Blair WILL be called to give evidence to Iraq inquiry

#1
Sir John Chilcot opens his Inquiry into the Iraq War by confirming that Tony Blair will be called to give evidence.


One can only hope that this will involve a black cap at some stage.

Could Brown,in making this a public inquiry,be giving a final two fingered salute to the wannabe EUropean president?

clicky video.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#2
Prior to Bliar taking the stand Chilcott will be told exactly what questions Bliar is willing to answer and probably what the answer will be.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#5
They don't call him Teflon Tony for nothing. He may be a first order cnut, but he is a master at the game of oblique response.
 
#6
The only question I'd like to ask those two is "Would you like a blindfold" although in Cyclop's case an eye patch would suffice.

Why ask anything, they will just lie again.
 
#8
What a waste of time asking the bent 'barsteward' to attend.

Mandelson will have this so-called independent inquiry sewn up like the proverbial kipper.

I hope we are told what expenses the simpering rat Bliar will be paid for attending.

This whole farce is an exercise in 'smoke and mirrors'. It's outcome is certain to be that Bliar is a free-world hero and totally blameless in every respect. I expect a cleaner or two, a policeman and a couple of corporals will be found guilty of telling lies and 'sexing up' their work-sheets and of killing Dr. Kelly.

PS: I bet Bliar does his quivering lower-lip act when he mentions 'his' brave soldiers who lost their lives.
 
#9
The_Coming_Man said:
The only question I'd like to ask those two is "Would you like a blindfold" although in Cyclop's case an eye patch would suffice.

Why ask anything, they will just lie again.
Now that was funny!!
 
#12
With hearings being broadcast live on television it could be very interesting to see what comes of this.

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister who sent British troops to Iraq, will be asked to give evidence.

One of the inquiry's first priorities was to hear from the families of British troops who died in the conflict.

"We want to know what they think the inquiry's priorities should be," Sir John said.

"I have already written to many of the families explaining what we are doing."
I personally would like to see specific questions tabled by families to be posed to Blair.
 
#13
The BBC is 'plugging' the Iraq Inquiry - a sure sign that 'strings are being pulled' and that it is a waste of time and money. As I have said before, Mandelson will have had this farce sewn up tightly ages ago.

Easy ploy -
Brown says one thing and it is contradicted.
Brown says something else and that is contradicted.
Another 'minister' says 'this' and Chilcott says 'that' - clever little ruse to make us, the thick sheep, believe we have an 'honest', 'truthful' and 'independent :lol: ' inquiry.

Today's big ruse is that Bliar will give evidence. It may as well be my dog! We are now told that this farce may last until 2011 - long after the 'grinning spiv' Bliar has been annointed as President of the Soviet Union of Europe.

Will the repellent and socially inept 'Clown' Brown be asked to give evidence as to why he refused to fund the illegal adventure?

Will the equally repulsive Mr. Mandelson be quizzed? - it may confidently assumed he was involved somewhere or other.

Why? why? why? Why have we had this disgusting government destroying our nation for over twelve, TWELVE, years? What have we done to deserve this?
 
#14
lsquared said:
Why? why? why? Why have we had this disgusting government destroying our nation for over twelve, TWELVE, years? What have we done to deserve this?
Because people kept voting for them.

Partly it's because most people are slow to accept that such powerful authority figures would lie to them as flagrantly and brazenly as they have.

I've heard some of my older relatives refusing to believe that certain things happened (like dodgy intelligence dossiers) on the grounds 'don't be silly, the Prime Minister wouldn't do something like that, it would be illegal, and besides, the civil servants involved wouldn't go along with it'.

The UK must have been a different place when they were young.

It's also true that the proportion of the public who are now dependent on 'big government' for all, or a substantial part of, their income is quite substantial now. It's almost as if Labour managed to reach a critical mass of the population who were scared of voting for a party with tax cutting instincts because their own Benefits/NHS/DWP/Local govt. job would be put in danger
 
#15
interestednovice said:
lsquared said:
Why? why? why? Why have we had this disgusting government destroying our nation for over twelve, TWELVE, years? What have we done to deserve this?
Because people kept voting for them.

Partly it's because most people are slow to accept that authority figures would lie to them as flagrantly and brazenly as they have.

I've heard some of my older relatives refusing to believe that certain things happened (like dodgy intelligence dossiers) on the grounds 'don't be silly, the Prime Minister wouldn't do something like that, it would be illegal, and besides, the civil servants involved wouldn't go along with it'.

The UK must have been a different place when they were young.

It's also true that the proportion of the public who are now dependent on 'big government' for all, or a substantial part of, their income is quite substantial now. It's almost as if Labour managed to reach a critical mass of the population who were scared of voting for a party with tax cutting instincts because their own Benefits/NHS/DWP/Local govt. job would be put in danger

Neue Arbiet are working straight from the Adolph Hitler book of Government…




"…All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.…"


—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X
 
#16
I am hopeful some mud will stick this time.

Chilcot appears to realise that a "proper" inquiry is needed, despite Brown's desperate attempt at a fix.

The questioning today from the media was along the lines of "this won't be a whitewash, will it....will Bliar be called to give evidence....will this all be in public....what about the Cabinet legal advice....etc."

If the door is closed, or if questions are fudged, the media will be onto this. Every accusation of whitewash will be a few thousand Labour stay-at-homes come election time.

There is no longer the "constitutional risk" of an inquiry toppling a prime minister.

Chilcott was clear that there is no need for evidence on oath because an untruth would result in terminal public disgrace.

The tail end of the inquiry is likely to be under a Tory government and Tory led Parliament...they have a chance to nail down the coffin lid of New Labour forever.

Remember - if you hear things that don't ring true from your own military experience, then write to the inquiry to correct the record. Body armour, lack of NBC kit, UORs that are delayed. I've already written to Hague with my (boring) recollections of pre-war planning and UORs.
 
#17
MrPVRd said:
If the door is closed, or if questions are fudged, the media will be onto this.
What sort of safeguards will mean that key parts of intelligence service's procedures and records can't be called as evidence?

What's to stop Blair and other people being questioned simply cooking up documents to demonstrate that some made up excuse is true? They did that before, with the cooperation of civil servants. Have the people who did that left the relevant departments yet, or are they still in senior posts?

In the unlikely event that the inquiry finds that: 'Actually, yes the Prime Minister and several members of his cabinet just lied and managed to get some ambitious members of the foreign office and intelligence services to help him do it', what will the punishment be ?

Mandelson was caught committing fraud, and then later abusing public office to help some wealthy foreign businessmen. He had a jaunt in a highly paid unelected European post and now carries the title 'Lord' is apparently the most powerful man in the UK government.

Would it even be theoretically possible for Blair to face any kind of criminal trial, or would the fact that the evidence for said trial had already been discussed in public mean that any judge would be forced to conclude that it was no longer possible for him to face a fair criminal trial ?

I'm willing to bet that the outcome will be a general discussion of how documents were improperly handled, errors of judgement were made and that important lessons have been learned. Blair will continue with the 7 figure income that funds his massive new home in Central London, and maybe get to be EU president in a couple of years.

I hope that the Tories do unseat New Labour, but I don't expect much noise from them once the whitewash is published. They must have known that much of what was being said about Saddam Hussein's UK-threatening WMDs was nonsense at the time (most ordinary people I knew did, that's why the demonstrations in London were so large), and they didn't say a dicky-bird then.
 
#18
As I've said before, no one will ever be satisfied with the results of this enquiry, for the simple reason that the truth, whatever it is, never matches up to people's internal hype. As can be seen from this thread, people are already getting their excuses in early about why it won't be fair - all without a shred of evidence to back up their claims. If anyone had an even remotely open mind, they would reserve judgement until we were at least a couple of months into the hearings. That many can't even do that shows that they are so emotionally committed to conclusions they have reached for themselves they feel the need to build a wall of denial before they even know what they are setting themselves up to deny.
 
#19
Auld-Yin said:
Prior to Bliar taking the stand Chilcott will be told exactly what questions Bliar is willing to answer and probably what the answer will be.
Yes, quite so, prepared questions followed by prepared answers, exit Bliar laughing. :x :x :x
 
#20
I understand the cynicism (we've been here before a few times) but there are significant differences to this inquiry:

...it is the fag-end of a dying Labour government
...the Tories have been pushing hard on this, as have the Lib Dems, and will be in power at some point during the inquiry, and wi
...most of the principal figures are no longer in positions of authority
...much of the evidence has already emerged and the jigsaw is largely put together
...there are plenty of people who were involved and who will give their side of the account
...the media and the public demand a robust enquiry and will hound Chilcot and the government even harder if the whitewash tin is opened
...Brown doesn't really care that much about the fate of Blair, and other Labour figures immune from damage will see some merit in a cathartic inquiry

It's not just the tinfoil hat brigade who are still angry....1million people marched in 2002