Iraq war inquiry: Tony Blair faces six hours of questioning today

[maddezmom]

Source: The Guardian

Former prime minister expected to strongly assert that he acted in good faith when taking the decision to send British troops to join the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003

Iraq war inquiry: Tony Blair faces six hours of questioning todayFormer prime minister expected to strongly assert that he acted in good faith when taking the decision to send British troops to join the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003

~snip~

Sir John Chilcot and the four other members of the inquiry will question the former prime minister for six hours at the QE2 centre in London, where police have mounted a large security operation ahead of the protests being planned by anti-war campaigners.

Blair has always defended his decision to send British troops to join the American-led invasion in 2003 and today he is expected to strongly assert that he acted in good faith and that the war brought benefits to the people of Iraq.

But he is likely to face tough questioning about the events leading up to invasion, and in particular about the allegation that he was giving private assurances to the US president, George Bush, about Britain's willingness to go to war that contradicted what he was telling parliament and the public in the months leading up to the war about no decisions having been taken.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/29/tony-blair-iraq-war-inquiry

---

Tony Blair's Iraq letters to stay secret
Tony Blair will not be questioned about secret letters he sent to President George Bush ahead of the invasion of Iraq when he gives evidence to the inquiry into the war today.

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent
Published: 6:00AM GMT 29 Jan 2010

The former prime minister will also avoid interrogation about key memos which are thought to suggest that he agreed to American demands for “regime change” in Iraq a year before the 2003 invasion.

The Government yesterday resisted pressure to declassify a series of secret documents ahead of the long-awaited evidence session before the Chilcot inquiry, which has been described as “judgment day” for Mr Blair.

Gordon Brown’s spokesman insisted that the Prime Minister had no role in the declassification process, and that the final decision lay with Sir Gus O’Donnell, head of the civil service. The Cabinet Office did not comment.

There are fears that the lack of access to crucial documents will hamper the panel in their questioning of the legally-trained former prime minister.

more:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7094645/Tony-Blairs-Iraq-letters-to-stay-secret.html

[Turbineguy]

1. Did they promise

him a doggy treat after-wards?

[demoleft]

2. "Blair's Iraq view 'changed dramatically' after 9/11" - he says.

"Britain's attitude towards the risk posed by Saddam Hussein "changed dramatically" after 11 September 2001, Tony Blair has told the Iraq inquiry.
The former PM said that the policy up to that point was one of "containment".
...
Families of some of the 179 British soldiers killed in Iraq are expected to take part in the anti-war demonstration outside the inquiry building in central London."

bbc, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8485694.stm

[T_i_B]

3. Been involved with the 38 Degrees campaign to give him a proper grilling

Apparently they have cheerleaders outside the enquiry shouting out some of the questions 38 Degrees followers want asked, as well as electric billboard adverts up in central London this morning with our tough questions on.

http://www.facebook.com/#/peoplepowerchange?ref=nf
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/blairtoughqs

Tony Blair’s appearance at the Inquiry into the Iraq war is this Friday. It’s vital he faces real, tough questions in public.

Sir John Chilcot, mustn’t give the former Prime Minister the chance to hide behind excuses to avoid giving people honest answers about our reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Over 12.000 people have already taken action to make sure Tony Blair has to answer for his actions at the Inquiry. Please add your voice.

[Solly Mack]

4. "good faith"

translation: I'm guilty of the crime(s) but it's (somehow) not my fault because someone, somewhere, said it was OK and besides, I only wanted to help people. Some people had to die and be tortured to serve my best intentions and the best intentions of others. Anyway,I knew what was best for them so I gave them the benefit of my wisdom and killed and tortured people to give them a better life.

or the short version

Craven criminals and felonious poltroons all

[JDPriestly]

6. From the April 2004 edition of Vanity Fair, I learned that the Iraq

WMD inspectors had advised the members of the UN that Iraq had no WMDs before we invaded. Bush and Blair knew full well before they sent in the troops that the only illegal weapons that Hussein had anywhere near the time of the invasion were either already under the control of the UN or were technically prohibited but not really WMDs and that Hussein had agreed to destroy them.

I clearly remember that, after the Dan Rather interview with Saddam Hussein, I had a sense that Hussein was telling the truth when he said he had no WMDs. Does anyone else remember that?

Hussein was a ruthless leader who killed those who disagreed with him and permitted little if any free speech. But we don't seem to hold the Chinese government or certain other governments responsible for their brutality and intolerance of dissidents.

North Korea is isolated but still, in its isolation, a fortress, a nuclear-armed fortress, apparently. (It's hard to know how much is truth and how much hype with regard to North Korea.) Blair mentioned North Korea as one of the nations that Bush and Blair were so concerned about after 9/11. No military action has been taken against North Korea.

Why was Iraq the primary target? Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and Blair and Bush knew that. Iraq had no WMDs other than some missiles it had agreed to destroy. Its regime was no more brutal than North Korea's China's or Iran's. Why did Bush and Blair choose to invade Iraq? Was it because they knew that Iraq was weak?

Blair's story thus far is inconsistent with the facts we know from other sources. Doesn't he realize that? Or is he so intent on rationalizing his horrible decisions that he actually believes his own lies.

It is good that someone is at least asking him important questions even if they aren't asking the really tough ones, even if it isn't a trial, even if, thus far, he has not been confronted with the truth. Just forcing him to lie to the world in public is at least some punishment for what appear to have been either intentional crimes of perhaps merely criminal negligence in performing his duties.

Here is a live blog of his testimony thus far.http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jan/29/iraq-war-inquiry-tonyblair

[Solly Mack]

8. Oh, I'm listening/watching

Over in GD discussing it as it goes

[maddezmom]

5. BBC is carrying live shots of the protesters during the break

[fasttense]

7. We should be treating the bushes just like this.

Our bushco started this war,planned it and got the UK on board before the 1st bomb fell. Yet our war criminals are treated like heads of state.

Thanks Mr. don't look back. If he would at least look into it then a lot of this hate and anger would dissipate. And the right wing would NOT be winning seats anywhere in the US.

[JDPriestly]

9. Have you been watching the testimony?

They have taken another break until 14:00 their time. That is, I think about 6:00 a.m. our time. I think they are 8 hours ahead of us.

Here is my understanding of the crucial points in Blair's testimony:

Blair admits that he and Bush knew before the invasion, although perhaps not long before the invasion, that Saddam did not have actual WMDs other than those under UN control and that, while Saddam had long-range missiles, Saddam had reluctantly agreed to relinquish them. But, Blair says, he was convinced that Saddam had the intent to develop nuclear weapons and that, if the price of oil rose and the sanctions were lifted, Saddam would obtain nuclear weapons. Blair further said that he believed that the sanctions would be lifted if the US and Britain did not invade Iraq.

From what I could tell, a primary basis for Blair's conviction that Saddam still had the intent to build WMDs (either chemical weapons or nuclear weapons) was the fact that Saddam did not want his scientists to be interviewed outside the country. Apparently, Blair had the impression from discussions with the UN inspector Blix that Blix did not want to press Saddam regarding interviews with the scientists outside the country because Blix feared that Saddam would harm either the scientists or their families if the scientists cooperated with Blix.

Blair was impressed by Powell's claims (in January?) before the UN and the claims of the US that Saddam had chemical (or biological?) weapons. As we now know those claims were false and based on poor evidence.

Here is what troubles me about Blair's claim that the invasion was justified because Saddam had the intent of recommencing his WMD program. If we invaded Iraq based on the fact that Saddam was a cruel ruler and that Blair and Bush believed that he had the intent or hope and might obtain the means to build WMDs, can we invade any country if we convince ourselves that the country has a cruel ruler and the intent or hope and might obtain the means to build WMDs? Especially if the nation has been known to use WMDs against another nation?

Clearly a number of other countries have cruel rulers and the intention and means to build nuclear weapons, yet we have not invaded them. The USSR had nuclear weapons and invaded Hungary in 1956 and then Czechoslovakia in 1968, but we did not invade the USSR. A number of countries including Pakistan, India, Israel, France, the USSR, China, the US and, Heaven Forbid North Korea have nuclear weapons but are in tense conflicts with other countries. Some of those countries have or have had a military presence in another country at one point or another. I'm not saying that any of them should be invaded. I'm just saying that justifying the invasion of another country because the country has the intent of developing nuclear weapons and might or has in the past used those weapons or might use those weapons on another country might justify a lot of military action, a lot of war.

Further, if Blair's criteria for invasion -- intent and means to build WMDs and having used them against another nation -- were to be deemed the legal test for determining what nations could be invaded, what nation or nations might be susceptible to invasion now? Iraq used WMDs against Iran in their war. Today, I'm not even sure what the war between Iraq and Iran was really about, but it was a very local war and each side felt justified in its fight. If I recall correctly, we backed Iraq at the time. Were we as critical of Iraq's use of WMDs against Iran when Iraq used them?

Should one or two nations on their own without a strong UN mandate be allowed to apply Blair's test, make the judgments involved and invade another country without incurring severe penalties? Do we, here, in the US want that test to be the legal test that justifies the invasion of another country?

I think that Blair has talked himself into a hole on this. After hearing Blair's testimony, I am more troubled than ever by doubts about the legality of the Iraq War.

It is easy to point out that the Bush and Blair governments violated rules of human decency and possibly international law in invading Iraq on such flimsy evidence for such questionable reasons, but what does that mean for the British and American people?

The Blair testimony once again highlights the fact that in this age of information, governments can no longer operate behind closed doors in the dark, can no longer harbor secrets and can no longer lie to their citizens. Sooner or later the truth will out.

Governments can learn from this that it is best to be open, to allow criticism even if it hampers a speedy response to a crisis and to be honest because any other course will end very badly. The truth always out. These days, it outs a lot faster than in the past.

[FarCenter]

12. Caught a little of the proceedings -- it actually seemed to be a serious inquiry

Compared with US congressional inquiries, which are actually only theater for bloviating Representatives and Senators.

[tanyev]

10. Good. They should display some waterboarding equipment in one corner of the room.

Just to create a little ambience.

[undeterred]

11. Families of Iraq war dead voice anger at 'smirking' Blair

The families of British military personnel killed in Iraq condemned Tony Blair's performance before the Chilcot inquiry today, accusing him of being disrespectful.

One, Theresea Evans, asked the former prime minister to look her in the eye and say sorry for the loss of her son.

Evans, from Llandudno, North Wales – whose 24-year-old son, Llywelyn, died in a Chinook helicopter crash in 2003 – said: "I would simply like Tony Blair to look me in the eye and say he was sorry. Instead, he is in there smirking."

Anne Donnachie, from Reading, Berkshire, whose 18-year-old son, Paul, was killed by a sniper in 2006, said she blamed Blair for his death. "From what I have heard this morning, he is just denying everything," she said. "He will just not face up to the facts. I believe he made a massive mistake when he sent my son to Iraq."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/29/tony-blair-iraq-war-inquiry1

[classysassy]

13. Sleepless nights

how can Blair,Bush and the people that voted for these illegal wars sleep at night,maybe its comforting to snuggle up to all the money they made off the suffering of countless poor people?