There is a palpable sense of excitement at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre at the prospect of Tony Blair's appearance before Sir John Chilcot's inquiry, pencilled in for the end of the month. Additional seating is being organised in an "overflow" room outside the main conference centre, where the hearing will be relayed on flat-screen televisions. A ballot has been arranged to allocate tickets.
This is not the first time that the Whitehall establishment has sought to get its revenge on Mr Blair for aligning the country so closely with George Bush’s obsessive quest to remove Saddam Hussein. In the immediate aftermath of the Iraq War there was Lord Hutton’s investigation into allegations that Downing Street had “sexed up” the intelligence dossier on Saddam’s WMDs, which proved to be unfounded. This was followed by Lord Butler’s inquiry into our intelligence failings, which had some pretty harsh criticisms for the security apparatus, but allowed Mr Blair to escape relatively unscathed. There were even a couple of half-hearted attempts by parliamentary select committees to call Mr Blair to account, but they got nowhere because they did not have the authority to access the information they required. All they could recommend was that the Government set up a judicial inquiry into the war’s origins and consequences, which Gordon Brown reluctantly agreed to do once the last British troops had withdrawn from Iraq.
Related Articles Head of Iraq war inquiry says 'as much as possible' should be held in public Brave British troops leave Iraq a far better place than under Saddam Hussein Sir John Chilcot to launch Iraq war inquiry Afghanistan: Who is going to stand up and fight for Britain's short-changed soldiers Who is going to stand up and fight for our short-changed soldiers?
Mr Brown did his utmost to draw the Chilcot Inquiry’s sting, insisting that most hearings be held in camera. That blatant attempt to undermine its credibility was seen off by Sir John, who ruled that hearings would only be pri
By Con Coughlin Published: 7:11PM GMT 14 Jan 2010
Comments 10 | Comment on this article
There is a palpable sense of excitement at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre at the prospect of Tony Blair's appearance before Sir John Chilcot's inquiry, pencilled in for the end of the month. Additional seating is being organised in an "overflow" room outside the main conference centre, where the hearing will be relayed on flat-screen televisions. A ballot has been arranged to allocate tickets.
This is not the first time that the Whitehall establishment has sought to get its revenge on Mr Blair for aligning the country so closely with George Bush’s obsessive quest to remove Saddam Hussein. In the immediate aftermath of the Iraq War there was Lord Hutton’s investigation into allegations that Downing Street had “sexed up” the intelligence dossier on Saddam’s WMDs, which proved to be unfounded. This was followed by Lord Butler’s inquiry into our intelligence failings, which had some pretty harsh criticisms for the security apparatus, but allowed Mr Blair to escape relatively unscathed. There were even a couple of half-hearted attempts by parliamentary select committees to call Mr Blair to account, but they got nowhere because they did not have the authority to access the information they required. All they could recommend was that the Government set up a judicial inquiry into the war’s origins and consequences, which Gordon Brown reluctantly agreed to do once the last British troops had withdrawn from Iraq.
Mr Brown did his utmost to draw the Chilcot Inquiry’s sting, insisting that most hearings be held in camera. That blatant attempt to undermine its credibility was seen off by Sir John, who ruled that hearings would only be private when issues of national security arose. And while the cameras have been banned for some sessions, such as this week’s discussion of the secret deal with Iranian-backed militias to end hostilities in Basra, this courtesy will not be extended to Mr Blair, nor to Mr Brown, if the inquiry deems it necessary to call him.
This explains why expectations are running high that when the former PM – aka “the great deceiver” – finally tears himself away from his globe-trotting and graces the inquiry with his presence, he will be revealed as the liar and war criminal his detractors hold him to be.
One of the more diverting features of the inquiry has been the enthusiasm with which so many of Mr Blair’s former officials have set about getting their revenge. There was Sir Christopher Meyer, the former Ambassador to Washington, claiming that Mr Blair signed a Faustian pact with Mr Bush to overthrow Saddam come what may. This prompted Sir Ken Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, to accuse Mr Blair of being deceitful in his justifications for the invasion. Allegations such as these are hardly surprising, given the intense hostility Mr Blair aroused in both the diplomatic and judicial classes during his premiership. The Foreign Office’s pro-Arab bias was exposed when a motley collection of ambassadors penned letters to the newspapers voicing their opposition to Saddam’s overthrow. Would they have been so forthright if Mr Blair had been planning to invade Israel? It was for this reason that Mr Blair deliberately excluded Sir Christopher from his discussions with Mr Bush, and had little regard for his cables from Washington, which for some inexplicable reason seem to have gone missing from the Downing Street archive.
The problem, however, is that these outbursts bring us no closer to the truth about the Iraq war: they are speculative, rather than factual. The same problem arose this week when Alastair Campbell revealed that Mr Blair had written several letters on Iraq to Mr Bush in 2002, the year before Saddam’s overthrow. Did this prove, as Sir Christopher alleged, that Mr Blair signed up to removing Saddam long before he admitted it to Parliament? The problem is that this does not square with the established facts, which are that, without Mr Blair’s insistence on going through the UN, the US would have gone to war long before March 2003.
If we really wanted to know the truth, Sir John would be summoning the likes of Mr Bush and Dick Cheney, as well as other key architects of the invasion, such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz or Douglas Feith. That, of course, is well beyond its jurisdiction – which is just one of the many reasons that this inquiry, like all those before it, is unlikely to find the smoking gun that finally nails Mr Blair.
Another is that the inquiry’s remit is to look at the lessons that can be learnt, rather than whether there is a case for putting Mr Blair on trial. On this basis, the real culprit is Clare Short, the then International Development Secretary, whose department had responsibility for post-war planning in Iraq but who, for her own political reasons, was not fully engaged. After all, the failure of that planning is the main reason we are having this inquiry in the first place: if the coalition had succeeded in stabilising Iraq immediately after Saddam’s overthrow, I doubt we would be having this argument today.
To my mind, the fact that the country collapsed into anarchy within months of the brilliantly executed military campaign to overthrow Saddam is a far greater indictment of the Blair government’s competence than the decision-making process that led to that overthrow in the first place.
Comments: 10
They are all lying b§§§§§§s. Execute all of them. Every one is a traitor.
Clare Short is responsible for the disaster of the Iraq war?! Now Ive heard everything. The British public and military were duped into a war that Blair promised Bush way before the proper procedures for such an onerous decision were considered. Every awful outcome stems from this morally unconscionable act. All else is pantomime and sophistry. Please notice the Dutch inquiry's conclusion that the war was illegal.
Some mixed views on this blog alright. Mr Blair decided to join in making a regime change in somone else's country, because he thought that was a right thing to do. The Saddam regime was indeed unpleasant to say the least, but it really was not for Mr Blair to declare war on it. There has been no evidence that Saddam harboured terrorists such as AlQuaeda. Blair has played God and now expects everyone to consider that he did the right thing. He should be brought before a war crimes court, because this stupid enquiry is a complete waste of time and money. They will achieve nothing except another 'swept under the carpet job' the way it always does for teflon Tone.
E.T. on January 14, 2010 at 09:32 PM The writing is very definitely on the wall for Blair, who loves to play fast and loose with the truth : "a pretty straight kind'a guy." His latest utterances are to the effect that he would have gone to war anyway, regardless of any democratic approval (thus loosing him from the charge of having lied to Parliament). Too slippery to be bothered with spite, maybe ? Such devious men are also highly dangerous.
The left was against the war, the right was for it. Now the left says "we were right" and the right says "it was the right thing to do but done badly". Those who argue that they are against based upon hindsight are mendacious lightweights. Most people are utterly in the dark as to the real story, including, it appears, much of the media which merely plays games and adds little intelligent insight. I noticed that the good ole Mail this week maliciously and deliberately inaccurately stated that Alastair Campbell told Chilcott that he stood by every word of the "dodgy dossier". I listened to most of what he said. I trust the Committee will provide the story that will go in the history books. Those who seek to undermine Chilcott are afraid their judgements will not suit their prejudices. I dont care what they decide. I just care that they do a good job free of political bias of any sort, as far as is practicable.
I was alerted to the amount of spite there is in the upper echelons of government as I listened to the Chilcot Inquiry. Mr. Blair never struck me as a spiteful man and I can well see the usefulness of Mr.A.Campbell in such an environment. I was struck by the first question to Mr. Campbell as his session began -'would you do anything for the Prime Minister?' It was unecessarily provocative and to my mind uncalled for and I am sure would not have been addressed to any of the Ministry or Military establishment. It received the response it deserved. That is not to say the Inquisitors are not doing a thorough examination of all who are called before them. I expect Mr. Blair to be co-operative courteous and truthful and I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say particularly about the awful dilemma he found himself in when the start of the mission became unstoppable as the expected passing of the 2nd resolution did not materialise. While we continue to obsessively thrash out the pros and cons of this part of our history the Iraqis will be saying 'The moving finger writes and having writ moves on'.
"Chilcot Inquiry unlikely to find the smoking gun that does for Blair" Bliar is too high in the NWO pecking order to be found guilty of such high crimes. The British people will have to administer justice themselves. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen.
'Another is that the inquiry’s remit is to look at the lessons that can be learnt, rather than whether there is a case for putting Mr Blair on trial. On this basis, the real culprit is Clare Short, the then International Development Secretary, whose department had responsibility for post-war planning in Iraq but who, for her own political reasons, was not fully engaged. After all, the failure of that planning is the main reason we are having this inquiry in the first place: if the coalition had succeeded in stabilising Iraq immediately after Saddam’s overthrow, I doubt we would be having this argument today.' I think that's a bit of a cheap shot without meating out the argument a bit more. If that was Mr Blair's line, Ms Short would be fired because he couldn't rely on her to be 100% behind him and he would be wanting his finest man/woman to bring him his historical legacy. Unless she went immediately to make it easy for him. I'll back your story if Ms Short corroborates it, though.
Well who expects prats in our media to know anything,end of story,if you dont know,get educated ,and others also.America went to war,you tagged along ,britain cant declare war on anybody,wake up to reality,stop living in cuckoo land.Thats life.
I doubt if we will ever get to the bottom of this squalid, vicious, premeditated war crime(s) practised on an innocent, unsuspecting and wholly opposed world by the twin criminals, Bush and Blair. There are just too many levels of egotism, conceit, mendacity, illegality, immorality, subterfuge and sheer bloody-mindedness. They should be tried for war crimes at least.
In a murder trial Con, the prosecution has to prove premeditated intent, not whether the ambulance arrived expeditiously after the event.
Post a comment
By submitting any material to us you confirm that you have read, and agree to, our terms and conditions
Your name *
Your email address *
Read Full Article »
