Let's assume a dilemma that may never have happened? These are MY hypothetical musings... I claim FULL RESPONSIBILITY for any false, presumptious, hurtful, or inference mistaken by the reader! These observations are mine, and mine alone! ANY POSSIBLE RELEVANCE, REFERENCE, OR THEORETICAL HYPOTHESES MADE HERE ARE PURELY ACCIDENTAL, AND WERE IN NO WAY INTENDED TO CAUSE OFFENCE!

Ok, say there was a leader of a country, or two, who acted innappropriately, and had hidden some self incriminating evidence that could leave them open to accusations of a terrible crime. Maybe they had been called before an inquiry? Maybe not!
The leader of another country was out of office, the new leader decided to be less willing to defend his old boss because he was naughty! So, let's pretend the new boss man, let some leak be carried out, whilst pretending he was very annoyed that they had! I know, it's a silly story, but hear me out?
Now, the first bad man had some private messages with the second that were now in the hands of a leaky site... but the owner of that site knew he would be in deep trouble if he was to tell everyone of his discovery about the two bosses... so he let the public know of the less serious messages.
He was a strange man, who possibly wanted to tell the truth, but was terrified of the repercussions! He believed in 'a problem shared, is a problem halved'! So he went to the big secret bosses of the leader of the first country and told them!
These Big Bosses thought to themselves that the old leader was a puppet... but were infuriated that he dared to tell fibs to them! In fact, so annoyed that they gave the little leaky one safe haven from the world! So, irate that they were so very pissed off at the old leader they were going to hang him out to dry!
This old leader was a shrewd little thinker, and in the time it took for the Big Bosses to find out of his deceit, he had thought up a cunning plan(like Baldrick from Blackadder! Tee hee) He reckoned that if he said that the former leader of the other country would cry if the Big Bosses told of his naughtiness, his special relationship with his friends country would stick by him and tell their Big Bosses to say, "Oi, Big Bosses of you cor blimey bastards... NOOOO! Stop it or we will never be friends again!"
As this is all silliness, let's even assume they did!? It adds to the fun, eh?
Ahhhh, but the Big Bosses of the Cor Blimey Country had already thought that this would happen! They were old, moved slowly, weren't as fit, but they had the benefit of experience! Hey, it happens! lol
Cor Blimey then told the little leaker that they wanted that favour back because they were holding him close to their bosom! They knew the Big Bosses of the young up-and-coming country hated people who hid money from them! Seriously despised them! So much so that the place where they hid their money came out THE VERY DAY BEFORE, AND SAID, "It's me, I've been looking after their pennies all along! And, I have many pages of proof of hidden pennies... here Little Leaker... you hold them and browse who is the evasive ones!"
The young pretenders fidgeted, they fumbled, they groaned, roared and shouted(some were even happy that the truth would unfold cos the new leader may even get to keep his job?), "Those old bastards in Cor Blimey Country are very naughty! I don't want to go to prison for hiding pennies! What should we do to stop those papers infering that WE are involved? Hmmmm... what about giving the old bastard country their wish? We could buy back our freedom? Maybe... we could tell them that the Little Leaker who had the messages of our old leaders was right, afterall... and it was now absolutely fine to hang, draw and quarter their old leader!?"
"YES!", nodded many other penny pinchers from around the world! "What a fantastic idea! We will all celebrate with cake and biscuits, and oodles of fizzy drinks!"
The old bastard Cor Blimeys were happy because many of their top doggies would also run free into the fields and graze with the others... never to be heard of again!
The bad leader who first told fibs to his Big Secret Bosses would then have to recall him to tell him how very naughty he had been... wouldn't they? And the lady boss woman would giggle and cry, "Off with his head!" lol
(Not necessarily in that particular chronilogical order, because this was known for many years, perhaps? It is up to the reader to laugh at this ficticious abomination of literally genius! lmao)

THE END!

Well, guys? What does this little story tell you? Personally it reinforces my own beliefs that I'm a sandwich short of a picnic... but I try!

DICLAIMER:
All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
ANYHOOO... ON A TOTALLY AND UTTERLY DIFFERENT SUBJECT, SOME NEWS!
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

Iraq inquiry 'disappointed' by Bush-Blair note secrecy
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
REPORTED ON: 18th January 2011
The government has refused to release "key extracts" of some conversations between George Bush and Tony Blair relating to the Iraq war.
Iraq Inquiry Chairman Sir John Chilcot said he was "disappointed" by Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell's decision to keep "important" documents secret.
But Sir Gus said it would not be "in the public interest" to release them.
Sir John's panel has seen the classified documents but is not being allowed to make them public.
Downing Street said Prime Minister David Cameron had played "no role" in the decision.
Letters released by the inquiry outline the dispute between Sir John and Sir Gus over the release of notes sent from Mr Blair to Mr Bush and of the details of recorded conversations between the two former leaders.
They were published as Sir John's five-member panel resumed its public hearings after a break of almost six months. Mr Blair is set to give evidence for a second time on Friday.
'Inhibiting'
In his correspondence with Sir John, the cabinet secretary said "exchanges between the former UK Prime Minister and US President represent particularly privileged channels of communication, the preservation of which is strongly in the public interest".
He added: "Even where immediate severity may have passed, disclosure of the material could still prejudice relations by inhibiting future exchanges.

Analysis
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
image of Peter Biles Peter Biles BBC News, at the Iraq Inquiry
Sir John Chilcot's opening statement reflected both disappointment and frustration with the government for failing to publish the exchanges between Tony Blair and George W Bush.
It is not the first time that the failure to declassify key documents has been a source of irritation to members of the Iraq Inquiry.
A year ago, when the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, was giving evidence, both he and the committee were frustrated that not all the relevant documents had been declassified at the time.
Then, as now, the committee had been able to see all the papers itself, but not allowed to refer to them during public hearings because the documents were not in the public domain.
It appears the Cabinet Office is worried that the publication of the Blair-Bush exchanges, could set an unwelcome precedent.
"A UK prime minister may be less likely to have these exchanges (or allow them to be recorded) if he is concerned that this information would be disclosed at a later time against his wishes."
But, in his opening comments to the inquiry session, Sir John said he had asked for permission to release the documents in December and had promised Sir Gus that, if this was not granted, he would publish their correspondence.
He said: "The papers we hold include the notes which Prime Minister Blair sent to President Bush and the records of their discussions.
"The inquiry recognises the privileged nature of those exchanges but, exceptionally, we sought disclosure of key extracts which illuminate Prime Minister Blair's positions at critical points. The Cabinet Office did not agree this disclosure."
Sir John added: "The inquiry is disappointed that the cabinet secretary was not willing to accede to its request. This means that in a narrow but important area the inquiry may not always be able to publish as fully as it would wish the evidential basis for some of its comments and conclusions.
"The inquiry is free to say what it thinks. We shall complete our task and make our own independent judgements about the UK's involvement in Iraq."
In a letter to Sir Gus, he highlighted the fact that Mr Bush and Mr Blair - as well as the former prime minister's chief of staff Jonathan Powell and communications chief Alastair Campbell - had revealed details of some of their talks in recent memoirs,
He also said the inquiry's agreed protocol on releasing documents supported disclosure.
In another letter Sir John said the committee would be "disappointed" if Mr Blair was "less forthcoming in his evidence" during his appearance before the panel on Friday, which follows another public hearing last year.
Sir Gus is himself scheduled to give evidence on 28 January.
A Downing Street spokesman said the decision to prevent publication of the Blair-Bush exchanges had been "very clearly a cabinet secretary decision", as set out in the inquiry's protocol.
"The PM had no role in that decision," he added, saying there were no plans to change this way of working.
Sir John's five-member panel questioned Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, former chief of the air staff, on Tuesday.
He was asked about his role as the UK's air component commander for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

'Uncomfortable'
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
Sir Glenn was also the military's chief of joint operations from 2004 to 2006 before leading the RAF from 2006 until 2009.
The inquiry is looking into the UK's role in the run-up to the invasion and its aftermath.
It has been holding hearings since November 2009, in which it has questioned a host of former Labour cabinet ministers, senior military commanders, civil servants and diplomats. The inquiry is expected to report in the summer.
Written evidence from former attorney general Lord Goldsmith, released on Monday, showed he had been uncomfortable about statements by Mr Blair before the 2003 invasion.
In addition to Mr Blair, the inquiry has also recalled former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Admiral Lord Boyce, chief of the defence staff from 2001 to 2003, and Lord Turnbull, cabinet secretary from 2002 to 2005.
In a written statement, which was made public by the Iraq inquiry on Monday, Lord Goldsmith said Mr Blair's public suggestion in January 2003 that Britain could attack Iraq without further UN backing had not been compatible with his legal advice.
He said he could not remember precisely when he had become aware of the comments, but told the inquiry: "I was uncomfortable about them and I believe that I discussed my concerns with [then foreign secretary] Jack Straw and my own staff..."
He also told the inquiry he understood the need to make public statements which "left Saddam Hussein in no doubt about our firmness of purpose".
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

A former Swiss banker has passed on data containing account
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
details of 2,000 prominent people to Wikileaks founder Julian
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
Assange.
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
17 January 2011 Last updated at 18:03 Help
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

The data - which is not yet available on the Wikileaks website - was held on two discs handed over by Rudolf Elmer at a press conference in London.
Mr Assange promised full disclosure once the information had been vetted.
Mr Elmer is scheduled to go on trial in Switzerland on Wednesday for breaking bank secrecy laws.
The banker, who has given data to Wikileaks before, was fired from Swiss bank Julius Baer in 2002.
"Evidently disgruntled and frustrated about unfulfilled career aspirations, Mr. Elmer exhibited behaviour that was detrimental and unacceptable for the Bank, which led to termination of the employment relationship," the bank said in a statement sent to BBC News.
"After his demands (including financial compensation) in connection with the dismissal could not be satisfied, Mr. Elmer embarked in 2004 on a personal intimidation campaign and vendetta against Julius Baer," the statement read.

Serious Fraud Office
*************************
Although it was not confirmed what activities might be covered by the data Mr Elmer has passed on, the Wikileaks head noted that previous data from Julius Baer provided by Mr Elmer had shed light on tax evasion, the hiding of proceeds of criminal acts and "the protection of assets of those about to fall out of political favour".
The data covers multinationals, financial firms and wealthy individuals from many countries, including the UK, US and Germany, and covers the period 1990-2009, according to a report in Swiss newspaper Der Sonntag.
"Once we have looked at the data... there will be full revelation," said Mr Assange, who is currently on bail and confined to the UK due to an extradition request from Sweden.
The Wikileaks founder has been accused of sexual misconduct by two women in Sweden, including having unprotected sex without consent - accusations he denies.
Speaking at the handover event at the Frontline Club, he said the data would be vetted before publication.

Rudolf Elmer Former banker and whistle-blower
**************************************************
It was difficult to say how long this would take, he said, although he suggested it could be as little as two weeks.
The vetting would depend on the volume of information and how it was delegated, Mr Assange said.
Other groups - such as the Tax Justice Network or financial media outlets - might be asked to help in the vetting process, he added.
Mr Assange also said some information was likely to be handed over to the authorities - mentioning specifically the UK's Serious Fraud Office - as was the case with a previous leak concerning Icelandic banks.
'Baseless accusations'

Julius Baer has dismissed Mr Elmer's accusations.
**************************************************
"The aim of his activities was and is to discredit Julius Baer as well as clients in the eyes of the public," it said in the statement.
John Christensen, director of the Tax Justice Network, said Mr Elmer had been "raising concerns... for many years"
"With this goal in mind, Mr Elmer spread baseless accusations and passed on unlawfully acquired respectively retained documents to the media, and later also to Wikileaks.
"To back up his campaign, he also used falsified documents and made death threats against employees."
The banker's latest revelations also relate to other Swiss banks.
A spokesman of the Swiss Bankers' Association (SBA) told the BBC his country was "a sophisticated, well-regulated international financial centre with some of the strictest know-your-customer rules worldwide".
Jean-Marc Felix - an SBA board member - insisted that the country complied with international standards on tax matters, and the banking community supported moves to set up bilateral agreements with the UK and Germany to introduce a withholding tax on accounts of citizens from those countries.
'Fire-breathing dragon'
"I'm against the system. I know how the system works," said Mr Elmer at the press conference. He said a sophisticated network existed to funnel illicit money into secret offshore accounts.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange at the press conference called by Rudolf Elmer at the Frontline Club in London Mr Assange was making a rare public appearance during what he has called his "house arrest"
"I've been there. I've done the job. I know what is the day-to-day business," he said, explaining why he thought it important to identify himself as the source.
The banker, who worked as Julius Baer's chief operating officer in the Cayman Islands, said he and his family faced pressure akin to "a fire-breathing dragon with several heads" after he decided to blow the whistle.
He said he was put in prison in Switzerland for 30 days for violating Swiss banking rules, and that he was offered money and the withdrawal of charges against him in order to buy his silence.
The data included the offshore accounts of about 40 politicians, he said, and covered accounts at three banks, including his former employer.
The banker also said that he and his wife had written a letter to German Finance Minister Peer Steinbruck, offering to provide the data for free, but received no response.
Mr Elmer - who runs his own whistle-blowing website - said the data he was providing had been passed to him by various sources that he would keep anonymous.
"I am taking the responsibility for this," he said.
He is already facing trial in Switzerland for a previous data leak, and has admitted breaking some laws.
However, Mr Elmer claimed he did not breach Swiss banking secrecy rules, as he said all of the information related to the Cayman Islands and therefore lay outside Swiss jurisdiction.
A former Swiss banker has passed on data containing account details of 2,000 prominent people to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
The data - which is not yet available on the Wikileaks website - was held on two discs handed over by Rudolf Elmer at a press conference in London.
Mr Assange promised full disclosure once the information had been vetted.

♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
THE ABOVE (CHILCOTT INQUIRY REPORT) IS A FOLLOW UP TO A NEWS REPORT ON 8th December 2010 (BELOW):

Iraq inquiry: Why is Tony Blair being recalled?
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

It is not immediately obvious what questions the members of the Iraq Inquiry want to put to Tony Blair when he is recalled to give further evidence next month.
However, a significant number of key witnesses have appeared publicly before Sir John Chilcot's committee since last January, and more than 30 witnesses have also given evidence in private.
In his evidence at the beginning of this year, Mr Blair insisted he had no regrets about removing Saddam Hussein from power.
He mounted a robust defence of his decision to go to war, describing the former Iraqi leader as "a monster".
He made it clear he would have done it all again, had there been any possibility of Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction.
The committee may wish to question him further about the reliability of the intelligence in the build-up to war. In July, the former head of MI5, Baroness Eliza Manningham Buller, had cautioned against "an over-reliance on fragmentary intelligence".
In his evidence, the former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, also expressed doubts about the intelligence. He was unequivocal in stating that the invasion of Iraq had been "an illegal war".
Clarification may also be sought on the legal advice given to Mr Blair's cabinet before the invasion by the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.
The former International Development Secretary, Clare Short, told the inquiry that she thought there should have been a proper discussion among ministers. Lord Goldsmith has now been asked to present additional written evidence to the inquiry.

'More specific'
*******************
Professor Michael Clarke, Director of the Royal United Services Institute in London, says Mr Blair may be nervous about a second appearance as it appeared he was on the first occasion.
"A lot of testimony has raised questions about the generality of what he said the first time round, and in being required to be more specific about something that happened seven years ago, he may have some anxious moments," he says.
"Like all good historians, the committee wants to go back and revisit areas they don't feel they understand properly."
The Iraq Inquiry is keen to stress that its members have been "hard at work" since the public hearings in the summer.
There have been two visits to Iraq, a meeting with military veterans in the UK, and more than 30 submissions have been received from international lawyers.
However, until the evidence from its private hearings are made public, perhaps in the New Year, one can only speculate about the issues which the Chilcot inquiry still wants to explore.