False Flag Alert! Suicide car bomber kills 11 in Baghdad Reuters 20/12/2006 A suicide car bomber rammed his vehicle into an Iraqi police checkpoint near Baghdad University on Wednesday, killing 11 people and wounding 31, an Interior Ministry source said. The source said there were university students among the dead and wounded from the blast in the Jadriya district in the southwest of the capital. Police checkpoints are a frequent target of militants fighting U.S.-led forces and the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government. Police normally set up a checkpoint outside the university's gates.

Flashback: British Government's Agent Provocateurs Exposed Joe Quinn Signs of the Times 20/09/2005 There is a saying of sorts that "if you are going to do something, do it well", and given the serious consequences, nowhere is that more true than when you plan to engage in criminal activity. Today in Basra, Southern Iraq, two members of the British SAS (Special Ops) were caught, 'in flagrante' as it were, dressed in full "Arab garb", driving a car full of explosives and shooting and killing two official Iraqi policemen. This fact, finally reported by the mainstream press, goes to the very heart of and proves accurate much of what we have been saying on the Signs of the Times page for several years. The following are facts, indisputable by all but the most self-deluded: Number 1: The US and British invasion of Iraq was NOT for the purpose of bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Iraqi people, but rather for the purpose of securing Iraq's oil resources for the US and British governments and expanding their control over the greater Middle East. Number 2: Both the Bush and Blair governments deliberately fabricated evidence (lied) about the threat the Saddam posed to the west and his links to the mythical 'al-Qaeda' in order to justify their invasion. Number 3: Dressed as Arabs, British (and CIA and Israeli) 'special forces' have been carrying out fake "insurgent" attacks, including 'car suicide bombings' against Iraqi policemen and Iraqi civilians (both Sunni and Shia) for the past two years. Evidence would suggest that these tactics are designed to provide continued justification for a US and British military presence in Iraq and to ultimately embroil the country in a civil war that will lead to the breakup of Iraq into more manageable statelets, much to the joy of the Israeli right and their long-held desire for the establishment of biblical 'greater Israel' Coming not long after the botched London bombings carried out by British MI5 where an eyewitness reported that the floor of one of the trains had been blown inwards (how can a bomb in a backpack or on a "suicide bomber" INSIDE the train ever produce such an effect), more than anything else today's event in Basra highlights the desperation that is driving the policy-makers in the British government. British intelligence would do well to think twice about carrying out any more 'false flag' operations until they can achieve the 'professionalism' of the Israeli Mossad - they always make it look convincing and rarely suffer the ignominy of being caught in the act and having the faces of their erstwhile "terrorists" plastered across the pages of the mainstream media. The REAL face of "Islamic Terror" - Two SAS agents caught carrying out a false flag terror attack in Basra, Iraq September 20th 2005. Official: British troops freed in jailbreak CNN 2005/09/20 BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A British armored vehicle escorted by a tank crashed into a detention center Monday in Basra and rescued two undercover troops held by police, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official told CNN. British Defense Ministry Secretary John Reid confirmed two British military personnel were "released," but he gave no details on how they were freed. In a statement released in London, Reid did not say why the two had been taken into custody. But the Iraqi official, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity, said their arrests stemmed from an incident earlier in the day. The official said two unknown gunmen in full Arabic dress began firing on civilians in central Basra, wounding several, including a traffic police officer. There were no fatalities, the official said. The two gunmen fled the scene but were captured and taken in for questioning, admitting they were British marines carrying out a "special security task," the official said. British troops launched the rescue about three hours after Iraqi authorities informed British commanders the men were being held at the police department's major crime unit, the official said. Iraqi police said members of Iraq's Mehdi Army militia engaged the British forces around the facility, burning one personnel carrier and an armored vehicle. Video showed dozens of Iraqis surrounding British armored vehicles and tossing gasoline bombs, rocks and other debris at them. With one vehicle engulfed in flames, a soldier opened the hatch and bailed out as rocks were thrown at him. Another photograph showed a British soldier on fire on top of a tank. "Many of those present were clearly prepared well in advance to cause trouble, and we believe that the majority of Iraq people would deplore this violence," Reid said. [...] From the Washington Post Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives. Photographs of the two men in custody showed them in civilian clothes. When British officials apparently sought to secure their release, riots erupted. Iraqi police cars circulated downtown, calling through loudspeakers for the public to help stop British forces from releasing the two. Heavy gunfire broke out and fighting raged for hours, as crowds swarmed British forces and set at least one armored vehicle on fire. Witnesses said they saw Basra police exchanging fire with British forces. Sadr's Mahdi Army militia joined in the fighting late in the day, witnesses said. A British military spokesman, Darren Moss, denied that British troops were fighting Basra police. From China View (orginally pooled from the BBC) Iraqi police detained two British soldiers in civilian clothes in the southern city Basra for firing on a police station on Monday, police said. "Two persons wearing Arab uniforms opened fire at a police station in Basra. A police patrol followed the attackers and captured them to discover they were two British soldiers," an Interior Ministry source told Xinhua. The two soldiers were using a civilian car packed with explosives, the source said. He added that the two were being interrogated in the police headquarters of Basra. The British forces informed the Iraqi authorities that the two soldiers were performing an official duty, the source said. British military authorities said they could not confirm the incident but investigations were underway.

Iraq Special Inspector Exposes Fraud, Gets Fired By Congress Jacob Hornberger SWNewsHerald December 19, 2006 Stuart W. Bowen should be grateful. He's the special inspector who was exposing fraud in federal contracts in Iraq. Consequently, Congress terminated his job. So, why should Bowen be thanking his lucky stars? Because he got off light compared to Donald Vance, a 29-year-old American who went to Iraq as a security contractor. No doubt a bit naïve due to his age, Vance began reporting suspicious activity to the FBI about possible illegal weapons trading in the Iraqi security firm he was working with, including a steady flow of weapons to the Iraqi Interior Ministry, which has been tied to death squads in Iraq. When the firm was raided, at Vance's urging, Vance learned the hazards of being a whistleblower. He got taken into custody and was imprisoned in one of the U.S. military's infamous detention centers in Iraq. Spending 97 days in that hellhole, his confinement appears to be eerily similar to that of another American imprisoned by the Pentagon - Jose Padilla. According to the New York Times: "American guards arrived at the man's cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep. The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared." Vance's request to talk to a lawyer, one of the principal tenets of America's criminal justice system, was rebuffed by U.S. military authorities. After all, he was in Iraq, where that pesky U.S. Constitution isn't operative. Giving the same response that they have in the Padilla case, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon's detentions operations in Iraq, a first-lieutenant named Lea Ann Fracasso, said that Vance was "treated fair and humanely." The sad part of this is the distinct possibility that Fracasso, along with her Pentagon cohorts, really and truly believes this. One day, Vance wrote in his Bible: Sick, very. Vomited. Told no more phone calls til leave." Yesterday, the federal judge in the Padilla case ordered an official examination into Padilla's mental competency, given Padilla's apparently having been subjected to the same type of mental torture that American GIs were subjected to by the North Korean communists during the Korean War. I've said it before but it bears repeating: Heaven forbid that the American people ever permit the U.S. military to import to America the type of "freedom" and "humaneness" it has brought to the Iraqi people. But that's certainly the direction our nation continues to head in, thanks to the horrible fear of "the terrorists" that 9/11 engendered in American adults. Just ask Jose Padilla and Donald Vance. Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is one of the 22 speakers at FFF's upcoming conference "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties" on June 1-4, 2007, at the Hyatt Regency Reston in Reston, Virginia.

Propaganda Alert! Jazeera TV says to air tape by al Qaeda's Zawahri Reuters 20/12/2006 Al Jazeera television said on Wednesday it would air a tape by al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri. The station did not give further details in its news flash. The tape would be the first since September 29 when Zawahri appeared in a video posted on the Internet in which he called President Bush a lying failure for talking of progress in the war on terrorism.

Bush defies commanders by bolstering troops Mark Tran and agencies Wednesday December 20, 2006 Guardian Unlimited George Bush today confirmed that a temporary increase in US troops for Iraq is under consideration, despite the opposition of his top generals. In an interview with the Washington Post, the US president also acknowledged for the first time that the US is not winning the war in Iraq, reversing a declaration in November when he said: "Absolutely we're winning". Mr Bush is expected to unveil his new strategy for Iraq early in the new year. Despite the opposition of his joint chiefs of staff and his top commander in the Middle East, General John Abizaid, the president appears to be leaning towards the idea of a temporary surge - six to eight months - of 20,000 to 30,000 troops in "one last big push". The president has, however, persuaded Tony Blair of the need not to set a timetable to pull troops out of Iraq, according to Iraq's vice president. Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York yesterday, Tareq al-Hashemi reportedly said that the prime minister was originally in favour of a timetable but was "brainwashed" by Mr Bush into changing his mind on the subject. In a speech in Dubai today, Mr Blair appeared to back the president's comments, saying that "cutting and running" from Iraq would not just be a "breach of faith [but also] disastrous for our own wider interests". Mr Bush was asked whether a troop increase in Iraq was even viable after the Republican defeat in the November midterm elections, Mr Bush replied: "Yes, all options are viable." Gen Abizaid has resisted the idea with the argument that the presence of US troops is part of the problem as it breeds resentment among Iraqis. The joint chiefs fear that an increase would accomplish little as the insurgents would simply lie low until the extra US troops leave. But the imminent retirement of Gen Abizaid, as commander of US forces in the Middle East, in March would pave the way for a change of plans for Iraq. Gen Abizaid submitted his retirement documents just over a month ago, shortly before Donald Rumsfeld was forced out as defence secretary. Gen Abizaid had wanted to retire earlier but the move was blocked by Mr Rumsfeld, who insisted his war commanders stay in place. Gen Abizaid has been the primary architect of US military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan since becoming head of the US central command more than three years ago. While top commanders question the value of a troop increase for Iraq, they have begun making preparations for such a move, according to US media reports. Central command has made two separate requests to the new defence secretary, Robert Gates, for additional forces in the Middle East, including an army brigade of about 3,000 troops to be used as a reserve force in Kuwait and a second navy carrier strike group to move to the Persian gulf. Mr Gates, who arrived in Baghdad today, has yet to approve the moves, which could increase US forces in the region by as many as 10,000 troops. The additional carrier strike group would have the useful dual purpose of sabre-rattling towards Iran while increasing military capabilities in Iraq. An increase in US military strength in Iraq would fly in the face of the Baker-Hamilton report, but Mr Bush has made pretty clear his lack of enthusiasm for its two key recommendations. The Iraq Study Group urged the Bush administration to shift the emphasis in Iraq from combat to training and to launch a diplomatic initiative, including direct talks with Iran and Syria. Mr Blair today called on moderate Muslim states to form an "alliance of moderation" to counter Iran, saying the country wanted to "to pin us back in Lebanon, in Iraq and in Palestine". In another change of course, Mr Bush said he had ordered Mr Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the army and marine corps, amid warnings that Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the US military to breaking point. Gen Peter Schoomaker, the army's chief of staff, warned Congress last week that the active-duty force "will break" under the strain of current operations. "We need to reset our military," Mr Bush said. Mr Rumsfeld had opposed an increase in troop levels in keeping with his vision of a smaller army relying on advanced technology. The US army has already temporarily increased the number of troops from 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,000 today and soon to 512,000. But the army wants to make that 30,000-soldier increase permanent and then add between 20,000 and 40,000 more on top of that.

Spam: Bush reveals plan to expand military size www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-20 07:13:52 WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President George W. Bush said Tuesday that he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of "a long-term global war against terrorists." In an interview with The Washington Post at the White House, Bush said it was a response to warnings that sustained deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the armed forces to near the breaking point. He said he has instructed newly sworn-in Defense Secretary Robert Gates to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces. The president gave no estimates about how many troops may be added but indicated that he agreed with suggestions in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the current military is stretched too thin to cope with the demands placed on it. The decision comes at a time when he is rethinking his strategy in Iraq and considering, among other options, a short-term surge in troop levels to try to secure violence-torn Baghdad. In describing his decision, Bush tied it to the broader struggle against extremists around the world rather than Iraq specifically. "It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said. Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq and would wait for Gates to make a trip to Iraq to assess the situation for himself.

Report: Bush administration split over military plan for Iraq www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-19 23:54:19 WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (Xinhua) -- The Bush administration is split over the idea for a surge in troops to Iraq, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. White House officials are aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the report quoted U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate as saying. Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table as the White House reviews its policy and attempts to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. However, the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching onto the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives. The chiefs have taken a firm stand, as they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion. At regular interagency meetings and in briefing U.S. President George W. Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The concerns raised by the military are sometimes offset by concerns on the other side. For instance, those who warn that a short-term surge would harm longer-term deployments are met with the argument that the situation is urgent now. Which way Bush is leaning remains unclear. "The president's keeping his cards pretty close to his vest... and I think people may be trying to interpret questions he's asking and information he's asking for as signs that he's made up his mind," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

U.S. soldiers' suicide rate in Iraq doubles in 2005 Reuters 20/12/2006 Suicides among U.S. soldiers in Iraq doubled last year over the previous year to return to a level seen in 2003, U.S. Army medical experts said on Tuesday. Twenty-two U.S. soldiers in Iraq took their own lives in 2005, a rate of 19.9 per 100,000 soldiers. In 2004, the rate was 10.5 per 100,000 and in 2003, the year of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the figure was 18.8 per 100,000. The figures cover U.S. Army soldiers only. They do not include members of other U.S. military services in Iraq such as the Marine Corps. Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, the Army's surgeon general, cautioned against overinterpreting the figures, saying suicide rates tended to fluctuate from year to year. "We think that the numbers are so rare to begin with that it's very hard to make any kind of interpretation," he said at a news conference to present a study on the mental health of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. "We have not made a connection between the stress on the force and some massive or even significant increase in suicides," he said. While every suicide was one too many, Kiley said, the suicide rate among soldiers was lower than the average among civilians of the same age and gender. The survey, a snapshot of the morale and mental health of U.S. soldiers in Iraq in late 2005, found 13.6 percent of the soldiers reported symptoms of acute stress and 16.5 percent reported a combination of depression, anxiety and acute stress. Those rates were lower than in 2003 but higher than in 2004, the experts said. Comment: Oh what a lovely war! Just to make it clear, US soldiers are killing themselves because of what they have done and seen done to innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children. Now tell me, how do you think this has happened? Do you think that perhaps the people directing this war are in fact emotionless psychopaths?

Bush Government lying about levels of violence in Iraq Reuters 06/12/2006 WASHINGTON - U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said. In its report on ways to improve the U.S. approach to stabilizing Iraq, the group recommended Wednesday that the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense make changes in the collection of data about violence to provide a more accurate picture. The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said. "The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases." It said, for example, that a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack, and a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count, either. Also, if the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, that assault is not added to the database of violence incidents. "Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," the report said. A request for Pentagon comment on the report's assertions was not immediately answered. Some U.S. analysts have complained for months that the Pentagon's reports to Congress on conditions in Iraq have undercounted the violent episodes. Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq watcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a November report that the Pentagon omits many low-level incidents and types of civil violence.

U.S. defence chief in Iraq, Bush concedes war in trouble Last Updated: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 | 5:45 AM ET CBC News New U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates made a surprise visit to Iraq on Wednesday one day after U.S. President George W. Bush conceded American forces are not winning the war and may need more troops. Gates, who was sworn in on Monday, said he was in Iraq to see for himself what is happening. "The whole purpose is to go out, listen to the commanders, talk to the Iraqis, and see what I can learn," Gates told reporters on Tuesday before boarding a plane in the U.S. capital. Gates was being joined on the trip by U.S. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for meetings with Iraqi military and political leaders. Pace, meanwhile, found his words being quoted on Tuesday by Bush during an Oval Office interview with the Washington Post. 'Not winning, not losing' "You know, I think an interesting construct that Gen. Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing.' There's been some very positive developments," the president said. "And you take a step back and look at progress in Iraq, you say, well, it's amazing - constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which is a remarkable development in itself," he said. Bush also indicated he agreed with officials in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill who say the military is stretched too thin, and said he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to deal with the global war against Islamist extremists. "I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops - the army, the marines," Bush told the Post. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea." Bush did not say how many troops might be added. He said he disagreed with former secretary of state Colin Powell's statement on CBS' Face the Nation Sunday that "the active army is about broken." 'Need to reset' "I haven't heard the word 'broken,' " the president said, "but I've heard the word, 'stressed.'... We need to reset our military. There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is: Will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war?" Bush said the decision to expand the military was a response to the broader war against Islamist extremists, and not specifically Iraq. "It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said. Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq, which he is expected to announce next month. He said he was waiting for Gates to return from Iraq to get a first-hand look at the situation. "I need to talk to him when he gets back," the president said. "I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we ... have got a new way forward." But Bush has been considering a plan to send up to 30,000 or more troops to Iraq for six to eight months in an effort to secure Baghdad, where sectarian violence has climbed to record levels. Some top generals, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have reportedly rejected the idea of a "surge," saying it would be ineffective and could lead to more attacks from al-Qaeda. Comment: Bush's "new way forward" is going to be the smae, old way forward. More guns, more troops, more death, more chaos.

If US leaves Iraq we will arm Sunni militias, Saudis say December 14, 2006 The Guardian - Fears of massacre prompt king's warning to Cheney - Iranian influence across region adds to concern King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, that the kingdom would provide money and arms to Sunni militias in Iraq if America withdrew its troops from the country, it emerged yesterday. The conversation, during a visit by Mr Cheney to Riyadh last month, was the most serious indication to date of Saudi concerns about a possible massacre of the minority Sunni community in Iraq in the event of a withdrawal of US forces, as well as rising Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Saudi Arabia has been concerned for months about rising domestic pressure on George Bush to bring US troops home from Iraq, despite the administration's avowals that it has no plans for a troop withdrawal. Those fears were exacerbated by the Iraq Study Group's report, which recommends the withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq in early 2008 as well as the opening of diplomatic negotiations between the US and Syria and Iran. Since then Mr Bush has held consultations with the Pentagon and state department officials in what seems an attempt to show the White House's commitment to carrying out a broad-based review of its policy on Iraq. The White House said it would unveil its new strategy in January. Yesterday's New York Times reported that during the Riyadh meeting the king also expressed strong opposition to the recommendation that Washington open diplomatic talks with Iran, and called for a resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. King Abdullah said that Saudi Arabia would move quickly, but acknowledged that the intervention on behalf of Sunni tribal chiefs might help insurgent forces who have been fighting the Americans. Saudi officials and the White House both denied the report. "That's not Saudi government policy," the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, told reporters. "The Saudis have made it clear that they're committed to the same goals we are, which is a self-sustaining Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself, that will recognise and protect the rights of all, regardless of sect or religion," he said. "And furthermore, they share our concerns about the role the Iranians are playing in the region." In Baghdad the military spokesman, Major General William Caldwell, was also sceptical. "I don't think that came from the government of Saudi Arabia," he said. But Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution told CNN that Saudi Arabia had strong motivation to take sides in a civil war. "They're terrified that civil war will spill over into Saudi Arabia. But they're also terrified that the Iranians, backing the various Shi'ite militias in Iraq, will come out the big winner in a civil war," he said. In addition, reports emerged last week that Saudi private citizens were funnelling money to Sunni militias in Iraq through charities or pilgrims. The warning to Mr Cheney was the most high-level indication of Saudi concerns. In October the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited". The same message was delivered last month by Nawaf Obaid, a security adviser to the Saudi embassy, in the Washington Post. "One of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis," Mr Obaid wrote. "Options now include providing Sunni military leaders [primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency] with the same types of assistance - funding, arms and logistical support - that Iran has been giving to Shi'ite armed groups for years." Prince Turki sacked Mr Obaid a week later, and the official Saudi press agency said there was no truth to his remarks. Days later Prince Turki told his staff that he had resigned. There has been no official confirmation from Saudi authorities. Comment: How very strange that the Saudi position on Iraq is almost identical to that of Israel. Both do not want the US to withdraw troops (which are killing Arabs) and both do not want the US to talk to Iran but isolate it and/or bomb it. Of course, you will say that their reasons are very different, but are they? First, consider the next story...

British government blocks police investigation into corrupt arms deals with Saudi dictatorship BBC News 14/12/2006 As bad news days go, Thursday 14 December 2006 must rank amongst Tony Blair's worst. He was interviewed by police probing corruption claims in the cash-for-honours affair, and he pulled the plug on a fraud office investigation into corrupt dealings between BAE Systems and the Saudi government. No wonder then, that he left Britain for an EU summit, and a later "peace tour" of the Middle East, to headlines accusing him of trying to bury bad news and even, through his spin doctors, lying to a London newspaper about the timing of the police visit to Downing Street. The claim was he had deliberately timed these events for the day the long-awaited Stevens inquiry into the death of Princess Diana was published. But, as Downing Street flatly denied the allegation, it was apparent that these bits of bad news were refusing to be buried. The best that could be said from the government's point of view was that they got them out in one big bang. Defence customer Of the two, it is probably the row over the Saudi corruption inquiry that has caused the greatest shock, and not a small amount of relief, in Westminster. After a two-and-a half year long SFO investigation, and just at it was about to probe Swiss bank accounts, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced late in the day and to a sparsely-attended House of Lords that the investigation had been stopped in "the wider public interest" and national security. The claim was that Saudi Arabia - Britain's biggest defence customer and its most powerful ally in the Middle East - might withdraw diplomatic, security and intelligence cooperation if the probe was allowed to go ahead. And that at a time when its intelligence and influence is deemed crucial in helping the fight against Islamist terrorism. The Liberal Democrats and others, however, believe it was a simple case of economic blackmail because the Saudis were threatening to withdraw a £6bn order for warplanes, threatening thousands of jobs in the UK, if the investigation was allowed to continue. But to have made the decision purely on economic or commercial grounds would have likely walked the government into an international legal minefield, while the Attorney General is entirely within his powers to rule on the national interest. Peace moves He is not even required to spell out what those interests are. MPs are now demanding further explanation of the decision and it is another black cloud cast over the prime minister's last months in office. It is particularly sensitive as it comes when he is set to visit the Middle East in an attempt to re-start peace moves and, finally, move on from Iraq. Critics are already unhappy at Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia, a non-democratic state with a controversial human rights record, but which is probably the most powerful and certainly one of the most oil rich in the region. Successive government have been well aware of the dangers in putting relations with the Saudis under too much strain. And it is, therefore, no surprise that former Tory ministers have welcomed the government's decision. It was, after all, Tory minister Michael Heseltine who in 1985 signed the Al-Yamamah deal at the centre of the alleged corruption claims. Tension Former Tory defence minister Jonathan Aitken whose own career was ended amid allegations over his own dealings with Saudi Arabia a decade ago has also welcomed the decision. But so have many Labour MPs and others who believe the investigation was threatening thousands of jobs in their constituencies. So was this a simple piece of Realpolitik and was the prime minister right to act "in the national interest" because of the near certain reaction which would have followed from the Saudis if the investigation had been allowed to continue to its conclusion? It is almost certainly the case that, at this time of high tension in the Middle East and against the background of the on-going battle against Islamic extremism, the very last thing the UK government wants is to fall out with its strongest regional ally. Comment: What does the future hold? The US finally "leaves" Iraq. Saudi Arabia (controlled by Zionists) arms Iraq's Sunnis with British weapons, but rather than turning on each other, Iraqis join with Iran, Lebanon and Syria, and turn on Israel. Israel threatens attacks on all, in the belief that the US will continue to support them. At the last moment, the US "balks", telling Israel it will have to fight this one alone. Israel, and much of the Middle East is destroyed in the ensuing war.