The Chilcot Report

[LJS]

I thought we might need a thread on this. 

I know its not released until tomorrow but I see Lord Chilcot has been speaking.

And his verdict.

Chilcot says 'careful analysis needed before war'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36712735

Really Lord Chilcot? 

You don't say.

I could have told them that for a lot less than £10million.

 

[LJS]

 

[LJS]

And what was Jeremy Corbyn doing?

Oh, rebelling of course. 

tsk tsk.

[Mr.Tease]

I'm not holding my breath for this- he's spent years watering it down. 

[eFestivals]

48 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I'm not holding my breath for this- he's spent years watering it down. 

A govt inquiry a whitewash? Nah, that won't happen.

The Jezuits have been saying that the 'coup' has been about stopping Jezza criticising Blair off the back of Chilcott. I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life.

The same Jezuits are certain that demolition of Blair is coming today at PMQs. I guess they think Jezza is the world's fastest reader and with perfect recall too.

Jezza might get in an attack today, but it'll be even less of an attack by a dead sheep than the one of fame. That's the best Jezza is able of doing.

Chilcott will tell us almost nothing that we don't already know. Blair was too quick to want to go to war, the post-war planning was inadequate, and the military top-brass made endless cockups.

That's not taken me eight years or cost £10m. Perhaps I should get to do future reports...?

 

[Mr.Tease]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

A govt inquiry a whitewash? Nah, that won't happen.

The Jezuits have been saying that the 'coup' has been about stopping Jezza criticising Blair off the back of Chilcott. I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life.

The same Jezuits are certain that demolition of Blair is coming today at PMQs. I guess they think Jezza is the world's fastest reader and with perfect recall too.

Jezza might get in an attack today, but it'll be even less of an attack by a dead sheep than the one of fame. That's the best Jezza is able of doing.

Chilcott will tell us almost nothing that we don't already know. Blair was too quick to want to go to war, the post-war planning was inadequate, and the military top-brass made endless cockups.

That's not taken me eight years or cost £10m. Perhaps I should get to do future reports...?

 

The enquiry is such a farce - absolutely agree with what the conclusions will be: i.e. Shit we already know that can be summarised in 4 sentences. 

 

[Spindles]

Ah, I see we have a whole new collection of nicknames to deride people with.  I can't keep up.  Of course a proper argument would probably be better reading than name calling.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Spindles said:

Ah, I see we have a whole new collection of nicknames to deride people with.  I can't keep up.  Of course a proper argument would probably be better reading than name calling.

what? where?

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

But maybe that is all there is to know...   

I think you're a little confused.

What you really mean is: all that can be proven.

Blair may or may not have reached a private agreement with Bush to go to war, but we'll never know for certain.

[russycarps]

The extent of the humiliation of the british army is going to be embarrassing to see. We came within a mouses of pube of absolute defeat in basra until the US army rode in to our rescue. The americans were appalled by us. Blair thought iraq was a good opportunity to show off to the americans and show just what we are made of and what a strong little poodle we can be.

That went well!

[kaosmark2]

I wonder how many people that are going to start spouting opinions about it will have actually read any of it.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I wonder how many people that are going to start spouting opinions about it will have actually read any of it.

the first to spout an opinion without reading it is surely going to be Corbyn. He's been waiting all his life for today's PMQs.

I've got to say I'm quite looking forwards to it too. I reckon it won't be much like "getting savaged by a dead sheep" and more like "a gentle letter from Mrs Miggins that Tony has been naughty".

[krisskross]

Its pretty brutal so far..

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Blair getting slaughtered....

 

1 minute ago, krisskross said:

Its pretty brutal so far..

and yet it's nothing we didn't already know.

There's little attack-the-past political mileage in it for anyone.

[krisskross]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

 

and yet it's nothing we didn't already know.

There's little attack-the-past political mileage in it for anyone.

There is a difference between whats commonly said / known and having it written in a formal enquiry.

[GlastoSimon]

To be fair the general consensus ranged from Blair being 'misguided' to 'war criminal', so there's no really shocking opinions from the summary.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, krisskross said:

There is a difference between whats commonly said / known and having it written in a formal enquiry.

I don't really think there's much difference. The narrative that Blair fucked up badly is already fully embedded.

For example, we knew before the invasion even started that war wasn't the only option. It became the option only on the basis of the coming heat of summer.

For example, we knew before the invasion there were no WMD.

For example, we knew there was no immient threat from Saddam.

For example "I will be there, whatever" was always (essentially) known. Blair supported the USA's aims, we knew that.

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't really think there's much difference. The narrative that Blair fucked up badly is already fully embedded.

For example, we knew before the invasion even started that war wasn't the only option. It became the option only on the basis of the coming heat of summer.

For example, we knew before the invasion there were no WMD.

For example, we knew there was no immient threat from Saddam.

For example "I will be there, whatever" was always (essentially) known. Blair supported the USA's aims, we knew that.

I think it depends who "we" are. I'm pretty sure most if not all folk who post on here will have known pretty much everything. There certainly will have been plenty of people who "didn't know" these things. The only question is whether they care enough to change their minds.

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

I think it depends who "we" are. I'm pretty sure most if not all folk who post on here will have known pretty much everything. There certainly will have been plenty of people who "didn't know" these things. The only question is whether they care enough to change their minds.

If they've not cared enough to pick up on it till now, I can't really see them picking up on it now.

And unfortunately, I'm already hearing intellectually-limited "there can be nothing worse than this" responses. I've just heard the sister of one of those who died call Blair the biggest terrorist ever - tho only on the basis of her upset at the loss of her brother (which might still have happened if Blair's response had been 100% perfect).

I know Blair fucked up, and my opinion is that his fuck-up is truly dreadful ... and yet I'm never going to box myself in via self-satisfying and self-confirming ideas that things couldn't have a worse outcome. There's always worse that could happen.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I don't think for a second having someone else in power would of made much difference.  

I think the failures where more deeper than that in so many ways a different PM would of made the same mistakes.

Hmmm ... Wilson told the USA to fuck off over Vietnam, so I'm not entirely sure it's true.

But I do agree with the general idea.

[russycarps]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I don't think for a second having someone else in power would of made much difference.  

I think the failures where more deeper than that in so many ways a different PM would of made the same mistakes.

I disagree. Blair had an extreme need to impress and please the americans. That was his personality.

I cant imagine theresa may behaving like that, for example.

 

[eFestivals]

dammit, I I think I missed Corbyn savage Blair with a dry sponge at PMQs.

Or hasn't it happened yet?

[LJS]

12 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I don't think for a second having someone else in power would of made much difference.  

I think the failures where more deeper than that in so many ways a different PM would of made the same mistakes.

Jeremy wouldn't have.

 

[krisskross]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't really think there's much difference. The narrative that Blair fucked up badly is already fully embedded.

For example, we knew before the invasion even started that war wasn't the only option. It became the option only on the basis of the coming heat of summer.

For example, we knew before the invasion there were no WMD.

For example, we knew there was no immient threat from Saddam.

For example "I will be there, whatever" was always (essentially) known. Blair supported the USA's aims, we knew that.

ts all very good to have known these things, but having a report like this published adds certainty and evidence that previously was not available.

Reading the whole 2002 'I'll be with you, whatever'  memo is very new. The last sentence is foreboding too.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Jeremy wouldn't have.

Jeremy wouldn't ever be in the position to do so.