"Tony Blair will today be braced for scathing criticism over his role in the Iraq war, as the Chilcot Report is finally published. The former PM faces accusations he misled the public about Saddam Husseins WMD and snubbed repeated warnings the 2003 invasion was illegal." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chilcot-report-judgement-day-tony-8357700 The report took seven years to prepare and there remains a suspicion of some whitewashing. We shall see presently.
"Billions of pounds (£9 million plus just for the Inquiry). Thousands of lives. One potentially explosive report several years in the making." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-the-iraq-war-in-numbers-a7119336.html The biggest catastrophe in history. I just hope it doesn't end with 'Lessons must be learnt.', and that those responsible are held to account. Someone else who should be held to account is whoever it was who authorised the execution of Saddam, which breath-taking misjudgement has resulted in the Iraq upon which we all look on in horror every day - 250 killed and god knows who many maimed (which is worse in my book) in the ghastly bombing of 2 days ago. Whither the poor bloody Iraqis now? No wonder we're loathed!
Addendum: Apropos the phrase in my post above 'whoever it was who authorised the execution of Saddam', I've just seen this headline from the Daily Telegraph . . . "The only mistake of the Iraq war was that we didn't get rid of Saddam Hussein sooner" We shouldn't have got rid of Saddam Hussain at all, you git!! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...the-iraq-war-was-that-we-didnt-get-rid-of-sa/
Not only did Blair commit treason, so did Bush and whoever defends him. Will the right wingers in the USA apologize for their crimes against humanity?
Unlikely... The Democrats don't have the balls. The Republicans are only interested in using the courts against their political opponents and their laws.
The Chilcot Report is longer than Tolstoy's War and Peace but the verdict seems to be that peaceful means of dealing with Saddam were not exhausted before the Anglo-Americans brought death to hundreds of thousands mostly children and civilians. The world is unsafe with such political hubris as we see in British and American politicians. May the parents and widows of young British soldiers who lost their lives find some peace of mind.
Labour Party Leader apologizes for actions of New Labour Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who opposed the Iraq War hinted Tony Blair should face an international court for 'military aggression' for taking Britain into an illegal war. During a speech in response to the Chilcot Report into the conflict, he apologized to the families of soldiers killed, and to the British people, on behalf of the Labour party. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-hints-tony-blair-8363998 It must be noted that all those New Labour politicians who have been baying for Corbyn to quit as leader and who themselves supported the Iraq war are largely staying quiet today for the first time in weeks.
It's very easy to pontificate and moralise when you're not in the hot seat, and Corbyn has always 'played to the liberal gallery'. Blair was right to go in; his mistake - and it was a big mistake - was not coming out when the job was done. The pivotal moment was the symbolic toppling of that statue of Saddam. It was then that hostilities should have ceased, and Saddam should have been allowed to resume power, but put on notice that he will be watched like a hawk for the slightest sign of returning to his expansionist ambition in the region.
The Chilcot Report's finding disagrees with you and New Labour, stating that non-aggressive measures for dealing with Saddam, who was no threat to England, had not been exhausted. The war of aggression, held to be an international crime from the days of Nürnberg, was unjustified.
Saddam certainly wasn't a threat to England, he was a threat to the stability of the entire middle east region. Whatever the Chilcot Report said or didn't say, he had to be stopped and asking him to stop wouldn't have cut it!
The stability of the Middle East was destroyed by the Anglo-American destruction of Iraq. Saddam could have been contained without killing scores of thousands of Iraqi children and civilians.
Out of decency, perhaps. Tony Blair lied, full stop. Saddam was no threat to us whatsoever. He was, however, doing this: http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/06/flashback-petrodollar-warfare-saddam-abandons-dollar-for-euro/
Saddam was destroyed before he got the chance to adventure further afield to cause the regional unrest - that's why I said he had to be stopped. And as to stopping him - if you can suggest a way it could have been done without military intervention by the coalition, then I'd be pleased to read it.
Who but a megalomaniac has gold flock wallpaper? I'm content with the fact that he'll spend the rest of his life surrounded by protection squads, in amoured vehicles (a luxury he denied our troops) looking over his shoulder for the next attempt to bring him to justice, either through the Hague, or the British legal system, or civil lawsuits for damages...
Of course he could have been contained, and I've said he should have been. But instead of that they (*)(*)(*)(*)ing killed him!!
