- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 17,906
- Reaction score
- 1,502
- Country
It's all labours fault !
We haven't had long enough to do anything (except make things much worse).
Are you not entertained?
- Thread starter ^woody^
- Start date
We haven't had long enough to do anything (except make things much worse).
If he stands, and if he wins, he'll change the rules so that he can't be held in contempt.
He'd probably dream up something along the lines of PMs can't be answerable to the standards committee.
Blair committed no crimes. There was a thorough inquiry.
Meanwhile our previous previous Tory scumbag was the first sitting Prime Minister to break the law. Has the lying clown been booted out (again) yet?
committed no crimes ?
well not that we are aware of any way
papers wont be released in your life timeofficial secrets act
Inquiry without Dr Kelly hmmm.
Perhaps you don't remember Chilcot? There were no secrets kept from the enquiry. Luckily trans and his fellow conspiracy theory nutjobs have an endless supply of bullshizzle to keep them from the truth.
You don't think they mark their own homework then noseall.?
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 17,906
- Reaction score
- 1,502
- Country
Boris too?
Compare the 2 and tell us about Boris, versus any other PM in all our history too.
Parliamentary indiscretions? Yes, Boris tried to change Parliamentary rules when his Tory scum-chums broke them.
Independant inquiry? No.
How many Prime Ministers can you name who have prorogued Parliament so they could rule like an Emperor, by lying to the nation, to Parliament, and to the Queen?
Just Johnson, eh?
Perhaps you don't remember Chilcot? There were no secrets kept from the enquiry. Luckily trans and his fellow conspiracy theory nutjobs have an endless supply of bullshizzle to keep them from the truth.
Tony Blair and George Bush relationship:
Tony Blair: “I will take full responsibility for any mistakes without exception or excuse.”
The report has found that the decision by the UK cabinet to go to war with Iraq was made on 17 March 2003, but was “shaped by key choices” made by Blair over 18 months.
UK policy had been to manage Iraq by containing Saddam Hussein. By April 2002, when Blair met Bush in Crawford, Texas, there had been a “profound change in the UK’s thinking”.
On 28 July, Mr. Blair wrote to President Bush with an assurance he would be with him “whatever”, but for a coalition said Bush would need progress on the Middle East Peace Process, UN authority, and a shift in global public opinion.
Chilcot says that “Mr. Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq.”
There were a number of occasions when Iraq policy should have been discussed by cabinet but was not.
WMD intelligence:
Chilcot says the intelligence justifying invasion was presented “with a certainty that was not justified”.
The UK policy and intelligence communities had an “ingrained belief” that Iraq had retained biological and chemical weapon capabilities, was determined to keep and expand them, and could hide these capabilities from inspectors.
“The judgements about Iraq’s capabilities” made by Blair to parliament and in the September 2002 dossier “were presented with a certainty that was not justified”.
“The Joint Intelligence Committee should have made clear to Mr Blair that the assessed intelligence had not established ‘beyond doubt’ either that Iraq had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons or that efforts to develop nuclear weapons continued.”
Blair “had been warned…that military action would increase the threat from Al Qaida to the UK and UK interests”. Blair was also warned invasion could lead to Iraqi weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.
“It is now clear that policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence and assessments. They were not challenged, and should have been.”
Legality of the war:
Chilcot says his inquiry concluded it was America and Britain who were undermining the authority of the UN security council, because they pushed for military action when peaceful alternatives had not been exhausted. The report has concluded that there was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.
The panel has concluded that “the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory”.
Lord Goldsmith then the attorney general, told Blair in January 2003 a second security council resolution “would be necessary to provide a legal basis for military action”. He did not advise until February that a “reasonable case” could be made without until the end of February.
Goldsmith asked Blair “to confirm that Iraq had committed further material breaches” of the UN security council resolution, which Blair did.
“The precise basis on which Mr. Blair made that decision is not clear”.
Hasta la vista baby.
Yet was party to 200,000 deaths, and the rise of ISIS.
A godsend for the area wasn't he.
Similar threads
