A living document which will have many revisions and is expected to grow very large. To consider the London explosions of 7 July 2005, the official response – particularly the actions of Ian Blair, the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, the relationship to the wider war on terror and both Iraq wars instigated by the Bushes – Gog and Magog, role of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, etc.
The Independent confirms that the interests of UK’s oil companies was central to Bliar & Co while they were publically lying and promoting some bullshit smokescreen about weapons of mass destruction, killing his own people – as if USUK wouldn’t do that – morality, etc.
Bliar denounced the cliams that oil was a major issue as an “oil conspiracy theory”. Who would believe that slimy, lying politicians conspire to promote corporate interests and their own wealth, eh?
By Paul Bignell
…
Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.
The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq’s reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.
Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington’s main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.
Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on Fire is published next week, said: “Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq’s oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.
“We see that oil was in fact one of the Government’s most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize.”
Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya’s National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment.
Not about oil? what they said before the invasion
* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous…”
* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: “Let me just deal with the oil thing because… the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It’s not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons…”
* BP, 12 March 2003: “We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement.”
* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: “It is not in my or BP’s opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil.”
* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were ‘highly inaccurate’, adding: “We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials… We have never asked for ‘contracts’.”
27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.
I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.
Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.
dizzy
Portion of a letter to Nick Clegg from Felicity Arbuthnot
Response to Nick Clegg, UK Deputy Prime Minister | Dissident Voice
A “no-fly zone” is another oxymoron, a total contradiction in terms. It means that Colonel Gaddafi’s “brutal, savage and unacceptable treatment”, has been replaced by our “brutal, savage and unacceptable treatment”, using depleted uranium (i.e., nuclear waste) weapons and blowing Libyan people to bits in their uncounted numbers. (“It is not productive” to count coalition deaths as US Generals, led by General Mark Kimmit, have reiterated.)
The region and peoples will become another Fallujah, with the yet-to-be-conceived, even, born with deformities, often making them unrecognisable as human infants. Headless, limbless, organs on the outside of the body, one cyclops eye, no eyes, no brain — a reality witnessed by the writer over many years.
…
Libya has the ninth largest oil reserves on earth. As Iraq, and as the desire for the vital resources through Afghanistan, no one with half a brain believes your concern for humanity is the real reason. There were no calls from your Party, or the Conservatives, for “no fly zones” of any hue, or for restraint, in “Operation Cast Lead” (Christmas-New Year 2008-2009) as Israel bombarded the people of Gaza, caught, like “fish in a barrel”, to use a term about wanton slaughter, from another US General. That certainly looked like “brutal, savage and unacceptable” treatment, to most observers.
Last July, when you became acting Prime Minister when David Cameron was away, you said, in an exchange with Jack Straw, the previous Labour Foreign Secretary:
Perhaps one day you could account for your role in the most disastrous decision of all, which is the illegal invasion of Iraq.3
This is written on the eighth anniversary of the beginning of that illegal invasion. The invasion George W. Bush declared a “Crusade.” As you embark on the course of decimating another ancient Islamic land for oil – one with an even smaller population than Iraq – another “Crusade” to install another compliant puppet regime, I can only say shame on you all.
New year, new blog. This blog lived at http://blogs.cjb.net/dissident/ for slightly over five years. Before then I was an activist posting to various politics NNTP usenet newsgroups on issues such as opposition to the Iraq war, Bliar & Co, George ‘Dubya’ Bush, etc. I was very critical of Blair, New Labour, Dubya, the New Labour politician Ian Blair, the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, etc.
At the blog’s previous location I repeatedly attacked Bliar’s New Labour party. The blog was controversial and attracted links to malware in the comments forcing me to disallow commenting – there was no moderated commenting facility available at that free host. I have no doubt that those posting links to malware were professional and operating in an official capacity. In early December 2006 the blog was somehow mysteriously deleted. It gives me the opportunity to republish some of the better articles.
Here’s a post first published 2 January, 2006. More to follow.
Let’s crucify Tony Blair. He’ll love it.
2006 sees a renewed determination to get rid of the Neo-Con elected dictator, war criminal, deranged and deluded megalomaniacal pathological liar know as Tony Blair. Having lied and lied and lied to support his masters Dubya and Sharon, he has absolutely no credibility or legitimacy. He’s hated just as much as his mentor Thatcher and the War (Labour) Party realise that he is a huge liability.
I’ve often wondered whether we would have to go round on mass to physically drag him out of Downing St. It can be done of course, but there would need a few of us. dissident has come up with an another plan to get rid of the evil b’stard. We persuade Him to crucify Himself over Easter on Parliament Square. He’ll be up for it. He’s such a messianic nutter. He believes that he is the second coming of Christ. He believes that he will rise from the dead a few days later to lead us all (well actually quite a few of us will be excluded) into the Rapture.
Here’s some of Bliar’s messianic garbage from his speech accepting the Congressional Gold Medal for being such an ally in Dubya and Israel’s War on Truth.
Looks like there are two versions of Bliar’s speech. From http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/tblaircongressionalgoldmedal.htm and not from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076253.stm.
“Members of Congress, I feel a most urgent sense of mission about today’s world. September the 11th was not an isolated event, but a tragic prologue, Iraq another act, and many further struggles will be set upon this stage before it’s over.
There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary or so misunderstood, or when, except in the most general sense, a study of history provides so little instruction for our present day.
…
And I know it’s hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I’ve never been to, but always wanted to go. I know out there there’s a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, ‘Why me? And why us? And why America?’
And the only answer is, ‘Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.’
And our job, my nation that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond, our job is to be there with you. You are not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us.”
‘rsole.
Tony – the apostate to Israel – Bliar is to reappear before the Chilcot Inquiry later today to clarify some issues arising from his former testimony. In the past, on this blog I have satirised the Chilcot Inquiry as the inquiry pretending to investigate the Iraq war. I am pleased that at least the inquiry is pretending not to pretend to investigate the Iraq war.
In all things related to Tony “I’m a pretty straight kinda guy” Bliar we have more pretending. We have pretending that the conversations between Blair and Dubya Bush are something other than they actually were.
The questions facing Tony Blair at tomorrow’s Iraq inquiry hearing are piling up. It emerged last night that parts of Mr Blair’s conversations with the United States President George Bush in the build-up to war were expunged from Whitehall records.
Sir John Chilcot’s team also heard yesterday from a senior civil servant that Downing Street ignored Foreign Office warnings over publishing the infamously exaggerated dossiers on the threat from Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons arsenal.
Mr Blair’s private secretary at No 10 routinely deleted any mention of his correspondence with Mr Bush from the Government minutes, the inquiry has found out. The disclosure will fuel anger over the failure to release the memos between the two leaders in the run-up to war, which could fill in gaps for when Mr Blair took key decisions over the war. David Cameron, challenged over the refusal to publish the memos, said that he was powerless to order their release.
Mr Blair’s then private secretary, Matthew Rycroft, has recalled that Mr Bush often began telephones calls or video conferences in 2002 and 2003 by thanking the former prime minister for his letters.
Mr Rycroft said that he drew up two accounts of the conversations, omitting any reference to them in the Whitehall record because Mr Blair viewed them as “personal dialogue”. He told the inquiry: “I do recall doing it on a number of occasions. I would have thought possibly about five occasions and each time for a particular reason.
“I recall the choice I had was either only doing an expurgated version or doing two versions, and so on these occasions I decided it was better to do two versions.” Mr Rycroft said Mr Blair had always been clear that Britain would support US military action.
[independent article continues]
Furthermore, the head of the UK Civil Service has refused to publish correspondence between Tony Bliar and Dubya Bush.
I’ve quoted this article fully because it is impotant. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-inquiry-cannot-publish-blairbush-exchanges-2187588.html
The head of the civil service has refused to allow the official inquiry into the Iraq War to publish notes sent by Tony Blair to former US president George Bush.
Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell denied requests for exchanges between the former prime minister and Mr Bush about Iraq to be declassified and released.
Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot said: “The inquiry is disappointed that the Cabinet Secretary was not willing to accede to its request.
“This means that in a narrow but important area the inquiry may not always be able to publish as fully as it would wish the evidential basis for some of its comments and conclusions.”
Sir John wrote to Sir Gus last month asking him to authorise the declassification of extracts from notes sent by Mr Blair to Mr Bush and records of discussions between the two leaders.
He highlighted the fact that Mr Bush and Mr Blair – as well as the former prime minister’s chief of staff Jonathan Powell and communications chief Alastair Campbell – had revealed details of some of their talks in their recent memoirs, and said the inquiry’s protocol on releasing documents supported disclosure.
Sir John said in his letter: “The inquiry regards it essential in order to fulfil its terms of reference, to be able to chronicle the sequencing of discussions on Iraq between the UK prime minister and the president of the United States.
“It seems to us that it is both contrary to the terms of the protocol and, in light of the disclosures in recent memoirs, unnecessary to prevent the inquiry from being able to do this.”
He added: “In the inquiry’s view it is essential, if it is to produce a reliable account, that it is able to quote extracts from the records of what the prime minister said to president Bush in their discussions on Iraq.”
Sir Gus replied just before Christmas, writing: “My view is that the public interest is not best served by their release.
“I judge that their release would, or would be likely to, damage the UK’s international relations.”
He said the Cabinet Office attached “particular importance” to protecting the channel of communications between the British prime minister and the US president.
In a further letter to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir John said Mr Blair would face firm questioning about the content of his discussions with Mr Bush when he gives evidence to the inquiry for a second time on Friday.
He wrote: “Given Mr Blair’s decision to disclose some of the content in (his memoirs) A Journey, the committee is likely to be disappointed if he is less forthcoming in his evidence to us.
“This approach is also likely to increase the length of the hearing.”
Sir John added in a third letter to Sir Gus that the question of when and how Mr Blair made commitments to the US about Britain’s involvement in military action against Iraq was “central” to the inquiry’s considerations.
The inquiry chairman also revealed today that the committee recently took evidence in a closed session from David Pepper, the former head of the UK’s signals intelligence agency GCHQ.
A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said: “All HMG (HM Government) documents have been made available to the inquiry.
“The issue is one of publication. Exchanges between the UK prime minister and the US president are particularly privileged channels of communication.
“The Cabinet Secretary is of the firm view that the public interest in publishing these letters is not outweighed by the harm to the UK’s international relations that would likely be caused by his authorising their disclosure.
“This is in line with the published protocol.
“The majority of the inquiry’s declassification requests have been met. But there are important public interest principles at stake. These are recognised in the protocol.”
David Cameron was not consulted over whether to authorise publication of the documents, according to the Prime Minister’s spokesman.
The Cabinet Secretary took the decision in line with a protocol set out at the beginning of the inquiry, he added.
“(Mr Cameron) had no role in that process,” the spokesman said. “There is a protocol. That protocol sets out that in particular circumstances the Cabinet Secretary will make these judgments.”
Long-standing procedures also prevented serving ministers from seeing documents relating to the work of previous administrations, he said.
Asked whether the Prime Minister was minded to change the protocol so that the documents could be published, the spokesman replied: “No.”
Comment by L.G.K. Bufu the Max (a former title of the author of this article circa 1998 – 2000). Gus O’Donnell appears to be a civil servant i.e. subservient to the authority of government. If he is a civil servant – which he obviousl is – he answers to government and does what the government says. Nick Clegg – what can we say? Useless bastard? Total asshole? Rich useless twat? He seems to have the powerful position but instead seems determined to abandon his proclaimed ‘principles’ and utterly destroy his party. Nick Clegg ‘appears’ as Tory as Cameron destroying further and higher education, the Post Office and the National Health Service. The elecorate will recognise that the Lib Dems are Tories destroying everything that they held important.
Back to Tony – when I say “emphatically not” I mean “yes” – Bliar. His first comuppance was the “I’m a fairly straight kinda guy” lie. He’s a lying, little useless shit. He doesn’t understand what truth is. He believes that the words coming from his lips create truth. Years ago Mandy said something along the lines of New Labour create reality. No, reality is going to punch you in the face.
27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.
I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.
Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.
dizzy