blair

[Rampant Rabbit]

May be shes been clamped by the mods northerer

[Boozeburglar]

I think he answered the questions fairly well. The impression I got of the whole thing is that he genuinely believes that the decision he made was the correct one, and for this he has my respect - it would have been easy for him to come out and just be hyper-apologetic. And I'm sorry Jox, but I find the "tried for murder" comment to be ridiculous. The same goes for the Hague comment.

Just about sums up my thoughts, thanks!

[hunter]

He should be tried for murder.

The decision to invade Iraq was debated in UK Parliament and a majority approved. Now, however much I disagree with the decision, and leaving aside its legality in international law, that represents a reasonably democratic process that legitimises the decision in a UK context.

The real question is whether the information presented to Parliament, and upon which MPs made their judgement, was knowingly misleading or flawed at the time. If the inquiry detects dishonesty or manipulation in the presentation of that information, the individual or individuals responsible should be punished.

The subsequent strategy adopted by the UK and its consequences can be debated till the cows come home. But the culpability question is rooted in the collective responsibility of Cabinet and the evidence they presented to obtain a mandate from Parliament.

[Tristan]

Weapons of mass destruction was as much of lie then as it is now - although some numpites here believed it.
He is a politician and a lawyer, not being questioned by lawyers. We will keep up with his twisted lies and the world will go on except for those soldiers he sent to their deaths over oil.

[Boozeburglar]

To be fair, there was an atmosphere of horror and trepidation after 9/11 and those ideas about WMD played on that.

He did not have to do much magic to conjure up those scenarios.

Then are we as a nation not complicit in allowing ourselves to be so easily led?

Yes, I mean the UK as a nation!

[Tristan]

To be fair, there was an atmosphere of horror and trepidation after 9/11 and those ideas about WMD played on that.

He did not have to do much magic to conjure up those scenarios.

Then are we as a nation not complicit in allowing ourselves to be so easily led?

Yes, I mean the UK as a nation!

I agree it was easy for politicians to manipulate things. My recollection was there were a lot of people at the time saying no but the politicians went ahead anyway.

[Phill]

But the culpability question is rooted in the collective responsibility of Cabinet and the evidence they presented to obtain a mandate from Parliament.

This, in my view, is key. I do not accept that the absolute and balanced facts were presented.

We will keep up with his twisted lies and the world will go on except for those soldiers he sent to their deaths over oil.

Here is the appalling consequence for the UK.This man is a devout Christian and I'm sure in his mind he's telling himself it is Gods will and their sacrifice is for the greater good etc. And this will allow him his edge of genuineness.

Then are we as a nation not complicit in allowing ourselves to be so easily led?

I seem to remember it being close to 50/50 in opinion polls, I may be wrong, but that is not what I would accept as being an easily led nation.

[fred]

The decision to invade Iraq was debated in UK Parliament and a majority approved. Now, however much I disagree with the decision, and leaving aside its legality in international law, that represents a reasonably democratic process that legitimises the decision in a UK context.

The real question is whether the information presented to Parliament, and upon which MPs made their judgement, was knowingly misleading or flawed at the time. If the inquiry detects dishonesty or manipulation in the presentation of that information, the individual or individuals responsible should be punished.

The subsequent strategy adopted by the UK and its consequences can be debated till the cows come home. But the culpability question is rooted in the collective responsibility of Cabinet and the evidence they presented to obtain a mandate from Parliament.

I don't think we can leave aside the legality in international law, Parliament was lead to believe that the war would be legal, they were not told that the Foreign Office legal experts had said that the war would not be legal.

Blair lied again today when he said "You would be hard pressed to find anyone who in September 2002 doubted that Saddam had WMD", according to Craig Murray, who was Britain's ambassador to Uzbekistan at the time, there were no shortage of people in the Foreign Office and security services doubting it. Yet it was presented to Parliament as fact, Blair even itemised and gave the amounts of the chemicals and nerve agents we knew for a fact he had.

Had Parliament been told there was doubt both to the existence of WMD and to the legality, which there is no doubt there was, I think the vote would have gone differently.

[ducati]

what do you say

I don't think there were any surprises in Blair's testimony (unless that he pretty much denied what he said in the Fern interview).

What will be interesting is Browns pitch. Will he stick with his decisions to back Blair or will he try and wriggle out?

Its obvious after 9/11 that GW had to go to war with someone and that in his circumstances it was legal. What is still in question is: was Britain dragged in to add legitimacy or was there a separate, legal need for the UK, for instance, as a matter of self-defence?

I don't know

[Green_not_greed]

What is still in question is: was Britain dragged in to add legitimacy or was there a separate, legal need for the UK, for instance, as a matter of self-defence?

Self defence from Iraq? For the UK? I don't remember Iqaqui forces threatening to invade us or even the country being a hotbed for UK-destined terrorists.

I fully believe that (a) Blair dragged in the UK to help the US look legitimate in their invasion, and (b) Blair dragged in the UK to up his own profile amongst world leaders. It was IMO more for Blair's ego and image - and his cronies - than for the UK.

[Phill]

I feel with this situation like some miscarriages of justice, the right thing was done the wrong way.

Saddam had to go and mainly on humanitarian grounds, he did some sabre rattling but I do not think he was ever a serious threat to world security or stability. As for Middle Eastern stability that is never going to be reconciled as long as Israel exists as it does now.

If the UK was genuinely concerned for humanity why are we still saying "strong words" about Mugabe?

On a somewhat contradictory note I believe we should have just given some special forces mercenaries a brown envelope full of McGarretts and had Saddam potted and then let them sort themselves out whilst doing a bit of funding in the background. Job done, saved UK soldiers lives and £billions.

[ducati]

Self defence from Iraq? For the UK? I don't remember Iqaqui forces threatening to invade us or even the country being a hotbed for UK-destined terrorists.

I fully believe that (a) Blair dragged in the UK to help the US look legitimate in their invasion, and (b) Blair dragged in the UK to up his own profile amongst world leaders. It was IMO more for Blair's ego and image - and his cronies - than for the UK.

That's why I said "what is still in question" Chilcot is supposed provide the answers!

[Green_not_greed]

If the UK was genuinely concerned for humanity why are we still saying "strong words" about Mugabe?

Quite! I completely agree.

And if was only Saddam Hussein why didn't the CIA take him out like they have so many others?

[Stavro]

I agree it was easy for politicians to manipulate things. My recollection was there were a lot of people at the time saying no but the politicians went ahead anyway.

Blair made numerous false claims in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq. He admitted that he would have invaded Iraq without evidence of weapons of mass destruction. His LIES resulted in large numbers of innocent people being killed under false pretences. This is abhorrent and EVIL.

[Boozeburglar]

Mmmmhhhh.

Parliament went with him.

Had they not, maybe we could be looking at pinning it on him.

[Phill]

Mmmmhhhh.

Parliament went with him.

Had they not, maybe we could be looking at pinning it on him.

Unless it can be shown that Parliament was misled!

They were probably too busy filling out their expenses forms to take any bloody notice!

[ducati]

Quite! I completely agree.

And if was only Saddam Hussein why didn't the CIA take him out like they have so many others?

And if the big concern is the legality of war, why are you advocating assassination of a head of state? You can't have it both ways.

[Boozeburglar]

Because it would have been the best way to deal with the situation? That is the opinion of many I know, including a member of my family who was part of the regime!

[roadbowler]

fred, i too would like to think that the vote might have gone differently, however, i do wonder about such events as operation swift sword II happening just before 9/11. Something stinks. Ducati, how did america have grounds for war on iraq after 9\11? Iraq had nothing to do with 9\11, did they? Did afghanistan? Boozeburgler, yes, i agree, complicit, if you voted and have blind faith in the government to pursue your ambitions and aspirations on your behalf because we live in a 'democracy' and continue to do so. I read the commentary of blairs charade today, grinding his well developed organ of gregariousness, smiling when he should be frowning and frowning when he should be smiling. Inquiry will be a whitewash. We will be none the wiser when it's through. Tho, if anything does come out of it that the public see as horrifyingly unjust what will we do about it?

[Kenn]

I watched the Blair questions today and was shocked by his appearance when he first arrived he was obviously very worried.He then proceeded to answer questions with questions and avoid the issue as he always did when in office.
His assurances that he searched his soul does not wear with me, he is a self deluded egotist.
His lack of apology for the mess that followed and the lives that were lost rankles deaply.
He split the nation down the middle and no enquiry will ever exonerate him and his misguided beliefs.

Rant over.