Have you read about the Chilcot report on the legality of the UK's involvement in the Iraq war?

Surprised it took so long to produce the report. Blair’s following along with the Bush/Cheney neocon lies was evident in 2003.

Yes, and heard Blair’s response this morning. It was a mix of contrition and self-justification but I didn’t think he did a terrible job.

It was clear to me at the time that we shouldn’t go into Iraq and obviously a disaster in its execution and results. Would it have been better if the Brits hadn’t come into the mess? Better for Britain for sure.

I do applaud Britain for conducting the investigation. The US should have had Truth and Reconciiation hearings years ago. Instead the Republicans spent 7,000,000 on Benghazi.

Did they have any other choice than to follow US?

@imrainmaker Tony Blair was called “Bush’s puppy” by many at the time. H was not obligated to tow the US party line and could have refused to engage as the French did.

I don’t recall any instance recently where GB has done that.

Blair didn’t have to go along. The most damning in my opinion is the claim that Iraq could launch a missile with a womd warhead with only 45 minutes warning. That was BS, and Blair knew it was.

Words like legal, and right, have no place in the discussion. Sadly. Britain, IMO, probably could have set a good example by NOT getting the US’s back. But they don’t bare a big chunk of responsibility for the Iraq war. The US, well it’s leaders , made the decisions that led to the fiasco. From what I have heard/ read/ seen, GWBush was kind of deceived by Chaney into thinking the war was necessary. Bush was never a competent person in any capacity in any job he ever had. He is the ultimate example of failing upward. He was basically a puppet with a recognizable name. The Republican party never intended for him to make serious decisions. Chaney was placed under him to pull the strings. He was there to ensure that the agenda of a small few could be adhered to. Chaney stood to make a ridiculous amount of money. Both on the destruction of iraq, and in rebuilding it. His companies made weapons, and also specialized in construction. Bush thought Chaney was his adviser, so he listened to him. He was convinced (with ease I imagine ) that the war was necessary. Evidence was not falsified per say, but sources that were unreliable were used to exacerbate the threat that Iraq posed. This ‘evidence’ was trickled down through the likes of Colon Powell and more. Powell would later admit, that he basically followed orders by calling the country to war over evidence he was unsure of, and regretted his role greatly. Bush as well seemed to eventually understand that he too was mislead by people he was supposed to trust. Even though I hate GW , I truly think that he believed that he was doing the right thing. His attitude seemed to shift when it was far too late. By then he was committed to one of the grandest schemes in the history of the world. To backpedal on anything he had a part in would be to admit all the wrong doing. That would not be allowed by his superiors, even if he wanted to come clean. And so it was that Chaney made his fortune much larger , while being responsible for the deaths or thousands, and the ruined lives of millions. Then he made more money rebuilding what he destroyed. Millions more went simply ‘missing.’ As cash money was given to people in charge in Iraq to help lubricate local cooperation, and to compensate civilian loses, both in life and property. But the money had little in the way of record and eventually millions were gone without any knowledge of where it even went.
No doubt that all the money moving around was part of why Britain decided to join the fight. Maybe not directly, but the US needed to have allies in this war. They wouldn’t look good if they didn’t have other countries with them. The wool was stretched across the globe, over many eyes. If the US simply went around going to war with nations without other respectable nations agreeing with them, that would have had the ‘evidence ’ more heavily scrutinized before action was taken. No doubt the leaders of the supporting nations were leaned on heavily by Washington. Favors were called in etc.
In the end, Chaney and his wealthy cohorts manipulated a situation in Iraq to their advantage. The US public was still reeling from 9/11 and was easily swayed with the ‘evidence ’ and propaganda that the administration shoved in their faces. Some Americans I’ve talked to actually believed the US mainland was in danger of eminent attack…Sheep…

Yes. All invloved governments should be probed thoroughly. Yes criminal charges or sanctions should be distributed accordingly. Yes. Those responsible should pay. Yes. Diplomacy should have been given more of a chance. But the powers that set that clock in motion will never face prosecution… I’m sure British leaders regret their countries entanglement in the situation ,but America would have gone to war no matter what. They just didn’t want to be the only one going to war because the world wouldn’t have liked it.
The people responsible for that war, and it’s snowball effects couldn’t care less about the lives they ruined . They chuckle, and enjoy unimaginable luxuries.

Fin.

Boring, confirmed what every sane person knew at the time

The US (thanks to Cheney and his pet puppy Bush) and GB (thanks to the puppy-lover Blair) decided to ‘show the world’ – and what a colossal fuckup it was. Tie it all back the reactions in the days just following 9/11—the US was going to have its revenge and damned common sense and anything else.

The only thing I can say in Blair’s defense is that he really couldn’t say no. He was pressured into going with the US both by the US government and to a lesser extent by his citizens, who also wanted some sort of revenge on the Arab madmen. With hindsight he can be criticized, but I don’t think he could have said NO at the time.

But the Chilcot report is basically meaningless. The world has changed in 7 years, the administration in the UK has changed again and again. This report may be good for the historians, but it really doesn’t mean a damned thing in the real world.

The Chilcot report confirms what we knew in February 2003, before the invasion, when the largest demonstrations in Earth’s history were held around Europe and the US in protest.

My daughter – in baby bjorn – joined me in taking to the streets in Boston on the eve of the invasion.

We were protesting in opposition to Bush, Hillary Clinton, and the others who voted for and supported this.

A British soldier captures the human failure of the Iraq war better in 144 words than the UK’s 12-volume report

One of the great revelations on the competence and intellectual muscle of Blair was in his willing participation in the stupidity pushed by Bush. I don’t care about the ethical considerations regarding this. The condemnation of Blair has been far too light snd not nearly loud enough. For if there is any nation on earth that should have recognized the folly of entanglement in Iraq, it would have to have been Great Britain. The fact that our own dummy could be exposed to the finest education money can buy, emerge with a degree in HISTORY, and yet waddle into Iraq is deplorable; but when a man of equal privilege and comparable education from the very country noted for 2 centuries of humiliating ass whippings at the hands of “savages” as the single reward for imperialist adventurism in the region, Blair’s involvement is beyond inexcusable.

I hope that G. W. Bush can be brought up on charges of war crimes.
His Dick Cheney manipulated the news, “W” fell for it.—

@ucme That is the salient point. Blair knew it was BS at the time. Poodle Blair indeed . . .

I blame Blair more than Bush. I don’t think Bush ever really knew what he was doing as President but Blair knew. He knew that he was with the US “whatever” (his own words) and he chose to believe the evidence that supported the war rather than taking all necessary and morally correct steps before taking us into war. He doesn’t look as if he’s sleeping well but I do believe these kind of inquiries are necessary and right because politicians cannot act recklessly and without regard to the national consequences of their decisions. And if this means that they are personally punished then this means that future decisions will be more carefully and cautiously made. Sending people to their deaths is not ever a decision to be made without all other options being fully exhausted first of all

The Chilcot report didn’t look directly at the legality of the Iraq war but the driving force behind Britain’s involvement wasn’t the UN, or intelligence reports on WMD, or public opinion, or the British Parliament or the British Cabinet but Tony Blair’s personal messianic view that it ‘was the right thing to do’. Tony Blair acted like a dictator who wouldn’t listen to his advisors, rode roughshod over the democratic process and used intelligence and legal advice to support his opinions rather than be guided by them.

It is not without significance that Sir John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee which provided the flawed intelligence use to help justify war was subsequently promoted to chief of the Secret Intelligence Service and was knighted by the Queen in 2007.

The advice given to Tony Blair by the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, was that there was no legal basis for an invasion. He said ‘the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation’ and that a second decision of the UN Security Council would be necessary to authorise the war.

Having met with the US administration and just days before the invasion the Attorney General changed his mind and said there was a legal basis for invading Iraq. He resigned from the job on 27 June 2007, the same day Tony Blair stepped down.

The invasion did not go as hoped and has fragmented the country, destabilised the region and led to untold misery for hundreds of thousand if not millions of people. However unlike Richard Nixon who showed some remorse for his actions I believe Tony Blair will go to his grave believing ‘it was the right thing to do.’

@flutherother – here’s the thing. Based on the knowledge we had in 2001–2002, it probably was the right thing to do, and there was enormous political pressure no matter what.

We (and Chiclot) have the luxury of 14 years of history to look back and criticize decisions that were made then. At the time, the decisions made were those based on the information available.

Which is why, in my first answer above, I wrote that the Chilcot report is meaningless. it’s second guessing, at best. Character assassination, at worst.

@elbanditoroso There was opposition to the war at the time. Obama and others didn’t vote for it: I and many others thought the reasoning was likely bogus.

Sure, @janbb, so was I.

But neither you nor I was the Prime Minister of Great Britain. (well, i wasn’t. Maybe you were)

Naw, that unenlightened government doesn’t allow penguins to serve.

@elbanditoroso I would agree about the political pressure but disagree about the evidence at the time. The ‘evidence’ presented to the public was scaremongering. Saddam had no weapons he could launch within 45 minutes other than battlefield weapons and Sir John Scarlett later admitted this ought to have been made clear in the report, the ‘dodgy dossier’ which was used to justify the attack.

Most of the evidence about WMD came from a single unreliable source, “Curveball” who lacked credibility from 1999 when he began testifying about Iraq’s WMD programme. It was political pressure that brought his implausible claims to the fore and over rode a proper professional assessment of the available intelligence.

Based on the knowledge we had in 2001–2002, it probably was the right thing to do

No, the WMD claims were nonsense and it was widely known.

Knight Ridder Newspapers – September 6, 2002 – Senior U.S. officials with access to top-secret intelligence on Iraq say they have detected no alarming increase in the threat that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein poses to American security and Middle East stability…

Knight Ridder Newspapers – October 8, 2002 – While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration’s double-time march toward war.

These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses—including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network—have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.

They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House’s argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

I know it’s a pipe dream, but the thought of GWBush in court, disheveled, wearing an orange jumpsuit and shackles, tickles me.
Make it a 3-some. Dick and Don right along with him.