March 24, 2005

The Row In Britain Over Iraq War Coverups

The Parliament has been much more tenacious on Blair than the Congress has ever been on Bush on the Iraq war. Not only that, but those questions and investigations actually make the news. The latest revelation is on the manipulation of legal advice on the legality of invading Iraq. The way the story goes, Blair had "Charles Falconer, then Home Office minister, and Baroness Morgan, the prime minister's director of political-government relations" provide the Attorney Lord Goldsmith with the "legal opinion" that the invasion was legal. Further, that Blair knew of this and deliberately lied to the Parliament.

Now if Blair got the Attorney General to go along, stood in front of the Parliament, and the people of Britain and the world, and lied, whose lie was he telling? George Bush's lie. Which means that George Bush (and all the President's "men") stood before Congress, and the United States, and the world, and lied. The leaders of two of the most renowned democracies on the planet attempted to deceive everyone - and were largely successful.

I find it difficult to believe that politicians can be so naive - nor so isolated - to simply trust the "good word" of anyone. I find it difficult to believe that the leaders of Britain and the United States are more credulous, less skeptical, and less informed than I.

Regardless, the truth wins out in Britain and it does not in the United States.

Regardless, there is the concept of accountability in Britain, but not in the United States.

Regardless, there appears to be a somewhat free press in Britain, but in the United States the government produces and defends releasing propaganda news that is swallowed whole by the press.

Troubling don't you think?

News Reports
3/24/05 News.com/AU, Parliament panel attacks war plan

3/24/05 Woolf, Independent/UK, Was the Attorney General leant on to change his mind?

3/24/05 Smith, Independent/UK, New challenge for Government on Iraq advice

3/24/05 Brown, Independent/UK, Iraq war: The smoking gun?

3/11/05 Grice, Independent/UK, Another Body Blow Hits the Questionable Case for Conflict

3/11/05 Woolf, Independent/UK, UK's Iraq war revelation: There was no full legal advice

3/09/05 Woolf, Independent/UK, Blair broke code to keep war advice from Cabinet

2/27/05 Whitaker & Carrell, Independent/UK, New charge undermines Blair claims on Iraq war

2/24/05 Norton-Taylor & White, Guardian/UK, Transcripts show No 10's hand in war legal advice

Posted by rowan at March 24, 2005 7:39 AM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |
Social Net Options: DIGG this -- del.icio.us -- StumbleUpon
Comments

A few days ago, Chris Matthews "inteviewed" Tim Russert and in his "hardballs" fashion Chris asked Tim did he think the media could have done more about the lack of WMD's. To my "shock and awe" Russert concluded that sense people like H.Clinton et al agreed then therefore they must have done all they could. They ended up telling each other how smart they were and essentially brought the "act" to it's biological conclusion.

I am reminded of the lycrics of a Rolling Stone song "Bite the Big Apple, don't mind the maggots"

Posted by: bill hooked at March 24, 2005 10:02 AM

Thanks, Bill, for the analogy... so much for lunch.

Posted by: Shawna at March 24, 2005 12:47 PM
Crd Lorraine Denicourt