Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn will go quietly after all, once he's led Labour's response to the Chilcot report. Like General Wolfe, he can then die in peace.
I doubt it, but Angela Eagle's attempts to dethrone him are probably finished. No Labour MP who voted for the Iraq War is ever going to get near to the leadership.
I don't agree- the MP's were fundamentally misled by Blair, as much as the Tories who voted pro. Blair didn't even consult his cabinet so how can we blame the MP's. Vote war MP's would be wise to put the boot in on Blair and ask for a legal view on a prosecution. He deserves it.
They are not supposed to be sheep, did they not think to ask why he was keeping it all to himself.
It was obvious - like OBVIOUS that the case for war - or rather the MILITARY case for war - was pants. The Daily Telegraph published a detailed review of the Iraqi military strengths- tanks, planes , missiles, artillery etc.. from its military correspondents and their connections. In ALL case, the summary was: out of date, badly maintained and sanctions have hit the availability of parts so badly that barely 50% of the nominal strength was effective.
So the idea that Iraq could deliver sophisticated missile attacks using WMD was risible. My wife and I discussed this - stand up row. As she said "what you are saying is that the Government and PM are liars,," Big row. We don't discuss it any more!
If I could see that, any MP worth his salary could if he/she had an open mind. Bear in mind it was printed in the DT!!!
Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn will go quietly after all, once he's led Labour's response to the Chilcot report. Like General Wolfe, he can then die in peace.
I doubt it, but Angela Eagle's attempts to dethrone him are probably finished. No Labour MP who voted for the Iraq War is ever going to get near to the leadership.
I don't agree- the MP's were fundamentally misled by Blair, as much as the Tories who voted pro. Blair didn't even consult his cabinet so how can we blame the MP's. Vote war MP's would be wise to put the boot in on Blair and ask for a legal view on a prosecution. He deserves it.
That might have worked as an argument if so many Labour MPs had not voted against the war - including Corbyn.
They would have voted against war if the Republican Guard had just disembarked at Dover.
Leadsom will pull off an amazing victory with the membership. For months now they've had it rammed down their throats that all Remainers are liars, careerists, idiots or all three and that only a true Leaver is fit to carry the Brexit flame. That sort of mindset can't be dispelled overnight. Leadsom will be seen as a Joan of Arc figure, leading the piratical crew of Brexiteers towards the glorious sunrise of their post-EU destiny. It's written in the stars...
That's what worries me. it's like labour electing Corbyn, and that happened.
Corbyn has been on the loony fringes of Labour's backbenches for three decades, never once serving as minister or shadow minister and having no real career either inside or outside politics and rebelling hundreds of times against the whip.
Leadsom had a career before politics, joined Parliament recently and is a currently serving minister.
The two are not remotely comparable. The worst that can be said about Leadsom is that this may be too early for her, that she's not served in the cabinet yet. There seems to be no suggestion that she would never reach cabinet level otherwise.
They are comparable to this extent: a lot of people are projecting their views and desires onto her in the same way that they did with Corbyn. And part of that is because they think that she would be more principled and purer as a Brexiter than anyone else
I think that is the key, and why winning is possible but not yet probable. Maybe she really is better than May, we'll get more of a sense of that at least in terms of political skill in the next few weeks if she gets to the final two as she is expected to, but the reasoning of why she would be a better PM is pretty weak. Maybe she would be better, but the talking up of her financial roles, her quite frankly not overwhelming performances though creditable (Stuart was far better IMO) transformed into her leading the campaign and indisputably excellent.
Maybe she is the bee's knees. But at present a lot of it is about projection, as she seems like a perfectly normal politician.
Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn will go quietly after all, once he's led Labour's response to the Chilcot report. Like General Wolfe, he can then die in peace.
I doubt it, but Angela Eagle's attempts to dethrone him are probably finished. No Labour MP who voted for the Iraq War is ever going to get near to the leadership.
I don't agree- the MP's were fundamentally misled by Blair, as much as the Tories who voted pro. Blair didn't even consult his cabinet so how can we blame the MP's. Vote war MP's would be wise to put the boot in on Blair and ask for a legal view on a prosecution. He deserves it.
The case against - including the issues reviewed now by Chilcot - was eloquently put before parliament by the LibDems and minority of opponents within Labour. All MPs, particularly those in government, had ample ability to think things through for themselves and reach a considered decision. Indeed a number of Labour MPs who had genuine concerns allowed themselves to be bullied or bribed into voting for war. Of course those MPs are partly to blame.
If you vote for it you own it, to coin a more recent phrase.
Which is a measure of the uncertainty. Only right that businesses take stock. It's the figures in a month, two months, three months, that are the better indication.
Wonder how Gordon Brown feels at the moment? We wouldn't have had Chilcot without him.
Nor, would we have had the war itself, if he had resigned over the issue. It was difficult for him I think. He viewed it as not really the Chancellor's role to block Iraq, but maybe he should.
Anyway, let's not forget Robin Cook, RIP. He resigned.
And Charlie Kennedy and the abuse he took in the HoC.
Can any Mayites offer up her three greatest achievements in 6 years at the Home Office?
Record net migration doesn't count!
her three greatest achievements in 6 years at the Home Office? 1. Survived. 2. Upset the police. 3. Upset the Lib Dems 4. Upset civil libertarians 5. Extradited one man to Jordan 6. Blocked extradition of one man to USA.
you've nailed it. She's somewhat draconian and because there is little doubt in my mind she will execute Brexit it beats me why certain remainers are so keen on her.
Because we accept the will of the people?
And want a PM for the UK and a Leader for the Conservative Party, not a PM for BREXIT?
Personally, given Brexit is the biggest issue before the British public and indeed a large chunk of the Western world at the moment, I'd be more than happy to have a PM for Brexit until it is properly negotiated, and then move on to someone more suited to the more routine tasks of running the country.
Whatever comes out of these negotiations will impact Britain's potential for decades to come. At the moment, there is no distinction in my mind between a PM for Brexit (meaning the best overall result for Britain from the split) and an PM for the UK.
Have to say, reading the headlines from Chilcot is both satisfying and disappointing. It is most satisfying that it is not a whitewash and that the 'sexing up' of the intelligence to make the case for war stronger is rightly condemned in the clearest and most outright manner, as is the failure to ensure that there was an effective plan for the peace after the war.
However, it is disappointing that Chilcot did not resist the benefit of 20-20 hindsight to second guess other policy issues, particularly whether peaceful disarmament options were exhausted (from the frontline I can tell you that they did indeed seem pretty exhausted) and that 'containment' could be continued for some time longer (it was already well and truly falling apart with the Russians and French sending large trade delegations to Baghdad and wanting to find ways to get their debt paid, while the oil for food programme was being used to refill Saddam's government and personal coffers).
And don't get me started on the idea that 'containment' is even a policy - it is not. It is a holding pattern until you come up with a policy, and it comes with the massive civilian price of sanctions.
MTimT, given your background, I will be fascinated to hear your take on Chilcot once the detail in two and a half million words has been burrowed into somewhat.
Indeed. Last year I read MTimT's book that touched more than a little on the build-up to the war; although it was published well before the second invasion. Thoroughly recommended.
Leadsom will pull off an amazing victory with the membership. For months now they've had it rammed down their throats that all Remainers are liars, careerists, idiots or all three and that only a true Leaver is fit to carry the Brexit flame. That sort of mindset can't be dispelled overnight. Leadsom will be seen as a Joan of Arc figure, leading the piratical crew of Brexiteers towards the glorious sunrise of their post-EU destiny. It's written in the stars...
Since the referendum result we've had lots of talk about ignoring the result, having a 2nd referendum, or overturning it with a House of Commons vote.
That I think will have an effect on the membership vote.
I think so too, although I think there has been a lot less talk about those options than you may think. Even among remainers ignoring the result has been a rarity, some talk of second referendum has been around confirming a negotiated deal not overturning the first referendum and the two have been conflated, and some have suggested the Commons overturn but others have merely said the Commons legally needs to be the one to trigger article 50, not that they should vote not to do so.
The fear of those options however could be greater than reason would demand, particularly if May tries to be nuanced or cautious about rushing things, as that will be presented as a remainer equivocating and seeking delays until such times as they can try to prevent a Brexit (even though the party would immediately vote her out if she did that).
Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn will go quietly after all, once he's led Labour's response to the Chilcot report. Like General Wolfe, he can then die in peace.
I doubt it, but Angela Eagle's attempts to dethrone him are probably finished. No Labour MP who voted for the Iraq War is ever going to get near to the leadership.
I don't agree- the MP's were fundamentally misled by Blair, as much as the Tories who voted pro. Blair didn't even consult his cabinet so how can we blame the MP's. Vote war MP's would be wise to put the boot in on Blair and ask for a legal view on a prosecution. He deserves it.
That might have worked as an argument if so many Labour MPs had not voted against the war - including Corbyn.
They would have voted against war if the Republican Guard had just disembarked at Dover.
Corbyn would have done so, for sure. But looking back, Robin Cook's opposition to the war was compelling and absolutely on the money. I say this as someone who supported it.
"... the 'sexing up' of the intelligence to make the case for war stronger is rightly condemned in the clearest and most outright manner ..."
Hang on! Has Chilcott said that the intelligence to make the case for was was "Sexed up"? If so that is very big indeed. A man was hounded to death for making that claim at the time, careers were also wrecked and the BBC emasculated.
One would hope that Campbell and others will be made to pay.
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
Why are remainers trying to sell May so hard on these forums anyway, there is probably about 10 posters that actually get a vote, and they are probably all Tory activists anyway.
?? They think she would be best for the country and as anoraks we get too worked up even over things we don't have a vote on.
Well, I read the Chilcot statement. In one sense it is of course dynamite, but, actually, is there anything we didn't know already? The only thing which mildly surprised me is that he seems to put a bit more emphasis on failures of the intelligence services (as opposed to the use to which Blair and Campbell put the intelligence reports) than I had expected.
There's no way any current Blairite MP, who voted for the war can beat Corbyn now, surely? If Corbyn plays his cards right (a long shot, I know) he could cement himself in place for years.
"Years" is excessive. But yes, Eagle always had this severe weakness and though Corbyn won't use Chilcot to bolster his credentials against Eagle - Corbyn simply doesn't play that kind of tactical game - he will no doubt use Chilcot as vindication of his entire stance over Iraq, and against Blair and others who misled or too easily allowed themselves to be misled. His supporters will lap that up and it'll put a pretty big dent in the campaign to remove him, which was in any case losing momentum.
Nonetheless, he still only has the support of less than a fifth of the PLP and that is an unsustainable position.
You're not bothered if Leadsom was less than truthful.......
I often get that approach from managers who want to hire a candidate who has lied on their CV (oh, it's only nit picking) and they get sent away with a flea in their ear.
The two biggest fraudsters of recent City history - Adoboli and Hayes - told lies about themselves, small ones which were waved away as mere CV nitpicking. They were a bloody big clue that they were both not to be trusted as the banks in question later found out, to their - and our - great cost.
It's precisely this reaction ("I want this person and therefore will ignore any inconvenient facts or dismiss them as malicious. I will believe only the facts which suit my opinion rather than let the facts determine my opinion.") which makes changing culture in the City - and evidently elsewhere - so hard.
No - I'm saying that past trivia doesn't bother me. If everyone who'd ever fibbed on their CV was excluded from office - well the dole queues would be very much longer.
I really don't care about it. I'm measuring the rival candidates by their record in Parliament and how they perform now.
If people who lied on their CV saw that there were consequences for lying, there would be less of it about. It's precisely your attitude ("past trivia" indeed) that makes the job of people like me, trying to get wrong'uns out of the industry so much harder than it should be.
And then the very same people complain about politicians lying to them and breaking their trust. Well if you trust people who have shown that they cannot be trusted, what do you expect?
My last role involving recruitment was at Cheltenham. Bear in mind that successful candidates are DV'd and we were looking for character as well as skills/experience. I was astonished at how many bare-faced lies people had on their CVs, particularly when it came to claiming technical skills that they manifestly did not possess.
Why someone would like about their cryptographic expertise when interviewing at the 'varsity in that field escapes me even now.
"... the 'sexing up' of the intelligence to make the case for war stronger is rightly condemned in the clearest and most outright manner ..."
Hang on! Has Chilcott said that the intelligence to make the case for was was "Sexed up"? If so that is very big indeed. A man was hounded to death for making that claim at the time, careers were also wrecked and the BBC emasculated.
One would hope that Campbell and others will be made to pay.
Exec summary doesn't contain that phrase.
Of course, the odious Campbell needs to be held as accountable as Blair, especially for his actions towards poor David Kelly.
Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn will go quietly after all, once he's led Labour's response to the Chilcot report. Like General Wolfe, he can then die in peace.
I doubt it, but Angela Eagle's attempts to dethrone him are probably finished. No Labour MP who voted for the Iraq War is ever going to get near to the leadership.
I don't agree- the MP's were fundamentally misled by Blair, as much as the Tories who voted pro. Blair didn't even consult his cabinet so how can we blame the MP's. Vote war MP's would be wise to put the boot in on Blair and ask for a legal view on a prosecution. He deserves it.
That might have worked as an argument if so many Labour MPs had not voted against the war - including Corbyn.
They would have voted against war if the Republican Guard had just disembarked at Dover.
Corbyn would have done so, for sure. But looking back, Robin Cook's opposition to the war was compelling and absolutely on the money. I say this as someone who supported it.
If Scotland can send PSs like Charles Kennedy and Robin Cook to Parliament, that’s a sound case for the Union. Yes, I know about Gordon Brown.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
Can any Mayites offer up her three greatest achievements in 6 years at the Home Office?
Record net migration doesn't count!
her three greatest achievements in 6 years at the Home Office? 1. Survived. 2. Upset the police. 3. Upset the Lib Dems 4. Upset civil libertarians 5. Extradited one man to Jordan 6. Blocked extradition of one man to USA.
you've nailed it. She's somewhat draconian and because there is little doubt in my mind she will execute Brexit it beats me why certain remainers are so keen on her.
It depends what type ofBrexit will be executed - many remainers clearly think she will execute the least damaging kind, and in any case she is the best option for smoother governance. That doesn't mean they support the rest of her platform or that they think Brexit can be prevented.
Remainers have been left with very little real possibility of preventing Brexit, therefore their options are hoping for the least destructive Brexit. Many believe that will come through May.
Corbyn would have done so, for sure. But looking back, Robin Cook's opposition to the war was compelling and absolutely on the money. I say this as someone who supported it.
Yes. Ken Clarke was another example of someone whose view we should have paid more heed to.
Tony committed to war 8 months beforehand - and retrospectively built a case for it.
Fcuk me.
Given how his reasoning shifted after his first reasons fell apart, and he has stubbornly insisted those secondary reasons mean the primary ones don't matter ever since, that's not hugely surprising.
Can any Mayites offer up her three greatest achievements in 6 years at the Home Office?
Record net migration doesn't count!
her three greatest achievements in 6 years at the Home Office? 1. Survived. 2. Upset the police. 3. Upset the Lib Dems 4. Upset civil libertarians 5. Extradited one man to Jordan 6. Blocked extradition of one man to USA.
you've nailed it. She's somewhat draconian and because there is little doubt in my mind she will execute Brexit it beats me why certain remainers are so keen on her.
It depends what type ofBrexit will be executed - many remainers clearly think she will execute the least damaging kind, and in any case she is the best option for smoother governance. That doesn't mean they support the rest of her platform or that they think Brexit can be prevented.
Remainers have been left with very little real possibility of preventing Brexit, therefore their options are hoping for the least destructive Brexit. Many believe that will come through May.
Our hopes that Boris would do the necessary were dashed when he himself told the Telegraph what he would do.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
Any MPs joining the Labour party after 2005 should have that front and centre on their CVs.
Has Chilcott not just killed Andrea? This must be the worst day ever for claiming that the harmless fib is a legitimate concept in politics.
Yes. Fibber Leadsom is history. Oh, except that Ken Clarke's just told everyone that Gove is a warmonger. TM is PM.
And Ken Clarke said May is a "difficult woman".
He also said “I get on all right with her and she is good"
Yes, it's interesting how his remarks are being bandied about - I think he also said she knows nothing of foreign affairs, but she was clearly the one least ridiculed in his off the cuff remarks.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 9m9 minutes ago David Cameron will announce at 12.30pm that he's agreed to LD Tom Brake request for 2 day Commons debate on #ChilcotReport
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 9m9 minutes ago David Cameron will announce at 12.30pm that he's agreed to LD Tom Brake request for 2 day Commons debate on #ChilcotReport
Perhaps they could have one on Libya too. I still don't understand why the UK chose to get involved in that.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 9m9 minutes ago David Cameron will announce at 12.30pm that he's agreed to LD Tom Brake request for 2 day Commons debate on #ChilcotReport
Given the way PMQs tends to overrun by ten or more minutes, I'd be amazed if it was 12.30!
(And I think that's good on the part of the Speaker)
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.
I note that the report finds clearly:
- That there was no falsification or improper use of Intelligence (para 876 vol 4)
- No deception of Cabinet (para 953 vol 5)
- No secret commitment to war whether at Crawford Texas in April 2002 or elsewhere (para 572 onwards vol 1)
The inquiry does not make a finding on the legal basis for military action but finds that the Attorney General had concluded there was such a lawful basis by 13th March 2003 (para 933 vol 5)
However the report does make real and material criticisms of preparation, planning, process and of the relationship with the United States.
These are serious criticisms and they require serious answers.
I will respond in detail to them later this afternoon.
I will take full responsibility for any mistakes without exception or excuse.
I will at the same time say why, nonetheless, I believe that it was better to remove Saddam Hussein and why I do not believe this is the cause of the terrorism we see today whether in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world.
Above all I will pay tribute to our Armed Forces. I will express my profound regret at the loss of life and the grief it has caused the families, and I will set out the lessons I believe future leaders can learn from my experience.
You're not bothered if Leadsom was less than truthful.......
I often get that approach from managers who want to hire a candidate who has lied on their CV (oh, it's only nit picking) and they get sent away with a flea in their ear.
The two biggest fraudsters of recent City history - Adoboli and Hayes - told lies about themselves, small ones which were waved away as mere CV nitpicking. They were a bloody big clue that they were both not to be trusted as the banks in question later found out, to their - and our - great cost.
It's precisely this reaction ("I want this person and therefore will ignore any inconvenient facts or dismiss them as malicious. I will believe only the facts which suit my opinion rather than let the facts determine my opinion.") which makes changing culture in the City - and evidently elsewhere - so hard.
No - I'm saying that past trivia doesn't bother me. If everyone who'd ever fibbed on their CV was excluded from office - well the dole queues would be very much longer.
I really don't care about it. I'm measuring the rival candidates by their record in Parliament and how they perform now.
If people who lied on their CV saw that there were consequences for lying, there would be less of it about. It's precisely your attitude ("past trivia" indeed) that makes the job of people like me, trying to get wrong'uns out of the industry so much harder than it should be.
And then the very same people complain about politicians lying to them and breaking their trust. Well if you trust people who have shown that they cannot be trusted, what do you expect?
My last role involving recruitment was at Cheltenham. Bear in mind that successful candidates are DV'd and we were looking for character as well as skills/experience. I was astonished at how many bare-faced lies people had on their CVs, particularly when it came to claiming technical skills that they manifestly did not possess.
Why someone would like about their cryptographic expertise when interviewing at the 'varsity in that field escapes me even now.
Wow, why would anyone tell barefaced lies for a job requiring Developed Vetting?
Not only will you be found out, you'll probably find yourself blacklisted by the spooks from any government work in the future.
In years to come we will wonder at the amount of things that have happened in the last fortnight. Is this the most eventful period in British politics ever?
The thread I'm writing for the weekend contains this line
'Such are the extraordinary political times we are living in, The Four Horseman of The Apocalypse could turn up outside The Palace of Westminster, and it would struggle to make page 10 of most newspapers'
'Immigrant thugs labelled 'the four horseman' turn up at westminster' would make headlines.
Have to say, reading the headlines from Chilcot is both satisfying and disappointing. It is most satisfying that it is not a whitewash and that the 'sexing up' of the intelligence to make the case for war stronger is rightly condemned in the clearest and most outright manner, as is the failure to ensure that there was an effective plan for the peace after the war.
However, it is disappointing that Chilcot did not resist the benefit of 20-20 hindsight to second guess other policy issues, particularly whether peaceful disarmament options were exhausted (from the frontline I can tell you that they did indeed seem pretty exhausted) and that 'containment' could be continued for some time longer (it was already well and truly falling apart with the Russians and French sending large trade delegations to Baghdad and wanting to find ways to get their debt paid, while the oil for food programme was being used to refill Saddam's government and personal coffers).
And don't get me started on the idea that 'containment' is even a policy - it is not. It is a holding pattern until you come up with a policy, and it comes with the massive civilian price of sanctions.
MTimT, given your background, I will be fascinated to hear your take on Chilcot once the detail in two and a half million words has been burrowed into somewhat.
Unfortunately, I am off to Pakistan on Friday for 2 weeks and won't have time for anything - delivering workshops on biological risk management in Karachi and Lahore, then up to Islamabad for meetings.
For me, their are only two real issues of interest, from which we must draw lessons:
1. how come the world's intelligence (not just US and UK) was so far off. I think to a large extent this has already been answered, in the form of the Saddam Tapes. Saddam, like Nixon, recorded most key meetings with his inner sanctum on major issues. The contributing factors are, to my mind: - Saddam had given orders to get rid of the WMD (but not all the production capacity) - interpreting Saddam's decisions and orders was a life-endangering thing in Iraq in those years - the intelligence communities did not have good HUMINT inside the Saddam regime, those no insight into intentions rather than actions
The net effect was that officials, even up to Tariq Aziz level, sought to square a circle - convince the inspectors that the weapons were gone while leaving ambiguity for both domestic and regional consumption, and the international intelligence community (including myself and the others involved in the inspections) misread that ambiguity as complicity.
2. how the more nuanced JIC report ended up with an unambiguous 40 minute claim.
Has Chilcott not just killed Andrea? This must be the worst day ever for claiming that the harmless fib is a legitimate concept in politics.
Yes. Fibber Leadsom is history. Oh, except that Ken Clarke's just told everyone that Gove is a warmonger. TM is PM.
And Ken Clarke said May is a "difficult woman".
He also said “I get on all right with her and she is good"
Yes, it's interesting how his remarks are being bandied about - I think he also said she knows nothing of foreign affairs, but she was clearly the one least ridiculed in his off the cuff remarks.
He did, although he effectively said that that was because she'd been shut in the Home Office for 6 years, which isn't entirely her fault (and of course, Clarke's criticism isn't entirely true - one minor advantage of the EU was that all cabinet ministers gained some international experience via the various Council of Ministers committees).
Corbyn would have done so, for sure. But looking back, Robin Cook's opposition to the war was compelling and absolutely on the money. I say this as someone who supported it.
Yes. Ken Clarke was another example of someone whose view we should have paid more heed to.
Yep. Ken Clarke seems to have been on the right side of many of the big arguments. With one notable and politically lethal exception.
Corbyn would have done so, for sure. But looking back, Robin Cook's opposition to the war was compelling and absolutely on the money. I say this as someone who supported it.
Yes. Ken Clarke was another example of someone whose view we should have paid more heed to.
Yep. Ken Clarke seems to have been on the right side of many of the big arguments. With one notable and politically lethal exception.
Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn will go quietly after all, once he's led Labour's response to the Chilcot report. Like General Wolfe, he can then die in peace.
I doubt it, but Angela Eagle's attempts to dethrone him are probably finished. No Labour MP who voted for the Iraq War is ever going to get near to the leadership.
I don't agree- the MP's were fundamentally misled by Blair, as much as the Tories who voted pro. Blair didn't even consult his cabinet so how can we blame the MP's. Vote war MP's would be wise to put the boot in on Blair and ask for a legal view on a prosecution. He deserves it.
They are not supposed to be sheep, did they not think to ask why he was keeping it all to himself.
It was obvious - like OBVIOUS that the case for war - or rather the MILITARY case for war - was pants. The Daily Telegraph published a detailed review of the Iraqi military strengths- tanks, planes , missiles, artillery etc.. from its military correspondents and their connections. In ALL case, the summary was: out of date, badly maintained and sanctions have hit the availability of parts so badly that barely 50% of the nominal strength was effective.
So the idea that Iraq could deliver sophisticated missile attacks using WMD was risible. My wife and I discussed this - stand up row. As she said "what you are saying is that the Government and PM are liars,," Big row. We don't discuss it any more!
If I could see that, any MP worth his salary could if he/she had an open mind. Bear in mind it was printed in the DT!!!
With hindsight what should have been a red flag (which I missed) was that Hurd, Hogg and Howell (the three Tories with experience of foreign affairs) all voted against the war.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 9m9 minutes ago David Cameron will announce at 12.30pm that he's agreed to LD Tom Brake request for 2 day Commons debate on #ChilcotReport
Brake was of course in Parliament at the relevant time.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
id agree that it will be incredibly difficult for those who worked alongside Brown or Blair to lead the party. This can only be a boost to those backing Owen Smith for next leader too. Umunna is a serious candidate but would be an absolute disaster fro Labour outside of metropolitan areas.
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Corbyn would have done so, for sure. But looking back, Robin Cook's opposition to the war was compelling and absolutely on the money. I say this as someone who supported it.
Yes. Ken Clarke was another example of someone whose view we should have paid more heed to.
Yep. Ken Clarke seems to have been on the right side of many of the big arguments. With one notable and politically lethal exception.
The inquiry into that last one is years away and may not vindicate your unfair and premature condemnation!
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Weren't most of these invented by Tories and merely perfected by new labour? PFI certainly was, it started under Major
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 9m9 minutes ago David Cameron will announce at 12.30pm that he's agreed to LD Tom Brake request for 2 day Commons debate on #ChilcotReport
Given the way PMQs tends to overrun by ten or more minutes, I'd be amazed if it was 12.30!
(And I think that's good on the part of the Speaker)
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Blair was a careerist who seems to have got heavily into politics at the behest of his wife.
Corbyn would have done so, for sure. But looking back, Robin Cook's opposition to the war was compelling and absolutely on the money. I say this as someone who supported it.
Yes. Ken Clarke was another example of someone whose view we should have paid more heed to.
Yep. Ken Clarke seems to have been on the right side of many of the big arguments. With one notable and politically lethal exception.
The inquiry into that last one is years away and may not vindicate your unfair and premature condemnation!
I was thinking about his support for the single currency.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 9m9 minutes ago David Cameron will announce at 12.30pm that he's agreed to LD Tom Brake request for 2 day Commons debate on #ChilcotReport
Perhaps they could have one on Libya too. I still don't understand why the UK chose to get involved in that.
Not get involved in, Mr. Dave. The UK and France kicked off outside involvement and then went so far over the UN mandate as to be participants in a civil war. A war which is still going on (and having adverse effects on Italy and Europe), not least because there was once again no plan for what happened afterwards.
My view for the little it is worth is that our involvement Libya, with its brazen over-stepping of the UN mandate, set the seal on the lessons Russia and China could draw from Iraq 2003. That is to say if you have the might you can do anything and the international system, especially the UN, matters not at all. Georgia, The Ukraine, the Crimea, the South China Sea are the result.
The world not just the West will be paying for Cameron's folly for many years to come.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
id agree that it will be incredibly difficult for those who worked alongside Brown or Blair to lead the party. This can only be a boost to those backing Owen Smith for next leader too. Umunna is a serious candidate but would be an absolute disaster fro Labour outside of metropolitan areas.
I'm not so sure – much of the Labour vote is tribal up north, and he could pick up seats in marginal SE areas.
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Blair was a careerist who seems to have got heavily into politics at the behest of his wife.
Corbyn would have done so, for sure. But looking back, Robin Cook's opposition to the war was compelling and absolutely on the money. I say this as someone who supported it.
Yes. Ken Clarke was another example of someone whose view we should have paid more heed to.
Yep. Ken Clarke seems to have been on the right side of many of the big arguments. With one notable and politically lethal exception.
The inquiry into that last one is years away and may not vindicate your unfair and premature condemnation!
I was thinking about his support for the single currency.
Ok, fair enough. I assumed your reference was more topical. Sorry.
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Weren't most of these invented by Tories and merely perfected by new labour? PFI certainly was, it started under Major
The noticeable thing about all the worst governmental mistakes in the last 30 years is that they're all supported by both government and opposition.
I'm not sure if that's because opposition makes the government sharper so they don't bollocks things up so badly, or because in fact most government decisions are actually bi-partisan, although we mostly hear about the controversial stuff.
Edit: Thinking about it logically it could also be because Labour and the Tories are twats.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
id agree that it will be incredibly difficult for those who worked alongside Brown or Blair to lead the party. This can only be a boost to those backing Owen Smith for next leader too. Umunna is a serious candidate but would be an absolute disaster fro Labour outside of metropolitan areas.
I'm not so sure – much of the Labour vote is tribal up north, and he could pick up seats in marginal SE areas.
true about the SE but I think Labour need someone to win back Northern voters rather than cling on to enough through tribalism. If UKIP get their act together or even potentially the Lib Dems then plenty of seats that were taken for granted could be up for grabs.
The main thing holding Chuka back is his personal life. It would appear there are enough skeletons there for the press to dine out on for years so I'm sure he will think very carefully before standing again.
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Blair was a careerist who seems to have got heavily into politics at the behest of his wife.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 9m9 minutes ago David Cameron will announce at 12.30pm that he's agreed to LD Tom Brake request for 2 day Commons debate on #ChilcotReport
Perhaps they could have one on Libya too. I still don't understand why the UK chose to get involved in that.
Not get involved in, Mr. Dave. The UK and France kicked off outside involvement and then went so far over the UN mandate as to be participants in a civil war. A war which is still going on (and having adverse effects on Italy and Europe), not least because there was once again no plan for what happened afterwards.
My view for the little it is worth is that our involvement Libya, with its brazen over-stepping of the UN mandate, set the seal on the lessons Russia and China could draw from Iraq 2003. That is to say if you have the might you can do anything and the international system, especially the UN, matters not at all. Georgia, The Ukraine, the Crimea, the South China Sea are the result.
The world not just the West will be paying for Cameron's folly for many years to come.
Russia and China did not care what happened in Libya - they would have vetoed it if they did, as the idea the mandate would be exceeded was raised (and the mandate was for more than air strikes, IIRC). They did not veto it and thus implicitly accepted that it would result in regime change, while keeping their hands clean. Gaddafi of all the others in trouble was allowed to fall and the area to chaos as he had no powerful allies willing to prevent it. Pure politics.
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Blair was a careerist who seems to have got heavily into politics at the behest of his wife.
Blair nor his government did not invent PFI.
No. Doesn’t stop him being a careerist, though. Perhaps agruable that if Brown had succeeded Smith instead of Blair he might have been a more relaxed character.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 9m9 minutes ago David Cameron will announce at 12.30pm that he's agreed to LD Tom Brake request for 2 day Commons debate on #ChilcotReport
Perhaps they could have one on Libya too. I still don't understand why the UK chose to get involved in that.
Not get involved in, Mr. Dave. The UK and France kicked off outside involvement and then went so far over the UN mandate as to be participants in a civil war. A war which is still going on (and having adverse effects on Italy and Europe), not least because there was once again no plan for what happened afterwards.
My view for the little it is worth is that our involvement Libya, with its brazen over-stepping of the UN mandate, set the seal on the lessons Russia and China could draw from Iraq 2003. That is to say if you have the might you can do anything and the international system, especially the UN, matters not at all. Georgia, The Ukraine, the Crimea, the South China Sea are the result.
The world not just the West will be paying for Cameron's folly for many years to come.
I rather think you are over-egging the pudding with that. Do you honestly believe that a resurgent China would not be pursuing what it sees as its interests in the South China Seas if Iraq, Libya etc had not occurred?
Or that Putin's adventures - which are more to do with bolstering public support at home than serious territorial advance - would not have occurred?
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Weren't most of these invented by Tories and merely perfected by new labour? PFI certainly was, it started under Major
The noticeable thing about all the worst governmental mistakes in the last 30 years is that they're all supported by both government and opposition.
I'm not sure if that's because opposition makes the government sharper so they don't bollocks things up so badly, or because in fact most government decisions are actually bi-partisan, although we mostly hear about the controversial stuff.
That's an interesting thought.
Academy schools is a rare example of something that has gone the other way, invented by New Labour and perfected (used in a value-free way) by the Tories.
Probably the truth is that these are all schemes from devious sir Humphrey types and simply foisted on whichever bunch of hapless politicians happen to be in charge at the time.
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Blair was a careerist who seems to have got heavily into politics at the behest of his wife.
More dangerous than that. Blair believes in conviction over evidence, and he is not alone. We see it with Hunt at Health and saw it with Gove at Education: however worthy were their aims, their policies are hardly evidence-based. Another Labour example would be sacking Prof Nutt for trying to introduce science into the drugs debate.
Asa Bennett Tony Blair begins his Chilcot response by finding the positive in his Iraq report https://t.co/OQjkOeIO17
He's had months to prepare his own response, it'll be interesting to see how he goes about it.
He's had 13 YEARS. He didn't need Chilcot to tell him what the key failings were likely to be.
No, but he had only months to prepare for what he knew Chilcott would say the failings were and how strong his criticism would be. Obviously he's been defending himself for years, but he is now defending himself against the accusations put in this particular way - and I'mcurious how well crafted he is able to make it.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
id agree that it will be incredibly difficult for those who worked alongside Brown or Blair to lead the party. This can only be a boost to those backing Owen Smith for next leader too. Umunna is a serious candidate but would be an absolute disaster fro Labour outside of metropolitan areas.
I'm not so sure – much of the Labour vote is tribal up north, and he could pick up seats in marginal SE areas.
Like it was in Scotland?
Sure, UKIP has nothing like the ground troops that the SNP does, in number or in motivation, but the idea that Labour's vote is tribal has never stood up to reality wherever it's been challenged. Look at Plaid making inroads in the Valleys, at Labour's losses to the Lib Dems under Blair and Brown in cities like Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle. Sure, the Lib Dems lost them again in the coalition but that's not the point; the point is that they were proved not to be rock-solid Labour.
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Blair was a careerist who seems to have got heavily into politics at the behest of his wife.
More dangerous than that. Blair believes in conviction over evidence, and he is not alone. We see it with Hunt at Health and saw it with Gove at Education: however worthy were their aims, their policies are hardly evidence-based. Another Labour example would be sacking Prof Nutt for trying to introduce science into the drugs debate.
You can’t trust experts we heard a couple of weeeks ago. Trouble is, we never have.
Have to say, reading the headlines from Chilcot is both satisfying and disappointing. It is most satisfying that it is not a whitewash and that the 'sexing up' of the intelligence to make the case for war stronger is rightly condemned in the clearest and most outright manner, as is the failure to ensure that there was an effective plan for the peace after the war.
However, it is disappointing that Chilcot did not resist the benefit of 20-20 hindsight to second guess other policy issues, particularly whether peaceful disarmament options were exhausted (from the frontline I can tell you that they did indeed seem pretty exhausted) and that 'containment' could be continued for some time longer (it was already well and truly falling apart with the Russians and French sending large trade delegations to Baghdad and wanting to find ways to get their debt paid, while the oil for food programme was being used to refill Saddam's government and personal coffers).
And don't get me started on the idea that 'containment' is even a policy - it is not. It is a holding pattern until you come up with a policy, and it comes with the massive civilian price of sanctions.
MTimT, given your background, I will be fascinated to hear your take on Chilcot once the detail in two and a half million words has been burrowed into somewhat.
Indeed. Last year I read MTimT's book that touched more than a little on the build-up to the war; although it was published well before the second invasion. Thoroughly recommended.
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Blair was a careerist who seems to have got heavily into politics at the behest of his wife.
Blair nor his government did not invent PFI.
Too many negatives in that sentence.
Neither Blair nor his government invented PFI?
They didn't invent PFI. Design-Build-Finance-Operate and various variants of it predated Blair by a decade or more (from memory).
What they did was extend its implementation to projects where it did no fit. A PFI / DBFO on a 'simple' road project makes sense. On a school or hospital ... less so.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 9m9 minutes ago David Cameron will announce at 12.30pm that he's agreed to LD Tom Brake request for 2 day Commons debate on #ChilcotReport
Perhaps they could have one on Libya too. I still don't understand why the UK chose to get involved in that.
Not get involved in, Mr. Dave. The UK and France kicked off outside involvement and then went so far over the UN mandate as to be participants in a civil war. A war which is still going on (and having adverse effects on Italy and Europe), not least because there was once again no plan for what happened afterwards.
My view for the little it is worth is that our involvement Libya, with its brazen over-stepping of the UN mandate, set the seal on the lessons Russia and China could draw from Iraq 2003. That is to say if you have the might you can do anything and the international system, especially the UN, matters not at all. Georgia, The Ukraine, the Crimea, the South China Sea are the result.
The world not just the West will be paying for Cameron's folly for many years to come.
I rather think you are over-egging the pudding with that. Do you honestly believe that a resurgent China would not be pursuing what it sees as its interests in the South China Seas if Iraq, Libya etc had not occurred?
Or that Putin's adventures - which are more to do with bolstering public support at home than serious territorial advance - would not have occurred?
Quite. It is possible for China and Russia to be on the side of moral right, but tha doesn't drive theri policies anymore than it drives ours - they pursue their own advantage, and will justify it based on things like Iraq or Libya, but if they could do it without those things occuring they would have, and would find other justifications. We've had catastrophic cock ups in foreign affairs and intervention, and that might provide some new opportunities for a Russia or China, but their goals and justifications won't be that different.
Comments
So the idea that Iraq could deliver sophisticated missile attacks using WMD was risible. My wife and I discussed this - stand up row. As she said "what you are saying is that the Government and PM are liars,," Big row. We don't discuss it any more!
If I could see that, any MP worth his salary could if he/she had an open mind. Bear in mind it was printed in the DT!!!
Maybe she is the bee's knees. But at present a lot of it is about projection, as she seems like a perfectly normal politician.
If you vote for it you own it, to coin a more recent phrase.
Whatever comes out of these negotiations will impact Britain's potential for decades to come. At the moment, there is no distinction in my mind between a PM for Brexit (meaning the best overall result for Britain from the split) and an PM for the UK.
The fear of those options however could be greater than reason would demand, particularly if May tries to be nuanced or cautious about rushing things, as that will be presented as a remainer equivocating and seeking delays until such times as they can try to prevent a Brexit (even though the party would immediately vote her out if she did that).
Hang on! Has Chilcott said that the intelligence to make the case for was was "Sexed up"? If so that is very big indeed. A man was hounded to death for making that claim at the time, careers were also wrecked and the BBC emasculated.
One would hope that Campbell and others will be made to pay.
Derbyshire, the NE, Lincs - Kipperland.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies-flawed-information-saddam-wmds-iraq-chilcot
Nonetheless, he still only has the support of less than a fifth of the PLP and that is an unsustainable position.
Why someone would like about their cryptographic expertise when interviewing at the 'varsity in that field escapes me even now.
Of course, the odious Campbell needs to be held as accountable as Blair, especially for his actions towards poor David Kelly.
Yes, I know about Gordon Brown.
Remainers have been left with very little real possibility of preventing Brexit, therefore their options are hoping for the least destructive Brexit. Many believe that will come through May.
Been out for a couple of hours. Was it a whitewash?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36721892
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 9m9 minutes ago
David Cameron will announce at 12.30pm that he's agreed to LD Tom Brake request for 2 day Commons debate on #ChilcotReport
(And I think that's good on the part of the Speaker)
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.
I note that the report finds clearly:
- That there was no falsification or improper use of Intelligence (para 876 vol 4)
- No deception of Cabinet (para 953 vol 5)
- No secret commitment to war whether at Crawford Texas in April 2002 or elsewhere (para 572 onwards vol 1)
The inquiry does not make a finding on the legal basis for military action but finds that the Attorney General had concluded there was such a lawful basis by 13th March 2003 (para 933 vol 5)
However the report does make real and material criticisms of preparation, planning, process and of the relationship with the United States.
These are serious criticisms and they require serious answers.
I will respond in detail to them later this afternoon.
I will take full responsibility for any mistakes without exception or excuse.
I will at the same time say why, nonetheless, I believe that it was better to remove Saddam Hussein and why I do not believe this is the cause of the terrorism we see today whether in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world.
Above all I will pay tribute to our Armed Forces. I will express my profound regret at the loss of life and the grief it has caused the families, and I will set out the lessons I believe future leaders can learn from my experience.
Not only will you be found out, you'll probably find yourself blacklisted by the spooks from any government work in the future.
Unfortunately, I am off to Pakistan on Friday for 2 weeks and won't have time for anything - delivering workshops on biological risk management in Karachi and Lahore, then up to Islamabad for meetings.
For me, their are only two real issues of interest, from which we must draw lessons:
1. how come the world's intelligence (not just US and UK) was so far off. I think to a large extent this has already been answered, in the form of the Saddam Tapes. Saddam, like Nixon, recorded most key meetings with his inner sanctum on major issues. The contributing factors are, to my mind:
- Saddam had given orders to get rid of the WMD (but not all the production capacity)
- interpreting Saddam's decisions and orders was a life-endangering thing in Iraq in those years
- the intelligence communities did not have good HUMINT inside the Saddam regime, those no insight into intentions rather than actions
The net effect was that officials, even up to Tariq Aziz level, sought to square a circle - convince the inspectors that the weapons were gone while leaving ambiguity for both domestic and regional consumption, and the international intelligence community (including myself and the others involved in the inspections) misread that ambiguity as complicity.
2. how the more nuanced JIC report ended up with an unambiguous 40 minute claim.
Tony Blair begins his Chilcot response by finding the positive in his Iraq report https://t.co/OQjkOeIO17
It appears she didn't paint the Sistine Chapel but the Mona Lisa was all her work ....
[redacted]
A reminder of where the 9/11 terrorists came from:
Saudi Arabia: 15
UAE: 2
Egypt: 1
Lebanon:1
Iraq: 0
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs)
continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited
privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Dave's enjoying his final weeks in office.
My view for the little it is worth is that our involvement Libya, with its brazen over-stepping of the UN mandate, set the seal on the lessons Russia and China could draw from Iraq 2003. That is to say if you have the might you can do anything and the international system, especially the UN, matters not at all. Georgia, The Ukraine, the Crimea, the South China Sea are the result.
The world not just the West will be paying for Cameron's folly for many years to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiyNK1W3zPg
I'm not sure if that's because opposition makes the government sharper so they don't bollocks things up so badly, or because in fact most government decisions are actually bi-partisan, although we mostly hear about the controversial stuff.
Edit: Thinking about it logically it could also be because Labour and the Tories are twats.
The main thing holding Chuka back is his personal life. It would appear there are enough skeletons there for the press to dine out on for years so I'm sure he will think very carefully before standing again.
Neither Blair nor his government invented PFI?
Every word of Robin Cook's resignation speech is superb, but this stands out today #Chilcot https://t.co/rqQdLHTQA1 https://t.co/91ykRVuvzv
Or that Putin's adventures - which are more to do with bolstering public support at home than serious territorial advance - would not have occurred?
Academy schools is a rare example of something that has gone the other way, invented by New Labour and perfected (used in a value-free way) by the Tories.
Probably the truth is that these are all schemes from devious sir Humphrey types and simply foisted on whichever bunch of hapless politicians happen to be in charge at the time.
Sure, UKIP has nothing like the ground troops that the SNP does, in number or in motivation, but the idea that Labour's vote is tribal has never stood up to reality wherever it's been challenged. Look at Plaid making inroads in the Valleys, at Labour's losses to the Lib Dems under Blair and Brown in cities like Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle. Sure, the Lib Dems lost them again in the coalition but that's not the point; the point is that they were proved not to be rock-solid Labour.
What they did was extend its implementation to projects where it did no fit. A PFI / DBFO on a 'simple' road project makes sense. On a school or hospital ... less so.