[Closed] Chilcot Report, July 6th

Jeremy is having his moment in the sun. To be fair, he's been consistent and has every right to now stand up and say 'I told you what would happen......'

[b]binners[/b] - Member

Listening to the coverage, I wish the shouty lefties would knock it on the head.

I can just see Scotty by the Ironymeter;

"She cannae take any more Captain!"

😉

it appears to be well laid out

Wow all that money, time and expense to come up with something that pretty much says what everyone knew anyway.

Of course it was pre-ordained, I remember watching Blair claiming he was going back to the UN, while Sky News had footage of cruise missiles being loaded into B52s.

Blair's now trying for an Oscar...

When he slags off Saddam he could be talking about himself. Except the death toll during Blair's invasion was an order of magnitude higher.

I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you can ever believe,' says Blair

[img] [/img]

[quote=wwaswas ]Blair's getting such a kicking.
"Chilcot condemns legal basis, justification and planning of Iraq war which killed at least 150,000."

Almost as many as Saddam is estimated to have killed

[img] [/img]

[url= https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7241/27262387754_76cf2b1095.jp g" target="_blank">https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7241/27262387754_76cf2b1095.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/Hx5S5b ]Chillcot defense[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/ ]Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr

Ian Austin MP heckling Corbyn during speech FFS! Has he no shame

So Bliar says he has regrets everyday and takes responsibility. Call me Dave then gets up and says that all the MP's who voted for war, of which he was one, should also take their share of responsibility.

Which actually means what exactly? Put in the stocks for a day? Serve time? Pay a fine? Be killed to death? Go to each and every family who were directly involved and do the ****ing washing up?

Or maybe the fact that a public apology is enough humiliation for them?

Both of them disgust me. And disgust is a pretty strong word.

bongohoohaa - Member

But maybe they actually thought they'd find some?

I am no fan of Blair but whatever anyone thinks of him he is clearly not stupid.

It would have been an act of unbelievable stupidity for Blair to order British troops to attack Iraq if he had genuinely believed that Iraq possessed viable chemical weapons which could be launched in 45 minutes, especially as weapons inspections by UN inspectors was on going.

The consequences of such action could have led to thousands of dead British service personnel (unsurprisingly that's what "weapons of mass destruction" do) which quite apart from the human cost would have resulted in the immediate end of his political career.

Blair was damn sure that Iraq had no WMDs. Blair was damn sure that the Iraq military posed no threat, they couldn't even operate in the Northern Iraq No-Fly Zone, that is why Blair was so keen to attack Iraq.

As Blair's Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, who had the same access to intelligence as Blair, said in his resignation speech before the House of Commons in March 2003 :

[b][i]" Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat. "[/i][/b]

I know it wasn't in Chilcot's remit to pass judgement on whether Blair had lied to the British people but the evidence is overwhelming that he did.

And what troubles me most is that we live in a society in which a cabinet minister is sent to prison for lying about who was driving his speeding car but a Prime Minister who lies so that he can launch a a bloody and horrific war walks free.

How can we as a society say that that lying to save your driving license deserves to be punished with imprisonment but lying to start a war in which hundreds of thousands have died, and are still dying more than a decade later, doesn't deserve any sort of punishment at all?

Future generations will look back in disbelief.

nice post there Ernie. Blair war criminal as far as I'm concerned.

Isn't it lying to say the intelligence is "authoritive" etc when it is not? Why can nobody say this to the man?

[quote=dragon ]Wow all that money, time and expense to come up with something that pretty much says what everyone knew anyway.

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/chilcot-takes-seven-years-to-report-the-absolutely-****g-obvious-20160706110318 ]The mash[/url] nails it as usual (I don't think we've done that - NSFW words in the article and URL, hence it's hidden having been warned recently!)

slackalice - Member
So Bliar says he has regrets everyday and takes responsibility. Call me Dave then gets up and says that all the MP's who voted for war, of which he was one, should also take their share of responsibility...

And presumably they will do what honourable MPs in the past used to do, and resign...

Less likely than a PM with a history of being fellated by a necropig.

Can someone explain something to me?

Relatives of dead UK solders killed in Iraq are saying they are going to look at claiming compensation.

er, surely Joining the Army is a decision there relatives took of their own valediction, and surely, joining the army brings with it the chance of seeing action and hence death, and that is completely and totally obvious at the point of joining?

@maxtorque I assume their argument will be that they where sent to war with the knowledge that they didn't have the right kit. Again historically that's happened many times although today's world is quite different than the one which existed previously in this regard.

Ian Austin MP heckling Corbyn during speech FFS! Has he no shame

Wasn't sure who it was but it was disgraceful.

Blair didn't lie. Full stop.

What he did was start with the conclusion and then put together an argument to support it. What he did was present evidence with a greater conviction that it really warranted. That's not lying.

Had we not joined the US they would have gone on alone. To say Blair/UK made the invasion happen is quite wrong.

Chilcot is damning in his criticism of the MOD.

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/mod-left-uk-forces-in-iraq-ill-equipped-amid-lack-of-plan-chilcot-report-says ]MoD left UK forces in Iraq lacking equipment and a plan, Chilcot says[/url]

Just because some joins the armed forces it doesn't mean that you can simply dismiss it as bad luck if they die.

He was ernie, hensaidnthey didn't respond soon enough to the geurilla warfare, roadside IEDs. However sometimes (often) soldiers go into battle with less than ideal kit

The families of the troops seem justifiably upset that their loved ones were killed on false pretexts. What about showing some concern and remorse for the ten of thousands of Iraqi solders and civilians killed.

As an ex service man and about as right wing as is healthy on this forum, I can clearly recall asking my Thursday night pals in the pub if they would vote to go to this war. Of the five who voted half in and half out of the eu, with one abstainer, they all categorically stated they would not. (Plus me)

The WMD evidence was woolly to say the least and I feel sure that if I had a vote, I would have voted against it. So the fact that a Labour leader took us in was quite incredible. It's been Lies, deception and deceit from the start and any remorse shown now is total bullshit. I just feel sorry for all those families who lost their loved ones and the appallingly injured. A sorry situation.

jambalaya - Member

Blair didn't lie. Full stop.

Well as long as that is a fact, and I think it must be because you put "full stop" at the end, then that should settle the matter.

However, there's this geezer called Chilcot whom everyone seems to be making a lot of fuss about and in his report, which is rather more substantial than your post, he repeatedly contradicts the claims made by Tony Blair on just about everything.

So whilst I admire your definitive statement on the matter I respectfully suggest that you are talking bollocks. E.g. Blair - "Military action is a last resort". Chilcot - "Military action was not a last resort".

Someone's been telling porkies.

The word lie or even "un-truth" is not present in the report as far as I know. Blair has been critised for not challenging the JIC report but as it said what he wanted he was happy to use it and then overstress his confidence in it.

I appreciate Chilcot's statement that diplomatic avenues had not been completely exhausted but the JIC intelligence was that polticial pressure would have no impact on Hussein

As I have said many times I think the decision to in invade was wrong. However, personally I never believed the whole 45 mins claim was a real threat

What he did was start with the conclusion and then put together an argument to support it. What he did was present evidence with a greater conviction that it really warranted. That's not lying.

Serously Jamba....it was HIS responsibility to ensure every possible detail was thoroughly checked before sending our boys in. However he was wrapped up in his own importance, flattered by the attention from George ( who effectively groomed him) and basically abdicated his responsibility to the country.

Call it what you want, but the truth was never explored sufficiently.

.it was HIS responsibility to ensure every possible detail was thoroughly checked before sending our boys in.

I think you could argue quite strongly that the rest of the cabinet were equally culpable, it really, really [u]was[/u] their job to dot the i's and cross the t's.

[quote=ernie_lynch ]And what troubles me most is that we live in a society in which a cabinet minister is sent to prison for lying about who was driving his speeding car but a Prime Minister who lies so that he can launch a a bloody and horrific war walks free.

Interesting point - it seems to no longer an issue for MPs to have affairs, but I understood that was an issue of trust. Of course at the point the ex PM has been proven to be a liar he is no longer even an MP.

Of course Huhne was not only an MP, but also a cabinet minister when he got charged. On a technical point he got done for perverting the course of justice - not something I think Blair could be charged with even if it could all be proven? The House of Commons is also one of the best places to lie if you want to get away with it, whilst a section 172 notice (identifying the driver of a car involved in an alleged motoring offence) is one of the worst. Not that I'm suggesting you're wrong, but UK law gets far more upset about you lying to part of the legal system than elsewhere.

I am no fan of Blair but whatever anyone thinks of him he is clearly not stupid.

Noted @Rockape

[quote=jambalaya ]The word lie or even "un-truth" is not present in the report as far as I know.

Of course not - it's not the sort of language used. However when the report says that something TB claimed is incorrect and that he would have known that from reports he'd been given, the implication is quite clear.

[quote=ninfan ]I think you could argue quite strongly that the rest of the cabinet were equally culpable, it really, really was their job to dot the i's and cross the t's.

What, all of them, including for example Tessa Jowell (I'll let you google)? Presumably Gordon should also have put managing the money to one side for a few months in order to check through all the details.

Edit: oh heck - I may have agreed with ernie plenty of times before, but I think that's the first time we've simulposted

The word lie or even "un-truth" is not present in the report as far as I know.

No why would it ? The job of Chilcot's report wasn't to pass judgement on Blair, that's for a court of law to do. Chilcot job was to look at "the run-up to the conflict, the subsequent military action, and its aftermath".

The report doesn't conclude whether the war was legal either - it wasn't in its remit, but that doesn't mean it was legal. As the report points out that Blair did not inform his Cabinet that he had received advice in January 2003 from the attorney general that there may not be a legal basis for war.

You can't claim that the report clears Blair of lying anymore than you can claim the report clears Blair of acting illegally.

Blair may have been wrong, his crocodile tears today insulting and he undoubtedly made sure the evidence supported his plan, the report certainly criticses the MOD and MI6 and the JIC as much, if not more so than Blair.

But I'm not aware chilcot said he lied, as dodgy as his dossier and justification for war were , it was put before parliament and they voted for it.

The ill equipedness of the troops and glaringly the lack of any follow up plan or exit strategy seem shocking errors with hindsight and it speaks very poorly of our MPs that none of those that voted yes thought about the consequences of what they were actually voting for.
It's just like the Brexit referendum, no exit strategy, based on lies and led by an egomaniac.

If he was, he wouldn't have been so plausible.

Well he wasnt on my plausibility radar CZ or my bezzy PH

What I said about the Iraq War in February and March 2003
I reproduce this from the Mail on Sunday of 9th February 2003:

'IF we go to war I shall not stop criticising this folly. Our troops will not be fighting for this country, but for another country and against Britain's interests.

Before the bombs start to fall I will try one last time to deal with the feeble, stumbling case for attacking Iraq.

Yes, Saddam Hussein is a dictator. So is Jiang Zemin, the Chinese leader, recently welcomed here on a State visit and guarded from protesters by British police.

Jiang Zemin's regime constantly threatens its neighbour Taiwan, illegally occupies Tibet, imprisons hundreds of thousands in its Lao Gai concentration camps and possesses weapons of mass destruction by the megaton, plus rockets to deliver them.

China is a much more potent threat to peace and stability than Iraq, and the free world should be taking firmer steps to deter and contain it. But America constantly appeases China. So do we.

Talking of appeasement, the pro-war faction claims that those who oppose the war are the same as those who would not stand up to Hitler in the Thirties. This is historical rubbish. When Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland, the democracies did nothing. They did nothing when he swallowed Austria and Czechoslovakia.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the West stood up to him, and threw him out. He is most unlikely to do it again, and if he does he knows he will be thrown out again. So why should he? Nobody is appeasing him.

If we know that Saddam has developed dangerous weapons, then we can simply destroy them, as Israel did when it bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981. No war followed though, stupidly, both President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher condemned this wise and sensible act.

This war is part of an ill-thought-out American plan to obtain a strategic foothold in the Middle East. This will only work if America stays in Iraq for decades, and even then will be very hard to manage.

Yet it is already clear that Washington does not intend to hang around in Baghdad any longer than it has to, and that British troops will be given the job of policing the 'democracy' which is supposed to appear by magic once Saddam has gone.

Why? We couldn't afford to do this in 1921, when we invented Iraq by drawing some lines on a map, and we certainly cannot now. In return for this humiliating role, what do we get?

America has already forced us to surrender to the IRA. It wants to shove us into a European federal state. If we are such valued allies, why are we treated like this? It is time we had a Government which stood up for this country's independence.'

I'm sure the man, while not actually a psychopath, certainly seems to display certain characteristics

When asked in an interview what he regretted most during his time as prime minister Blair said firstly the Freedom of Information Act, "It's not practical for government" he claimed. Followed by the fox hunting ban.

Those sort of priorities speaks volumes about the man.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/sep/01/tony-blair-a-journey-interview ]World exclusive Tony Blair interview[/url]

Court of Law. Ernie there really isn't a case to answer. He will never go to court as there is no case. That's my view. Whilst many conspiracy theorists will invent other rationals for no court action the reality is there is no basis for such an action.

how did our benevolent overlord; Murdoch, help form the national narrative over the war?
oh yes....

[img] [/img]

Wonder if any of the 2.6 million words bring [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/15/queen-veto-war-powers_n_2477422.html ]this[/url] into question:

[b]The Queen also vetoed entirely a private member’s Bill, the Military Actions Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill 1999, that would have transfered the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to Parliament[/b]

It is widely assumed that the royal prerogative, the authority to declare war, rests now with the prime minister rather than the Queen herself.

However, these documents raise questions about how much power the monarch still has over the elected government of the day.

Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert said the fact there had been a “fight to to keep this quiet” showed the significance of the Whitehall document.

“It’s quite concerning there is wider influence, and secretive influence, of the monarchy in these things than had previously been revealed,”

Worth remembering the Queen is commander in chief of the Armed Forces (in Australia, Canada+NZ too, among others) and is privy to Joint Intelligence Committee meetings and reports.

Not forgetting the confidential off the record weekly meetings between the Queen and the Prime Minister of Her Majesty's Government:

Let's just hope John Chilcot is all above board...

That's interesting, so it's not Blair who we should be trying to hang, but her majesty?

Vive la republique! 🙂

Who exactly are you quoting, cheekyboy? It's from the Mail, but no reference to who's being quoted.
As far as plausibility is concerned, Blair managed to convince the rest of the government, and the country, that there was a legitimate case to go in and take out Saddam.

Commentary from BBC today.

Impossible to try Blair at International Criminal Court as the applicable offence only becomes "actionable" in 2017 and is not retrospective

May possibly be able to bring an action in UK courts under "malfeasance in public office"

Did anyone hear Tony interviewed on the Today programme this morning?

Worth catching on iplayer. To summarise:

Will everybody stop picking on me and being horrid?! Its just, like, soooooo not fair! I didn't lie. I'm as honest as the day is long, and trustworthy and did what I did with the best of intentions. Yes, a couple of million people died or were displaced. And, yes, the region descended into bloody chaos, but how was I to know thats what would happen? Its not like anyone warned me, is it? Now can we just all move on, and everyone start being a lot nicer to me, and give me the respect I deserve!

The bloke is unhinged!!!

[img] ?w=940&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=6cc09a3c7fd81dfbaf13b0e700f0f7b2[/img]

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/the-rock/42025/michael-bays-the-rock-and-its-bizarre-link-to-the-iraq-war-enquiry

jambalaya - Member

Court of Law. Ernie there really isn't a case to answer. He will never go to court as there is no case. That's my view.

It might well be your view however a former Director of Public Prosecutions has a different view to yours on the matter.

[i][b]The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord MacDonald QC, believes Tony Blair's conduct in the build-up to the Iraq war could amount to misconduct in public office.

Speaking to The Times, he highlighted an example of "particularly egregious misconduct" set out in the Chilcot report. [/i][/b]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36738086

I suspect your view might be heavily influenced by that huge feeling of admiration which you have for Tony Blair.

In contrast I think the man was/is an arsehole and live in hope that one day he'll end up in court.

EDIT : Btw I didn't have a clue what "egregious" means so I looked it up. It turns out that the former Director of Public Prosecutions has identified an example of outstandingly bad/shocking misconduct by Blair from the Chilcot report. Excellent.

I certainly don't have a huge admiration for Blair. I voted for him once and only once. I think he and Brown did their bit to create the conditions for the credit crises of 2007/8. Brown then screwed up the responce. I think the invasion of Iraq was an error (which would have been made by pretty much any PM). Don't see too much basis for admiration there.

I know of no one on here who does more to defend and praise Tony Blair than you jambalaya.

Can [i]you[/i] think of anyone who defends and praises Tony Blair more than you ?

So it turns out that Blair's number one cheerleader on STW doesn't even admire him. Well that says a lot.

Did anyone hear Tony interviewed on the Today programme this morning?

He is nuts isnt he.

Kimbers, that is awesome! I used to really like that film, but then I found out that Alcatraz doesn't even *have* a lower lighthouse, and now I find it started the Iraq war! Gutted.

jambalaya - Member
...I think the invasion of Iraq was an error (which would have been made by pretty much any PM)...

I reckon Thatcher wouldn't have made his mistakes even though she would have been slavering over the prospect of a war.

"I reckon Thatcher wouldn't have made his mistakes even though she would have been slavering over the prospect of a war."

I think Thatcher would have explained why destabilising the Middle East was a bad idea far more convincingly than Blair did, and then the neo-cons wouldn't have done it. Quite seriously.

The coalition countries were US, UK spain, poland and aus. The leaders of all other countries realised what an idiotic folly it was, and lets be honest 4 of those countries were there just to suck up to the US, only 3 of them couldn't match the incredible blowjob skill of Blair.

Can you think of anyone who defends and praises Tony Blair more than you ?

Me for one

I remain strongly of the opinion that most of the people so loudly criticising him over Iraq fully supported his governments interventionist and unlawful interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and we're happy enough to vote Labour in 2005 to reelect him.

reckon Thatcher wouldn't have made his mistakes even though she would have been slavering over the prospect of a war.

"This is no time to go wobbly, George"

"supported his governments interventionist and unlawful interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and we're happy enough to vote Labour in 2005 to reelect him."

I supported Sierra Leone but not Kosovo.

I think Thatcher would have explained why destabilising the Middle East was a bad idea

Apart from arming Saddam in the 1st place...

Didn't Thatcher's immediate family do rather well out of Conservative government backed arms deals?

Who exactly are you quoting, cheekyboy? It's from the Mail, but no reference to who's being quoted.
As far as plausibility is concerned, Blair managed to convince the rest of the government, and the country, that there was a legitimate case to go in and take out Saddam.

Hi There Count ! Im quoting your good friend the sociopath Peter Hitchens !

I would be more in favour of gullibility*, incompetence and seeking favour in lieu of competence/ability/intellect (any careerist will tell you this is the easiest option) than owt else ! then again we probably havent had a plausible cabinet of any hue for a very long time.

* rather than belief in plausibility

ninfan - Member

"Can you think of anyone who defends and praises Tony Blair more than you ?"

Me for one

I would strongly dispute that.

Yes like jambalaya you obviously hold Tony Blair in very high esteem but you rarely defend him in any meaningful way.

In the same way that although you are clearly a huge supporter of the Tory Right unlike jambalaya you rarely actually defend the Tories and their policies.

What you do instead is attempt to deflect criticism through taunting and a massive overuse of the laughing emoticon.

Defending the Tories, and Tony Blair, isn't easy, in fact jambalaya has a helluva job doing so on here - but give him his credit he tries. So you don't bother and choose to taunt "lefties" instead.

An absolutely perfect example of this is in your last post when you say :

[i]"I remain strongly of the opinion that most of the people so loudly criticising him over Iraq fully supported his governments interventionist and unlawful interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and we're happy enough to vote Labour in 2005 to reelect him."[/i]

You are not actually defending Blair over his decision to go to war in Iraq, that would too difficult to do, so instead you are taunting his critics.

It is an absolutely classic ninfan tactic.

But it is not a tactit used by jambalaya.

You are not actually defending Blair over his decision to go to war in Iraq,

I can't, because I disagreed with the decision to do it at that time (they should have waited for the weapons inspectors)... However

What I can defend him for is that his approach was not only entirely consistent with his outlook and his openly discussed and established belief in interventionist military action, but also that he was 100% convinced that he was right to do so. You can't accuse Blair of inconsistency in any of this, interventionism and internationalism have been consistently accepted as Labour party beliefs for many yeas - notable exceptions such as Vietnam have to be balanced against Korea and Suez, and Blairs belief in this were clearly laid out by Kosovo and SL. Of course, the exercise of moralistic beliefs and that 'the ends justify the means' were also on display by Blair and those who came to power with him from day one. You can disagree with his decisions and processes all you like, but to pretend that you didn't know what you were getting with him would be ridiculous.

As I said, jambalaya shows a greater commitment to defend Blair than you do. And Anthony Eden was a Tory PM btw.

ninfan - Member
...interventionism and internationalism have been consistently accepted as Labour party beliefs for many yeas - notable exceptions such as Vietnam have to be balanced against Korea and Suez...

...but to pretend that you didn't know what you were getting with him would be ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure the reason Harold Wilson didn't take us into Vietnam was the party had learned from the experience of Korea and Suez. Too many families in the country had already given blood in the UKs imperial wars. When you think about it the Boer War generation was still alive, so that's a lot of major wars, one for each generation up to the Korean, and not forgetting the distaste for conscripts getting killed in the non-wars like Cyprus and the Yemen.

No one knew what they were getting with Blair. I was living in Oz at the time but I remember seeing some of his speeches and interviews and being impressed by his apparent willingness to accept mistakes and make things right. From that distance he seemed a decent guy who would try to avoid doing the wrong thing. People were conned.

I read somewhere recently that the NSA and GCHQ had monitored members of the UN in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, in order to gain leverage.

Struggling to find the link at the mo... wonder if it's mentioned in the Chilcot report

Like Angela Merkel ? Old news.

Ah, [url= https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/02/usa.iraq ]here[/url] we go:

seems the story first broke in 2003, shortly before the Invasion began...

[b]The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq.

Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York[/b], are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.

The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input.

The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at... UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq.

Of course, that was long before Edward Snowden began to reveal the full extent of the surveillance program.

Remains to be seen if there will there be any mention of it in the Chilcot Report...

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tony-blair-and-president-bush-clinton-rushed-to-safety-in-tornado-scare-storms-hurricane-winds-a7139556.html ]Tony Blair in tornado scare[/url]

.

[img] [/img]