BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry

Subject: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Stu
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 08:50 AM

It's 1.25pm and the Chilcot enquiry is have tea and butties in between grilling Tony Blair to try to establish the reasoning behind his thinking when taking the country to war.

In my opinion, he's been typically evasive and lacking a hint of contrition or regret for the deaths he's responsible for. Interesting that he virtually excluded the cabinet from the decision process and he won't look the families of dead soldiers in the eye.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 09:06 AM

"After 9/11 we could not allow Saddam to have WMD's"
WHY ?
WMD's were not used in that atrocity! Nor was Saddam involved in it.

"I felt that 9/11 was not just an attack on the USA, it was an attack on us"
DUH?

Sorry Tony, but you are talking crap, it may have been construed as an attack on the free world, to reuse a hackneyed phrase, but it certainly wasn't an attack on the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 09:13 AM

Tangential to the thread (in agreement with you, J MacK, by the way), but I found a remark made years ago by one member of that Cabinet so revealing that I think the more widely known it becomes the better. Gordon Brown, then Chancellor, now PM, was asked by a Reporter, "How much will this War cost?", to which GB replied without hesitation, "as much as it takes". Ask any of these bastards about how much they'll spend on Hospitals or Schools and it won't be long before they start gabbling about "prioritization of limited resources" &c &c &c.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Stu
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:37 AM

Looks like he's gunning for Iran big style. Thank the maker he's the Middle East Peace Envoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:09 PM

What a performance! The problem is he actually seems to believe his own lies. 9/11 -nothing to do with it as John MacKenzie says. What Saddam might have done; imagine if we all used arguments like that. Did I hear him says the West is safer: he obviously doesn't read the newspapers. 'It would be right even if it was wrong', Private Eye paroded Bliar very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:14 PM

Tony Blair has a great capacity for himself and his own family; it's just a pity he didn't have the same consideration for other people. It isn't surprising that families of those soldiers who died in that war are angry and distressed at his evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:32 PM

Before the war the majority of the population were in favour (look it up), parliament was in favour, the press was in favour, even Dr Kelly thought we had to take Saddam out (yes, kelly as a witness would probably be an advantage to TB).

Virtually everyone thought he had wmd (he'd already used them).

Blair had to make a decision, the rest of us don't face these sort of decisions for which we should be grateful .

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:33 PM

Time to get out the waterboard... Jus' funnin'... No one, not even Tony Baloney, should be tortured...

But, hey, askin' Tony to come clean is an exercise in stupidity... He and Bush will both go to their graves singin' the same ol' song... I mean, everyone else has figured out that the Iraq invasion was wrong and based on lies so there is no reason on Eart why these two bafoons can't figure it out but...

...if they admitted that they were wrong then they would have to deal with the guilt of upwards of a million people have been killed as a result of their decision...

Tone, in some ways, is worse tham Bush because when Bush needed that one last nail to shut to coffin lid he called on Tony and Tony came thru with a bogus 20 year old college kids term paper as the last piece of the puzzle to prove that Saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons... That is 100% on Tony!!! I mean, even our own CIA folks who have seen this term paper say it reeks of being junk...

But for the rest of the day it will be "Lie, Tony, lie..."

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:49 PM

I am afraid I missed the morning session and about half the afternoon, but I thought that he gave a fairly good account of himself in the bit I did see.

Nothing really new came out of it, as has proven to be the case with the responses given to questions by the other witnesses. Much to the disappointment of many, who basically did not, nor ever had, have any interest in an inquiry. What they wanted was just simply a lynching.

John MacKenzie (29 Jan 10 - 09:06 AM)

Blair stated: "After 9/11 we could not allow Saddam to have WMD's"

John MacKenzie asks: WHY ?

Comment: John MacKenzie obviously has no bloody imagination whatsoever, or failing that an extremely selective memory.

John MacKenzie adds knowledgably : WMD's were not used in that atrocity! Nor was Saddam involved in it.

Comment: No shit Sherlock.

Little bit of background for Mr. MacKenzie.

1. Question: Is this the Iraqi President who ordered an assassination attempt on Bush Snr in April 1993? Bill Clinton was convinced enough by the evidence to lob 23 cruise missiles into the Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters.

2. Question: Is this the Iraqi President who was the only head of state and only world leader to publicly congratulate the 9/11 Hijackers?

3. The attacks of 9/11 demonstrated to the world how vulnerable mass centres of population are to asymmetric attack. Amongst all those citizens of the world that that fact had been demonstrated to was Saddam Hussein - True?

4. OK then John, what pushes it totally beyond the bounds of possibility that Saddam would not attempt a strike at the USA in a similar fashion excepting that this time WMD (either chemical or biological) would be added to the equation to increase the number killed. I mean it is not as though he had any qualms about using those kind of weapons on harmless civilians is it?

Now going back to Tony Blair's statement. Was that all he said about 9/11 John, or did he mention anything about changes to the "risk calculus" occasioned by the attacks of 9/11 by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 04:39 PM

IMO the truth of the matter is, that after 9/11, the US, and Mr Bush and friends in particular,simply had to do something to show that they were still "kings of the shitheap".....mainly for domestic consumption.
They chose a weakened(by sanctions) country, run by a troublesome and unpopular ex friend and dictator(Saddam), which they presumed would be an easy conquest militarily and which the rest of the world would not be to perturbed about.

In fact, the infrastructure of Iraq and the Iraqi people were to be sacrificed to restore America's pride.

Blair became convinced of the plan and saw reflected glory in becoming joined at the shoulder to the Commander in chief.
The UK cabinet which contained so called "lefties" demonstrated their cowardice and hypocricy by ditching their credentials and allowing Blair to set the agenda, because he was an electible leader and could, with a good result in Iraq, could guarentee their jobs for life.
This with one exception, Mr Robin Cook, who was shrewd enough to foresee that they were sleepwalking into a political and military nightmare, but unfortunately not sufficiently psycic to foesee his own demise.
Mr Cook resigned from the cabinet, I believe with the intention of returning as the saviour of Labour and Labour ideals, when the whole enterprise ended in tears and recriminations.

Mr Cook died shortly after, adding credence to the auld quote by Rabbie Burns.....that "the best laid plans o' rats an' politicians gie often come aff!"

Blair and Bush "marched into Baghdad tae the beat o' the drum,
                tae be showered wi' bananas and Pedigree Chum"(dog food)................from"The chimp and the poodle" by Davie R.

The rest, as they say ...is history....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 05:57 PM

sl said: Blair had to make a decision, the rest of us don't face these sort of decisions for which we should be grateful .

But that's not quite what happened. Instead of taking a decision, as he could have done (but no future PM would be able to do), he secured cabinet backing and then put the question of war to parliament. To ensure cabinet support he withheld pertinent information, not least the non-war options. Regrettably the cabinet dummies (with the honourable exception of a former foreign secretary, Robin Cook) didn't raise a murmur. And the incompetents who comprise the Chilcot team (I mean that in the kindest possible way; they are simply not qualified for the task) didn't think the point worth raising.

Parliament supported the war simply and entirely because it was misled, as is now widely acknowledged by MPs across all the main political parties.

In his evidence this afternoon Blair put a straightforwardly wrong meaning on UNSCR 1441. No-one on the inquiry team picked up on that, suggesting that none of them bothered having the text to hand. But beyond semantic arguments about the text, there is another fatal flaw in Blair's reliance on 1441, which is this: in order to discourage any risk of a veto, both the UK and the USA in presenting their text to the security council, stated explicitly that it was NOT intended as a war ultimatum.

Specifically US ambassador John Negroponte said: ...this resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. And for the UK, Jeremy Greenstock said: If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. France in particular had objected to any hint that 1441 was a war ultimatum, and Syria stated that it supported the resolution only on the strength of UK and USA assurances that it was no such thing.

Again Chilcot & Co completely ignored this point.

There is some cause for hope now, however, that some of these issues will be kept in mind when the inquiry report is being drafted. (They also have the option to recall witnesses including Blair, and have already said that Jack Straw will be brought back for further questioning.) It was clear from some of the questioning today, particularly from the two Jewish members ironically (ironic because there was media speculation in advance that they would be biased towards the pro-Israel Blair), that the panel were not impressed by Blair's arguments, notwithstanding the undeniably capable way he marshalled them.

He may well have cause to reflect in due course that his biggest mistake today was his refusal to express a single regret, despite being pressed twice on the point. He could hardly have made it more plain that far from being a last resort, war had been his preferred option all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:00 PM

Akenaton

Cook was prepared to go to war if there was a second un resolution, so I don't get your point about his shrewdness, i don't see that the legality or otherwise would have changed the military outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:15 PM

I think Mr Cook was well aware...as were most of us, that there would be no second resolution. Mr Cook was as much, if not more of a politician than Mr Blair, and VERY ambitious.

As I said before, I dont believe he had any intention of sacrificing his career for a principle, but was shrewd enough to realise that Iraq was an "elephant trap" which Labour would never escape from.

I believe, if Cook had lived, he would today be leader of the Labour Party, Prime Minister and set to defeat Mr Cameron in the next election.

Because of Blair's ego, Iraq before any other issue, will ensure Labour lose power for the next decade.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:25 PM

Because of Blair's ego, Iraq before any other issue, will ensure Labour lose power for the next decade.

Sheer nonsense. He won an election after the invasion.

The election will be fought on home policy as it always is.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:28 PM

Ya'll are conviently leaving out the facts as they unfolded...

Blair and Bush had decided long before WMDs and the rest of their trumped up excuses to go to war to change the regime... This has been fairly well doucmented...

Secondly, if ya'll will recall Bush was all ready to order the invasion when millions or people took to the streets in protest and then Secretary of State Colin Powell pushed as hard as he could to slow the process down and insisted that the matter be taken to the UN...

Thirdly, yeah the UN did pass Resolution 1441 but at the time there was a feeling that getting inspectors back into Iraq that no WMD would be found and B & B's thirst for the invasion would subside...

Forthly, Hanz Bliz went before the UN on Jan. 28th (okay, maybe it was the 27th) and said that the Iraqis were cooperating and letting his inspectors inspect anywhere they wanted to inspect...

Now, if the story stopped here and any sane person were to examine those fact on the ground as of the end of January, 2003 then the only conclusion would be that a war was about to be averted...

The operative word here is "sane"...

Well, the rest is history... Sanity never entered into the thinking of either B or B and now B & B have one heck of alot of blood on their hands... And so do the folks here and elsewhere who supported this insanity... T included...

But all these folks have takin' history and facts and woven them into a tapestry of mythology... Ya' know, I'm sure that Hitler did the same thing in his day... Seems that lieing to everyone including themselves is one thing that all evil people have in common...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:33 PM

Bobert

If you're trying to group Bush and Blair to Hitler then it shows how little you know and you're not worth talking to.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:36 PM

While the world is probably better off now that George Carman is dead, it would have been nice to see Tony B.Liar cross examined by him.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:43 PM

You're wrong SL, the disenchantment with New Labour and Blair began with the massive demos against the war, and slowly increased as Labours duplicity became more and more apparent.

Its true that Labour won an election after the war, but with a very much reduced share of the vote. Results in local elections and By-elections have continued the trend even the seats held have been with reduced majorities.

I've lived a fairly long time, and made a bit of a study of politicians, sometimes, as in this case, the public have simply had enough of them....I dont know if its hatred at being duped again, or shame that they voted in such devious cowardly scumbags, but they want them gone...the public want to cleanse themselves.....pity its got to be with Tory piss!!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:51 PM

Well I agree that "public have simply had enough of them" - same thing happened to the tories, and I also agree that the tories are a poor alternative, but earlier you wrote "Because of Blair's ego, Iraq before any other issue, will ensure Labour lose power for the next decade"

And by the way, even as the "massive demos" were taking place majority opinion backed Blair, I did then and I still do, though since his religion has become overt I would never vote for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:09 PM

Well sl, I was in some of the demos, and I can say honestly there was a feeling among the demostrators of a great injustice about to be perpetrated in their names.....something I had not experienced since the great popular movements for black equality and against the war in Vietnam.

Its strange and inexplicable, but there is an almost spiritual element in these great comings together of huge numbers of people.
You can almost smell the rising of the spirit.
When that happens a government or officialdom is finished, they can pack their bags and book a very long holiday.

So let it be with Labour, I would never consider voting Labour while the remnants of the Iraq debachle remain candidates.
Blair and his ideology has neutered a great vehicle for social good.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:17 PM

Well, sl....Any time you have a leader who is willing to rationalize his or her own evil decisions while going on a killing spree then yer gonna have comparisions to Hitler... If folks don't want to be lumped in with himthen they oughtta think long and hard about starting wars of choice...

If you don't like the comparasion then get on the correct side of the real story here... Upwards of 1,000,000 Iraqis have been killed because of B & B's decision...

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:25 PM

Yes thats right Bob.
I heard Blair at todays inquiry blast Saddam for being responsible for the "deaths of thousands"..... and he was a bad man, but Blair and Bush have as you say, been directly responsible for the deaths of a million.....and the complete destruction of 90% of the Iraqi infrastructure.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:59 PM

Some poor mortal fucker in supreme power always has to take the blame for decisions
forced upon them by extreme unpredictable circumstance
and constant malevolent opertunistic adversarial political machinations..

sure glad it aint me.. not a job most of us would want !

I never liked Blair that much.. but he sure aint the child killing monster
some of our lesser mentaly mature slogan shouting armchair politicos
paint him out to be.


there are still bigger murderous power mad cunts in the world still in power today.


well thats my well thought out political contribution to this debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 08:08 PM

When that happens a government or officialdom is finished, they can pack their bags and book a very long holiday

Took me a while to respond - i was laughing.

The demos were years ago, they won an election since the "spiritual" gathering and they're still there.

The trots (STW) that organised the demos are in disarray and you still only have a choice between new labour and the tories.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 08:14 PM

Uncle rumpo
Daft name, good comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 09:14 PM

oh, and while I'm awake enough to remember.

Please never vote the tories back in.

what the f@ck do you think Thatchers mad arse end of days rapture military regime
would have done to help Bush out
if they had still been in power in 9/11 !!!????

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:00 AM

1. upwards of a million people have been killed - Bobert

PROVE IT

2. Tone, in some ways, is worse tham Bush because when Bush needed that one last nail to shut to coffin lid he called on Tony and Tony came thru with a bogus 20 year old college kids term paper as the last piece of the puzzle to prove that Saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons... That is 100% on Tony!!! I mean, even our own CIA folks who have seen this term paper say it reeks of being junk... - Bobert

Have you got the faintest notion of what you are referring to and talking about? The post-graduate paper that was sourced and plagiarised had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. The post-graduate paper based on the information contained in over a million Iraqi documents captured and confiscated after the end of Desert Storm related to the lengths that the Iraqi's went to conceal what they were doing from UNSCOM. It was, at the time, and still is the most authorative work undertaken on this subject of concealment.

3. Blair and Bush had decided long before WMDs and the rest of their trumped up excuses to go to war to change the regime... This has been fairly well doucmented... - Bobert

Certainly the fact that Regime Change in Iraq was adopted as official Foreign Policy in the United States of America was well documented, so much so that it was well documented over three and a half years before George W. Bush took the Oath of Office.

4. the UN did pass Resolution 1441 but at the time there was a feeling that getting inspectors back into Iraq that no WMD would be found and B & B's thirst for the invasion would subside... - Bobert

The only reason UNSCR 1441 was passed was because the world and its dog were totally convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Later the man himself admitted that he deliberately did everything in his power to convince the world and his immediate neighbours that Iraq still had WMD capability. The mission of the UNMOVIC Inspection teams was to independently verify that Iraq had disarmed. Now read that last sentence again, let it sink in and then let it finally perculate through to your brain that UNMOVIC did not go into Iraq on a mission to find WMD, doubt that read their mandate, read what Dr.Hans Blix said about inspection not being a process of "hide-and-seek".

5. Hanz Bliz went before the UN on Jan. 28th (okay, maybe it was the 27th) and said that the Iraqis were cooperating and letting his inspectors inspect anywhere they wanted to inspect... - Bobert

Perfectly correct Bobert, Hans Blix, its Hans Bilx Bobert, not Hanz Bliz, did say that on the 27th January:

"that the Iraqis were cooperating and letting his inspectors inspect anywhere they wanted to inspect"

But that was not what was required of them was it Bobert?

For agruments sake, you have something on your property that you have agreed to surrender to say the police, court order after court order has been served on you to deliver whatever this is up, and you by and large ignore them, until you get one that says give this up, we expect your full proactive co-operation on this matter, or we confiscate everything. You letting the police onto your property and letting them inspect anywhere they want to inspect does not meet the requirement does it, what you have got to do is meet them at the front gate and you take them to the very spot that you have got it hidden and surrender it up to them, that is full and proactive co-operation and that is what Dr Hans Blix said he was not getting in that same report delivered to the Security Council of the United Nations on 27th January, 2003.

6. Instead of taking a decision, as he could have done (but no future PM would be able to do), he secured cabinet backing and then put the question of war to parliament. - Peter K

Shadow Cabinet and senior members of other parties in the House would have intact all the information that Cabinet made its decision on. Nothing was withheld, the JIC presented its report to Cabinet, and Cabinet decides what weight to give it (i.e. view the report with the perspective of "best" or "worst" case scenario, in matters affecting security it is normal and logical that "worst" case is always adopted)

7. To ensure cabinet support he withheld pertinent information, not least the non-war options. - Peter K

What pertinent information was withheld? The options where clearly outlined and known to all members of the House. The debate was on what again? Authorising Military action against Iraq if necessary wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:20 AM

Oh God Teribus, don't ruin a good discussion by bringing facts into the conversation. You won't be thanked.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GRex
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:20 AM

Surely the invasion of Iraq was to enable us, both Brits and Yanks, to get our grubby hands on Iraqi oil.

    Who now holds the oil contracts?

                  GRex

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:24 AM

grex

ffs here we go again.

Read the papers, china got the most deals, the US very few.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:29 AM

If Blair knew better, he'd be a member of the S.N.P, a supporter of the U.N., and would not have made England less safe with his extreme pro-immigrationism - as I've said here, it's the world/United Nations that should be multicultural.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 07:32 AM

Teribus, Carne Ross's paper outlining alternatives to war, including targeting Iraq's illegal oil revenues, was not presented to Cabinet. It would seem that as well as not bothering to watch Blair's testimony yesterday you also didn't bother to find out what he said. Might it be sensible to stand back from arguing about that until you've had a chance to catch up?

One of the most striking aspects of yesterday's performance was Blair's innocent bewilderment that destabilising Iraq actually made Iran stronger. Some of us right here on Mudcat were anticipating that consequence long before the invasion How could it have been otherwise?
Indeed Norman Schwazkopf had long-since presented that as one of the reasons for not removing Saddam the first time round.

Poor old Blair was left huffing and puffing that if he had his way, Iran "would be next." With whose army? The US-UK axis is already overstretched and couldn't even contemplate intervention in Yemen, never mind Pakistan or Iran. Why, horror of horrors, they're having to put millions of dollars on the table to entice the Taliban into a negotiated resolution of the quagmire they've created in Afghanistan! That's some victory our boys are notching up over there, Teribus.

Oh, and it's Blix, Teribus. Not Bilx. Slow down!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 07:50 AM

One of the most striking aspects of yesterday's performance was Blair's innocent bewilderment that destabilising Iraq actually made Iran stronger

Actually he dealt with this. He made the point that it was both wrong and not sensible to support one bad regime against another. Better not support either and deal with them one at a time.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: s&r
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 09:21 AM

WAV stick to Australian politics please

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Paul Burke
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 09:22 AM

I see we have a new one- issue folk music enthusiast. While he's rewriting history, could he (or perhaps she) rewrite Annachie Gordon with a happy ending?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 09:43 AM

The "Bilx" was a joke, lighten up.

The Ross Carne paper dated when?

1. "Ross testified during the Butler Review, which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. He testified that at no time during his work on Iraq (1998-2002) did the UK or US assess that Iraq's WMD posed a threat."

So "at no time during his work on Iraq (1998-2002) did the UK or US assess that Iraq's WMD posed a threat" Well that is patently incorrect:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

and this

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Perhaps those making those comments weren't making it plain enough for Mr. Carne.

2. "He also argued that available alternatives to war, namely targeting Iraq's illegal oil revenues, were ignored."

Argued with whom? So he suggested that we target Iraq's illegal oil revenues did he Peter? Did he offer any plausible or feasible ways of doing that considering that most went out overland through Syria, Turkey and Iran. Tell us how "WE" could possibly have prevented those illegal exports of oil, apart from which, post-invasion when the full picture of that fiasco that was the "Oil for Food Scandal" came out it was established that half the UN officials dealing with it were corrupt, and they were the ones that would "do something about it" on our behalf - that's a joke if ever I heard one. With suggestions such as that it is little bloody wonder that they were ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 09:55 AM

I assume you're referring to me Mr Burke. Well I'm not new and I'm not stuck on one issue, neither am I in the business of re-writing history.

Still you got one thing right, which is one more than you usually do, I like folk music.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 10:39 AM

Blix might have been a joke to the war mongers here but to the sane and logical world he and his team of inspectors represented the civilized and sane part of the story...

As per usual, T-Bird expected the impossible from Saddam... The rest of the sane and civilized world fully understood that Saddam could in no way prove he he didn't have anything... BillD, who majoer in pholosphy and is a purdy smart cookie, has disected this puzzle that B & B presented Saddam and shown that it is not possible to prove a negative... So, to the sane and civilized world Blix was the the entire story and the only way to prove that Saddam didn't have WMD...

But Terrible-is, Bush and Blair ploded along as if Blix didn't exist???

This is the crux of the story... Not 1441... Not Saddam was a bad man... Not Saddam gassed the Kurds 20 some years ago... Not Saddam tried to kill my daddy.... Not aluminum tubes... Not Joe Wilson and Niger... Not, not, not...

Blix's team was going to prove what Bush and Blair were demanding... But as in the 2000 election Bushhad to short circuit the truth and now he and his bed-buddy, Blair are stuck with havin' been caught lieing and all they can do until they die is keep lieing which, BTW, they have both perfected...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Stu
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 10:53 AM

" OK then John, what pushes it totally beyond the bounds of possibility that Saddam would not attempt a strike at the USA in a similar fashion excepting that this time WMD (either chemical or biological) would be added to the equation to increase the number killed. I mean it is not as though he had any qualms about using those kind of weapons on harmless civilians is it?"

As you well know this is pure speculation Teribus, and NOT a basis for a cogent defence as to why we went to war with Iraq. Blair's constant repetition of the fact we should consider the "2010 question" (got to be Alistair Campbell behind that one) was a diverting tactic that worked a treat on the sops that were supposed to be questioning him.

I sat through the entire day and Blair gave a textbook barristers performance, only really faltering when the question of the legality of the war was raised. There's no doubt this is a problem for Blair and Goldsmith etc, as it's difficult not to come to the conclusion that pretty much everyone (including Goldsmith himself) thought the war was illegal. For some reason the inquiry didn't winkle out exactly why Goldsmith changed his mind and is now being painted as the fall guy for the entire venture. Blair even had the neck to shove all the responsibility for the decision onto his hapless colleague suggesting had Goldsmith stuck to his guns and said the war wasn't legal then he wouldn't have continued with the venture. This statement sits in contrast to the rest of his evidence where he is remarkably robust in his attitude.

Blair is one of those people who has a 'reality distortion field' around him (the term was coined to describe the uncanny power Steve Jobs has to influence his cohorts), and his performance on front of the inquiry panel was an apt demonstration of this; he led the proceedings and pretty much controlled the proceedings, asking questions of the questioners and adroitly batting away awkward questions with aplomb. To those of us watching it looked like what it was: a charismatic, egocentric politician so mired in his own self-deception any hint of regret and contrition about the consequences of his actions don't occur to him. Obviously Goldsmith et al weren't immune either at the time, and at least he did manage to get a huge dig in at Clare Short who should have had the courage of her convictions and walked at the time.

Fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 11:01 AM

2. He also argued that available alternatives to war, namely targeting Iraq's illegal oil revenues, were ignored.

Subtly misquoted, Teribus. Alnmost as good as Blair's dissembling on 1441. What do you do - cut and paste then edit to suit your needs? And what has that Snopes link got to do with whether Saddam's WMD programme (even supposing it existed) posed a threat to the UK?

In case you don't unmderstand, the WMD programme and the question of what threat it posed, are two different issues. On the latter point - quite an important one when it comes to justifying a war of choice - it was amusing to see Blair responding to Lawrence Freedman yesterday. He passed off the "45-minute" sexing-up of the dossier as a minor detail that played little part in the debate - notwithstanding that he had thought to put it in the foreword and that - as Freedman pointed out - it filled most of the following day's front pages.

Sorry, T, but Blair's going to take a hammering in the Chilcot report. That won't trouble you any more than the evidence in the Butler report annexes will have bothered you. But it's a shame for Blair, obsessed as he is to leave a lily-white legacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 11:01 AM

There's a reason that the term "pathological" has been coupled to "liar"... These folks are so mired in denial that they truely believe what they are saying??? I know... Go figure??? Everyone else, other than their small band of apolpogists and shills, knows they are lieing but that doesn't seem to matter...

I wonder if it would have mattered had Hitler won???

Seems that the victors appear to get a pass when it comes to being held accountable...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: sl
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 11:12 AM

Bobert, ever thought that people who disagree with you are simply that; people who disagree with you, or are they all pathological liars?

Must be great to be know you're right - always.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Paul Burke
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 11:50 AM

Not new? Thirteen posts in two days, twelve on one topic? Of course you could be a regular, posting under a changed pseudonym, which believe is an abuse of the forum.

But your points:

(1) Opinion polls: these are from the MORI website, and refer to February and March 2003.

Q Would you support or oppose British troops joining any American-led military action against Iraq in each of the following circumstances?

                Feb    March
Support         24         26         +2
Oppose                67         63         -4
Don't know         10         11         +1

Certainly a rise in support for war, from over two- thirds against to almost two- thirds against.

Parliament: place- seeking cowards whipped to death. The decent ones who resigned were conspicuous by their small number.

The press: do us a favour. The Guardian certainly wasn't in favour, the Murdoch press including the Chunderer do what they are told, and the redtops

Dr Kelly: opposed the "45 minute" claim. We don't know his thoughts in detail, and he wasn't spared to tell us his full reasons. He was certainly convinced afterwards that the invasion had been wrong; and fear of what he knew was trhe reason he was either murdered or at best hounded to death. And rather mysteriously we aren't to know any more for 70 years.

So perhaps, when you've come out as to who you "really" are, you'll also tell us why you need to make ridiculous assertions in support of the insupportable?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 12:09 PM

Well, are the Bush/Blair shills "pathological liars"... Some are and some aren't... If folks truely belive that going to war for no apparent reason is okay then they probably aren't pathological liars... I mean, that's what they believe...

But when in the face of facts and they still repeat the same reasons that were being given during the selling of this war then, yeah, the term aptly fits...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 12:43 PM

OK then Peter I will ask you again as you seemed to have ducked the question:

Subject: "Carne Ross's paper outlining alternatives to war, including targeting Iraq's illegal oil revenues, was not presented to Cabinet."

Question: "The Ross Carne paper dated when?"

Subject: "He (Ross Carne) testified (To the Butler review) that at no time during his work on Iraq (1998-2002) did the UK or US assess that Iraq's WMD posed a threat."

Question: Does he not say "UK or US"? Hence the links provided that show clearly that there were many in the US on both sides of the political divide who thought in the period specified by Carne that Saddam posed a threat. As for the UK, if memory serves me correctly United Nations Resolution 1441 was drafted and proposed by the United Kingdom and seconded by The United States of America. I would suggest that Mr. Ross Carne read through that document and decide for himself whether or not Iraq was considered to be a threat or not.

Subject: "Threat to the UK"

Question: What was the full context and scope of the threat. I believe that when first raised it was couched in the following terms:

"A threat to the United Kingdom, to the national interests of the United Kingdom and to the allies of the United Kingdom within the region."

Now that is a whale of a difference.

"As you well know this is pure speculation Teribus, and NOT a basis for a cogent defence as to why we went to war with Iraq." Sugarfoot Jack

Yes Jack of course what I outlined was pure speculation, but I note nobody has bothered to answer the question regarding why the possibility of that happening could be totally discounted. All immaterial really as all 19 of the United States of America's intelligence and security agencies stated quite clearly that that possibility represented the greatest threat to the USA in the wake of 9/11, and that urgent action was required to eliminate that threat.

Oh and at no point did I state that the scenario I outlined was the basis for invading Iraq. The basis for resuming hostilities with Iraq was their failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the ceasefire agreement that they signed at Safwan in April 1991.

Unfortunately for Saddam he couldn't comply with those terms and conditions could he? Of the 605 Kuwaiti nationals that he had abducted in 1990, the ones he had to repatriate in order to satisfy the terms and conditions of the Safwan Ceasefire Agreement, he had already murdered 602 of them. Bit of a poser for the old boy wasn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 12:44 PM

Apologies Carne Ross.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 01:39 PM

Ah, Teribus, the obfuscations continue.

Teribus, I can't give you a date for the paper by Carne Ross because it is not in the public domain. My source was Carne himslf, in a BBC TV interview last night.

Would you mind saying who you are quoting when you refer (in quotes) to Ross's evidence to the Butler inquiry? It seems to be irrelevant, anyway, to anything I said. I wasn't discussing whether the UK and/or the US considered Saddam to pose a threat; only whether the UK, US or anyone else considered Saddam to pose a threat to the UK. Ross believed that he did not. We know now of course that Saddam couldn't have presented any kind of credible threat even to Cyprus.

I'm sure Ross would appreciate your advice that he familiarise himself with the text of 1441. However you would discover from the most cursory research that he has good reason to be a lot more familiar with the text that you.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:10 PM

""Before the war the majority of the population were in favour (look it up), parliament was in favour, the press was in favour, even Dr Kelly thought we had to take Saddam out (yes, kelly as a witness would probably be an advantage to TB).

Virtually everyone thought he had wmd (he'd already used them).

Blair had to make a decision, the rest of us don't face these sort of decisions for which we should be grateful .""

That is a really dumb comment.

Of course everybody you mentioned was in favour, based on the pack of lies Tony B Liar had composed and presented to Parliament.

One of the greatest snow jobs since Josef Goebbels in the 30s, and just as cynically self serving.

Blair knew that Saddam had no WMD.   Blair knew that Bush and his cronies were sexing up the figures to justify invasion ten months before the war. Blair knew that the documentary evidence was based on some C Grade paper from a university degree course.

Blair screwed Parliament, and the British people, and not out of conviction, but out of an ambition to be remembered as the PM who liberated the down trodden people of Iraq.

SELF AGGRANDISEMENT, pure and simple.

What gripes me is the easy ride he was given by this so called public enquiry. Whitewash all over Whitehall........AGAIN!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:23 PM

What I object to is that there were folks out there who were callin' the lies as they werer being told... Scott Ritter, who worked as an inspector in the 90s, said the entire WMD claim was bogus... Joe Wilson was sent to Niger to check out the claim that Saddam was trying to buy uranium and came back and said it was bogus...

So what we had were, yeah, some folks who for partisan reasons believed everything that Bush and Blair said and alot of folks who saw thru their lies...

But really... Whether one believed the lies or not isn't really the issue... The issue was that after 1441 Hans Blix and his folks were welll on their way to proving or disproving the lies but were stopped short because Blair and Bush were in just too big of a hurry to get their little shock 'n awe show going to entertain, yes, entertain their partisan supporters...

That was why this war was fought (plus oil, of course)... Bush and Blair just had to show the world how tough they were... Well, next time we get a couple of chickenhawk bozoz who want to show how tough they are let them lead the charge... Nuff said...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:30 PM

""You letting the police onto your property and letting them inspect anywhere they want to inspect does not meet the requirement does it, what you have got to do is meet them at the front gate and you take them to the very spot that you have got it hidden and surrender it up to them,""

But he didn't have them hidden, did he, Teribus?

In fact, he didn't have them at all, did he?

So how could he show them where he had hidden these fictitious items?

They found none then, and they've found none since, and it is generally agreed now that if he had any left after using them on Iraqis, he had long since disposed of them, which of course happens to be what he told the UN, and also seems to have been the truth.

So your whole argument about his non compliance seems dead in the water.

Don T.