# Chilcot report.



## WRENCH (Jun 20, 2016)

Found this one floating around the "net"


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2016)

one of the many things that sickened me is him saying he did the right thing and the world is now a safer place...........sorry but did he not bring terrorism to the uk? or am i thinking of another universe far far away.....cant stand the bloke


----------



## Muddy D (Nov 16, 2013)

The guy is pure scum in my opinion, responsible for suffering on an unimaginable scale. Our involvement in Iraq has led to hundreds of thousands of people being killed, the rise of international terrorism on a sickening new level and the displacement of millions of people, which in turn has led to the rise in right wing politics across Europe. We have forced our values on a region that was ill-equipped to become a democracy overnight. The world was a better place with Saddam in charge of Iraq even if he was a nasty dictator. As for Blair, we should be insisting he is tried for war crimes.


----------



## RTM Boy (Jun 1, 2011)

To be fair, religiously-motivated terrorism (if I can call it that) such as seen on 9/11, the attacks on US embassays in east Africa, attacks on US Navy ships and so on that brought massive loss of life, considerably pre-dated the second Iraq war. Also, Osama and his mates the Taliban were in control in Afganistan long before the NATO began operations there and IS is based in Syria, which has not been subject to 'US aggression' but filled a vaccuum left by the so-called Arab Spring that began organically in Tunisia. So, I cannot agree that we can simply blame Bliar for terrorism in the UK. That would be both simplistic and naive.

However, that is not to say that he made the situation better. To compare we would need to imagine what would have happened if the second Iraq war had not taken place. My best guess would be something similar to Syria with Saddam still in charge but with a bloody and violent civil war similar to that we see in Syria, which ironically is what we now have in Iraq, although we cannot of course be sure.

Bliar is clearly dillusional with selective amnesia and lied through his teeth to Parliament and to us to get his way. But his motivation puzzles me. Why was he so keen to pursue war? Why was he so keen to please Bush? Perhaps he thought Iraq would be to him what the Falklands were to Thatcher? Did Cherie tell him to do it? Was he visited in the night? I honestly don't get it. Why would any sane, sensible, educated person pursue a war that was bound to be expensive in lives and economic cost simply to enact regime change? Perhaps I've answered my own question. Any psychiatrists out there willing to provide an analysis of Bliar's mind?


----------



## hughlle (Aug 23, 2015)

Probably got bored.

Be it Blair or anyone else, western leaders just seem to have an addiction to war of late. Any excuse real or fake. Maybe they are terrified of becoming perceived as irrelevant and that they're just bluffing, so feel the need to remind the world that we can and will.

I'd like to see Blair up for war crimes. Given his conviction over how right he was, you'd think he'd initiate the proceedings hi!self just to prove how right he was, because in his mind he would be cleared by the end of the first day.


----------



## dobra (Aug 20, 2009)

Teflon Tony has changed his story and looking at his body language, a consummate liar. Hope the families of the dead have him for breakfast.

mike


----------



## WRENCH (Jun 20, 2016)

dobra said:


> Teflon Tony has changed his story and looking at his body language, a consummate liar. Hope the families of the dead have him for breakfast.
> 
> mike


 I listened to an Iraqi man being interviewed the other day. He said he would have Saddam back in a minute, because now they have over a thousand Saddam's, and they're all worse. He put the blame directly at the feet of Blair and Bush.

In the eyes of some, war is good for the economy.


----------



## xellos99 (Dec 17, 2015)

Firstly anything Peter says does not count since the guy is criminally insane.

Secondly you cant blame a single person, many others were also responsible so it was a rotten bunch in my opinion.

Thirdly I study military history in my spare time and once the war started it was inevitable that a catalogue of errors would take place.

Study any war and you will find mistakes, the Somme they are talking about is a good example. Using weight of numbers does not work well VS a huge amount of ideally placed heavy machine guns with badly tangled barbed with in between. 60K dead in one day was due to hordes being ordered to run into multiple crossfire of watercooled maxim machine guns. Bad plan.


----------



## WRENCH (Jun 20, 2016)

xellos99 said:


> Firstly anything Peter says does not count since the guy is criminally insane.


 And Tony Blair is obviously sane.

*
Tony Blair was driven by God and George W Bush says former prime minister's biographer
*


----------



## hughlle (Aug 23, 2015)

xellos99 said:


> Firstly anything Peter says does not count since the guy is criminally insane.
> 
> Secondly you cant blame a single person, many others were also responsible so it was a rotten bunch in my opinion.
> 
> ...


 What's the saying. No plan survives first contact with the enemy. Very true. The issue though is that doesn't seem to have been any plan, just send them in, win, leave.


----------



## Muddy D (Nov 16, 2013)

RTM Boy said:


> To be fair, religiously-motivated terrorism (if I can call it that) such as seen on 9/11, the attacks on US embassays in east Africa, attacks on US Navy ships and so on that brought massive loss of life, considerably pre-dated the second Iraq war. Also, Osama and his mates the Taliban were in control in Afganistan long before the NATO began operations there and IS is based in Syria, which has not been subject to 'US aggression' but filled a vaccuum left by the so-called Arab Spring that began organically in Tunisia. So, I cannot agree that we can simply blame Bliar for terrorism in the UK. That would be both simplistic and naive.
> 
> However, that is not to say that he made the situation better. To compare we would need to imagine what would have happened if the second Iraq war had not taken place. My best guess would be something similar to Syria with Saddam still in charge but with a bloody and violent civil war similar to that we see in Syria, which ironically is what we now have in Iraq, although we cannot of course be sure.
> 
> Bliar is clearly dillusional with selective amnesia and lied through his teeth to Parliament and to us to get his way. But his motivation puzzles me. Why was he so keen to pursue war? Why was he so keen to please Bush? Perhaps he thought Iraq would be to him what the Falklands were to Thatcher? Did Cherie tell him to do it? Was he visited in the night? I honestly don't get it. Why would any sane, sensible, educated person pursue a war that was bound to be expensive in lives and economic cost simply to enact regime change? Perhaps I've answered my own question. Any psychiatrists out there willing to provide an analysis of Bliar's mind?


 I do agree with some of your points, especially about religious terrorism pre dating the 2nd gulf war and also the Taliban and Afghanistan, though I was being quite specific to Iraq as I view what happened in Iraq the bigger of the problems. Syria may be the home of ISIS though there is zero chance it would have come to prominence in Iraq with Saddam at the helm. Yes the Arab Spring did start in Tunisia though I really do not think it would have either a) occurred in the first place or b) spread to other countries had a power vacuum not been created by removing Saddam. Had the 2nd Gulf war not happened, we would not have a situation like the current Syrian situation on our hands though in Iraq - Saddam would have quashed it. Basically democracy is a great idea though it doesn't work in areas of the world where extremist political views are prevalent, Iraq needed a strong ruler, as does Iran and Syria etc, remove the ruler and see what happens. As for Blair, I don't we'll ever know his motivation, all the same he should be tried in a court.


----------



## xellos99 (Dec 17, 2015)

WRENCH said:


> And Tony Blair is obviously sane.
> 
> *
> Tony Blair was driven by God and George W Bush says former prime minister's biographer
> *


 There is much more to it than just Tony though, a PM only has so much power and influence. I`m not saying he did nothing wrong but it was a collection.

And think of this, if he was doing something wrong then who was there to stop him. If wrong was being done then a stop should have been put to it.

I blame the system as a collective.


----------



## RTM Boy (Jun 1, 2011)

Muddy D said:


> I do agree with some of your points, especially about religious terrorism pre dating the 2nd gulf war and also the Taliban and Afghanistan, though I was being quite specific to Iraq as I view what happened in Iraq the bigger of the problems. Syria may be the home of ISIS though there is zero chance it would have come to prominence in Iraq with Saddam at the helm. Yes the Arab Spring did start in Tunisia though I really do not think it would have either a) occurred in the first place or b) spread to other countries had a power vacuum not been created by removing Saddam. Had the 2nd Gulf war not happened, we would not have a situation like the current Syrian situation on our hands though in Iraq - Saddam would have quashed it. Basically democracy is a great idea though it doesn't work in areas of the world where extremist political views are prevalent, Iraq needed a strong ruler, as does Iran and Syria etc, remove the ruler and see what happens. As for Blair, I don't we'll ever know his motivation, all the same he should be tried in a court.


 Alot of what you say is true. My only thought is that Assad in Syria was as tyrannical as Saddam in Iraq and he certainly wasn't able to prevent the cataclysmic civil war and ISIS taking hold. I somehow think that Saddam would not have done any better. But that is conjecture on my part and we will never know what might have happened.

It would be absolutely right to see Bliar in court. Sadly his duplicity, deceitfulness, dishonesty and egomania although obvious, will be difficult to prosecute and since he and his wife are lawyers and his brother is a high court judge (ie all part of the neoliberal metropolitan elite) they will look after there own as they always do. I hope someone can get somewhere with a prosecution, but I won't be holding my breath.


----------



## richy176 (Aug 7, 2013)

I lived and worked in Iraq back in the 1980s and had my wife and kids with me. It was a great place to be and felt very safe despite the fact that they were at war with Iran,

We has a few Iraqi friends and I must stress that this was a handful or two out of a population of around 15 million and so not representative. They did fear Saddam but also were more fearful that he might be overthrown and the reason for this was that they knew that he kept the Sunni, Shia and Christian population in relative harmony. They were afraid that if he was removed then there would be civil war.

On Thursday afternoons (the start of their weekend) we were often invited to the British Embassy Bar and the Diplomats also knew about the fears of the Iraqui population and so I can not help but question why Tony Blair and co were not warned of the consequences of removing him.

There is no denying that Saddam was a vicious dictator but he did hold the country together. Freedom of speech did not exist. My lads took in a stray dog and wanted to call it Saddam. Our Iraqi staff were horrified and said we could be deported - OK not that big a deal so they chose another name.Senior military commanders who gained popularity with their troops did seem to suffer a high incidence of helicopter crashes and his son Udi was known to have shot people who did not show him sufficient `respect'.

Bottom line I suppose is that Saddam was not a nice guy but did we have the right to remove him? There have been suggestions that following the first gulf war, he tried to have George Bush snr assassinated and that 9/11 gave George Bush jnr an excuse to send in troops and remove him..

Whatever the `reasons' for removing Saddam the net result was that the ruling Sunni minority was displaced and many of the Isis leaders are ex Iraqi senior military members who were thrown out once the majority Shia took power.


----------



## WRENCH (Jun 20, 2016)

richy176 said:


> I lived and worked in Iraq back in the 1980s and had my wife and kids with me. It was a great place to be and felt very safe despite the fact that they were at war with Iran,
> 
> We has a few Iraqi friends and I must stress that this was a handful or two out of a population of around 15 million and so not representative. They did fear Saddam but also were more fearful that he might be overthrown and the reason for this was that they knew that he kept the Sunni, Shia and Christian population in relative harmony. They were afraid that if he was removed then there would be civil war.
> 
> ...


 Which proves that, "intelligence", and the part of, which studies the psychological aspect of a counties populace, were either incompetent, or were "briefed" to mislead. (Or both).


----------



## Daveyboyz (Mar 9, 2016)

You are probably all going to call me a conspiracy theorist but it is only common sense that groups of people with shared interests co-operate in order to pursue their objectives. That is how the world works.

Blair probably got into politics for the right reasons, or found he was good at it and enjoyed it. He probably started with principles, for instance he was anti-EU. At some point (not sure on the exact chronology) he became involved with Henry Kissinger and the Bilderburg group. This is a known fact (he is on the record saying "The Biderburg group is a good way to meet people")

It is well known that the Bilderburgs have a meeting every year behind closed doors....normally something like 200 of the most powerful and influential people in the world and the agenda is always secret. We could speculate what they discuss but it has to be along the lines of what they would like to happen in the world. Whose perspective are they coming at it from? Well certainly not ours, I doubt very much whether they are motivated to make the world a better place, but more likely to serve their own interests.

Well once touched by these people he became pro-EU, and was probably working towards a different agenda. USA had major problems at the fuel pumps. They were using more oil that they were producing by the sum of what India and China use combined. So they obviously wanted control of the region that produces oil and they wanted to secure contracts (which were granted to Haliburton-related to Dick Cheney) In Afganistan the opiate trade had been reduced to nearly nothing.... which was badly damaging the USA, after they invaded production quickly recovered and I don't believe it is any coincidence. Wall Street thrives off drug money. (One explanation for why a 40 year war on drugs has yielded absolutely no results)

Surely anybody who helps the Bilderburgs do rather well for themselves... they get great wealth and are promoted into cushy positions. Sure I can't prove they told Blair to do what he did, but it does seem to me to be a feasible ad quite reasonable explanation.


----------



## Krispy (Nov 7, 2010)

Has anybody else read a document called 'Rebuilding America's Defences' by the think tank 'Project for a new American Century'?


----------



## WRENCH (Jun 20, 2016)

Daveyboyz said:


> In Afganistan the opiate trade had been reduced to nearly nothing.... which was badly damaging the USA, after they invaded production quickly recovered and I don't believe it is any coincidence. Wall Street thrives off drug money. (One explanation for why a 40 year war on drugs has yielded absolutely no results)
> 
> .


 This is one subject that has puzzled me. During the Vietnam war the American air force dropped agent Orange defoliant in order to clear jungle areas, with the huge leap forward in technology, both in the use of chemicals and unmanned drones, guided by satellite technology, if it is possible to literally drop a projectile down a chimney, surely a huge area of poppies wouldn't be too much of a problem to eradicate.


----------



## Daveyboyz (Mar 9, 2016)

Krispy said:


> Has anybody else read a document called 'Rebuilding America's Defences' by the think tank 'Project for a new American Century'?


 Thats the document before 9/11 which explains an event like pearl harbour is necessary to get the support of the populace?



WRENCH said:


> This is one subject that has puzzled me. During the Vietnam war the American air force dropped agent Orange defoliant in order to clear jungle areas, with the huge leap forward in technology, both in the use of chemicals and unmanned drones, guided by satellite technology, if it is possible to literally drop a projectile down a chimney, surely a huge area of poppies wouldn't be too much of a problem to eradicate.


 We had eradicated it...as soon as Afghanistan was invaded production came back.

Some claim that most drugs get into the USA by means of military bases where they are passed to otganised crine to distribute. That I can't say... but having read the "motivation" for 9/11 by aninvestigative journalist who quotes all of his sources in "Crossing the Rubicon" we can see there was huge motivation for a war in the middle-east even if it meant a self inflicted wound.


----------



## Krispy (Nov 7, 2010)

Daveyboyz said:


> Thats the document before 9/11 which explains an event like pearl harbour is necessary to get the support of the populace?
> 
> We had eradicated it...as soon as Afghanistan was invaded production came back.
> 
> Some claim that most drugs get into the USA by means of military bases where they are passed to otganised crine to distribute. That I can't say... but having read the "motivation" for 9/11 by aninvestigative journalist who quotes all of his sources in "Crossing the Rubicon" we can see there was huge motivation for a war in the middle-east even if it meant a self inflicted wound.


 Yes, it called for a catalysing event to garner the public's support for greater defence spending, as this had been on the decline in the 90's due to a relatively peaceful world. A great number of the authors of the document went on to serve in W's administration.

I'm sure I read that troops had already amassed on the Afghan border months prior to 9/11 but it wasn't possible to sell an invasion to the US public, at the time. Wasn't there a falling out with the Taliban (who had been greeted in Washington in July 2001 and gave the classic 'I feel sorry for your husband' line) over a Unocol gas pipeline to connect Uzbekistan with the west via Afghanistan.

Not entirely unrelated but Gaddafi was tolerated up until the point he was about to implement oil trading in gold Dinars, a move which could have crippled the dollar. I'm sure I also read that it was the Qatari military who actually dragged him through the streets and publicly buggered and murdered him, literally.

What a world.


----------



## Caller. (Dec 8, 2013)

Before this thread descends into silliness, I have a serious, genuine question, what is the offence that Blair is alleged to have committed that could see him prosecuted and if he was to be prosecuted, who would it be by? I assume Bush would be before him?


----------



## Krispy (Nov 7, 2010)

As far as I can tell, it's the fact he agreed to follow Bush into war 'no matter what' months before the case was built to invade Iraq.


----------



## xellos99 (Dec 17, 2015)

Caller said:


> Before this thread descends into silliness, I have a serious, genuine question, what is the offence that Blair is alleged to have committed that could see him prosecuted and if he was to be prosecuted, who would it be by? I assume Bush would be before him?


 Going above his powers in a way that caused damage to the people involved. There are 27 and counting families wanting to sue blair. He has made 60 Million since ending his term as PM so he is loaded now


----------



## Caller. (Dec 8, 2013)

No, sorry, I meant what criminal or other law has he broken? What section of a particular act? It can't be a generalisation, there must be something covering whatever his alleged offence is in whatever statute has been drawn up to cover it, wherever that might be that has jursidiction. Suing him in the civil Court for negligence is a different matter.


----------



## Daveyboyz (Mar 9, 2016)

I think we all know what happened...its just a case of can it be proven.

Blair agreed with Bush that we should go to war mainly for American interests. Then they manufactured the circumstances to allow it.

It is illegal to go to war in order to impliment a regime change, the UN said as much so in conjuction the US and UK portrayed it as a defensive move based on the invention of 'weapons of mass destruction' argument (probably in the knowledge this was a fiction.

So the exact legal argument would be complex...Fraud or illegal waging of war...


----------



## Caller. (Dec 8, 2013)

Well I certainly don't know what happened between Blair and Bush. But we're getting closer. Although I wasn't aware the UN had some sort of statutory authority in these matters. Why isn't Putin being prosecuted over Ukraine for the same reason?


----------



## hughlle (Aug 23, 2015)

Caller said:


> Well I certainly don't know what happened between Blair and Bush. But we're getting closer. Although I wasn't aware the UN had some sort of statutory authority in these matters. Why isn't Putin being prosecuted over Ukraine for the same reason?


 The thing I was reading stated that the UN court of thing thing changed the manner in which they could prosecute, but that it would not come into force until 2017. So until 2017, the likes of Blair etc can't be prosecuted, and following 2017 still can't be prosecuted as it would be retroactive.


----------



## SBryantgb (Jul 2, 2015)

Caller said:


> Why isn't Putin being prosecuted over Ukraine for the same reason?


 he Ukraine was destabilize by the west. namely the EU and America. They had a democratically elected government (albeit a corrupt one) Which was negotiating a relief package with Russia. General elections had been promised but the west decided to over thrown the established government and place an EU sympathetic one in its place. Russia then had to protect it's assets and people in the Crimea. I don't quite see where Putin should be prosecuted.


----------



## Caller. (Dec 8, 2013)

Fair enough, I was aware of some eu involvement but not the full circumstances.


----------



## SBryantgb (Jul 2, 2015)

Caller said:


> No, sorry, I meant what criminal or other law has he broken? What section of a particular act? It can't be a generalisation, there must be something covering whatever his alleged offence is in whatever statute has been drawn up to cover it, wherever that might be that has jursidiction. Suing him in the civil Court for negligence is a different matter.


 My understanding is that Iraq's regime under Saddam Hussien although corrupt and decidedly un-humanitarian was not breaking any of the international laws that would allow for a regime change by force. The Nuclear option was used (weapons of mass destruction) which makes it acceptable. Because he became a threat to other countries. Unfortunately this turned out to have been untrue. The issue then becomes one of whether or not Blair knew this. if he did then he is a war criminal. If he didn't then he was just ill advised. I think he knew the truth.


----------



## Caller. (Dec 8, 2013)

SBryantgb said:


> The Nuclear option was used (weapons of mass destruction) which makes it acceptable. Unfortunately this turned out to have been untrue. The issue then becomes one of whether or not Blair knew this. if he did then he is a war criminal. If he didn't then he was just ill advised. I think he knew the truth.


 I've been reading up as much as I can on this in a very short period of time. The above is interesting, so the offence would be illegally seeking a regime change. Not anything to do with the consequences of the war, which I assume would be covered by 'crimes against humanity', which is ironic, because if the west could have got hold of Saddam that's without doubt what he would have been charged with too! Personally, I can't see it going anywhere. Where most cases like this are successful, there has been direct supervision or control of the acts they were convicted of, but I'm no expert, so who knows?


----------



## Krispy (Nov 7, 2010)

An interesting piece from the Beeb from 2003 regarding PNAC and America's dream of being the world's only superpower...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2801349.stm


----------



## RTM Boy (Jun 1, 2011)

Caller said:


> No, sorry, I meant what criminal or other law has he broken? What section of a particular act? It can't be a generalisation, there must be something covering whatever his alleged offence is in whatever statute has been drawn up to cover it, wherever that might be that has jursidiction. Suing him in the civil Court for negligence is a different matter.


 This is the problem. I know of no crime of incompetence, egomania, nor a specific offense of be a lying toerag. People have accused him of being a 'war criminal' for starting an 'illegal war' in some vague reference so-called international law (this is really conventions enshrined in national law). The UN is not a court. It's not covered by fraud law. Crimes of aggression are defined by the ICC, but no presecutions are possible under its direction until at least 2017 and they cannot be retrospective anyway. Aggression is not a crime in English law. The definition of 'war crimes' leaves huge amounts of wiggle room for Bliar to get out of.

From what I have read, the best option is to prosecute for 'misconduct in public office'. There is also a potential civil claim for 'misfeasance in public office', which is almost the civil equivalent to the crime of misconduct in public office.


----------



## Krispy (Nov 7, 2010)

Tony Blair could be 'impeached' and put on 'trial' in Parliament over Chilcot report, under MPs' plans

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/08/tony-blair-could-be-impeached-and-put-on-trial-in-parliament-ove/


----------



## Biker (Mar 9, 2013)

it is being mooted that he deceived the house of commons WRT the real validity of a WMD threat from Saddam. Therefore involving the UK in an illegal war. Which is technically a war crime. I am sure there are more technical legal issues surrounding the soldiers that were killed or injured out there.

The real reason for the invasion has been surpressed for years now. Here is a very simplified explanation.

In 1993 Saddam illegally invaded Kuwait over some really vague sovereignty issue. Kuwait asked NATO for help. NATO duly obliged and removed Saddam and sent him back home, he was penalised with 10 years of trading sanctions.

2003 (10 years on) Saddam applies to the appropriate authorities for the removal of said sanctions because he had (to some degree) behaved himself, but more importantly respected the imposed sanctions.

George W being a power pissed moron said no to lifting the sanctions.

Saddam responded by refusing to sell his oil to any of the nations that refused the removal of his trade sanctions and hey presto! Saddam suddenly has WMD's we have to go in and topple his regime.


----------



## Seismic one (Jun 21, 2008)

After the surrender of Germany in WW2 the coalition politicians insisted on retaining the German army and police force {with new commanders} this helped maintain order.

What did our esteemed politicians do in Iraq they disbanded the army and police result chaos. History learned them nothing.


----------



## richy176 (Aug 7, 2013)

Biker said:


> it is being mooted that he deceived the house of commons WRT the real validity of a WMD threat from Saddam. Therefore involving the UK in an illegal war. Which is technically a war crime. I am sure there are more technical legal issues surrounding the soldiers that were killed or injured out there.
> 
> The real reason for the invasion has been surpressed for years now. Here is a very simplified explanation.
> 
> ...


 It has also been suggested that after the first Gulf war, Saddam tried to have Bush snr assassinated and Bush jnr was looking for an excuse to get Saddam.


----------



## Caller. (Dec 8, 2013)

There was an interesting article in the Times from Blair's biographer about Chilcot's conclusions, based on his own research and interviews undertaken during his time writing his book. It's worth a read in that it's one of the few dissenting voices to the conclusions, in that he feels Chilcot has protected his own and treated Blair as a sacrificial lamb.

It's worth a read, I'll put the link in, but you may not be able to access it, so I've included the cut and pasted text as well.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/focus/chilcots-smokescreen-bm75qbvx2

Whitehall's mandarins have won. By any measure, Sir John Chilcot has cast a brilliant smokescreen. Under his careful supervision, the Chilcot report conjures a damning portrait of a rogue prime minister supported by reckless generals secretly engaging in an unnecessary war and ignoring the predicted mayhem that wrecked Iraq after military victory.

Yet, beyond the glowing media headlines, Chilcot's seven-year inquiry into the 2003 invasion and its aftermath has protected senior civil servants and cabinet ministers from proper censure for their manifest mistakes.

By focusing the brunt of his blame on the obvious culprit, Tony Blair, and by taking a heavy swipe at the defective intelligence services and loyal military chiefs, this retired mandarin has protected his own breed from criticism for their ignominious role in sending and maintaining an under-equipped army in Iraq.

The full report is immense, more than 2.6m words. To deliver a critique of it here in vastly fewer words may be ambitious, even presumptuous. But while Chilcot and his team laboured, I trod the same territory myself for my biography of Blair.

Generals, spies, ministers and mandarins spoke to me, too - with less formality and therefore more frankness than to Chilcot and his official panel.

SECRET ROAD TO WAR

Chilcot reveals no new bombshells. He says he has provided an impartial account of events from which the public can draw their own conclusions. By implication, he has with a few exceptions sought to avoid naming and shaming those to blame.

As a result, his job is only half-completed. He has failed to identify the significant twists and turns inside Downing Street during Blair's secret road to war and has recorded no meaningful judgments about his closest accomplices.

Chilcot's sleight of hand can be gauged from the joy of Alastair Campbell, Blair's former spin doctor. Despite chairing the committee which produced two dodgy and sexed-up dossiers about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), Campbell is exonerated.

Equally blessed by omission of any criticism are Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, and David Manning, his foreign policy adviser. Both were intimately involved during the seven years of the Iraqi engagement, yet both escape any censure.

For the same reason, Lord Goldsmith, Blair's seemingly malleable attorney- general, is also not rebuked for conveniently changing his advice at the last moment to support the legality of war.

The only explanation for those omissions is that Chilcot was anxious not to address the most important question. Namely whether Blair was guilty of deception during the build-up to war after the September 2001 Islamist attacks on New York and Washington.

The absence of plans and preparation for the disastrous postwar occupation of Iraq stems directly from Blair's secrecy and deception before the war, when he wanted to play an equal role with President George W Bush to defeat international terror.

Three months after 9/11, as Chilcot notes without proper explanation, Blair told Bush he was committed to "a strategy of regime change" in Iraq which could be built up over time, adding that "military action could be taken if necessary" but "an extremely clever plan would be required" to overcome international opposition.

Blair sent Bush a plan to quell that antagonism. As deliberately toppling Saddam Hussein was illegal under British law, he needed an excuse to go to war. Saddam's refusal to let UN inspectors search for his WMDs was a good pretext. Blair's only problem was that in December 2001, British intelligence was uncertain whether the WMDs existed. In fact, they had been destroyed after the Gulf War in 1991.

Frustratingly, Chilcot fails to disentangle Blair's secret endorsement of Bush's military plans from his simultaneous public support for a UN resolution to legitimise the invasion.

The key unanswered question was whether Blair's constant repetition that Iraq possessed WMDs and his advocacy for UN resolutions camouflaged his real intention to topple Saddam.

Chilcot's method of work is the reason for that failure. Instead of forensically examining the documents and employing a lawyer to challenge the 150 witnesses, he simply assembled documents and quotations in chronological order to reduce his narrative to what Blair calls "the process", avoiding critical analysis.

With few exceptions, there is no judgment about the manifest failure of dozens of senior civil servants and politicians. Blandness undermines the report's value.

Blair did not single-handedly plot the road to war over 16 months. Nor did he deceive the dozens of special advisers, cabinet ministers, generals and senior civil servants who were engaged in the secret discussions. But those outside his Downing Street den were deceived.

In his evidence to Chilcot, Stephen Wall, the senior official responsible for Europe in the Cabinet Office, said that while attending nearly every cabinet meeting during 2002, like most ministers he "probably" only became aware that Blair intended to join the invasion in January 2003, two months before the war.

Yet, on Blair's orders, Britain's military had been engaged in planning for war since July 23, 2002. Deliberately, the British public and parliament were kept unaware of Blair's secret commitment.

DEN DIPLOMACY

Manning, a quietly spoken diplomat, was at the heart of Blair's insistence on secrecy. In December 2001, as the guardian of Blair's secret diplomacy, Manning briefed Christopher Meyer, the British ambassador in Washington, about Blair's intentions so that in early 2002 Meyer could report Blair's support for participation in an American invasion.

In July 2002, Meyer reported to Manning and Blair that Bush was planning for war. On Manning's instructions, reports Chilcot, Meyer "told a US official that if the US decided to move against Saddam Hussein, then the UK would be with them".

Meyer echoed the endorsement of that decision at a critical meeting of Blair's war group, including Manning, in Downing Street on July 23. Subject to several caveats, Britain agreed to participate in an invasion. Five days later, Blair sent his now infamous message to Bush starting with, "I'll be with you, whatever".

At length, Blair described the political problems for a successful invasion. "Getting rid of Saddam", he wrote, "is the right thing to do." His final sentiment was more revelatory than his introduction: "We would support in any way we can . . . A strike date could be Jan/Feb next year. But the crucial issue is not when, but how." Chilcot reports that Manning asked Blair to remove "I'll be with you, whatever" because it was "too sweeping". Blair refused. He told Chilcot, "Frankly, I think he [Manning] would have preferred me not to have given any undertaking at all."

In fact, Manning asked him to remove nothing else from the message, and he continued as Blair's loyal emissary in the secret war diplomacy with Washington, never questioning MI6's fantasy intelligence about WMDs and only perfunctorily doubting American assurances about their so-called robust plans for the postwar occupation of Iraq.

Manning was more than an adviser. Occasionally, he was also a doorkeeper who excluded Andrew Turnbull, the cabinet secretary, and David Omand, the permanent secretary responsible for security, from Downing Street. Despite their protests, both complained that they were barred from Blair's den.

The absence of Turnbull and Omand overturned a century of Britain's traditional governance so that, for his own protection, no prime minister would meet an intelligence chief without the cautionary presence of his cabinet secretary.

Last week, Blair admitted his mistake for not challenging the reports containing fabricated intelligence about Iraqi WMDs delivered by Richard Dearlove, the MI6 chief, and John Scarlett, the chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC).

Curiously, Chilcot blamed Turnbull for his own exclusion from Blair's secret discussions and his failure to force Blair to consult all his cabinet ministers about the war. Manning's and Powell's responsibility was ignored.

BLAMING THE GENERALS

Why does Chilcot voice no adverse comment about Manning's loyalty towards Blair - as he swerved between legality and possible illegality, ignoring the incompetence and perpetuating the corruption of traditional government - while the three chiefs of the defence staff are scathingly criticised for their loyalty?

Chilcot heaps the blame onto the military for not adequately preparing to implement Blair's secret road to war, and he censures the generals for failing to resolve the consequences of Blair's confused policies about postwar Iraq.

Indisputably, the military committed serious errors, but Chilcot's prejudice is to name and blame soldiers for the appalling decisions made by civil servants and their political masters.

Not a single cabinet minister - other than Robin Cook, who resigned as leader of the House - challenged Blair's secrecy.

Not one cabinet minister asked Blair why UN weapons inspectors hadn't found a single WMD

Not one cabinet minister asked Blair why UN weapons inspectors had been unable to find a single WMD in Iraq, although they had been directed to locations identified by MI6 and the CIA.

Every minister loyally accepted Blair's flawed conclusions about WMDs. According to Turnbull, no minister at a cabinet meeting on January 9, 2003, questioned Blair's untruthful denials about any decisions for an invasion.

Yet Chilcot does not criticise by name any cabinet minister - other than Jack Straw, the hapless foreign secretary - or a single civil servant in the Treasury, the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development or the Ministry of Defence for their participation in Blair's prewar "conspiracy", his negligence about plans for post-invasion Iraq or his corruption of traditional government.

Chilcot even reprieves Clare Short, the secretary for international development, for her reluctance to co-operate with the military to rebuild southern Iraq, and Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, for his tepid toleration of Blair's marked lack of interest in military operations.

He does not mention that Blair deliberately excluded Kevin Tebbit, the MoD's permanent secretary, from discussions in Downing Street. Most importantly, he ignores the consequences of Gordon Brown's repeated refusal to grant sufficient money to the military for equipment and additional soldiers. Chilcot does not blame any civil servant for bowing to the politicians' nonchalance. The military, who actually executed the successful invasion of Iraq, are not similarly protected.

Without a proper cabinet discussion, 46,000 British troops were dispatched by March 2003. To obey Blair's insistence on secrecy, Whitehall's officials only very belatedly sanctioned sufficient money to buy equipment to fulfil the government's policy, "Go first, go fast, go home".

Soon after victory, nearly 35,000 British troops left Iraq. Blair and his ministers waffled and dithered about Britain's continuing role while Washington allowed northern Iraq to plunge into chaos, which rippled down to the peaceful south where the depleted British army occupying Basra was left dangling ineffectually under increasing threat by Iranian-backed murderers.

There are many reasons for the British army's disastrous failures in Basra, but by focusing the principal blame on the army, Chilcot is either simplistic or biased.

Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the taciturn chief of the defence staff, became disliked by Blair after publicly warning him in November 2001 against foreign adventures in medieval countries. Ridiculing the intelligence on the eve of war, Boyce warned Blair in a recorded minute that the allied armies would be "resented" by Iraqis and not seen as "liberators".

OBEYING ORDERS

Chilcot does record that the army was not gagging to join the invasion and that its open dissatisfaction with postwar plans was ignored by ministers and civil servants. Like all officers, Boyce loyally obeyed the orders of a lawful government despite Blair ignoring his repeated complaints about the absence of any plans for occupying Iraq.

Once Goldsmith, the attorney-general, had quashed Boyce's demand for proof about the legality of war - and Chilcot noticeably refused to criticise Goldsmith or Blair for their finagling of the legal advice in favour of war - the military had no alternative but to obey Blair's orders, although all knew that the cabinet were being deceived over the next five months.

Chilcot notes that transgression but not the fact that before the war, Blair sought to fire Boyce for telling truth unto power. The consequence was manifest after the invasion, but no culpable civil servant is blamed for the ensuing chaos. Only Blair is censured for ignoring the warnings, plus the hapless military.

Pertinently, General Sir Mike Walker was selected as the new military chief because he could be relied upon to bluffly comply with Blair's demands. The steady general was chosen because he was not a fearsome Whitehall warrior keen to rock the boat.

He inherited an under-funded, ill-equipped army whose contradictory orders were to stay in Iraq and return home. He acted on the briefs from the intelligence services, civil servants and politicians that UN forces and/or the Iraqis were well equipped to govern the country.

Chilcot provides no minutes of Walker's regular briefings to Blair about the growing stagnation around Basra, perpetuated by lack of resources and Blair's lack of interest in the policy vacuum, as the area drifted into insurrection.

MICE AT THE MONEY

While Chilcot rightly criticised Walker's failure to review his operations and to demand more men and equipment, he ignores political realities. Walker could only control the insurgency if Blair allocated additional billions of pounds to reinforce the British army with more troops and equipment.

A serious lack of money reflecting the Blair-Brown tensions crucially undermined the army's operations in Basra. By ignoring those political realities, Chilcot damages his own credibility.

Blair, the military knew, had been unwilling since 1998 to confront Gordon Brown to secure additional money. But that critical truth about Brown's perennial sabotage of Blair's premiership is ignored by Chilcot.

The military, he reports, were never denied the necessary money to dispatch sufficient soldiers with adequate equipment to operate in post-invasion Iraq. "There was no articulated need for additional resources for military operations in Iraq that was not met," he writes. Money, Chilcot asserts, "did not constrain" Britain's military operations.

Blair assured Chilcot that he always agreed to all Walker's requests for money, equipment and troops. In his casual sofa government manner, that was true. But thereafter nothing happened. On Brown's orders, the Treasury ignored Blair's orders. Or as Walker told Chilcot, "The mattress mice got at it" - a quotation which does not feature in the report.

The report also ignored Walker's personal threat to Blair in 2004 at Chequers that all three service chiefs would resign because Brown refused to allocate sufficient money. At the very last minute, the chancellor begrudgingly agreed a small increase. After giving evidence to Chilcot, Brown was forced to admit to the inquiry that, contrary to his testimony, he had in some years reduced the military's budget.

None of this is news to me. In private interviews for my book, Hoon, Tebbit and Walker also contradicted the assurances that Blair and Brown gave to Chilcot.

Pertinently, Chilcot lists Blair's personal mistakes for causing the military disaster in southern Iraq and unremittingly blames all three successive military chiefs - Boyce, Walker and Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup - for manifold errors. He ignores their unquestioned obligation to obey the legal orders of an elected government, and the denial of support by civil servants and ministers.

Chilcot offers no solution to the victims of the corruption of government orchestrated by Blair and his cronies. Resignation possibly - but none of Whitehall's warriors was considering that sacrifice.

FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY

By the end of his 12-volume report, Chilcot's fundamental fallacy is obvious.

He does not ask why Blair encouraged Britain to "punch above its weight" without the money and men. He fails to trace the cancer started by Blair's 1998 defence review which recast Britain's depleted military as global crusaders to act as "a force for good" against evil.

Blair imagined that his puny successes without casualties in Kosovo and Sierra Leone could be replicated in Iraq. Some called it Blair's "Messiah complex".

Tellingly, Chilcot did not challenge Blair during his testimony nor in his report about the circumstances allowing Scarlett to delete his judgment that the intelligence about WMDs was "sporadic and patchy" and not objecting to Blair's announcement that the intelligence was "extensive, detailed and authoritative".

Like Chilcot, Blair abused the loyalty of the generals who were the unwitting victims of Blair's original deception which Chilcot inexplicably ignored.

By corrupting traditional government, a prime minister unschooled in statesmanship ignored the warnings. He has accepted "responsibility" but not the blame. After all, since none of his accomplices in Downing Street has been blamed by Chilcot for the carnage, why should he?

Tom Bower is the author of Broken Vows: Tony Blair, The Tragedy of Power (Faber).


----------



## WRENCH (Jun 20, 2016)

SBryantgb said:


> he Ukraine was destabilize by the west. namely the EU and America. They had a democratically elected government (albeit a corrupt one) Which was negotiating a relief package with Russia. General elections had been promised but the west decided to over thrown the established government and place an EU sympathetic one in its place. Russia then had to protect it's assets and people in the Crimea. I don't quite see where Putin should be prosecuted.


 I wonder what "the west" reaction would have been if the Irish Republic, post 2008 financial crisis had been destabilized by Russia, and had its established government replaced by one sympathetic to the Kremlin. Quite a similar scenario.


----------



## WRENCH (Jun 20, 2016)

Caller said:


> There was an interesting article in the Times from Blair's biographer about Chilcot's conclusions, based on his own research and interviews undertaken during his time writing his book. It's worth a read in that it's one of the few dissenting voices to the conclusions, in that he feels Chilcot has protected his own and treated Blair as a sacrificial lamb.
> 
> It's worth a read, I'll put the link in, but you may not be able to access it, so I've included the cut and pasted text as well.
> 
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/focus/chilcots-smokescreen-bm75qbvx2


 I do believe that boxed sets of "Yes Minister" are a mandatory part of the political civil servants training manual.


----------

