# Chilcot Iraq Enquiry.



## weltweit (Nov 24, 2009)

Starts taking evidence today. 
Initially takes evidence on pre war period.

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 24, 2009)

Listened to Radio 5 for a bit in the car whilst driving (phone-in). Sounded like the pre-war speil with the same lies being repeated as fact over and over without challenging them. Load of shite.

Anyhow, nobody is going to be convicted of war crimes, so there's no point in it, is there?


----------



## bemused (Nov 24, 2009)

Waste of money.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 24, 2009)

Apolitical - not a court of law, no one is on trial, cannot determine guilt or innocence, but final report will not shy of criticising individuals where necessary.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 24, 2009)

it's going to be a complete whitewash.

i am struggling to get angry at it i think it's that much of a foregone conclusion


----------



## elbows (Nov 24, 2009)

I dont expect it to be a complete whitewash, a partial one no doubt, but along the way some details will emerge that may be interesting.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 24, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Apolitical - not a court of law, no one is on trial, cannot determine guilt or innocence, but final report will not shy of criticising individuals where necessary.



Well, it is political. No getting around that. And somehow I think there may be a touch of shying - even given that the people conducting it are the establishment anyway.

We might get a few "ooh that was harsh" moments where they say things that everybody already knew anyway.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 25, 2009)

It needn't be a whitewash. The Butler Enq. actually wasn't. He just couched the truth politely and no one took him up on what was presented to push towards the war crimes trials that are the only conclusion approaching acceptable.

I expect this will be similar - more evidence that Blair, Straw and others should be at The Hague but no actual realisation of it. A nation of cowards, which is why the banks and politicians get away with rippiing us off left, right and centre.


----------



## elbows (Nov 25, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I expect this will be similar - more evidence that Blair, Straw and others should be at The Hague but no actual realisation of it. A nation of cowards, which is why the banks and politicians get away with rippiing us off left, right and centre.



Insert Madonna quote about 'wanting to be like Gandhi or John Lennon but dont want to be killed' here.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 25, 2009)

bemused said:


> Waste of money.



Ditto. I would prefer if they'd spend the money that will be inquiry will cost to build a couple of new schools in remote areas in Iraq.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 26, 2009)

Ideally.... 

Blair found guilty
He runs off to the USA to try and escape prosecution 
British troops are pulled out of Afghanistan in defiance of the USA 
Blair's British citizenship is revoked 
The Belgravia Squatters move into his Connaught Square house
The Tony Blair Faith Foundation is closed down 
Oddly the Middle East advise the world they no longer require an envoy 
Blair sleeps on George Bush's couch and George walks in on him getting his tops and fingers off Jenna Bush with Cheney wanking in the corner one morning
The world laughs 

Not justice per se but a cheery outcome


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 26, 2009)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rth-WMD-risk-list-inquiry-hears.html#comments

This is how disgusting Labour are : Even the Mail can rip them to bits.


----------



## glenquagmire (Nov 26, 2009)

Grrrrrrrrrrr ANGRY


----------



## likesfish (Nov 26, 2009)

should be able to nail him   No good good reason to go to war.
                                    crap planning for said war that we would have lost if the iraqi could fight.
  complete lack of planning for what happens after war.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2009)

It's not there to 'nail him' Brown has repeatedly emphasized that the Inquiry cannot "apportion blame or consider issues of civil or criminal liability." and there is no intention to attempt to do so. The stated intention is to uncover "lessons learned" i.e how they can better get away with this sort of deception in the future or make sure that the same/similar aims are more effectively met The only way anyone will be 'nailed' is by critical independent research of the new documents made public. 

Going back to Butler, it was a white-wash - and one of the White-washers was...John Chilcot.


----------



## elbows (Nov 26, 2009)

There have already been some memorable quotes from the enquiry:



> Referring to a subsequent conversation he had with a leading US government official about Saddam Hussein, Sir Christopher added: "I didn't say just we are with you on regime change, now let's go get the bastard. We didn't do that. What we said 'let's do it cleverly and let's do it with some skill'. That means, apart from anything else, go the UN and get a security council resolution."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8380139.stm


----------



## weltweit (Nov 26, 2009)

11 months before the war Blair and Bush may have agreed on "regime change" in private meetings at the Crawford ranch.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> It's not there to 'nail him' Brown has repeatedly emphasized that the Inquiry cannot "apportion blame or consider issues of civil or criminal liability." and there is no intention to attempt to do so. The stated intention is to uncover "lessons learned" i.e how they can better get away with this sort of deception in the future or make sure that the same/similar aims are more effectively met The only way anyone will be 'nailed' is by critical independent research of the new documents made public.
> 
> Going back to Butler, it was a white-wash - and one of the White-washers was...John Chilcot.



Exactly - it bollocks. Its designed to bury the whole bloody mess. The furthest it will go will be to say somthing like  

"systamaitc faliures in the relationship between the intelligence services and the government and 'mistakes' in how that information was used - that mistakes were made in the execution of the war and its aftermath - that reasons for going to war were confused"-

It will not say  the what everyone knows anyway - that Blair deliberately misled the country in order wage an illegal, unjustified  war that was about control of Iraqs oil resources and gaining a military presence in a strategically vital  region of the world. And that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and made the UK a prime target for radical islamists.


----------



## bemused (Nov 26, 2009)

little_legs said:


> Ditto. I would prefer if they'd spend the money that will be inquiry will cost to build a couple of new schools in remote areas in Iraq.



Would be better spent there at least. None of these enquiries has ever produced anything worthwhile.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> The only way anyone will be 'nailed' is by critical independent research of the new documents made public.



I was just going to post something about how this is the only good that could come out of it - the occasional detail revealed that can be used in some other way.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 26, 2009)

....as the facade of democracy wears thin.....


----------



## weltweit (Nov 26, 2009)

I have a nasty suspicion that all the truly revealing documents will have long since been shredded.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 26, 2009)

Well, would anyone be at all surprised if it turned out to be another whitewash?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 27, 2009)

I would be very dissapointed if it turned out to be another whitewash.

But if it does not put Blair in the dock I will not be very surprised, he is after all, teflon coated!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 27, 2009)

The only solution is to kill Blair. 

What? Not legal you say?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I would be very dissapointed if it turned out to be another whitewash.
> 
> But if it does not put Blair in the dock I will not be very surprised, he is after all, teflon coated!



It's not putting _anyone_ in the dock. It can't.


----------



## elbows (Nov 27, 2009)

It would probably be more useful if all those people who were in favour of the war had not completely melted away once no WMD were found. I wasnt on U75 at the time but on another forum the change was shocking, the drooling warmongers who had shouted so loud were suddenly nowhere to be found.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 27, 2009)

Unless the Law of Unexpected Consequences kicks in with something pretty dramatic, it struck me this is effectively going to be the Trial of Tony Blair - actually as close as we'll ever get to a trial: To borrow from Harriet Harman 'In the court of public opinion . . .' It is implicitly all about (b) Blair, and (c) the UK's subservience to US foreign policy.

It's also interesting to note the initial tone set by Whitehall mandarins.

Imo, the conclusions have to be a whitewash, but the process itself might be enough to reconfigure UK policy in relation to USA foreign policy goals. Fingers crossed though for the unexpected.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 27, 2009)

London Calling

I think it looks the way you describe, but if that happens i.e even more evidence of Blair's guilt but a whitewash conclusion, it will just stick it even more in people's face that criminal governments get clean away with it. They must assume we are too docile to act, just like over the banks.


----------



## elbows (Nov 27, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Imo, the conclusions have to be a whitewash, but the process itself might be enough to reconfigure UK policy in relation to USA foreign policy goals. Fingers crossed though for the unexpected.



That may be a tall order considering the underlying reasons why we are subservient to the USA havent really changed. And US policy has changed style anyway, with the Obama years being about restoring credibility and doing things in a style that happens to be far more compatible with European sentiments anyway.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 27, 2009)

Yes, but i suspect the public perception of the relationship is in the process of changing; what was once unquestioned by many because it fell under the banner of 'special relationship' may now be seen more for what it actually is.


----------



## elbows (Nov 27, 2009)

I dont know about that. I think a good chunk of the population were already fairly aware of what the special relationship actually meant, long before Bush rubbed it in. The cold war ended and the generation that may have been grateful to the US for its support in World War 2 are reaching the end of their lives. But at the same time the mindset of some that Britain is a great empire looks like its going to take more than a century to erode down to insignificant levels. Ad there is still the great split in people who recognise that we have to suck up to other powers to remain relevant and weighty on the world stage, the split being between those who want to be in bed with the rest of europe and those who prefer the USA as bedfellows. Maybe the tories will get their knickers in a twist over that one assuming they get into power, or maybe the world has moved beyond this somewhat as the likes of China get a seat at the main tables of power, and the world tries to get through environmental and energy woes without blowing itself to bits.


----------



## elbows (Nov 30, 2009)

Now we get confirmation that Bush mentioned Iraq to Tony 3 days after the 9/11 attacks. Nothing surprising but its good to have quotes about it on the record.


----------



## TAE (Jan 26, 2010)

This is about to start ... you should be able to watch it on this page: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/ (yes the video stream is on the site's front page!)



> A Foreign Office legal adviser who quit in protest at the decision to go to war in Iraq is due to give evidence at the inquiry into the conflict.
> 
> Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned because she thought the invasion was illegal.


 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8479996.stm

This is the first witness I'm actually interested in, because it'll be interesting to hear an expert insider's view who is not towing the 'war was legal' line.



EDIT:

It seems Sir Michael Wood  and David Brummell will be giving evidence first!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7000929.ece

Elizabeth Wilmshurst be giving evidence from 14.00 – 15.30


----------



## TAE (Jan 26, 2010)

Sir Michael Wood: Invasion of Iraq flouted international law


----------



## Limejuice (Jan 29, 2010)

Blair giving evidence now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7927039.stm


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2010)

Blair has been deeply condescending thus far, and it seems to be annoying the panel.  He just explained to them what the Intifada was.


----------



## Limejuice (Jan 29, 2010)

agricola said:


> Blair has been deeply condescending thus far, and it seems to be annoying the panel.  He just explained to them what the Intifada was.




I agree.

Plus he's all over the shop, stumbling, inarticulate and cliche-ridden. At one point they had to ask him to slow down for the stenographers because he was gabbling so fast. Sometimes he seem to be treating the panel like an audience at a party conference. Vacuous and empty.

As a game, try to count the number of times he says: I'd just like to make this point because I think it's very important. 

I'm up to a couple of dozen so far.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 29, 2010)

He is making a lot of the so called '9/11' .  He also went on quite a bit about his relationship with Clinton and how he Blair persuaded Clinton to get involved in Kosovo despite about his hesitancy to get involved militarily in Europe.  It seems to me that Blair considers that in return for support from America at that time then Blair and the UK owed America a favour.

I notice also that when talking about one of his meeting with George W Bush Blair mentioned that there were Israelis present.  He also mentioned the Israelis several times after that again and spoke about the wider Middle East and its issues and relations with Muslims there.

Using 9/11 as cover just isn't good enough.  Saddam had nothing to do with it, or with Al Qaida - he was opposed to them.


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2010)

Blair is being made to look like the deeply shifty con artist that he is.  That bit from Freedman (i think) over 45 minutes (where Blair tried to claim it wasnt important because it wasnt mentioned in Parliamentary questions) was wonderful.


----------



## Limejuice (Jan 29, 2010)

Seems to be allergic to giving a straight answer.

They keep having to pull him back to the point.


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2010)

Did Blair just claim that, if he believes something beyond doubt, then it must in fact be beyond doubt for everyone else?


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2010)

William Hague is now being cited as providing justification for war.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 29, 2010)

agricola said:


> Did Blair just claim that, if he believes something beyond doubt, then it must in fact be beyond doubt for everyone else?



Yes, he's said that before, Armando Iannucci mentioned that last night, arguibng that Blair is totally refuting the whole idea and notion empirical research is based on over the past 3000 years.


----------



## Limejuice (Jan 29, 2010)

agricola said:


> William Hague is now being cited as providing justification for war.


One of the inquiry members just told him very politely that political statements made by opposition politicians may not be rock solid evidence.


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2010)

After listening to that monologue about risk (which basically boiled down to any potential risk is a justification for regime change), I suddenly have a modicum of respect for Gordon Brown - his forcing Blair out of office is by far his greatest contribution to politics.  

Oh, and his claim that he was right because the Cabinet (controlled by him) and Parliament (controlled by the Labour Party, which was controlled by him) agreed with him is one of the great self-justifications of our times.


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2010)

New heights of absurdity reached, as Blair claims that Saddam retained "full intent" and - most delightfully of all - "intellectual capability" to proceed with a WMD programme!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 29, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Using 9/11 as cover just isn't good enough.  Saddam had nothing to do with it, or with Al Qaida - he was opposed to them.


Sorry, I'm not watching – can't bear to – but did anyone pull him up on this? It's basic bloody stuff.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 29, 2010)

Good line by John Pinnear outside the QEII hall: "There's an angry mob outside here, and that's just the media"


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, I'm not watching – can't bear to – but did anyone pull him up on this? It's basic bloody stuff.



Yes.  It is getting quite interesting now, Freedman (whose Official History of the Falklands War is very good btw) is slowly dismantling Blair's argument in a very clever albeit very dull way.  The point that Blix's report - which was being cited by Blair as proof - actually demolished the 45 minute claim (by showing that the missiles involved had been got rid of) is not one I have heard made before.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 29, 2010)

I have it on now.


----------



## sabatical (Jan 29, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Yes, he's said that before, Armando Iannucci mentioned that last night, arguibng that Blair is totally refuting the whole idea and notion empirical research is based on over the past 3000 years.



Not really, he's justifying the metaphysical view, which goes back longer, as in the 'flat earth theory', in which he also implicitly believes, as its in his religious script.

And his belief in the 'inquisition' as being a progressive structure, as in 'rendition', secret prisons', kidnapping for the holy cause', Guantanamo, Bagram, holding children hostage for good behaviour of their parents, letting then go in exchange for other members of the family, denying physical proof as being in opposition to his belief in his god.
And such belief things.

No wonder the New Labour Party made him their first Prime minister, and as yet their only elected one [ Old labour Party R.I.P.].

But essentially he's no different from the mass of the British New Labour Party [B.N.L.P.] members, most surely the ones who were originally members of the Old Party, the ones who destroyed it, they all live in 'belief' land, it used to be called Utopia.
He was just a good and well trained lawyer, being double mouthed is part of the training, how else can they represent a client/s when they know full well that they are guilty as charged, and often they know more that could bring their client/s even longer sentences.
How many Lawyers are part of/have been the B.N.L.P.s cabinet ?

Its become so bad the shock wave is now deeply undermining the legal profession throughout the British Isles, soon the members of the profession will be openly wondering who it was that let of the 'seismic bomb', that's shaking their ground apart.

The Americans have one as well now ! ! ! ! ! !. See, British inventiveness works .....
.


----------



## Zeppo (Jan 29, 2010)

I'd just like to make this point because I think it's very important. In fact it is fundamental and beyond doubt. Tony Blair is so engulfed by his false belief that he really does believe he did the right thing.

Chilcott should just say this is a supreme farce, no matter what questions we put to Tony, we will get deception and lies.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 29, 2010)

Today the 250th dead soldier returned from Afghanistan.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 29, 2010)

Zeppo said:


> I'd just like to make this point because I think it's very important. In fact it is fundamental and beyond doubt. Tony Blair is so engulfed by his false belief that he really does believe he did the right thing.
> 
> Chilcott should just say this is a supreme farce, no matter what questions we put to Tony, we will get deception and lies.


He can't very well say he has sought forgiveness from his Catholic god, which is what he really believes.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 29, 2010)

Good point on BBC news.

Tony Blair has not answered any of the (tepid) questions put before him, he has instead asked questions himself, hypothetical questions about what the world would hypothetically be like if we had not gone to war.

What a fucking sham.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 29, 2010)

On BBC news, they just showed a short segment about the protests, which ended up on a very short close up shot of a muslim woman licking her lips.


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2010)

Dillinger4 said:


> Good point on BBC news.
> 
> Tony Blair has not answered any of the (tepid) questions put before him, he has instead asked questions himself, hypothetical questions about what the world would hypothetically be like if we had not gone to war.
> 
> What a fucking sham.



As I said on the other thread, this inquiry should not be judged on the questions being asked now (though I should point out that "tepid questions" or not, they have managed to make Blair and his arguments appear even more absurd than he does normally), it should be judged on what conclusions they come to.


----------



## Mitre10 (Jan 29, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Good line by John Pinnear outside the QEII hall: "There's an angry mob outside here, and that's just the media"


----------



## Limejuice (Jan 29, 2010)

Seems that over lunch someone told him to keep it short, answer the question and stop show-boating.


----------



## sabatical (Jan 29, 2010)

agricola said:


> As I said on the other thread, this inquiry should not be judged on the questions being asked now (though I should point out that "tepid questions" or not, they have managed to make Blair and his arguments appear even more absurd than he does normally), it should be judged on what conclusions they come to.



The above quote makes the point clear.

But lets take a more general look as well, its not just Blair, but all of those who voted to invade Iraq, and not just those in Parliament, B.N.L.P. and Conservative M.P.s, but also the Party branches.

The Members of the British New Labour party [B.N.L.P.], who were members prior to 1997 when the 'New entity' was announced, are also the ones responsible for the finishing of the old party.
There was little rebellion in the 'new party', against the decision for invasion of another  country, lets not pretend that they did not know that large numbers of the population would be killed, especially the children, women and the old, all civilians.
In fact almost all who died in the first year were civilians, as the Iraq army had disbanded.

A demonstration is taking place at the moment outside the building, but where can we ask are the representatives of the 'B.N.L.P.s branches, where are their banners ?
Why are they all hiding in the darkness ?
The demonstrators say Blair has blood on his hands, but don't the branch members also bear a responsibility, are not their hands also covered in blood ?
The B.N.L.P. councillors in town and city councils all over the country ?
And the same for the Conservatives.

We now again have elections coming, local and national, and again we have a crop of the 'loonie left', [it was the last generation of loonie lefts that helped found the new labour party.] this time they are proposing standing candidates for the General election, and in constituencies where they don't have a candidate, they propose calling for a 'labour vote'.

So why in any constituency where they do stand a candidate should any vote for them, why not just vote B.N.L.P. ?

To call for a 'labour' vote in such constituencies is to 'endorse' the party as if its a genuine working class party, they may as well endorse the Conservative and Lib Dems as well.

A question of concern for all electors, '' is the candidate capable of being an M.P. ? ''

It costs money to register a candidate for a general election, but not for local elections, so why not stand even more people in the local elections and by pass the general election, except for any outstanding candidate ?
And when working in the wards, call upon the local 'New Labour Party branches to break free and constitute themselves as separate and autonomous entities.
With a longer term view of becoming founding elements of a new working class party.
It may not happen during the election process, but if the B.N.L.P. lose, then the party is mainly finished, it will have enormous debts, the less people campaign for them, the more it will cost.
But the election period will provide a sound basis for intervention, for time to call for the branches to change their position, if 'new labour' lose, many branches will fold anyway.
So really, its up to the more rational based groups, those who want to stand candidates in a serious manner, to use the election for training new councilors, if elected, in opposition to the loonies, who are just again attempting to lead the working class in the wrong direction.
They may just as well lead the workers down the garden path to play with the fairies.


----------



## sabatical (Jan 29, 2010)

Limejuice said:


> Seems that over lunch someone told him to keep it short, answer the question and stop show-boating.



That's astounding, considering he arrived two hours early, so they could all work out the 'script' for the day.
Hopefully someone will 'reveal' what took place in that two hours prior to start.

I don't think its so much as 'showboating' as that he's re-read  all the old documents and is simply repeating all the old propaganda, but time has passed.

Trouble with the flat earth theory, it doesn't allow for time, its two dimensional.


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2010)

The inanity continues:




			
				Blair said:
			
		

> "Its not that we didnt plan (for post-war Iraq), but that what we planned for was dealt with, and then we found a new set of realities"


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 29, 2010)

i was astounded at that arrant nonsense on preplanning assumptions and the reality. shameless bollocks.


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i was astounded at that arrant nonsense on preplanning assumptions and the reality. shameless bollocks.



It does kind of sum up the idiocy of his general argument though.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 29, 2010)

so the only unexpected problems were (1) a lack of a functioning iraqi civil service and (2) al qaeda (or "aq" as blair put it) and iran's influence....


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> so the only unexpected problems were (1) a lack of a functioning iraqi civil service and (2) al qaeda (or "aq" as blair put it) and iran's influence....



Which noone could have forseen.  Except Tony of course, but noone got back to him.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 29, 2010)

agricola said:


> Which noone could have forseen.  Except Tony of course, but noone got back to him.


andrew gilligan completely rubbished his answer earlier on (unsurprisingly).


----------



## TAE (Jan 29, 2010)

Has he been asked about his statement in early 2003 that Saddam could stay in power if he gave up his WMD, and how that can be squared with the whole "if we had done nothing Saddam would still be in power" argument he keeps making?


----------



## weltweit (Jan 29, 2010)

I only watched about half an hour of the mornings questionning but I thought Blair looked a bit under pressure, he looked more nervous than I remember him usually looking.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 29, 2010)

Saddam threatened the world apparently


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 29, 2010)

The Chilcot panel are fucking hopeless. 

I've seen Beauty pagent contestants get more of a grilling. 

Which  - of course - is exaclty why these muppets were chosen.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 30, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> The Chilcot panel are fucking hopeless.
> 
> I've seen Beauty pagent contestants get more of a grilling.
> 
> Which  - of course - is exaclty why these muppets were chosen.



Oh I don't know, I watched about half an hour of Blair questionning and the two protagonists were doing quite well, they covered quite an area and got Blair talking well. 

I am not such a fan of this make a statement and then ask if it was true line of questionning which they seemed to do quite a bit. I prefer a direct and open question .... 

What do I know!!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 30, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Oh I don't know, I watched about half an hour of Blair questionning and the two protagonists were doing quite well, they covered quite an area and got Blair talking well.
> 
> I am not such a fan of this make a statement and then ask if it was true line of questionning which they seemed to do quite a bit. I prefer a direct and open question ....
> 
> What do I know!!



Fucking nothing.


----------



## little_legs (Jan 30, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> The Chilcot panel are fucking hopeless.
> 
> I've seen Beauty pagent contestants get more of a grilling.
> 
> Which  - of course - is exaclty why these muppets were chosen.



Hear, hear. The Independent op ed on Fri had this piece, *Armando Iannucci: It's time for Chilcot's team to flex their ageing muscles*, mocking Chilcot panel: 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/armando-iannucci-its-time-for-chilcots-team-to-flex-their-ageing-muscles-1882560.html


----------



## agricola (Jan 30, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> The Chilcot panel are fucking hopeless.
> 
> I've seen Beauty pagent contestants get more of a grilling.
> 
> Which  - of course - is exaclty why these muppets were chosen.



I think the proof of whether or not Chilcot has been a success will have to wait until the final report - I mean, for all the criticism of the questioning, they did get Blair to talk himself into some demonstrably absurd corners.  The discussion about pre-war planning was especially revealing in this regard, as was the "2010 question" that Blair introduced.  

For all that we would have liked to see a reenactment of _A Few Good Men_, sometimes its best to let a guilty man talk.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 30, 2010)

What do you think is going to be in the final report, Agricola? what are your best and worst scenarios?


----------



## weltweit (Jan 30, 2010)

Dillinger4 said:


> Fucking nothing.



So what style of interrogation do you think should have been used for Blair, or were you happy with what was done today?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 30, 2010)

I think they should have interrogated his neck with a magnum.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 30, 2010)

It is a bit strange that he said he had no regrets. 

I mean what about a small regret at the number of civilians that were killed, it would not have hurt him to have expressed some regret at that. Seems pretty merciless not to have any regrets.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 30, 2010)

You don't need a tribunal to know he is an enemy of humanity.


----------



## agricola (Jan 30, 2010)

Dillinger4 said:


> What do you think is going to be in the final report, Agricola? what are your best and worst scenarios?



That we went to war based on a demonstrably wrong (or better yet, false) premise, that the people in charge were incompetent, that it went against all legal advice, that the planning (at almost every level) that took part was either useless, or irrelevant, or incompetent, and that changes desperately need to be made to prevent one person's "firm belief" from overriding reality.

I would say that, based on Blair's testimony today, they should be able to do that.


----------



## little_legs (Jan 30, 2010)

Dillinger4 said:


> I think they should have interrogated his neck with a magnum.





weltweit said:


> It is a bit strange that he said he had no regrets.



I've never seen anyone so arrogant about invading another country, with the exception of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. What's more disgusting is how these people claim to be people of faith. Are we then to think that Blair's priest has told him: go with piece, my son, you are a good man? WTF!!!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 30, 2010)

OK. 

Lets imagine that your scenario happens (I don't think it will really).

what then? 

A slap on the wrist? Bad Blair?


----------



## agricola (Jan 30, 2010)

Dillinger4 said:


> OK.
> 
> Lets imagine that your scenario happens (I don't think it will really).
> 
> ...



At a guess, probably someone bringing a private prosecution, followed by him fleeing to the US.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 30, 2010)

little_legs said:


> I've never seen anyone so arrogant about invading another country, with the exception of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. What's more disgusting is how these people claim to be people of faith. Are we then to think that Blair's priest has told him: go with piece, my son, you are a good man? WTF!!!



I didn't see all of his evidence, did he once indicate regret of any kind at the loss of life? (on all sides).


----------



## little_legs (Jan 30, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I didn't see all of his evidence, did he once indicate regret of any kind at the loss of life? (on all sides).



he was arrogant all along, except for the very beginning. his hands were shaking when he was opening the bottle of water. he came to the hearing with his body guard. he was probably expecting eggs/custard to be chucked at him in the first 5 min. he made comments about iran too, saying how dangerous this country is. he should join american neo-cons, idiot.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 30, 2010)

Newsnight.

His Fern Britton moment (featured) expresses his real motives for going to war.

Then there was his bunkum on 9/11. Why an attack on Iraq as a result of 9/11? A lot of if's in his statements on this.

Reading a biography of Blair some years ago two things stand out - a good actor at Oxford and someone wanting to be on a stage, any stage.

I would hazard a guess that Blair, despite his acting skills and statements to the contrary, has very deep regrets.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 5, 2010)

So, Gordon Brown has been in front of the Chillcott enquiry today. 

he has apparently said: 

1) The decision to go into Iraq was right and taken for the right reasons.

2) The budget for defence was never restricted, the army was never denied anything they requested! 

Does anyone believe him?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 8, 2010)

Lord Guthrie has claimed Brown did not tell the truth in front of the Chillcott enquiry. 

Specifically he does not agree that no demands from the Army were turned down. 

The defence secretary has said that Guthrie has issues with Gordon Brown.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 8, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Lord Guthrie has claimed Brown did not tell the truth in front of the Chillcott enquiry.
> 
> Specifically he does not agree that no demands from the Army were turned down.
> 
> The defence secretary has said that Guthrie has issues with Gordon Brown.


Rawnsley's book make's clear that Blair was too scared to ask him about this, telling a general or someone to go and speak to Brown direct if he wanted to ask for £'s, and the military man pointing out that this was fundamentally Blair's role but being unable to persuade him otherwise. 

so he hasn't lied as much as told the truth about his understanding of a specific scenario (allbeit, repeated apparently at regular intervals) rather than a thought-through strategy, which is what politics is about essentially as far as nu-lab is concerned it seems.

so he didn't refuse them, cos they were unable or unwilling to make direct demands to him, so he didn't turn anybody down.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 8, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Rawnsley's book make's clear that Blair was too scared to ask him about this, telling a general or someone to go and speak to Brown direct if he wanted to ask for £'s, and the military man pointing out that this was fundamentally Blair's role but being unable to persuade him otherwise.
> 
> so he hasn't lied as much as told the truth about his understanding of a specific scenario (allbeit, repeated apparently at regular intervals) rather than a thought-through strategy, which is what politics is about essentially as far as nu-lab is concerned it seems.
> 
> so he didn't refuse them, cos they were unable or unwilling to make direct demands to him, so he didn't turn anybody down.



That is certainly interesting. 

But did the forces not get things they needed while Brown was Chancellor? Perhaps that is a better question which Brown might not find so easy to evade? it seems they did not, especially if we are to believe the stories of squaddies buying their own body armour etc ..


----------



## gosub (Dec 8, 2010)

Blair, Straw, Goldsmith et al recalled


----------



## likesfish (Dec 9, 2010)

personally I think enhanced interrogation methods should be used


----------



## weltweit (Jan 21, 2011)

At Blair's second appearance, he said he "profoundly regretted the loss of life" .... 

Is that an apology?


----------



## weltweit (Jan 21, 2011)

And he used his second appearance to emphasise that Iran must be dealt with, if necessary with force!


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 22, 2011)

I'd pretty much call that unrepentant.  They should keep him longer...every day probably costs him money on the high end speaking circuit.


----------



## hipipol (Jan 22, 2011)

The mans deranged
Straight to Broadmore I think


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 22, 2011)

A bit embarrassing really..still spouting that same old shit.  In a way he was the definition of the emperor with no clothes.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 24, 2011)

weltweit said:


> So, Gordon Brown has been in front of the Chillcott enquiry today.
> 
> he has apparently said:
> 
> ...


 
Oh come off it.Logistics for the war were shite mainly because Brown wouldn't release funds and Hoon wouldn't buy stuff early enough for it too be ready for the war.As they didn't want anyone to know they had already decided to have it.If your going to fight a war and it really should be the last option do it properly or not at all.
  This was a war we didn't have to fight and it was planned badly and the aftermath was even worse.


----------



## gosub (Jan 24, 2011)

if you read Bob Woodward's State of Denial, US State dept and UK Overseas Development did quite a bit of planning on what to do after the invasion, (which in itself seemed to go quite smoothly) Rumsfeld binned it just before the invasion. Which given the reasoning for UK involvement -to help steer US lead future development meant we failed before we started. Hopefully that will come out. Stuff about Saddam still being there brutalising his own people if we hadn't gone in IS COMPLETE BOLLOCKS -3 US divisions beyond UK control would have gone in anyway and done the job in about the same time frame. The media should haul them up on that. It was always about our relationship with the US and the UN. 
As to the legality, I think it highly unlikely that the British establishment will put a report in print that potentialy makes things harder for the poor bastards who actually went over there and did the job. Nuremberg trials showed "only following orders" is no real defense. So out of respect to the duty of care to the troops Blair will get away with it


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 24, 2011)

weltweit said:


> 1) The decision to go into Iraq was right and taken for the right reasons.
> 
> 2) The budget for defence was never restricted, the army was never denied anything they requested!
> 
> Does anyone believe him?


 
Ha what a load of bollocks, 1 is such shite I think nobody seriously believes it anymore and 2!!!!!! they may not have denied any requests but due to the fucked up procurement system they had at the time, by the time equipment was received the ones who requested it were on their way back to the UK. I had desert combats and boots there only because I went out and bought them myself, the system apparently got better with time but only after it was even obvious to the fuckwit with his hand on the pursestrings that it wasn't working.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 24, 2011)

Fuchs66 said:


> ..... I had desert combats and boots there only because I went out and bought them myself, .......


 
Yes, I had heard quite a lot of soldiers had to do that... 

Blair and Brown and funding the military eh !!


----------



## weltweit (Jan 20, 2015)

Taking their time it seems.

Now not going to be published until after the election.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 20, 2015)

weltweit said:


> ..Blair and Brown and funding the military eh !!



my 'desert boots' melted in the, umm... desert. i rolled off the start line wearing Merrell trainers. i had body armour, but not the HV plates that stop bullets, and i didn't have a desert pattern helmet cover - so my dark green kevlar helmet got spray painted. i looked like a fucking journo. or the Iraqi Army...

you've probably heard of 'Urgent Operational Requirement' - its a quick way of buying stuff you identify you need. you have to make a case to MOD, they either accept it or bin it (there was a time limit for decisions, different limit for different types of kit, but some of them went through in days), but if they accept it they hit the shops with the HM Treasury credit card - no tendering process, no endless studies, no penny pinching at all. just straight to the suppliers and 'i need X, the company that can give it me in Y weeks gets the money..'.

anyway, you'll hear Blair and Brown say - apparently with some pride - that every UOR that was approved by MOD was funded by HMT, no quibbles, no 'fucking how much?!!!' - well, there's a story behind that. like the furore over the availability of Helicopters, the truth is rather less clear cut than either would like their biographers to write about: we were given everything we asked for, however we were _ordered_ not to ask for certain things because it would be embarrassing that we didn't already have them, or because Brown refused to stump up the cash and St. Tone refused to over-rule him.

i would _genuinely_ like to see his head on a stick outside the Tower of London and all his wealth subject to an Act of Attainder.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 20, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Taking their time it seems.
> 
> Now not going to be published until after the election.



 (at them that is)

am i being over-cynical?

i'm now wondering what there is that could embarrass the tories.  i'd have thought it would suit them fairly well to get it out before the election...


----------



## weltweit (Jan 20, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> .. i'm now wondering what there is that could embarrass the tories.  i'd have thought it would suit them fairly well to get it out before the election...


Yes it is an interesting thing to think about, I would have thought Blair et al would have more to fear.


----------



## gosub (Jan 21, 2015)

Its not political per say, its process.  All involved got sent a draft and quite a few people have rung their lawyers from what I've read.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 21, 2015)

gosub said:


> Its not political per say, its process.  All involved got sent a draft and quite a few people have rung their lawyers from what I've read.



 Unfortunately British gun laws do not allow the lawyers to suggest the glass of brandy and the revolver in the library solution.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jan 21, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> Unfortunately British gun laws do not allow the lawyers to suggest the glass of brandy and the revolver in the library solution.



Residency in Jerusalem seems to be the modern version.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 21, 2015)

I have heard bleats from Blair a few times today claiming it is not him that is delaying publication of the report. Smoke & fire ..


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 21, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I have heard bleats from Blair a few times today claiming it is not him that is delaying publication of the report. Smoke & fire ..


I doubt he is, none of the big parties have any interest in stirring memories of that disgraceful time.  It would only help the parties who were against the Iraq war, in the upcoming election.


----------



## gosub (Jan 21, 2015)

I'd guess at Straw from the testimony I remember


----------



## kebabking (Jan 21, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I have heard bleats from Blair a few times today claiming it is not him that is delaying publication of the report. Smoke & fire ..



Blair might be the designated villain for this farce, but there's lots of people who will be heavily criticised in this report - and most of them can afford lawyers for long enough to kick this into long enough grass that no one will care what the report says when it eventually surfaces.


----------



## bemused (Jan 22, 2015)

I thought this was a waste of money when they announced it and the fact is seems people who gave evidence can delay it being published indefinitely hasn't really changed my mind.


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 22, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I have heard bleats from Blair a few times today claiming it is not him that is delaying publication of the report. Smoke & fire ..


If Bliar hadn't taken us into that war we wouldn't need an enquiry now. Of course it's your fault you muppet.


----------



## BandWagon (Jun 14, 2015)

There was a report in the DM (yes, I know) that the report may be delayed for another year.


----------



## BandWagon (Aug 13, 2015)

So now the victims' relatives are threatening legal action because of the delay in issuing the report.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 26, 2015)

Getting to be a bit of a joke now. The Maxwellisation process began years ago, what on earth can be delaying the report now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Getting to be a bit of a joke now. The Maxwellisation process began years ago, what on earth can be delaying the report now?


they've lost it and can't bring themselves to admit it.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 26, 2015)

Wow, Chilcott.  Now, theres a blast from the past.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 26, 2015)

Dog ate it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I have heard bleats from Blair a few times today claiming it is not him that is delaying publication of the report. Smoke & fire ..


----------



## weltweit (Aug 26, 2015)

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-08-26/...-over-iraq-inquiry-but-determined-to-be-fair/


> ...
> Sir John said that the Inquiry expected to soon receive the last responses from those criticised in the report, the so-called 'Maxwellisation' process.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 26, 2015)

Iraq Inquiry: Chilcot Statement In Full
http://news.sky.com/story/1542095/iraq-inquiry-chilcot-statement-in-full


> Sir John Chilcot makes a statement responding to criticism of how long the Iraq War Inquiry has taken.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 25, 2015)

After Only 12 Years... Blair Apologises For Iraq War 'Mistakes'


----------



## weltweit (Oct 25, 2015)

teqniq said:


> After Only 12 Years... Blair Apologises For Iraq War 'Mistakes'


Didn't expect that. I wonder who he thinks he is apologising to?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Didn't expect that. I wonder who he thinks he is apologising to?


Himself, for ever letting an enquiry begin.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 25, 2015)

It still bugs me that I spelled Chilcot wrong in the thread title, so long ago, but by the time I had realised it was too late to modify the title!


----------



## teqniq (Oct 25, 2015)

weltweit said:


> It still bugs me that I spelled Chilcot wrong in the thread title, so long ago, but by the time I had realised it was too late to modify the title!



Lol yeah when I searched for it to post the above link initially I couldn't find it because of the spelling. You can change the title using the 'Thread tools' button in the top right of the page


----------



## weltweit (Oct 25, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Lol yeah when I searched for it to post the above link initially I couldn't find it because of the spelling. You can change the title using the 'Thread tools' button in the top right of the page


Only for a time, then that option no longer appears.

All I am permitted now is to start a poll.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 26, 2015)

teqniq said:


> After Only 12 Years... Blair Apologises For Iraq War 'Mistakes'


You joined in a war which didn't, need to be fought, planned and supplied it badly ,the aftermath was even worse. Sorry does not cut it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 26, 2015)

He's just trying to tone down the criticism of him that he's already seen in the report. 

The report will not state that he agreed to war long before EMDs or dodgy dossiers came about, those materialised to justify his decision. The report should state that he agreed to war to remove Saddam and lied to come up with a semi-legal basis for the war. Of course if the report did state that the door would be open for his prosecution for war crimes, but those laws only apply to black or swarthy folk and not to permataned people.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2015)

Iraq Inquiry published 'in June or July 2016' Sir John Chilcot says - BBC News

Blimey, June or July next year. This report has taken longer than WWII!

Did it have to have Maxwellisation?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 29, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Iraq Inquiry published 'in June or July 2016' Sir John Chilcot says - BBC News
> 
> Blimey, June or July next year. This report has taken longer than WWII!
> 
> Did it have to have Maxwellisation?



Two million words!


----------



## mauvais (Oct 29, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Iraq Inquiry published 'in June or July 2016' Sir John Chilcot says - BBC News
> 
> Blimey, June or July next year. This report has taken longer than WWII!


And he never even jumped a fence on a motorbike.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 29, 2015)

Also the actual British role in Iraq took the same time as this inquiry - six years and a month - so he could have _literally _recreated and replayed the entire thing on a real time basis, like Michael Buerk's _999 _meets Jack Bauer's _24 _meets _BBC Parliament_ meets one of those informative 80s videos about kids flying a kite next to a power line. Think of the fucking boxset that would make!

But he didn't did he, the workshy cunt.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 29, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He's just trying to tone down the criticism of him that he's already seen in the report.
> 
> The report will not state that he agreed to war long before EMDs or dodgy dossiers came about, those materialised to justify his decision. The report should state that he agreed to war to remove Saddam and lied to come up with a semi-legal basis for the war. Of course if the report did state that the door would be open for his prosecution for war crimes, but those laws only apply to black or swarthy folk and not to permataned people.



I'm sure for cash we could find some apartheid era south africans for cash who'd swear el tone savior of the middle east was officially swarthy now so the war crime trials are back on


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 29, 2015)

Anyone in need of halloween masks only needs to photocopy recent photographs of Tony Blair's face. He frightens me with his appearance these days, looking really sinister.


----------



## Chilli.s (Oct 29, 2015)

Sir John Chilcot will have been paid about £1230000 for this. Nice work, no wonder it's been dragged out.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2015)

Chilli.s said:


> Sir John Chilcot will have been paid about £1230000 for this. Nice work, no wonder it's been dragged out.


Blimey, I would have done it for half that!


----------



## BandWagon (Oct 29, 2015)

At least there's a time-frame now, if he sticks to it.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 1, 2015)

We don't need to wait for Chilcot, Blair lied to us about Iraq. Here's the evidence.


----------



## BandWagon (Nov 1, 2015)

teqniq said:


> We don't need to wait for Chilcot, Blair lied to us about Iraq. Here's the evidence.


Yes, that was a good article.


----------



## BandWagon (Nov 1, 2015)

The calculation Blair made was probably this: that if, as he assumed, the invasion of Iraq was successful and the aftermath provided a path to stability and democracy, then he would have been lauded. Thatcher had had a successful war and had reaped the benefits so he thought he could have too. The problem was that it was a complete mess, which was something that he didn't expect.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 1, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> The calculation Blair made was probably this: that if, as he assumed, the invasion of Iraq was successful and the aftermath provided a path to stability and democracy, then he would have been lauded. Thatcher had had a successful war and had reaped the benefits so he thought he could have too. The problem was that it was a complete mess, which was something that he didn't expect.


Thatcher's war was a simpler premise, the Argentinians had invaded British soil, she had only two options, roll over and accept it or take action. And as I understand it her military leaders were quite positive about taking action.

Blair had no need to invade Iraq, it did not threaten Britain in any cohesive way, his calculation was much less clear but I think he wanted to remain at the global table playing with the big boys.


----------



## BandWagon (Nov 1, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Thatcher's war was a simpler premise, the Argentinians had invaded British soil, she had only two options, roll over and accept it or take action. And as I understand it her military leaders were quite positive about taking action.
> 
> Blair had no need to invade Iraq, it did not threaten Britain in any cohesive way, his calculation was much less clear but I think he wanted to remain at the global table playing with the big boys.


All true. Still, if the Iraq war had had a good outcome - as he expected - then he would have had a very good result.


----------



## gosub (Nov 1, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> The calculation Blair made was probably this: that if, as he assumed, the invasion of Iraq was successful and the aftermath provided a path to stability and democracy, then he would have been lauded. Thatcher had had a successful war and had reaped the benefits so he thought he could have too. The problem was that it was a complete mess, which was something that he didn't expect.



Well,he could have guessed it was going to be a mess when Rumsfeld threw away the development plans the US State Department and FCO had been working on (which Claire Short resigned over) before the invasion happened, instead he carried on saying it was in the UK interests to be involved as that way we could help shape things.


----------



## Sirena (Nov 1, 2015)

gosub said:


> Well,he could have guessed it was going to be a mess when Rumsfeld threw away the development plans the US State Department and FCO had been working on (which Claire Short resigned over) before the invasion happened, instead he carried on saying it was in the UK interests to be involved as that way we could help shape things.


He should have seen that the plan to dismantle the Iraqi military and police (which he must have known about) would lead only to chaos and destruction.


----------



## gosub (Nov 1, 2015)

Sirena said:


> He should have seen that the plan to dismantle the Iraqi military and police (which he must have known about) would lead only to chaos and destruction.


That was a fuckup decided on by Bremer (and possibly Cheney) after we had boots on the ground


----------



## Sirena (Nov 1, 2015)

gosub said:


> That was a fuckup decided on by Bremer (and possibly Cheney) after we had boots on the ground


Bremer says it was arch-neocon Douglas Feith...

Who disbanded the Iraqi army?


----------



## BandWagon (Nov 2, 2015)

gosub said:


> Well,he could have guessed it was going to be a mess when Rumsfeld threw away the development plans the US State Department and FCO had been working on (which Claire Short resigned over) before the invasion happened, instead he carried on saying it was in the UK interests to be involved as that way we could help shape things.


I think the calculation had been made well before that point, and there was no way he was going to back down. The die was well and truly cast. My point was that had the war had a good outcome with a stable and peaceful Iraq, then many people would have ignored the issues leading up to the conflict starting. Blair probably thought that that was what would happen.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 2, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> I think the calculation had been made well before that point, and there was no way he was going to back down. The die was well and truly cast. My point was that had the war had a good outcome with a stable and peaceful Iraq, then many people would have ignored the issues leading up to the conflict starting. Blair probably thought that that was what would happen.



i think that by the time departments like DFID/FCO and MOD, and his political colleagues, were telling Blair it was going to be a disaster post-war, he was trapped. 

it would, imv, be a very poor analysis that ignored the venality of neo-cons towards they felt had 'betrayed' them. Blair knew - as we all know - that the invasion would have happened regardless of whether the UK had participated, and indeed the US had a plan for dealing with the contingency that UK forces had pulled out on the morning of the invasion. his choices - however much he may have brought them about - were either to continue on a path he knew to be flawed, but with _some_ influence on direction, or to pull out, have no effect on Iraq, and earn the undying emnity of a large proportion of the US administration, upon whose co-operation he relied in a number of critical defence and intelligence spheres.

he trapped himself, with his delusion and hubris, over how much influence he and his allies within the US government had over George Bush. i think he made a choice that he took to be 'the best of a bad bunch', and that the messianic lunacy we see in his every utterance is the defence strategy his mind has constructed to allow him to not be overwhelmed by the catastrophic nature of his mistake in 2001/2002 in not avoiding Iraq with a bodyswerve.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 19, 2016)

Ffs

Government delays publication of Chilcot Report until after referendum



> ...Expected to heavily criticise senior political figures, the inquiry’s chairman Sir John Chilcot said last October that he would hand in the report in the week beginning 18 April.
> 
> Mr Cameron had previously suggested that he wanted to publish the report within two weeks of receiving it.
> 
> But according to The Telegraph, it is feared that public trust in politicians could be significantly eroded by the six-year long inquiry and they do not wish to risk this ahead of the crucial 23 June vote....


----------



## weltweit (Mar 19, 2016)

There will always be convenient reasons to kick it into the long grass, they should just publish it and get it over with!


----------



## teqniq (Mar 19, 2016)

Absolutely, and they wonder about 'public trust in politicians'. Pass the sickbag.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 19, 2016)

Sirena said:


> He should have seen that the plan to dismantle the Iraqi military and police (which he must have known about) would lead only to chaos and destruction.



the iraqi military and police were hardly a quality institution that didn't torture and massacre routinely  even given that dismantling them was the wrong move.


----------



## Ponyutd (May 9, 2016)

Finally out July 6.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2016)

Ponyutd said:


> Finally out July 6.


The longest awaited whitewash in history


----------



## kebabking (May 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> The longest awaited whitewash in history



Ah, but think about the quality of that whitewash...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Ah, but think about the quality of that whitewash...


Poor quality, it's already been seen through


----------



## Mr.Dogg (May 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> The longest awaited whitewash in history



Yep, there is that old saying in Westminster, that when they set up an enquiry they first of all decide what they want the outcome to be and then recruit the people who will deliver that outcome. From the sounds of things a few months ago Claire Short is going to get blasted! (which in a way serves her right for going along with it against her better judgement)


----------



## weltweit (May 9, 2016)

The radio interviewed Jack Straw.
He didn't seem to perturbed about the report coming out.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 9, 2016)

weltweit said:


> The radio interviewed Jack Straw.
> He didn't seem to perturbed about the report coming out.



Of course he didnt. It's a fixed game.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2016)

So, finally the actual report is imminent ..


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 1, 2016)

Apparently its over 2 million words or something, longer than the complete works of shakespeare (and the whole harry potter series)


----------



## gosub (Jul 1, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Apparently its over 2 million words or something, longer than the complete works of shakespeare (and the whole harry potter series)



Tony's theme by the Pixies has 156 words


----------



## weltweit (Jul 2, 2016)

The report will be released on the 6th July 2016.
It has taken longer than the Iraq war itself.
It has taken longer than WW2!

As I understand it, some are being given advanced copies, to enable them to comment at release.

Does anyone know how much in advance they are getting it?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 2, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Apparently its over 2 million words or something, longer than the complete works of shakespeare (and the whole harry potter series)



A couple of words per dead person then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> More than 16 years later the report will be released on the 6th July 2016.
> It has taken longer than the Iraq war itself.
> It has taken longer than WW2!
> 
> ...


Have a read up on Maxwellisation .


----------



## weltweit (Jul 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Have a read up on Maxwellisation .


No, I know parties to the report have been able to see and contribute multiple times, what I was trying to get at was that advance copies of the completed report are being made available so commentators can comment immediately on its release.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2016)

Are they? I can only find the families of dead soldiers being provided a copy two hours before official publication.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 2, 2016)

Perhaps I am mistaken then.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 2, 2016)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 2, 2016)

Looks like the press are already trailering a whitewash.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Looks like the press are already trailering a whitewash.


their complicity in the 45 minute to doom claims being taken seriously is of course in no way affecting how they view things


----------



## weltweit (Jul 2, 2016)

Some of the evidence already available on the chilcot site will be less than enlightening eg:


----------



## weltweit (Jul 2, 2016)

Tony Blair gives evidence in public. Video available.
Oral Evidence: 21 January 2011


----------



## weltweit (Jul 2, 2016)

This is Tony Blair's 26 page statement to the enquiry. Not once does it mention the 45 minute claim that alarmed people so much prior to invasion taking place.
pdf http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/50743/Blair-statement.pdf


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


>




 Warmonger myth vs complex war.

 Anyone who visited Iraq in the first year would realise A  Iraq was no threat to anyone except its own population.
																				   B  The post-war plan was coming apart the CPA meant well ,but, didn't have a clue.
 Not helped by Iraqis developing a habit of telling the guys with guns what they want to hear. The Baath party developing a habit of not only shooting the messenger for bringing bad news but, having his family tortured


----------



## weltweit (Jul 3, 2016)

Outrage as war crimes prosecutors say Tony Blair will not be investigated over Chilcot's Iraq war report – but British soldiers could be

So Blair gets a free pass from the ICC against prosecution, and it seems ministers will see the full report 24 hours before publication on Wednesday.


----------



## Ming (Jul 3, 2016)

I read a piece in The Guardian that Blair might be prosecuted under some dusty old legal thingy which will result in him never being able to hold public office again. Thing is I don't think he ever wants to hold office again. Net result: fuck all. It's a whitewash. If our elected officials can commit the ultimate crime (pre-emptive war) and get away with it why do we bother voting? Just have a 'biggest cunts' competition were they have to take turns lying convincingly and stabbing each other in the back for fun and prizes (control of the military and police mainly).


----------



## weltweit (Jul 3, 2016)

I was looking through the evidence already visible on the Chilcot enquiry website to see if I could find mention of the dodgy dossier or the 45 minutes claim. I searched the 26 odd paged pdf of Blair's statement but couldn't find a mention of it.

On Wednesday the conclusions will be viewable on the site but they will be the length of a middle sized paperback. Good luck anyone who has the inclination to read them but at least they will be freely available online.


----------



## agricola (Jul 3, 2016)

Ming said:


> I read a piece in The Guardian that Blair might be prosecuted under some dusty old legal thingy which will result in him never being able to hold public office again. Thing is I don't think he ever wants to hold office again. Net result: fuck all. It's a whitewash. If our elected officials can commit the ultimate crime (pre-emptive war) and get away with it why do we bother voting? Just have a 'biggest cunts' competition were they have to take turns lying convincingly and stabbing each other in the back for fun and prizes (control of the military and police mainly).



I think they were talking about impeachment, which may leave the accused facing a life sentence (depending on what they impeach him with) - though its hard to see how anyone could see the modern Lords as a Court of Law, especially as many (including the accused) have packed it with their drones in the recent past.   Perhaps they could pretend that, as the Lords judicial functions have almost all ran off to the Supreme Court, that it is there where the Commons should try him (though it seems impeachment was the one thing they didn't specifically transfer)?


----------



## Ming (Jul 3, 2016)

agricola said:


> I think they were talking about impeachment, which may leave the accused facing a life sentence (depending on what they impeach him with) - though its hard to see how anyone could see the modern Lords as a Court of Law, especially as many (including the accused) have packed it with their drones in the recent past.   Perhaps they could pretend that, as the Lords judicial functions have almost all ran off to the Supreme Court, that it is there where the Commons should try him (though it seems impeachment was the one thing they didn't specifically transfer)?


I hope i'm wrong. I'd love to see that bastard convicted.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 4, 2016)

Blair 'really believed' Saddam Hussein had WMDs, Lord Butler says


----------



## weltweit (Jul 4, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Blair 'really believed' Saddam Hussein had WMDs, Lord Butler says


Does that excuse the dodgy dossier?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 4, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Does that excuse the dodgy dossier?


Gawd noes. I think that if there's any truth in the claims that the attempted Corbyn coup was in part fuelled by the impending publication then this is a fallback clutching at straws option.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 5, 2016)

So, who's camping outside Waterstones tonight to get their hands on the goods? Bring £767 (actual price!) and a rucksack full of amphetamines.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2016)

mauvais said:


> So, who's camping outside Waterstones tonight to get their hands on the goods? Bring £767 (actual price!) and a rucksack full of amphetamines.


I'll wait till its on piratebay as an epub thanks. Might hang outside waterstones and do speed anyway, that sounds fun


----------



## mauvais (Jul 5, 2016)

I'm going to wait for the Michael Bay adaptation.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I'll wait till its on piratebay as an epub thanks. Might hang outside waterstones and do speed anyway, that sounds fun


Or go on the offcial site where it's free.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 5, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Blair 'really believed' Saddam Hussein had WMDs, Lord Butler says


The wanker had them in 91 but was effectivly disarmed afterwards.  Saddam may have actually belived him 
he still had an effective arsenal what with his habit of killing people people who gave him bad news.
But anyways it was all battlefield stuff or  realistically undefended kurdish town stuff.
 As shooting it at the US would leave to retaliation in kind and ,opps we don't have any nerve gas left but no worrys we do have some nukes they count as wmds don't they?

Unless Blair was really really stupid a theoritical battlefield capability in iraq is not a threat to the uk. Or even much of a threat to isreal as a scud could just about  hit isreal with a tiny warhead and I mean hit the country of israel rather than an specific part of israel.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 5, 2016)

likesfish said:


> ...Unless Blair was really really stupid a theoritical battlefield capability in iraq is not a threat to the uk. Or even much of a threat to isreal as a scud could just about  hit isreal with a tiny warhead and I mean hit the country of israel rather than an specific part of israel.



IIRC the alleged threat was actually in regard to 'British interests' - which meant Cyprus - i'm not sure anyone in government said '45 minutes from Britain' as that would be silly, Iraq had nothing like the ballistic missile capability required to get to the UK and everyone knew it.

as an aside, i recall getting off a place in Cypus and being required to have my NBC suit and respirator with me at all times - we had at least one alert in the day i was there. sirens, everyone screaming 'gas, gas, gas!' and at least one person trying to decide whether it was better to piss inside the suit and live with the stench of urine, or keep pissing out and take the risk. 

we'll see how it turns out, but wouldn't be remotely surprised if the Byzantine political structures in Iraq all telling porkies to each other played a role - that is, after all, where at least some of our information came from...


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2016)

The politicos will be busy reading, the website will be open again after Chilcot's press conference tomorrow. I expect it to be busy.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2016)

Blair can have believed Iraq had WMD, and still have misled parliament.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 5, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Blair can have believed Iraq had WMD, and still have misled parliament.



Indeed he could argue (though he won't) that he had to mislead parliament because of what he believed (but couldn't prove).

Cheers - Louis Macneice


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2016)

Ming said:


> Just have a 'biggest cunts' competition were they have to take turns lying convincingly and stabbing each other in the back for fun and prizes (control of the military and police mainly).



Yeah, that's already a thing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 5, 2016)




----------



## mauvais (Jul 5, 2016)




----------



## likesfish (Jul 5, 2016)

kebabking said:


> IIRC the alleged threat was actually in regard to 'British interests' - which meant Cyprus - i'm not sure anyone in government said '45 minutes from Britain' as that would be silly, Iraq had nothing like the ballistic missile capability required to get to the UK and everyone knew it.
> 
> as an aside, i recall getting off a place in Cypus and being required to have my NBC suit and respirator with me at all times - we had at least one alert in the day i was there. sirens, everyone screaming 'gas, gas, gas!' and at least one person trying to decide whether it was better to piss inside the suit and live with the stench of urine, or keep pissing out and take the risk.
> 
> we'll see how it turns out, but wouldn't be remotely surprised if the Byzantine political structures in Iraq all telling porkies to each other played a role - that is, after all, where at least some of our information came from...




i was there for that a c130 turned around for some fault because of chinese whispers saying it was comtaminated  que all the raf groundys legging it  as they were in t shirts and shorts  as we struggled into nbcand muggins here being told in no uncertain terms to go talk to the plane not a happy bunny as  I did the long walk although we had nbc kit the filters were all out of date  que crew of hercules fighting over respirators eventually figured out it was a false alarm.
  Also sat through a truly insane brief about a plan to take limmasol airport if a massive nbc attack took out the RAF airbase


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2016)

The background to the Chilcot inquiry


----------



## brogdale (Jul 5, 2016)

Interesting interview on C4 News with former First Sea Lord who had some interesting things to say about the timeline of advanced preparations for war made by the Navy & arms producers. When Jon Snow asked him if he had made these things clear to Chilcot he said that he hadn't...largely because he wasn't asked to give evidence to the inquiry.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Interesting interview on C4 News with former First Sea Lord who had some interesting things to say about the timeline of advanced preparations for war made by the Navy & arms producers. When Jon Snow asked him if he had made these things clear to Chilcot he said that he hadn't...largely because he wasn't asked to give evidence to the inquiry.


What did he say about arms producers preparations?


----------



## Duncan2 (Jul 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Interesting interview on C4 News with former First Sea Lord who had some interesting things to say about the timeline of advanced preparations for war made by the Navy & arms producers. When Jon Snow asked him if he had made these things clear to Chilcot he said that he hadn't...largely because he wasn't asked to give evidence to the inquiry.


I saw that and sort of imagined Chilcot burying his head in his hands ' why didn't I think of asking the First Sea Lord?'


----------



## brogdale (Jul 5, 2016)

weltweit said:


> What did he say about arms producers preparations?


Stuff about how he'd been contacted by a manufacturer (of some sort of missile?), when he'd heard that West was talking to the press, and that said manufacturer had been told by MoD? to get a move on with their product development in order to be ready for the invasion.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Interesting interview on C4 News with former First Sea Lord who had some interesting things to say about the timeline of advanced preparations for war made by the Navy & arms producers. When Jon Snow asked him if he had made these things clear to Chilcot he said that he hadn't...largely because he wasn't asked to give evidence to the inquiry.


He should have just given his evidence by leaving official documents in a park, like all good First Sea Lords.


----------



## Duncan2 (Jul 5, 2016)

He did actually name it I think it was Storm-chaser or similar a bunker-busting bomb required for March?


----------



## mauvais (Jul 5, 2016)

Storm Shadow is a cruise missile that was first used in GW2, so perhaps that? It was being trialled in 2001 though so not clear cut.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 5, 2016)

It's Wednesday here. Where's the bloody report


----------



## mauvais (Jul 5, 2016)

Balbi said:


> It's Wednesday here. Where's the bloody report


No sleep til Chilcot!


----------



## Duncan2 (Jul 5, 2016)

That's the one it was capable of being carried by Tornados.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 5, 2016)

Duncan2 said:


> That's the one it was capable of being carried by Tornados.


Thing is, there's nothing that special about the concept in itself. When you're getting increasingly likely to go to war, but by no means certain, 'urgent operational requirements' would be issued as preparation (and once at war too). The alternative is letting the slow, decades-long process of procurement plod on unchallenged. That's not to say there's not a smoking gun in there, but 'get your missile ready' or whatever isn't in itself particularly special.


----------



## Duncan2 (Jul 5, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Thing is, there's nothing that special about the concept in itself. When you're getting increasingly likely to go to war, but by no means certain, 'urgent operational requirements' would be issued as preparation (and once at war too). The alternative is letting the slow, decades-long process of procurement plod on unchallenged. That's not to say there's not a smoking gun in there, but 'get your missile ready' or whatever isn't in itself particularly special.


Agreed but he mentioned a very senior figure making the request who he declined to name and said he was left in no doubt that the intention was to go in.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2016)

Why are people eager for the report? Has Tom Sawyer a fence needs touching up?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 5, 2016)

I wonder what time the Chilcot report will be issued. Will it be at Midnight tonight so that the papers can get a start on checking it? As it is 4 times the length of War and Peace it will take even experienced journalists a long time to digest. Perhaps some kind of computer software could skim read it.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2016)

11am Wednesday is Chilcot's press conference, after which the website will be open and the conclusions can be read for free. Politicos have had the report since 11am today to get a head start. I don't know about the press.


----------



## BandWagon (Jul 5, 2016)

In reports like that there's usually a summary with the detail behind.


----------



## gosub (Jul 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Interesting interview on C4 News with former First Sea Lord who had some interesting things to say about the timeline of advanced preparations for war made by the Navy & arms producers. When Jon Snow asked him if he had made these things clear to Chilcot he said that he hadn't...largely because he wasn't asked to give evidence to the inquiry.


Remember Paris saying the operational factors of the tanks would be limited by the summer heat


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2016)

Iraq Inquiry: Chilcot says 'careful analysis needed before war' - BBC News


----------



## binka (Jul 5, 2016)

Is anyone here planning on reading the whole report?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 5, 2016)

get a couple of million people and we could all take a word each


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 6, 2016)

weltweit said:


> 11am Wednesday is Chilcot's press conference, after which the website will be open and the conclusions can be read for free. Politicos have had the report since 11am today to get a head start. I don't know about the press.


Yes that is true I have just seen that on the television. The press don't need factual information, they thrive on rumour and speculation. Facts only get in the way of their usual modus operandi.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 6, 2016)

BandWagon said:


> In reports like that there's usually a summary with the detail behind.



That'll still be a fairly long document to read though. 150 pages?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 6, 2016)

weltweit said:


> 11am Wednesday is Chilcot's press conference, after which the website will be open and the conclusions can be read for free. Politicos have had the report since 11am today to get a head start. I don't know about the press.



Press at 8am on the morning of publication. Their ctrl and f keys will be getting it tight.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 6, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> That'll still be a fairly long document to read though. 150 pages?



Well that is about the same length as a short novel. I wonder if it turns out to be a whodunnit. In that case you just need to read the last chapter.


----------



## steveo87 (Jul 6, 2016)

mauvais said:


> So, who's camping outside Waterstones tonight to get their hands on the goods? Bring £767 (actual price!) and a rucksack full of amphetamines.


Worst. Rave. Ever.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 6, 2016)

From BBC

"The report will be published in hard copy in two formats. The full report will consist of 12 volumes and will be 2.6 million words long. Anyone wanting to buy a copy will have to pay £767 and contact The Stationery Office, the private firm which has printed the document. A 150-page executive summary is being published separately. This will cost £30"

I think many of us have already made up our minds about the war regardless of what the report says. However, this is a report on Blair and the UK's involvement? Is it going to say Blair is a war criminal and should be locked up; I doubt it. I have not seen anyone mention what it's implications are for the States ie if the report says the war was illegal as it was not sanctioned by the UN then it was illegal for both us and the States right?


----------



## newbie (Jul 6, 2016)

kebabking said:


> as an aside, i recall getting off a place in Cypus and being required to have my NBC suit and respirator with me at all times - we had at least one alert in the day i was there. sirens, everyone screaming 'gas, gas, gas!' and at least one person trying to decide whether it was better to piss inside the suit and live with the stench of urine, or keep pissing out and take the risk.


There's villages and tourists just outside Alkrotiri, did the people there also have to carry protection?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)

binka said:


> Is anyone here planning on reading the whole report?


No.

And I don't just mean me.  I can confidently predict that nobody here will read the whole report.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> No.
> 
> And I don't just mean me.  I can confidently predict that nobody here will read the whole report.


Some bloody minded bastard will do it now, just to prove you wrong. Won't be me though I'm far to lazy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Some bloody minded bastard will do it now, just to prove you wrong.


Maybe that's what I hoped.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 6, 2016)

newbie said:


> There's villages and tourists just outside Alkrotiri, did the people there also have to carry protection?



you'd have to ask the government of Cyprus...


----------



## newbie (Jul 6, 2016)

kebabking said:


> you'd have to ask the government of Cyprus...


----------



## mauvais (Jul 6, 2016)

steveo87 said:


> Worst. Rave. Ever.


It's a gateway rave though isn't it. If Chilcot knows anything it's where the best minefields are.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

two sheds said:


> get a couple of million people and we could all take a word each


We already have all the words we need, just not necessarily in the right order


----------



## mauvais (Jul 6, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> We already have all the words we need, just not necessarily in the right order


The chant begins: Seven more years! Seven more years!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2016)

When do we get this report?

And what degree a disappointment can we expect in its failure to properly hold those responsible to account? 
Depressingly - Dismally - Predictably - Infuriatingly?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> When do we get this report?


We get this report at just after 11am today.

Only 2.25 hours to go


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> When do we get this report?


11am.



> And what degree a disappointment can we expect in its failure to properly hold those responsible to account?
> Depressingly - Dismally - Predictably - Infuriatingly?


It'll do as expected: go into the minutiae of Whitehall processes.  It has no remit to declare anyone a war criminal, and won't.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> 11am.
> 
> 
> It'll do as expected: go into the minutiae of Whitehall processes.  It has no remit to declare anyone a war criminal, and won't.


On Newsnight they said that the journos 'purdah' will end at the point that Chilcot himself stops speaking at the pressa...so actually more like 11.30am...apparently.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> On Newsnight they said that the journos 'purdah' will end at the point that Chilcot himself stops speaking at the pressa...so actually more like 11.30am...apparently.


I plan to have formed my view by 11.01am, so he'll be talking to himself for 29mins.

I understand he's not taking questions.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> *I plan to have formed my view by 11.01am*, so he'll be talking to himself for 29mins.
> 
> I understand he's not taking questions.


Like that's not already firmly set!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Like that's not already firmly set!


I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong*.


(*About a small set of largely irrelevant technicalities).


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2016)

Wonder if the conclusions will even mention the dodgy dossier?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Wonder if the conclusions will even mention the dodgy dossier?


He forgot to include it and is planning to insert a mention while in the taxi, which is ordered for 10.15. He doesn't expect it to take longer than 45 minutes to finish.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Wonder if the conclusions will even mention the dodgy dossier?


When consulted in the _Maxwellisation _process, the dossier expressed its preference not to feature in the report. So that's it.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2016)

Wonder how long after the inevitable immediate crash, the website will be able to be browsed by ordinary folk like us?

And don't anyone say 45 minutes


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

Bet there'll be quite a lot of _*Cmd +F *_of "Dr David Kelly".


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)

weltweit said:


> And don't anyone say 45 minutes


I said it once, but I think I got away with it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)




----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

> "The main expectation that I have is that it will not be possible in future to engage in a military or indeed a diplomatic endeavour on such a scale and of such gravity without really careful challenge analysis and assessment and collective political judgement being applied to it.



WE WENT TO WAR! HOW WAS THIS NOT THE FUCKING CASE!




danny la rouge said:


>




9 days my arse, your looking at least a couple of weeks if not a month because I'm not doing nothing but read it for 12 hours a day.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Bet there'll be quite a lot of _*Cmd +F *_of "Dr David Kelly".


Yes that poor sod seems to have been forgotten in the last years.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

Serious media outfits will also have to have a team of people going through the stuff surrounding Peter Goldsmith's 'Damascene' conversion from a pronouncement of illegality to full-throttle tally-ho in the space of a couple of weeks.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 6, 2016)

newbie said:


> There's villages and tourists just outside Alkrotiri, did the people there also have to carry protection?



 While in the event of a massive nbc attack we would have to fight through the mutated hordes to seize limassol airport  somebody worked given a scuds range and accuracy saddam would need to fire approx 12000 scuds to be sure to knock out the RAF base rather more than were ever built .
  An air raid would have to get through most of the wests air forces and several US carrier fleets .
  Though the iraqi special forces threat to  RAF mount olympous ( radar base on top of a snow covered mountain) was quite amusing 
   The leaders arnt called dick and clint by any chance?.   
	RAF intelligence dont like if you laugh in their face 


Well for gulf war one  no  they didnt have to on the grounds there wasnt any to be had the only in date stuff was still sealed next door to the chemical casuality clearing station along with the body bags.

  A collection of tents  contaminated casualtiys go in one end through  various showers and come out the other end and get whisked off to hospital also got to learn how to decomtaminate a C130 hey why operate a jetspray in an NBC Suit when theres infantry about they'd only be asleep


----------



## YouSir (Jul 6, 2016)

Odds on it saying no one did anything wrong but they won't do it again so let's all move on, lessons learned, fresh starts, can't live in the past, different now?


----------



## kebabking (Jul 6, 2016)

i'm particularly looking forward to the excoriation of Geoff Hoon (who is known variously as 'Buff', an insult so imperceptable it took him several months to see it, or for brevity, TCH - That Cunt Hoon).

actually i think he's the one far more likely to see the inside of a cell than any of the others - distortion and embellishment aren't really crimes, but negligence is. don't be that surprised if the saintly Clare Short gets it with both barrels either - she might even get malfeasance rather than just negligence...


----------



## YouSir (Jul 6, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i'm particularly looking forward to the excoriation of Geoff Hoon (who is known variously as 'Buff', an insult so imperceptable it took him several months to see it, or for brevity, TCH - That Cunt Hoon).
> 
> actually i think he's the one far more likely to see the inside of a cell than any of the others - distortion and embellishment aren't really crimes, but negligence is. don't be that surprised if the saintly Clare Short gets it with both barrels either - she might even get malfeasance rather than just negligence...



More optimistic than me, get the feeling real blame or responsibility will be thin on the ground. Hopefully wrong though.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 6, 2016)

YouSir said:


> More optimistic than me, get the feeling real blame or responsibility will be thin on the ground. Hopefully wrong though.



i think one of the genuine problems that Chilcott will have in saying who did what is that the nature of government under Blair makes it almost impossible.

not only would there not be a written record, but the participants themselves won't really know anything other _than what they took_ from the meeting.

this is, sadly, not as uncommon as you might wish to hope - a more recent example is the current Carrier programme, 2 ships each weighing more than 60,000 tons: they were originally designed to be changable in operation, but that a decision would have to be made about which avenue to go down some way into the build. 10 years on, none of those involved - the navy, the shipbuilders, the politicians - can agree on not just when that decision was made, but whether it was made at all...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2016)

The intelligence services will be blamed for providing faulty info - so the politicians were misled. 
As opposed to the obvious and well documented reality - which was that the spooks were ordered to find evidence to back up the case for war - no matter how shonky. 

The central scandal of the whole debacle is that Blair wanted to join in with the US invasion of Iraq and employed the entire forces of the state - including the intelligence services - to comprehensively mislead the public and parliament that this was a war of absolute necessity and not of choice. 

Chilcot wont go anywhere near that. As Danny pointed out - it will be a fog of detailed analysis of whitehall process and procedure that will be used to close the issue for good. 

Basically we already know the truth - digging deep into the report  might provide more details that back that up but thats about it. 

For me the real unknown about the Iraq was is why blair was so keen - ego maniacal zeal? a winston churchill complex? a belief that this would be beneficial for the uk? For shit and giggles? Delusion? Does he even really know himself?


----------



## likesfish (Jul 6, 2016)

Tch should be done regardless of morality he's guilty as fuck of not allowing the military to plan for the war till the last moment.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 6, 2016)

Serria leone and kosovo were his gateway wars nice in and out tea and medals a fairly clear cut victory for liberal intervention.
So he thought iraq would be more of the same


----------



## kebabking (Jul 6, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> The intelligence services will be blamed for providing faulty info - so the politicians were misled...



i won't fall off my chair if you're right...

one rumour doing the rounds is that the executive arms - the military, the Int services, DFID - will get the blame, with the politicians being hidden under an impenetrable fog of obfiscation.

its actually going to be easier to do this because the executive arms will do boring things like keep records of who decided what, whereas the politicians just had chats in the corridors.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

> To help Mr Blair, President BUsh agreed to seek a further UN resolution, the second resolution determining that Iraq had failed ot take its final opportunity to comply with its obligations...without evidence of major new Iraqi violations or reports from the inspectors that Iraq was failing to co-operate and they could not carry out their task, most members of the Security Coucnil could not be convinced that peaceful options had been exhausted...Mr Blair and Mr Straw blamed France for the impasse and claimed the UK was acting on behalf of the international community..we consider the *UK was in fact undermining the Security Council's authority.*


----------



## kebabking (Jul 6, 2016)

JIC is getting the blame...


----------



## kebabking (Jul 6, 2016)

Army is getting the blame...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Bet there'll be quite a lot of _*Cmd +F *_of "Dr David Kelly".


Ctrl f on a pc


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

> *Mr Blair* told the inquiry that the difficulties encountered in Iraq after the invasion could not have been known in advance. We do not agree that hindsight is required - *the risk of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, internal instability and al-Qaeda activity were each specifically identified before the invasion."*


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2016)

Crikey. This is all rather more damning than I expected.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> Crikey. This is all rather more damning than I expected.


Yeh. Easy to blame yesterday's men tho


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2016)

So Tony Blair has his shirt off before the name calling had finished ....


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2016)

The website is up again: Iraq Inquiry - Home


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 6, 2016)

It's live

Iraq Inquiry - Home


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

Fucking hell.



> The Govt's preparations failed to take account of the magnitude of the task of stabilising, administering and reconstructing Iraq and the responsibilities likely to fall to the UK. The UK took particular responsibility for four provinces in the south-east. It did so without a formal ministerial decision and without ensuring it had the necessary military and civilian capabilities to discharge its operation, including, crucially, to provide security...Whitehall departments and their ministers failed to put collective weight behind the task. In practice the UK's most consistent strategic objective...was to reduce the level of its deployed forces.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 6, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> So Tony Blair has his shirt off before the name calling had finished ....



What does this mean?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

> *Chilcot says there was no need to go to war in March 2003*


That's it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> Crikey. This is all rather more damning than I expected.


Yeah, I mean it's not like any of this wasn't obvious but I'm surprised by how far the report seems to have gone.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2016)

Only one mention of Dr David Kelly in the Executive Summary.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah, I mean it's not like any of this wasn't obvious but I'm surprised by how far the report seems to have gone.


And is quite upfront about what the report does not/cannot do; with an important suggestion about remedy...


> [the report] has not, in his words, “expressed a view on whether military action [in Iraq] was legal”. *That question, he said, could be resolved only by a court.* Still less does his report deal with the question of whether Tony Blair or others should face legal action.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

Anyone yet found the bit where Corbyn is blamed?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

Fuck off Tony. Fuck off.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2016)

corbs is mentioned 3 times - he does not admit responsibility in any of them.


----------



## treelover (Jul 6, 2016)

amazing how few posts this is getting, one could say urban grew massively due to the interest/activism around the Iraq War.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 6, 2016)

treelover said:


> amazing how few posts this is getting, one could say urban grew massively due to the interest/activism around the Iraq War.



hopefully people are reading the summary - 150 pages of it, detailed and nuanced.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)

treelover said:


> amazing how few posts this is getting


Nobody has read the report. Some of us have listened to Chilcot's summary, but he said nothing we didn't already know. 

OK, so what we already knew has now been said by the establishment and backed up by official documents. But there's nothing new here. Blair has faced it all down before with "I did what I thought was right".

Blair is already reading it in a way that can't be supported by what I heard on my radio.


----------



## treelover (Jul 6, 2016)

> There may be some who will deride the Chilcot report as a whitewash, because it does not contain tabloid-style indictments of Tony Blair or Jack Straw.
> 
> *But in its very British, factual, understated way, its 2.6m words are a devastating critique of Blair and his government - of a failed and unnecessary war that cost countless and mostly civilian Iraqi lives, sent British soldiers to their deaths, destroyed any hope of stability in Iraq and made Britain more vulnerable to terrorism.*
> 
> ...



Pestons Take, pretty devastating.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> corbs is mentioned 3 times - he does not admit responsibility in any of them.


Monster.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

I'm waiting for the idiots guide to Which Are The Good Bits


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)

treelover said:


> Pestons Take, pretty devastating.


Good summary. Do you have a link?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2016)

Lots of mentions of "dossier" in the executive summary.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm waiting for the idiots guide to Which Are The Good Bits




Page 501 - Copy of a Tony Blair 'risque' postcard sent to George Bush with the caption "Let me show you my WMD" written on the back.


----------



## friedaweed (Jul 6, 2016)

Can we burn him now then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

friedaweed said:


> Can we burn him now then?


If you would please


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

Maybe we should all take a chapter each and post up our completely unbiased summaries.


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2016)

I'm too fucking angry to post up anything than a load of random invective. That fucking CUNT Blair.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

Chilcot is pretty unambiguous:



> Mr Blair told the Inquiry that the difficulties encountered in Iraq after the invasion could not have been known in advance. We do not agree that hindsight is required. The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and Al Qaida activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

> 564. Iraq’s statements that it had no weapons or programmes were dismissed as further evidence of a strategy of denial.



The sneaky bastards


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Chilcot is pretty unambiguous:


Yeh tb's cherry-picked a few things which don't cast him in the poorest light ignoring the overwhelming majority the report which appears to damn him


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

> Damning Chilcot report nugget no.94...
> 
> *On 24 January 2003, Mr Blair told President Bush that the biggest risk they faced was internecine fighting, and that delay would allow time for working up more coherent post‑conflict plans.228 630. *
> 
> *Yet when Mr Blair set out the UK’s vision for the future of Iraq in the House of Commons on 18 March 2003, no assessment had been made of whether that vision was achievable, no agreement had been reached with the US on a workable post‑conflict plan, UN authorisation had not yet been secured, and there had been no decision on the UN’s role in post‑conflict Iraq.*


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh tb's cherry-picked a few things which don't cast him in the poorest light ignoring the overwhelming majority the report which appears to damn him



TB economical with the truth? Why who would have guessed?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> TB economical with the truth? Why who would have guessed?


Not just economical, positively parsimonious


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Not just economical, positively parsimonious




"Make do and Mend"


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

So when's he going to make a mad dash for asylum at Grosvenor Square?


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 6, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Blair can have believed Iraq had WMD, and still have misled parliament.


What Bliar was actually told was "Iraq has WD40".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

WouldBe said:


> What Bliar was actually told was "Iraq has WD40".



They probably didn't even have that tbh.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> TB economical with the truth? Why who would have guessed?


----------



## treelover (Jul 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Good summary. Do you have a link?




thats the summary, it doesn't need a link, i took it from FB.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

treelover said:


> thats the summary, it doesn't need a link, i took it from FB.


But do you have a link?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)

treelover said:


> thats the summary, it doesn't need a link, i took it from FB.


I was looking for a link to what you pasted.


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I was looking for a link to what you pasted.


A very British demolition of Britain's Iraq invasion


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

Corbyn is up to bat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I was looking for a link to what you pasted.


I wish you joy of the hunt


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> A very British demolition of Britain's Iraq invasion


Cheers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

so its taken 16 years to pull blair up for being a liar when he's been wearing the flaming pants all along and we all knew it


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Yes, MPs - heckle him, that will go down well with the electorate.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 6, 2016)

Daily Politics not bothering to show either Cameron's or Corbyn's statements. Well done BBC.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Daily Politics not bothering to show either Cameron's or Corbyn's statements. Well done BBC.



BBC site is shit and is getting worse daily. I use www.politicshome.com for my news these days.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Daily Politics not bothering to show either Cameron's or Corbyn's statements. Well done BBC.


BBC News is showing Question time statements in full ..


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Daily Politics not bothering to show either Cameron's or Corbyn's statements. Well done BBC.



Corbyn is on now.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> Yes, MPs - heckle him, that will go down well with the electorate.



alternatively, saying 'ner-ner-na-ner-ner, i was right all along' is hardly edifying...

he hasn't got anything interesting to say, its just his bitter revenge against an old enemy - he seems not to be interested in the failings of the machinery of government, but hey, he's got Blair in his sights. the fact that Blair is long gone is of little importance to Corbyn...


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

Full trial now.




			
				Jeremy Corbyn said:
			
		

> We now know that the House was misled in the run-up to the war and the House must now decide how it should deal with it 13 years later – just as those... *should face up to the consequences of their actions, whatever they may be.*


----------



## newbie (Jul 6, 2016)

it's the speech of a dissident backbencher with a cause, not of a leader


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 6, 2016)

newbie said:


> it's the speech of a dissident backbencher with a cause, not of a leader



This is a joke, right?


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Can't argue with any of that from Corbyn, though it did feel as if he pulled his punches a bit.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

Cameron trying to make out that the invasion of Iraq didn't have much effect on islamic extremism worldwide. All credible evidence suggests the exact opposite.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Cameron trying to make out that the invasion of Iraq didn't have much effect on islamic extremism worldwide. All credible evidence suggests the exact opposite.



"It was there before so nyerrr"

Twat.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

Looks like Gideon's coming down off something in tha background there.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

kebabking said:


> alternatively, saying 'ner-ner-na-ner-ner, i was right all along' is hardly edifying...
> 
> he hasn't got anything interesting to say, its just his bitter revenge against an old enemy - he seems not to be interested in the failings of the machinery of government, but hey, he's got Blair in his sights. the fact that Blair is long gone is of little importance to Corbyn...


nor a generation who grew up with him as leader and had the shocking political awakening that was a blatant fuck you I'm warring it anyway. Not me, I've always been a bit eeyore but tons of people, fuking loads. Don't underestimate how much people loathe the man and the lies.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

Gideons been grinning and mugging throughout and it makes me want to run to Parliament and shake the bastard until his teeth fall out.


----------



## newbie (Jul 6, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> This is a joke, right?


a leader presents a case with weight and meaning, a backbencher with passion and (in his case) truth.  they're not the same.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

kebabking said:


> alternatively, saying 'ner-ner-na-ner-ner, i was right all along' is hardly edifying...
> 
> he hasn't got anything interesting to say, its just his bitter revenge against an old enemy - he seems not to be interested in the failings of the machinery of government, but hey, he's got Blair in his sights. the fact that Blair is long gone is of little importance to Corbyn...



That is because this wasn't a failure of the machinery of government; it was a decision taken consciously and in contradiction of almost all the advice that the government gave the Prime Minister of the time.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

How must those relatives feel now?
Poor fuckers.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

Anyone else find it extremely poor taste to mention the hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths in the same breath as the fourteen-and-a-half British troops who died? If you join the army and invade an almost defenceless third world country and you _still_ manage to get yourself killed, fuck you.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 6, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> BBC site is shit and is getting worse daily. I use www.politicshome.com for my news these days.



interesting, will take a look


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

Cameron trying to bend all this round into a way of getting himself off the hook for the referendum clusterfuck. Classy.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

"Al-Qaeda and Daesh should take responsibility for their actions", says Margaret Beckett


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2016)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Cameron trying to make out that the invasion of Iraq didn't have much effect on islamic extremism worldwide. All credible evidence suggests the exact opposite.


That's odd, because Chilcot notes Blair's own JIC saying:



> 342. The JIC judged in October 2002 that “the greatest terrorist threat in the event of military action against Iraq will come from Al Qaida and other Islamic extremists”; and they would be “pursuing their own agenda”.158


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> So when's he going to make a mad dash for asylum at Grosvenor Square?


Prisoner exchange with Assange. Actually, no scratch that, prosecute both of the cunts.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> That is because this wasn't a failure of the machinery of government; it was a decision taken consciously and in contradiction of almost all the advice that the government gave the Prime Minister of the time.



i disagree absolutely - one of the failures of the the machinery was that that machinery was able to be bypassed by our grinning friend.


----------



## Cid (Jul 6, 2016)

Sum para 20:



> In the Inquiry’s view, the diplomatic options had not at that stage been exhausted.
> Military action was therefore not a last resort.



Para 23:



> Mr Blair asked Parliament to endorse a decision to invade and occupy a sovereign
> nation, without the support of a Security Council resolution explicitly authorising the use
> of force. Parliament endorsed that choice.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Ann Clwyd now valiantly Hodoring for Blair.  "I wish people would ask Iraqis what they think of the invasion", etc


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 6, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone else find it extremely poor taste to mention the hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths in the same breath as the fourteen-and-a-half British troops who died? If you join the army and invade an almost defenceless third world country and you _still_ manage to get yourself killed, fuck you.



Most of those deaths were Iraqis killing other Iraqis.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

Let's clear something up here. The fact that you've 'learned lessons' does not remove your culpability for your crimes. Ordinary criminals cannot escape justice by looking at their shoes and promising not to do it again.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

Might not be the best day for Angela Eagle to launch her leadership bid.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Most of those deaths were Iraqis killing other Iraqis.



Deaths which were predicted before the invasion as an inevitable consequence of military action. All those soldiers still got on the plane.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> Ann Clwyd now valiantly Hodoring for Blair.  "I wish people would ask Iraqis what they think of the invasion", etc



Perhaps we can direct her here?

https://www.quora.com/Is-Iraq-a-better-place-or-worse-to-live-since-the-fall-of-Saddam-Hussein


And from the Mirror



> Life for children in Iraq is now much worse than before Britain invaded to topple Saddam Hussein, according to UK-based charity.
> 
> War Child said that 3.6 million youngsters – one in five of all Iraqi children - are at risk of death, injury, sexual violence, recruitment into fighting and abduction.
> 
> This has increased by 1.3 million in the last 18 months.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Alan Johnson with a powerful intervention* claiming that Chilcott finds no evidence that anyone lied.

* ie: bollocks


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 6, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Deaths which were predicted before the invasion as an inevitable consequence of military action. All those soldiers still got on the plane.



 No they weren't . When we first got there it was all smiles and welcomes and plans were being made for litter patrols and bridge building as there was nothing else for us to do and then it all went slowly to shit.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

Fuck off Hilary Benn


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

They are all coming out to bat for Tony; Hilary Benn just suggested what we need is a UN that is *more likely* to intervene, but obviously some people should pay some lip service to what criticism they can't dissimulate away.


----------



## Cid (Jul 6, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Most of those deaths were Iraqis killing other Iraqis.



Well, possibly:



> The Government’s consideration of the issue of Iraqi civilian casualties was
> driven by its concern to rebut accusations that Coalition Forces were responsible
> for the deaths of large numbers of civilians, and to sustain domestic support for
> operations in Iraq.


----------



## belboid (Jul 6, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> No they weren't . When we first got there it was all smiles and welcomes and plans were being made for litter patrols and bridge building as there was nothing else for us to do and then it all went slowly to shit.


The report clearly says that such a response was highly likely. It went to shit incredibly quickly, never stopped being shit, in fact.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

Joshua Rozenberg on the (slim) chances of Blair facing any kind of legal action:
The Iraq war inquiry has left the door open for Tony Blair to be prosecuted | Joshua Rozenberg
My 100% speculative guesstimate is that he'll never see the inside of a police station, still less a courtroom.  The only thing is that there may well be a desire to let the military bereaved families at least go through some of the hurdles, not to the point where they get their day in court but at least an investigation (perhaps on the malfeasance charge).  There's _just_ a possibility that Blair could be interviewed as part of that (provided his busy schedule allows it, _naturally_), but no chances of actual charges.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 6, 2016)

From summary



> 68.
> On 26 February 2002, Sir Richard Dearlove, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, advised that the US Administration had concluded that containment would not work, was drawing up plans for a military campaign later in the year, and was considering presenting Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum for the return of inspectors while setting the bar “so high that Saddam Hussein would be unable to comply."


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Joshua Rozenberg on the (slim) chances of Blair facing any kind of legal action:
> The Iraq war inquiry has left the door open for Tony Blair to be prosecuted | Joshua Rozenberg
> My 100% speculative guesstimate is that he'll never see the inside of a police station, still less a courtroom.  The only thing is that there may well be a desire to let the military bereaved families at least go through some of the hurdles, not to the point where they get their day in court but at least an investigation (perhaps on the malfeasance charge).  There's _just_ a possibility that Blair could be interviewed as part of that (provided his busy schedule allows it, _naturally_), but no chances of actual charges.



Impeachment more likely than misconduct, I think - on the grounds that a jury would probably convict him, wheras the Lords probably wouldn't.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 6, 2016)

belboid said:


> The report clearly says that such a response was highly likely. It went to shit incredibly quickly, never stopped being shit, in fact.



 Well they obviously kept that little fact to themselves then, don't remember anyone claiming that was going to happen when I went out there. Just before it all went wrong.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Fuck off Hilary Benn


I'm not watching it, but presumably the speaker is completely ignoring/forgetting the fact that Corbyn has an entirely new team of foreign secretary/ministers?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

So far a great many peoples response has been "yeah we fucked up but Saddam was a monster!!"

Thats great but if you'd made the intervention about that, about the prospect of freeing Iraq and gone in with a fucking PLAN we'd all be better off.

You cunts.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I'm not watching it, but presumably the speaker is completely ignoring/forgetting the fact that Corbyn has an entirely new team of foreign secretary/ministers?



Its only the PM and the Leader of the Opposition that respond to these things, he is just going through the more involved MPs in the normal way.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> So far a great many peoples response has been "yeah we fucked up but Saddam was a monster!!"
> 
> Thats great but if you'd made the intervention about that, about the prospect of freeing Iraq and gone in with a fucking PLAN we'd all be better off.
> 
> You cunts.



_"We of course take all of the responsibility we should, but al-Qaeda, Saddam and Corbyn are far more to blame etc etc"_


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> _"We of course take all of the responsibility we should, but al-Qaeda, Saddam and Corbyn are far more to blame etc etc"_


"We'll apologise when they apologise"


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> So far a great many peoples response has been "yeah we fucked up but Saddam was a monster!!"
> 
> Thats great but if you'd made the intervention about that, about the prospect of freeing Iraq and gone in with a fucking PLAN we'd all be better off.
> 
> You cunts.



Lots of talk about accepting responsibility from people doing nothing of the sort.


----------



## belboid (Jul 6, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Well they obviously kept that little fact to themselves then, don't remember anyone claiming that was going to happen when I went out there. Just before it all went wrong.


Well, they didn't tell parliament, or even parts of the Cabinet either, so why should they tell you?  That was one of the problems.  As this report is making adamantly clear.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2016)




----------



## 19force8 (Jul 6, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Well they obviously kept that little fact to themselves then, don't remember anyone claiming that was going to happen when I went out there. Just before it all went wrong.


So what date did you arrive?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> Its only the PM and the Leader of the Opposition that respond to these things, he is just going through the more involved MPs in the normal way.


I was being flippant, but yes, take your point.  Hilary Benn had a role in Iraq reconstruction, so that's why he was called to speak presumably (not as the recently departed shadow foreign sec)?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> "We'll apologise when they apologise"


The apology of Francis Begbie.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

19force8 said:


> So what date did you arrive?



Just before everything went wrong of its own volition, for reasons unrelated to the invasion.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

"We didn't start it", says Pat McFadden.  "Saddam was killing people long before" (or similar)

Really, if Momentum are doing nothing else right now it should be to get all of these speeches bundled together into one little clip, accompanied by captions with statements from the Chilcott report.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 6, 2016)

Really just illustrating how vile they are.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

"This isn't a time for soundbites, but does the PM agree that someone should be feeling the hand of history on his collar" says an NI MP (didn't catch the name)


----------



## YouSir (Jul 6, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Lots of talk about accepting responsibility from people doing nothing of the sort.



_Lessons learned.
_
Never need to specify who learnt them or when.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

This is as bad as the debate in 2009 after they almost all got caught out on their expenses.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

Christ; Blunkett now on R5 saying how he'd do it all again.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

YouSir said:


> _Lessons learned.
> _
> Never need to specify who learnt them or when.


When you plan to murder a million people, make sure you fill the right forms in first.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2016)

Is anyone else shocked by just how poor the response from establishment pro-war MPs has been? I didn't expect contrition but I equally did not expect this level of lying and bravado, it just looks awful to everyone except themselves.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

The Blair show begins!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

not shocked. You have to have a level of self delusion to justify the decision in the first place

the only one who had the honour to resign was cook. I've found his speech thanks to google.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

bigs up blair too much


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

"I am more sorry than you can believe"


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is anyone else shocked by just how poor the response from establishment pro-war MPs has been? I didn't expect contrition but I equally did not expect this level of lying and bravado, it just looks awful to everyone except themselves.




I wish I could say I was but I'm not. Its a time for solidarity within the vermin because if one of them goes down then that leaves them all vulnerable to having to be responsible for their actions.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2016)

Blair is sorry that you are irrationally angry about his aggressive illegal war


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Shoes must have been confiscated from anyone attending this Blair press conference.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> "We didn't start it", says Pat McFadden.  "Saddam was killing people long before" (or similar).



McFadden, yesterday:


----------



## ffsear (Jul 6, 2016)

Glad i didnt vote for that cunt or his party


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

'Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction as the term is understood'

robin cook, ages ago. Mind you he's also bigging up his role in containment so his honour while not tattered still has a stain or three


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

He is talking himself into a prison sentence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

hanging chads and al gore  it's retro as fuck. I'll stop now


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

right, back in the present. Blairs voice has gone well reedy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

squeeze a tear out you fucking fraud


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

It is Saddam's fault now, and IDS's.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> squeeze a tear out you fucking fraud



standing on a bag of onions, blates.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

putins fault, and france THE COWARDS


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> He is talking himself into a prison sentence.


I suspect he's more concerned about the impact all this will have on future directorships and speaking tours.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

"We had full UN authority in June, but in March there was deadlock"

Also the UN was undermined by the UN, not by the US and UK.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Apparently the Inquiry is correct where it agrees with him, but not where it doesn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Christ; Blunkett now on R5 saying how he'd do it all again.


go on then blunkett i dare you


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> Apparently the Inquiry is correct where it agrees with him, but not where it doesn't.


an inconsistent inquiry


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is anyone else shocked by just how poor the response from establishment pro-war MPs has been? I didn't expect contrition but I equally did not expect this level of lying and bravado, it just looks awful to everyone except themselves.


they no longer need to dissemble after all the intervening years and their revelations


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

'I asked the generals if they fancied a war. Guess what?' 


humility. You dick


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> Apparently the Inquiry is correct where it agrees with him, but not where it doesn't.









I had a feeling he might say that


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

Ours is a high and lonely destiny etc


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

history will absolve me


----------



## N_igma (Jul 6, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2016)

Why are all these nominally centre-left people crying all the time these days?


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

He is even contradicting himself now; its a conspiracy theory to suggest that he signed us up to war in April 2002 but he was absolutely committed to them even as far back as Clinton.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Ours is a high and lonely destiny etc


Life is a cabaret, old chum


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Why are all these nominally centre-left people crying all the time these days?



Pollen is overwhelmingly Corbynite.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

'Look, y'know, I'm a straight kinda guy'.  Yes, in a Ted Bundy kinda way, you are.


----------



## dendrite (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> Apparently the Inquiry is correct where it agrees with him, but not where it doesn't.



Dragged in as a revered authority which supports him and then seven seconds later dismissed with total casualness.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

note the new use of 'conspiracy theory' as a riposte to valid crit. All at it these days. There has been a memo


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

Is today the day Blair officially passes Harold Shipman as Britain's most prolific serial killer?


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Still on about WMDs, even quoting approvingly a report that said they didn't exist in any kind of threatening amounts.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> note the new use of 'conspiracy theory' as a riposte to valid crit. All at these days. There has been a memo



My favourite variant these days is the idea that money can influence politics is a conspiracy theory, Goldman Sachs et al just happen to sponsor Progress because well uh it just happens okay, are you going to start banging on about lizards next?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> Pollen is overwhelmingly Corbynite.


Like ricin made out of shredded leather elbow patches and beard dandruff


----------



## belboid (Jul 6, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Is today the day Blair officially passes Harold Shipman as Britain's most prolific serial killer?


he'd be more of a spree killer, than serial

"It was the right thing to do"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

iran. assad, putin, france. Who else is to blame? postman pat?


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

"The US and UK had always rejected the idea of a second resolution", he says.



> Asked directly if he wanted a second resolution, the Prime Minister replied: "Absolutely. I think it's right we go for a second resolution because that's a way of saying this is an issue the international community is not going to duck."


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

Christ Tony's speech is going to be longer than the report at this rate


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

"The nightmare of Syria would be happening now in Iraq, except with the Sunni / Shia inverted"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

history lessons now?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

let me just what if my way out of complicity in the war


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

AQ became ISIS. cheers tone. liar


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 6, 2016)

A few extracts from a truly revolting apologetic by Alaister Campbell

Many mistakes yes, but no lies, no deceit, no secret deals, no ‘sexing up’. And ultimately a matter of leadership and judgement 



> The truth was – and remains, confirmed today – that the so called sexing up of intelligence never happened. The Today programme report that said it had should never have been broadcast, and the BBC should have properly investigated our complaint rather than dismissed it out of hand because it came from Downing Street. Had they done so, David Kelly would almost certainly be alive today...


(...)


> So when the latest murderous ISIS attack in Baghdad happens, a few days ago, with Chilcot looming, the BBC’s Middle East correspondent, Jeremy Bowen, cannot resist adding two and two together and making whatever the number of deaths happens to be. ‘Sectarian war started in the chaos and violence that was unleashed by the American and British invasion of Iraq in 2003,’ he said. ‘Plenty of Iraqis have already made up their minds: that the invasion and occupation pushed them into an agony without an end.’ Plenty of Iraqis, and not merely Kurds and Shias, also remain glad that Saddam Hussein is no more. We just don’t see or hear them too often on British TV stations.


(...)


> I was one of the few people who saw the process of his making the decision close up, virtually round the clock, around the world. Far from seeing someone hellbent on war, I saw someone doing all he could to avoid it. Far from seeing someone undermine the UN, I saw him trying his hardest to make it work. Far from seeing someone cavalier about the consequences of war, I saw someone who agonised about them, and I know he still does, as do all who were there, part of his team.


(...)


> The Chilcot Inquiry panel knows a lot about foreign policy, and about government process. They have been through millions of documents and produced a huge and challenging piece of work. But ultimately, as they recognise, they have never actually had to make the decision they have been examining. Such decisions are the stuff of leadership, which may explain why David Cameron, whose statement I have just listened to as I finish this, seemed to be speaking with considerable sympathy and support for his predecessor. He knows how hard these decisions are. He also knows that there may well be times in the future where we have to put our armed forces in harm’s way once more.



Pass the fucking sick bag.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 6, 2016)

19force8 said:


> So what date did you arrive?


 0ctober 03


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

This is absurd.  He is saying that he will release a study showing that, where there is a likelyhood that islamism may be a problem, that it would be best to not just carry out regime change but to advocate a more gradual process.  

This is after an hour of him saying he was right to do what he did.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

godwins


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

hard and soft power returns


----------



## 8den (Jul 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Christ; Blunkett now on R5 saying how he'd do it all again.



"Regrets I've had a few, just not a disastrous military intervention"


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)




----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

this really is a masterclass in mendacity. He's outright lied about six times by my count


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

_"This is why I spend so much time in the middle east.... why I work for middle east peace"_

Perhaps you should do a little less, Tony.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> this really is a masterclass in mendacity. He's outright lied about six times by my count


surely then a masterclass in how not to lie, as all the best liars never get caught out


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

so will everyone else you cunt


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> _"This is why I spend so much time in the middle east.... why I work for middle east peace"_
> 
> Perhaps you should do a little less, Tony.


if he'd just said 'fair play i hold my hands up to a mistake which seemed like the right thing to do at the time' and left it at that everyone would be bowled over by his belated honesty. but by blathering on he makes it seem that chilcot's pulled his punches.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> surely then a masterclass in how not to lie, as all the best liars never get caught out


this is true. Maybe he used to be good or I used to be more niave


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

I can only hope Oborne is in the audience, gets to ask a question, and has had a good lunch so he is appropriately animated.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

I'm kevin spacey in House of Cards


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> if he'd just said 'fair play i hold my hands up to a mistake which seemed like the right thing to do at the time' and left it at that everyone would be bowled over by his belated honesty. but by blathering on he makes it seem that chilcot's pulled his punches.



That is what he thinks he is doing, yes.  What Chilcot appears to have done (and it was noticeable when they were questioning him) is that they have realized that the best way to expose Blair is to get him to do it, not to challenge him so that he argues the point away.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> "The nightmare of Syria would be happening now in Iraq, except with the Sunni / Shia inverted"



This is like taking the principle of the butterfly effect and shitting all over it.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

Losers have no friends, the Guardian weighs in.

'Tony Blair's epitaph was engraved today'. Our writers' verdicts on the Chilcot report


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

Tony Blair said:
			
		

> *“I can look not just the families of this country but the nation in the eye and say: I did not mislead this country; I made the decision in good faith on the information I had at that time; and I believe it is better that we took that decision.*



Absolute cheek of this man.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Absolute cheek of this man.


i look forward to him coming round, looking me in the eye, telling me that load of auld shit and walking away with a shiner


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

belboid said:


> he'd be more of a spree killer, than serial
> 
> "It was the right thing to do"


Yes, _spree_. It's the point in the detective novel where they start wondering why the killings dried up for a few years - 'could it have been that he left parliament and concentrated on making his millions?'

Actually, it's all consistent. Mass killing and business, the two areas where the psychopathic personality shines.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> this really is a masterclass in mendacity. He's outright lied about six times by my count


The man is a sociopath. He doesn't have a truthful bone in his body.

If he said the sun is shining you have to look up and check


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

What happens when the coating on an old manky frying pan breaks down - Teflon Tony.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

y'know

oh how I've missed the tonyisms. Not


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

look


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> y'know
> 
> oh how I've missed the tonyisms. Not


Hi.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

"I won't accept any criticisms of our Armed Forces"

Said in a press conference that has lasted nearly 90 minutes, where there has been no criticism of our Armed Forces.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

Looking forward to Martin Rowson's visualisation of all this.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

say arab spring one more time motherfucker, I double dare you


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> say arab spring one more time motherfucker, I double dare you



Lessons. Learned.

Time to Move. On.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

... and here Tony is criticizing the armed forces, by implication.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

ah yes. Proffesional soldiers always seem to end up buying their own gear. To many thieves and crooks in the procument process

thats another 'yknow


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Losers have no friends, the Guardian weighs in.
> 
> 'Tony Blair's epitaph was engraved today'. Our writers' verdicts on the Chilcot report



Blair was evil and he ruined Iraqi society and British democracy forever. Also, Jeremy Corbyn is the socurge of everything and must be replaced by an unconvincing Blair clone ASAP.

/guardian


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

profound sympathy


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

> *Blair criticises Chilcot*



You really do have to admire the chutzpah of the man.

No, wait, I think what I actually meant was you have to punch him in the pork chops.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2016)

Remember how after Blair taught in the US for a bit he had that Midatlantic accent? He should have done all this in a Louise Mensch style accent, that would be amazing.


----------



## 8den (Jul 6, 2016)

Blair: "I believe I made the right decision and the world is a better and safer place because of it." 


Which fucking world? Uranus?


----------



## Humberto (Jul 6, 2016)

Fucking stop lying cunt

You were negligent


----------



## Humberto (Jul 6, 2016)

ffs


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 6, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Blair was evil and he ruined Iraqi society and British democracy forever. Also, Jeremy Corbyn is the socurge of everything and must be replaced by an unconvincing Blair clone ASAP.
> 
> /guardian


There was only one catch - and it was Catch-22.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> He is talking himself into a prison sentence.


If fucking only.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

get this man a glass of water

actually don't, its blair, may his thirst go ever unquenched


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 6, 2016)

whos got the Nokia 3210  near the camera


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

blairs deathlike rasp


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

fairness


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

I haven't seen his speech yet, but I'm guessing it could be summed up as "Brass Eye: The Iraq Special"?


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 6, 2016)

i'd forgotten how good Blair was at talking ballocks


2 hours of nothing


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I haven't seen his speech yet, but I'm guessing it could be summed up as "Brass Eye: The Iraq Special"?


minus the lols yeah. One bit when he's feilding post rant questions is a Sun journo asking him a question and for the only time in his existence being able to speak from the moral highground


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

From the BBC site:


> 'Please stop saying I was lying' - Blair


I hope you will all bear than in mind.

(((Straight kinda guys))))


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

Wilf said:


> From the BBC site:
> 
> I hope you will all bear than in mind.
> 
> (((Straight kinda guys))))


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> minus the lols yeah. One bit when he's feilding post rant questions is a Sun journo asking him a question and for the only time in his existence being able to speak from the moral highground


"I may have killed a million people, but what about Cherie, the fare dodger. Nobody asking for her to see the inside of a prison cell is there?"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

Reg laying it down


----------



## teqniq (Jul 6, 2016)

I have refrained from watching any of this thus far, preferring to read the comments here. Also to be kind to my blood pressure.


----------



## Dr. Furface (Jul 6, 2016)

8den said:


> Blair: "I believe I made the right decision and the world is a better and safer place because of it."
> 
> 
> Which fucking world? Uranus?


World of Warcraft


----------



## YouSir (Jul 6, 2016)

Heard most of his nonsense. No real answers, just guilt free self justification and pish. Audible contempt from some journos though, which is nice.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jul 6, 2016)

I was well sick of the 'I did what I thought was right' phrase and their variations several years ago, as if that simply ends the discussion. And now I hear that bleat again. Christ


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

listen to the beeb apologists. 'sense of how lonely power is' you prat


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

> 13m ago16:15
> 
> *Reg Keys says Blair's statement was 'ramblings of a madman'*
> *Reg Keys, *whose son Tom died in Iraq and who stood against Tony Blair in the 2005 election, is responding to Tony Blair now on BBC News.
> ...



Seems a fair summary.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

teqniq said:


> I have refrained from watching any of this thus far, preferring to read the comments here. Also to be kind to my blood pressure.


Me too.  Apart from the fact I'm working (lol), even on the day when it's all laid out to see, I can't get any satisfaction from it knowing there won't be any justice or consequences. Psycho that he is, I can't see blair getting anything less than 8 hours tonight.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 6, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Me too.  Apart from the fact I'm working (lol), even on the day when it's all laid out to see, I can't get any satisfaction from it knowing there won't be any justice or consequences. Psycho that he is, I can't see blair getting anything less than 8 hours tonight.



0 hours, he just stares at himself in the mirror all night while a painting of him in Alastair Campbell's loft grows ever more dessicated.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

Now Goldsmith's trying to hop onboard the exoneration express:



> This was my conclusion after an in-depth study of all the available information.



"In-depth study of all the available information"?

Fuck off Google wanker


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

YouSir said:


> 0 hours, he just stares at himself in the mirror all night while a painting of him in Alastair Campbell's loft grows ever more dessicated.


That's just an Ugly Rumour.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Now Goldsmith's trying to hop onboard the exoneration express:


 He Poops to Conquer?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 6, 2016)

Not sure if it's been mentioned but I seem to recall there was an early day motion when Saddam was gassing the Kurds calling on him to stop and Blair (and Straw) wouldn't sign it on the grounds that he was a strong ruler and it was nothing to do with us. Then much later the gassing became a major reason cited for us to invade.

Eta this: 



> Two early day motions in March 1988 and three more in 1989, 1994 and 1998 deploring the attacks went unsigned by Jack Straw, Tony Blair, John Prescott, David Blunkett and Geoff Hoon.



Reasons to be Fearful | Socialist Review


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

in all of his speech the honest bit was that he's upset and being called a liar by 90% of the country he _served. _Well if you don't want to be called a liar...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

Apols if this has already been posted, but I heard this woman interviewed earlier on R5, and a excoriating account it was.
Sarah O'Connor brands Blair "*The world's worst terrorist".*
Well said.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 6, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Not sure if it's been mentioned but I seem to recall there was an early day motion when Saddam was gassing the Kurds calling on him to stop and Blair (and Straw) wouldn't sign it on the grounds that he was a strong ruler and it was nothing to do with us. Then much later the gassing became a major reason cited for us to invade.
> 
> Eta this:
> 
> ...


Also lest it be forgotten:

Foreign Office ‘did not stop Iraq making chemical weapons’



> The government delayed taking action to prevent Iraq obtaining chemical weapons partially because British exporters were involved in the trade, according to Foreign Office documents.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Apols if this has already been posted, but I heard this woman interviewed earlier on R5, and a excoriating account it was.
> Sarah O'Connor brands Blair "*The world's worst terrorist".*
> Well said.


I was just about to post her remarks - powerful stuff.

More here:

'Blair is world's worst terrorist': families of Iraq war victims react to Chilcot report


----------



## co-op (Jul 6, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Not sure if it's been mentioned but I seem to recall there was an early day motion when Saddam was gassing the Kurds calling on him to stop and Blair (and Straw) wouldn't sign it on the grounds that he was a strong ruler and it was nothing to do with us. Then much later the gassing became a major reason cited for us to invade.
> 
> Eta this:
> 
> ...



To be fair to Blair he was on the Shadow Front Bench by 1984 and Front Benchers are not allowed to sign EDMs. Don't know about the others on that list but it would be true of some of them too.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 6, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Blair was evil and he ruined Iraqi society and British democracy forever. Also, Jeremy Corbyn is the socurge of everything and must be replaced by an unconvincing Blair clone ASAP.
> 
> /guardian



Didn't Thatcher start the steamrollering over opposition? Before her I recall having parliamentary votes where you didn't know how the result would go.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 6, 2016)

co-op said:


> To be fair to Blair he was on the Shadow Front Bench by 1984 and Front Benchers are not allowed to sign EDMs. Don't know about the others on that list but it would be true of some of them too.



Ah ok hadn't seen that reported before, ta.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 6, 2016)

... but co-op can I just pull you up on this: 



co-op said:


> To be fair to Blair


----------



## co-op (Jul 6, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Ah ok hadn't seen that reported before, ta.



I'm assuming it's still the case, I just tried googling it but no results. I used to hassle my exMP about EDMs and that was in one of her responses when she got a front bench post.


----------



## co-op (Jul 6, 2016)

two sheds said:


> ... but co-op can I just pull you up on this:





I know, it was kind of kinky typing that.


----------



## treelover (Jul 6, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone else find it extremely poor taste to mention the hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths in the same breath as the fourteen-and-a-half British troops who died? If you join the army and invade an almost defenceless third world country and you _still_ manage to get yourself killed, fuck you.



Very nice, tell the families of the dead soldiers that

Oh, and it doesn't excluse compassion for the Iraqi civilian dead.


----------



## treelover (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> "We didn't start it", says Pat McFadden.  "Saddam was killing people long before" (or similar)
> 
> Really, if Momentum are doing nothing else right now it should be to get all of these speeches bundled together into one little clip, accompanied by captions with statements from the Chilcott report.



McFadden, from an old Communist family, is appalling.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone else find it extremely poor taste to mention the hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths in the same breath as the fourteen-and-a-half British troops who died? If you join the army and invade an almost defenceless third world country and you _still_ manage to get yourself killed, fuck you.


i don't think that's entirely fair, being as the iraqis have shown themselves proficient in their chosen style of warfare. however, i have noticed that the stwc's occasional readings of names of the war dead have not to date included the name of one iraqi.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 6, 2016)

Britain: Soft on warcrime. Soft on the causes of warcrime.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

So basically it seems Blair was wrong to believe what he did, and the rest of government, the Foreign Office, the Intelligence Services and the military were to blame for not stopping him.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 6, 2016)

treelover said:


> McFadden, from an old Communist family, is appalling.



My local MPs are showering themselves with glory currently (not in any way suggesting they were better previously!).


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2016)

Blair's speech was unbelievable. Tears! Fucking hell.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> Blair's speech was unbelievable. Tears! Fucking hell.


Well, he is the true victim in all this


----------



## likesfish (Jul 6, 2016)

That utter cunt I remember  asking in 1991 why we didnt go in and finish saddam long with quite a few others and having it explained by some int corp officer why that would be a truly terrible idea.
 The three groups hate one another both turkey and iran would stir shit up it might destabilse syria  and Saudi wouldnt be keen might even effect israel.
  So not knowing it was a terrible terrible idea is bollocks.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

GWB spokesman today:



> President Bush is hosting *wounded warriors* at his ranch today and has not had the chance to read the Chilcot report...



Chilcot report live: George Bush says 'world is better off' without Saddam as Tony Blair mounts Iraq war defence


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 6, 2016)

Maybe one of those "wounded warriors" snaps, & blows George's fucking head off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Maybe one of those "wounded warriors" snaps, & blows George's fucking head off.


Doesn't need to be a ww, could be a passing squirrel or curious child


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2016)

Lest we forget


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2016)

Absolute fucking shit of a man. Not in my name. Fuck you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

totally putting on the intelligence services now. I'm no fan of the cowboys but its looking like trying to get blair off the hook.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Absolute fucking shit of a man. Not in my name. Fuck you.
> 
> View attachment 89270



In one way it was an opportunity missed; if they had continued to abuse him (or more likely got worse) during the apology on the floor of the Commons they would have destroyed themselves.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 6, 2016)




----------



## A380 (Jul 6, 2016)




----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 6, 2016)

Warcrime scum and their apologists know how this works - all chip wrappings by Friday. Media dont generally give a fuck beyond it being padding for content.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 6, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> GWB spokesman today:
> 
> 
> 
> Chilcot report live: George Bush says 'world is better off' without Saddam as Tony Blair mounts Iraq war defence








Tbf they havn't realised the comic version with large print and small words yet.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> Ann Clwyd now valiantly Hodoring for Blair.  "I wish people would ask Iraqis what they think of the invasion", etc



On the news this evening  a BBC correspondent said that he hadn't heard one Iraqi who thought the invasion was a good idea.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Sifta (Jul 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> totally putting on the intelligence services now. I'm no fan of the cowboys but its looking like trying to get blair off the hook.



And they're going to take that with good grace? If I was a Blairite I'd  be treading very carefully in case I ended up in a carefully laid trap.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 6, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


>



That is jaw-dropping. It's easy to forget quite how fawning the press were over the mass-murderer.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> I was just about to post her remarks - powerful stuff.
> 
> More here:
> 
> 'Blair is world's worst terrorist': families of Iraq war victims react to Chilcot report


Now on C4 News giving it to Campbell.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 6, 2016)

Sifta said:


> And they're going to take that with good grace? If I was a Blairite I'd  be treading very carefully in case I ended up in a carefully laid trap.



Or a north face expedition bag...

I'm afraid today's performance by Blair has reaffirmed my long held view that his mind has been broken by his guilt and regret over his decisions - that has manifested itself in his delusional, messianic, responsibility-avoiding behaviour, but I don't think that makes it any less true.


----------



## elbows (Jul 6, 2016)

I don't know how much of it I will read in the end but I will attempt to digest at least a few big chunks of it over time.

Tonight I've just dived into section 3.1, 'DEVELOPMENT OF UK STRATEGY AND OPTIONS, 9/11 TO EARLY JANUARY 2002'.

It's hard to know what to quote really, given that big chunks are sometimes required to get the proper context. And that I'm not exactly expecting a shitload of big revelations given how much already emerged in the past. So for now I suppose I will just mutter something about the absurdity of hinging a debate angle on the question of whether someone was lying when that same someone is quite prepared to talk about setting up propaganda units. No revelation, no shock or loss of comedic levels of naivety, and sometimes the best propaganda is true, doesn't have to be a lie. But this sort of stuff still tickles an area that's me reaching for lazy Orwellian terms to respond with, ooh double-think. Hopefully I'll get away with that one just this once given Orwells background.



> 140. Mr Blair added that he had:
> 
> “... no doubt we need to deal with Saddam. But if we hit Iraq now, we would lose the Arab world, Russia, probably half the EU ... I am sure we can devise a strategy for Saddam deliverable at a later date.”





> 141. Mr Blair suggested that:
> “... in order to give ourselves space that we say:
> 
> “Phase 1 is the military action focused on Afghanistan because it’s there that the perpetrators of 11 September hide.
> ...





> 142. Mr Blair concluded that a “dedicated tightly knit propaganda unit” was required, and suggested that he and President Bush should “talk soon”.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 6, 2016)

I'm only reading the summary elbows

Another bit from the summary



> 311.
> The UK Government did have significant concerns about the potential risks of all
> types of weapons of mass destruction being obtained by Islamist extremists (in particular
> Al Qaida) who would be prepared to use such weapons.
> ...


----------



## Sifta (Jul 6, 2016)

John Crace. Cruel but fair:

Chilcot offered chance for political catharsis – but who would grasp it?

Not forgetting a psychotic, narcissistic breakdown. Me, me, me. The war hadn’t been about the 179 British soldiers and several hundred thousand Iraqis who died. It had been about him all along. Did people not understand how difficult the decision had been for him? And did people still not understand the decision had been absolutely correct, and that God had personally told him that countless more lives had been saved by going to war than had been lost in it? For Tony is an honourable man.

Yes, there were one or two things he could have done better. He could have had one or two more cabinet meetings prior to going to war and in hindsight he wished he had done that. Tony’s eyes burned with the conviction of martyrdom. He wasn’t a naughty boy, he was the Messiah. And he was heaven-bent on carrying on fighting a war he had long ago lost.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 6, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> On the news this evening  a BBC correspondent said that he hadn't heard one Iraqi who thought the invasion was a good idea.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Marsh Arabs were quite pleased suggesting to them that Bush and Blair were bad guys did not go down well. They had been fucked over by Saddam and were looking for pay back. The Arabs in Basra saw them as kind of like scary hillbillies types and wouldn't set foot in the marshes, none of our interperators would ever come with us when we patrolled that part.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

Is  #IWBWYW a thing yet?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 6, 2016)

from tweeter


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2016)

Fuck me but today has got to me. Especailly Blairs outrageous, narcissistic, delusional,  self justification - i think he actually is a fucking psychopath. Iraq was a hugely destructive, monstrous act of imperial hubris - the US and UK governments  were told it would lead to chaos and death but considered that a price worth paying (by the iraqis)  - and blair, despite the mountains of corpses and the accelerating cluster fuck that continues to unfold in the region - still fucking believes that!

The man is a monster.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 7, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Fuck me but today has got to me. Especailly Blairs outrageous, narcissistic, delusional,  self justification - i think he actually is a fucking psychopath. Iraq was a hugely destructive, monstrous act of imperial hubris - the US and UK governments  were told it would lead to chaos and death but considered that a price worth paying (by the iraqis)  - and blair, despite the mountains of corpses and the accelerating cluster fuck that continues to unfold in the region - still fucking believes that!
> 
> The man is a monster.



The lack of fucks given is perplexing. The man is a master liar. Several screws loose there.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2016)

hes been reading this report for weeks - hes fully aware of what it says and he's had time to fully reflect on it. And its a pretty devastating critique of the whole episode with him as the main actor - and the cunts only response has been to plan - in detail and with his closest advisers - how to make himself look good. 
No shame, no remorse, no regrets and only minimal acknowledgement that anything was done wrong - and certainly not by him . You'd think he'd want to hide - not give a two hour fucking speech telling us all that -  whilst he was, you know, very, very, sorry for massive death toll - he was right then and hes still right now.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 7, 2016)

He was negligent, him in particular more than anyone else. Lawsuits in the offing I reckon.

A fucking dangerous man.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> hes been reading this report for weeks - hes fully aware of what it says and he's had time to fully reflect on it.



Alternatively he might just as well have been sat on the bidet in his tastefully decorated en-suite, eyes fixed on his own eyes in the mirrored mosaic, loose leaves of advance Chilcot strewn about his feet, as he intoned his favourite, memorised passages, wanking himself to near completion.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 7, 2016)




----------



## gosub (Jul 7, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> from tweeter




don't worry his wife will be selling autographed copies of Chilcot on ebay


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 7, 2016)




----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Fuck me but today has got to me. Especailly Blairs outrageous, narcissistic, delusional,  self justification - i think he actually is a fucking psychopath. Iraq was a hugely destructive, monstrous act of imperial hubris - the US and UK governments  were told it would lead to chaos and death but considered that a price worth paying (by the iraqis)  - and blair, despite the mountains of corpses and the accelerating cluster fuck that continues to unfold in the region - still fucking believes that!
> 
> The man is a monster.


That's it. Even if you were to have the  crude self importance and justification of the politician in your psychological make up, how does it survive the last decade? How are you able to keep telling yourself that what you did was rational, legal, the right decision in the circumstances when you see the corpses piling up?  Never mind the British dead, the failure of the whole project, what about fucking ISIS, what about hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead?  How do you not, literally, go mad with what you've done - there's nowhere to hide, the whole world knows that every component in the decision was wrong. 

How do you spend the next decade going round the world hovering up millions of pounds? How do, never mind not going mad, end up A FUCKING MIDDLE EAST PEACE ENVOY???  If psychologists want to really explore the darker reaches of the human soul, why bother with the mundane psychopaths. Go straight to Milosovic, Blair and Pol Pot.


----------



## red devil (Jul 7, 2016)

Tony Blair


Kaka Tim said:


> Fuck me but today has got to me. Especailly Blairs outrageous, narcissistic, delusional,  self justification - i think he actually is a fucking psychopath. Iraq was a hugely destructive, monstrous act of imperial hubris - the US and UK governments  were told it would lead to chaos and death but considered that a price worth paying (by the iraqis)  - and blair, despite the mountains of corpses and the accelerating cluster fuck that continues to unfold in the region - still fucking believes that!
> 
> The man is a monster.





Kaka Tim said:


> Fuck me but today has got to me. Especailly Blairs outrageous, narcissistic, delusional,  self justification - i think he actually is a fucking psychopath. Iraq was a hugely destructive, monstrous act of imperial hubris - the US and UK governments  were told it would lead to chaos and death but considered that a price worth paying (by the iraqis)  - and blair, despite the mountains of corpses and the accelerating cluster fuck that continues to unfold in the region - still fucking believes that!
> 
> The man is a monster.


yes, he has corpses in his mouth,,
every thing he says sucks and slurs on every word
one of the worlds richest men now,
lady muck will be pleased


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That's it. Even if you were to have the  crude self importance and justification of the politician in your psychological make up, how does it survive the last decade? How are you able to keep telling yourself that what you did was rational, legal, the right decision in the circumstances when you see the corpses piling up?  Never mind the British dead, the failure of the whole project, what about fucking ISIS, what about hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead?  How do you not, literally, go mad with what you've done - there's nowhere to hide, the whole world knows that every component in the decision was wrong.
> 
> How do you spend the next decade going round the world hovering up millions of pounds? How do, never mind not going mad, end up A FUCKING MIDDLE EAST PEACE ENVOY???  If psychologists want to really explore the darker reaches of the human soul, why bother with the mundane psychopaths. Go straight to Milosovic, Blair and Pol Pot.


letting Kissenger off you liberal


----------



## Rimbaud (Jul 7, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> That is jaw-dropping. It's easy to forget quite how fawning the press were over the mass-murderer.



There should be an inquiry into the media's role in the Iraq war too. About half the population opposed the war, but if I recall correctly only The Mirror had an openly anti-war stance. Someone should start a petition or something.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 7, 2016)

The sad thing was without iraq Blair could have been seen as a pretty good PM even afghan might not have been as big as fuck up as it was .
 His place in history is assured as that pm who  got the country involved in a pointless small war in iraq and made everything worse in the middle east .


----------



## red devil (Jul 7, 2016)

likesfish said:


> The sad thing was without iraq Blair could have been seen as a pretty good PM even afghan might not have been as big as fuck up as it was .
> His place in history is assured as that pm who  got the country involved in a pointless small war in iraq and made everything worse in the middle east .


are you talking as vun toting mike from spaced
oras a realist
blair is and was a bloodthirsty war monger
he even used mussolinis phrase about paying the bloood sacrifice
have you srrved in the armed forces
or are you another wannabe like blajir amd mike from spacef


----------



## red devil (Jul 7, 2016)

red devil said:


> are you talking as vun toting mike from spaced
> oras a realist
> blair is and was a bloodthirsty war monger
> he even used mussolinis phrase about paying the bloood sacrifice
> ...


spell check
on my phone
can anyone find a photo of blair chilcot and the predator
put tony blair on predator photo like seperated at birth on private eye
then put the predator  ob tb photo
this wud bee funnee


----------



## red devil (Jul 7, 2016)

red devil said:


> spell check
> on my phone
> can anyone find a photo of blair chilcot and the predator
> put tony blair on predator photo like seperated at birth on private eye
> ...


cannot do it from phone


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 7, 2016)

Rimbaud said:


> There should be an inquiry into the media's role in the Iraq war too. About half the population opposed the war, but if I recall correctly only The Mirror had an openly anti-war stance. Someone should start a petition or something.



Polls show it was about 30% against the war, of course spiking sharply against war after we did go to war and everything went to.shit and people.got buyers remorse.

Of course polls are reliable as we've seen this year...


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 7, 2016)

likesfish said:


> The sad thing was without iraq Blair could have been seen as a pretty good PM even afghan might not have been as big as fuck up as it was .
> His place in history is assured as that pm who  got the country involved in a pointless small war in iraq and made everything worse in the middle east .


Indeed, if it hadn't been for Iraq he would be remembered as the man who made Thatcherism respectable.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

My brother posted this extract. WTF?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> My brother posted this extract. WTF?


He's a khaki-clad blue skies imagineer and no mistake


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2016)

Unfortunately Alan Al Qaeda and Maurice Militia had different ideas


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

actually, I think it's a pisstake - same format as those blair/clinton spoof exchanges from a few months ago isn't it? Sorry...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> actually, I think it's a pisstake - same format as those blair/clinton spoof exchanges from a few months ago isn't it? Sorry...


----------



## phillm (Jul 7, 2016)

if looks could kill...


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

ah no, it is real. bizarre.

Iraq Inquiry - Search


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2016)

phillm said:


> if looks could kill...



And yet ironically...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2016)




----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jul 7, 2016)

I feel a sense of anti-climax partly because I'm fatigued by the whole sorry story already. 'Iraq War' the news story dragged on for so long in the 00s it wore the public and journalists out.

My only surprise is the conclusion that the dossier wasn't 'sexed up.' If there were no weapons surely it was all speculation hyperbole ?


----------



## mauvais (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> My brother posted this extract. WTF?


It's like _Robocop _as described by Nicola Murray.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 7, 2016)

I





Artaxerxes said:


> Polls show it was about 30% against the war, of course spiking sharply against war after we did go to war and everything went to.shit and people.got buyers remorse.
> 
> Of course polls are reliable as we've seen this year...



It's more complicated than that. Here is some polling from shortly before the invasion.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Ira-dTel-AttWIraq-030219.pdf

It shows that people seem to have fallen for the govt line to a certain extent, and only a minority were implacably opposed to the war. But, at the same time, 51% said they were broadly in agreement with anti-war protesters and only 18% thought war would be justified without a second UN resolution.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 7, 2016)

Its real. This is someone who has the power to send young men into the field to kill people. fucking hell


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 7, 2016)

Humberto said:


> Fucking stop lying cunt
> 
> You were negligent





Humberto said:


> He was negligent, him in particular more than anyone else. Lawsuits in the offing I reckon.
> 
> A fucking dangerous man.


Will you please stop saying that.

What the inquiry shows is that Blair didn't just fail to interrogate the intelligence with due diligence, he deliberately misrepresented it in pursuit of a preplanned, illegal commitment to bring about regime change by invading Iraq.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 7, 2016)

red devil said:


> spell check
> on my phone
> can anyone find a photo of blair chilcot and the predator
> put tony blair on predator photo like seperated at birth on private eye
> ...


You know, it's the old glass box at the—
At the gas station, 
Where you're using those little things 
Trying to pick up the prize, 
And you can't find it. 
It's—


And it's all these arms are going down in there, 
And so you keep dropping it 
And picking it up again and moving it, 
But—

Some of you are probably too young to remember those—
Those glass boxes, 
But—

But they used to have them 
At all the gas stations 
When I was a kid.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 7, 2016)

Random person in pub with friends last night when Blair appeared on TV after the footie:

'Would you buy a used car off of this man?'

All three of them were were obviously disgusted with him.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 7, 2016)

Blairism should have been killed off in Iraq. Chilcot could finally bury it | Diane Abbott


----------



## mauvais (Jul 7, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Its real. This is someone who has the power to send young men into the field to kill people. fucking hell


The whole military and defence industry is full of this stuff. For every bomb dropped on a school or grunt sent off in a Land Rover to be blown up, there's three bureaucrats with awkward Powerpoints trying to play less at soldiers and more at graphic design/big data/leveraging synergies.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 7, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Will you please stop saying that.
> 
> What the inquiry shows is that Blair didn't just fail to interrogate the intelligence with due diligence, he deliberately misrepresented it in pursuit of a preplanned, illegal commitment to bring about regime change by invading Iraq.



Ok I will. Still reading it.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> letting Kissenger off you liberal


Haven't you heard, he failed a blood test. That's what moved Blair into the medals.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

likesfish said:


> The sad thing was without iraq Blair could have been seen as a pretty good PM even afghan might not have been as big as fuck up as it was .
> His place in history is assured as that pm who  got the country involved in a pointless small war in iraq and made everything worse in the middle east .


In terms of winning in 97 he was pushing at an open door, but yes, in the language of conventional politics he was very successful. 'Dominant politician of his generation' as they probably say.  Hard to pin down, ever flexible, substituted chats for decisions, combined with a massive sense of entitlement - all things that made him a (genuinely) successful neo-liberal politician, but are also at the heart of this report.  Trouble is he can't escape from that mode and still played the politician as the corpses piled up, right through to yesterday. 

In terms of rationalising 'evil' that they have done, humans seem to have an infinite ability to stick to a line of self justification that avoids facing up to the consequences of actions.  Blair takes that to the limit, but doesn't seem to have paid a psychological price for that internalised doublespeak. That's why I have a feeling that discussion of psychopathic or sociopathic traits is close to the mark.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 7, 2016)

red devil said:


> are you talking as vun toting mike from spaced
> oras a realist
> blair is and was a bloodthirsty war monger
> he even used mussolinis phrase about paying the bloood sacrifice
> ...




Well I was wandering around  cyprus with an SA80 ( technically a  rifle just not a cery good one) and a uniform and even got a medal for apprantly being in scud range. Or it could just have been a very drunken game of paintball that got completly out of hand


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Well I was wandering around  cyprus with an SA80 ( technically a  rifle just not a cery good one) and a uniform and even got a medal for apprantly being in scud range. Or it could just have been a very drunken game of paintball that got completly out of hand



SRS BSNSS


----------



## binka (Jul 7, 2016)

Bertie Basra is one of those things that will stay with me for the rest of my life. It just seems so unreal I can't get my head round it


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

My gag reflex stops me from listening to the actual interview, but there's more semantic defence here from Blair, hanging on 'but' (with regard to the UN). 
Tony Blair: 'with you, whatever' pledge was not commitment to war
At one level we shouldn't be too shocked by this way of operating, but he is still playing word games about hundreds of thousands of deaths in the same way you'd expect a politician to talk about missing waiting time deadlines for passport applications.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

'Partner of choice', fucking hell!  Partner of choice in what Tony? What did you and your partner embark upon tone?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> My gag reflex stops me from listening to the actual interview, but there's more semantic defence here from Blair, hanging on 'but' (with regard to the UN).
> Tony Blair: 'with you, whatever' pledge was not commitment to war
> At one level we shouldn't be too shocked by this way of operating, but he is still playing word games about hundreds of thousands of deaths in the same way you'd expect a politician to talk about missing waiting time deadlines for passport applications.


lest we forget


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> 'Partner of choice', fucking hell!  Partner of choice in what Tony? What did you and your partner embark upon tone?


some sort of drug-fuelled binge followed by moments of consensual sex?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

_Partner of choice_, fucking hell, wonder what the military families will make of that?  There's a point when your whole way of using language becomes so PR focused that that you end up saying things that are not even well chosen, effective phrases, but are grossly offensive.  Rose and Fred West, _partners of choice_.


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 7, 2016)

It turns out there is an opportunity to make amends for one of the gravest injustices caused by the invasion of Iraq


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> It turns out there is an opportunity to make amends for one of the gravest injustices caused by the invasion of Iraq



Fuck. Ing. Hell.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

I suspect George's phone calls are going unanswered.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

Irrelevant in the context of mass slaughter, but the blairites will be ready to denounce any signs of Galloway cosying up to Corbyn.  But what a cunt choosing this moment to wail about the injustice done to him.  (((((Casualties of war))))


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> I suspect George's phone calls are going unanswered.


I'm not sure, technically, whether standing against a Labour candidate is still a reason to expel someone when they have already been expelled?  But .... he did, not only stood against, but actually won a seat against Labour, twice.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

That's all get aroundable if they wanted to, they took Livington back in similar circumstances. They would be mad to want him though. Galloway is poison.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> That's all get aroundable if they wanted to, they took Livington back in similar circumstances. They would be mad to want him though. Galloway is poison.


Not disagreeing, but the circumstances were a bit different. Can't remember the detail but wasn't the selection process where they chose Frank Dobson gerrymandered?  Also, Livingstone actually won, so Labour had good reasons to readmit him. None of that applies to Galloway, and as you say, he's poison. 

Corbyn should tell him that his expulsion may have entailed some _poor electoral etiquette_, but essentially he can fuck right off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

galloway picked the team of leavers that the main campaign of leavers were avoiding giving airtime to  who keeps voting for him


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Jul 7, 2016)

Can anyone give me an update on yesterday and today in UK politics? I have been celebrating Eid at a friend's house and don't know the chilcot fallout.

Bullet points would be great


----------



## belboid (Jul 7, 2016)

Miss-Shelf said:


> Can anyone give me an update on yesterday and today in UK politics? I have been celebrating Eid at a friend's house and don't know the chilcot fallout.
> 
> Bullet points would be great


Chilcot report: Findings at-a-glance - BBC News  - a reasonable summary of the key points.

Blair didn't explicitly lie, but allowed himself to be led by dubious data and then insisted that evidence was much stronger than it was.  The war was not necessary, the war was not planned properly, nor executed adequately, and as for the post-war planning, there wasn't any.

Blair says 'the report exonerates me completely....good faith...Saddam was a bad man'


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Jul 7, 2016)

belboid said:


> Chilcot report: Findings at-a-glance - BBC News  - a reasonable summary of the key points.
> 
> Blair didn't explicitly lie, but allowed himself to be led by dubious data and then insisted that evidence was much stronger than it was.  The war was not necessary, the war was not planned properly, nor executed adequately, and as for the post-war planning, there wasn't any.
> 
> Blair says 'the report exonerates me completely....good faith...Saddam was a bad man'


Thank you
Blair is deluded then so nothing new?
What political capital is being made by anyone out if this ?


----------



## belboid (Jul 7, 2016)

Mostly still being polite, respect for the dead n all that.  Corbyn apologised for the Labour Party's role in the whole affair.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

belboid said:


> Blair says 'the report exonerates me completely....good faith...Saddam was a bad man'


Deluded people everywhere must be concerned that Blair is giving them a bad name.


----------



## gosub (Jul 7, 2016)

belboid said:


> Chilcot report: Findings at-a-glance - BBC News  - a reasonable summary of the key points.
> 
> Blair didn't explicitly lie, but allowed himself to be led by dubious data and then insisted that evidence was much stronger than it was.  The war was not necessary, the war was not planned properly, nor executed adequately, and as for the post-war planning, there wasn't any.
> 
> Blair says 'the report exonerates me completely....good faith...Saddam was a bad man'



DFS fault -didn't stock large enough sofas


----------



## kebabking (Jul 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Deluded people everywhere must be concerned that Blair is giving them a bad name.



I hear Peter Sutcliffe may sue....


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

belboid said:


> Mostly still being polite, respect for the dead n all that.  Corbyn apologised for the Labour Party's role in the whole affair.


In some ways it was an astute thing to do with regard to his own battles with the blairites, but I like to think he did it for the best of reasons.  After a decade of lies he struck the right note.


----------



## belboid (Jul 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> In some ways it was an astute thing to do with regard to his own battles with the blairites, but I like to think he did it for the best of reasons.  After a decade of lies he struck the right note.


On notable contrast to Farron, who just said 'we got it right, and you were rude to us and to Charles Kennedy, it's not fair'


----------



## Sifta (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> I suspect George's phone calls are going unanswered.



I do hope so, but: (re Seamus Milne)

"Some journalists saw him as a slightly sinister, furtive, cold figure, always pacing the corridors while on his mobile phone, talking  almost daily to his close friend George Galloway, whom he addressed as “chief”. "

From the New Statesman, so probably shite

The thin controller


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> It turns out there is an opportunity to make amends for one of the gravest injustices caused by the invasion of Iraq




The Iron Man of Islington should immediately readmit him, then immediately expel him because of his antics when opposed by his assistant.



belboid said:


> Chilcot report: Findings at-a-glance - BBC News  - a reasonable summary of the key points.
> 
> Blair didn't explicitly lie, but allowed himself to be led by dubious data and then insisted that evidence was much stronger than it was.  The war was not necessary, the war was not planned properly, nor executed adequately, and as for the post-war planning, there wasn't any.
> 
> Blair says 'the report exonerates me completely....good faith...Saddam was a bad man'



TBF I think it would be better to say that the report doesn't say Blair explicitly lied - but it gently points out that much of what he said publicly was in direct opposition to what he knew.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

Statement of the obvious alert: the other thing with regard to not actually lying, is that for blair to have _genuinely_ believed the WMD stuff, 45 minute claim and the like, he'd have to have had an IQ lower than the room temperature, be the most stupid PM ever.  I'd like to see a court interrogation like the one done on Jack Nicholson in a few good men.  Trapped between admitting criminal liability and having to paint himself as thick, gullible and lacking even the most basic instincts of a decision maker, well, who knows which way he'd go. 'Look, y'know, you guys can't handle the truth'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Statement of the obvious alert: the other thing with regard to not actually lying, is that for blair to have _genuinely_ believed the WMD stuff, 45 minute claim and the like, he'd have to have had an IQ lower than the room temperature, be the most stupid PM ever.  I'd like to see a court interrogation like the one done on Jack Nicholson in a few good men.  Trapped between admitting criminal liability and having to paint himself as thick, gullible and lacking even the most basic instincts of a decision maker, well, who knows which way he'd go. 'Look, y'know, you guys can't handle the truth'.


i'd like to see him get waterboarded, to have the full guantanamo experience


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

Flippancy aside, I didn't see any coverage yesterday. Did any of the journos ask him questions along the lines of 'so, are you saying you are basically just thick and incompetent'?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

can't remember. Its all a blur now, all I can remember is consumate actor blair appearing visibly distressed cos, y'know, look he is the real victim in all this. Journos were openly contemptuose during the question bits but that joy was tempered by the rememberance of the fourth estates role in the whole charade. Some were on high horses they had no right to be on given the mastheads they publish under. 2 hours long. Lets do the timewarp again, only this time TB looks like he's recovering from his own initials


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Statement of the obvious alert: the other thing with regard to not actually lying, is that for blair to have _genuinely_ believed the WMD stuff, 45 minute claim and the like, he'd have to have had an IQ lower than the room temperature, be the most stupid PM ever.  I'd like to see a court interrogation like the one done on Jack Nicholson in a few good men.  Trapped between admitting criminal liability and having to paint himself as thick, gullible and lacking even the most basic instincts of a decision maker, well, who knows which way he'd go. 'Look, y'know, you guys can't handle the truth'.



Apologies for the Mail link, but there was a very good article by Stephen Glover today questioning his mental health, and that many people ignored what he did and said because he seemed like such a decent chap.  He also reminds us of this gem, from the Labour Party conference of October 2001:



> So I believe this is a fight for freedom. And I want to make it a fight for justice too. Justice not only to punish the guilty. But justice to bring those same values of democracy and freedom to people round the world.
> 
> And I mean: freedom, not only in the narrow sense of personal liberty but in the broader sense of each individual having the economic and social freedom to develop their potential to the full. That is what community means, founded on the equal worth of all.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

agricola said:


> Apologies for the Mail link, but there was a very good article by Stephen Glover today questioning his mental health, and that many people ignored what he did and said because he seemed like such a decent chap.  He also reminds us of this gem, from the Labour Party conference of October 2001:


Thanks, that is a surprisingly good read.  The 'with you whatever' does lend itself to a psychological reading of events, whilst the whole thing is also the bizarre political endpoint of New Labour. In similar mode I keep getting flashes of Bauman on the holocaust (that it was an act of modernity, driven by processes, bureaucracy and 'logics')


----------



## Tankus (Jul 7, 2016)

Galloways " the killing of Tony Blair"  release date is 27/07/16 apparently


----------



## emanymton (Jul 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I'm not sure, technically, whether standing against a Labour candidate is still a reason to expel someone when they have already been expelled?  But .... he did, not only stood against, but actually won a seat against Labour, twice.


If I remember correctly the official reason for his expulsion was congratulating Michael Lavalette on his victory in Preston. Meaning that while still a Labour MP he congratulated a member of another party on their victory over Labour. Not a bad reason for expulsion as it goes and I'm pretty sure it still stands.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2016)

emanymton said:


> If I remember correctly the official reason for his expulsion was congratulating Michael Lavalette on his victory in Preston. Meaning that while still a Labour MP he congratulated a member of another party on their victory over Labour. Not a bad reason for expulsion as it goes and I'm pretty sure it still stands.


If it doesn't I am sure other reasons to keep him in the outer darkness will be found


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

Given the location of his property portfolio, I bet he supported Portugal against Wales last night.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

whens the moment GG lost even the tiniest shred of credibility for you? anyone? I think the defining moment was when he redefined the concept of consent to support assange that was the moment when I didn't even want to see him win against labour. Never win anything.

But he's been up to a lot of shit, much of it before I started watchin the bastards, lets dig out the galloway dirt.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 7, 2016)

Is it true that Blair has asked the families of dead soldiers to put themselves in his shoes?


----------



## Libertad (Jul 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> whens the moment GG lost even the tiniest shred of credibility for you? anyone? I think the defining moment was when he redefined the concept of consent to support assange that was the moment when I didn't even want to see him win against labour. Never win anything.
> 
> But he's been up to a lot of shit, much of it before I started watchin the bastards, lets dig out the galloway dirt.



Playing kittens with Countess Rula Lenska.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 7, 2016)

George does provide top quality rant ok you cant trust him further than you can throw him but point at the enemy and watch him destroy them
  George doing PMQ's would have sjw types ranting about rape he'd destroy May or the stepford tory.
  He absoultly mullered the yanks when they called him before them.

" if theres one thing thing  to do if you dont want to be humilated and made a complete fool of you dont stick a microphone and camera if front of george" I bet various spooks were sitting down with pop corn to watch that disaster


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Is it true that Blair has asked the families of dead soldiers to put themselves in his shoes?


he asked everyone that. More than once, in varying forms. The man is an expert dissembler. A lot of 'I had a decision to make. You don't know the burdens of power. Look. What would you have done'

beeb voices after near uncritically loved that bit about the lonliness of power. Great men must make great decisions. And when they are the wrong ones, they still get to be great. Clean for the queen


----------



## Tankus (Jul 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> whens the moment GG lost even the tiniest shred of credibility for you? anyone? I think the defining moment was when he redefined the concept of consent to support assange that was the moment when I didn't even want to see him win against labour. Never win anything.
> 
> But he's been up to a lot of shit, much of it before I started watchin the bastards, lets dig out the galloway dirt.



Going to watch this in a full hazmat suit because it is Galloway  ..........but what he will come up with will be uncomfortable viewing for Blair ...and Galloway would relish a court case to shut him up or claim slander ....

popcorn time


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

oh he does love his day in court


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> oh he does love his day in court


Not since losing his last one he doesn't.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he asked everyone that. More than once, in varying forms. The man is an expert dissembler.


He's not just an expert dissembler, he's a professional confabulator, he believes his own lies. He converted to Catholicism ffs. Who does that apart from Ann Widdicombe, John Wayne and Fanny Allen? Delusional fuckwits.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

Buckaroo said:


> He's not just an expert dissembler, he's a professional confabulator, he believes his own lies. He converted to Catholicism ffs. Who does that apart from Ann Widdicombe, John Wayne and Fanny Allen? Delusional fuckwits.


he was always a secret recusant but catholics can't be prime minister, an office which evolved from the Queens First Minister. Or kings. And the monarch really can't be catholic. So niether can the first minister so he lied*

*this may or may not be true. Think of it as a QI fact.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he was always a secret recusant but catholics can't be prime minister, an office which evolved from the Queens First Minister. Or kings. And the monarch really can't be catholic. So niether can the first minister so he lied*
> 
> *this may or may not be true. Think of it as a QI fact.



Converted in 2007 after 30 years as a closet left footer apparently.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 7, 2016)

There should be a petition to have him excommunicated . No really..there should . The head honcho ATM might actually listen .


----------



## gosub (Jul 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he asked everyone that. More than once, in varying forms. The man is an expert dissembler. A lot of 'I had a decision to make. You don't know the burdens of power. Look. What would you have done'
> 
> beeb voices after near uncritically loved that bit about the lonliness of power. Great men must make great decisions. And when they are the wrong ones, they still get to be great. Clean for the queen


A major criticism was he didn't use collective responsibility. And if he had things might have been different. The man's an arse.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> A major criticism was he didn't use collective responsibility. And if he had things might have been different. The man's an arse.


you mean didn't say 'look at everyone else who backed me'? 'I was a bit player in a wider current of history'?

it'sd be a nuremburg defence but his massive ego wouldn't allow it imho


----------



## gosub (Jul 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> you mean didn't say 'look at everyone else who backed me'? 'I was a bit player in a wider current of history'?
> 
> it'sd be a nuremburg defence but his massive ego wouldn't allow it imho



no, more it was sofa government rather than chaired cabinet meetings


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 7, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> On the news this evening  a BBC correspondent said that he hadn't heard one Iraqi who thought the invasion was a good idea.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Not even this bozo

The Guy Who Toppled Saddam Hussein's Statue Wishes He Hadn't


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he was always a secret recusant but catholics can't be prime minister, an office which evolved from the Queens First Minister. Or kings. And the monarch really can't be catholic. So niether can the first minister so he lied*
> 
> *this may or may not be true. Think of it as a QI fact.



This is so he can go to confession and consider himself free from his sins. It's probably the only way he can sleep at night and look in a mirror the deluded murdering swine.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 7, 2016)

tripped over this on a hard drive


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he was always a secret recusant but catholics can't be prime minister, an office which evolved from the Queens First Minister. Or kings. And the monarch really can't be catholic. So niether can the first minister so he lied*
> 
> *this may or may not be true. Think of it as a QI fact.


If we're going all QI, the monarch is the head of the Church of England which, although reformed, is catholic.

Which means I really need to get out more.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

agricola said:


> He also reminds us of this gem, from the Labour Party conference of October 2001:


I've had the last paragraph of that speech stuck in my head for days now, hadn't twigged it was blair. Great rhetoric, even if he did use his powers for evil. You forget how impressive he was in his pomp.

Edit: this bit sorry. Not quite the last paragraph. 

This is a moment to seize. The Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> whens the moment GG lost even the tiniest shred of credibility for you? anyone? I think the defining moment was when he redefined the concept of consent to support assange that was the moment when I didn't even want to see him win against labour. Never win anything.
> 
> But he's been up to a lot of shit, much of it before I started watchin the bastards, lets dig out the galloway dirt.


Being an old git I've had the luxury of disliking him since his war on want days in the 80s ('financial irregularities').  As a labour mp just had him down as a self interested gobshite, but managed to up the ante throughout his gruesome positioning in respect, that horrible mix of embracing religious conservatism whilst ensuring that a whole movement was in orbit around him.  The Saddam stuff, Tariq Azis and all that, proper sick making, well, actually fucking monstrous. The big man fawning round a proper Big Man.  A couple of vile election campaigns since then, rape apologism.   Fucking hell - 'whens the moment GG lost even the tiniest shred of credibility for you? - that's a really hard question!

Suppose for me, I just detest the 'charismatic' and in his case it happens to be combined with the worst kind of opportunism.


----------



## Maharani (Jul 8, 2016)

Miss-Shelf said:


> Thank you
> Blair is deluded then so nothing new?
> What political capital is being made by anyone out if this ?


There's nothing new in the report it's just confirmed now I suppose, putting it simply.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 8, 2016)

A nutter with good public manipulation skills


----------



## Humberto (Jul 8, 2016)

Reading the report summary its really all about him, his fervour to sign up 'no matter what'. I'm quite surprised by that. I thought criticisms would be getting apportioned far and wide. Its mostly him, a history text that makes him look like a ... i don't know what to call him tbh.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 8, 2016)

Fuckit...

A lunatic, pervert, devil


----------



## Kesher (Jul 8, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> There should be a petition to have him excommunicated . No really..there should . The head honcho ATM might actually listen .



Here's one

Expel Tony Blair From the Labour Party | Campaigns by You


----------



## teqniq (Jul 8, 2016)

The Iraq War and the Rupert Murdoch connection


----------



## red devil (Jul 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> whens the moment GG lost even the tiniest shred of credibility for you? anyone? I think the defining moment was when he redefined the concept of consent to support assange that was the moment when I didn't even want to see him win against labour. Never win anything.
> 
> But he's been up to a lot of shit, much of it before I started watchin the bastards, lets dig out the galloway dirt.





DotCommunist said:


> whens the moment GG lost even the tiniest shred of credibility for you? anyone? I think the defining moment was when he redefined the concept of consent to support assange that was the moment when I didn't even want to see him win against labour. Never win anything.
> 
> But he's been up to a lot of shit, much of it before I started watchin the bastards, lets dig out the galloway dirt.


he was goood on qt tonight
galloyway i mean
assange ok in uk
he only has to stay there4more years and sol runs out
he gud in the fifth estate
thought anarchists would like him
hes a market entrepreneur
nonetheless he v good
i dont see him as a rapist
do you?


----------



## oneflewover (Jul 8, 2016)

teqniq said:


> The Iraq War and the Rupert Murdoch connection



It was the world's biggest megalomaniac that dun it


----------



## 8den (Jul 8, 2016)

red devil said:


> he was goood on qt tonight
> galloyway i mean
> assange ok in uk
> he only has to stay there4more years and sol runs out
> ...



What is this doggrel?


----------



## Libertad (Jul 8, 2016)

8den said:


> What is this doggrel?



Puppy shit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2016)

red devil said:


> he was goood on qt tonight
> galloyway i mean
> assange ok in uk
> he only has to stay there4more years and sol runs out
> ...


yeah sticking it in someone when they are asleep then holding them down when they wake up is rape.. What galloway should have said was that Assange is innocent till proven. Thats a fair enough comment. What he did say was that even if he was guilty, the crime is not in fact rape anyway. Its, and this is george gold 'poor sexual ettiquet'

I wouldn't piss on the pair of them


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2016)




----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

Kesher said:


> Here's one
> 
> Expel Tony Blair From the Labour Party | Campaigns by You


fuck, I'd forgot he was still a member!  Detest as I do George Galloway (see last page), there is a certain irony that he was kicked out largely for opposing Blair and the war, whilst the war criminal himself retains membership.  Corbyn will take flak if he does kick him out, but now really is the time and it would go down well with most of the public.  Of course, if he did kick him out, there's a whole set of cabinet minions who were also very active players in going to war, which gets really messy.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 8, 2016)

weltweit said:


>




The ethical thing to do  . The only thing people like Blair understand is money.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2016)

two sheds said:


> The ethical thing to do  . The only thing people like Blair understand is money.


I wonder if he will stll be getting those 10 mill after dinner speaking gigs post chilcot? I suppose the sort of person that would drop that amount of money on a post prandial prattler (he's on fire!) are just in it for the prestige anyway, so would book him regardless. Either way, theres some deep pockets to gouge on tony.


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Detest as I do George Galloway (see last page), there is a certain irony that he was kicked out largely for opposing Blair and the war, whilst the war criminal himself retains membership.


There was a little more to Galloway's expulsion than that
BBC NEWS | Politics | Galloway expelled by Labour


> The charges faced by Mr Galloway were understood to be that:
> * he incited Arabs to fight British troops
> * he incited British troops to defy orders
> * he incited Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs
> ...


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I wonder if he will stll be getting those 10 mill after dinner speaking gigs post chilcot?


His public profile having been raised again I'd expect him to increase his price.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> There was a little more to Galloway's expulsion than that
> BBC NEWS | Politics | Galloway expelled by Labour


Yes, I understated it with 'largely'. However, there still is major irony about his expulsion for anti-war activities, regardless of how inevitable it was that he would get expelled, Vs the bloke who kicked off all the killing remaining in the Labour Party.  And *that*, after about 13 years on these boards, is the closest I've *ever* come to praising George Galloway.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yes, I understated it with 'largely'. However, there still is major irony about his expulsion for anti-war activities, regardless of how inevitable it was that he would get expelled, Vs the bloke who kicked off all the killing remaining in the Labour Party.  *And that, after about 13 years on these boards, is the closest I've ever come to praising George Galloway.*



Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Well done Tony, this is the man you've made me say nice things about 



'Fraternal Greetings'


----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Well done Tony, this is the man you've made me say nice things about
> 
> 
> 
> 'Fraternal Greetings'



... video taken from 'Peter Dow's site'.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

Yeah, cheers Mr Blair, this bloke has now moved up one place in the moral rankings:


----------



## YouSir (Jul 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, cheers Mr Blair, this bloke has now moved up one place in the moral rankings:




He still has a cadre of fanatics supporting him doesn't he? Some strange people in this world.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 9, 2016)

Forgotton about that .
George is a lose cannon entertaining when pointed at your enemies but not to be trusted in the slightest.

Theres anti war and then inciting armed resistance and mutiny


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Forgotton about that .
> George is a lose cannon entertaining when pointed at your enemies but not to be trusted in the slightest.
> 
> Theres anti war and then inciting armed resistance and mutiny



In the face of an illegal war of aggression ...with the Nuremberg definition of what constitutes the greatest crime against humanity...he was correct to do so imho .The fall out from that conflict was perfectly foreseeable . It's one of the great crimes of the modern age . And those who found him guilty were the actual criminals . History has vindicated him in the sense of the stand he took on that issue .


----------



## likesfish (Jul 9, 2016)

Possibly mutiny.

Giving support to saddams left behinds,shia or sunni militas not so much they were all the worse options.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 10, 2016)

John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal - BBC News

Prescott is both arse covering and joining in the stoning of St.Blair of Fettes.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 10, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn backs motion declaring Tony Blair guilty of 'contempt' over Iraq War


----------



## AnandLeo (Jul 10, 2016)

The expression ‘legality’ of Iraq war is not something bothers me. It is the rationality and sensibility that concerns me. Looking back on this invasion that has not gone well, my comment is that the special relationship of UK with US, yielded UK to sympathetic subjugation which is a nasty involvement. Even the current government of US does not recognize the Iraq war.

Another contended issue on this escapade is that people who went to war didn’t have the luxury of hindsight. However, the governments who went to war supposed to have had the intelligence. The intelligence that led to this war if that is true is hubris. The ordinary members of the public gather relevant intelligence from the media which is trivial.

Nothing is clear or black and white. Sadam had a rogue past record that blurred the capacity of WMDs in Iraq at the time of going to war. In the hindsight it appeared that he was a reformed ruler, yet secretly killing people in Iraq, and there were no WMDs.


----------



## elbows (Jul 10, 2016)

AnandLeo said:


> Nothing is clear or black and white. Sadam had a rogue past record that blurred the capacity of WMDs in Iraq at the time of going to war. In the hindsight it appeared that he was a reformed ruler, yet secretly killing people in Iraq, and there were no WMDs.



Bollocks.

There are a number of ways that arguments that seek to hide behind 'hindsight' in some way can be pissed on in relation to the Iraq war. Some of them became obvious because of the way the pre-war propaganda build-up got badly bogged down.

To give a slightly wacky example, in 2002 my boss believed the war was about WMD. So when Saddam actually let the weapons inspectors in, he thought that meant there wouldn't be a war. My recollection of the time is that not many other people I knew thought along those lines at all. Even those who were rather in favour of the war did not  put all that much effort into trying to pretend that the WMD pretext was anything more than a pretext, or that actually evolving realities on the WMD front really made a difference to the Iraq war decision. There was a relatively high level of awareness about what propaganda, diplomatic and international games were being played in the build-up to the war, and partly because of obvious splits within various elites and institutions there was a good deal of cynicism on display at the time, not just with the benefit of hindsight.


----------



## elbows (Jul 10, 2016)

killer b said:


> I've had the last paragraph of that speech stuck in my head for days now, hadn't twigged it was blair. Great rhetoric, even if he did use his powers for evil. You forget how impressive he was in his pomp.
> 
> Edit: this bit sorry. Not quite the last paragraph.
> 
> This is a moment to seize. The Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us.



This was certainly a phrase that struck me at the time and that I've brought up on the forums a few times over the years. Often when I've been trying to stop someone from drooling some wacky theories about 9/11 and instead concentrate on the opportunism on display - look at what they used the events of 9/11 to achieve, and resist the temptation to let this ugly opportunism leak backwards into incredible theories about how 9/11 happened in the first place.

And indeed the full speech makes it quite clear that this was another of those times where a terrible event was chalked up as being one of the growing pains of globalisation, and the response should be to press on with that agenda with renewed vigour.

In addition to all the domestic reasons why Blair really needed a more internationally harmonious Iraq war than the one he got, I can well believe that he thought the 'goodwill' that the USA gained in response to 9/11 should be stretched as far as possible. But it was squandered on Iraq and so that was the end of that particular rhetorical/political resource and momentum.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

AnandLeo said:


> The expression ‘legality’ of Iraq war is not something bothers me. It is the rationality and sensibility that concerns me. Looking back on this invasion that has not gone well, my comment is that the special relationship of UK with US, yielded UK to sympathetic subjugation which is a nasty involvement. Even the current government of US does not recognize the Iraq war.
> 
> Another contended issue on this escapade is that people who went to war didn’t have the luxury of hindsight. However, the governments who went to war supposed to have had the intelligence. The intelligence that led to this war if that is true is hubris. The ordinary members of the public gather relevant intelligence from the media which is trivial.
> 
> Nothing is clear or black and white. Sadam had a rogue past record that blurred the capacity of WMDs in Iraq at the time of going to war. In the hindsight it appeared that he was a reformed ruler, yet secretly killing people in Iraq, and there were no WMDs.



Well it should. Because its a war crime. And a war of aggression being illegal should be about stopping lots of innocent people  from being killed . if there's not even a concept of legality there's no inhibition whatsoever .


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> There should be a petition to have him excommunicated . No really..there should . The head honcho ATM might actually listen .




I innocently hoped this was why the Pope welcomed him in to the Church, so he could be excommunicated. Obvs not.


He's neither a liar nor a fantasist though, he had mastered doublethink, he used this all the way through his premiership and he still uses it today. He doesn't just appear sincere, he is sincere. And he's comfortable being sincere about two opposing views at the same time.

Hang him high, sequester his funds and let's move on.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 11, 2016)

Iraq Chilcot inquiry: Bitterness in Baghdad - BBC News

Almost 24 hours after the massacre of civilians in Baghdad by so-called Islamic State, young men were digging frantically through the basement of one of the shopping centres that was destroyed.

They were looking for human remains. But all they found were some shoes and a pile of black ash. It was hot in the basement. The fire was still smouldering. Warm, scummy water dripped from the ceiling.

Outside, hundreds of people had gathered. Being there was a form of defiance. In the Iraqi capital, any crowded, dark street is a potential target for a suicide bomber.

Perhaps sharing infinite sadness makes it easier to bear. Many people cried, or prayed. I saw a Christian clergyman lighting candles and making the sign of the cross as well as young people chanting a Shia Muslim anthem for the dead.

Just because so many Iraqi civilians have been massacred does not make senseless killing any easier to bear for the survivors.

It is doubtful whether Iraqis who are so caught up in the pain of daily life will take much interest in the long-delayed publication of the UK's official inquiry into its part in the invasion of 2003.

Many people I have spoken to have already made up their minds about the impact of the invasion on Iraq. One of these is Kadhim al-Jabbouri, a man who became a symbol of the Iraqi peoples' rejection and hatred of Saddam Hussein.

On 9 April 2003, the American spearhead reached central Baghdad. Hours before they arrived, Kadhim, who was a champion weightlifter, decided to bring down the big bronze statue of Saddam Hussein that stood on a plinth in Firdous Square.

Kadhim owned a popular motorcycle shop and was a Harley-Davidson expert. For a while he fixed Saddam's bikes, but after the regime executed 14 members of his family he refused any more work. The regime's response to his effrontery was to put him in jail for two years on trumped-up charges.

Kadhim is a survivor. In prison, he started a gym and a weight-lifting club, and was eventually released in one of Saddam's periodic amnesties.

But on the morning of 9 April, Kadhim wanted his own personal moment of liberation and revenge. He took his sledgehammer and began to swing it at the plinth beneath the towering bronze dictator.

Journalists came out of the Palestine Hotel on the square and started broadcasting and taking pictures. Kadhim says their presence protected him from Saddam's secret policemen, who melted away as the sound of American guns came closer.

When the Americans arrived they looped a steel cable round the bronze Saddam's head and used a winch to help Kadhim finish the job. It all happened live on international TV. The image of furious and delighted Iraqis slapping the fallen statue with their shoes went around the world.

Kadhim said his story was told to President George W Bush in the Oval Office. But he now wishes he had left his sledgehammer at home.

Kadhim, like many Iraqis, blames the invaders for starting a chain of events that destroyed the country. He longs for the certainties and stability of Saddam's time.

First, he says, he realised it was not going to be liberation, but occupation. Then he hated the corruption, mismanagement and violence in the new Iraq. Most of all he despises Iraq's new leaders.

"Saddam has gone, and we have one thousand Saddams now," he says. "It wasn't like this under Saddam. There was a system. There were ways. We didn't like him, but he was better than those people."

"Saddam never executed people without a reason. He was as solid as a wall. There was no corruption or looting, it was safe. You could be safe."

Many Iraqis echo that. Saddam's regime was harsh, and it could be murderous. He led the country into a series of disastrous wars and brought crippling international sanctions down on their heads.

But with the benefit of 13 years of hindsight, the world that existed before 9 April 2003 seems to be a calmer, more secure place. They have not had a proper day of peace since the old regime fell.

As for democracy, many I have spoken to believe the hopelessly sectarian political system is broken. At least, they say, law and order existed under Saddam.

Some hoped things might get better after the army's victory over IS in Falluja. The devastating bomb attack in Baghdad in the early hours of Sunday has blasted that hope away.

I asked Kadhim he would do if he could meet Tony Blair.

"I would say to him you are a criminal, and I'd spit in his face."

And what would he say to George Bush?

"I'd say you're criminal too. You killed the children of Iraq. You killed the women and you killed the innocent. I would say the same to Blair. And to the coalition that invaded Iraq. I will say to them you are criminals and you should be brought to justice."

A chain of consequences that leads back to the invasion of 2003 caused Iraq's perpetual war.

The Americans and Britain removed a hated dictator, and dissolved his army and state. But they had no real plan to rebuild the country they had broken. They improvised - and made matters worse.

Jihadists were not in Iraq before the invasion. Shia and Sunni Muslims, whose sectarian civil war started during the occupation, could co-exist.

The invaders did not have enough troops to control Iraq. Jihadists poured across open borders. Al-Qaeda established itself here, and eventually was reborn as so-called Islamic State.

Iraqis have often made matters worse for themselves, but it was mistakes by the US and Britain that pushed Iraq down the road to catastrophe.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 5, 2017)

Tony Blair must be prosecuted over Iraq War, court hears



> Tony Blair must be prosecuted over the “unnecessary” and “unlawful” Iraq War, a court has heard.
> 
> General Abdul Wahed Shannan Al Rabbat alleges Mr Blair, then UK prime minister, committed “the crime of aggression” by invading Iraq in 2003.
> 
> The general wants to bring a private prosecution against Mr Blair and two other key ministers at the time – foreign secretary Jack Straw and the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith....





> After a half-day hearing, two judges reserved their judgment and said they would give their decision on whether to grant permission at a later date....


so that's probably a 'no' then.


> But Court 4 of the Royal Courts of Justice was filled by citizens from Middle East countries, including Iraq and Syria, who say they feel they have had to pay the price of the Iraq invasion.
> 
> The Attorney General intervened in the case and his legal team urged Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley, to block the general’s legal challenge on the grounds that it was “hopeless” and unarguable because the crime of aggression is not recognised in English law.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Tony Blair must be prosecuted over Iraq War, court hears
> 
> 
> 
> ...



TBH the worrying thing about that judgement wasn't so much the issue over "aggression" not being in English law - for which the judges have a point - it was the other bit (at least as reported in the Guardian):



> An initial application to launch the prosecution was dismissed at Westminster magistrates court on the grounds that Blair enjoys immunity and that the crime of aggression does not exist in English law.


----------



## gosub (Jul 6, 2017)

agricola said:


> TBH the worrying thing about that judgement wasn't so much the issue over "aggression" not being in English law - for which the judges have a point - it was the other bit (at least as reported in the Guardian):


If true, I think it's more opens a can of worms for the rank and file actual boots on ground so would rather not thank you.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 6, 2017)

General Abdul Wahed Shannan Al Rabbat

so we have an Iraqi General part of the army of a tyrant who started two wars that were horrendously fought used chemical weapons against their own people created mass graves and mass torture. He still seems more reasonable than blair saddamm wrecked every part of iraq he touched Tony had no excuse.


----------



## phillm (Jul 6, 2017)

Kesher said:


> Here's one
> 
> Expel Tony Blair From the Labour Party | Campaigns by You


_

 This Petition has been disabled because of inappropriate content 


 If you created this petition, you can sign into the site to access your dashboard, learn more, and ﬁx this issue. Login_


----------



## phillm (Jul 6, 2017)




----------



## teqniq (Jul 31, 2017)

What a surprise!

High Court rules Tony Blair can't be prosecuted for Iraq war


----------



## weltweit (Jul 31, 2017)

teqniq said:


> What a surprise!
> 
> High Court rules Tony Blair can't be prosecuted for Iraq war


Hmm ..


----------



## agricola (Jul 31, 2017)

teqniq said:


> What a surprise!
> 
> High Court rules Tony Blair can't be prosecuted for Iraq war



That was the most likely outcome, given that they were trying to claim he was guilty of something which isn't an offence.  They'd have been far better off going for misconduct in a public office, which couldn't have been got rid of so easily.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 31, 2017)

teqniq said:


> What a surprise!
> 
> High Court rules Tony Blair can't be prosecuted for Iraq war



Only to those who had failed to notice that they had sought to prosecute him for something that isn't a crime...

I hope Mansfield is cheap, because this is Law School 101 stuff.


----------

