A footnote on Chilcot

bismillah

As I mentioned in my previous post I have no intention of poring over 2.6 million words of verbiage for the purpose of ascertaining what I already know with certitude.

I have been asked in recent days why, despite its ‘vituperative language’, ‘damning indictments’ and myriad ‘lessons to be learnt’, I chose to label it a whitewash? For the simple fact that all of the aforementioned are present within not in order to highlight what the world at large has long regarded as apodictic but rather for the purpose of obfuscating it – to render turbid what was previously limpid. It is in reality just so much bunkum designed to dissipate people’s righteous anger and to divert attention away from the crux of the matter.

The inescapable truth at the heart of this scandal is that the case for war, that is to say that the regime of Saddam Hussein was in possession of banned weapons of mass destruction and/or involved in the development of them, was, deliberately and with malice aforethought, fabricated at the behest of senior officials in Washington and London. Adducing plagiarised PhD theses, faked certificates of uranium purchases from Niger and far-fetched ‘witness testimonies’ of such dubious credibility that they’d struggle to pass muster at a school disciplinary hearing let alone in an intelligence committee, are not indicators of ‘serious failings in procedure’ (or whichever phrase Sir John Chilcot chose to employ) but rather of a deliberate campaign to deceive. As an aside, since the report’s publication last week several individuals (including a GCHQ whistle blower) bearing crucial revelations have come forward  questioning why they were not asked to provide statements or why their statements were not included in the final report. Might it have been that what they had to say was simply too troublesome for Sir John to finesse away?

When submitting a tax return the failure to declare 90% of one’s income isn’t usually accepted as an ‘oversight’. To subsequently attempt to buttress such an ‘oversight’ with reams of fabricated evidence will invariably land the offender in court, facing criminal charges. But then I suppose defrauding HMRC of a few thousand pounds is in the eyes of our ruling class, a far more serious matter than terminating the lives and prospects of millions.

Until an official report is published which states that Bush and his disciple Blair lied, that they prosecuted an illegal, ravenous war of aggression actuated by a twin desire to control the region’s oil supply and reshape its political landscape to one more amenable to US (and Zionist) interests, that they are responsible for the unlawful deaths of hundreds of thousands and for creating the environment that has incubated groups such as Islamic State, until such a time, people shouldn’t treat reports such as Sir John Chilcot’s with anything other than indifference and disdain.

May the peace and blessings of Allah (swt) be upon Sayyidina Muhammad. Ameen.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s