The Chilcot Inquiry: The final judgement on Tony Blair

40 posts / 0 new
Last post
iyraste1313
The Chilcot Inquiry: The final judgement on Tony Blair

...from Middle East Monitor....

 

It’s unlikely that the Chilcot Inquiry will provide meaning to an enormous personal loss, but will it at least heal the political and social trauma caused by Tony Blair? To mend Iraq’s wounds in any meaningful way there has to be a sense that justice has been seen to be done for what was a deception of enormous magnitude and consequence. The final judgement of Tony Blair has to be nigh.......

May all the war criminals receive their final justice...let us remember the war criminals in Canada responsible for the wars in Libya and The Autonomous Republics of Ukraine!

Issues Pages: 
NDPP

AND IRAQ.

"It's completely false to say Canada did not participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

As Richard Sanders has detailed, dozens of Canadian troops were integrated in US units fighting in Iraq; US warplanes en route to that country refueled in Newfoundland;

With Canadian naval vessels leading maritime interdiction efforts off the coast of Iraq, Ottawa had legal opinion saying it was technically at war with that country;

Canadian fighter pilots participated in 'training missions' in Iraq; three different Canadian generals oversaw tens of of thousands of international troops there;

Canadian aid flowed to this country in support of US policy. As such, some have concluded that Canada was the fifth or sixth biggest contributor to the US-led war.

Like Iraq, the partial activist victories regarding South Africa and Chile have been twisted to reinforce the idea that Canadian foreign policy is benevolent.

And this myth, which obscures the corporate and geostrategic interests that overwhelmingly drive Canadian foreign poliicy, is an obstacle to building effective opposition to Ottawa's destructive role in international affairs..."

Yves Engler: Canada's Secretive Role in Iraq

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/29/canadas-secretive-role-in-iraq/

lagatta

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/04/phone-call-bush-bl...

Blair knew Iraq would be his epitaph. But he dared not defy Bush

So many involved in the UK, US and elsewhere. Including Hillary Clinton and the Blairites attacking Corbyn...

As for Engler, he is correct to say that the Canadian government was complicit in Iraq in many ways, as it was in Vietnam. But his comment is more than a bit of a slight to the activists who mobilised like hell in bitterly cold weather to keep Canada out of the "Coalition".

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta wrote:

As for Engler, he is correct to say that the Canadian government was complicit in Iraq in many ways, as it was in Vietnam. But his comment is more than a bit of a slight to the activists who mobilised like hell in bitterly cold weather to keep Canada out of the "Coalition".

I have been trying to make the point that Canada was involved in that war for a very long time so I don't feel slighted rather I support anyone who speaks the truth about our status in the American empire.

As one of those activists who rallied against that war I think Canada needs to face the real truth. Canada has been at war since Iraq and many people think we had a major effect on Canada's foreign policy. Sometimes the truth hurts especially when it involves ones self image as a progressive.

 

lagatta
josh

"I will be with you [Bush] whatever." 

quizzical

what happens now?

Caissa

I am watching Balir's press conference online.

sherpa-finn

quizzical wrote:

what happens now?

If I wanted to hazard a guess, I would say "Pffffftttttt..."

Given all that is happening in the UK these days, I would say that Blair has been saved by a Brexit. I just don't think that (apart from a few likely legal cases filed by aggrieved families of deceased soldiers), there will be the political energy to do anything much with this, now.

Though the SNP may well run with it as another reason for Scottish independence. 

josh

quizzical wrote:

what happens now?

This verdict will, rightfully, blacken his name in history.  Although I'm sure there will be revisionists who will try to make the case that he acted to restrain Bush.  Meanwhile, the Labour Party, which should be hanging its head in shame, is busy not going after Blair, and Blairism, but against Corbyn, who stood up to Blair.

lagatta

Robin Cook's grave in Edinburgh: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=21968595

"I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war".

bekayne
bekayne

lagatta wrote:

Robin Cook's grave in Edinburgh: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=21968595

"I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9CqiiI2Irg

Unionist

Sorry for not reading this report. Life is short.

From all the reports, it's obviously a whitewash - a coverup - useless. It says nothing you and I didn't know in 2003. Absolutely nothing.

Furthermore:

1. It doesn't say Blair lied.

2. It doesn't say the U.K.'s invasion of Iraq and slaughter of countless Iraqis was unlawful.

What a pathetic and transparent fraud.

If the U.S. were not such a brutal dictatorship, and if they ever allowed a Chilcot-style report on Bush and Powell's actions, this is how it would read.

Peace, respect for international law and sovereignty will come from people's struggle, not from knights of the realm like Sir John.

josh

Jeremy Corbyn MPVerified account ‏@jeremycorbyn

I now apologise sincerely on behalf of my party for the disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

bekayne wrote:

lagatta wrote:

Robin Cook's grave in Edinburgh: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=21968595

"I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9CqiiI2Irg

I think it is Corbyn sitting just above Cook's right shoulder in this video.

bekayne

Michael Moriarity wrote:

bekayne wrote:

lagatta wrote:

Robin Cook's grave in Edinburgh: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=21968595

"I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9CqiiI2Irg

I think it is Corbyn sitting just above Cook's right shoulder in this video.

Yes it is

lagatta

Definitely Corbyn, who has aged a lot, but then, so has Blair.

bekayne

bekayne

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-offered-chance-f...

Under an hour later, Blair held his own press conference in Admiralty House. He looked crushed, a shrunken skull peering out of a dark suit towards a hostile audience. A man flayed and laid utterly bare. “I accept full responsibility without exception and without excuse,” he began. “We got it wrong. I feel sorrow and regret. More than many of you will ever know or believe.” So far, so good.

The sorrow, though, appeared to be mainly for himself as he battled to save remorse sliding into hubris. When he had told George Bush “I will be with you, whatever,” in July 2002, what he had actually meant was “I will be with you. Whateva.” The responsibility for the Iraq war lay entirely with the American president’s failure to understand the British sense of irony.

Not forgetting a psychotic, narcissistic breakdown. Me, me, me. The war hadn’t been about the 179 British soldiers and several hundred thousand Iraqis who died. It had been about him all along. Did people not understand how difficult the decision had been for him? And did people still not understand the decision had been absolutely correct, and that God had personally told him that countless more lives had been saved by going to war than had been lost in it? For Tony is an honourable man.

Yes, there were one or two things he could have done better. He could have had one or two more cabinet meetings prior to going to war and in hindsight he wished he had done that. Tony’s eyes burned with the conviction of martyrdom. He wasn’t a naughty boy, he was the Messiah. And he was heaven-bent on carrying on fighting a war he had long ago lost.

 

bekayne
bekayne

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/06/chilcot-report-tony-blair-told-georg...

Consider this July 28, 2002, letter from Blair to George W. Bush. The first thing you’ll notice is its tone: It sounds like an adult trying to placate a heavily armed 8-year-old. “I will be with you, whatever,” Blair writes. “Getting rid of Saddam is the right thing to do.” But, he writes, “Suppose it got militarily tricky.” And suppose “the Iraqis feel ambivalent about being invaded.” Blair suggests Bush not go it alone. “If we win quickly, everyone will be our friend.”

lagatta

Well it was, in terms of brain power. Which doesn't excuse Blair, on the contrary. Put him in the dock.

Unionist

It's a fucking whitewash. It's all over. Blair walks. Unbelievable.

 

mark_alfred

One thing Blair said was that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.  Trump reacted to this by saying that he disagreed and felt that it was the wrong thing to do. 

Quote:

"Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? ... But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good," Trump said. "They didn't read `em the rights, they didn't talk. They were a terrorist, it was over."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-saddam-hussein-1.3666449

swallow swallow's picture

Terms of reference always suggested it woudl avoid the real questions - but it's encouraging to see the rise in calls for Blair to be indicted as a war criminal. Activists should use the evidence in this report to keep on fighting for justice. The beginning rather than the end of this story? 

josh

I would have thought that Blair would have defended himself by saying that when he said, "I will be with you, whatever," he meant, I'll be with you. Whatever.

 

Unionist

swallow wrote:

Activists should use the evidence in this report to keep on fighting for justice. 

Help me out here, because I'm having trouble sifting through bombastic misleading MSM noise, and I'm not about to read this report.

Is there one significant finding of fact that was not publicly known by (say) the end of 2003?

I'm not saying there isn't. I'm saying I'd like to know what these new facts are. Then we can assess whether we can "use the evidence in this report to keep on fighting for justice".

 

iyraste1313

...the death of NATO...

 

The UK must pursue a “more open and more independent relationship” with the US in order to avoid repeating the errors of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn has said.

Following the release of the long-awaited Chilcot report, Jeremy Corbyn savaged Britain’s involvement in the military intervention, describing it “an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext,” which had “devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society” and unleashed “lethal sectarianism within the country.”

“The war was not, in any way, as Sir John Chilcot says, a last resort,” Corbyn told the House of Commons.

“Frankly it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext, as the inquiry accepts, and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion.”

The opposition leader added that “there are many lessons that need to be drawn from the Iraq war.

“They include the need for a more open and independent relationship with the United States and for a foreign policy based on upholding international law and the authority of the United Nations.”

quizzical

iyraste1313 wrote:
...the death of NATO...

i don't think so.

swallow swallow's picture

Unionist wrote:

swallow wrote:

Activists should use the evidence in this report to keep on fighting for justice. 

Help me out here, because I'm having trouble sifting through bombastic misleading MSM noise, and I'm not about to read this report.

Is there one significant finding of fact that was not publicly known by (say) the end of 2003?

I'm not saying there isn't. I'm saying I'd like to know what these new facts are. Then we can assess whether we can "use the evidence in this report to keep on fighting for justice".

What's new is that the facts are confirmed by a govenrment-authorized inquiry and on the front pages. I read in the mainstream papers about people in the UK and Iraq calling for war criems cahrges agaisnt Tomy Blair. 

This strikes me as a useful campaigning tool. 

Chilcot was never going to condemn Blair - the inquiry terms of reference didn't permit it. But Blair is being condemned by public and even media opinion. It creates a new window of opportunity. 

Establishment reports never do anything, in my view. But they boldter "credibility" and effectiveness for non-governmental campaigners, over time. 

Unionist

Thanks swallow. But I was looking for a single new finding - anything. This whitewash will pass, and nothing will change, unfortunately. Tony Blair will be recorded as having made an error of judgment. There will be no charges, no trials - and in fact, no withdrawal of British troops from the murderous aggressive actions that they are still engaged in to this day.

Only mass action, of the sort that we organized 13 years ago (like, 150,000 in Montréal saying no to war) will change anything. Mark my words, please. 

swallow swallow's picture

Only action will change anything. Absolutely. Of course. 

Orange Crushed

Unionist wrote:

Thanks swallow. But I was looking for a single new finding - anything. This whitewash will pass, and nothing will change, unfortunately. Tony Blair will be recorded as having made an error of judgment. There will be no charges, no trials - and in fact, no withdrawal of British troops from the murderous aggressive actions that they are still engaged in to this day.

Only mass action, of the sort that we organized 13 years ago (like, 150,000 in Montréal saying no to war) will change anything. Mark my words, please. 

 

Were the mass marches succesful at stopping the wars either? 

The whitewash is that it supported the line that Blair's decision was based on some poor judgement and shaky intelligence, rather than willful deceit, based on political considerations, maufacturing false evidence to justify this unjustifiable war.  Yes.  And Blair clearly refuses to admit even that last point.  That could hurt his loyalists cause though, and it does bring some official verdict against him, which allows the Corbyn wing to call him out.  And hopefully give more strength to voices for ending these wars. 

bekayne

p.jpg

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

Plans to exploit Iraq’s oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world’s largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain’s involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair’s cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK’s involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as “highly inaccurate”. BP denied that it had any “strategic interest” in Iraq, while Tony Blair described “the oil conspiracy theory” as “the most absurd”.

quote:

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq’s reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.

Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington’s main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.

Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on the Fire is published next week, said: “Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq’s oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.

“We see that oil was in fact one of the Government’s most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize.”

iyraste1313

Thanks for this! May the accomplices in this war crime, the war crime of all war crimes, be brought to justice, including the oil company management!

quizzical

epaulo13 wrote:
Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

Plans to exploit Iraq’s oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world’s largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

i never believed this was true over the last decade. didn't think they could possibly get away with use tax funded military to do their dirty work for profit. fascism...

this is our future if we continue to build it on profit corporatism. unending wars over exploitable territory.

this is Canada's future when they want our water.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

iyraste1313 wrote:

Thanks for this! May the accomplices in this war crime, the war crime of all war crimes, be brought to justice, including the oil company management!

So what political body do you think should do this? Should they be from an elected government and if so how does that fit with not engaging in electoral politics because its all a crock?

iyraste1313

First this is a judicial matter, which means an international court!

But by the way I do not suggest we do not engage in electoral politics, but recognizing its nature, be creative about it, build political movements not political parties.....

...

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr speaks at Friday prayers in Kufa, 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, May 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Alaa al-Marjani)

The leader of Al-Sadr movement in Iraq, Moqtada Al-Sadr in a statement calling for filing a lawsuit against the British government in the wake of Chilcot report.

“Even if the Iraqi government did not follow up the issue, it, the country’s judiciary to pursue the case and we’ll stand by its side and provide the necessary support.” Al-Sadr said.

Legal expert Tareq Harb, following publication of Chilcot report, said Britain as a result of its involvement in the invasion of Iraq, must compensate the Iraqi government for what happened in Iraq during 2003 US-British invasion.......

...this is very important news! A political movement in Canada ought to enage in support of such a legal action to prosecute the Canadian military for its role in the Iraqi invasion...hopefully our turn eventually will come...when we are tried for our political support for the Libyan invasion, the Haitian and Honduran et al coups...not to mention opur government support for all manner of ecocidal (mining!) projects globally!!