UK: 39 Labour MPs letter to Jeremy Corbyn asking him to sack Shawcroft (29.03.2018)
I write what I like.
The United Kingdom politics seems to have changed a lot since the Brexit Election. Theresa May thinks she the second coming to the Queen and tries to the Iron Lady while triumphant acts like a winner; even if she just inherited the honourable Prime Minister government and traded seats to loyalist for her. Well, other news has been the disgraceful and despicable attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and his allies in the Labour Party. The Main Opposition party that has been under fire for their activity and nativity under the Brexit campaign; that has backfired on the central leadership and ended is disarray in the socialist party.
There we’re very few MPs in Public who we’re behind Jeremy Corbyn like Kate Osamor and few other rare Members of Parliament that we’re silent through the storm after the Brexit.
This happens as the knowledge of the rebel MPs who fled the ship and wanted to axe their leader without any concern of how recently he was elected. These we’re the likes of Peter Kyle, Emma Lewell-Buck, Peter Glass, Chris Evans, Heidi Alexander, Steve Reed, Lucy Powell, Ruth Smeeth, David Wayne, Chris Bryant, Ian Murray, Jess Phillips, Andy Slaughter, Lillian Greenwood and Angela Eagle. All of these MPs wrote letters resigning from the Shadow Cabinet and later worked to do what they could to marginalize their leader. They even had a vote in Parliament where they Opposition voted no-confidence in Corbyn.
In a big party as Labour there would be natural that their more than one major wing. In the Labour Party of United Kingdom, you have the Blairites, the once that you cannot spot the difference between if they are Liberal-Democrats (Lib-Dem) or Conservative Party (Tories) as they acts are the same, but hints of collective consideration when they need too. Than you have the Right-Wing socialist and Labour Unionist that is core bases of the Party. These two wings are the ones that have fought for control of the party. The Legacy of Tony Blair and his New Labour is hunting the Party like a vindictive disease that it cannot kill off. Instead the internal squabbles strengthen the Theresa May government and her brash tone towards the world. While the looking non-member possible voter feels that Labour Party is not the first choice because they cannot control themselves.
There been enough scandals and wrong methods from the leadership under Corbyn. But he has been a backbencher and not a key player until late. The once behind him and the core leadership should have backed him and given him better advice and made sure that certain Anti-Semite slurs wouldn’t be associated with the party and some of the MPs who are loyal to Corbyn. As much as Corbyn should have used a stronger force in the Brexit campaign to gain momentum for what he believed in at that junction. But let’s be clear, the coup d’état that the Shadow Cabinet Ministers are not how to run a party; it is how to ruin a party. Some of these should just flee the Labour Party; ask for forgiveness in their role of disfranchising the Unions and Members of the Party. Or be noble and find a new home. The rebel MPs should beg for forgiveness for weakening the party and their causes. This has wasted time and efforts for the cost of Labour.
The Corbyn Administration better use the time wisely and enter a method of sending their message and making sure programs offered the public can be sold and understood in Brighton and in Swindon.
Certainly the rebel MPs are the key losers today, but also the party because of the internal destruction and maladministration that has led to this effort. The Labour Party can become vital if their principals are in order and if the leadership are true to their balanced message. In a big party as Labour if there weren’t fractions, we as followers of them should be worried. Than there would an authoritarian leader who demands what the rest of the party should think and have on their mind.
If the Corbyn Administration doesn’t handle the rebels, then the friction between them will continue until next election. Even if the Theresa May Cabinet postpones the Article 50 into oblivion as she really wants to and just having a Brexit Minister and having boy-scout Boris Johnson proud-cocking around Europe to ask for forgiveness for his previous insults of the past. Even with all this in mind Corby and his loyal leadership around him has to consolidate and get a clear message, while handling the men and woman who did what they could to oust him. They tried to have both MP Angela Eagle and MP Owen Smith instead of him. The reaction of the matter is now clear as the Members wish to have Jeremy Corbyn longer staying with the helmet.
Certain tabloids and media houses should ask mercy to Corbyn for their attitude and stinking press of slur of ignorance and fixation on getting him axed. Like they wanted to destabilize the party in the wish to strengthen May Government! It isn’t just me who see that clear vindictive attitude of British press towards Corbyn? It was factory made press of banality and obstructive behaviour that we’re out of this world. The only one getting as much bad press, but deservingly so is Donald Trump and he speaks venom; that is not the ways of Corbyn.
Let’s be clear, if the Labour Party wants to be serious contender and become a Party of the People again. Then they have to consolidate and retaliate with fierce precision against the rebels while giving them limited options. MP Owen Smith can now go back to his constituency and try to win over with this lobbyist smile and “make this election the most important in the party history”.
If Labour want to reign again, then they have to go internally and fix, amend and show progress of stature and credible socialist message that can bring belief of a better future for workers, households and industry. Not only trading the Blairites for getting voters now. Corbyn, congratulation on your second victory in Inner-Party Election; now it is time to work! Peace.
There are big questions out there, many quests and many actions never answered for, many bullets and missiles shot without a concern or without doubt of the after effect. With this reach for power, allegiance to and who you represent; the validity of these actions that are after questions should also be put into the context for the reason for why a man or leader, a government executive who decided to invade another country.
After the vile and massive claims for terrorist threats, the aggressive attitude as the levels of fear from the American Government under the vicious control of George W. Bush and his regime. The Washington agenda and the clear retaliate after the 9/11 attacks. In this mind-set and this state of mind, the Americans went out the world in vengeance. Even when they had questionable evidence of conspiracy and planned to reshape the Middle Eastern countries and the places where ‘terrorist’ reside and the ones behind the terrorist attack on the American Soil; the then Government went together and tried to make a coalition for the second invasion of Iraq. This also through reports of WMD and other malicious ideas of Iraqi conspiracies… that would show the true colour of the Iraqi military and their capacity, even if it was constructed to fix the reasons for the military operation in the United States and United Kingdom.
In this state of mind, the recent releases of Chilcot report on the Iraqi Report and the indication of the aggression from the Western hemisphere towards the sovereign state of Iraq. That can be the invasion can be questioned, especially with the little evidence and the maladministration, which even made wise men like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice look like humble school-kids instead of statesmen and understudies of Dick Cheney.
The arguments that we’re put forward was certainly not truthful as the colluded ideas of grand estates with chemical, biological and harmful arms to hurt fellow population, that even Generals from the Iraqi army claimed we’re destroyed in the last war. Secondly the embargoes of the time together with the strained economy would not have given the Iraqi’s the wealth to recreate the weapons that the American and British claimed they had.
As the little sample of words and evidence questioning the reasoning for the invasion of Iraq under PM Blair and President Bush!
Manning’s Message to Blair in 2002:
“Bush will want to pick your brains. He will also want to hear whether he can expect coalition support. I told Condi that we realiised that the Administration could go it alone if it chose. But if it wanted company, it would have to take account of the concerns of its potential coalition partners. In particular:
– the Un [sic] dimension. The issue of the weapons inspectors must be handled in a way that would persuade European and wider opinion that the US was conscious of the international framework, and the insistence of many countries on the need for a legal base. Renwed refused [sic] by Saddam to accept unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument’
– the paramount importance of tackling Israel/Palestine. Unless we did, we could find ourselves bombing Iraq and losing the Gulf” (Manning, 2002).
Second Message for argument for the Iraqi invasion for Blair:
“First, the THREAT. The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September. This is not something we need to be defensive about, but attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase scepticism about our case. I am relieved that you decided to postpone publication of the unclassified document. My meeting yesterday showed that there is more work to do to ensuer that the figures are accurate and consistent with those of the US. But even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years ont he nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know”, been stepped up” (…) “The second problem is the END STATE. Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives. For Kosovo” it was: Serba out, Kosovars back” peace-keepers in. For Afghanistan, destroying the Taleban and Al Qaida military capability. For Iraq, “regime change: does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam. Much better, as you have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat to the international community from Iraqi WMD before Saddam uses it or gives it to the terrorists. This is at once easier to justify in terms of international law” but also more demanding. Regime change which produced another Sunni General still in charge of an active Iraqi WMD programmme would be a bad outcome (not least because it would be almost impossible to maintain UN sanctions on a new leader who came in promising a fresh start). As with the fight against UBL, Bush would do well to de”personalise the objective” focus on elimination of WMD, and show that he is serious about UN Inspectors as the first choice means of achieving that (it is win/win for him: either Saddam against all the odds allows Inspectors to operate freelyk” in which case we can further hobble his WMD programmes, or he blocks/hinders, and we are on stronger ground for switching to other methods) – (Ricketts, 2002).
“Of all the pro-war propaganda of Blair and Bush, and their current threats giving Saddam Hussein yet another deadline to disarm, what may be their biggest lie is exposed by this revelation” (…) “In 1995, General Kamel was debriefed by senior officials of the United Nations inspections team, then known as UNSCOM, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The complete transcript, now disclosed for the first time, contradicts almost everything Bush and Blair have said about the threat of Iraqi weapons” (…) ” When America and Britain crush Iraq, a new phase of their black propaganda will emerge – for which the British public ought to be prepared. This new range of deceptions will be designed to justify attacking a sovereign state and killing innocent people: a crime under international law, with or without a second UN resolution” (Pilger, 2003).
One Secret Memo said this:
“Blair continues to stand by you and the U.S. as we move forward on the war on terrorism and on Iraq. He will present to you the strategic, tactical and public affairs lines that he believes will strengthen global support for our common cause” (…) “On Iraq. Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary. He is convinced on two points; the threat is real; and success against Saddam will yield more regional success” (Colin Powell, 2002)
Tony Blair’s key forward:
“Its work, like the material it analyses, is largely secret. It is unprecedented for the Government to publish this kind of document. But in light of the debate about Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), I wanted to share with the British public the reasons why I believe this issue to be a current and serious threat to the UK national interest” (British Government, 2003).
The Claimed plan for deception of WMD in Iraqi Government:
“Iraq has admitted to UNSCOM to having a large, effective, system for hiding proscribed material including documentation, components, production equipment and possibly biological and chemical agents and weapons from the UN. Shortly after the adoption of UNSCR 687 in April 1991, an Administrative Security Committee (ASC) was formed with responsibility for advising Saddam on the information which could be released to UNSCOM and the IAEA. The Committee consisted of senior Military Industrial Commission (MIC) scientists from all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programmes. The Higher Security Committee (HSC) of the Presidential Office was in overall command of deception operations. The system was directed from the very highest political levels within the Presidential Office and involved, if not Saddam himself, his youngest son, Qusai. The system for hiding proscribed material relies on high mobility and good command and control. It uses lorries to move items at short notice and most hide sites appear to be located close to good road links and telecommunications. The Baghdad area was particularly favoured. In addition to active measures to hide material from the UN, Iraq has attempted to monitor, delay and collect intelligence on UN operations to aid its overall deception plan” ( British Government, 2003).
An unknown wish from a British Citizen:
“I note the content on your letter and request that the Prime Minister be arrested. The matters you raise in your letter will not be investigated within the Wilshire Constabulary nor will your request that the Prime Minister be arrested be actioned” (Wilshire Constabulary, 2003).
Blair Answering accusations in 2003:
“Blair called the accusations “completely and totally false.” He added: “I simply ask the people, just have a little patience” while troops continue the search for weapons” (…) “Today, Blair dismissed her accusation. “The idea, as apparently Clare Short is saying, that I made some secret agreement with George Bush last September that we would invade Iraq in any event, at a particular time, is also completely and totally untrue,” he said” (…) “Even if our forces were now to unearth evidence of a major chemical or biological weapons programme in Iraq, many people in this country — let alone in the Arab world — would assume it had been planted. Such are the wages of spin.” (Richburg, 2003).
I have never accepted the reason for the attack on the Iraqi war, the ones that known me since I was teenager, know that I never liked Bush for his rhetoric or stance, as it was unjustified towards fellow human beings. If it was like that, then all men under the sun is guilty until the government catch you. Not literally, but not far-fetched as the terrorist we’re supposed to be smoked out from caves and huts by RPG, helicopters and tanks. That was the way the grand president Bush. He got a loyal ally who needed a prosperous foreign policy as he was struggling with the economic and progression on the social policies in the constituencies where he we’re elected. With that in mind, the terrorist threat came as cotton-candy and as a necessity for the Blair-Government and New-Labour doctrine.
This gift for Blair we’re used to make him statesman like and make him a giant, trying to leave a legacy of progressive behaviour and act of good governance. Instead it is tainted by the fact of being part a coalition that went into the Iraqi state, without legitimate reasons, except for their reach of power and so-called long-term plans for ‘Democratic Freedom’. While the cause for going we’re the Weapons of Mass Destruction and even connected to the men who attacked the Americans on 9/11. That is well known, but also the aftermath proves the validity of questioning the facts that we’re put forward, especially in the months after and the years followed. Even good journalist like John Pilger called in Propaganda in favour of the British American alliance like British American Tobacco Company who sells worldwide Phillip Morris cigarettes.
While other warmongering persons who went into wars for either gold or silver, for profits and for power. They are ending up behind bars in the International Criminal Courts, as they have done vindictive acts against the Humanity and created wars of destructions of society. The masses of dissolving the Iraqi state and the uncertainty and power vacuum created after the fall of Saddam Hussain, his family fall and the whole party that he lead. That proves the ICC can take favour in saving graces over the rich Westerners, but easily take other warlords.
There we’re act of Warlords, when we speak about the Iraqi war of Bush and Blair, the way the corporations we’re coming in fencing in the petroleum and the other resources while bombing the Iraqi state to bits and fragmenting the population more, while not delivering any system worth keeping and fragile government that followed. This through with so-called training of own army and police after the invasion was over and the Americans planned to leave the occupied country.
When we see all this with the manufactured evidence and argument together with the fear of terrorist, we can question why doesn’t Blair get discredited and even tried by the ICC? Why are the ballocks of the arrogance from the ICC?
Tony Blair and George W. Bush we’re Warlords, hands down, it is not fiction, not a fairy-tale it is not misguided to say so. You can see it on the math, the X+Y = War. The vast amount of deception, the use of United Nation Security Council, rewriting the evidence to fit as the UN Agents for WMD checks couldn’t find what the UK and USA needed. Therefore they made up words and vague arguments to seem like there we’re more implicated arms than it actually was. As the UK and US governments needed public perception behind them before attacking a foreign government.
The Attack and invasion also killed civilians with bombings, the torture of terrorist and taking prisoners without pleading in courts, Guantanamo prisoners and the vicious force against a demoted army that back in the past we’re trained to counter the Iranian problem of the Americans. So the Americans went at the army they trained to go against Iran, as the Iran after the American supported puppet ‘Shah’ fell after the Iranian revolution. This in mind, the Iraqi we’re plotted by the extended modernized force of UK and USA. This was in midst of fear by two Western Warmongers.
So while Liberian Warlord and President Charles Taylor we’re taken to the ICC and even got sentenced. That Jean-Pierre Bemba, the Vice-President of the Democratic Republic of Congo from 2003 to 2006. He is now sentenced by the ICC for acts against humanity. The list goes on men and woman from Africa, South America and Asia. There been a few from Europe and none who seems to be American, as the United States does not have men who acts against the humanity, even when they have broken record when it comes to invading and even sending para-troopers to get a puppet regime installed. Just ask the Chilean people on how the American installed Pinochet instead of the democratically elected Socialist Allende. This have none of the Americans behind the mission or aggression on peaceful Chilean ever gone to court for, that is since it is Americans, than its okay.
The reason why I say this, is that I have issues with the seriousness of ICC handpicking the African leaders and Warlords, not that they should not be judged or getting sentenced for their crimes against humanity, that is accepted and fine. But the initial prospects of justice for all and be a worldwide institutions bubble busts when they can put a warrant on the Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir for his atrocities over the years in Darfur and South Kordofan. That is accepted and understandable, as that is the accord of the ICC and he has been in charge of acts against humanity in these states in his own country using the guerrilla or militia Janjaweed against the civilians.
As this is known and the atrocities, the reports and reasons for the Iraqi war and amongst the destruction of the state of Iraq on flawed grounds, as the invasion and shambles of democratic values used to rhetorical saviour of the maladministration from US and UK using the WMD to gain access and grounds for shooting bullets and missiles to Basra and Baghdad. This got done fake evidence and fake publications, and with use of public perception triggered with the fear of more terrorist attack against their own soil. This staged and factored in a space of time where the UN we’re at a stalemate and the UN had checked for WMD in Iraq without first finding and then suspended as the Iraqis didn’t see the need for friendliness for the other world, when they we’re embargoing and sanctioning the Saddam Hussain regime. The one they in the end toppled with use of lies and deceit. With this in mind, the Blair and Bush governments didn’t do a ‘White War’ a justified conflict and conflict with people in mind, more with their Power in mind and earning political currency on fighting battles 1000 of miles away from their constituencies so the voters would not feel the terror or hardships created by the decisions made in the Oval office and Downing Street Number 10.
So the unjust war and unjustified aggression seems like an attack on humanity, as the machine-guns, RPGs, tanks and carpet-bombing of certain areas that was supposed to be filled with Weapons Mass of Destruction while the American companies secured with mercenaries from Black-Water and other companies of hired soldiers kept the Petroleum installations and Oil Wells in the hands American Companies and the ones that are put together at ‘Donor Conferences for re-building Iraq’ instead being a meeting place for the ones that want to earn money on the invasion and that being the main coalition connected with army contracts, apparently. That’s having proof of happening after the revealed information during and aftermath of the war.
If this we’re an African Warlord who traded diamonds, cobalt or Rare Earth Minerals, together with other valuable resources from the rocks and ground, the media and the ICC would put a warrant on the head of the leader, as they have done again and again. Which is justified as the raping of villages and stealing of resources from both state and the locals are not just; that is mutually accepted as the criminal and vicious killings by these warlords should be going to a fair court and get justice for the victims. But when American and British send armies into Iraq, fix the British and American corporations to earn money on war and export petroleum, than they are selling tainted oil to the world. They we’re acting as Warlords and acting upon their own gain while killing and destroying a nation, a sovereign nation, the nation might have an oppressive government, and they are not acting in the interest of Iraqis. Still, that did not justify the attack and invasion as the British and American Government, in the executive orders of Blair and Bush. They are responsible for the killings, murders and civilians who we’re deceased under their command.
The Reality today is no matter what argument, or legal domain that will question Blair or Bush, it will not happen, as the big-men of the West will not be taken to court, as they will not lose face or because of the standing in UN Security Council and other bigger International Forums as the G8 and other who set the agenda and assess the international community. This impunity and this disregard for the principal of equal justice for all men and woman under God; instead its unequal and for the ones that are not in the hands of the superpowers.
Tony Blair and other men should be tried for their lies and deceit, but that is not the worst; the worst is the lives that we’re effected, the reason for their demise, the deceased for the political gain of a Elite in America and British that we’re friends of the Executive, the Executives who earned on the Elites and gain trust with them, the basic knowledge of each other and trading on intelligence and making reasons for the invasion. The basic sense of the balance of power together with the misuse of the Executive position, that we’re used in both nations to manufacture an enemy and use the tides of fear to aggressively attack a foreign sovereign and its people.
There is time to question the allegiance of the ICC and their choices of the men and woman who are charged with crimes against humanity, the ones that have created havoc and violence against civilians without justified reason or even done it in good faith. This creates and gives space for more African leaders to say they are targeted and hunted down by a Post-Colonial Institution, instead of showing the face of equal laws for all mankind and the nations that have ratified the statutes and laws that binds the ICC to the Governments, the only one who hasn’t which been discussed is the United States, and that should also be scrutinized as they put moral authority on the whole world, but doesn’t give a token or fig in their own regard.
Why the ICC can’t put a warrant on Tony Blair as the former Prime Minister of United Kingdom, when the ICC has put charges on Deputy President William Ruto and others in the Kenyan Government? They even tried with witnesses and gathering evidence, why can’t do so about Blair and Bush, are they demi-gods that cannot be questioned, impeached or even brought to justice because of their passports, their smiles or their connection to the justices of the ICC. You can just wonder, what reasons they are not even complying with the gathered evidence and more secret memo’s and the internal documents of conspiracy coming out, proves the valid reason for unjust war against Iraqis. Peace.
British Government – ‘IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THE ASSESSMENT OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT’ (About 2003)
Manning, David – ‘Prime Minster: Your Trip to the US’ (14.03.2002)
Pilger, John – ‘Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were almost certainly destroyed following the Gulf War’ (13.03.2003) link: http://johnpilger.com/articles/iraq-s-weapons-of-mass-destruction-were-almost-certainly-destroyed-following-the-gulf-war
Powell, Colin – ‘Memorandum for the President’ – Subject: Your meeting with United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair, April 5 – 7, 2002 at Crawford – Secret/NOFORN DECL: 4/01/12
Ricketts, Peter – ‘Memo for Prime Minister’ (22.03.2002)
Richburg, Keith B – ‘Blair Rejects Criticism of Arms Evidence’ (03.06.2003) link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/06/03/blair-rejects-criticism-of-arms-evidence/fbdbb4af-b1b6-4fb1-8fc2-951be1a1f433/
Wiltshire Constabulary – ‘Chief Superintendent Patrick Stayt’ (24.11.2003) – Swindon Police