Tony ignored Goldsmith...

S

Snoreador

Guest
#1
... no surprises there, but:

"Tony Blair has said he disregarded Lord Goldsmith's warning that attacking Iraq would be illegal without further UN backing because it was "provisional".

The ex-PM said he believed his top legal officer would change his position on whether a second UN resolution was needed when he knew the full details."

So, let's take an expert opinion, and disregard it as it is bound to change. Nice one!

(c) Auntie: BBC News - Iraq legal advice was 'provisional' - Tony Blair
 
#2
Our 'Teflon Tony' probably thought that he was President of These Here United States of Great Britain..... He always looked like he desperately wanted to be 'Something More' than just a common or garden Prime Minister.......
 
#3
let's not get too excited

It was legal 'advice', there is no defintive way of judging the legality or not of what occurs since it depends on the interpretation of UNSC resolutions

The US legal advice was always that action was justifield under the original UN resolution, reativated because of Iraq's refusal to act within the cease fire resolution requirments

So there you have two legal views - then there are loads of others
 
#4
So what has changed? Tony sent us to war to further his own personal agenda and against all good advice and common sense. We knew that already.
 
#6
Interesting spin on whether by ignoring his (Goldsmith's) legal advice he was effectively mis-leading the House of Commons. He claims that his statement to the House was a political statement not a legal one. Yeah - go figure!!

The questioning today is more searching but he has admitted in one statement that he has had pre-warning of the questions allowing him to prepare documents.

Every time he is faced with a searching or awkward question he starts with his best "trust me - I'm a straight kind of guy" look and then lauches with "listen...", "you know..." or "what you need to understand" he then goes off at a tangent coming back to Saddam was a bad man and we needed to do something.

The panel are still too polite and willing to let him waffle on avoiding the questions and justifying himself.
 
#7
Nice sun tan Tony, can't beleive the arrogance of him after so much time, enrages me even more now....
Blair's tactics - limit the time you are available with plenty of breaks and then fill that time with your own pre-rehearsed guff.
Cowardly and shameful!
What a waste of skin indeed!!
 
#8
and i quote from the telegraph....

Peter Oborne, writing in the Daily Telegraph blog says: "Essentially, this is a panel with no forensic skills. It asks long, discursive questions which enable Tony Blair to choose which bit he wants to deal with and go off on a tangent of his own. Even a parliamentary committee would do better than this. As for Mr Blair, he comes across as tanned, expensively groomed, fluent - and evasive."

no further comment from this location - out!
 
#10
Just what is this Inquiry achieving? Months and months of legal waffle and technical jargon. The return of the messiah today was so frustrating to watch. They never laid a glove on him. The only time he looked remotely phased was towards the end when the relatives tried to throw back his worthless expressions of regret and were then swiftly shut up by Chilcott.
In my opinion, a complete waste of taxpayers money.
 
#11
I agree this is a waste of money and just lining pockets with public dosh which will achieve the square root of sweet FA. Please remind me again who set up this inquiry and more importantly defined its parameters and inquisitors?
 
#12
let's not get too excited

It was legal 'advice', there is no defintive way of judging the legality or not of what occurs since it depends on the interpretation of UNSC resolutions

The US legal advice was always that action was justifield under the original UN resolution, reativated because of Iraq's refusal to act within the cease fire resolution requirments

So there you have two legal views - then there are loads of others
Cobblers.

The UK prime minister is subject to UK law only. US legal advice has the same utility as Martian legal advice in this context.

Blair elected to disregard the single most authoritative source of legal advice available to him. He should be ashamed.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#13
As Blair is not only a lawyer but a very skilled debater and public speaker, I would have expected somebody equally skilled and qualified facing him, he seems able to manipulate these amateur panelists too easily.
It is not a trial so we cannot expect the panel not to be nice to him, but they could have questioned with more precision, been firmer on exact answers and prepared various strategies and tactics to deploy depending on the answers given. They appear to be working off a prepared list (which Blair and his legal advisory team will have had chance to fully review and agree) without any tactical recourse.
 
#14
If there's any justice, the bast will catch cancer of the colon or something equally painful and terminal. That should wipe the smug look off his face.
 
#15
Cobblers.

The UK prime minister is subject to UK law only. US legal advice has the same utility as Martian legal advice in this context.

Blair elected to disregard the single most authoritative source of legal advice available to him. He should be ashamed.
Blair? Ashamed?
Now thats a funny notion. The man has absolutely no thought that he could be wrong, ever.
 
#16
Let's not p1ss about here. The reason that the Chilcott Inquiry started when it did was so that PM TB could be long away from power but still be able to decide the make up, content and format of the Inquiry. Personally, I would have liked to see PM DC stop this immediately, and reconstitute an inquiry with some back bone. Of course, once you are PM, it may be that you realise you don't want to start that sort of precedent. Particularly when you and your chancellor are toadying up to the US like there is no tomorrow.
 
#18
As Blair is not only a lawyer
IIRC he actually practised as a barrister/QC, so bending the truth in such a manner as to be able to convince a judge and jury. He's hardly going to break into a sweat with this panel of amateurs, it's like watching pygmies trying to kill an elephant by bashing it with pillows.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top