The worst cover-up in history

by Chris Ames

Before the Inquiry published its report, I was concerned at its promise to publish the evidence that supported its narrative, worrying that it would conceal the evidence that told a different story. I should not (I think) have worried. The Inquiry has published plenty of new evidence that contradicts its key conclusion that the UK government managed:

to reconcile its objective of disarming Iraq, if possible by peaceful means, with the US goal of regime change. That was achieved by the development of an ultimatum strategy threatening the use of force if Saddam Husseindid not comply with the demands of the international community, and by seeking topersuade the US to adopt that strategy and pursue it through the UN.
As the Inquiry report describes, on 15 November 2001, Jonathan Powell wrote to Blair:
It seems to me that our over-riding objective is the removal of Saddam not the insertion of arms inspectors. It is only with a new regime that we can be sure of an end to CBRN proliferation and an end to hostile intent towards his neighbours plus his support for terrorism. We need to make a far greater effort to bring him down […] with proper backing for internal opposition […]
As Chilcot also notes:
Mr Blair replied: “I agree with this entirely and I should prepare a note for GWB[President Bush] next week.”
It is interesting to see how Chilcot sidelines this. Despite publish the note and including it in his narrative, he marginalises the revelation that Blair’s “over-riding objective is the removal of Saddam” by making his bold text key finding:
Mr Powell argued that only the removal of Saddam Hussein and a new regime would deal with the risks from Iraq.
He attributes the point to Powell, rather than Blair and presents it as an observation, rather than a statement of an objective. Given that Blair’s case is that ultimately, having given peace his best shot, he felt the removal of Saddam necessary, the distinction is lost.
Had Chilcot reported that Blair was seeking from the outset to remove Saddam, he would have told the truth. But in finessing the facts in Blair’s favour while publishing the stark evidence, he produced what must be the worst cover up in history.


17 comments to this article

  1. BobM

    on November 7, 2016 at 5:33 pm -

    I hesitate to be the first to say this, but the invasion of Iraq, while it has had the most appalling consequences has not, in isolation, been the subject of the worst cover-up in history.

    I think that we have to go back to the precipitating events in 2001 to get the full picture.

  2. Peter Beswick

    on November 8, 2016 at 2:03 am -

    A Dozen Contenders – not in any particular order and only a very small sample of a very sickening and corrosive British disease

    Deepcut – 4 “Suicides” – two from single gunshot wounds to the head, one with two gunshot wounds to the head and one from 5 bullet shots to the chest.


    Bloody Sunday + many Mi5 Irish maladventures

    Dr David Kelly

    Child sex abuse

    High profile sex perverts facilitated and protected by the State.

    Diana – Doesn’t matter if she was pregnant or not, she was not going give King William a Muslim half brother

    Police corruption – In a state where CCTV and overt / covert data recording is most intensive of all countries in the world it is odd that so much information goes missing when the police are caught out.

    Political Corruption – Money for questions, access, contracts titles and a place in Parliament. – In fairness this isn’t seen as shameful these days, it is paraded openly but charges are never brought.

    The truth behind all British wars

    The Blairs

    British Banking and Tax Fraud.

  3. Lee

    on November 8, 2016 at 11:14 am -

    Most over-ups fail: they unravel. The Chilcot cover-up has failed to impress many. But sadly, it will become the official Establishment script.. the myth that counts. So I agree with Chris.

  4. Peter Beswick

    on November 8, 2016 at 1:38 pm -

    Sorry this might wander a bit but it has a point.

    If the degree of corruption is a measure of “worst” then it is hard to choose, once you reach 100% corruptness you have maxed out.

    If it is misery, hurt, anxiety, depression and gut wrenching heartache that is the yardstick then yes probably Iraq (plus all the other US crusades) the sheer volume of despair that has been caused from violence in those countries and the resulting uncontrolled diaspora and stored up hatred yet to be released.

    In financial terms its close run between financial crimes encouraged by government and the crime of Iraq. Last week a payout of £800,000 to Iraqi policemen because they got beaten up by some SAS soldiers.

    In 2007 the MoD paid out a £1,000,000 to a SAS soldier because a US helicopter landed on him.

    This week were are told that the SAS have been given a kill list of 200 suspected British terrorists fighting in Iraq. If this is true then the government know they have ordered the SAS to commit very serious crimes, the SAS know if they carry out these orders they will be committing very serious crimes and face possible prison if they return.

    So thats another 200 cases of compensation claims on top of the million plus that already exist or have been settled with UK taxpayers money.

    (Lets just this straight; the UK taxpayer pays the UK government to order crimes to be committed by UK soldiers (paid by the UK taxpayer) and if the soldiers aren’t killed they will face prison on their return (paid by the UK taxpayer) and the families of the victims of crime will claim and be paid out compensation paid for by the UK taxpayer)

    Reminiscent of another cover up I didn’t mention, the Jean Charles de Menezes case where the Brazilian electrician was gunned down (wait for it) by British Special Forces, the Met lied and said they did the killing , the Health and Safety Executive prosecuted (not the CPS) (you couldn’t make this up) and the Met were found guilty so the taxpayer was fined and then the taxpayer had to find some more money to shut the family up.

    But “worst” in the sense that I think Chris A means that of incompetency and or blatant contempt for the law and the intelligence of the British public; then I don’t agree, that award has to go to Hutton and Grieve with assorted players.

    David Kelly died a very sudden death, the pathology bears this out, the pathologist (Nicholas Hunt) misled the Hutton inquiry about the extent of Kelly’s heart / artery problems, he came clean in 2010 in his post postmortem report in another Daily Mail hangout 23 Aug 2010, in support of Grieve’s display of contempt of justice

    “Dr Hunt says that unknown to Dr Kelly, he was suffering from a severe form of heart disease – atherosclerosis – which had left his arteries as little as a fifth as wide as normal. This left him at constant risk of heart attack and more likely to die from a slashed wrist, as his heart had reduced ability to survive sudden blood loss. If he had dropped dead in the canteen and you had seen his coronary arteries, you would have had a very good reason to believe that was the only reason he died.”

    In his postmortem report Hunt says (at conclusion 11);

    “It is noted that he has a significant degree of coronary artery disease and this may have played some small part in the rapidity of death but not the major part in the cause of death”

    What Hunt left out of his postmortem report though was ejaculate staining was found in Dr Kellys underpants, the Forensic Biologist’s report did report this fact but could not be expected to know the significance. The significance is that this is a clear signal of extremely sudden death normally witnessed in victims of gunshot wounds to the head and hangings. Hunt didn’t mention this just as he didn’t mention potential consequences of the heart disease in his postmortem report.

    Hunt also revealed in his 2010 post postmortem report that Kelly displayed marks that indicated the scabs on his wrist had been picked at to allow more blood to flow. Hunts conclusion was that Kelly had removed the scabs whist he was still conscious indicating that the arteries and platelets were doing their jobs and blood flow had stopped whist Kelly was still alive.

    Or that is what we meant to believe, a very long drawn out death. But in other evidence the very dark nature of the circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death emerges.

    When the ambulance crew were present the wrist wound was facing upwards and displayed hard cracked scabbing, there was no big “puddle” of blood next to the wrist where the female paramedic stood / knelt/ squatted when she was checking for signs of life.

    The witnesses after the ambulance crew left said the wrist wound had been turned around and was facing downward so it couldn’t be seen And a two and a half foot puddle of blood appeared where the female paramedic had been positioned.

    The first policeman on the scene (DC Coe) in his Grieve assisting hangout in the Mail admitted that the body had been moved from slumped against a tree when he first saw it to being flat on the ground a significant distance from a tree to the extent that the male paramedic could stand in a gap between a tree and the head of the body when he was checking for signs of life at the same time his female colleague was there.

    Coe told the Hutton inquiry that he left the scene when the ambulance crew arrived and had nothing else to do with the scene that day. That was a lie he stayed on a couple of hours more until the forensic team arrived. In that time several other changes including the addition of more blood occurred to make the scene more realistic.

    It took a while to get here (and there’s lots more I can tell but that can wait for a book) the point being all these cover ups have one thing in common. The lack of proper investigation and contempt for the rigor of the law, which has left us with an unlawful state who think they can get away with anything.

    Maybe or until the last straw is applied.

  5. BobM

    on November 8, 2016 at 10:58 pm -

    I think, as I said, that we have to go back to the precipitating events in 2001 to get the full picture.

    Please, all, look at this.

  6. Peter Beswick

    on November 11, 2016 at 2:01 am -

    Situation Normal

    “EU Court Of Justice Says The Shape Of Rubik’s Cube Should Not Be Trademarked”

    The EU Court of Justice is busy doing what it does. And could get busier if the UK Supreme Court says Mrs May has to ask Parliament if she wants to do what the electorate has told her to do. Because her next port of call may be the EU Court to ask them to tell the UK Courts to stop being rotters.

    But she may have legislation drafted that says the UK courts don’t matter anymore. Or she may hold a snap election which may lead to Jeremy Corbyn being made to run the country.

    Meanwhile the UK foreign policy select committee in the US have lost their way a bit but Russia says they are now less likely to incinerate Great Britain.

    And Donald has come as a knight in shining armour to save Mrs May and she’s not even a black lesbian so the world really has changed since the referendum in June where the biggest UK turn out of the electorate this century voted to leave the EU and get on with being British (whatever that is). I think in practice it means leaving our borders open and trading with anyone that will trade with us.

    Except British and US bombs are still dropping on children in Iraq and Syria, well I suppose there’s no one to tell them to stop but that’s what us Brits do I suppose.

    And in the midst of this tectonic shift in anti establishment renaissance we have Chilcot armed with a wet fish but with no one to slap, disappearing into the sunset on a wintery Dartmoor to find peace and solitude that may, just may inspire him to learn a lesson to pass on to … well if not this generation maybe the next, seeing as though we have a better chance now of seeing another generation grow up and learn from our lessons.

    Makes you proud, don’t it?

  7. Lee

    on November 13, 2016 at 2:12 pm -

    Donald will use May like a toothpick

  8. Lee

    on November 13, 2016 at 5:31 pm -

    Jeeezus Bob ! That is terrifying. I am scared I will never get that image out of my mind ! Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, and now this ?!

  9. BobM

    on November 16, 2016 at 4:58 pm -

    “Jeeezus Bob ! That is terrifying. I am scared I will never get that image out of my mind ! Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, and now this ?!”

    Thank you, Lee.

    Stick it on the wall next to a print of the Trump/Farage golden elevator picture, and one of Boris on the wire, and you have the “Special Relationship” that has wrecked millions of lives, in its present manifestation.

    I don’t think that it will be as dangerous for the Middle East; but as Trump wants both to support Israel and get to the bottom of 9/11 who can say?

  10. Lee

    on November 17, 2016 at 7:30 pm -

    Trump wants to run the US like a business corporation. He is very picky about the corporations he likes. He doesnt like Banks, finance companies, and insurance companies. With him it doesnt go further than “what he likes” and “what he doesnt like”. Its similar to a medieval monarch. Whether the stooges around him will be able to craft that into a set of coherent policies that congress will support, is very much an open question.

    However, he loathes the Obama regime, the Clintons, and the Dem Party so much that we will need to do some tangible things. Obama just spoke about doing tangible things and ended up more of less doing nothing except continue the Bush policy. I cant see Trump wanting to do that. But maybe he will discover he has no choice. He certainly cant solve America’s plunging economy and obscene wealth differentials. Maybe he will do an FDR with Bernie’s help.

    I have a faint hope that he will realise Netanyahu and his despicable regime are seriously insane, and he wont get trapped the way Obama and Hillary were. That alone will be somewhat of a blessing.

    Theresa May ?…I am speechless. What a blow for the women’s movement.

  11. Lee

    on November 17, 2016 at 7:33 pm -

    Peter: I realise you are quite disturbed about the Kelly affair. You have spent a great deal of time and passion tracking and documenting it.

    Are there any ways at all that it can be re-opened ? Or is it now just for historians ?

  12. Chris Ames

    on November 19, 2016 at 7:14 pm -

    Would commenters please try to keep comments relevant to the post and avoid libellous allegations.

  13. Peter Beswick

    on November 19, 2016 at 10:35 pm -

    Chris A

    I assume the warning / advice was aimed at me. I appreciate this is your blog and am sorry for you thinking I have put you in legal danger.

    Libel as I think you know can be brought before a Court even when the revelation is true, a Judge will decide if the truth being told elevates itself form the harm done to the libeled character..

    It is central to Britain’s involvement in Iraq and those consequences that your blog stands proud, to hide the truth is not acceptable as you yourself have railed and campaigned for.

    Unfortunately the accusation I made is absolutely true, I wish it wasn’t.

    But if you want to square the invidious circle let me know how the evidence before a judge (Hutton) is not false.

    I absolutely understand why individuals who were convinced that “National Security” was at stake bent in the wind.

    From P27 onwards but the rest is very useful to understand what was happening.

    Chilcot or rather Aldrid separated Kelly from Iraq, that cannot be done in honesty or seriousness.

    This is what Grieve’s investigation revealed p47,

    :// of responses to issues raised


    Each member of the crib team was interviewed twice, why? Because if they had been told the location of a safe house that would have be a problem,