Forums

Posted: 25-01-2010 11:19 Post subject:

Moral compass? These men giving evidence at the Iraq Inquiry are simply covering their own backs
By Suzanne Moore
Last updated at 1:33 AM on 25th January 2010

Many have complained that the Chilcot Inquiry is not a proper judicial inquiry and therefore no one giving evidence is under oath. As it is an inquiry over whether we were misled knowingly or unknowingly in the build-up to the war in Iraq, I am not sure that oaths would have made a difference.

Watching these various men all dob each other in – ‘it wasn’t me, honest, it was him, he made me do it’ – I really don’t know what the concept of truth is to some of these power-brokers.

We already know that Blair is not going to be judged by mere mortals but by God. This is not helpful to an atheist such as myself.

Alastair Campbell’s, Hoon’s, Straw’s and Powell’s performances have all been astonishing in different ways. Astonishing is not a word I thought I would ever use about ‘lapsed lawyer’ Hoon, but his refusal to answer simple questions and his concern not to order enough body armour for ‘our boys’ in case it looked as if we were going to war was indeed astonishing. Appearances can be deceiving, yet this was the priority. Deception. Sad

What emerges from all this questioning is no apologies for the suffering caused (this, I suppose, is a ridiculous expectation) but instead a concern about managing public perception. Everyone is covering their own backs. But they can’t all be telling nothing but the truth, can they?

Sir Christopher Meyer has in the past claimed that the deal was done in Crawford between Bush and Blair. Jonathan Powell denied this. What then is Meyer’s motivation for lying?

Clare Short has already said in her book that she was concerned about post-war planning and that Brown was worried about losing his job. Again, what would Short’s motivation for lying now be?

Last week Jack Straw told us that he single-handedly could have stopped the war. But he didn’t, obviously, because he didn’t want to resign. He remains in the Cabinet though he now says the war he backed was ‘self-evidently unlawful’. By this he meant getting rid of Saddam militarily without a UN mandate. Hoon apparently felt the same.

But what mattered to Straw was that he remained loyal to Blair. Regrets? He has a few but then again too few to mention. Cool

All these guys wrestled with their consciences. But it was never much of a match as their consciences seemed to have been easily floored by the idea that they might lose their jobs.

Though we are talking about thousands of dead Iraqis, hundreds of dead British soldiers, the issue that appears to be most important is that they only did what they were told to do even if they had private doubts.

They are a bit sorry about there being no UN mandate or not finding WMDs or letting weapons inspector Hans Blix finish his work. They are a little bit anxious about being seen to do Bush’s bidding, they really did believe the intelligence, even as they were writing some of it, they continue to insist that the public supported this war, though polls never showed that. Perhaps they just missed the biggest demonstration in British history too? Evil or Very Mad

In other words – and this is hugely significant as we are still engaged in another war – they still don’t get it. They still believe war is as much about the management of opinion as it is about vital equipment or even clear aims, planning and strategy.

Alastair Campbell says he has learned some lessons from Iraq. That you can get away with murder might be one. But, no, he says: ‘Despite the controversies of Iraq, I strongly believe that the job of big picture communication is more, not less, important.

'The public need for understanding is as great as ever. But the explanations are not being heard at anything like the volume they should be.’

Beyond shock and awe there was never a big picture on Iraq because, as pretty much everyone now admits, there was no post-war planning. The explanations for the war in Afghanistan are being heard but are ever-changing. The public are not as stupid as Campbell and his ilk presume.

Support for this war is declining not just because we see the coffins coming back through Wootton Bassett. Brown, who, after all, agreed to finance these wars, says he has nothing to hide. Blair will also give evidence, but I doubt he will take Chilcot as seriously as he did Fern Britton. What will we learn? That war is peace?

We went to war because this is government without Cabinet. It was a decision made by a few men, some unelected, others too weak to challenge their great leader. Still no one is being held to account for this criminal decision to invade Iraq. They can bemoan the undermining of trust while complacently considering themselves above the law.

What happened to their collective moral compass? They swapped it for a pair of cowboy boots? Chilling.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1245533/Moral-compass-These-men-swapped-theirs-pair-cowboy-boots.html#ixzz0dcMiBF86

Posted: 26-01-2010 10:33 Post subject:

Wanted: Tony Blair for war crimes. Arrest him and claim your reward
Chilcot and the courts won't do it, so it is up to us to show that we won't let an illegal act of mass murder go unpunished
George Monbiot guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 January 2010 19.30 GMT

The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry won't address: was the war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes, everything changes. The war is no longer a political matter, but a criminal one, and those who commissioned it should be committed for trial for what the Nuremberg tribunal called "the supreme international crime": the crime of aggression.

But there's a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference. It's the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury. As a senior judge told the Guardian in November: "Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants. And actually, it's the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they don't want the answer."

........

All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments to stop messing about and allow the international criminal court to start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this nation, who re-elected a government that had launched an illegal war, have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as Blair requested, "moved on" from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe that they can safely repeat it.

But how? As I found when I tried to apprehend John Bolton, one of the architects of the war in George Bush's government, at the Hay festival in 2008, and as Peter Tatchell found when he tried to detain Robert Mugabe, nothing focuses attention on these issues more than an attempted citizen's arrest. In October I mooted the idea of a bounty to which the public could contribute, payable to anyone who tried to arrest Tony Blair if he became president of the European Union. He didn't of course, but I asked those who had pledged money whether we should go ahead anyway. The response was overwhelmingly positive.

So today I am launching a website – www.arrestblair.org – whose purpose is to raise money as a reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former prime minister. Twisted Evil

I have put up the first £100, and I encourage you to match it. Anyone meeting the rules I've laid down will be entitled to one quarter of the total pot: the bounties will remain available until Blair faces a court of law. The higher the reward, the greater the number of people who are likely to try.

At this stage the arrests will be largely symbolic, though they are likely to have great political resonance. But I hope that as pressure builds up and the crime of aggression is adopted by the courts, these attempts will help to press governments to prosecute. There must be no hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No civilised country can allow mass murderers to move on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/25/bounty-blair-war-criminal-chilcot

Posted: 28-01-2010 11:32 Post subject:

Iraq inquiry is being ‘gagged’ after secret documents withheld
Crucial evidence about the reasons Britain went to war against Saddam Hussein is being kept secret it has emerged – leading to accusations that the Iraq inquiry has been “gagged”.
By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent
Published: 6:00AM GMT 28 Jan 2010

In an apparent breach of the Inquiry terms, Sir John Chilcot, head of the probe, expressed his “frustration” that he was unable to refer to key documents while questioning Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General, about why he gave the “green light” for war.

Lord Goldsmith also said that he was unhappy at being denied the opportunity to discuss documents including a letter from Jack Straw, then-former foreign secretary, about United Nations negotiations.

Gordon Brown has pledged that the inquiry team will have access to “all Government papers,” but the exchanges over Lord Goldsmith’s testimony make clear that they will be barred from discussing classified documents during evidence sessions.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, claimed that the inability of the Chilcot team to properly question witnesses meant that it was being “gagged,” adding that if secret documents relating to Tony Blair, who gives evidence tomorrow, could not be discussed, the result would be a “cover-up”.

The lack of transparency over crucial documents emerged as Lord Goldsmith was explaining how he had changed his mind about the legality of the war in the months leading up to the invasion.

He said: "I want to make it clear that I didn't agree with the decision that has apparently been made that certain documents are not to be declassified but I will give the evidence that the inquiry seeks."

Sir John told him: "We share your frustration."

In a barbed comment, another member of the panel, Sir Roderic Lyne, later referred to other documents as having been “declassified by our ever-bountiful Government”.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7073627/Iraq-inquiry-is-being-gagged-after-secret-documents-withheld.html

A cover-up? Surely not! Shocked

Posted: 29-01-2010 09:38 Post subject:

Today:

Blair set to mount spirited defence at Iraq inquiry

Tony Blair is set to mount a spirited defence when he is questioned in public for the first time about his decision to take the UK to war against Iraq.

He will be questioned at the Iraq war inquiry for six hours on the build-up to the 2003 invasion and its aftermath.

Controversial government dossiers justifying action will be discussed.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the ex-PM was expected to say Saddam Hussein had the "capacity and intent" to build weapons of mass destruction.

He added: I'm told that Tony Blair will claim that the fall of Saddam has improved and saved the lives of many Iraqis.

"He'll argue that despite the terrible bloodshed since, it has been worth it for Iraq and the world as a whole.

Mr Blair arrived at the inquiry venue in central London more than 90 minutes before the session is due to get under way at 0930 GMT.

He is understood to have entered the building through a cordoned-off entrance at the back, avoiding protesters gathering out front.

etc...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8485694.stm

This should be broadcast live on BBC News 24 (Link in the top panel of all BBC news pages, eg the one above). Interested though I am, I'm not sure I can face six hours of Blair smuggery, stonewalling, and self-justification - I'd probably end up throwing the monitor through the window!!!

Posted: 04-02-2010 15:24 Post subject:

Alerted by the ever-interested Harry's Place:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/

I've just watched Richard Madeley debating Iraq, and, incredible to relate, he's really rather good. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but it must be emphasised that this is Richard Madeley: Daytime TV-doyen.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne ended up looking a bit stoopid by comparison...

Who'dathunkit...

His video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8495223.stm
The debate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8496156.stm

Posted: 11-07-2010 16:31 Post subject:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has appointed the new head of Central Command: Four star general, Joint Forces Command chief, and notoriously blunt-spoken Marine James Mattis. He will replace General David Petraeus at CENTCOM, which oversees all U.S. military operations in the Middle East and South Asia. Mattis is a memorable personality, to say the least. His tough demeanor and penchant for colorful language earned him a brief portrayal in Generation Kill, the HBO miniseries drama about the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Defense writers are applauding the decision.A Unique Personality Slate's John Dickerson collects key anecdotes:

[...]

"Mattis is known for his ferocity and his risk-taking--which included regularly riding out into combat with his jump platoon, despite his high rank. (That's something he'll probably have to give up now.) He is also known for his intellect. He is well-read in history and military strategy but has also studied innovation and adaptation techniques. Mattis is also known for his mouth. He is a jokester in person and also blunt. In the spring of 2003, in the first of his meetings with recently defeated Iraqi military leaders he famously said: 'I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all."'"

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Defense-Writers-Celebrate-Mattis-Appointment-to-CENTCOM-4272[/quote]

Posted: 20-07-2010 22:53 Post subject:

Many of us have been saying this for years. Nice to have high-level confirmation, though:

Iraq inquiry: Ex-MI5 boss says war raised terror threat

The invasion of Iraq "substantially" increased the terrorist threat to the UK, the former head of MI5 has said.

Giving evidence to the Iraq inquiry, Baroness Manningham-Buller said the action had radicalised "a few among a generation".

As a result, she said she was not "surprised" that UK nationals were involved in the 7/7 bombings in London.

She said she believed the intelligence on Iraq's threat was not "substantial enough" to justify the action.

Baroness Manningham-Buller said she had advised officials a year before the war that the threat posed by Iraq to the UK was "very limited", and she believed that assessment had "turned out to be the right judgement".

Describing the intelligence on Iraq's weapons threat as "fragmentary", she said: "If you are going to go to war, you need to have a pretty high threshold to decide on that."

The Chilcot inquiry is continuing to hear evidence about decisions taken in the build-up to the invasion and its aftermath.

Baroness Manningham-Buller, head of the domestic intelligence service between 2002 and 2007, said the terrorist threat to the UK from al-Qaeda and other groups "pre-dated" the Iraq invasion and also the 9/11 attacks in the US.

However, she said the UK's participation in the March 2003 military action "undoubtedly increased" the level of terrorist threat.

A year after the invasion, she said MI5 was "swamped" by leads about terrorist threats to the UK.

"Our involvement in Iraq, for want of a better word, radicalised a whole generation of young people, some of them British citizens who saw our involvement in Iraq, on top of our involvement in Afghanistan, as being an attack on Islam," she said, before immediately correcting herself by adding "not a whole generation, a few among a generation".

The ex-MI5 chief said she shared her concerns that the Iraq invasion would increase the UK's exposure to terrorism with the then home secretary David Blunkett, but did not "recall" discussing the matter with Prime Minister Tony Blair.

MI5 did not "foresee the degree to which British citizens would become involved" in terrorist activity after 2004, she admitted.

"What Iraq did was produce fresh impetus on people prepared to engage in terrorism," she said, adding that she could produce evidence to back this up.

"The Iraq war heightened the extremist view that the West was trying to bring down Islam. We gave Bin Laden his jihad."

etc...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693001

Millions of us were amazed that politicians at the time did not realise the error of the war, or its consequences.

Sorry to keep banging on about it, but arch-villain Blair is still swanning about the world, getting richer by the second, when he should have been swinging on a rope (along with Bush). Evil or Very Mad

Posted: 24-07-2010 10:19 Post subject:

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
The shocking rates of infant mortality and cancer in Iraqi city raise new questions about battle
By Patrick Cockburn
Saturday, 24 July 2010

Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait.

Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other munitions.

In the assault US commanders largely treated Fallujah as a free-fire zone to try to reduce casualties among their own troops. British officers were appalled by the lack of concern for civilian casualties. "During preparatory operations in the November 2004 Fallujah clearance operation, on one night over 40 155mm artillery rounds were fired into a small sector of the city," recalled Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, a British commander serving with the American forces in Baghdad.

He added that the US commander who ordered this devastating use of firepower did not consider it significant enough to mention it in his daily report to the US general in command. Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: "My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside."

etc...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

Posted: 13-09-2010 13:17 Post subject:

Posted: 01-10-2010 08:59 Post subject:

Blair's case for Iraq invasion was self-serving, lawyers tell Chilcot inquiry
Government accused of undermining UN, bowing to US political pressure and damaging UK's reputation in the process
Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 September 2010 18.30 BST

The Blair government undermined the UN, bowed to US political pressure and relied on self-serving arguments to justify its decision to invade Iraq, according to evidence to the Chilcot inquiry by international lawyers.

A key theme of the evidence, yet to be published, is that the government weakened the UN, damaging the country's reputation in the process – arguments made by Ed Miliband in his inaugural speech to the Labour conference.

Ralph Zacklin, the British-born UN assistant secretary general for legal affairs at the time, has told the inquiry that the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, failed to strike a proper balance "between the underlying political concerns of the government and respect for the rule of law" in adopting the view that a fresh UN security council resolution was not needed. Goldsmith's interpretation of previous UN resolutions was "self-serving".

"The damage to the UK and credibility of the security council was very significant", he told the Guardian today. "It was pretty clear [Goldsmith] was under a lot of pressure".

Zacklin said the way Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, dismissed the advice of his own lawyers was particularly shocking. Chilcot has heard that Sir Michael Wood, warned Straw that "to use force without security council authority would amount to a crime of aggression".

In a separate submission, a group of 23 lawyers describe the government's argument that it could rely on previous UN resolutions to invade as untenable. "The decision to use force against a sovereign state is so monumental ... it can only be taken by the security council.''

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/30/iraq-war-inquiry

Blair's hand-waving at the time did not distract those of us with eyes to see what the truth really was... Twisted Evil

Posted: 01-11-2010 15:25 Post subject:

Woman stabbed Labour MP over his Iraq war vote, court hears
Roshonara Choudhry twice stabbed Stephen Timms in stomach as 'revenge for the people of Iraq', Old Bailey told
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 November 2010 13.09 GMT

A woman stabbed an MP twice in the stomach during a constituency surgery in revenge for his vote for the war in Iraq, a court heard today.

Stephen Timms told the Old Bailey he thought Roshonara Choudhry, 21, was coming to shake hands, and she smiled before lunging at him on 14 May this year.

Timms, Labour MP for East Ham, east London, was sent "reeling and staggering" before retreating into the men's toilets at the community centre in Beckton.

His assistant Andrew Bazeley prised the kitchen knife away from Choudhry and she was restrained by a security guard before police arrived. Another knife was found in her bag.

Choudhry told detectives she was trying to kill Timms for "punishment" and "to get revenge for the people of Iraq", said William Boyce QC, prosecuting. "When asked why she had stabbed him a second time she said, 'Because I wasn't going to stop stabbing until someone made me,' " Boyce added.

Choudhry, who was not in court, is accused of attempted murder and two charges of having an offensive weapon.

Jeremy Dein QC, defending, said she did not recognise the jurisdiction of the court and did not wish her lawyers to challenge evidence put before the jury.

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/01/stephen-timms-stabbing-old-bailey

Posted: 10-11-2010 10:22 Post subject:

I'm so glad we helped bring peace and democracy to Iraq...

Bombings target Christians in Baghdad
Co-ordinated attacks on homes and churches leave at least four dead and could lead to more exodus calls from Christian leaders
Martin Chulov in Baghdad guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 November 2010

At least four people have been killed and dozens injured in a co-ordinated series of attacks on Christian neighbourhoods in Baghdad.

More than 14 bombs and mortar shells were detonated, targeting homes and a church across the Iraqi capital.

Three Christian homes in the western Baghdad suburb of Mansour were bombed last night with improvised explosives. Early this morning, two homes were hit by mortar fire in Dora, a Christian neighbourhood in the south. A bomb also exploded near a church in Kampsara and a house in nearby Baladiyat.

The scale of attacks against Christian targets is unprecedented and is likely to give fresh impetus to calls from some Christian leaders their community to leave Iraq.

The attacks come nine days after an assault on one of Baghdad's main cathedrals, which left 53 worshippers dead and shocked a country that endured three years of savage sectarian violence between 2005-2008.

"These operations, which targeted Christians, came as a continuation of the attack that targeted the Salvation church," an interior ministry source told Reuters.

The Islamic State of Iraq – an al-Qaida front group – claimed responsibility for that attack and vowed to launch further attacks against Christians to avenge the imprisonment of two Muslim women it claims are being held by Coptic priests in Egypt.

Ever since the cathedral killings, Iraq's 500,000 Christians have lived in fear of an escalation in violence. So too had Iraq's feuding politicians, who face increasing doubts about their ability to protect the country's citizens.

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/10/bombings-target-christians-in-baghdad

Posted: 11-12-2010 10:45 Post subject:

Foreign Office memo shows 2002 plan to sell Iraq invasion to UK media
Strategy for bringing the media onside was drawn up six months before UN gave approval for an attack on Saddam
Chris Ames and Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 December 2010 22.00 GMT

The Foreign Office was planning for the possibility that Britain might attack Iraq without UN approval more than six months before the invasion, according to a hitherto classified document written shortly before a meeting between Tony Blair and George Bush at Camp David.

The document, drawn up by John Williams, press adviser to the then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, spells out ways to soften up the media, including "critics like the Guardian". Under the heading Not taking the UN route, Williams wrote: "Our argument should be narrow, and put with vigour – Iraq is uniquely dangerous."

His memo, titled Iraq Media Strategy, is dated 4 September 2002, when the government was still trying to get UN support for military action and when Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, was advising that clear UN authority was needed. The document was also written as Whitehall and MI6 were being wound up by No 10 to provide much-needed ammunition for the government's Iraq weapons dossier.

Three days later, Williams wrote his own draft of the notorious dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The Chilcot inquiry said this week that it had asked him to provide written evidence about his role.

In his memo, he said drafts of the dossier at the time had no "killer fact" which "proves" that "Saddam must be taken on now, or this or that weapon will be used against us." When Blair was launching the dossier three weeks later, he told parliament that intelligence had "established beyond doubt" that Iraq had WMDs.

Williams wrote: "Our target is not the argumentative interviewer or opinionated columnist, but the kind of people to whom ministerial interviews are a background hum on the car or kitchen radio. We must think Radio 5. Although the big Radio 4 programmes have to be done, we must not let them set themselves up as judge and jury."

He added: "Listeners in traffic jams will understand that intelligence is partial, dangerous to acquire, and limited in what it is safe to put out in public. If the dossier is judged by these, rather than by Guardian standards, it will be worth doing."

He went on: "The humanitarian argument needs to be made more noisily and consistently. The record is horrific … and it is not something that critics like the Guardian should be allowed to pass over without comment."

He said the media strategy needs "to fix one image of brutality in the public mind." He continued: "We might brief privy counsellors, third parties and some editors on further material which cannot be published, either shortly before or after the dossier launch."

The Williams paper was released after a freedom of information request. He said he was asked to produce an Iraq media strategy "to cover all circumstances" by the then permanent undersecretary – top official – at the Foreign Office, Sir Michael Jay. Jay, like most senior British diplomats as well as the top lawyers in the FCO, have since made clear they were opposed to an invasion of Iraq without clear UN approval.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/memo-2002-iraq-invasion-media

Posted: 22-01-2011 09:05 Post subject:

Chilcot Inquiry: Tony Blair heckled as he expresses regret for this loss of life in the Iraq war
By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent 2:31PM GMT 21 Jan 2011

Relatives of those killed in the conflict shouted out “It’s too late,” as an emotional Mr Blair told of his sorrow at the bloodshed, while two female witnesses walked out and another turned her face away.

Following his first evidence session a year ago, he had refused to speak of any regrets, saying only that he accepted responsibility for what happened following the 2003 invasion.

But, his voice shaking with emotion, Mr Blair announced that he would like to say some words about the matter after being asked to outline the lessons to be learned from the course of the conflict as he came to the end of his four-hour testimony.

He told Sir John Chilcot, the inquiry chairman: "At the conclusion of the last hearing, you asked me whether I had any regrets.
"I took that as a question about the decision to go to war, and I answered that I took responsibility.
"That was taken as my meaning that I had no regrets about the loss of life and that was never my meaning or my intention.

"I wanted to make it clear that, of course, I regret deeply and profoundly the loss of life, whether from our own armed forces, those of other nations, the civilians who helped people in Iraq or the Iraqis themselves."

A number of relatives became angry at the former prime minister’s words, shouting out: “You’ve had a year to think about that,” and “It’s too late.

Rose Gentle, whose 19-year-old son Gordon was killed in Iraq in 2004 told Mr Blair: “You lied, your lies killed our son. I hope you can live with it.

For most of the evidence session, the audience, a third of which was made up of relatives while the rest were selected via a public ballot, had listened in respectful silence.
As his testimony drew to an end, however Mr Blair began a passionate entreaty to the West to tackle the threat from Iran – to the dismay of many in the room.
One weeping woman interrupted remarks from Mr Blair in which he praised the British military, saying: “Stop trying to kill them then.”

During the hearing, Mr Blair admitted that he ignored legal advice that invading Iraq without a fresh Untied Nations resolution would not be legitimate because he considered the statements, by Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, to be “provisional”.

He also said that he would have been prepared to withhold British troops from taking part in the invasion had Lord Goldsmith not changed his mind about the legality or if the House of Commons had voted against the move.
But he kept this from United States President George W Bush in order that the Iraqis did not see a “chink of light” in the resolve of the coalition against them.

Mr Blair also claimed that the Cabinet was fully aware in the year before the war that regime change was likely, but was more interested in the “politics” of the issue.

Demonstrators gathered outside the inquiry, at the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre in Westminster, to heckle the former prime minister, but in smaller numbers than for his last session.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/tony-blair/8274202/Chilcot-Inquiry-Tony-Blair-heckled-as-he-expresses-regret-for-this-loss-of-life-in-the-Iraq-war.html

Posted: 22-01-2011 10:41 Post subject:

Far more interesting that Blair's theatrics: