Tony Blair and George Bush Iraq war secret papers WILL be edited sparking cover up claim.

The Iraq Inquiry was embroiled in a cover-up row today after it announced secret papers between Tony Blair and George Bush will not be published in full.

After months of deadlock, the Government has agreed Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry can release the controversial documents.

But it will only publish edited extracts giving the “gist” of 25 notes and 130 recorded conversations between the former PM and US President in the build up to the 2003 war.

And the inquiry has agreed not to reveal President Bush’s views.

The compromise immediately prompted accusations that the inquiry could be a whitewash.

At first the Government refused to release any of the papers between Blair and Bush amid fears it would upset the Americans but now will publish.

Tony Blair and George Bush Iraq war secret papers WILL be edited sparking cover up claim.



The whole Iraq war was just a massive sham right from the beginning. Many would even say Illegal. It was brought about by a mass act of terror (by whom is debatable) I am not surprised they are not showing all the papers related to Tony Blair and George Bush, but I think they should not hold information back that is in the public interest. If it was all above board they should have nothing to hide.

a reply to: DEV1L79

What did you think? Really harmful secret things are never published. This is why they are secret. No law or court order will ever change that. If they come out, they are leaked because it benefits someone with access to the information.

a reply to: DEV1L79

There are times when Tony Blair sounds quite hurt about the fact that he's regarded with total contempt in the UK. Things like the Chilcot Inquiry should show him exactly why we collectively loathe him.

The war against Iraq had nothing to do with the 2001 twin towers attack it was an act of revenge brought about by the son of the man Saddam Hussein planned to assassinate , George H.W. Bush.

As for the claims of cover-up they are justified , I don't care about not seeing what Bush Jnr said but as a British citizen I have the right to see what the war criminal Blair said in the run up to an illegal act of war.

For the sake of the Men & Women who gave their lives & limbs for this Kingdom, the Families & Troops deserve to know exactly what, why, who & how!!!

As a citizen the taxpayers could arguably say they deserve to know but ultimately it only affects the families of those we've lost & those who came back injured, & of course those who continue to fight!!!


Peace everybody!!!

originally posted by: gortex
The war against Iraq had nothing to do with the 2001 twin towers attack it was an act of revenge brought about by the son of the man Saddam Hussein planned to assassinate , George H.W. Bush.

As for the claims of cover-up they are justified , I don't care about not seeing what Bush Jnr said but as a British citizen I have the right to see what the war criminal Blair said in the run up to an illegal act of war.

The 2001 twin towers attack caused the war in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

The war in Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein was due to Saddam's plan to sell oil in Euros rather US Dollars.

John Major said today that Tony Blair should demand Bush Iraq war letters are published to stop conspiracy theories 'festering'.

a reply to: earthblaze

The 2001 twin towers attack caused the war in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

I know which is why I said..."The war against Iraq had nothing to do with the 2001 twin towers attack"

The war in Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein was due to Saddam's plan to sell oil in Euros rather US Dollars.

I don't think so , Iraq's oil sales were under sanction since the first Gulf war.

John Major said today that Tony Blair should demand Bush Iraq war letters are published to stop conspiracy theories 'festering'.

John Major's an idiot something he proved when he was PM , we can't publish Bush's correspondence because he's a foreign leader , Tony Blair should demand we publish his own letters in full if he has nothing to hide , that would stop the conspiracy theories festering.

originally posted by: gortex
The war against Iraq had nothing to do with the 2001 twin towers attack it was an act of revenge brought about by the son of the man Saddam Hussein planned to assassinate , George H.W. Bush.

As for the claims of cover-up they are justified , I don't care about not seeing what Bush Jnr said but as a British citizen I have the right to see what the war criminal Blair said in the run up to an illegal act of war.

As usual, another star for you, Gortex!

This explains why Tony Blair was saying he couldn't wait for them to be released. He knew he had the influence to control it. It's sickening really.

I kind of saw this coming. They were never going to fully release everything they said to each other. I think it's been said, but the people who lost family the Iraq war deserve to know the truth.
The trouble is, if the truth DID come out, Bush and Blair would have to be charged with being war criminals I would think.
Sad, but deep down we all thought it was going to be covered up in the end.

a reply to: gortex

I agree with your third point but how can they only publish one half the report? Tony Blair's communications with Bush would appear disjointed and open to supposition.

With regard to your second point have you done any research to support your claim? Have a look at The Petrodollar Wars: The Iraq-Petrodollar Connection Link

An extract-

William R. Clark was among those who questioned the status quo answers and Washington’s stated motives regarding the invasion of Iraq. In his book, Petrodollar Warfare, Clark claims that the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not based upon “violence or terrorism, but something very different, yet not altogether surprising – declining economic power and depleting hydrocarbons.”
Clark’s work was heavily influenced by another author named F. William Engdahl and his book, The Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order.
According to research conducted by both Clark and Engdahl, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not exclusively motivated by Iraq’s connection to the terrorist groups who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Nor was it out of a concern for the safety of the American public or out of sympathy for the Iraqi people and their lack of freedom or democracy.
Instead, Clark and Engdahl both claimed that the U.S.-led invasion was inspired predominantly by Iraq’s public defiance of the petrodollar system.
According to page 28 of Clark’s book:
“On September 24, 2000, Saddam Hussein allegedly “emerged from a meeting of his government and proclaimed that Iraq would soon transition its oil export transactions to the euro currency.”
Not long after this meeting, Saddam Hussein began preparing to make the switch from pricing his country’s oil exports in greenbacks to euros. As renegade and newsworthy this action was on the part of Iraq, it was sparsely reported in the corporate-controlled media.

a reply to: DEV1L79

So you have issues with the information being released while at the same time you have issues with the information being released because you don't care for the part on who is responsible for the attacks themselves.

Refusing to release information could be seen as a cover-up while at the same time selectively picking out details in an effort to paint a different version of events, and who caused them, is no better than a cover-up.

I dont think the truth will come out until Blair and Bush have lived and died.
Just like Jimmy Savile, and Cyril Smith.
If the truth ever comes out at all.
The depths of Saviles contact list have never seen the light of day. We never did hear about the "establishment rocking" news from yewtree.
It took 20 years just to get some truth about Hillsborough.
We are only just getting to the bottom of the private journalist Daniel Morgan that would up with an axe in his head while investigating police corruption in SE London in 1987.

Its only very recently that the depths of police corruption and the corruption of government is becoming widely apparent.
What used to be the realms of conspiracy theory, like the cover up of paedophiles in high places, and deep police corruption that even resulted in cold blooded murder by corrupt police officers.

The truth only comes out when certain people have died.

a reply to: DEV1L79

Its likely to hide the mushy love stuff.

Blair was Bushes bitch.


Seriously though?

It likely to hide some embarrassing secrets IE that they had 100% knowledge there was no WMD's

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: DEV1L79

There are times when Tony Blair sounds quite hurt about the fact that he's regarded with total contempt in the UK.

That THING is the most contemptible MP to grace the house of commons.

originally posted by: earthblaze
a reply to: gortex

I agree with your third point but how can they only publish one half the report? Tony Blair's communications with Bush would appear disjointed and open to supposition.

With regard to your second point have you done any research to support your claim? Have a look at The Petrodollar Wars: The Iraq-Petrodollar Connection Link

I have some sympathy with that, how many times too, have we heard the anecdotes of the American troops saying they knew it was about oil, I'll bet too it's the oily bits that won't be in the 'Gist' or, Dr Kelly or, WMD or the WW2 style, (cough) precision bombing of Baghdad.

a reply to: smurfy

how many times too, have we heard the anecdotes of the American troops saying they knew it was about oil

It was about a few things oil being one of them , 10 years on and Iraq's oil is largely owned by western companies , ExxonMobil , Chevron , BP and Shell plus Cheney's Halliburton.

Bush got the bad guy who tried to kill his Pa , his mates got richer from all that lovely oil and Blair became a multi millionaire of the back of his associations with Bush .... everyone's a winner. , who says crime doesn't pay !

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: smurfy

how many times too, have we heard the anecdotes of the American troops saying they knew it was about oil

It was about a few things oil being one of them , 10 years on and Iraq's oil is largely owned by western companies , ExxonMobil , Chevron , BP and Shell plus Cheney's Halliburton.

Bush got the bad guy who tried to kill his Pa , his mates got richer from all that lovely oil and Blair became a multi millionaire of the back of his associations with Bush .... everyone's a winner. , who says crime doesn't pay !

I agree,
Oil was the big one, the rest was tidying up, and sharing out.

a reply to: DEV1L79

I am so amazed that there are still some people who look surprised when they hear about the true intentions of the US/UK governments and there are some people who believe in the stuff MSM and their supporting governments are trying to feed them in a daily basis...Most govs are corrupt but the top three by far are the US,UK and Israel...They have interfered,manuplated,sabotaged,invaded,and wiped off a lot of nations during the past centuries and have made tons of money by selling arms,rebuilding,oil and resource trading and simply sucking off other people's dreams and futures for their very own bottomless gains......But as usual the big boys hide behind the goof balls that are serving only as the front men until their time is up ,either politically or permanently.