Chilcot report..

[Consumer dude]

When is this likely to be published ?

[citizenB]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/18/chilcot-pressure-leaked-blair-bush-iraq-memo

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3278572/Will-Chilcot-delayed-push-report-include-memo-hints-former-ambassador.html

 

 

Iraq Inquiry chairman Sir John is expected to say next week that his controversial report will finally be published by next summer – although one report yesterday suggested it could slip until 2017.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3278572/Will-Chilcot-delayed-push-report-include-memo-hints-former-ambassador.html#ixzz3p1vK3Kpp

 

 

No time soon, by the looks of things !

[Consumer dude]

Usless ain't it..

[unclebulgaria67]

I think he recently said all responses to those criticised had been received and it was now a case of completing the report, but could not say when this would be . one of the committee died and another has had ill health.

 

There is no doubt Blair/Bush wanted regime change, but Blair could not gain support for it in his party or in parliament. So then the WMD argument and UN security council resolutions came into play, making it sound that Saddam was a present danger to the world and could use WMD's.

 

I was in favour of the Iraq war, but years later i now see the mess of removing dictators without thinking what might follow. The number of deaths that have occured as a result, are much worse than they probably would have been if Saddam had stayed for awhile longer. We might not have ISIL and the other terrorist groups in the region. Saddam might have been removed by his own people, without intervention by western forces.

[tobyjugg2]

Even the BBC :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24730270

[unclebulgaria67]

Wars just seem to cause consequences that could not be anticipated. Jeremy Corbyn might well strike lucky that his anti war views could chime with the British people who are fed up with UK armed forces being used when not in the countries interest, come at a huge cost and may make matters worse.

 

Canada have just elected a PM who is against Canadian forces being used when Canadian interests are not clear and we might see them withdraw from western coalition missions.

[Consumer dude]

It has just been reported that the report is due to be published in June or July of next year..

[BarnOwl1]

It has just been reported that the report is due to be published in June or July of next year..

 

The cover up continues no doubt Blairs been greasing palms again.

[citizenB]

The cover up continues no doubt Blairs been greasing palms again.

 

Well he has got his Spin in and I wonder whether George W Bush will also be allowed to influence any final report ?

[BarnOwl1]

Well he has got his Spin in and I wonder whether George W Bush will also be allowed to influence any final report ?

 

I suspect there's some heavy editing/redacting going on.

What we've heard from Blair was just waffle blaming everyone

else for the Iraq war.

[silverfox1961]

What's the betting when next June/July arrives, there will be another delay.

 

The report will be sent to the security services to make sure that no state secrets are included. No doubt they will sit on it until they are ready.

 

I did see a comment that the report contains more words than the entire collected works of Shakespeare! Business as usual then.

[unclebulgaria67]

It won't be delayed again, as too many complaints about delays have been made. I suspect that when it comes out, it won't criticise anyone too much. It will seek to spread blame for what happened. It is clear that Bush was driving action and Blair was committed to involving UK forces, while saying he had to convince opponents. Then you get some of the dodgy information, Blair making decisions with supportive colleagues and keeping out opponents such as Robin Cook and Claire Short. I think Cook resigned and Short made statements saying she was unhappy resigning later.

 

Blair was convinced of interventionist policies before 9/11 and made speeches about it. This followed actions in the Balkans and Sierra Leone. Then 9/11 happens and Bush is onboard with a 'war on terror' with Afghanistan and Iraq actions planned. With Iraq, i guess that they believed there was a problem in Saddam getting hold of or using WMD's against other countries, including US/UK interests.

 

The danger without an an early intervention policy, is that you end up with Syria, which is a total mess. It is arguable that had US, Russia and others had intervened with actions to get a ceasefire between the various sides, that they would not be in this situation. For an intervention policy to work, there has to be a threat of some military actions e.g stop Assads forces targetting civilian areas.

[citizenB]

I think most of Blair's decisions were made with just a select few including Alastair Campbell. I don't think so much power/input should be allowed to an unelected official

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/blog/2010/jan/12/iraq-war-inquiry-alastaircampbell

[unclebulgaria67]

I think most of Blair's decisions were made with just a select few including Alastair Campbell. I don't think so much power/input should be allowed to an unelected official

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/blog/2010/jan/12/iraq-war-inquiry-alastaircampbell

 

The select few would have included senior Tories, who were more in favour of action than many Labour MP's.

 

Alastair Campbell was just doing a job as communications director. But he became too much a political figure, rather than just relay information and manage media relations.

 

The biggest problem caused by Iraq, is that the UN is now irrelevant. Since then, they have not been involved in any significant actions to try to stop conflicts. You need to have some central political forum, where they can attempt to gain agreements on actions needed.