Chilcot... and what it reveals about who's still running the show.

Friday, 23 January 2015

If we weren’t all so desensitised to a political class working together this kind of thing would make us all revolt. But we are so it will probably just make you shrug.

At the same time as it was announced that the result of the 6 year long enquiry into the Iraq war, the Chilcot Report, still won’t be published before the election, it was also revealed that 5 years negotiation between those about to be outed as warmongering lizards has resulted in a deal which means that redacted versions of 29 of the communications between Blair and Bush will be published. This is an upgrade from the last announcement, which was that ‘the gist’ of the messages would be included. The fucking gist. Really.

What hasn’t been revealed is how many messages they sent. Was it 30? 100? 1000? … which makes the publication of 29 completely pointless and without context. It’s like building your case on a murder suspect’s questioning around the bits where he was returning some videotapes.

So TB is being protected. Still. But by who? Well this is the interesting bit…

In May 2013 Lord David Owen said: “Publication of the Bush extracts would not be blocked if Tony Blair had not objected, nor if that objection had not been supported by the present prime minister, David Cameron. Both men are hiding behind conventions that are totally inappropriate given the nature of the inquiry.”

Hang on, Cameron is protecting Blair? Wut? Why, Dave?

Owen continued “No 10 reveals that they are in constant contact on many issues with Tony Blair and Blair’s own people confirm this. Not for nothing does Cameron see himself still as the 'heir to Blair’. It is hard to escape the conclusion that No 10 hopes to… win the neutrality or possibly tacit support of Blair by the General Election.”    

This isn’t Alex Jones or David Icke. This is David Owen, the former foreign secretary, intimately involved in Iraq, in the machinations of power, saying that Cameron will hide Blair’s war crimes if Blair does him a favour him in this election campaign. Heavy shit.

The only way he could do that would be by undermining Milliband. Surely Tony Blair wouldn… hang on… what’s this from The Economist, a few weeks ago, over 18 months after Owen made the claims?…. T.Blairculosis said that the election will unfold the way it does when a “traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result”.

Asked if he meant a conservative victory, he said ‘Yes’ and continued:

“I am still very much New Labour and Ed would not describe himself in that way, so there is obviously a difference there. I am convinced the Labour Party succeeds best when it is in the centre ground”. Asked what he would do differently he commented : “Not alienating large parts of business, for one thing.”

So, Cameron bails his illuminati mate out and gets his reptilian support in return. Democracy in action. They’re all in it together

TB later issued a correction, saying he supports Milliband, the unconvincing nature of which just sought to undermine him even more.

There’s enough in there to see that not only is this report contaminated but that the whole of our govt is a farce. All we’re given is an illusion of choice. A million people can march in London to protest against illegal invasions but the decisions have all been made years in advance in the background, at private dinners and in memos and calls that we'll never get to see or hear.

John Crump

Get updates via email

Join 65 other awesome people who subscribe to new posts on this blog.

Comments

Ewan Lawrie
Ewan Lawrie says:

Ah well, anyone who wants to stand for elected office should automatically be disbarred from doing so.

January 23, 2015

Join in the conversation

Sign in to comment
Writing in progress
Publication date: TBC
106% funded
62 backers