Chilcott report

[Shake me up Judy]

That's at least somewhere near the truth P.K. Let's not forget either, as everyone seems to be doing, that the Chilcott report is all hindsight too; despite it's presumed authority (essential for its authenticity) of foresight and after the fact knowledge of predictable and forseeable consequences. I'm convinced by its findings but it's still hindsight. The war certainly was a mistake in its timing, execution and consequences - a clusterfuck indeed - but the case against Saddam was multifold and convincing. It still is.

[P.K.]

Steady on SMUJ, this is MF where the basic facts of the matter are an anathema to the opinionated denizens who seem to thrive on here.

 

The expression "everyone has 20-20 hindsight" is singularly appropriate....

[paswt]

not quite " everyone" perhaps

[P.K.]

Or perhaps not....

[Chinahand]

My understanding is that a sufficient number of MPs feel that Blair made claims to Parliament about the robustness of the intelligence which did not match the intelligence assessments he was recieving.

 

IE it is claimed the spooks told him the intelligence was sparse, patchy and unclear, but points to Saddam having ongoing WMD programs and an aspiration to re-invigorate them if he could. Blair twisted this saying it was clear and unequivocal that Saddam's WMD programs were a live and ongoing threat.

 

I've defended Blair in the past as I understood that the spooks agreed Saddam's WMDs were a threat - Blair didn't lie about the conclusions of their intelligence assessments: and that conclusion - Saddam's WMDs were an ongoing issue - was shared by the Yanks, the French and even the Russians.

 

The point now being made is more subtle.

 

No, Blair didn't lie about the intelligence conclusions - but he did exaggerate their robustness. The various dossiers etc omitted the caveats and intelligence imprecision was presented as a clear picture of a threat.

 

I would have to go back and look at verbatim quotes from Blair and the various dossiers etc and how they compared to the intelligence reports - none of the investigations have made a clear statement on this - though all of them from Chilcot to Hutton have basically been spun by Blair etc to have cleared them of lying etc.

 

The public mood is basically against subtlety here and just want to go at Blair - my own feeling is that the robustness of the intelligence was spun by Blair and Alistair Campbell ensured the media presentation was even more crude to encourage a drumbeat to war.

 

Is that a crime? I'm not sure, but probably enough MPs are now in a hanging mood and see Blair as easy bait.

 

It's a difficult issue - it will definitely make future PMs far more cautious. Many would say that is a good thing, but maybe not. Making decisions in uncertainty when you will be judged and hung via hindsight is a pretty brutal process.

 

Parliament needs to fully understand the consequences of what they are doing. I'm sure many will say too right - get the Bastard, but it will effect how the UK is able to make decisions in extremis for a generation.

[P.K.]

Sure but intelligence is just that - intelligence. It's not factual or proven or anything - it's just intelligence.

 

Of course, all the pathetic Blair-bashers jump on this as if it's somehow "proof" that it was somehow illegal or whatever bollocks they can dream up.

 

Saddam invaded two of his neighbours and probably killed a million Pasdaran with WMD.

 

A city of the dead.

 

And still the wankers on here are baying for blood.

 

They're just pathetic...

[woolley]

 

Parliament needs to fully understand the consequences of what they are doing. I'm sure many will say too right - get the Bastard, but it will effect how the UK is able to make decisions in extremis for a generation.

If the intelligence had matched his enthusiasm for jumping on board with the war then it wouldn't have been a problem, even if it had gone wrong in the execution. I don't think censure by parliament in this case would hamper future decision making. It would though make those in high office think very carefully before misleading parliament and I think it is pretty clear parliament was misled. Surely that would be a worthwhile marker to put down?

[Albert Tatlock]

PK, your attitude of kinda...'if you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined up' stinks. This guy misled parliament, even his own cabinet.

 

Total abuse of power and HM Forces. He should be hung out to dry.

[P.K.]

Errr I thought you were ex-forces where the "if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined" mantra was prevalent as it was in my day.

 

Total abuse of power - total bs. Some people have to make unbelievably difficult decisions and then the planks have to go and get hard, ugly things done. Not because anyone wants to, but because they have to.

 

It's called living in the real world...

[Albert Tatlock]

You might be sitting pretty having taken the joke...meanwhile 1900 have not.

[notwell]

I think everyone who joins the forces knows the risk of dying is far more likely to be in this type of conflict than fighting on your own shores. People go in to the Forces with their eyes open surely? I know I did.

 

Blair is a popular scapegoat here. I doubt he took any decisions lightly. It's a hell of a responsibility.

[Albert Tatlock]

Any prime minister that deceives parliament and his own cabinet deserves his day in court.

[Shake me up Judy]

A touch of arrogant certainty there Albert. I prefer the fuck-up theory of history. What did Blair have to gain by lying to Parliament and his cabinet ? Build me a convincing case as to why he did it, if you're so convinced, or is it just your intuition ? Let's try a few counter-factuals:

 

Just imagine, for argument's sake, that the war had largely been a success, as it had been in the early stages. Saddam gone and the support of most of the competing Iraqi peoples and interests. Elections had taken place (as they did) and the new Iraqi government largely had consent and legitimacy. Despite some local tensions, the Kurds had semi-autonomy, the tribes shared power, the troops had gone home as they had after the Gulf War, and peace generally droppeth slow over the region. Unlikely I know, but is it really that much more speculative than the consequence in hindsight, and after the fact theory of history ?

 

Blair would've been a hero.

 

The U.N. would never have supported action, whatever conditions had been met. It's an organisation of competing powers and regional self-interest, just like everybody and everything else. They wouldn't even have backed action against Hitler (Just think about it) never mind Saddam.

 

Even if the war had been delayed for six months or a year; to allow more time, more planning, more weapons inspections, more resolutions, better equipment, better reasons, U.N. forces involvement etc; do you honestly think that the unforseeable outcomes really would've been significantly better ? Wouldn't it have been just like Afghanistan where full legitimacy and conditions were largely met yet the result was still a costly and bloody mess ? Isn't that what nearly always happens, whatever the justification and case for war ?

 

What if Saddam had been left in power ? I don't think even Chilcot dared to ask that question. Because he didn't have to. Blair did though....

[Declan]

I also take a cock-up view rather than Blair being mendacious. BUT I think he lied to Parliament and Cabinet because he was certain in is own mind and unconsciously found the facts that supported it and discounted other information that didn't fit his viewpoint. Once he'd had reached this point he set about making a case to win an argument and this was what was put to Parliament rather than an objective assessment. He tricked himself into believing that attacking the Iraq was in the national interest then he felt duty bound to persuade others of his case.

[woolley]

I also take a cock-up view rather than Blair being mendacious. BUT I think he lied to Parliament and Cabinet because he was certain in is own mind and unconsciously found the facts that supported it and discounted other information that didn't fit his viewpoint. Once he'd had reached this point he set about making a case to win an argument and this was what was put to Parliament rather than an objective assessment. He tricked himself into believing that attacking the Iraq was in the national interest then he felt duty bound to persuade others of his case.

I think this is true and also he was carried away with hubris. I remember seeing Bush and Blair at the Azores conference prior to the war and thinking then how obvious it was that there would be a disaster. Evidently not obvious to Blair.