The Chilcot Report unredacted: Tony Blair must die to pay for the sins of the many
The Chilcot Report has been mired by delay. The feel is that we are witnessing a cover-up. But do we need an inquiry to tell us that invading Iraq was wrong and based on iffy evidence? Do we need an inquiry to tell us that Tony Blair was just the head of a group who, allegedly, cooked-up reasons for what had been decided?
We know the WMDs did not exist.
We know the ‘dodgy dossier’ was cribbed from the internet. Google ‘WMD’ and present it as fact.
What are we looking for? Do we just want Blair and George Bush’s heads, to bury them and the past with it?
We should asks: why did Tony Blair and New Labour lead Britain to war in Iraq?
Well, when the question of invading Iraq was put to the elected represensatives of this country on 18 March 2003, 412 British MPs voted in favour of military intervention and only 149 voted against. Jack Straw, then the foreign secretary, says “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
We went to war becsause we wanted it. Why? Well, I’d suggest mixture of pride, greed, desperations and a policy to unite the country and for Labour to look ‘good’ and ‘ethical’.
This website says www.arrestblair.org. But why only him? Are you anti-Blair or anti-democratic?
Meanwhile, waiting for the Chilcot Inquiry has taken longer than it took to capture and kill Saddam Hussein and for Iraq to descend into chaos.
But wasn’t the Iraq War a success? The Ba’athist regime was ended. Barack Obama saw Iraqis voting in 2005 and voiced his “respect for the millions of Iraqis who refused to be deterred by acts of violence, and who exercised their right to vote”. Iraqis had the chance to return a mixed result. No longer would Saddam Hussein win 100% of the vote, as he had in 2002.
Trouble was the war that led to this triumph for democracy was wrong. Stripped of the despotic leader, Iraqis lacked a unifying force. Tony Blair’s plans were Middle East peace were in tatters.
(But still he tried. At the creepy World Economic Forum in Davos, the elite can catch the show “Tony Blair on religion’s role in the world”:
Session: Religion: A Pretext for Conflict? As the world sees rising conflict and intolerance from religious groups, the session will explore whether religious intolerance is actually religious.
Speakers: Tony Blair, Middle East Quartet Representative)
What we need is a public inquiry into this public inquiry. It makes sense. It’s not the issue that’s the problem; it’s the problem with the institutions charged with debating and solving the issues. Well, so they in power say every time they call for a quasi-judicial inquiry, an enlargment on the asinine call for the voting classes to ‘join the debate’. Short of ideas and confidence, they cede decision making to the judiciary.
ITV News sums up the latest news well:
The long-awaited Chilcot report into the Iraq war will not be published until after the general election, the chair of the inquiry has confirmed. Sir John Chilcot has told David Cameron that there is “no realistic prospect” of his report being published before May and that it could take “some further months”. The Prime Minister said he was disappointed by the delay and would have liked to have seen the findings published “well before” the election.
In a letter to Prime Minister David Cameron, chairman Sir John Chilcot said “very substantial progress” has been made in the inquiry, but there was “no realistic prospect” it could be published before May and that completion of the work would take “some further months”.
This is the choicest cut:
Sir John said he had reached an agreement on the details of notes and conversations between former prime minister Tony Blair and US president George W Bush, which will be published in the report.
Which details to leave in? Which details to leave out? Which notes and conversations to put on the public record? Which not?
And what is private? Is anything a public figure does in private allowed to remain private? Are we so suspicious of the elite that we want everything they say and do on the record?
If you suspect wrongdoing, then holding back the full facts will only swell those feelings of not getting the truth.
The report has been delayed by disagreement over the release of the confidential messages, but the agreement means the “gist” of the communications would be published after Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood blocked the publication of the full exchanges.
The gist. After the ‘dodgy dossier’, we get ‘the gist’:
Sir John added that the “Maxwellisation process” – the procedure where individuals due to be criticised in an official report are sent details of the criticisms in advance so they can respond prior to its publication – was currently underway into the inquiry’s draft report.Blair is in Davos today and probably exposed to questions.
Redact. Redact. Redact.
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker told Sky the delay was “not acceptable to the British people” and that the public should have had the findings before the election.
“These were major events in 2002/2003, when government in its normal way was abandoned… when we had Alastair Campbell writing dodgy dossiers – or at least editing them – and when we had weapons of mass destruction lauded around which didn’t turn out to exist.”
After the lawyers have reviewed everything in the Maxwellian fashion, these files will amount to not much.
As Donald Rumsfeld stated: “Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.”