Monday, 27 June 2016

It’s Still the Iraq War, Stupid.

by Craig Murray 389


Reblogged from: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/still-iraq-war-stupid/

No rational person could blame Jeremy Corbyn for Brexit. So why are the Blairites moving against Corbyn now, with such precipitate haste?
The answer is the Chilcot Report. It is only a fortnight away, and though its form will be concealed by thick layers of establishment whitewash, the basic contours of Blair’s lies will still be visible beneath. Corbyn had deferred to Blairite pressure not to apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for the Iraq War until Chilcot is published.
For the Labour Right, the moment when Corbyn as Labour leader stands up in parliament and condemns Blair over Iraq, is going to be as traumatic as it was for the hardliners of the Soviet Communist Party when Khruschev denounced the crimes of Stalin. It would also destroy Blair’s carefully planned post-Chilcot PR strategy. It is essential to the Blairites that when Chilcot is debated in parliament in two weeks time, Jeremy Corbyn is not in place as Labour leader to speak in the debate. The Blairite plan is therefore for the parliamentary party to depose him as parliamentary leader and get speaker John Bercow to acknowledge someone else in that fictional position in time for the Chilcot debate, with Corbyn remaining leader in the country but with no parliamentary status.
Yes, they are that nuts.
If the fault line for the Tories is Europe, for Labour it is the Middle East. Those opposing Corbyn are defined by their enthusiasm for bombing campaigns that kill Muslim children. And not only by the UK. Both of the first two to go, Hilary Benn and Heidi Alexander, are hardline supporters of Israel.
This was Benn the week before his celebrated advocacy of bombing Syria:
Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn told a Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) lunch yesterday that relations with Israel must be based on cooperation and rejected attempts to isolate the country.
Addressing senior party figures in Westminster, Benn praised Israel for its “progressive spirit, vibrant democracy, strong welfare state, thriving free press and independent judiciary.” He also called Israel “an economic giant, a high-tech centre, second only to the United States. A land of innovation and entrepreneurship, venture capital and graduates, private and public enterprise.”
Consequently, said Benn, “Our future relations must be built on cooperation and engagement, not isolation of Israel. We must take on those who seek to delegitimise the state of Israel or question its right to exist.”
Heidi Alexander actually signed, as a 2015 parliamentary candidate, the “We Believe in Israel”charter, the provisions of which state there must be no boycotts of Israel, and Israel must not be described as an apartheid state.
This fault line is very well defined. The manufactured row about “anti-Semitism” in the Labour Party shows exactly the same split. In my researches, 100% of those who have promoted accusations of anti-Semitism were supporters of the Iraq War and/or had demonstrable links to professional pro-Israel lobby groups. 100% of those accused of anti-Semitism were active opponents of the Iraq War. Never underestimate the Blairite fury at being shown not just to be liars but to be wrong. Iraq is their Achilles heel and they are extremely touchy about it.
No rational person would believe Brexit was Jeremy Corbyn’s fault. No rational person would believe that now is a good moment for the Labour Party to tear itself apart. Extraordinarily, the timing is determined by Chilcot.

8 comments:

  1. 9/11 (the excuse for the Iraq invasion) deconstructed. https://www.facebook.com/anonews.co/videos/1208144735863750/

    ReplyDelete
  2. In reply to Andrew G Johnston here: https://www.facebook.com/bsggriffin/posts/1029754297120111?comment_id=1031307793631428&reply_comment_id=1031611186934422&notif_t=feed_comment_reply&notif_id=1467366588878484
    Well that's one way of looking at it but I'm not sure the 'left/right' paradigm works any more. Just look at the last twenty years - Blair aping Thatcher, Cameron aping Blair. Indeed although politicians live by disagreement, there is little blue (or red) water between them, all realising that their survival depends on securing the middle ground, where most of the populace resides. They all reside on a 'greasy pole' of their own career, fulfilling the useful role of deflecting attention from the real shakers and movers who remain in virtual anonymity, which is where they like to be. Just as 'left' and 'right' are largely illusionary, so those companies and individuals with interests and agendas are very real. Never forget the circumstances of 9/11 and 7/7 and the intentional lies that were told to the British people to pursue an essentially zionist agenda in the middle east. The facts, however mollified by Chilcot, are now too convincing to ignore, even though MSM will not touch it and Government actively resists it. It proves to me at least, there are indeed dark forces at work, particularly in the western world, intent on destabilisation and conflict, not in the interests of the people, but of its own selfish agenda. It is this that we should focus our attention on, not the largely ficticious and fabricated division between 'left' and 'right', or even 'in' and 'out'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The rascist was ME"! War witness living with guilt. Listen and be persuaded. https://www.facebook.com/thefreethoughtprojectcom/videos/1754527611434165/

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.secretsofthefed.com/911-truth-finally-appears-…/… Watch and circulate as widely as possible because your Government won't! Chilcot refers briefly to 9/11, the main excuse for all later events, but does not question the official explanation. The enormity of the deception, much greater than even that used to invade Iraq, is still lied about by our own government. In the circumstances how can we trust ANYTHING that comes out of government?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not until this has been sorted can we believe in ANY British politician. Israel deeply implicated in lies and deceit over 9/11 and the event itself all covered up by American administration and media. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL-ejf2_LFw

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. On the face of it - and I'm not a Labour Party member - Corbyn cannot lose if there's another leadership election. Too many members, of which there has been a remarkable surge since he became leader, would cast their vote for him again. But that is all predicated on there being an election. Remember the knives are out on BOTH sides of the Dispatch Box! The National Executive is currently meeting to decide on eligability and other factors that may be used to preclude Corbyn from standing. It appears he would first need 50 MP's to support him unless his existing leadership status is considered sufficient. This may prove difficult to achieve in the face of such Parliamentary opposition. If required to exclude him it would undoubtedly be considered a 'dirty trick' and lead to uproar in the constituencies, deselection and even a split by the time of the next election. If there were two Labour parties competing against each other, this would give the Conservatives a clear run in many safe Labour seats. This must have been all worked out by the strategists on all sides. You have to go back a long way to find a Parliament split so deeply in so many directions, potentially allowing the least popular group in charge of policy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tim Veater Claude Baesens Yup noted. Netanyahu pre warned to stay inside on 7/7 and we ask HIM to train our police? Now the woman who has been in charge of MI5 for 5 yrs shoehorned into No 10????
    Like · Reply · 14 hrs
    Claude Baesens
    Claude Baesens On 7/7 the Home Secretary was Charles Clarke though.
    Like · Reply · 13 hrs
    Tim Veater
    Tim Veater Not for long tho. Home Secretary from December 2004 until May 2006. Do you feel he guarantees that 7/7 was not an inside job? What is interesting in this fairly recent interview (Here: http://www.iaindale.com/.../watch-charles-clarke-relives-7-7) is that the two "notes" passed to him, first of 'an incident', then of an 'explosion' are only '15 minutes apart'. As this was much shorter than the actual time taken to establish the cause, I would suggest this means that either the initial note was delayed or the second note arrived before emergency services on the ground had actually decided. Either creates a speculation that seeks an answer.

    WATCH: Charles Clarke Relives 7/7 - Iain Dale
    IAINDALE.COM
    Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 8 mins
    Tim Veater
    Tim Veater Of course the timing was significant (as so often in these events) as the Gleneagles conference was happening at precisely at the same time. The interview confirms that Ministers are totally dependent on the information supplied to them. In practise they are mouthpieces and are party in the main part, no more that the rest of us. From an objective point of view, any secret inside terrorist group embedded in government itself, would positively NOT inform politicians or ministers unless there was some positive and devious reason for doing so. It was repeated over Iraq as Chilcot has proved, when MI6 knew its source for WMD was unreliable but did not convey this info. to Blair until after the invasion had started.

    ReplyDelete