here – everyone gets a chance to have their say, the members of the board of enquirey publish their “findings” and “conclusions” a few months down the line and (surprise surprise) “mistakes were made, but no-one is to blame”.
Anyone who disagrees is labelled a conspiracy theorest or someone who has made up their minds beforehand despite the “facts”.
As for any members of the bush mafia attending, forget it. We have an agreement with the US with regard to national security issues and the like, but it is purely a one way thing. We will send you a mentally ill, harmless computer hacker, but you don’t have to send us your war criminals.
It goes without saying that we won’t send you our war criminals either because they are all part of the same gang that made up the agreement in the first place.