Blair to be held to account?

[Gob]

Tony Blair is facing damning criticism of his role in the Iraq war from the official inquiry into the 2003 invasion, it was claimed last night.

The Chilcot inquiry is expected to round on the former prime minister when it produces its final report after more than a year of exhaustive hearings and deliberations, according to a report in The Mail on Sunday.

The newspaper claimed that Mr Blair, who was instrumental in the drive to war alongside the then-US President George Bush, will reportedly be held to account in four key areas:


* Bogus claims made about the weapons of mass destruction allegedly held by the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein;

* The failure to tell the British public about his "secret pledge" with President Bush to go to war;

* The operation of a "sofa government" style, which kept his Cabinet in the dark over the planning for an invasion of Iraq;

* The failure to foresee the chaos that gripped Iraq following the invasion, and to lay realistic plans to deal with it. Officials are currently writing the report and all witnesses will be given the chance to respond to any inaccuracies.

Mr Blair led the country to war eight years ago amid nationwide protests. His successor, Gordon Brown, set up the Chilcot inquiry after criticism of previous probes.

Mr Blair mounted a vigorous defence of the 2003 invasion of Iraq when he appeared before the inquiry for the first time, insisting that he had no regrets over removing Saddam and would do the same again.

But critics of the war and families of the 179 British troops who died in the conflict condemned his evidence, saying he evaded the panel's questions and refused to admit his mistakes. He gave evidence a second time and was jeered as he said he "deeply and profoundly" regretted the loss of life in the Iraq war.

In his memoirs, A Journey, he said he was angry at the way he was asked whether he had any regrets about going to war. He wrote that the Chilcot inquiry was supposed to be about learning lessons but had "inevitably turned into a trial of judgment and even good faith".

A spokeswoman for the Chilcot inquiry said: "We will not provide a running commentary on the inquiry." A spokesman for Mr Blair was made aware of the claims last night butdid respond by the time of going to pressed.

The Mail on Sunday said that "well-placed sources say the reputations of Mr Blair and key allies will suffer major damage when the report by Sir John Chilcot's Iraq war inquiry is published this autumn. Mr Blair, the former foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and spin-doctor Alastair Campbell are all expected to be criticised."

The IoS revealed last week that all those taken to task by Chilcot's five-strong panel of experts will receive notice of the inquiry's conclusions in the next few weeks. They will be given a chance to respond to their alleged failings before the report is finalised.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 29361.html

[Lord Jim]

What a load....

If I were a British taxpayer I'd be out raged at my tax dollars being spent on this nonsense...

* Bogus claims made about the weapons of mass destruction allegedly held by the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein;

Is this Shitlot Inquiry also going to "round" on every major intelligence service on the planet, all of whom (including the Russians and the French) concluded that Saddam had WMD?

* The failure to tell the British public about his "secret pledge" with President Bush to go to war;

Assuming for the sake of argument that this claim is true, (I suspect there's considerably more to it than this obviously slanted article portrays) are British PMs generally expected to publicly announce the substance of private communications with other national leaders, particularly when national security is concerned?

I suspect the answer to that is no....

* The operation of a "sofa government" style, which kept his Cabinet in the dark over the planning for an invasion of Iraq;

You mean to tell me that Blair didn't keep The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, The Minister for Women and Equality, The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs fully informed and involved in the classified planning of of a multi-national military invasion? Scandalous.

* The failure to foresee the chaos that gripped Iraq following the invasion, and to lay realistic plans to deal with it.

Quite right to attack him for this. He should have engaged the services of a reputable psychic before making any decisions.

"well-placed sources say the reputations of Mr Blair and key allies will suffer major damage when the report by Sir John Chilcot's Iraq war inquiry is published this autumn. Mr Blair, the former foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and spin-doctor Alastair Campbell are all expected to be criticised."

What self important rubbish. People long ago made up there minds about Mr. Blair's conduct of the war pro-or con. The release of this report with have all the impact of fart in a hurricane....The only ones who will conclude that this causes his reputation "major damage" are the one's who despised him in the first place, and would have continued to despise him, Shitlot Inquiry, or no Shitlot Inquiry. It won't change the mind of one single person.


I repeat....

What a load....

They will be given a chance to respond to their alleged failings before the report is finalised.

If it were me, my response to this supercilious Monday morning quarterbacking witch hunt would consist of just three words:

"Kiss my ass."

[Long Run]

File under "Get Over It Already"

[Gob]

Not a fan then Jim?

[Gob]

BTW Jim, France and Russia? Come off it!

We all know;

A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them. Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw told an audience at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria: "They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence...

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is the most vocal in his opposition to the Bush administration’s attempt to rationalize the need for war. In an interview, he says the UN should remain “on the path of cooperation” and that France will never “associate [itself] with military intervention… not supported by the international community.” He adds,“We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution.” Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also disagrees with the Bush administration’s insistence that military force will be needed, explaining: “Terrorism is far from being crushed. We must be careful not to take unilateral steps that might threaten the unity of the entire [anti-]terrorism coalition. In this context we are strictly in favor of a political settlement of the situation revolving around Iraq.” [Washington Post, 1/20/2003]

Germany’s Joschka Fischer similarly states: “Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the UN team on the ground. We think things are moving in the right direction, based on the efforts of the inspection team, and [they] should have all the time which is needed.” [Washington Post, 1/20/2003; New York Times, 1/20/2003]

[Lord Jim]

BTW Jim, France and Russia? Come off it!

I know that French and Russian officials were opposed to military action. I didn't claim otherwise. That's a completely separate issue. What I said is that their intelligence agencies also believed Hussein had WMD. This is a fact.

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed. . . .

In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that

"Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. . . .

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ulti ... 001988;p=0

French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: There is a problem the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right...in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.

[Gob]

PRESIDENT CHIRAC: Well, I don't know. I have no evidence to support that… It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.

As for weapons of mass destruction, bacteriological, biological, chemical, we don't know. And that is precisely what the inspectors' mandate is all about. But rushing into war, rushing into battle today is clearly a disproportionate response.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/ ... 4161.shtml

That's an actual quote from a reputable source Jim, not snope's forum.

To be fair;

I don't think so. Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them. In its current situation, does Iraq—controlled and inspected as it is—pose a clear and present danger to the region? I don't believe so. Given that, I prefer to continue along the path laid out by the Security Council. Then we'll see.

What evidence would justify war? It's up to the inspectors to decide. We gave them our confidence. They were given a mission, and we trust them. If we have to give them greater means, we'll do so. It's up to them to come before the Security Council and say, "We won. It's over. There are no more weapons of mass destruction," or "It's impossible for us to fulfill our mission. We're coming up against Iraqi ill will and impediments." At that point, the Security Council would have to discuss this report and decide what to do. In that case, France would naturally exclude no option.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z1TevVzeuA

Now then, the actual accusation is;

* Bogus claims made about the weapons of mass destruction allegedly held by the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein

Not denying that they existed, or any other fallacy, but Bliar's claims on WMD.

Claims like these perhaps?

British Prime Minister Tony Blair knew weeks before the war that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed no immediate threat, according to claims published in a London newspaper.

The explosive claims were made by former foreign secretary Robin Cook in his soon-to-be-published diary.

Mr Cook says one month before the war, the head of Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee made it clear to him that Saddam Hussein did not possess long range chemical and biological weapons capable of targeting strategic cities.

Now if that is true, shouldn't Bliar be called to account?

Also;

in the foreword to the document written by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

In its opening paragraph the briefing document claimed that it drew "upon a number of sources, including intelligence reports". Before the document's release it had been praised by Tony Blair and Colin Powell as further intelligence and quality research. The day after Channel 4's exposé, Tony Blair's office issued a statement admitting that a mistake was made in not crediting its sources, but did not concede that the quality of the document's content was affected.

[liberty]

That’s great one of the most outstanding men of the twenty-first century being held to count by moral midgets and cowards not worthy enough to wipe his shoes.

[Gob]

One of the greatest liars and charlatans England ever produced. The man who betrayed his country and played poodle to the moron Bush. One of the most despised men in the UK today.