4 ms·

"On 6 July 2016, Sir John Chilcot announced the report's publication, more than seven years after the inquiry was announced.[3] Usually referred to as the Chilc

"On 6 July 2016, Sir John Chilcot announced the report's publication, more than seven years after the inquiry was announced.[3] Usually referred to as the Chilcot report by the news media,[4] the document stated that at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein did not pose an urgent threat to British interests, that intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction was presented with unwarranted certainty, that peaceful alternatives to war had not been exhausted, that the United Kingdom and the United States had undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council, that the process of identifying the legal basis was "far from satisfactory", and that a war was unnecessary.[5][6][7] The report was made available under an Open Government Licence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry

HatchedLake721 5y ago
Yes, I still remember Colin Powell image showing "irrefutable evidence" in his hands to the United Nations, which ended up being a lie. But again, did Tony Blair know it was a lie and misled the Parliament? I remember the Chilcot report, but never read it. It's on my reading list now! But from your quote, I don't see anything related specifically to Tony Blair? Again, my point is, the executive power (Government/Prime Minister) came to the legislative power (The Parliament) with a motion to invade another country. Both powers were using the same intelligence that they believed were genuine at the time, debated it for days, and then decided with 412 to 149 votes to start the invasion. Why Tony Blair is singled out, for something in hindsight, and the other 411 people are given a pass?
- GordonS 5y ago
  > Both powers were using the same intelligence that they believed were genuine at the time Didn't the US and UK both fabricate "evidence"? Even then, it was obvious to many observers that the evidence simply wasn't credible, and the only outcome was disaster.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    Certainly "Sexed up" the evidence, the entire Dodgy Dossier killed the BBC - Greg Dyke (the Director General / CEO, who was on holiday at the time) had to resign because of it. The Hutton Report claimed that the dossier was not sexed up (as the BBC claimed) and that it's all the BBCs fault. A few years later, Chilcott report basically said that the government did lie.
- Quarrelsome 5y ago
  > But again, did Tony Blair know it was a lie and misled the Parliament? Yes. This is why the British troops were under-equipped because Tony Blair was intentionally holding back the knowledge that the choice to invade had already been made but he couldn't do this while also requesting parliament to fund war funding. He was holding two narratives open at the same time. The public one where everything was above board, following all approved channels, ratified by the UN and due to WMD that he used to gain approval from the UK and a private one where it was clear the UK would go to war with the US regardless of what transpired.
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  > Why Tony Blair is singled out, for something in hindsight, and the other 411 people are given a pass? My very simplistic understanding is that he is singled out because he was responsible for pressing on it and the thing was voted based on the “evidence” he was presenting. My understanding is also that Bush, Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld are treated equally to Blair by some people.
  - wahern 5y ago
    > My understanding is also that Bush, Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld are treated equally to Blair by some people. That's unfortunate. The fact of the matter is that it was Cheney and Rumsfeld who personally architected the lie. Bush, Blair, et al, deserve plenty of blame for abrogating the duties of their leadership, but the history lesson here is that you don't ever let people like Cheney and Rumsfeld through the front door. Not because they're malicious (I admittedly always found Rumsfeld's politics beguiling), but because they're instigators and prime movers that won't hesitate to abuse power for their desired ends. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Notably, the Bush campaign and administration had plenty of warning (including from conservatives) about who they were inviting into their inner circle. That, of course, makes Bush doubly culpable for a failure in leadership. But Bush's failures are of a different kind, and if we equivocate with those of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their undersecretaries, we'll have learned nothing.
- jl6 5y ago
  Worth noting that MPs don’t vote entirely independently, but rather are marshalled (using a variety of implicit threats) by the party officials to vote in support of party leadership. Many of those 411 would have been backbench MPs with scarcely more access to government information than the general public. So they probably either believed what the government were saying about WMDs, or were incentivized to vote for war by the party machine. I wouldn’t give them a pass as such, but it’s several steps removed from the culpability level of Blair (who in turn was a rung down from Bush, incentivized to support the USA in much the same way as the British MPs were incentivized to support the PM).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ecdavis 5y ago
  > Why Tony Blair is singled out, for something in hindsight, and the other 411 people are given a pass? Your point that the legislature voted on the invasion is a reasonable one, but Blair's government gave them incorrect information on which to base their vote. Blair was the head of the government that produced that bad intelligence. It makes sense to single him out. "The buck stops here," and all that.
Ygg2 5y ago
The irrefutable evidence in question was nerve gas stored in glass bead configuration. Now, you may ask yourself why would Iraqi scientist store WMD in glass beads, when those shatter easily and offer nearly nothing in return (maybe WMD doesn't react with glass, but then just use a glass canisters)? Was that some anal fetish or something? It's because "" The source "" used Michael Bay movies as inspiration. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/it-was-such-obvious-bullshit-the-rock-writer-shocked-film-may-have-inspired-false-wmd-intelligence https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/it-was-such-obv...
- yawaworht1978 5y ago
  It wouldn't surprise me if the UK and the us sold these weapons to them, then it's easy to claim "look they have these weapons".
  - Ygg2 5y ago
    I find it being fiction more likely than that both UK and Iran agreed to buying nerve agent from the Michael Bay movie.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  I was under the impression chemists/lab techs regularly store nasty chemicals in “glass beads.” They put the nasty stuff into test tube, then melt the tube shut. The result is a glass bubble filled with poison. This makes it easier to store, move etc. The movie portrayed glass bubbles of nerve gas as a way to deploy nerve gas, which makes no sense. It also portrays glass a fragile, which isn’t true. But scientists in a laboratory storing toxic chemicals in “glass beads” is very much something that “checks out.”
TeeMassive 5y ago
Reminds me of when our Canadian PM at the time, Jean-Chrétien, stood up to Blair and Bush who visited him. https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201303/12/01-4630429-guerre-en-irak-quand-chretien-a-tenu-tete-a-bush-et-blair.php https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canad... "Their proof wouldn't even convince one of the local court judge here!" "If we begin to remove every dictator, who's going to be next? Why not Robert Mugabe? They told me he's not the same than Saddam. Well of course he doesn't have oil!"
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Chretien was fully prepared to join in until it became very clear from protests and polls that the Canadian public wasn't going to stand for it. They hadn't fully committed to non-involvement until then. And even then, there was still support for the "allies" just not direct military involvement. Many people may not remember or may be too young. Those Feb and March protests were the biggest protest ever in history across the whole western world. "According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of 15 and 16 February." (WP) Police estimates for London, UK were 750k, but they were likely higher. I left work one evening when they first began bombing and marched through the streets of Toronto and the energy was crazy. The following saturday protest was 100,000 people at least and a lot calmer, but outside the US embassy the atmosphere was intense, angry and electric. It was much larger in Montreal if I recall.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    I remember those protests. I’m an American, but was living in Canada at the time. Some made me nervous- “fuck the Americans.” I’m very glad Canadians made their voices heard, and their leaders listened. But those protestors weren’t exactly questioning the (non-existent) evidence, as they were saying “fuck the Americans.” It reminded me of footage from the Seattle 1999 WTO protests. It’s better that be said before a war, rather than during. But still not fun to watch.
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    > Chretien was fully prepared to join in until it became very clear from protests and polls I don't have a reason to believe this is false, but do you have a reliable source confirming this?

HatchedLake721 5y ago

Yes, I still remember Colin Powell image showing "irrefutable evidence" in his hands to the United Nations, which ended up being a lie. But again, did Tony Blair know it was a lie and misled the Parliament? I remember the Chilcot report, but never read it. It's on my reading list now! But from your quote, I don't see anything related specifically to Tony Blair? Again, my point is, the executive power (Government/Prime Minister) came to the legislative power (The Parliament) with a motion to invade another country. Both powers were using the same intelligence that they believed were genuine at the time, debated it for days, and then decided with 412 to 149 votes to start the invasion. Why Tony Blair is singled out, for something in hindsight, and the other 411 people are given a pass?

GordonS 5y ago
> Both powers were using the same intelligence that they believed were genuine at the time Didn't the US and UK both fabricate "evidence"? Even then, it was obvious to many observers that the evidence simply wasn't credible, and the only outcome was disaster.
- iso1210 5y ago
  Certainly "Sexed up" the evidence, the entire Dodgy Dossier killed the BBC - Greg Dyke (the Director General / CEO, who was on holiday at the time) had to resign because of it. The Hutton Report claimed that the dossier was not sexed up (as the BBC claimed) and that it's all the BBCs fault. A few years later, Chilcott report basically said that the government did lie.
Quarrelsome 5y ago
> But again, did Tony Blair know it was a lie and misled the Parliament? Yes. This is why the British troops were under-equipped because Tony Blair was intentionally holding back the knowledge that the choice to invade had already been made but he couldn't do this while also requesting parliament to fund war funding. He was holding two narratives open at the same time. The public one where everything was above board, following all approved channels, ratified by the UN and due to WMD that he used to gain approval from the UK and a private one where it was clear the UK would go to war with the US regardless of what transpired.
rad_gruchalski 5y ago
> Why Tony Blair is singled out, for something in hindsight, and the other 411 people are given a pass? My very simplistic understanding is that he is singled out because he was responsible for pressing on it and the thing was voted based on the “evidence” he was presenting. My understanding is also that Bush, Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld are treated equally to Blair by some people.
- wahern 5y ago
  > My understanding is also that Bush, Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld are treated equally to Blair by some people. That's unfortunate. The fact of the matter is that it was Cheney and Rumsfeld who personally architected the lie. Bush, Blair, et al, deserve plenty of blame for abrogating the duties of their leadership, but the history lesson here is that you don't ever let people like Cheney and Rumsfeld through the front door. Not because they're malicious (I admittedly always found Rumsfeld's politics beguiling), but because they're instigators and prime movers that won't hesitate to abuse power for their desired ends. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Notably, the Bush campaign and administration had plenty of warning (including from conservatives) about who they were inviting into their inner circle. That, of course, makes Bush doubly culpable for a failure in leadership. But Bush's failures are of a different kind, and if we equivocate with those of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their undersecretaries, we'll have learned nothing.
jl6 5y ago
Worth noting that MPs don’t vote entirely independently, but rather are marshalled (using a variety of implicit threats) by the party officials to vote in support of party leadership. Many of those 411 would have been backbench MPs with scarcely more access to government information than the general public. So they probably either believed what the government were saying about WMDs, or were incentivized to vote for war by the party machine. I wouldn’t give them a pass as such, but it’s several steps removed from the culpability level of Blair (who in turn was a rung down from Bush, incentivized to support the USA in much the same way as the British MPs were incentivized to support the PM).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ecdavis 5y ago
> Why Tony Blair is singled out, for something in hindsight, and the other 411 people are given a pass? Your point that the legislature voted on the invasion is a reasonable one, but Blair's government gave them incorrect information on which to base their vote. Blair was the head of the government that produced that bad intelligence. It makes sense to single him out. "The buck stops here," and all that.

Ygg2 5y ago

The irrefutable evidence in question was nerve gas stored in glass bead configuration. Now, you may ask yourself why would Iraqi scientist store WMD in glass beads, when those shatter easily and offer nearly nothing in return (maybe WMD doesn't react with glass, but then just use a glass canisters)? Was that some anal fetish or something? It's because "" The source "" used Michael Bay movies as inspiration. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/it-was-such-obvious-bullshit-the-rock-writer-shocked-film-may-have-inspired-false-wmd-intelligence https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/it-was-such-obv...

yawaworht1978 5y ago
It wouldn't surprise me if the UK and the us sold these weapons to them, then it's easy to claim "look they have these weapons".
- Ygg2 5y ago
  I find it being fiction more likely than that both UK and Iran agreed to buying nerve agent from the Michael Bay movie.
pyuser583 5y ago
I was under the impression chemists/lab techs regularly store nasty chemicals in “glass beads.” They put the nasty stuff into test tube, then melt the tube shut. The result is a glass bubble filled with poison. This makes it easier to store, move etc. The movie portrayed glass bubbles of nerve gas as a way to deploy nerve gas, which makes no sense. It also portrays glass a fragile, which isn’t true. But scientists in a laboratory storing toxic chemicals in “glass beads” is very much something that “checks out.”

TeeMassive 5y ago

Reminds me of when our Canadian PM at the time, Jean-Chrétien, stood up to Blair and Bush who visited him. https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201303/12/01-4630429-guerre-en-irak-quand-chretien-a-tenu-tete-a-bush-et-blair.php https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canad... "Their proof wouldn't even convince one of the local court judge here!" "If we begin to remove every dictator, who's going to be next? Why not Robert Mugabe? They told me he's not the same than Saddam. Well of course he doesn't have oil!"

cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Chretien was fully prepared to join in until it became very clear from protests and polls that the Canadian public wasn't going to stand for it. They hadn't fully committed to non-involvement until then. And even then, there was still support for the "allies" just not direct military involvement. Many people may not remember or may be too young. Those Feb and March protests were the biggest protest ever in history across the whole western world. "According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of 15 and 16 February." (WP) Police estimates for London, UK were 750k, but they were likely higher. I left work one evening when they first began bombing and marched through the streets of Toronto and the energy was crazy. The following saturday protest was 100,000 people at least and a lot calmer, but outside the US embassy the atmosphere was intense, angry and electric. It was much larger in Montreal if I recall.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  I remember those protests. I’m an American, but was living in Canada at the time. Some made me nervous- “fuck the Americans.” I’m very glad Canadians made their voices heard, and their leaders listened. But those protestors weren’t exactly questioning the (non-existent) evidence, as they were saying “fuck the Americans.” It reminded me of footage from the Seattle 1999 WTO protests. It’s better that be said before a war, rather than during. But still not fun to watch.
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  > Chretien was fully prepared to join in until it became very clear from protests and polls I don't have a reason to believe this is false, but do you have a reliable source confirming this?