Iraq (Inquiry) ‘Truth Seekers’ Can’t Deal With The Truth

  • Original Home Page
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”
  • Ban Blair-Baiting


    Comment at end

    21st November, 2009

    “You want the truth? You can’t deal with the truth”


    STOP IT … just stop it … the STOP THE WAR gang. You talk outrageous rubbish and some of us have had enough.

    In case you are a martian visitor, you should know that there is an INQUIRY into the Iraq war. It is about to move into the “interview” period. It is NOT a trial, as its chairman Sir John Chilcot keeps reminding the forgetful.  Just as bloody well!

    Half the British press and its ignorant, know-all commenters is inhabited by creatures who should be banned from life from ever sitting on a jury in our “innocent until proven guilty” society. The former prime minister has already been found guilty as charged at this NON TRIAL. And he hasn’t even appeared there yet!

    This is an appalling position for ANY opiner of integrity in our country. These people and their witch-hunt make me thoroughly ashamed. They should be ashamed of themselves. Of course they’re not.

    For instance, Carne Ross, one of the high-and-mighty, know-all ‘Troof Seekers’ is at it again.

    He’s right about ONE thing – the Iraq Inquiry is a waste of time.

    As I and others (Rentoul) have argued, nothing will satisfy those who see Tony Blair as a criminal, “war” or otherwise, except a good old-fashioned hanging, in this capital-punishment-free zone. That, or if they’re feeling generous, his appearance at the International Criminal Court .

    The deranged Blair-hating/-hunting/-baiting Peter Oborne is also in full flow at Stirrers United, The Daily Mail. (More about that in another post.) As is the discredited Andrew Gilligan with ‘leaks’ at the leak-addicted Telegraph. Gilligan himself admits in another Telegraph article that these new disclosures “shed no new light”.

    So shurrup then, idiot!

    Tony Blair and Colin Powell, US Secretary of State outside Number 10 Downing Street


    As you’ll have noticed I’m not given to exaggeration. Except admittedly at times, in praise of Mr Blair. And that’s usually just to balance the antis’ antics.  I’d be far more dispassionate if THEY were. But clearly these people are mentally deranged.

    You DO SEE what we have here at this Guardian article, don’t you?

    We have people who see EVIL in the former prime minister. Not just ill-judgement, or a propensity to being easily led. They see him as EVIL. They are convinced of it.

    They are insane. INSANE!

    Blair – a “war criminal”? Tony Blair is no more a war criminal than is my Aunt Fanny. Admittedly,  I lack an Aunt Fanny. But if I had one she’d be as much of a war criminal as Mr Blair.

    SO What Is Tony Blair?

    • He is a peace-maker and vanquisher of murderers, even where Britain gains nothing, as in Sierra Leone.
    • He is a saviour of the ethnically cleansed in Kosovo.
    • He is the ONLY Prime Minister to have brought peace to Northern Ireland after decades of the Troubles.
    • He has spent two years building the Palestinian infrastructure from the ground up, and is highly praised even by Palestinians for his efforts. All this despite testing leadership from those in power on all sides.
    • He is a devoutly religious man who cares about and understands others. He has started a Faith Foundation to try to bring the religious together.
    • He is trusted by people right across the world.
    • He is mooted by world leaders as the ONLY leader they wanted as EU president. They are disappointed, as they should be that A.N. Other has been chosen.
    • He is not Robert Mugabe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or numerous other world leaders who actually DO kill their own peoples.

    He is NOT a war criminal.

    So what else does this Carne fellow – this great knower of all the FACTS and TRUTH – have to confound us with?




    “There is another truth that no one wants to see revealed: that government, whether honestly led or not, cannot understand the reality of places like Iraq, let alone master it as an occupier. Government can function only by reducing a complex and ever-changing reality into simplified policy choices, prepared by officials like me, and presented and defended by ministers.

    It is inconceivable that such reductionism can accurately capture the intricacy of a place like Iraq. But without it, government cannot operate. At home, the inevitable policy errors can be corrected by feedback from governed to government – through Parliament, the press and civil society. In foreign policy, no such feedback loops exist. Government may occasionally get policy right, but this is more by chance than by judgment.

    My guess is that the Chilcot inquiry will not offer this uncomfortable conclusion.”

    Well, of course they won’t, Mr Carne. To do so would be a counsel of despair. AND leaders, REAL leaders DON’T despair. They decide.


    As for this – ‘Carne’s evidence at the Butler Review’

    ‘The country needs the Iraq inquiry. What a shame it will be a whitewash

    Britain’s expert on the UN Security Council at the time of the Iraq invasion argues that John Chilcot’s investigation into the build-up to war in Iraq in 2003 will be a futile exercise unless it asks the right questions.’

    And you, smart-alec Carne – YOU know ALL the right questions, do you?  Everything that will open up to our enemies domestic and shared and security information? All concerns and agreements across pan-national politics? YOU are the judge of what should and should not be in the public domain? YOU are the judge of the whys and wherefores, ifs and buts?

    As someone once said, “You want the truth? You can’t deal with the truth”.


    1. Tony Blair is NOT a war criminal.

    2. No-one, not even a politician some detest, is ANY kind of criminal unless and until tried AND found guilty.

    3. Criminality of ANY sort is not to be judged by those with axes to grind.

    4. The anti-Iraq war/anti-war/anti-Blair people are largely anti-government.

    5. The antis are anti EVERYTHING that does not suit their agenda and beliefs.

    6. The Iraq Inquiry will be waste of time, money and effort unless such INSANE people get this result.

    7.  They won’t, of course

    8. Nor will they get their longed-for trial at The Hague.

    9. In conclusion, we will have to put up with their LIES forever. They, you see, are NEVER wrong. (See Rentoul – “Preparing for a Whitewash”)

    Guardian article follows:

    ‘What is the purpose of the Chilcot inquiry? Its stated objective is to “learn lessons” from the planning and execution of the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. If only this were true, because this is what the British people demand, but reading between the lines, there appears a more insidious intent.

    From 1998 to 2002, I was the UK’s Iraq “expert” on the UN Security Council. I resigned from the Foreign Office after giving evidence to the Butler inquiry in 2004. That inquiry produced an ultimately comforting outcome: that while the intelligence used to justify the war might have been exaggerated, it was not deliberately manipulated. The establishment might have made mistakes, but in the final analysis it could be trusted.

    That Sir John Chilcot served on the Butler inquiry is like trying the same crime twice with the same judge and jury – not a credible standard for truth-seeking. Nor would a truth-seeker allow the inquiry’s staff to be headed by the civil servant who was in a senior position in the foreign and defence policy secretariat of the Cabinet Office during Britain’s military occupation of Iraq.

    Meanwhile, many of those giving evidence will have a deep interest in confirming the government’s narrative, for they are deeply implicated in having implemented it. One little-discussed disgrace of prewar policy-making is that there was never a proper review of the available options. Witnesses will no doubt claim to Chilcot that there were none and that sanctions “were not working”. This is not true: the government’s internal assessments up to 2002 confirmed that sanctions had prevented Iraq from rearming with any significant stocks of conventional weapons or WMD.

    To know that there were non-military ways to undermine Saddam requires detailed insight into government policy and the prevailing circumstances. Most of those in a position to know will have little interest in revealing this complexity at the inquiry, for to do so will demonstrate their own complicity in ignoring those choices.

    But ministers and officials should be asked why, for instance, we were unwilling to pressure Turkey to close off illegal oil exports across its south eastern border, which were a crucial source of revenue for Saddam’s regime. Why did Tony Blair not raise the issue of Syria’s illegal export of Iraqi oil when he visited Damascus in October 2001? Weeks before the war began, and when ostensibly the UK was still pursuing peace, why did ministers tell Parliament that British aircraft were doing nothing unusual in the “no-fly zones” covering northern and southern Iraq, when US officials were briefing the American press that their – and presumably our – aircraft were engaged in “softening up” Iraqi defences for the imminent invasion?

    Other questions require a profound knowledge of the complex UN Security Council resolutions that framed the weapons inspections and sanctions regime, almost all of which were originally drafted by British officials. One resolution in particular established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), the weapons inspection body, in 1999. During those negotiations, the UK and US insisted that UNMOVIC required at least six months of inspections before it could reach a view on the degree of Iraqi disarmament and report to the UN Security Council. If this was the allied view in 1999, why did that change in 2003, when inspectors were given just weeks to visit hundreds of sites across a large country, sift thousands of documents and then deliver their judgments? Will the inquiry have the resources or inclination to address these issues? They are central to understanding the policy issues that led to war.

    The inquiry will probably focus on the senior officials. But much of the policy-making detail is known best by more junior officials who were immersed in Iraq day in, day out. Will the inquiry have the time to interview these officials thoroughly? Will these officials, many of whom are still in government, be guaranteed protection if they reveal accounts at odds with the official version?

    Few are the officials genuinely knowledgeable about the twists, turns and options of long-term Iraq policy. At the MoD, there was one so authoritative on the complex questions of weapons inspections and WMD programmes that at the UK mission in New York we insisted on his presence in our briefings of UN Security Council diplomats. He is sadly no longer around to offer the inquiry his testimony. His name was David Kelly.

    Given these weaknesses, why has the Chilcot inquiry been generally accepted as legitimate? The government’s motives are clear: it wishes to distance itself from decisions which many of today’s cabinet supported, it seems, on the nod and without asking for the full picture. In reviewing the advice of the attorney general on the legality of the war, was the cabinet not made aware of the view of the Foreign Office legal advisers, who had told the attorney general and foreign secretary that the planned war was in fact an illegal war of invasion?

    The opposition’s motives are less clear, but still discernible. They, too, supported the war, supposedly because they believed the government’s claims about WMD. But they failed to question the government in detail before the invasion and only began to do so when it became clear how disastrously the invasion and occupation had been planned. What the opposition parties want from the inquiry is evidence that they were misled, thus absolving them of blame. What they do not want is confirmation of what clearly was the case: that they – and by implication Parliament – were incapable of scrutinising government and holding officials to account in the gravest of circumstances.

    There is another truth that no one wants to see revealed: that government, whether honestly led or not, cannot understand the reality of places like Iraq, let alone master it as an occupier. Government can function only by reducing a complex and ever-changing reality into simplified policy choices, prepared by officials like me, and presented and defended by ministers.

    It is inconceivable that such reductionism can accurately capture the intricacy of a place like Iraq. But without it, government cannot operate. At home, the inevitable policy errors can be corrected by feedback from governed to government – through Parliament, the press and civil society. In foreign policy, no such feedback loops exist. Government may occasionally get policy right, but this is more by chance than by judgment.

    My guess is that the Chilcot inquiry will not offer this uncomfortable conclusion. Instead, grave officials, soldiers and ministers will offer evidence; sober mandarins will sit in judgment upon them. Revelations will be made; errors and failures will be uncovered. The ensuing and weighty “Chilcot report” will make recommendations for greater scrutiny, more accountability, fact-checking and planning mechanisms.

    But look at the players, read the pre-ordained if unadmitted script, and the show that we are about to witness becomes clear – it is, after all, for our benefit. The purpose? To confirm that our democracy, Parliament and government function as they should. Government may get it wrong sometimes, and may even sometimes be dishonest, but it is ultimately perfectible and capable. The country is secure in its hands; safe can be our sleep.’

    Carne Ross was a British diplomat from 1989-2004.


    (Apologies for highlighting their madness, too. It is highly contagious. Nothing except THEIR desired result from Chilcot will satisfy them. They are NOT TRUTH seekers, but THEIR OPINION seekers.)

    1. The Chilcot inquiry will not alter that. We will be treated, once again, to a display of the most corrupt members of an utterly corrupt establishment, on both sides of the inquiry, exculpating themselves of the most serious crimes in the canon; we will be treated to their transparent attempts to manipulate and deceive us with lies, half truths and evasions into believing that Tony Blair and his posse are innocent of any criminal intent. It will not work. Indeed, it could well backfire, because just as the truth is obvious, repeated attempts to distort it produce more and more obvious lies.

    But the large number of us who have lost all faith in our political establishment, indeed, hold it to be criminal, and the Chilcot inquiry to be nothing more than an institutional perversion of the course of justice set up to conceal criminal intent, will not forget the Iraq war in a hurry. It has poisoned the credibility of our political system. I believe that poison cannot be purged unless the Nation as a whole confronts the truth, and given that the Chilcot inquiry is another milestone in attempting to suppress it, I do not believe that will happen until the system itself is called to account, and seriously altered, so that the destiny and integrity of a nation cannot be hijacked by the personal ambition of one man. One day, that will happen, either by consent or by force, but it will happen, and we’ll look back on the Chilcot inquiry, and wonder how we ever allowed such a miserable, incompetent and criminal gang to lead our country so disastrously astray. A naked and incompetent display of corruption at the highest levels can only hasten that end.

    2. Well quite. History will be the judge of Iraq not some Westminster place man hired to smooth things over. And I believe history will judge Bush and Blair to be a pair of evil idiots.


    The 14 people listed here as having been indicted to appear before the ICC one of whom Omar al-Bashir is the President of Sudan is listed as a ‘fugitive’. But Al-Bashir is due to stand as a presidential candidate in 2010. Hardly due to keep his profile low, then.

    Al-Bashir is the first sitting head of state ever indicted by the ICC.[10] However, the Arab League and the African Union condemned the warrant. al-Bashir has since visited Egypt and Qatar. Both countries refused to arrest him and surrender him to the ICC upon arrival.

    International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavian Leader

    Former Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic appears at International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. Follow us on twitter at

    ON THE OTHER HAND from this Russia Today YouTube channel

    Karadzic attends tribunal amid claims of bias trial

    Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic has appeared in the Hague for his trial on Tuesday. Karadzic boycotted the first three days of the hearing, citing that he did not have enough time to prepare for his defense. He has been charged with two counts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity linked to the war in former Yugoslavia in the early nineties. Karadzic has maintained his innocence, and refused to enter a plea.

    Most of the commenter here think Karadzic is a good guy – a hero even. If nothing else this shows the difficulties in keeping all the people happy all the time. An impossible dream.



    Seldon on Blair’s numerous projects (largely unpaid) since leaving office. Titled “Neither shy nor retiring” it says that he will bounce back from his disappointment over the EU post with more determination. I wonder who exactly chose the sub-title. It does not chime with the rest of the article.

    Free Hit Counter


    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    2 Responses to “Iraq (Inquiry) ‘Truth Seekers’ Can’t Deal With The Truth”

    1. Chris Ames on the Iraq Inquiry’s 1 MINUTE blackout: “TELL US WHAT THEY SAID” « Tony Blair Says:

      […] bit like the Inquiry, as it happens, for the ‘TROOF SEEKERS’ and their ignorant and bloodthirsty Sprog […]

    2. The Toughest Day – Part 1 – RECON – Military Videos | Says:

      […] Iraq (Inquiry) 'Truth Seekers' Can't Deal With The Truth « Tony Blair […]

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s