Chilcot Inquiry thread

Not really, money attracts money and gains friends. I would just love to imagine that wikkileaks will release just what Bush offered Blair and put paid to the fool once and for all. We are beginning to find out just what a hopeless case Blair as PM was and it wasn't just Iraq
We may have a different definition of 'friend'.
My one is of someone who will stand by despite disagreeing with you and despite you having no job etc.
It is quite possibly something Socialists don't understand as they see people as objects.
Quite possibly why they have no concept of free will.
 
Not really, money attracts money and gains "HANGERS ON". I would just love to imagine that wikkileaks will release just what Bush offered Blair and put paid to the fool once and for all. We are beginning to find out just what a hopeless case Blair as PM was and it wasn't just Iraq

My bold, more likely to attract sycophants who want to use that "friendship" to further their own cause.
 
We may have a different definition of 'friend'.
My one is of someone who will stand by despite disagreeing with you and despite you having no job etc.
It is quite possibly something Socialists don't understand as they see people as objects.
Quite possibly why they have no concept of free will.
No we don't, you know exactly what I mean- be potless and ugly like me and see how many friends you have.
 
Two things spring to mind from what I have read of Chilcot.

1. Blair's promise to Bush - "we are with you whatever". This was an open ended commitment regardless of the consequences and without approval of the UK Parliament. Possibly one of the stupidest made by any PM for a very long time.

2. Blair's "emotionalism" just proved he was unfit to be PM. To misquote Mark Twain "Don't let the facts get in the way of my emotions".
 
Last edited:
Two things spring to mind on what I have read of Chilcot.

1. Blair's promise to Bush - "we are with you whatever". This was an open ended commitment regardless of the consequences and without approval of the UK Parliament. Possibly one of the stupidest made by any PM for a very long time
He obviously never understood the implications of the SEA and the Europeans didn't either otherwise they'd have chucked us out and that would have been a disast..........Oh hang on a minute. Then we wouldn't have have had Lisbon
 
Two things spring to mind on what I have read of Chilcot.

1. Blair's promise to Bush - "we are with you whatever". This was an open ended commitment regardless of the consequences and without approval of the UK Parliament. Possibly one of the stupidest made by any PM for a very long time.

2. Blair's "emotionalism" just proved he was unfit to be PM. To misquote Mark Twain "Don't let the facts get in the way of my emotions".
Chilcot's comment on the note:
"You mustn't say that!"

CS speak for "You F@#$$# Cretin!"
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
The qn to me is did Chilcot (and Blair) not grasp that the battlefield WMD that Saddam might or might not have had at 45 minutes notice were NO THREAT to the UK, and were only a threat to our people if we started a war and thus were on the battlefield? Nobody with any authority called Blair out on this at the time although it is beyond belief that serving senior officers couldn't graps what a retired officer could see from his armchair.
 
The qn to me is did Chilcot (and Blair) not grasp that the battlefield WMD that Saddam might or might not have had at 45 minutes notice were NO THREAT to the UK, and were only a threat to our people if we started a war and thus were on the battlefield? Nobody with any authority called Blair out on this at the time although it is beyond belief that serving senior officers couldn't graps what a retired officer could see from his armchair.
The issue was, I think, deliberately fudged for the ignorant and/or hard of thinking on the Labour benches.

Are chemical weapons a WMD? Yes.
Does Saddam have some chemicals left ? Yes.
How quickly can they be deployed? 45 minutes.
Are they any risk to the UK or UK forces? Potentially.
QED.
If the questions had been phrased 'slightly differently'
Are chemical weapons a WMD? Depends on the quantity.
Does Saddam have any chemicals left? Probably.
How quickly can they be deployed? Well, about 45 minutes to get some mortar bombs ready.
Are they any risk to the UK or UK forces? Not really.

Blair hid behind intelligence secrecy and the general ignorance of CBRN and military affairs on the Labour benches at the time.
Why the senior military officers of the day didn't say anything is another matter.
 
No, you're back to Campbell and 'tightening the language' in order to strengthen the message.

It didn't strengthen the message. It fundamentally changed it. Changed it to the point where truth was compromised.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
If only senior officers had sent carefully worded minutes upstairs explaining the reality and kept copies for Chilcot!


AFAIK the invasion was in 2004. 1SL in 2002 was Admiral West. Ennobled by Gordon Brown 2007. Before becoming 1SL he was Chief of Defence Intelligence.
 
The qn to me is did Chilcot (and Blair) not grasp that the battlefield WMD that Saddam might or might not have had at 45 minutes notice were NO THREAT to the UK, and were only a threat to our people if we started a war and thus were on the battlefield? Nobody with any authority called Blair out on this at the time although it is beyond belief that serving senior officers couldn't graps what a retired officer could see from his armchair.
@seaweed,
My bold.
This very old BBC article suggests that cyprus (and therefore British personnel) could have been hit by some of the missiles in his arsenal.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Scud: Iraq's ballistic missile
 

Latest Threads