WHITEWASH: Chilcot Report Says Iraq War was Just a Big Accident by Dumbasses

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
July 6, 2016

Transcript of Chilcot’s speech is HERE and full report is HERE.

Sir John Chilcot has delivered a series of obvious and mostly irrelevant facts regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, while portraying the diabolical conspirators who planned this Jew war as bumbling buffoons who were just over-confident and irresponsible.

It took the old bastard 7 years to compile.

Took his damn time, huh?

And then when we finally get the report, it doesn’t blame anyone for anything other than stupidity. Chilcot portrays Blair as irresponsible and confused, failing to do his due diligence in examining the intelligence.

But we know the intelligence was fixed by the Bush government and we know Blair knew the intelligence was fixed. These are both 100% established facts.

The Downing Street Memo and the communications between Bush and Blair – revealed through the Clinton emails, of all places – which demonstrate matter-of-factly that Blair conspired with Bush to invade a country that they knew was not a threat don’t appear to have been considered at all.

The report doesn’t even conclude whether or not the invasion was illegal.

What’s more, it doesn’t go into any of the background on who planned this war or why. I understand that it was intended to look at the UK’s involvement, but you spend 7 years writing a paper, you’d think you’d have time to consider what led to the situation where the UK was being asked to join a war of aggression against a powerless third world country.

Maybe they thought that would be anti-Semitic? Jews in the US have argued that the term “neo-conservative” is an “anti-Semitic slur.”

But surely, after seven years of research, coming out with “Saddam wasn’t really going to nuke America” is pretty nutty, right?

It’s almost like this whole thing is just some sort of massive whitewash, huh?

Oh but the liberal Jew media is assuring us it is “devastating.”

The Guardian:

Sir John Chilcot has delivered a devastating critique of Tony Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, with his long-awaited report concluding that Britain chose to join the US invasion before “peaceful options for disarmament” had been exhausted.

The head of the Iraq war inquiry said the UK’s decision to attack and occupy a sovereign state for the first time since the second world war was a decision of “utmost gravity”. He described Iraq’s president, Saddam Hussein, as “undoubtedly a brutal dictator” who had repressed his own people and attacked his neighbours.

But Chilcot – whom Gordon Brown asked seven years ago to head an inquiry into the conflict – was withering about Blair’s choice to join the US invasion. Chilcot said: “We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

The report suggests that Blair’s self-belief was a major factor in the decision to go to war. In a section headed Lessons, Chilcot writes: “When the potential for military action arises, the government should not commit to a firm political objective before it is clear it can be achieved. Regular reassessment is essential.”

The report also bitterly criticises the way in which Blair made the case for Britain to go to war. It says the notorious dossier presented in September 2002 by Blair to the House of Commons did not support his claim that Iraq had a growing programme of chemical and biological weapons.

The then Labour government also failed to anticipate the war’s disastrous consequences, the report says. They included the deaths of “at least 150,000 Iraqis – and probably many more – most of them civilians” and “more than a million people displaced”. “The people of Iraq have suffered greatly,” Chilcot says.

Chilcot does not pass judgment on whether the war was legal. But it says the way the legal basis was dealt with before the 20 March invasion was far from satisfactory.

…

It concludes:

• There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.

• The strategy of containment could have been adopted and continued for some time.

• The judgments about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMDs – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.

• Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam were wholly inadequate.

• The government failed to achieve its stated objectives.

Unsurprisingly, the New York Times used the exact same word – “devastating.”

As we often stress here, The Guardian and The New York Times direct the narrative on these events. So of course, the rest of the media is running with this same line – that the report is really hardcore, really sticks it to Blair and his cronies by saying he was irresponsible as self-assured.

If we had a real, free media not totally controlled by ZOG, every single headline would read “WHITEWASH.”

It’s fitting that the report is released less than 24 hours after the FBI told the world Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong.

I wonder what huge lie they’re going to tell us tomorrow?