Chilcot Report

Blair will be mildly rebuked for making mountains out of molehills. The armed forces will be criticised. The relatives of dead soldiers will not be mentioned. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqis left dead will be a sidenote. The spread of terror/instability will be whitewashed. The illegality of the war will be an 'error'. Watch this space

 

That the war was a mistake, and that the assumptions on which the decision to go to war were mistaken can scarcely be doubted, I think. I expect the report will focus on how these mistaken assumptions came to be made. I would expect that inadequate preparations for the war, and the dismal lack of any appropriate plan for the aftermath will also be the subject of criticism.

What puzzles me though is the need to pin this whole unfortunate exercise on Blair. The House of Commons, in a series of two votes voted overwhelmingly in favour of the action on 18 March 2003. Although Blair could have taken the country to war under the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, he placed the matter before the Commons on the understanding that he would resign if the vote were lost. I recall (although I have not been able to verify this) that the material upon which he based his view of the situation pre-war was placed in the House of Commons Library for members to view. The vote was carried by 412 votes to 149, including the majority of MPs representing the two main parties. So is every MP who voted in favour of the action a war criminal?

I believe by the way, that Chilcott will not comment on the legality of the war under international law as that is a matter beyond the Enquiry's remit and it's legal competence.

 

Yes we should have just stood back and let him kill hos own.

And while we aren't it why did we bother with Hitler as well

 

http://www.monbiot.com/2002/10/08/thwart-mode/


Yeah war's the answer. When you want it to be.

 

Blair stating that they had wrong intelligence. What's that all about? Hans Blix the UN inspector and his team were asked on numerous visits if anything had been found, and his answer was always in the negative. Bush and Blair stirred a hornets nest, and we are living with the consequences today.

 

If Blair is guilty of anything, it was continuing the policy started by the Conservatives of doing absolutely anything the Americans wanted to foster the 'special relationship'. I don't think any Prime Minister would have done different at the time.

 

Idiot.

 

Bit of an odd choice of Gareth Chilcott to right a report

 

What really gets me is that even now Blair insists it was the right thing to do. He is quoted as saying “I believe it was right to get rid of Saddam Hussain and the world is a safer place today because of it”.
Really? Safer?
At the time I thought it was the right thing to do, but looking back it’s clear it wasn’t.
The problem wasn’t getting rid of Saddam, it was not having a plan to put in place afterwards. It’s like a surgeon performing an operation that is required but not having a means to sew the body back up or stem the flow of blood!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10318089

Live now.

 

There was a plan. It was to milk as much money out of "reconstruction" as was possible.

 

I'm only looking at the text commentary, but he seems to have concluded that Blair wasn't advised properly by the Joint Intelligence Committee.

 

He's left Blair off the hook re: evidence given to him, but hammered him elsewhere. Especially the lack of any kind of planning and the failure to understand and then deny when questioned that subsequent events could not have been predicted.


He should stand trial for gross criminal negligence.

 

The memo from Blair to Bush suggested that Blair was behind Bush 'whatever'.

This however was very much a personal response and not one that had the support or backing of the cabinet - though I suspect it will be selectively used to show that Blair was negligent and/or criminal.

 

To play politics - They don't need to do that given his negligence elsewhere in post planning. He should and could be tried for that alone. There was no plan. Nothing. Zilch, zip.

[FONT=&amp]

Then add Chilcot's condemnation of Blair saying that subsequent events "could not have been seen in advance". He should be toast.

Additionally - he said "Blair sent troops to Iraq before all peaceful options had been exhausted".

And that he changed the reasons for war after the event. Which is quite right and was pointed out (without any success) at the time.[/FONT]

 

Out of interest (as I genuinely don't know) - can you be tried for poor post war planning? As I say, I don't know and wondered what the precedent/protocol was.

In terms of constitution - e.g. proposing and passing the resolution for war -is that legally water tight in this instance? Or was a second resolution needed.

Again, I ask as I am not sure.

I suppose I am asking if Blair is legally absolved of blame? He certainly isn't morally by anyone's standards.

 

Well I'm sure there's no precedent for it, but look at the way people are tried for a large variety of other issues that fall under 'criminal negligence'. He invaded a country and had no clue what to do afterwards, then claimed what happened "could not have been seen in advance". If that's not negligence, I don't know what is.

 

Are you saying because I consider it wrong to gas your own people I'm an idiot




We.over threw an horrific regime

 

No, because you fail to understand that actions can make a situation worse, not better. Which is what was predicted and what has happened. For Iraq and the entire region and here in the UK, France, US, Belgium etc. That's why you're an idiot.

 

Brief rundown of major points.

• failure to challenge intelligence
• legal basis of war was “far from satisfactory”
• backed george bush ‘whatever happened’
• invasion of iraq was not a “last resort”
• undermined the united nations security council
• post-invasion planning was “wholly inadequate”
• failure to predict post-invasion problems
• ignored warnings it would increase terrorism in uk
• “overestimated ability to affect u.s. decisions”
• invasion of iraq “failed to achieve objectives”