The article in Friday's The Independent about British diplomat Carne Ross, who resigned in protest when Tony Blair railroaded England into Wolfowitz's War, is a bombshell. (See below, my emphasis in red.) The article strongly indicates, if not fully confirms, that Blair and, by implication Bush, did more than just exaggerate a nonexistent "threat" from Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in order to start a war. Rather, it appears that Blair and Bush and their entourages were fabricating a tall tale from the word go to scare the bejeezus out of their respective countrymen.

Blair and Bush must have known that no such weapons existed, because that is what their own intelligence services as well as the UN inspectors indicated, according to Ross. Were Blair and Bush putting on an act, flat-out lying? In view of all their many other lies, big and small, this scenario is plausible. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Surely, they both deserve impeachment, although that option appears remote, given the Orwellian world we are now living in and the fact that the Democratic leadership on Capital Hill, under the direction of the Israel Lobby,  was complicit in launching the war.

The second disturbing news contained in the text of Carne Ross' heretofore suppressed testimony to a Parliamentary inquiry is that both British and U.S. officials were fully aware, repeat fully aware, that the invasion was likely to leave Iraq in chaos. (Again, see below.) That doesn't seem to have concerned "The Decider" in the White House or his flunky in residence at 10 Downing Street. "Regime change" was the goal, no matter what the adverse repercussions to Iraq or the region.

In an earlier article last month (November 9th) The Independent  reported that Ross, who worked at the UN from 1997 to 2002, had "told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the US government was repeatedly warned by British diplomats that Iraq would fall apart if Saddam Hussein was toppled." Why did Bush and Blair remain unperturbed by Iraq's probable collapse into chaos? It is likely that they just didn't give a damn, one way or the other. It is also likely that chaos, civil war and a break up of the country were deliberate objectives of the war in addition to regime change, at least on the part of certain American officials who were high in the saddle in Washington.

One of these was a "neocon" operative and Likud agent by the name of David Wurmser, who worked under Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith in the "lie factory" called the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon. All three were, of course, Zionist partisans. They were running the show. Wurmser and his fellow "neocons" in the "special plans" office cooked up false "intelligence" to justify the unprovoked invasion. Today, Wurmser has moved into the White House, where he is the chief "Middle East advisor" to Vice-President Dick Cheney. Get the picture?

In effect, Wurmser has been promoted and rewarded by Cheney for being such a shameless warmonger and fabricator. Please refer to a most informative article in the May, 2006 issue of the American Prospect written by its senior correspondent, Robert Dreyfuss, entitled "Vice Squad". Here's what Dreyfuss has to report about Mr. David Wurmser:

In a series of papers and a book, Wurmser argued that toppling Saddam was likely to lead directly to civil war and the breakup of Iraq, but he supported the policy anyway: “The residual unity of [Iraq] is an illusion projected by the extreme repression of the state.” After Saddam, Iraq will “be ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans, sects, and key families,” he wrote. “Underneath facades of unity enforced by state repression, [Iraq’s] politics is defined primarily by tribalism, sectarianism, and gang/clan-like competition.” Yet Wurmser explicitly urged the United States and Israel to “expedite” such a collapse. “The issue here is whether the West and Israel can construct a strategy for limiting and expediting the chaotic collapse that will ensue in order to move on to the task of creating a better circumstance.

Is it all coming into focus, yet? The "chaotic collapse" we see today in Iraq was planned, "expedited" and welcomed. It came as no surprise to "neocons" such as Wurmser, Feith, et al., and was eagerly anticipated by the many pro-Likud lobbyists on Capital Hill, all of whom were pulling wires from behind a curtain. They and Ariel Sharon made it happen, using Cheney and Bush as fully-involved and pliable front men. In effect, useful idiots, to use the Communist era analogy.

Uri Avnery in Tel Aviv has  written that it was, "...the neo-conservatives, most of them Jews and all of them supporters of the Israeli extreme Right, who were in control of American foreign policy" at the time the invasion of Iraq was being formulated and then carried out. This is a fact, not speculation.

You may wonder, why would "neocons" in Washington want chaos and a civil war in Iraq? For the same reason that they and Sharon wanted chaos and a civil war in Lebanon and in Palestine. Divide et impera. Divide and rule. In terms of strategy, this is the essence of the Tel Aviv-Washington axis. It has been a successful strategy so far. It has worked in Iraq, beyond expectations. It worked once in Lebanon, and could work again at the drop of a hat.

Under the orchestration of Ehud Olmert and his crazed associates, the strategy is working in Palestine at this very moment among the Palestinians. The question is, can the strategy of fomenting internecine conflict among the Arabs be successful for Tel Aviv over the long haul, without bankrupting America, both morally and financially? Probably not. Even so, Tel Aviv still wins. America, Europe and the Arabs lose.

=================================
Diplomat's suppressed document
lays bare the lies behind Iraq war

Colin Brown and Andy McSmith || The Independent (London) ||

15 December 2006

The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.  A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests." Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said. "At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

He claims "inertia" in the Foreign Office and the "inattention of key ministers" combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war. Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict.

The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act. It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.

Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross. His hitherto secret evidence threatens to reopen the row over the legality of the conflict, under which Mr Blair has sought to draw a line as the internecine bloodshed in Iraq has worsened.

Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment. "What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added.

Mr Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.

Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act. "Mr Ross hasn't had any approach to tell him that he is still not liable to be prosecuted," said one ally. But he has told friends that he is "glad it is out in the open" and he told MPs it had been "on my conscience for years".

One member of the Foreign Affairs committee said: "There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it's pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff."

Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons who was Foreign Secretary during the war - Mr Ross's boss - announced the Commons will have a debate on the possible change of strategy heralded by the Iraqi Study Group report in the new year.