Tony ignored Goldsmith...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Snoreador, Jan 21, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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.
  5. Nothings changed. Nor will it change.
    Tony the Teflon **** will not be held accountable, no matter what the inquiry says.
  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!
  9. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    They just don't have the skills needed as questioners. Not nearly. And nor do they whip him in when he does depart on one of his diatribes.
  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. 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.
  13. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    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. Blair? Ashamed?
    Now thats a funny notion. The man has absolutely no thought that he could be wrong, ever.