Ship of Fools: Chilcot report

Thread: Chilcot report Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030157

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

Today marks the day when we finally get to see the results of Sir John Chilcot's enquiry into the Iraq War.

The legacy of that war is still being felt today.

No reporting today can, IMHO, adequately cover the report, which journalists were given 3 hours in advance, to read a document roughly 4 times as long as the bible.

There's an expectation of a binary reaction:
1) Blair is a war criminal
2) It's a whitewash

The substance is likely to be far more complicated and nuanced than that, though.

As the details emerge, this is a space for us to discuss the findings, the methodology and the questions that remain unanswered.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Yes. I suppose there will be some folks who will think it is a whitewash if it does not indicate there is sufficient cause to indict Tony Blair (a.k.a. as Bliar) as a war criminal.

But I doubt whether too many people will take the time and trouble to read in detail what it says. This is going to be another media event.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
There's an expectation of a binary reaction:
1) Blair is a war criminal
2) It's a whitewash

The substance is likely to be far more complicated and nuanced than that, though.

This.

Obviously feelings run very high on this. And rightly and necessarily so.

However I have found the determination by some to prejudge the report very frustrating. This is not a simple situation. Simplistic answers won't help anyone.

AFZ

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Today marks the day when we finally get to see the results of Sir John Chilcot's enquiry into the Iraq War.

The legacy of that war is still being felt today.

No reporting today can, IMHO, adequately cover the report, which journalists were given 3 hours in advance, to read a document roughly 4 times as long as the bible.

There's an expectation of a binary reaction:
1) Blair is a war criminal
2) It's a whitewash

The substance is likely to be far more complicated and nuanced than that, though.

As the details emerge, this is a space for us to discuss the findings, the methodology and the questions that remain unanswered.

I doubt very much it will be a whitewash. I doubt however that our political leaders (or any political leaders, save Iraqi ones) will end up in the dock. There is however a distinct possibility that some more soldiers may end up there, which will piss off the armed forces community still further.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Stop The War have already got a protest lined up against it, so I'm guessing that they are going to be headed down the "Whitewash" route.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Blair gets a fair slapping during Chilcott's presentation.

quote:
Mr Blair told the Inquiry that the difficulties encountered in Iraq after the invasion could not have been known in advance. We do not agree that hindsight is required. The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and Al Qaeda activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.

And plenty more....

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Related but tangential question:

Any ideas on how/why Blair and Bush got so chummy over this? I understood Blair and Bill Clinton--two peas in a pod, IMHO, but with somewhat different styles. But Dubya and Blair? It seemed so strange that I wondered if Dubya had something on Blair.

Thx.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Blair gets a fair slapping during Chilcott's presentation.

quote:
Mr Blair told the Inquiry that the difficulties encountered in Iraq after the invasion could not have been known in advance. We do not agree that hindsight is required. The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and Al Qaeda activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.
And plenty more....

Guardian Live is pretty damning. Whether that makes him a war criminal or a shameless political opportunist is open to debate.

Tubbs

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

Damning, yes. But what consequences exactly it will have now are unclear.

May possibly give Corbyn a boost?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Related but tangential question:

Any ideas on how/why Blair and Bush got so chummy over this? I understood Blair and Bill Clinton--two peas in a pod, IMHO, but with somewhat different styles. But Dubya and Blair? It seemed so strange that I wondered if Dubya had something on Blair.

Thx.

Just the "Special relationship", which for the most part consists of Washington saying "Jump!" and London replying "How high?".

The last Prime Minister to defy that was probably Harold Wilson over British (non-)involvement in Vietname. ry

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Blair has his statement out punctually, as you would expect.

quote:
The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit. Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein, I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country.

Good luck with that Tony...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Blair has his statement out punctually, as you would expect.

quote:
The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit. Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein, I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country.
Good luck with that Tony...

I am sure he is sincere in what he says, but that leads me to Nye Bevan's memorable assessment of Sir Anthony Eden over Britain's involvement in Suez in 1956.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

A lot of journalists are saying that it's not a whitewash, and is pretty damning of many people, except soldiers. 'Much more damning than expected', (Norman Smith, BBC). Will wait to see relatives' reaction, also reaction in Iraq.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I was convinced and said so here at the time, in 'debate' with Alan (Cresswell), that Blair was all but unhinged by a perception of Saddam's response to siege: his killing of hundreds of thousands of children by neglect, up to a million over 10 years.

Which is not agreed at all.

I knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and said so then too. And despite that I fully supported the invasion of Iraq. I had become a liberal interventionist, influenced by Michael Ignatieff and Blair's phenomenal success as a war leader in the 90's. I was that most perverse of creatures for decades before that, a cultic pacifist apologist for God the Killer. The cult lost its grip and I lost the pacifism. But not the apologism. I argued here strongly for MORE military intervention in the light of the Balkans in particular. As a Christian responsibility.

Which overlapped with Blair's and even Bush's motivations I believe.

I have blood on my hands. Others, unlike Jesus'.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

I thought that the report would probably dismiss the more overstated claims made by some opponents of the war, which it did. I also thought that it would be kinder to Mr Blair than I would be inclined to be and to refute some of the points on which I disagreed with the decision, (simply on the grounds that I am not infallible and took less interest in the issue than the Prime Minister of the day and Sir John.) Based on the initial press reports and the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons I'd say that I was clearly wrong on the latter two points. I suspect that the Stop The War Coalition won't be satisfied but I think we can safely say that Mr Blair's rates for after dinner speaking will have to be notched downwards by a couple of noughts. It was always apparent that Mr Blair wished to be remembered by posterity as a significant historical figure. I have a feeling that if Mephistopheles turns up now and offers him the chance to be remembered as "wossisname, the one between Major and Brown" he would happily sign the parchment.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Floreat Robin Cook!

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Floreat Robin Cook!

Indeed. He wrote most of Chilcott in his resignation speech.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think it is pretty damning from what I've read so far.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

One nice touch about intelligence - one informant was describing stuff that was "remarkably similar to the fictional chemical weapon portrayed in the film The Rock".

This material was later withdrawn, but it seems that nobody told Blair about this. Eh?

http://tinyurl.com/zb45ezd

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Whether that makes him a war criminal or a shameless political opportunist is open to debate.

I thought "shameless political opportunist" was already well established. He sold out the Labour Party support base of ordinary workers and Unions to turn the party into Tory-lite for electoral success.

Of course, it isn't mutually exclusive from "war criminal". No reason he can't be both.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I see that Reg Keys has apparently thoroughly approved of the report, which may count for a lot.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

They can produce all the reports they like but the question will always remain as to what's to be done about it. I'm not surprised at all by its conclusions. I will be surprised if anything at all happens as a result of it. It amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist to a naughty schoolboy. The whole damn thing is rotten to the core.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
They can produce all the reports they like but the question will always remain as to what's to be done about it. I'm not surprised at all by its conclusions. I will be surprised if anything at all happens as a result of it. It amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist to a naughty schoolboy. The whole damn thing is rotten to the core.

I think if Blair (and others) was a 3rd world black leader, he would already be in irons in the Hague, or whatever they put them in. But he ain't, he's a cool rich white guy.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Blair is still swinging in his speech at the moment...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One nice touch about intelligence - one informant was describing stuff that was "remarkably similar to the fictional chemical weapon portrayed in the film The Rock".

This material was later withdrawn, but it seems that nobody told Blair about this. Eh?

http://tinyurl.com/zb45ezd

And, they say that Graham Greene's Our Man in Havana was fiction ...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I was asking around as to what crimes Blair could be charged with. Someone thought 'aggressive war', which was defined as a war crime at Nuremberg, quote, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." (Wiki on 'war of aggression').

But it ain't gonna happen.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Every time I click on the BBC news at the moment, it's Blair telling us how agonizing it was, and how the world is a safer place, and thank you for all the money you've made for me, and I always tell Cherie that you should fry chips twice for the best results. I made that last bit up. Please, someone shut him up.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Every time I click on the BBC news at the moment, it's Blair telling us how agonizing it was, and how the world is a safer place, and thank you for all the money you've made for me, and I always tell Cherie that you should fry chips twice for the best results. I made that last bit up. Please, someone shut him up.

He's still a bit of a barnstormer isn't he?

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was asking around as to what crimes Blair could be charged with. Someone thought 'aggressive war', which was defined as a war crime at Nuremberg, quote, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." (Wiki on 'war of aggression').

But it ain't gonna happen.

Personally, I sign up to the "horrendous clusterfuck, but not actually a war crime" view of these matters, partly because Saddam was a genuine case for the Hague, if ever there was one, and a serial disturber of the international peace and partly, because if the intelligence that the PM should have been more sceptical about had been correct then it would have constituted, AIUI, a genuine casus belli.

In the aftermath of 9/11 Ann Coulter infamously declared that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". How we all laughed. So it was a bit of a shocker when it suddenly became government policy to "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to liberal democracy". Notwithstanding the occasional success of military intervention (the Falklands, Kuwait, Kosovo and Sierra Leone) it's not sensible to assume that we can just invade other countries, overthrow their governments and assume that the outcome will be a brief, brisk war, a round of applause from the locals, and the immediate adoption of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany. The world really doesn't work like that. But if we lived in a parallel dimension where we actually could have got rid of Saddam and left behind a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Iraq, and if he actually did have stockpiles of WMD, then I find it hard to see what the objections would have been. I think this is different in kind from, say, the sort of thing that Milosevic was up to in the former Yugoslavia although, I can see that this is pretty scant consolation from the point of view of the dead, dispossesed, maimed and bereaved.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Personally, I sign up to the "horrendous clusterfuck, but not actually a war crime" view of these matters, partly because Saddam was a genuine case for the Hague, if ever there was one, and a serial disturber of the international peace

Ticked.

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

and partly, because if the intelligence that the PM should have been more sceptical about had been correct then it would have constituted, AIUI, a genuine casus belli.

There's the rub, Callan. I'm sure that, at the time, intelligence communities around the world did believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD. The question mark was over present capability to deliver. Chilcot says this threat was "presented with certainty that was not justified". Why was that done?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Saddam Hussein did have some unpleasant weaponry ... at one time. But they'd degraded by the time the sanctions had time to bite and his developing 'super-gun' capacity (think Sheffield Forgemasters and similar) was destroyed during the First Gulf War.

I'm not sure to what extent the intelligence services were convinced that they still had some capacity - but claims that they could have struck at us within '45 minutes' were clearly way, way, way wide of the mark.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Related but tangential question:

Any ideas on how/why Blair and Bush got so chummy over this? I understood Blair and Bill Clinton--two peas in a pod, IMHO, but with somewhat different styles. But Dubya and Blair? It seemed so strange that I wondered if Dubya had something on Blair.

Thx.

Bill Clinton was rumoured at the time to have advised Blair to hug Bush close. Presumably that is what TB though he was doing.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Intelligence communities very much believed that Saddam had WMD. Largely because Western governments still had the invoices. They sold him the kit in the first place.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Personally, I sign up to the "horrendous clusterfuck, but not actually a war crime" view of these matters, partly because Saddam was a genuine case for the Hague, if ever there was one, and a serial disturber of the international peace
Ticked.

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

and partly, because if the intelligence that the PM should have been more sceptical about had been correct then it would have constituted, AIUI, a genuine casus belli.
There's the rub, Callan. I'm sure that, at the time, intelligence communities around the world did believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD. The question mark was over present capability to deliver. Chilcot says this threat was "presented with certainty that was not justified". Why was that done?

My guess would be a) groupthink and b) confirmation bias.

Blair had come to the conclusion that, to be electable, the Labour Party had to be Atlanticist. No problem with that, I'm an Atlanticist myself. But in this instance it was the wrong position to take. The US Government was engaged in a reckless and catastrophic gamble to remake the Middle East. I think that Blair was not inclined to take seriously evidence that this was the case because it would have forced him to act in a way that was damaging. I don't mean by this he consciously went down this route. I think that everything that he has said on the subject of his own sincerity since 2003 was entirely true.

Years ago I had a conversation with a gentleman whose job was in witness protection. Often the protected witness was someone who had been arrested for some serious crime or other and had decided to shop his erstwhile mates in exchange for a reduced sentence. Obviously, you can't just protect them, you have to protect the wife/ girlfriend or kids. It is amazing, apparently, how many of the wives/ girlfriends of villains are quite happy to live in an expensive five bedroomed house, with two gleaming new cars sitting in the driveway and expensive foreign holidays despite the fact that hubby - let us call him George - ostensibly, as a mid-level sales job or no discernible means of support at all. They were quite sincere when they were aghast to discover that George was working for the local Mr Big but they had avoided thinking about any of the evidence that might point to George not being quite on the level.

It is sometimes alleged that Mr Blair lied to the British people. I don't think that is true in the sense that he stood up and knowingly told untruths. Rather, I think that he deceived the British people only having first deceived himself. Can you imagine what would have happened if he had taken a similar line to that of M. Chirac? The Tories and the popular press would have hounded him. Anti-American! Weak on Defence! Guacamole Eating Surrender Monkeys! Not that! Never that! Shoulder to shoulder! Every bit of evidence for WMD greeted with hallelujahs. Every bit against dismissed as unreliable. My George isn't a wrong un! He works hard! I'm entitled to my nice life and my big house and my trips to the States! You bugger off with your innuendo and your nasty suspicions! Of course, everything is going to be all right!

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

quote:

It is sometimes alleged that Mr Blair lied to the British people. I don't think that is true in the sense that he stood up and knowingly told untruths. Rather, I think that he deceived the British people only having first deceived himself.

You didn't read that in the report though, did you. There's lots of talk of 'misleading' and of being 'misled' which I think is polite speak for 'we were bloody well lied to'.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Blair keeps saying that he acted in good faith. This seems meaningless to me - probably most terrorists would say the same, in the sense that they believe they are acting for the best. So what?

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:

quote:

It is sometimes alleged that Mr Blair lied to the British people. I don't think that is true in the sense that he stood up and knowingly told untruths. Rather, I think that he deceived the British people only having first deceived himself.
You didn't read that in the report though, did you. There's lots of talk of 'misleading' and of being 'misled' which I think is polite speak for 'we were bloody well lied to'.

I haven't, I confess, read the Chilcot report from cover to cover*. If you have I defer to your opinion. But based on what I have read and seen so far, I really don't think that Chilcot is saying that Blair knew that Saddam Hussein was not in possession of WMDs and nonetheless told deliberate untruths. My impression is that "misled" meant that vastly greater weight was placed upon the evidence than it could reasonably bear.

*As it happens I'm half way through volume 1 of Gibbon's Decline and Fall so cut me some slack here!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Blair keeps saying that he acted in good faith. This seems meaningless to me - probably most terrorists would say the same, in the sense that they believe they are acting for the best. So what?

In that case he has deceived himself, and that is at the root of all the worst evil in the world. Once powerful people can deceive themselves they can deceive and manipulate. And they do, without mercy and forethought.

eta: Callan, that is probably most apposite reading!

[ 06. July 2016, 17:11: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Sioni Sais , your post makes me ask some things.

Blair had a false belief, and admits to same. Was he entitled to have a false belief? At what point are people entitled to have false beliefs and at what point do we cite them for willful blindness?

I am influenced by Canadian media reports today which - not gloatingly, but I was led to consider gloating by the tone - remind us that Canada refused to participate in the attack on Iraq. I was also remembering the mocking and disparaging of France "freedom fries" when they also refused to participate. Obviously some countries did not have the same false belief. Why?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think that Blair's theatrical performance will enrage people. Do we really want to know how agonized he has been, and how full of contrition he is? Maybe some people find that satisfying, but I was just watching a relative on TV who said that he was a terrorist. His unctuousness is truly revolting, when you think of the thousands killed, and it is still going on. Damn him to hell, if such a place existed.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

One has to marvel at the honesty of Bush/Blair in declaring no chemical shit was found. I mean how easy would have been, midst the fog of war, to plant a stash of drums in the sand and shout--- Hey, lookity what we got here !

The extent of the insurgency, which continues to the present day, is the overwhelming factor that has made March 03 the historical and monumental cock up it will always be remembered for.
Still, for anyone seeking a silver lining, the West has nevertheless succeeded in puppet governing S. Iraq and drinking it's crude. Some conscious-less satisfaction to be drawn there?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I've watched Blair for part of his speech, and saw someone rather different from usual. Not as stricken as when David Kelly's death was reported to him, but not as assured as he has been in the past. Not sure what to make of that, though.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

John Simpson on BBC News was interesting, arguing that the invasion and its sequelae, had a corrosive effect on politics in the UK, increasing cynicism and dislike towards politicians. He even mentioned Brexit as one of the consequences, impossible to prove, of course.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Those of you who like reading can access the Chilcot report here.

Currently I'm wading my way through the Executive Summary.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've watched Blair for part of his speech, and saw someone rather different from usual. Not as stricken as when David Kelly's death was reported to him, but not as assured as he has been in the past. Not sure what to make of that, though.

I'm inclined to remember that he was always adept at tuning the emotion he displayed to fit the moment. I'm not convinced we've ever seen a genuine emotion from Blair on-camera unless it happened to coincide with what he thought was politically expedient at the time. Blair, if nothing else, was a master manipulator.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

There was a squaddie at the time, interviewed on the Beeb, tooled up with an HMG, in a sandbagged checkpoint, never taking his slitty eyes off the road, who said, "We came out here and kicked something up the arse and it turned round and bit us.".

It hasn't let go yet.

So, how should we have done that 'better' with hindsight? That's all Blair seems to acknowledge. Even if he knew the intel was crap, which I accept that he didn't (I didn't accept that at the time and didn't care that there were NO WMDs), how would he have brought down Saddam, the 'real prize' and returned Iraq to its neo-Babylonian if not Edenic golden age?

Little things like treat the Iraqi army and establishment as a resource, i.e. with respect?

The one good thing that came out of this two trillion dollar, at least 155,000 dead nightmare that goes on and on in Ankara and Raqqa and Paris and Brussels and Baghdad, is Chris Rock's joke "You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, ... France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war ...".

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
One has to marvel at the honesty of Bush/Blair in declaring no chemical shit was found. I mean how easy would have been, midst the fog of war, to plant a stash of drums in the sand and shout--- Hey, lookity what we got here !

I think pretty difficult. Unless you're prepared to kill the people who planted the stash and to control the identification of the chemicals or other weapons. Forensic analysis would show the source.

So no, don't marvel at their honesty when they had no choice. Marvel instead at the moral and ethical failure that led them to justify this attack. Which we know was a long term plan. The information about weapons were merely a pretext for a plan they had wanted to implement.

I don't buy that Blair was seduced by Bush, though a tryst between the two, including pillow talk would make for a rather bizarre play, opera or musical

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I think it was fairly obvious Bush was going into Iraq on his own if needs be. Blair probably saw himself as a travelling companion and moderator.
Britain only suffered a very small number of casualties compared to the US. Even if we had avoided involvement there is no saying we would have been spared the consequential terror attacks anymore than France who kept out.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

France has treated Muslims like shit in its own way for quite some time. A better comparison would be Germany that has been broadly welcoming of its Muslim immigrant population.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've watched Blair for part of his speech, and saw someone rather different from usual. Not as stricken as when David Kelly's death was reported to him, but not as assured as he has been in the past. Not sure what to make of that, though.
I'm inclined to remember that he was always adept at tuning the emotion he displayed to fit the moment. I'm not convinced we've ever seen a genuine emotion from Blair on-camera unless it happened to coincide with what he thought was politically expedient at the time. Blair, if nothing else, was a master manipulator.

Two things. Firstly, if you are a politician you can always console yourself that your critics are being unfair. If, on the other hand, an eminent person with no axe to grind cooly assess the pros and cons of one of your more questionable decisions and solemnly concludes that you screwed the pooch and this is all over the media it's going to feel like a punch in the guts. It's like the episode of Blackadder when Edmund decides to do in the King's annoying Scottish friend in the play 'Death of a Scotsman'. "Don't worry, there won't be much acting involved.

Secondly, this is the Revenge Of Gordon. It was Brown who set up the enquiry, Brown who decided the Terms of Reference and Brown who appointed Sir John Chilcot. There's an episode of 'Yes Prime Minister' when Jim Hacker wants someone responsible for a leak to go to prison. "How will you manage that' asks Sir Humphrey.
"Little drinky with the judge?" suggests Hacker.
"Impossible!" cries Sir Humphrey "The independence of the judiciary is a key part of the constitution".
Hacker is unimpressed by this display of moral rectitude. "How then?"
Sir Humphrey smiles: "You get the Lord Chancellor to appoint a judge with extremely firm views on breaches of the Official Secrets Act".
This is how the establishment works. If you want to bring down Blair's legacy, you don't get Damian McBride to tell journalists horrible things about Blair. You set up an enquiry, ensure that the terms of reference are sufficiently wide ranging and put in charge someone of complete moral rectitude who disapproves of wishful thinking and blithering incompetence. It's been a long wait but in the Tony/ Gordon wars it is Gordon who is, tonight, raising a cheerful glass and cackling to himself, whilst Tony pours himself another stiff measure and tells Cherie for the 273rd time that this is all Bloody Gordon's fault. That's got to sting.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The Project for a New American Century - call for regime change in Iraq, called for the regime change in the 1990s. Which makes it obvious that they just wanted a pretext to invade the country. The weapons of mass destruction provided one. The Sept 11 attacks provided the foundational pretext: that the west was under siege and threat.

I used to have a copy of one of their documents, which isn't available easily (or maybe at all) in the internet anymore. It stated (from my memory, incredulous when I read it, and poignant even now, more than 15 years after I first read it) that without a galvanizing incident like the 1941 Pearl Harbour attack, it would be difficult to gain public support for their plans to invade Iraq. Written before the 2001 attacks!

The 2001 Sept 11 attack was, I suppose, the Lord placing Saddam into their hands. They just had to create the first lie: that Al Qaeda was involved in Iraq (which it wasn't, but they promoted this) and then add the second one. about the weapons.

[ 06. July 2016, 21:17: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

I don't buy that Blair was seduced by Bush, though a tryst between the two, including pillow talk would make for a rather bizarre play, opera or musical

I am forced to dig up this gem from around the time of the invasion:
https://youtu.be/UtEH6wZXPA4

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
[Personally, I sign up to the "horrendous clusterfuck, but not actually a war crime" view of these matters, partly because Saddam was a genuine case for the Hague, if ever there was one, and a serial disturber of the international peace and partly, because if the intelligence that the PM should have been more sceptical about had been correct then it would have constituted, AIUI, a genuine casus belli.

Possibly, but as I recall the criteria of jus ad bellum also include that there should be a reasonable possibility of success, and it was fairly obvious at the time not just that the probability that Hussein would be succeeded by a peaceful pluralist democracy were somewhat less than 50%, but also that Mr Blair had no idea how he was going to increase those odds.

If we are being Catholic about this, I believe there is traditionally a distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance, and while I accept that it is quite possible to be invincibly ignorant about where MI6 get their information from, the likely difficulties of reconstructing Iraq after deposing Hussein were fairly widely reported beforehand.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
[Personally, I sign up to the "horrendous clusterfuck, but not actually a war crime" view of these matters, partly because Saddam was a genuine case for the Hague, if ever there was one, and a serial disturber of the international peace and partly, because if the intelligence that the PM should have been more sceptical about had been correct then it would have constituted, AIUI, a genuine casus belli.
Possibly, but as I recall the criteria of jus ad bellum also include that there should be a reasonable possibility of success, and it was fairly obvious at the time not just that the probability that Hussein would be succeeded by a peaceful pluralist democracy were somewhat less than 50%, but also that Mr Blair had no idea how he was going to increase those odds.

If we are being Catholic about this, I believe there is traditionally a distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance, and while I accept that it is quite possible to be invincibly ignorant about where MI6 get their information from, the likely difficulties of reconstructing Iraq after deposing Hussein were fairly widely reported beforehand.

I don't disagree with you. But I think the original criteria for a war crime, to which I was responding, was "waging aggressive war". Which precedent is derived from the Nuremberg Trials and the indictment of the German political leadership for the outbreak of World War II. I'm not convinced that the Fuhrer invaded Poland because of the President of Poland's terrible human rights record, penchant for invading other countries, and alleged possession of WMD and that things only went wrong for the Germans because they underestimated the possibility of establishing liberal democracy in the country. I think that the entirely salient points you raise come under the category of "massive clusterfuck" rather than "war crime". It doesn't follow from this that "massive clusterfuck" is short hand for "Blair vindicated" or "Blair Triumphant, Always Was And Always Wiil Be". More a case of Blair: not quite as bad as Assad, Hussein, Putin or, indeed, Hitler. If I were an ex-PM I wouldn't really want that as a case for the defence, but as cases for the defence go it's not all bad.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Blair has apologized FULLY and taken FULL responsibility for doing NOTHING wrong.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Blair has apologized FULLY and taken FULL responsibility for doing NOTHING wrong.

You know Martin, I think you have nailed it. Off to the quotes thread with you.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Project for a New American Century - call for regime change in Iraq, called for the regime change in the 1990s. Which makes it obvious that they just wanted a pretext to invade the country. The weapons of mass destruction provided one. The Sept 11 attacks provided the foundational pretext: that the west was under siege and threat.

I used to have a copy of one of their documents, which isn't available easily (or maybe at all) in the internet anymore. It stated (from my memory, incredulous when I read it, and poignant even now, more than 15 years after I first read it) that without a galvanizing incident like the 1941 Pearl Harbour attack, it would be difficult to gain public support for their plans to invade Iraq. Written before the 2001 attacks!

I suspect you're conflating PNAC's animus against Iraq with a memorable quote from their 2000 report, Rebuilding America's Defenses:

quote:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

But the transformation under discussion wasn't an invasion of Iraq; it was the so-called "Transformation of the US Army" AKA the "Revolution in Military Affairs".

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Blair has apologized FULLY and taken FULL responsibility for doing NOTHING wrong.

It's a very memorable one-liner but I think Callan Identified pretty accurately the real limits to his apologies. He has apologised pretty generally for the massive cluster-fuck elements identified in the report but not for anything which would put him in the war-crimes zone or indeed the zone of civil action for negligence. That's different to "doing nothing wrong". And sure, you might argue that there is defensive self-serving going on but I'm sure he is well aware of the potential legal risks.

Some of the families of the war dead have asked their lawyers to go over Chilcot to see what grounds there might be for action, both civil and criminal I think. That aspect of the whole mess isn't going to be over for some time. Like anyone else, Tony Blair has the right to make the best defensive case he can make for his actions. Not all mistakes involve the risks of legal culpability. You can bet he has both advised himself on that and taken independent professional legal advice.

That being said, I admire the one-liner, Martin. It's joined "Theresa May but Andrea Can" in the most memorable category.

[ 07. July 2016, 06:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

PS. I heard one of the family members being interviewed on TV this morning. She said their lawyers were going through Chilcot to see if a basis existed "to take Tony Blair to the Hague".

I'm no expert on International Law. What constitutes "standing" before the Court of the Hague? Can individuals or a group of residents in (say) country A actually take an individual from country A directly to the Hague? I would have thought not. Any allegation of crime would be a matter for the law of country A first, I would have thought, then maybe subject to appeal to external bodies.

Is there an international lawyer on the Ship?

[ 07. July 2016, 08:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

On the involvement or not of other countries: FWIW the French may be feeling quite gloaty about the Iraq war, but don’t forget that they stayed out of it for some fairly dishonourable reasons.

Essentially, Saddam was Jacques Chirac’s mate and that’s why he felt disinclined to drop bombs on him. Furthermore, given the extensive links between France and the Arab world, Chirac decided he had less to lose by pissing off the Americans than by pissing off the Arabs. I’m not saying the French weren’t much better off out of it, but they don’t have all that much moral high ground if you ask me.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

To put that dishonourable reason in context, Saddam was everyone in the West's best mate against Iran, including periods when he was using chemical weapons in the war against Iran, on Marsh Arabs and on the Kurds. He definitely had weapons of mass destruction then and used them but we were apparently fine with that. Then a few years later it was a reason to go to war.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

A fundamental problem has been the pervasive influence of the Myth of Redemptive Violence, which says, in essence, if you kill the bad guys then everything will be all right. It's usually dressed in more fancy clothes than that, but that's the essence of it. It's hugely pervasive in (at least western) popular culture and has been for a long time.

Once the power of the myth is in force, then people will more readily believe that violent action can achieve a good end, and will be more inclined to look for, and believe that there are grounds for violent action. The scene is set for confirmation bias, corner cutting, and unbalanced weighing of evidence because at some level the belief that violent action will redeem is already in operation.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I don't even think it was as nuanced as all that (redemptive violence). After 9/11 they just wanted to punch someone in the face. They had an anger that needed venting and punched the weakest player in the room of the Middle East and crossed their fingers that the nose they hit would bleed oil for them for a while.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I find it all more and more disturbing. An utterly humourless black comedy. This IS one 1% act in the play of a thousand years: The West vs. Islam.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I find it all more and more disturbing. An utterly humourless black comedy. This IS one 1% act in the play of a thousand years: The West vs. Islam.

It's not West v Islam now and with the exception of the Crusades and the League of Nations Protectorates it rarely has been. It is usually one faction in the Middle East against another, sometimes fuelled by religious fervour but sometimes not and the West, for reasons usually connected to the Black Gold and the arms trade cannot resist getting involved.

No matter who the participants are however, most of the victimes are people living in that area, who are for the most part Muslim.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

And there is no homogeneous 'West'. Many people protested at the war, and still do, and it has helped to drive a wedge into the Labour party, as many members are still horrified at what Blair did, supported by others.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Apropos Tony Blair he now states that the world is better for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Should we therefore give him thanks for ISIS, civil war in Syria, Yemen and Libya, bombings and attacks all over the world, including Paris and London, as well as the death of about 180 British servicemen and women?

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Apropos Tony Blair he now states that the world is better for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Should we therefore give him thanks for ISIS, civil war in Syria, Yemen and Libya, bombings and attacks all over the world, including Paris and London, as well as the death of about 180 British servicemen and women?

Cue the obvious joke about rivers in Egypt.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

Not so obvious to everyone, perhaps? Care to explain, please? Thank you.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Denial.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

I don't buy that Blair was seduced by Bush, though a tryst between the two, including pillow talk would make for a rather bizarre play, opera or musical
I am forced to dig up this gem from around the time of the invasion:
https://youtu.be/UtEH6wZXPA4

Finally got to watch this. It's beyond my wildest dreams and most disturbing nightmares. So thankyou. I don't know whether I'm supposed to laugh, cry, explode a bomb or masturbate after that. [Help]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Saddam was everyone in the West's best mate against Iran, including periods when he was using chemical weapons in the war against Iran, on Marsh Arabs and on the Kurds. He definitely had weapons of mass destruction then and used them but we were apparently fine with that. Then a few years later it was a reason to go to war.

Indeed. That weird and not very wonderful scenario where our leaders can bend and manipulate morality. A large proportion of we the masses may sign up to warped morality for a while, then the backlash comes.
On this occasion it comes to rest on TB. He has been cast as the Bomber Harris in all this, while Bush....? Err, well...not exactly Churchill. He was however pictured on our news last night helping a disabled Veteran get about. I have a sneaky feeling that Uncle Sam had been on the lookout for a can-carrying jack-ass over Iraq. That wish appears to have been granted courtesy of the Chilcot Inquiry.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

I don't buy that Blair was seduced by Bush, though a tryst between the two, including pillow talk would make for a rather bizarre play, opera or musical
I am forced to dig up this gem from around the time of the invasion:
https://youtu.be/UtEH6wZXPA4
Finally got to watch this. It's beyond my wildest dreams and most disturbing nightmares. So thankyou. I don't know whether I'm supposed to laugh, cry, explode a bomb or masturbate after that.

I suggest not trying to do all four at once.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I am influenced by Canadian media reports today which - not gloatingly, but I was led to consider gloating by the tone - remind us that Canada refused to participate in the attack on Iraq. I was also remembering the mocking and disparaging of France "freedom fries" when they also refused to participate. Obviously some countries did not have the same false belief. Why?

Politics, for one thing. Chretien knew that Bush was unpopular and the war was unpopular in Canada. I have no idea what evidence he had in front of him at the time, but it's much easier to be skeptical about evidence supporting something you don't want to do in the first place.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Saddam was everyone in the West's best mate against Iran, including periods when he was using chemical weapons in the war against Iran, on Marsh Arabs and on the Kurds. He definitely had weapons of mass destruction then and used them but we were apparently fine with that. Then a few years later it was a reason to go to war.
Indeed. That weird and not very wonderful scenario where our leaders can bend and manipulate morality. A large proportion of we the masses may sign up to warped morality for a while, then the backlash comes.
On this occasion it comes to rest on TB. He has been cast as the Bomber Harris in all this, while Bush....? Err, well...not exactly Churchill. He was however pictured on our news last night helping a disabled Veteran get about. I have a sneaky feeling that Uncle Sam had been on the lookout for a can-carrying jack-ass over Iraq. That wish appears to have been granted courtesy of the Chilcot Inquiry.

I'd forgotten the parallels with "Bomber" Harris. He served in Iraq in the 1920's and one example of his methods was "In Mesopotamia he commanded a Vickers Vernon squadron. "We cut a hole in the nose and rigged up our own bomb racks and I turned those machines into the heaviest and best bombers in the command". Harris also contributed at this time to the development of bombing using delay-action bombs, which were then applied to keep down uprisings of the Mesopotamian people fighting against British occupation. With regard to this period, Harris is recorded as having remarked "the only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand." (thanks Wikipedia).

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I find it all more and more disturbing. An utterly humourless black comedy. This IS one 1% act in the play of a thousand years: The West vs. Islam.
It's not West v Islam now and with the exception of the Crusades and the League of Nations Protectorates it rarely has been. It is usually one faction in the Middle East against another, sometimes fuelled by religious fervour but sometimes not and the West, for reasons usually connected to the Black Gold and the arms trade cannot resist getting involved.

No matter who the participants are however, most of the victim[e]s are people living in that area, who are for the most part Muslim.

I'm sorry but my perception is that this is The West (imperialist materialism, the North) vs. Islam (imperialist religion, the South) and yeah, most of the victims of the West (consumption, exploitation, military intervention, the arms trade, political interference, environmental collapse) are Muslim and will be. We have different definitions of 'exception' and 'rarely'.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
He definitely had weapons of mass destruction then and used them but we were apparently fine with that. Then a few years later it was a reason to go to war.

Though in the context of 2003, the WMD being talked about were nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons that were several orders of magnitude more lethal than those used in the Iran-Iraq war.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

As a bit of lighter relief, a lot of Blair's reasoning (and a small amount of the reasoning in this thread) reminded me of this post from 2010:

http://www.andrewrilstone.com/2010/02/on-monday-p.html

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Related but tangential question:

Any ideas on how/why Blair and Bush got so chummy over this? I understood Blair and Bill Clinton--two peas in a pod, IMHO, but with somewhat different styles. But Dubya and Blair? It seemed so strange that I wondered if Dubya had something on Blair.

Thx.
Just the "Special relationship", which for the most part consists of Washington saying "Jump!" and London replying "How high?".

The last Prime Minister to defy that was probably Harold Wilson over British (non-)involvement in Vietname. ry

Quite.

And after the Brexit shambles the jumping will be even higher than before.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd forgotten the parallels with "Bomber" Harris. He served in Iraq in the 1920's and one example of his methods was "In Mesopotamia he commanded a Vickers Vernon squadron. "We cut a hole in the nose and rigged up our own bomb racks and I turned those machines into the heaviest and best bombers in the command". Harris also contributed at this time to the development of bombing using delay-action bombs, which were then applied to keep down uprisings of the Mesopotamian people fighting against British occupation. With regard to this period, Harris is recorded as having remarked "the only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand." (thanks Wikipedia).

He and his colleague visited a hospital to see to human effect of area bombing. Unlike his colleague Harris wasn't sufficiently moved to abandon the technique.
Area bombing was used to win WW2 and destroy the nazi grip on Germany. Yet despite this History has branded Harris as the scapegoat for all that is unpleasant about modern warfare. For different reasons a similar fate has befallen the seemingly hapless Blair. We appear to have forgotten that during the 05 Election campaign the Tories, although accusing TB of lying, admitted that they too would have gone to war with Bush and remove Sadam had they held power in 03.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I don't think any of us forget that the tories are lying, conniving, warmongering bastards too. That' why many of us think of Blair and his acolytes as tories in spirit if not in name.

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
PS. I heard one of the family members being interviewed on TV this morning. She said their lawyers were going through Chilcot to see if a basis existed "to take Tony Blair to the Hague".

I'm no expert on International Law. What constitutes "standing" before the Court of the Hague? Can individuals or a group of residents in (say) country A actually take an individual from country A directly to the Hague? I would have thought not. Any allegation of crime would be a matter for the law of country A first, I would have thought, then maybe subject to appeal to external bodies.

Courts at the Hague include the International Court of Justice, which deals with disputes between states and, as far as I know, cannot try criminal cases. The Hague-based court the individuals would want to use would presumably be the International Criminal Court (ICC).

I believe that there are at least two problems with individuals trying to take a case against Mr Blair to the ICC. Firstly, "The Prosecutor conducts preliminary examinations, investigations and is the only one who can bring cases before the Court." (source: ICC web site). Of course, if they can convince the prosecutor to bring a case, then that won't be an obstacle.

Secondly, as I understand it, an illegal invasion of Iraq would come under the crime of aggression. The Rome Statute - the treaty which founded the ICC - gave it the authority to try cases of "genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity", but not the crime of waging an aggressive war.

The Kampala Amendments were added to the Rome Statute in 2010, allowing the ICC to try cases involving the crime of aggression. However, the UK does not appear to be a party to those amendments (source). Even if we were, I am not sure if the 2010 Kampala Amendments would allow the ICC to try a case involving an aggressive war waged in 2003. There is a lot more information here.

[ 08. July 2016, 12:05: Message edited by: Alwyn ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

OK, if he can't be hauled in front of the ICC and ICJ could they simply sue him?

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

Maybe; Clive Coleman (legal correspondent for the BBC) says that, while some lawyers think that there is little chance of a successful legal action against him, others believe that there are possibilities. Specially, in UK courts, Mr Blair might be prosecuted for misconduct in a public office or sued for misfeasance in public office.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
He definitely had weapons of mass destruction then and used them but we were apparently fine with that. Then a few years later it was a reason to go to war.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Though in the context of 2003, the WMD being talked about were nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons that were several orders of magnitude more lethal than those used in the Iran-Iraq war.

I don't think that was the threshold of legality according to the Chemical Weapons Convention. But yes I suppose the allegation was that he had WMD that might actually hurt us in West, as opposed to asphyxiating Iranians, Kurds and Marsh Arabs.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I have been trying to find a version of Mitch Benn's Now Show song for Bush, with its refrain, "He was mean to my Daddy, he made my Daddy cry, And that's why Saddam Hussain has got to die."

I know that doesn't scan, there must be a missing word. It could do with being resurrected, like that video. My goodness...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Penny--

Haven't heard of the song; but it jibes with the news I picked up, over the years. Bush had(/has?) major father issues, trying both to best him and get his approval. He chose people from his father's cabinet to be in his. He was out to get Saddam Hussein, for trying to assassinate his dad. When 9/11 happened, he reportedly told his staff to find some way to connect it to SH. A ways down the road, a reporter asked him if he'd asked his dad for advice. Bush paused, looking angry, then coldly said "I appeal to a higher Father".

(Just as backstory: when Bush was little, his dad was away a lot. Bush's sister died, and his mom was alone with the situation, and Bush felt he had to make her laugh to keep her spirits up. I feel sorry for that little boy.)

Tangentially: Many of our presidents had father issues, AFAIK. Out of curiosity, is that true of British prime ministers?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I suspect, off the cuff, that they may have boarding school issues, which have been examined by psychologists over the years.

Mitch Benn is a very clever musician, writes skillful satirical lyrics and can imitate many musical styles. He clearly had picked up on what you explain. The song was very effective, and I know exactly where I was, driving down the A2, when I heard it. Doesn't help retrieve it, though. One link promised it, but did not deliver.

[ 09. July 2016, 08:20: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
OK, if he can't be hauled in front of the ICC and ICJ could they simply sue him?

And if successful would this also pave the way for reparations to Iraq? If it did then the brexit effect on the economy will turn out a pin prick by comparison.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Penny--

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I suspect, off the cuff, that they may have
boarding school issues, which have been examined by psychologists over the years.

Ahhh, thanks. Obama has father issues, too. But IMHO he's much more stable than Bush--maybe because he's worked through those issues, rather than simply acting them out.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0