Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Chilcot Iraq Enquiry.

Yes, but i suspect the public perception of the relationship is in the process of changing; what was once unquestioned by many because it fell under the banner of 'special relationship' may now be seen more for what it actually is.
 
I dont know about that. I think a good chunk of the population were already fairly aware of what the special relationship actually meant, long before Bush rubbed it in. The cold war ended and the generation that may have been grateful to the US for its support in World War 2 are reaching the end of their lives. But at the same time the mindset of some that Britain is a great empire looks like its going to take more than a century to erode down to insignificant levels. Ad there is still the great split in people who recognise that we have to suck up to other powers to remain relevant and weighty on the world stage, the split being between those who want to be in bed with the rest of europe and those who prefer the USA as bedfellows. Maybe the tories will get their knickers in a twist over that one assuming they get into power, or maybe the world has moved beyond this somewhat as the likes of China get a seat at the main tables of power, and the world tries to get through environmental and energy woes without blowing itself to bits.
 
Now we get confirmation that Bush mentioned Iraq to Tony 3 days after the 9/11 attacks. Nothing surprising but its good to have quotes about it on the record.
 
This is about to start ... you should be able to watch it on this page: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/ (yes the video stream is on the site's front page!)

A Foreign Office legal adviser who quit in protest at the decision to go to war in Iraq is due to give evidence at the inquiry into the conflict.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned because she thought the invasion was illegal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8479996.stm

This is the first witness I'm actually interested in, because it'll be interesting to hear an expert insider's view who is not towing the 'war was legal' line.



EDIT:

It seems Sir Michael Wood and David Brummell will be giving evidence first!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7000929.ece

Elizabeth Wilmshurst be giving evidence from 14.00 – 15.30
 
Blair has been deeply condescending thus far, and it seems to be annoying the panel. He just explained to them what the Intifada was.

:mad:
 
Blair has been deeply condescending thus far, and it seems to be annoying the panel. He just explained to them what the Intifada was.

:mad:


I agree.

Plus he's all over the shop, stumbling, inarticulate and cliche-ridden. At one point they had to ask him to slow down for the stenographers because he was gabbling so fast. Sometimes he seem to be treating the panel like an audience at a party conference. Vacuous and empty.

As a game, try to count the number of times he says: I'd just like to make this point because I think it's very important.

I'm up to a couple of dozen so far.
 
He is making a lot of the so called '9/11' . He also went on quite a bit about his relationship with Clinton and how he Blair persuaded Clinton to get involved in Kosovo despite about his hesitancy to get involved militarily in Europe. It seems to me that Blair considers that in return for support from America at that time then Blair and the UK owed America a favour.

I notice also that when talking about one of his meeting with George W Bush Blair mentioned that there were Israelis present. He also mentioned the Israelis several times after that again and spoke about the wider Middle East and its issues and relations with Muslims there.

Using 9/11 as cover just isn't good enough. Saddam had nothing to do with it, or with Al Qaida - he was opposed to them.
 
Blair is being made to look like the deeply shifty con artist that he is. That bit from Freedman (i think) over 45 minutes (where Blair tried to claim it wasnt important because it wasnt mentioned in Parliamentary questions) was wonderful.
 
Did Blair just claim that, if he believes something beyond doubt, then it must in fact be beyond doubt for everyone else?
 
Did Blair just claim that, if he believes something beyond doubt, then it must in fact be beyond doubt for everyone else?

Yes, he's said that before, Armando Iannucci mentioned that last night, arguibng that Blair is totally refuting the whole idea and notion empirical research is based on over the past 3000 years.
 
After listening to that monologue about risk (which basically boiled down to any potential risk is a justification for regime change), I suddenly have a modicum of respect for Gordon Brown - his forcing Blair out of office is by far his greatest contribution to politics.

Oh, and his claim that he was right because the Cabinet (controlled by him) and Parliament (controlled by the Labour Party, which was controlled by him) agreed with him is one of the great self-justifications of our times.
 
New heights of absurdity reached, as Blair claims that Saddam retained "full intent" and - most delightfully of all - "intellectual capability" to proceed with a WMD programme!

:facepalm:
 
Sorry, I'm not watching – can't bear to – but did anyone pull him up on this? It's basic bloody stuff.

Yes. It is getting quite interesting now, Freedman (whose Official History of the Falklands War is very good btw) is slowly dismantling Blair's argument in a very clever albeit very dull way. The point that Blix's report - which was being cited by Blair as proof - actually demolished the 45 minute claim (by showing that the missiles involved had been got rid of) is not one I have heard made before.
 
Yes, he's said that before, Armando Iannucci mentioned that last night, arguibng that Blair is totally refuting the whole idea and notion empirical research is based on over the past 3000 years.

Not really, he's justifying the metaphysical view, which goes back longer, as in the 'flat earth theory', in which he also implicitly believes, as its in his religious script.

And his belief in the 'inquisition' as being a progressive structure, as in 'rendition', secret prisons', kidnapping for the holy cause', Guantanamo, Bagram, holding children hostage for good behaviour of their parents, letting then go in exchange for other members of the family, denying physical proof as being in opposition to his belief in his god.
And such belief things.

No wonder the New Labour Party made him their first Prime minister, and as yet their only elected one [ Old labour Party R.I.P.].

But essentially he's no different from the mass of the British New Labour Party [B.N.L.P.] members, most surely the ones who were originally members of the Old Party, the ones who destroyed it, they all live in 'belief' land, it used to be called Utopia.
He was just a good and well trained lawyer, being double mouthed is part of the training, how else can they represent a client/s when they know full well that they are guilty as charged, and often they know more that could bring their client/s even longer sentences.
How many Lawyers are part of/have been the B.N.L.P.s cabinet ?

Its become so bad the shock wave is now deeply undermining the legal profession throughout the British Isles, soon the members of the profession will be openly wondering who it was that let of the 'seismic bomb', that's shaking their ground apart.

The Americans have one as well now ! ! ! ! ! !. See, British inventiveness works .....
.
 
I'd just like to make this point because I think it's very important. In fact it is fundamental and beyond doubt. Tony Blair is so engulfed by his false belief that he really does believe he did the right thing.

Chilcott should just say this is a supreme farce, no matter what questions we put to Tony, we will get deception and lies.
 
I'd just like to make this point because I think it's very important. In fact it is fundamental and beyond doubt. Tony Blair is so engulfed by his false belief that he really does believe he did the right thing.

Chilcott should just say this is a supreme farce, no matter what questions we put to Tony, we will get deception and lies.
He can't very well say he has sought forgiveness from his Catholic god, which is what he really believes.
 
Good point on BBC news.

Tony Blair has not answered any of the (tepid) questions put before him, he has instead asked questions himself, hypothetical questions about what the world would hypothetically be like if we had not gone to war.

What a fucking sham.
 
On BBC news, they just showed a short segment about the protests, which ended up on a very short close up shot of a muslim woman licking her lips.

:hmm:
 
Good point on BBC news.

Tony Blair has not answered any of the (tepid) questions put before him, he has instead asked questions himself, hypothetical questions about what the world would hypothetically be like if we had not gone to war.

What a fucking sham.

As I said on the other thread, this inquiry should not be judged on the questions being asked now (though I should point out that "tepid questions" or not, they have managed to make Blair and his arguments appear even more absurd than he does normally), it should be judged on what conclusions they come to.
 
Good line by John Pinnear outside the QEII hall: "There's an angry mob outside here, and that's just the media"



blair.jpg



:D
 
Back
Top Bottom