The Chilcot report

[Rincewind]

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153869025786939/

 

This so called looney evil man dislikes Blair as much as the Tories on here which is a little ironic.

I wonder what the Tories would have done had they been in power given their votes helped with the decision to go to war. It was only a few of the Labour on the left side and some Lib Dems voted against it. Out of interest and I am not being critical, how many Tory MP's spoke out against the decision? I would like to shake their hands.

[Darkon84]

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153869025786939/

 

This so called looney evil man dislikes Blair as much as the Tories on here which is a little ironic.

I wonder what the Tories would have done had they been in power given their votes helped with the decision to go to war. It was only a few of the Labour on the left side and some Lib Dems voted against it. Out of interest and I am not being critical, how many Tory MP's spoke out against the decision? I would like to shake their hands.

 

Making this a Tory thing when it really isn't necessary?

As far as I was aware, the final decision came down to Blair and only Blair to make the big call anyway. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though, I'm always happy to learn!

I gave up with the video a short way in. I find some of C4's political reporting nauseating now, and it's a damn shame it's spilled over in to some of their comedy too. It was worthwhile posting it and is certainly relevant, but that is just my view on it.

 

Anyway, back to the topic, I'll be trying to catch up on the report itself over lunch if possible. Is it sad that I'm a bit excited

[Alf Bentley]

Making this a Tory thing when it really isn't necessary?

As far as I was aware, the final decision came down to Blair and only Blair to make the big call anyway. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though, I'm always happy to learn!

I gave up with the video a short way in. I find some of C4's political reporting nauseating now, and it's a damn shame it's spilled over in to some of their comedy too. It was worthwhile posting it and is certainly relevant, but that is just my view on it.

 

Anyway, back to the topic, I'll be trying to catch up on the report itself over lunch if possible. Is it sad that I'm a bit excited

 

 

Blair and New Labour were the PM and the government. After George W. Bush's USA, they rightly take by far the biggest blame for this disaster. It won't happen, but Blair should be tried for war crimes.

 

However, any tendency to blame Labour in general and to acquit the Tories in general should be avoided. The Tories were in Opposition, so get less blame....but opposition comes with responsibilities, too.

 

There was massive public opposition to the war. 1m-2m people had marched against it - probably the biggest protest march in the history of the nation. The grounds for believing it to be a bad decision were known.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

 

Those voting against the war in parliament were:

- 139 Labour backbenchers, ranging from Cook to Corbyn

- 16 Tories, ranging from Ken Clarke to Edward Leigh

- All 53 Lib Dem MPs 

- 11 other MPs (SNP/Plaid/SDLP?)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/19/uk.houseofcommons3

 

About 65%-70% of Labour MPs supported the war vote. About 90% of Tories did so, including a young Cameron. Indeed, some Tories were critical of Blair for seeking UN support. They thought that the UK should join the US invasion without it.

 

Here's IDS (then Tory leader) a year before the vote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1405999/Duncan-Smith-supports-Iraq-action.html

"Iain Duncan Smith stepped in to the debate on Iraq yesterday, giving Tony Blair some of the political cover he may need to see off domestic opposition to any military action. The Conservative leader insisted that the case for British involvement was not based on "subservience" to Washington but on British national interest. He claimed that Britain had to defend itself against the threat that Iraq might develop missiles capable of reaching Europe".

Here's Cameron in 2006 (3 years after the invasion), expressing his support for Blair's decision to join the invasion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5108584.stm

 

Make no mistake. Blair and his acolytes carry the main responsibility in the UK, but the Tories didn't cover themselves in glory, either.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Nothing I've read so far is remotely surprising.

 

The thing I still cannot get my head around, given what was at stake, was that the decision to go into war despite it looking from many angles even to the uninitiated as a bad idea, seemed to be largely based on those responsible thinking it would all turn out OK.

 

You see this reckless optimism from people all the time, in business, relationships, behind the wheel of a Citroen Saxo VTR, etc etc, but you'd think that when it came to starting a war - something that history tells us often results in a lot of bad stuff happening - the decision makers would be a bit more careful.

 

Blair's assertion that the post invasion mess couldn't have been foreseen is one of the things that consistently appals me - you couldn't know for certain that things would pan out in the way they did, but of all the possible resulting outcomes, things turning into a massive shit storm must have been quite high up the list even if it wasn't at the top 

 

 

​

[James.]

Nothing I've read so far is remotely surprising.

 

The thing I still cannot get my head around, given what was at stake, was that the decision to go into war despite it looking from many angles even to the uninitiated as a bad idea, seemed to be largely based on those responsible thinking it would all turn out OK.

 

You see this reckless optimism from people all the time, in business, relationships, behind the wheel of a Citroen Saxo VTR, etc etc, but you'd think that when it came to starting a war - something that history tells us often results in a lot of bad stuff happening - the decision makers would be a bit more careful.

 

Blair's assertion that the post invasion mess couldn't have been foreseen is one of the things that consistently appals me - you couldn't know for certain that things would pan out in the way they did, but of all the possible resulting outcomes, things turning into a massive shit storm must have been quite high up the list even if it wasn't at the top 

 

In crude terms I think men like to swing their dicks when given the opportunity. Reminds me of the vote to bomb Syria, the f**kers couldn't get enough of it, playing war games like kids with toy guns. Let's bomb shit cause it makes us feel powerful and we'll think about the next bit later.

[MPH]

Of course Dubya was going in ....   cus of oil.  Additional good reasons included, if they 'might' be developing WMD that would stop them, it would teach them a lesson for harbouring terrorists, it would show the world how big and strong the US was, it would show the world how tough Dubya was, it would finish the job that Dubya's dad started (Good job Dubya ...  thats my boy !), but mainly it was for oil.  Not to free up Iraqs oil reserves but to stifle and control them thus putting the price of oil up.   Lots of money to be made.  Dubya was in the oil business.

 

Blair is guilty of one thing ...    doing what he was told by his best mate Dubya and dragging us into a war that we shouldn't have been involved in. And fabricating and exaggerating the reason to join in.   179 British service people died because of this.  He has blood on his hands.  He is as guilty as fvck.

 

 

It was actually Blair who persuaded him to go to the U.N and hold off on attacking when he wanted to...

[leicsmac]

In crude terms I think men like to swing their dicks when given the opportunity. Reminds me of the vote to bomb Syria, the f**kers couldn't get enough of it, playing war games like kids with toy guns. Let's bomb shit cause it makes us feel powerful and we'll think about the next bit later.

 

That about the size of it.

 

It takes a special kind of deranged to think of the idea of starting something like that and thinking along with it..."Yeah, this is really fvcking awesome!"

 

It was actually Blair who persuaded him to go to the U.N and hold off on attacking when he wanted to...

 

And a lot of good that did.

[Darkon84]

Blair and New Labour were the PM and the government. After George W. Bush's USA, they rightly take by far the biggest blame for this disaster. It won't happen, but Blair should be tried for war crimes.

 

However, any tendency to blame Labour in general and to acquit the Tories in general should be avoided. The Tories were in Opposition, so get less blame....but opposition comes with responsibilities, too.

 

There was massive public opposition to the war. 1m-2m people had marched against it - probably the biggest protest march in the history of the nation. The grounds for believing it to be a bad decision were known.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

 

Those voting against the war in parliament were:

- 139 Labour backbenchers, ranging from Cook to Corbyn

- 16 Tories, ranging from Ken Clarke to Edward Leigh

- All 53 Lib Dem MPs 

- 11 other MPs (SNP/Plaid/SDLP?)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/19/uk.houseofcommons3

 

About 65%-70% of Labour MPs supported the war vote. About 90% of Tories did so, including a young Cameron. Indeed, some Tories were critical of Blair for seeking UN support. They thought that the UK should join the US invasion without it.

 

Here's IDS (then Tory leader) a year before the vote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1405999/Duncan-Smith-supports-Iraq-action.html

"Iain Duncan Smith stepped in to the debate on Iraq yesterday, giving Tony Blair some of the political cover he may need to see off domestic opposition to any military action. The Conservative leader insisted that the case for British involvement was not based on "subservience" to Washington but on British national interest. He claimed that Britain had to defend itself against the threat that Iraq might develop missiles capable of reaching Europe".

Here's Cameron in 2006 (3 years after the invasion), expressing his support for Blair's decision to join the invasion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5108584.stm

 

Make no mistake. Blair and his acolytes carry the main responsibility in the UK, but the Tories didn't cover themselves in glory, either.

 

Thanks Alf, Fantastic reply, I wasn't aware of such high numbers of Tories voting to go to war, or IDS's covering for Blair. The point regarding Blair as having the actual final say is still correct, no? I was under the impression that the final decision wasn't made by the government itself or anything, but by one man. He could have by all means delayed the decision (there was no need to go to war right THEN, considering the apparent charges had been around for so long) and listened to public opinion etc. What a complete mess all over. Apologies @@Rincewind

[Guest MattP]

In crude terms I think men like to swing their dicks when given the opportunity. Reminds me of the vote to bomb Syria, the f**kers couldn't get enough of it, playing war games like kids with toy guns. Let's bomb shit cause it makes us feel powerful and we'll think about the next bit later.

 

Comapring this to Syria is a little bit ridiculous, they didn't vote to "BOMB SYRIA!" (though that sounds great when shouting it or to cause outrage when written on a placard) - they voted to extend airstrikes from Iraq into Syria over a non-existent border, a completely sensible decision on the base of it given without it you were effectively enforcing a "safe zone" for ISIS fighters to continue their desruction, torture, rape and mass murder of anyone who dares to live a lifestyle that they disprove of. Something by the way no one now actually seems to oppose? I'd be interested to know if you still think it was the wrong decision?

 

The Syria debate was probably the most informative 8-9 hours of television I had ever watched, to suggest people sat through that and then wandered in to vote for it because they wanted to "swing their dick" is asinine.

 

Making this a Tory thing when it really isn't necessary?

 

It's Ken, if it was raining outside it would be the fault of the Tories, if anything goes wrong it's the Tories and if things go wrong under Labour it's because they are also Tories.

 

As Alf's post mentions The Tory government at the time certainly didn't do their job as a proper opposition but the fact still remains they were presented with lies from the Prime Minister in order to get the vote he wanted, I don't blame any MP for voting for the Iraq war, I blame the people who created the myths around it. If we want to blame the Tories for calamitous external decisions we only have to go back 50 years to Suez, probably still a bigger foreign policy disaster than this.

 

I've not read the report yet but the summary doesn't really give me any surprises or anything I didn't already suspect, I'll have a proper read though over the next few days before giving my thoughts.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Thanks Alf, Fantastic reply, I wasn't aware of such high numbers of Tories voting to go to war. The point regarding Blair as having the actual final say is still correct, no? I was under the impression that the final decision wasn't made by the government itself, but by one man. He could have by all means delayed the decision (there was no need to go to war right THEN, considering the apparent charges had been around for so long). Apologies @@Rincewind

I believe the issue was (as has been alluded to in stuff I've heard today) that forces and plans were essentially in place and for the UK it was now or never... because the US would probably have gone on in regardless of our stance.

[Countryfox]

I believe the issue was (as has been alluded to in stuff I've heard today) that forces and plans were essentially in place and for the UK it was now or never... because the US would probably have gone on in regardless of our stance.

Dubya had been planning this for years. Nothing was going to stop him.

[Jon the Hat]

I suspect that while opposition leaders are fully briefed on the position of the Army & security services on the need for war, they are less involved in the preparation of such positions that the Government.  Not absolving the Tories of blame, only pointing out they had less information.  The opposition always supports the government when they decided to go to war though.

[Strokes]

Blair and New Labour were the PM and the government. After George W. Bush's USA, they rightly take by far the biggest blame for this disaster. It won't happen, but Blair should be tried for war crimes.

 

However, any tendency to blame Labour in general and to acquit the Tories in general should be avoided. The Tories were in Opposition, so get less blame....but opposition comes with responsibilities, too.

 

There was massive public opposition to the war. 1m-2m people had marched against it - probably the biggest protest march in the history of the nation. The grounds for believing it to be a bad decision were known.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

 

Those voting against the war in parliament were:

- 139 Labour backbenchers, ranging from Cook to Corbyn

- 16 Tories, ranging from Ken Clarke to Edward Leigh

- All 53 Lib Dem MPs 

- 11 other MPs (SNP/Plaid/SDLP?)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/19/uk.houseofcommons3

 

About 65%-70% of Labour MPs supported the war vote. About 90% of Tories did so, including a young Cameron. Indeed, some Tories were critical of Blair for seeking UN support. They thought that the UK should join the US invasion without it.

 

Here's IDS (then Tory leader) a year before the vote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1405999/Duncan-Smith-supports-Iraq-action.html

"Iain Duncan Smith stepped in to the debate on Iraq yesterday, giving Tony Blair some of the political cover he may need to see off domestic opposition to any military action. The Conservative leader insisted that the case for British involvement was not based on "subservience" to Washington but on British national interest. He claimed that Britain had to defend itself against the threat that Iraq might develop missiles capable of reaching Europe".

Here's Cameron in 2006 (3 years after the invasion), expressing his support for Blair's decision to join the invasion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5108584.stm

 

Make no mistake. Blair and his acolytes carry the main responsibility in the UK, but the Tories didn't cover themselves in glory, either.

I'm not sure it's fair to berate or point fingers at any of the votes to be honest. The case made in the Houses of Parliament was a decentish case although it clearly divided opinion. The part which should be debated and berated is how that case was built on incorrect information. Was it doctored, fabricated or sourced though bad intelligence. Did anyone in government know this, before or learn it after and keep quiet. I was pro the war in Iraq in 2003 based on the information I thought was correct but it was wrong therefore........

[Alf Bentley]

Thanks Alf, Fantastic reply, I wasn't aware of such high numbers of Tories voting to go to war, or IDS's covering for Blair. The point regarding Blair as having the actual final say is still correct, no? I was under the impression that the final decision wasn't made by the government itself or anything, but by one man. He could have by all means delayed the decision (there was no need to go to war right THEN, considering the apparent charges had been around for so long) and listened to public opinion etc. What a complete mess all over. Apologies @@Rincewind

I believe the issue was (as has been alluded to in stuff I've heard today) that forces and plans were essentially in place and for the UK it was now or never... because the US would probably have gone on in regardless of our stance.

 

 

I don't remember any discussion about Blair/Govt being able to declare war even if parliament had voted against. But Darkon84 is right about that, according to Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq

"The Prime Minister has the power to declare war, as an exercise of the Royal Prerogative, without the approval of Parliament. Before or after the start of previous wars, there had normally been debate in Parliament; however for the first time a vote was held, apparently allowing Parliament to block the declaration of war, even though it was, "purely symbolic" and "not binding on the government"

 

Whether the government could or would have gone ahead if parliament had voted against is anyone's guess. It certainly would have caused a constitutional crisis and massive public discontent....but that might not have stopped them.

 

As DJ Barry suggests, it looked as if Bush had decided to go ahead regardless (although that isn't 100% clear - and wouldn't excuse Blair's decision, even if it was). Blair's stance seemed to be to persuade Bush to go to the UN and to try to get a 2nd resolution authorising war. He got Bush to go to the UN, but they didn't get the second resolution. Bush had (probably) decided to go ahead anyway. Blair then faced an awkward choice between (a) joining European allies who insisted on giving the weapons inspectors time to complete their search for the (non-existent) WMDs; and (b) joining Bush in the military invasion with the search incomplete and no UN support. Shamefully, he chose the latter, with disastrous consequences.

 

Chilcot seems to suggest that Blair did try to persuade Bush to compile better plans for post-war Iraq, but that he was largely ignored as the Americans were completely dominant. However, the fact remains that, after trying to go via the UN / weapons inspections, Blair led the UK into war alongside the US, when a peaceful resolution might still have been possible, when there were no WMDs, when there was no Islamist presence in Iraq, when the region was known to be a powder keg - and when plans for post-war Iraq were completely inadequate or even actively counter-productive (dismissing all the Saddam-era officials/forces who had been running the country). Bush is even more guilty, the Opposition also bear some guilt - but Blair was guilty as hell!

[LanguedocFox]

I don't remember any discussion about Blair/Govt being able to declare war even if parliament had voted against. But Darkon84 is right about that, according to Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq

"The Prime Minister has the power to declare war, as an exercise of the Royal Prerogative, without the approval of Parliament. Before or after the start of previous wars, there had normally been debate in Parliament; however for the first time a vote was held, apparently allowing Parliament to block the declaration of war, even though it was, "purely symbolic" and "not binding on the government"

 

Whether the government could or would have gone ahead if parliament had voted against is anyone's guess. It certainly would have caused a constitutional crisis and massive public discontent....but that might not have stopped them.

 

As DJ Barry suggests, it looked as if Bush had decided to go ahead regardless (although that isn't 100% clear - and wouldn't excuse Blair's decision, even if it was). Blair's stance seemed to be to persuade Bush to go to the UN and to try to get a 2nd resolution authorising war. He got Bush to go to the UN, but they didn't get the second resolution. Bush had (probably) decided to go ahead anyway. Blair then faced an awkward choice between (a) joining European allies who insisted on giving the weapons inspectors time to complete their search for the (non-existent) WMDs; and (b) joining Bush in the military invasion with the search incomplete and no UN support. Shamefully, he chose the latter, with disastrous consequences.

 

Chilcot seems to suggest that Blair did try to persuade Bush to compile better plans for post-war Iraq, but that he was largely ignored as the Americans were completely dominant. However, the fact remains that, after trying to go via the UN / weapons inspections, Blair led the UK into war alongside the US, when a peaceful resolution might still have been possible, when there were no WMDs, when there was no Islamist presence in Iraq, when the region was known to be a powder keg - and when plans for post-war Iraq were completely inadequate or even actively counter-productive (dismissing all the Saddam-era officials/forces who had been running the country). Bush is even more guilty, the Opposition also bear some guilt - but Blair was guilty as hell!

 

 

Robin Cook pointed this out in his statement to the House of Commons after his resignation. Cook said that, given the urgency with which Bush/Bliar sought this second resolution and given the fact that it was refused, going to war was an illegal act. And he was right. Bush and Bliar should be charged with War Crimes.

[Rincewind]

Making this a Tory thing when it really isn't necessary?

As far as I was aware, the final decision came down to Blair and only Blair to make the big call anyway. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though, I'm always happy to learn!

I gave up with the video a short way in. I find some of C4's political reporting nauseating now, and it's a damn shame it's spilled over in to some of their comedy too. It was worthwhile posting it and is certainly relevant, but that is just my view on it.

 

Anyway, back to the topic, I'll be trying to catch up on the report itself over lunch if possible. Is it sad that I'm a bit excited

No I was not. The decision was made by all MP's not just one side. I know Corbyn Skinner and a few others voted against it I was just wondering who else from other parties. Of course Blair had the final say, he was PM. Because it was a majority in favour any PM whichever party would be in the same position. I am not defending Blair. I thought at the time there was not enough evidence to go to war and what there was was unreliable. Corbyn said the same but because he was not New Labour he was ignored. Turns out he was right all along.

At the time work mates and friends were saying things like 'Oh we can't let them get away with hiding WMD' and the media was full of stories about them having them. They have not changed much. All the evidence seems to have been false and based on lies and as Blair  was PM the axe should fall on his neck.

[Darkon84]

No I was not. The decision was made by all MP's not just one side. I know Corbyn Skinner and a few others voted against it I was just wondering who else from other parties. Of course Blair had the final say, he was PM. Because it was a majority in favour any PM whichever party would be in the same position. I am not defending Blair. I thought at the time there was not enough evidence to go to war and what there was was unreliable. Corbyn said the same but because he was not New Labour he was ignored. Turns out he was right all along.

At the time work mates and friends were saying things like 'Oh we can't let them get away with hiding WMD' and the media was full of stories about them having them. They have not changed much. All the evidence seems to have been false and based on lies and as Blair  was PM the axe should fall on his neck.

 

No worries, Rince, it's all been sorted in the subsequent posts. I even issued an apology in one of the above posts   

[Rincewind]

No worries, Rince, it's all been sorted in the subsequent posts. I even issued an apology in one of the above posts   

ok. From what I recall spy planes were going over and the military identified them as possible WMD. It was not proven beyond doubt but Bush was saying our spies are never wrong. They could not say where the weapons were but assumed they had them because of troop movement.Blair was a puppet to Bush. Corbyn hates Blair as much as Thracian does.  Blair and his war was the reason a lot of people left the party. He has a lot to answer for.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm not sure it's fair to berate or point fingers at any of the votes to be honest. The case made in the Houses of Parliament was a decentish case although it clearly divided opinion. The part which should be debated and berated is how that case was built on incorrect information. Was it doctored, fabricated or sourced though bad intelligence. Did anyone in government know this, before or learn it after and keep quiet. I was pro the war in Iraq in 2003 based on the information I thought was correct but it was wrong therefore........

 

 

You're right that it wouldn't be productive to rake over personal motives for votes, and that some believed intelligence more than others. I didn't blame members of the public for what they believed. But I'd expect MPs and Ministers to exercise caution over going to war, unless there was clearly an imminent threat. The "dodgy dossier" of intelligence suggested that Saddam had WMDs that could hit the West within 45 minutes, but there was never any credible evidence of this.

 

UN weapons inspectors had inspected hundreds of sites and found nothing. The process was incomplete, but could have been completed within a few months according to the UN. There was no evidence of any imminent threat, so no need to rush to war, particularly not without properly planning what would happen afterwards. But Blair chose to join Bush in rushing to war, despite this lack of an imminent threat, despite the option to continue to seek a peaceful resolution via weapons inspections and despite the opposition of other allies. Doubtless this rush was led by Bush, but once the UN route failed Blair chose to go along with it. Otherwise, I'd refer you to Robin Cook's speech: a brilliant exposé of the case for caution and against war.

 

Of course, Bush had a different agenda all along, though precisely what is unclear. Unlike Blair, Bush sought "regime change", not just WMDs. It was common for Americans to see the attack as "revenge for 9/11", even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The 9/11 hijackers were mainly Saudis, with the odd Egyptian and other Arab thrown in, but no Iraqis. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he was a secular brutal dictator and wouldn't have tolerated Islamists in Iraq. At the time of the invasion, Iraq was a dictatorship but there was no Islamist presence. Al-Qaeda and then ISIS only established a presence in Iraq in the wake of the havoc created by the invasion and lack of planning for post-Saddam Iraq. 

[Countryfox]

This certainly can't be called a whitewash

No whitewash. Comprehensive report. But boy that Bliar can act ... Very impressive !

Not my fault ... Bad intel. I'm sorrrreeeey. Can I go now.

[Danno]

Imagine being behind Chilcot in the printer queue.

[Countryfox]

Imagine being behind Chilcot in the printer queue.

 

[Dr The Singh]

No whitewash. Comprehensive report. But boy that Bliar can act ... Very impressive !

Not my fault ... Bad intel. I'm sorrrreeeey. Can I go now.

The most astounding thing is that he is being paid to be a Middle East Envoy

[The Horse's Mouth]

The most astounding thing is that he is being paid to be a Middle East Envoy

whoever gave him that gig definitely has a dark sense of humour 

[lavrentis]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10637526

 

Take a read of that. 19 and 18 year old casualties, unbelievable to think about it