peterms Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Questioner: Did it make any difference to you that Mr Straw was a qualified lawyer. Elizabeth Wilmshurst: He is not an international lawyer. Followed by much chortling in the audience and amongst members of the inquiry panel. I heard that bit on R5 this evening. Immediately before, they quoted a bit from the other adviser (or maybe it was her as well), saying that Straw would reject legal advice he didn't like, saying he would fight it in court. Well, advice is just that, advice, and not something you are required to follow. But if the owner of a firm had taken legal advice on something, ignored it, and chosen a course of action which led to the death of an employee or a member of the public, he would be, to use a technical legal term, well and truly ****. Now, when you ignore advice which is not politically convenient, and choose a course of action which lead to thousands, tens of thousands of deaths, what then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 An excellent summary of where the inquiry is up to regarding the illegality of the war, and quite how far up to his neck in this that clearing in the woods Jack Straw is. Link to pinko woolly liberal journal of the yoghurt-knitters Really, Jon, I wonder about your recent reading habits. :shock: The journalism in the Granuiad is often excellent, the editorials however.. What hasn't attracted much comment up to now, at least as far as I've noticed, is the contemptuous way the cabinet was treated. This, in spades. The other side of the coin however is the Cabinet themselves and their willingness to be treated like mushrooms. From what I've read Claire Short was the only one to request broader discussion (which was denied) and even when that was turned down she didn't feel moved to make waves until after the event. So, why? I understand that in our current system party discipline is important, but when that trumps issues of conscience, principle and the national interest (in favour of personal interest) then we have the wrong people in charge. I don't just mean Labour either, (although they couldn't be worse) across the parties very few of them are worthy of the title, 'Honourable Member'. But it's frightening to think that we were taken to war, and very large numbers of people killed, on the basis of less evidence than a local council would consider when siting a new pelican crossing. That should be chisled on Blair's tombstone - if not into his living forehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Who wrote that, Tony? Any links to the original? i thought i wrote it on here on a previous Iraq war thread ? I found it in my draft folder on my Outlook as i went through a stage of writing posts in email as i got pissed off with the interweb crashing and losing my post ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 We threw the gun at their feet and told them to pick it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 A little more coming out from the Guardian: Both Michael Wood, the Foreign Office's chief legal adviser at the time of the decision to invade Iraq, and Wilmshurst, his deputy, spoke of how it had been their firm view that there was no legal basis for war without a further UN security council resolution. Those views were well known, but there were fresh details too. It emerged today that Lord Goldsmith, then attorney general, who will give evidence tomorrow, drafted a third and, until now, unpublicised draft legal advice, seen by the Foreign Office in February 2003. This document, stating that there should be a further security council resolution before military action in Iraq and declassified for the first time today, was returned by the office of Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, with an instruction that the attorney general "carefully consider" his views. The implications for a lawyer's advice to be returned by the client with instructions to reconsider are clear, supporting previous allegations that Goldsmith was "leaned on" by the government to change his position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 27, 2010 Share Posted January 27, 2010 Never mind labours secret weapon for the election campaign :shock: , this is more like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Summary of Blair's evidence so far: "Listen up Chilers, it is what it is, right? This Iraq war mularkey, it fell off the back of a lorry so it did. I saw it but I never touched it. Honest." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 29, 2010 Author Share Posted January 29, 2010 I don't remember this 'perception of risk' argument being at the forefront much prior to Straw's evidence. In fact, I seem to remember that, originally, that there needes to be a distinct connection between Iraq and September 11th for things to be extended to Iraq. Extract from Guardian article on Oct 14 2001: Tony Blair moved yesterday to soothe simmering anxiety in the Islamic world that the United States is preparing to extend the bombing campaign against the al-Qaida network and its Taliban allies to Iraq. No steps will be taken against Iraq unless there is "absolute evidence" of complicity - which there is not, Mr Blair confirmed. Extract from Guardian article on Nov 30 2001: Tony Blair and President Jacques Chirac of France yesterday reaffirmed their demand for "incontrovertible evidence" of Iraqi complicity in the attacks on America before they could endorse US threats to extend the anti-terrorist campaign to Baghdad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 I can't help but think of this song everytime Now the towers have fallen So much dust in the air It affected your vision Couldn't see yourself clear From the fall came such choices Even worse than the fall There's this chain of consequences Within Without Action cause and reaction Never follows to plan Black swans on your picnic table Knocking over the jam Please don't preach me forgiveness You're hardwired for revenge War is just about business Within Without Hey ma the boy's in body bags Coming home in pieces Hey ma the boy's in body bags Coming home in pieces Hey ma the boy's in body bags Coming home in pieces Coming home in pieces War The dead live on within us (In the atoms we trust) Keep your fingers crossed We were choking on the smoke and the dust And the lives that were lost Scratch the surface of liberals There's a beast underneath Others hiding their Jekylls Within Without Hey ma the boy's in body bags Coming home in pieces Hey ma the boy's in body bags Coming home in pieces War I can feel the daylight I can feel the daylight Raining on me Raining on me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 29, 2010 Author Share Posted January 29, 2010 It is interesting that Blair regards Goldsmith's advice as 'the legal position' rather than the Attorney General's legal advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiganvillain Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 It is interesting that Blair regards Goldsmith's advice as 'the legal position' rather than the Attorney General's legal advice. Probably because he's taken "legal advice" on it Snowy :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Slightly OT Just curious but how many of the Peers questionning Blair , received their Knighthoods of him ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlitobrigante Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 fair play to Blair today, looked and sounded convincing, a man who obviously has absolute faith that he did the right thing. He raises an interesting point about Iran. Imagine how volatile that region would be now in 2010 with Irag comepting against there hated neighbours in Iran. I think we did the right thing to be honest in invading iraq, its just a shame we ballsed up the justification for it, instead of just saying 'look he's a monster, he needs to go, he has used chemical weapons before, if we let him do his own thing he could do something like that again', instead they bigged up the MWD bit and paid the price when it turned out to be bollocks. Shame we messed up the part that comes after the invasion, although i understand things are slowly getting better out there now. Dont know why but out of all the labour scumbags i liked Blair the most. Shame he let his basket case of a wife influence him with all this health and safety, political correctness crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 29, 2010 Author Share Posted January 29, 2010 Slightly OT Just curious but how many of the Peers questionning Blair , received their Knighthoods of him ? There was only one Peer questioning Blair: Baroness Prashar. Yes, she was awarded her peerage when Blair was PM but I'm not sure that she is particularly partisan; she is a crossbencher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Slightly OT Just curious but how many of the Peers questionning Blair , received their Knighthoods of him ? There was only one Peer questioning Blair: Baroness Prashar ..... she is a crossbencher. And totally useless. No attempt to follow up on any questioning properly (from any of them) and they all let him waltz away on a stream of propaganda and waffle. They asked all the right opening questions and refused to press him on a single substantive issue. It was pathetic frankly. Chilcot inquiry = Dog shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 29, 2010 Author Share Posted January 29, 2010 And totally useless. Yep, I wouldn't disagree. The only one who even seemed interested in asking questions of Blair (rather than just putting questions to him) was Rod Lyne but he stopped miles short of being in the least bit probing. I've faced more of a grilling from acquaintances politely asking after my health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 As bad as Tony Blair may appear to have been now it is so much more frightening to think that the man who has clearly modelled himself on Mr Blair, but with half the intelligence, will soon be leading the country. Step up Mr Cameron and his sidekick, the equally squirmy,Mr Osbourne. The next five years with these two inept **** in charge blaming all their wrong doings on the previous incumbents of number 10 will be so much fun for those wealthy enough to ride it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Looking back on the Iraq war now, illegal it may have been, but the right thing was done. Even if it was for power/money/oil/pancakes, one less dictator in that volatile region the better, for all of us. Just a pity a missile didn't accidentally find it's way into Iran and take out the nutcase in charge there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 29, 2010 Author Share Posted January 29, 2010 one less dictator in that volatile region the better, for all of us Though some might well argue that the removal of that one dictator (the one about whose regime Blair said, "even now he can save it by complying with the UN’s demand") has left Iran in a position of much more power in the region (regardless of whether it is Dinner Jacket or the religious leaders who are actually in charge). Perhaps not better for many of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 29, 2010 Moderator Share Posted January 29, 2010 whether it is Dinner Jacket I presume one is referencing Mr After Dinner Jazz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts