And another thing…

I thought the previous enquiries were very specific, (and limited), in their remits ?

Isn’t this one, (the one we were told could not start until the Iraq War was over), the first and only one to examine the reasons and circumstances around why we went to war ?

Am sympathetic to this argument… but I thought it was patronising when all the eurosceptics said Ireland was having to ‘vote again to get the right answer’ on their Lisbon referendum. Does that make me a hypocrite?

As Chilcot has made clear his committee doesn’t expect to give an opinion on the legality of 2nd Iraq War – so far as that concept has much meaning – the green ink frothing, swivel eyes obsessives will have that as a fallback screech.

I suspect that many suffer a psychopathology which predisposes them to guilt, a sort of liberal syndrome. Unable to face their own lives they live out their guilt by absolute association with our country’s unfortunately necessary wars.

As Mike White points out on the Guardinid one rarely meets such cases in real life, even in the sort of circles he moves in, just they engage their hatreds and shame on the net, particularly on threads like this.

Perhaps, Tom, you are keeping them from wrecking vengence on bus shelters etc? How palliative do you suppose your blog is for them>

I hear what you’re saying Tom, and I have some, limited sympathy. A significant number of people clearly believe that previous enquiries were either, deliberately given too narrow a remit or, in the case of the Hutton fiasco, a whitewash.

Basically, until there is an enquiry where evidence is given under oath, and held as much as possible in public, people won’t be satisfied.

Presumably, for “whitewash” read “conclusion I disagreed with”.

@Richard. Why’s it patronising? It was true.

In the words of Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission:

“They must go on voting until they get it right.”

How about we have just one enquiry which has the basic information ?

a) the terms of reference are not so limited as to make it pointless eg Hutton

b) under oath

Why should anyone trust you ? You lied about the weapons of Mass destruction (Butler confirmed this.) An enquiry should expect liars to continue to lie.

“acted in good faith”, eh?

Cherie Booth has admitted that for Tony Blair it was 51:49 in favour of going to war but that he then convinced everyone it was 70:30 all along (see http://itn.co.uk/a3632c3ea505a99f7d94ce8eefb4a1ab.html).

She is quoted as saying Blair was “adept at seeming certain of a decision, even when he knew the arguments were finely balanced”.

This is what people are complaining about when they say “we were lied to”. He told us (and you, Tom) he was absolutely certain we needed to go to war when he was not.

@Quietzapple “As Chilcot has made clear his committee doesn’t expect to give an opinion on the legality of 2nd Iraq War – so far as that concept has much meaning – the green ink frothing, swivel eyes obsessives will have that as a fallback screech.”

The Attourney General gave his opinion in September 2002 that going to war for regime change was illegal, so I assume the concept of an illegal war must have some meaning.

Maybe just play it with a straight bat the first time and all will be well.

People won’t be happy for as long as crippled processes with favourable chairs are the norm.

Have a proper enquiry and have closure.
Slowly but surely the chickens are coming home to roost. All that dissemination catches up with you.

Another post another bout of ad hominem from Quietzapple.

I blame Jesus for the Iraq war. He told Bush and Blair to do it (as they’ve already conceded), and like true gullible bible-basher Xians, they went along with it. Why Jesus would want to kill quite so many Iraqis is beyond me though (given his pacifist PR and all).
So I say we should be very wary of religious politicians, whose decisions are “informed” by Jesus.

Yeah but, Tom, Hutton *was* a whitewash. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you’ll be able to deal with it, draw a line under it, and move on.

Next, and you must excuse me while I snigger here, you’ll be telling us that you believe that when someone said to The Prime Ministers’ Prime Minister, The Messiah’s Messiah, the words ‘40 minutes’ it took him 18 months to ask, ‘Now would that be battlefield munitions or long range weapons of mass destruction you’re talking about?’

Butler did not decide that HMG lied about the WMDs. But many lie about Butler, Hutton etc, pity they cannot sue.

Whatever Any lawyer gives as an opinion is obvious subject to change, especially when his opinion is based on advice of those more expert in the relevant field than he. And it was clear the UK did not go to war for regime change, however likely that was to be another consequence of our actions.

In a like manner Barroso’s throwaway line is just that. He may tell you he is a lark rising, makes no difference to the facts of the matter.

@Stephen

While Jesus may have come across as a pacifist, He is not. It suited His purpose at the time.

God (and therefore Jesus) has in the past told the nation to go to war etc so your argument about Him being a pacifist is just wrong.

While I could give you reasons why He would want to, this is not the place.

However, we SHOULD be wary of “religious politicians”. Heck, we should just be wary of ALL politicians!!

@Tom,

If this is another inquiry similar in scope to the previous, then yes, it should not happen. If the previous ones were not good enough, then we should be asking why this one wasn’t done first…

@Stephen O’Donnell

Jesus was not to blame for the Iraq war. As man, he was taken in by the faulty intelligence. As God, he allowed mankind free will.

When this government wanted to hold it in secret you know there is much to hide. Non of the evidence will bo on oath so there is no comeback if someone lies.

We will never find out the truth as there is so much to lose by certain high ranking people.

The war was wrong we all know that so it will never be justified.

Its about time you faced up to the truth Tom.

It would have been better to delay this until after the election, when any inquiry could have some semblance of independence. Perhaps the most telling thing about this is that they did not delay it, which strikes me as a damage limitation exercise. So no, I probably wont accept this as closure.

The facts remain, Tom. The United Kingdom was complicit in waging war for regime change, predicated upon criteria which, at the very least, was faulty, and at the worst was a pack of lies.

I can understand your reticence about this; after all, you voted for a war which involved the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. And in the light of the truth, obvious to all, that we were mislead, that there were no WMDs capable of being deployed and, as Robin Cook himself said of the PM’s position:

“I find it difficult to reconcile what I knew and what I am sure the prime minister knew at the time we had the vote”

At no time was the security of the United Kingdom, or its dependencies, or its allies were under threat.

This was a political war, it was a war that contributed to the emasculation of the UN, it was a war that created international tension, particularly with Muslims and it was engaged in so that this failing nation of ours could grandstand with a failing superpower. The legitimate reasons, if any, could be applied to any number of oppressive regimes around the world. It just so happened that the United States of America arbitrarily declared Iraq to be their enemy, and according to their own doctrine, that was enough.

SIMON >> The Attourney General gave his opinion in September 2002 that going to war for regime change was illegal, so I assume the concept of an illegal war must have some meaning.

So, other plausible evidence was found, just as a murderer may not convicted on hearsay but when other evidence comes to light. A majority of the public and legislators accepted the case.

Time to move on. I wish the Iraqis all the best.

JULIAN >> Cherie Booth has admitted that for Tony Blair it was 51:49 in favour of going to war but that he then convinced everyone it was 70:30 all along

So that makes him an excellent orator. No-one had to believe him.

‘AS THE fifth inquiry into Iraq kicks off, I wonder how many opponents (or indeed, supporters) of the war will be prepared to change their minds as a result of its conclusions?’

Obviously not a lot. If you believe the Labour Party pockled 6000 votes in Springburn through postal fraud, or you are a ‘Birther’ who believes Obama is not an American, then no amount of enquiries will change your fevered mind, and same here.

Didn’t know about that Cherie Booth interview Julian but my conclusion would be that Blair is as economical with the truth with his wife as he is with the rest of us.

He liked taking Britain to war and this was the biggest opportunity to drop in his lap.

You didn’t have a problem with ‘Wrong answer – try again’ when it was applied by the EU to the Irish referendum on Lisbon, did you Tom?

Really, Shaun? When did I say that?

Most Labour people dismissed the Scott enquiry as a whitewash if memory serves. So it can’t shock you that much if that happens with this enquiry.

Alec: “So that makes him an excellent orator. No-one had to believe him.”

When praising Blair for being a great orator it’s probably worth reviewing what he actually said (whilst bearing in mind what the intelligence evidence actually was). Following the statement from Butler that the intelligence was “very thin” Blair’s actual comments look decidedly iffy (and that’s being incredibly polite).

10 April 2002, House of Commons

“Saddam Hussein’s regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked.

“He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also.”

24 September 2002, House of Commons

“It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability…”

25 February 2003, House of Commons

“The intelligence is clear: (Saddam) continues to believe his WMD programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression.

“The biological agents we believe Iraq can produce include anthrax, botulinum, toxin, aflatoxin and ricin. All eventually result in excruciatingly painful death.”

11 March 2003, MTV debate

“If we don’t act now, then we will go back to what has happened before and then of course the whole thing begins again and he carries on developing these weapons and these are dangerous weapons, particularly if they fall into the hands of terrorists who we know want to use these weapons if they can get them.”

18 March 2003, House of Commons

“We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years-contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence-Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.”

4 June 2003, House of Commons

“There are literally thousands of sites. As I was told in Iraq, information is coming in the entire time, but it is only now that the Iraq survey group has been put together that a dedicated team of people, which includes former UN inspectors, scientists and experts, will be able to go in and do the job properly.

“As I have said throughout, I have no doubt that they will find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.”

@Alec, “So, other plausible evidence was found”

I think the word you might have been looking for is “concocted”.

We shall see. One result already – it has already been confirmed that regime change was the name of the game, hence the charge of making “aggressive war” still stands.

There were a couple of reasons for holding most of the Inquiry in private:

1 matters of national security, or which raise issues which might lead to prosecutions (if any) would not require special hearings.
(Be quite clear that, if americans are going to testify they will make rather more clear in private)

2 the whole matter would not make endless and pointless news and propaganda 24/7/365 as the matter proceeds, rather be a big one off news item and disposed of in most minds in a simpler fashion.

3 it would have been cheaper

4 Chilcot & co would most likely have more witnesses prepared to tell more esp from the USA. And the objective is supposed to be the truth, not an ongoing political entertainment for the green ink brigade . . . .

I suspect that Iraq will be slowly reduced to the shadowy world occupied by UFO fanatics, 911 conspiracy theorists and Elvis spotters.

Which is a pity for such an important topic, but there is just no reasoning with some people.

You can show them every single document that exists. You can invent a mind reading device and use it on every one involved.

Still they will complain of a cover-up.

“The United Kingdom was complicit in waging war for regime change, predicated upon criteria which, at the very least, was faulty, and at the worst was a pack of lies.”

Apart from the inevitable deaths of British soldiers, is this actually morally worse than waging economic sanctions for regime change?

Is there not an argument to be made that even at 100,000 civilian deaths war is still elss damaging to the people of the country than a generation of economic sanctions leading to starvation, poverty, famine and a ruthless regime?

I’m not pushing an agenda here, just calling out the moral cowards who refuse to acknowledge the human implications of economic sanctions, the ones who say Saddam was evil but were not prepared to go to war to remove him.

There are only two morally consistent approaches:
1. Trade with the country so the poor do not suffer disproportionately (but not for weapons) and call for the people to rise up against their leader, but offer no support to them.
2. Use sanctions of any form: economic to make the people so angry they rise up; or espionage/military to remove the leadership.

To pick and choose between these two approaches is disingenuous at best, moral cowardice at worst.

IanVisits
You can show them every single document that exists. You can invent a mind reading device and use it on every one involved.
*****************************************

Or even… gasp… make all witnesses testify under oath.

As *we* are always being told – if you’ve nothing to hide you’ve nothing to fear.

Quietzapple

Well we know where you stand. Hide the truth behind closed doors and protect the Labour government. Well tough.

@paul Was patronising cos if they want to change their minds cos of changed circumstances, who is anyone else to stop them and tell them they are being fooled or hoodwinked or pressured or taken for idiots? the second result is no more illegitimate than the first one.

@10:00

No Tom, it was a whitewash. The conclusion bore no relation to the evidence and data surfaced during the enquiry.

An interesting debate on this was on R4’s Today, this morning, with Michael Howard and Charlie Falconer. You can listen it, scroll down the page to 8.10 and the relevant clip is there http://bit.ly/3kzO9f

Then read this summing up of Howard and Falconer’s encounter http://bit.ly/4SVJHi

Note for Quietzapple: Do make sure you have dinner before listening, as you may not be able to face dinner if you listen first.

@ Quietzapple

You forgot the last point.

5) Would not, at best, embarrass the government and at worst, open up possible prosecutions to past prime ministers, advisers, ministers and civil servants.

The Howard & Falconer link above in full, the essence of which is, when people lie, they are liars, unless, that is, they happen to be Tony Blair.

Falconer disgraced the high office he held, held for us, not Blair.
—————————————

Two of our most prominent lawyers-turned-politician were wheeled out on this morning’s Today programme to debate the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War.

Michael Howard presented the case for the prosecution, while Lord Falconer (Tony Blair’s one-time flatmate as well as a former Lord Chancellor) led for the defence. The crucial part of their exchanges related to the way Blair presented “evidence” of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction to Parliament. When Lord Butler’s committee investigated this aspect of the war, Blair seized on its report as a complete vindication of his assertion that he had not misled Parliament or the country.

Blair told the Commons the Butler report showed everyone had acted in good faith: “No one lied. No one made up the intelligence. That issue of good faith should now be at an end.” Falconer parroted that claim this morning: “At all times the Government acted in good faith. Butler came to that conclusion”. At which point came Michael Howard’s knock-out punch. The former Tory leader reminded us that Blair had told the Commons the intelligence relating to Saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction had been “detailed, extensive and authoritative”. Yet Butler had concluded it was “limited, sporadic and patchy”. In other words, Blair translated “limited, sporadic and patchy” into “detailed, extensive and authoritative” in his desperation to persuade Parliament to back the war.

Good faith, Charlie? You must be joking.

@quietzapple
There were a couple of reasons for holding most of the Inquiry in private:

If it was held in secret, as originally proposed it would be a waste of money.

We, the public, and especially those who fought have a right to know what they fought for, who benefited, who lied, who obfuscated etc.

You may prefer a world of trusting politicians, I don’t.

Paul, since you quoted me at the top of your comment I suppose I had better answer your question, which is a very pertinent one.

“Is there not an argument to be made that even at 100,000 civilian deaths war is still elss damaging to the people of the country than a generation of economic sanctions leading to starvation, poverty, famine and a ruthless regime?”

Nelson Mandela would disagree with you.

The argument would seem to be that, however appalling the effects of sanctions, ultimately it wears down the powers that be.

I have a slightly different take on this. World trade is supra national and supra democratic. Trying to pin the selling of apples and oranges on some kind of political agenda doesn’t amount to the hill of beans. By all means, if Marks and Spencer wanted to open a shop in Harare we should take a dim view, but the real problems come when we are doing back door deals with regimes like Saudi Arabia over arms and ammo.

In other words, we could look again at the ethical foreign policy, advocated by Robin Cook, that was oh so quietly dumped by this moral-free New Labour government.

Chris’ Wills;

If the Inquiry was held in private we’d need to trust those conducting it, not the politicians, or other witnesses.

Your distrust seems to be poorly aimed in every way, just senseless.

You should examine “Hue and Cry” which might suit your disposition rather than an Inquiry.

Interesting, mind, to see Friends of the Popinjay’s Popinjay – Tom Harris, Foulkes, and Keith Vaz – moving very quickly into full ‘nothing to see here move on’ mode.

Unfortunately (for them) I think we’ll find there’s plenty to see here.

Looks like the trusties of the assylum will be in chattering in their pen again . . .

If the committee decides that the Iraq war was illegal, that Blair lied and is proven to be a war criminal, that it was an Anglo American conspiracy to capture Iraqi oil and that the intelligence services were in league with Alistair Campbell to cover up the murder of David Kelly, will it still have been set up specifically and deliberately to be a whitewash?

Only asking.

Here’s the lowdown on the committee.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/11/iraq_inquiry_th.html

You can tell it’s going to be a whitewash when you employ people with big brushes and pots of whitewash Tom!

The evidence for Saddam’s chemical weapons and so forth was “extensive, detailed and authoritative” – he had used them.

QZ,

Years before. And quite possible supplied via Rumsfeld. The past is another country.

Oh and by the way, a far greater authority than you or me thinks the war illegal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/6669634/Iraq-inquiry-war-not-legitimate-Sir-Jeremy-Greenstock-tells-inquiry.html

Still, imagine the relief you will have when you can stop banging your head against the wall!

Oh and by the way, asylum has ONE “s”.

@Sergeant Plodder

Sir Jeremy did indeed tell the Comitteee that the war was illegitimate.

He then added, however, that it was, in his view, legal.

A common confusion. Legitimacy and legality are not the same.

In neither case was he saying that it was right.

Sir Jeremy didn’t say the war was illegitimate while I was listening.

He said it might be so viewed, because of the failure to bring enough countries in support of it in time, and because in his view (which I very much doubt) Britons did not support its declaration sufficiently.

But the truth will take a decade to dinn into most heads, after all the disinformation tory and lefty trolls have spouted these past 6 years.

Why lie Plodder? Because you can copy a lie from somewherelse?

Particularly notable that Sir Jeremy agrees with me that there may still be, or have been at the time of the invasion, WMD/materials in the desert somewhere.