The Chilcot Whitewash

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Tonight on Channel news Jon Snow interviewed a former Navy Admiral, who was at the time of Iraq war the tactical commander for the fleet at sea.

He said that he had been told as early as July 2002 to prepare for war in the northern gulf, which totally and utterly contradicts shithouse Blair, but guess what? he was never called to give evidence to the enquiry.

How the **** can this be?, the guy who planned and executed the naval part of the invasion which also included the Royal Marines involvement not be called to give evidence.

Probably because it was always going to be and is a total whitewash, who would have thought that it would take 6 years to create a whitewash at great expense to the tax payer.

 

[Guest]

Still think Blair is going to get battered tomorrow but escapes any criminal charges. However we hopefully will never see or hear from the **** ever again 

[screech]

Hopefully there will be plenty of brave politicians in the houses of parliament tomorrow who will be given the freedom of the floor to tear this piece of crap to pieces. No doubt we will get to see the real findings of the enquiry when he has left this earth as per usual.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

28 minutes ago, Tomarse said:

Still think Blair is going to get battered tomorrow but escapes any criminal charges. However we hopefully will never see or hear from the **** ever again 

Sadly not as battered as the piece of shit should be and probably because of the people that were never called like this Admiral guy.

 

[Aizoon]

9 hours ago, screech said:

Hopefully there will be plenty of brave politicians in the houses of parliament tomorrow who will be given the freedom of the floor to tear this piece of crap to pieces. No doubt we will get to see the real findings of the enquiry when he has left this earth as per usual.

In particular, one J Corbyn, which is why the Blairites want rid of him ASAP.

[Fiale]

When Tony Blair first appeared before the Iraq inquiry five years ago, the chairman Sir John Chilcot treated him with almost painful deference.

Chilcot, a crumpled figure whose opening remarks lasted seven minutes, never laid a glove on Blair, even though the former prime minister gave evidence for more than six hours.

What few people know is that the bumbling Chilcot, a retired career civil servant, could, in fact, have greeted Blair as an old friend.

The first time they met in 1997 — when Blair was still leader of the Opposition — was in a far more sedate environment. They dined together in the venerable Travellers Club in Pall Mall, where Chilcot is a member.

The meeting was so discreet it would have remained a secret but for a single sentence in a 2008 book by Blair’s former Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell, called Great Hatred, Little Room, Making Peace In Northern Ireland.

At the time of the meeting, John Chilcot was the most senior civil servant at the Northern Ireland Office.

He had agreed to the clandestine encounter with Blair almost five months before the Labour leader became prime minister.

Civil servants often meet Opposition politicians for briefings in the run-up to elections, but they are usually held in Whitehall departments, where minutes are taken. 

Yet Chilcot had agreed to meet Blair in the club, which was founded in 1819 for ‘gentlemen who travelled abroad’, thereby ensuring it was not made public.

After Blair became prime minister, he worked closely with Chilcot on the Northern Ireland peace process, until the mandarin took early retirement at the end of 1997

 

 

Chilcot was then knighted by a grateful Blair into the Order of the Bath, the fourth most senior order of British chivalry.

But even after he retired from the Civil Service, Chilcot never really left the corridors of power — he has now worked in Whitehall for 50 years — taking on a series of roles on any number of public committees, often at the behest of the Blair administration.

When Lord Butler was asked to set up an inquiry in 2004 into the role of the intelligence services in the Iraq war, Blair chose the members of the inquiry’s five-strong committee.

Surprise, surprise, Chilcot was one of the first people asked to serve on it by the Labour prime minister.

When it reported, the Butler inquiry was widely derided. Though it provided devastating evidence that Downing Street, with the collusion of intelligence chiefs, ‘sexed up’ the threat to the British people from Saddam Hussein before going to war, it concluded that no one should be held responsible.

In short, it let Blair off the hook.

In 2009, when Gordon Brown appointed Chilcot to lead his own wide-ranging inquiry into the war, military leaders as well as senior lawyers and politicians were furious that it was to be held behind closed doors.

Major General Julian Thompson, who was highly decorated for his command of the Royal Marines in the Falklands, warned: ‘A report from a secret inquiry will look like a whitewash.’

The Tories forced — and lost — a Commons vote on who should make up the inquiry team, complaining they were ageing patsies who were not up to the job. 

Political pressure did, however, mean the inquiry was not held in secret.

There was genuine scepticism that Chilcot, a former civil servant who had spent his entire working life immersed in the machinery of government, had the temperament to ask the forensic questions necessary to unravel an Establishment cover-up over the war.

Philippe Sands, QC, who works at Matrix Chambers, the human rights firm set up by Cherie Blair, was one of the first to call into question the choice of Chilcot.

Now professor of international law at University College, London, Mr Sands said: ‘It is not immediately apparent that he will have the backbone to take on former government ministers.

‘What was it about his role in the Butler inquiry that caused the prime minister to conclude he was suitable? Some who have worked closely with him, including on the Butler inquiry, fear he is not the right person.

‘Someone who has seen him first-hand described his approach as one of “obvious deference to governmental authority”. This is a view I have heard repeated several times. More troubling is evidence I have seen for myself.’

Sands was not impressed by Chilcot’s questioning at the Butler inquiry of Lord Goldsmith, who was Attorney General at the time of the Iraq war and who, under pressure, had changed his original judgment that the war was illegal.

He said: ‘Sir John’s spoon-fed questions give every impression of being designed to elicit a response from the Attorney General that would demonstrate the reasonableness of his actions and those of the government.’

When it came to Chilcot’s own inquiry, held in a small cramped room in a grey conference centre in Westminster, there have been similar shortcomings — quite apart from the disgracefully protracted nature of the proceedings.

According to former senior BBC journalist Rod Liddle, when former Washington ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer was before the panel he became utterly bored with ‘charming, learned and polite knighted people asking the gentlest of questions’.

Then there was the moment in 2011 — two years after the inquiry had begun — when John Chilcot turned up in the audience at the premiere of a play about the build-up to the Iraq war.

It was written by Sarah Helm, whose partner is Jonathan Powell, the most important official in the Downing Street ‘kitchen Cabinet’ during the war.

In one scene, the actor playing Blair had a conversation with Sir Richard Dearlove, the then head of MI6, about intelligence issues relating to the war.

Despite having interrogated Blair and Dearlove, Chilcot had never unearthed the existence of this particular conversation.

After seeing the play, he demanded more files from Whitehall, which confirmed it really had taken place. 

In truth, the play seems to have shed more light on the reasons Britain went to war than Chilcot’s blustering.

He is, it is fair to say, a rather dry old stick. 

 

To be fair, Sir Christopher Meyer says Sir John Chilcot is a victim of the limited power of the inquiry’s terms of reference.

‘When Downing Street set up the inquiry into phone-hacking at newspapers it was a judicial inquiry led by a judge, Lord Justice Leveson,’ he said.

‘The Leveson inquiry had powers to compel witnesses to appear and to answer all questions put to them. Chilcot does not have that power. A judge should be running this inquiry, not a retired civil servant.’ 

Few of Chilcot’s former colleagues in Whitehall expect him to rock the boat when the report eventually comes out. ‘He is a safe pair of hands who is close to some of the key players in the inquiry. It’s why he got the job,’ says another diplomat. 

‘He’s also 76 — not exactly a spring chicken — and is clearly slowing down.’

Chilcot, a private figure who eschews publicity, gave a rare interview in 2011 to The Old Brightonians, the magazine of his former school.

Asked the most challenging parts of the job, he replied: ‘Keeping steady judgment when sailing through troubled waters.’

He was also pressed on what was the best advice he had ever been given. He replied: ‘Try your best at things you’re not good at.’

Hardly reassuring words for the families still waiting to hear why their loved ones died in the catastrophe that was the Iraq war.

 

 

[JM91]

No collective responsibility from the Labour party, imagine if this was under a Conservative Government.

[phantom]

If Blair doesn't get pulled up in this report, fully expect a MASSIVE backlash in the next few hours.

Thought it interesting that members of the press were given the report at 8am but not able to report on it for 3 hours as it was thought it would take that long to digest it all fully

[Barrs Court Red]

It will take longer than 3 hours to digest it - 12 volumes containing 2.5 million words.  I would imagine it comes with an executive summary though.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

It will take longer than 3 hours to digest it - 12 volumes containing 2.5 million words.  I would imagine it comes with an executive summary though.

There is a summarry and also Chilcott is giving his roundup/verdict on it.  12 minutes to go..

[Gazred]

2.5m words yet you know the word liar or lied wont be featured once.

[BCFC Jimmer]

Enough has been said already to suggest that Blair should have some serious questions to answer.

[Guest]

Although he wasn't asked to declare if it was illegal or not, he's pretty much said it was.  Anyone seen Tony today?

[BCFC Jimmer]

7 minutes ago, Tomarse said:

Although he wasn't asked to declare if it was illegal or not, he's pretty much said it was.  Anyone seen Tony today?

Hmmm I think that overall Tony has got off lightly.  Not exactly damning words from Chilcot.

[And Its Smith]

6 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

Hmmm I think that overall Tony has got off lightly.  Not exactly damning words from Chilcot.

Owen Jones disagrees...

 

[phantom]

26 minutes ago, Tomarse said:

Although he wasn't asked to declare if it was illegal or not, he's pretty much said it was.  Anyone seen Tony today?

This was outside his home this morning

[Kid in the Riot]

Sounds like far from being a 'whitewash' it's as bout as damning as it could be

 

Caroline Lucas Verified account ‏@CarolineLucas

Main themes of #Chilcot already clear: Blair lied. War illegal. And British constitution by-passed by presidential style of government.

[Red-Robbo]

4 minutes ago, phantom said:

This was outside his home this morning

Nice.

He won't though, will he.

The ICC (surely the sort of trans-national judicially binding body the Leavers on this board should abhor?) would have to also prosecute George W and various other former world leaders - as well as a number of Iraqis. A can of worms they will not want to get involved with.

Incidentally, he would be prosecuted for Crimes Of Aggression, not War Crimes. The later applies to those soldiers and militiamen carrying out unlawful acts in war zones, the former is for those who unjustifiably invade sovereign states. I don't think anyone has ever been charged under its auspices.

 

[LondonBristolian]

43 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

Hmmm I think that overall Tony has got off lightly.  Not exactly damning words from Chilcot.

I disagree.  Chilcott uses official language so wouldn't explicitly called Blair a liar but he comes as close as he possibly could.  Based on what Chilcott said this morning, the report seems utterly damning of Blair and vindicates those who claimed the war was wrong. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

22 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I disagree.  Chilcott uses official language so wouldn't explicitly called Blair a liar but he comes as close as he possibly could.  Based on what Chilcott said this morning, the report seems utterly damning of Blair and vindicates those who claimed the war was wrong. 

 

1 hour ago, Collis1 said:

Hmmm I think that overall Tony has got off lightly.  Not exactly damning words from Chilcot.

I actually agree with Collis1, IMO it could have been a whole lot worse, had all the main players in the military been called and reported to the enquiry exactly when they knew that they were going to war, which it would appear to be as early as July 2002, which flies in the face of the evidence that Blair gave to the enquiry.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Blair obviously believes that it was a whitewash. 

He believes the report exonerates him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3676847/I-responsibility-mistakes-Tony-Blair-says-decision-war-Iraq-taken-good-faith.html

[Super]

Not defending Blair but some calling him the "world's worst terrorist" is a bit strong.

[LondonBristolian]

17 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Blair obviously believes that it was a whitewash. 

He believes the report exonerates him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3676847/I-responsibility-mistakes-Tony-Blair-says-decision-war-Iraq-taken-good-faith.html

To be honest, I think there's a large element of PR management here - trying to spin the report in the hope most people won't actually read it. Even if the report had said "liar, liar, pants on fire" I think Blair would have said something to the effect of what he's said there. 

 

 

[BCFC Jimmer]

13 minutes ago, Super said:

Not defending Blair but some calling him the "world's worst terrorist" is a bit strong.

A bit strong.  But if its true (and it seems like it is) that he has deliberately deceived parliament then think of all the innocent blood on his hands.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

To be honest, I think there's a large element of PR management here - trying to spin the report in the hope most people won't actually read it.

 

 

if your assertion is true then Blair should be sectioned for believing that and the PR company charged with fraud.

Yes Tony of course no one is interested anymore, it was forgotten a long time ago.

The funniest thing i've read in a long time.

 

[Barrs Court Red]

War with Iraq was inevitable, but I've never understood the rush to war.  What was driving the timetable? This report doesn't really explain anything new, but just confirms assumptions pretty much everyone had made. 

Because of the mess ourselves and the Yanks made of Iraq aftermath,  it'll be a generation before anyone would consider military intervention of this sort of scale again (in an offensive capacity). The affects of Iraq are so far reaching, we completely messed up Libya by not committing the appropriate forces to handle the inevitable state meltdown and could and should of ended the Syrian Civil War about 4 years ago.  If the Iraq conflict created the conditions for ISIS Syria has been its incubator.  

[phantom]

25 minutes ago, Super said:

Not defending Blair but some calling him the "world's worst terrorist" is a bit strong.

If it was a foreign leader up for attacking the UK I'm sure we wouldn't disagree with that sentiment

[phantom]

[The Gasbuster]

52 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

War with Iraq was inevitable, but I've never understood the rush to war.  What was driving the timetable? This report doesn't really explain anything new, but just confirms assumptions pretty much everyone had made. 

Because of the mess ourselves and the Yanks made of Iraq aftermath,  it'll be a generation before anyone would consider military intervention of this sort of scale again (in an offensive capacity). The affects of Iraq are so far reaching, we completely messed up Libya by not committing the appropriate forces to handle the inevitable state meltdown and could and should of ended the Syrian Civil War about 4 years ago.  If the Iraq conflict created the conditions for ISIS Syria has been its incubator.  

Some good points.

The question over the "race to war" is a valid one.

Seem to recall that they didn't want to wait another month, otherwise our troops would have been fighting in temperatures of up to 50 degrees.

Saddam had been taking the piss for 12 years as well, by pushing the "coalition" nations to the limit at every opportunity.

 

[TRL]

1 hour ago, Super said:

Not defending Blair but some calling him the "world's worst terrorist" is a bit strong.

You could apply that term... His actions have caused a vacuum in said country where many terrorists attrocities have been launched from. 

 

He knew only too well what would happen after we meddled and left the country with little infrastructure weak armed forces and a puppet government