Chilcott

[Stom]

So, pretty damning...

And the Russians win again:

[/url]

[jared_7]

So deliberately scathing, but deliberately not quite scathing enough to prosecute Blair as the murderer of hundreds of thousands of innocent people that he is.

As expected, really. I'm sure Tony will be in demand for a few more thousands-of-pound speeches now. Everyone wins!

[Sandydragon]

Ive just waded through the 100+ page executive summary and Chilcott isn't shy at exposing the failings. He does stop short at accusing anyone of war crimes (I wonder if Corbyn will go that far in the HoC later?) but the role of Blair as a key facilitator for the war is front and centre.

Other key thoughts:

• The failure of the cabinet to properly inform events. Most of the key decisions seem to have been taken in closed meetings, often without minutes, and then presented to the Cabinet as a fait accompli. Evidence of how 'Presidential' a Prime Minister Blair was.
  The complete lack of planning for what post-war Iraq would look like. The UK assumed the US would take the initiative but had few answers of their own.
  HQ Army front and centre for the failure to replace Snatch Landrovers with anything remotely approaching protective armour. The families will be over that in an instant.
  The utter determination of Blair to support the US, regardless.
  Bush's lack of patience with the diplomatic effort comes through loud and clear.
  The intelligence assessments just weren't challenged. I haven't read much about 'sexing up' documents (possible that I missed it) but there is definitely a hint that politicians used the intelligence available to support their own beliefs that Saddam was lying to inspectors.
  No one really challenged Lord Goldsmith on why the legal advice changed.
  Equipment failures were legion across a range of capabilities, but took too long to be addressed.
  We failed to commit the resources to properly secure Basrah and the surrounding area pending the training of a competent Iraqi security force. If protestors want to focus on Blair for a war crime, then this is something they should be shouting about, more so than the legality of the invasion in the first place.

Standby for a range of responses, Blair's will be illuminating. So too will the decisions by private parties to take independent legal action against him.

[WaspInWales]

Lessons must be learned.

[Sandydragon]

Corbyn fudges the issue of war crimes, talking about questionable legality, but not directly accusing Blair as such. Interestingly, Paul Flynn, now of the shadow cabinet, calls for war crimes investigation against Blair to be opened.

[Zhivago]

Corbyn fudges the issue of war crimes, talking about questionable legality, but not directly accusing Blair as such. Interestingly, Paul Flynn, now of the shadow cabinet, calls for war crimes investigation against Blair to be opened.

Seems reasonable to investigate that given the report is pretty damning in most aspects but excludes legality from its scope.

[Sandydragon]

Corbyn fudges the issue of war crimes, talking about questionable legality, but not directly accusing Blair as such. Interestingly, Paul Flynn, now of the shadow cabinet, calls for war crimes investigation against Blair to be opened.

Seems reasonable to investigate that given the report is pretty damning in most aspects but excludes legality from its scope.

Investigation, perhaps but a prosecution needs a reasonable chance of success to proceed.

A smart lawyer would talk about facts available at the time, i.e. Saddam's untrustworthiness and previous use of WMDs, conflicting intelligence and less than clear legal advice. I need to read the main body of the report in more detail, but the executive summary is suggestive rather than outright damning when it comes to legality.

Id suggest the failure to ensure proper security post invasion was a more obvious charge.

[morepork]

I'm sorry, but is not the generally accepted view of events that Blair "sexed up" intelligence in order that the Pentagon could make some nice cartoons to show the UN? Is the jug eared cunt not at the very least guilty of fraud in this context?

[Sandydragon]

I'm sorry, but is not the generally accepted view of events that Blair "sexed up" intelligence in order that the Pentagon could make some nice cartoons to show the UN? Is the jug eared cunt not at the very least guilty of fraud in this context?

The view of the enquiry is that is not the case.

Misunderstood or perhaps used intelligence to support existing pre-conceptions, but not sexed up. Given the lack of recorded minutes in many of the meetings, people will draw their own conclusions on what was said in private.

[Adder]

France foreign affairs minister in front of the security council 2003.

He was quite accurate.

Sent from my LG-H320 using Tapatalk

[Stom]

I got as far as:

I thank Mr. Blicks.

So Ronery.

[Adder]

I got as far as:

I thank Mr. Blicks.

So Ronery.

Sent from my LG-H320 using Tapatalk

[kk67]

The complete lack of planning for what post-war Iraq would look like.

They knew exactly what it was going to look like post war. A free-for-all with the US carrying the biggest stick.
It stabilized the USD as gold standard, stopped Saddam dealing in Euro's.... and they're now selling most of the oil to China, which is probably helping with the amount of US debt that China is holding.
It was the perfect carve up.

[rowan]

Wow, in the space of about 24 hours we've learned that Blair is culpable of starting a devastating war under false pretences, Hillary Clinton is culpable of mishandling classified state information, Lionel Messi is culpable of tax evasion and Andre Pistorius is culplable of murdering his girlfriend. The first three will go unpunished, while the latter will serve all of six years - and probably get one or two off for good behaviour. Something about these rich and famous white folks!

[rowan]

There was nothing flawed or misjudged about the invasion at all. The war was carefully and skillfully conceived and executed by the military industry for profit in the grand tradition of most wars throughout history. Nothing new. They are still laughing all the way to the bank. They are also taking notes on how not to be so obvious next time. Look up dividend and stock price histories for Halliburton, Lockheed, Northrop, Raytheon etc. Their long term business plan of being in perpetual war is paying off handsomely. Now it's just a conveyer belt of profits. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-soarin ... es/5388393

[rowan]

After Brexit & Chilcot, isn't it time to drop the 'Great' from Britain now??

Meanwhile, in defiance of pre-election campaign promises, Obama immediately whitewashed America's own 'War on Terror' crimes investigation when he took office, claiming the nation need to look forward not back. I guess he already had Libya and Syria lined up then . . .

[Sandydragon]

There was nothing flawed or misjudged about the invasion at all. The war was carefully and skillfully conceived and executed by the military industry for profit in the grand tradition of most wars throughout history. Nothing new. They are still laughing all the way to the bank. They are also taking notes on how not to be so obvious next time. Look up dividend and stock price histories for Halliburton, Lockheed, Northrop, Raytheon etc. Their long term business plan of being in perpetual war is paying off handsomely. Now it's just a conveyer belt of profits. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-soarin ... es/5388393

The evidence provided by a very long and exhaustive enquirer would perhaps show a real lack of planning at governmental level. Munitions companies profiting from war isn't exactly a headline; it's a big jump to push them forward to pushing for war to take place.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

So deliberately scathing, but deliberately not quite scathing enough to prosecute Blair as the murderer of hundreds of thousands of innocent people that he is.

As expected, really. I'm sure Tony will be in demand for a few more thousands-of-pound speeches now. Everyone wins!

Not a surprise that it didn't go into the legality of the ar since it wasn;t part of his frame of reference and he's not a judge. but he's left the breadcrumbs for any legal investigation to follow. If the evidence did not support the conclusion that it was necessary to act then it might be possible to demonstrate that the reason they acted was not WMD.

[Zhivago]

[Zhivago]

Corbyn told to "sit down and shut up" by own MP. Should be expelled.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 22871.html

[rowan]

& that's a ridiculously conservative estimate on civilian deaths. Most estimates had it at over a million within five years of the invasion, and it might have just about doubled since then.

Opinion Research Business published an update to the survey on 28 January 2008, based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken and as a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_surve ... 000_deaths

[Lizard]

From your link:

"the ORB estimate has rarely been treated as credible by responsible media organisations, but it is still widely repeated by cranks and the ignorant."

Just one man's opinion but obviously there's a range of estimates out there.

Personally, I find it very artificial to apply a binary legal/illegal description to war. International "law" is in any case a pretty iffy concept. My view is that violent conflicts, in terms of general justifications, fall somewhere on a spectrum of more or less justifiable. Individual events during wars can also be more or less justifiable. Eg opposing Japan's expansionism in WWII was fairly justifiable but dropping a second nuclear warhead probably less so.

The problem I have with the second Iraq war is that although you could say removing a fairly horrid dictator is justifiable, practically every slightly informed pundit (hell, even me) predicted that without a strong man keeping a lid on shit, Iraq would blow apart, most likely due to one or all of Kurdish separatism, Shia/Sunni internecine bullshit and /or radical Islam anti-westernism. Without a credible follow-up plan, deposing the regime was plainly a dumb idea.

[jared_7]

From your link:

"the ORB estimate has rarely been treated as credible by responsible media organisations, but it is still widely repeated by cranks and the ignorant."

Just one man's opinion but obviously there's a range of estimates out there.

Personally, I find it very artificial to apply a binary legal/illegal description to war. International "law" is in any case a pretty iffy concept. My view is that violent conflicts, in terms of general justifications, fall somewhere on a spectrum of more or less justifiable. Individual events during wars can also be more or less justifiable. Eg opposing Japan's expansionism in WWII was fairly justifiable but dropping a second nuclear warhead probably less so.

The problem I have with the second Iraq war is that although you could say removing a fairly horrid dictator is justifiable, practically every slightly informed pundit (hell, even me) predicted that without a strong man keeping a lid on shit, Iraq would blow apart, most likely due to one or all of Kurdish separatism, Shia/Sunni internecine bullshit and /or radical Islam anti-westernism. Without a credible follow-up plan, deposing the regime was plainly a dumb idea.

If Iran had invaded Iraq under the same pretences, or Russia, or North Korea, or an African nation, or any non-western country for that matter, do you honestly believe the US/UK wouldn't come out and flat out say the invasion was illegal? And most likely used as a reason to respond militarily?

You are right international laws are iffy, but only insofar as they only seem to apply to people we don't like and not us.

[Digby]

You are right international laws are iffy, but only insofar as they only seem to apply to people we don't like and not us.

As noted on a different thread most international law is yet to be written, so as things stand whose international law? who enforces it? who pays for it?

[jared_7]

so as things stand whose international law? who enforces it? who pays for it?

The US's.

The US with the help of its lackeys like the UK.

The rest of the world.

By the looks of things.