Campbell's Claims Contradicted

The Independent reports that in written evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Maj-Gen Laurie (a former intelligence official) rejected Alastair Campbell's claim that the dossier was not intended to make the case for war:

"This was exactly its purpose and these very words were used."

Where to now for the Chilcot inquiry, given that "star" witnesses (eg Blair and Campbell) have given evidence that contradicts Maj-Gen Laurie?

Will they be recalled?

Round Two - Blair Testifies

Tony Blair is testifying to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war, his second appearance before Chilcot.

He has stated again that the 9/11 attacks were the root cause of the war.

The British decision to back the invasion of Iraq was based on Blair's belief that Britain had to back whatever the States wanted to do, in order to maintain the so called and over hyped "special relationship".

This if course is a lousy premise for any policy, handing over responsibility for foreign policy to another country is destined to end in disaster.

Blair's Secret Letters

Sir John Chilcot, the restrained and reserved chairman of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war, almost revealed a hint of anger the other day when he expressed "disappointment" over the fact that he has been forbidden to declassify letters between Blair and Bush written in the period up to the Iraq war.

Seemingly the official excuse, used by the state, for not allowing these documents to be published is that they are deemed to be "private correspondence". Indeed, so private that references to these letters were removed from official records.

Ironically Blair, as part of his attempt to make money from publishing, happily refers to the letters in his book "A Journey".

The Inquiry has quite clearly been "nobbled" from the outset, any conclusion it finally reaches must be regarded with great suspicion.

Goldsmith Disputes Blair

Lord Goldsmith, Tony Blair's former attorney general, has given a written response to a written question posed by the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.

On 15 January 2003 Blair told MPs that while a second UN resolution was "preferable", there were circumstances in which it was "not necessary".

The inquiry panel asked Lord Goldsmith if he felt those words were "compatible with the advice you had given him".

Lord Goldsmith replied "no".

Thhe BBC quotes him also saying:

"I was uncomfortable about them and I believe that I discussed my concerns with [then foreign secretary] Jack Straw and my own staff."

Blair To Appear At Chilcot Inquiry

Tony Blair will reappear before the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war 21 January.

As to whether this actually achieves anything tangible, apart from providing an opportunity for demonstrators to shout at Blair, remains to be seen.

Chilcot Inquiry Rigged

It appears, according to a leaked cable from Wikileaks, that the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war has been rigged from the outset by the British government.

The leaked cable reveals that the British government secretly promised to limit the scope of the Iraq war inquiry to protect US interests.

Once More Unto The Breach

It seems that Tony Blair faces a recall to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war, as it appears that Blair's recent memoirs highlight "inconsistencies" with the evidence he gave to the inquiry during his last appearance.

Blair is likely to appear again at the inquiry early next year.

Army Almost Seized Up

General Sir Richard Dannatt, former head of the British army, told the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war that Tony Blair's decision to send troops to Helmand at the same time as they were in Iraq almost caused the army to seize up.

He said:

"I think we were getting quite close to a seizing-up moment in 2006."

The politicians let the troops down by placing them in an almost impossible position during this period, the consequences of this negligence are still being felt today.

The Iraq High

Dr Hans Blix, former UN weapons inspector, has told the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war that the US and UK didn't feel that they needed "a permission slip" from the security council:

"The US in 2002...I think they were high on military at the time. They said 'we can do it'

They thought they could get away with it so they decided to do it."

The lesson here is don't start wars when "high".

Low Standards

Carne Ross, the UK's Iraq expert at the United Nations from 1997 to 2002, has a poor opinion of the quality of the questioning at the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.

Ross told the BBC that chairman Sir John Chilcot was running a "narrow" investigation, with the standard of questioning "pretty low".

He went on to say that the Chilcot inquiry was not doing enough to ensure it got a full picture of events.

"The other government witnesses are giving a partial view... I think that the standard of interrogation by the panel is pretty low. The level of questioning is very easygoing.

In particular my greatest concern is that witnesses are not being challenged on the contradictions between what they are saying to the panel and what's in the documents."

These allegations are nothing new, from the very outset journalists have been saying that witnesses have been given a very easy time by Chilcot.

Exaggeration

Sir Richard Dalton, Britain's ambassador in Tehran from 2003-06, has told the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war that both the UK and US misread the intentions of Iran in the run up to the war.

Blair and Bush pushed the line that Iran would be hostile to the Iraq venture, when in fact Iran wanted the venture to succeed in order for a stable government to be formed and to ensure that US troops did not remain too long in the area.

Sir Richard said that Blair made "a series of very bad decisions" about the legality of the 2003 invasion.

Blair told Chilcot in January:

"What happened in the end was that they did because they both had a common interest in destabilising the country, and for Iran I think the reason they were interested in destabilising Iraq was because they worried about having a functioning majority Shia country with a democracy on their doorstep."

Sir Richard contradicted this:

"From what I saw of his evidence, I thought he very much exaggerated this factor."

Goldsmith's Advice To Blair Published

The Chilcot Iraq inquiry has released details of the legal advice given to Tony Blair, from the then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, prior to the invasion of Iraq.

In the released correspondence (dated February 12 2003), Lord Goldsmith told Blair that should military action be taken without further approval by the UN Security Council, he expected "the government to be accused of acting unlawfully".

In a letter to Blair on 30 January, 2003, Lord Goldsmith said he "remained of the view that the correct legal interpretation of resolution 1441 is that it does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the Security Council".

However, following Blair's meeting with Bush in 2003 (when Blair promised Bush that Britain would go to war) Goldsmith changed his view. The BBC quotes him as saying he was "prepared to accept that a reasonable case" could be made that military action was authorised by existing resolutions, including resolution 1441.

Chilcot To Resume

The Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war will resume its hearings after a four and a half month break.

Brown "Misspoke"

I see that Gordon Brown "misspoke" during his recent appearance before the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war, when he claimed that defence spending had increased in "real terms" each year under Labour.

It transpires that it hasn't!

Brown has written to Chilcot to clarify his "error".

I wonder if he "misspoke" about other matters?

Brown Appears Before Chilcot

Gordon Brown is currently appearing before the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.

Brown says that the war was right, but that he regrets he wasn't able to persuade the Americans to be more organised wrt the post invasion construction.

Ballot To See Brown

Those who want to watch Gordon Brown's appearance before the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war will have to enter a ballot.

He will appear before the inquiry in early March.

Smeargate

Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador in the US, has given Tony Blair a very publicy drubbing in an interview with The Independent.

Sir Christopher says that Blair, and his closest advisers, have used their evidence to the Iraq inquiry to smear those criticising the decision to taken Britain to war.

He noted that "turning on opposition was the modus operandi of the Blair administration".

"You turn on dissent, you distort the argument, you claim the other person has said something they never said, and then you seek to discredit it.

It's not only me that has had some of this.

It is their modus operandi.

Smear and smokescreen."

Sir Christopher was also not impressed with Blair's obsession with invading Iran:

"Blair's strategic approach to his evidence seemed to be a kind of double or quits.

In other words, it was to say no regrets, I'd do it again, and by the way if I was Prime Minister I'd do Iran also.

It's nonsense about Iran.

The strategic beneficiary of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq has been Iran. It has enhanced the position of Iran in the region, there is no doubt about it at all.”

The fact that Blair has entrenched the idea that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were cut from the same cloth was extraordinary.

We've always known that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and didn't like al-Qaeda."

Sir Christopher uses the polite phrase "sub-contracted" wrt Blair allowing Bush to make the decision about war, ie he is saying that Blair had in effect become a poodle of Bush.

It is a pity that all the now so very vocal critics of the war, who were in positions of power during the run up to war, did not speak up and come forward at the time.

Pants on Fire

It seems that Tony Blair's hopes of trying to put Iraq behind him, have been quashed once again.

Sir John Chilcot is to recall Blair to reappear before the inquiry into Iraq. Apparently there are some questions over Blair's testimony, when he appeared at the inquiry last week, conflicting with that given by other witnesses such as Lord Goldsmith and Lord Boyce.

Blair will go to his grave being hounded for his decision to go to war.

That is the price he will pay for believing that the war was "just" from a religious standpoint.

Cabinet Misled

Unsurprisingly Claire Short, during her appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war, pulled no punches when it came to trying to put the boot into Tony Blair.

She said that Blair "and his mates" decided war was necessary, and "everything was done on a wing and a prayer".

That seems to be a pretty fair assessment.

She didn't have many kind words for the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, either:

"I think he misled the cabinet. He certainly misled me, but people let it through."

Her "principled" stand is somewhat let down by the fact that she stayed in the cabinet after the war had started, relying on the promise by Blair that she would have a major role in the reconstruction of Iraq.

As we know, the reconstruction has been a bodged job (to put it mildly). However, even if it had been a beacon of success, it seems a strange stance to take to happily stand by whilst a country is being bombed to smithereens merely on the promise of being allowed to rebuild it again.

Blair's Fanaticism

Tony Blair has started to give evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.

What is striking, to me at least, is that he displays the same degree of fanaticism as the terrorists he sought to fight.

"..Those of us who dealt with terrorism by the IRA [knew] their terrorism was directed towards political purposes, it was within a framework you could understand. That completely changed from that moment – Iran, Libya, North Korea, Iraq ... All of this had to be brought to an end..."

It seems to me that had the Iraq invasion been a "success", then the US and UK would have happily wandered the globe regime changing (and starting wars) at will.

I well recall Blair giving a speech a few years ago in which he said that Afghanistan had become a "crucible" in the fight against terror.

All very well, but did the people who live in that country ask for it to be turned into a crucible?

Sadly fanaticism occurs in "democracies", not just dictatorships.