Chilcott Unlimited thread

[Junkenstein]

If it actually does come out tomorrow, it should be worth a look and laugh at.

Will be interesting to see where blame is actually directed, if anywhere. It's some 12 volumes of crap deep at this stage and overdue by about 7 years.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It should be interesting, to say the least.

[Cain]

I'm predicting an accident with one of the Queen's corgis and the only existing manuscript of the final draft version.

It's like the CIA torture inquiry and the paper shredder, only even less believable.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm predicting an accident with one of the Queen's corgis and the only existing manuscript of the final draft version.

It's like the CIA torture inquiry and the paper shredder, only even less believable.

 

[Junkenstein]

The Spin begins:

Blair's statement includes:

I note that the report finds clearly:

That there was no falsification or improper use of Intelligence  (para 876 vol 4)
No deception of Cabinet (para 953 vol 5)
No secret commitment to war whether at Crawford Texas in April 2002 or elsewhere (para 572 onwards vol 1)
The inquiry does not make a finding on the legal basis for military action but finds that the Attorney General had concluded there was such a lawful basis by 13th March 2003 (para 933 vol 5)

Firstly, it's impressive that he's up to Vol 5.

Summary of findings so far:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36721645

The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
Military action might have been necessary later, but in March 2003: There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein; The strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time; The majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring.
Judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - known as WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
Intelligence had "not established beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.
Policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been.
The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory".

The statement does not seem to reflect the facts and findings.

More to follow as people are actually able to read the damn thing.

[Junkenstein]

BBC live coverage:

David Cameron says that MPs from all sides of the House who voted for the Iraq War "have to take our fair share of the responsibility. We cannot turn the clock back."

He returns to his PMQs theme that lessons must be learned on planning for military action.

He did vote for this fuckup after all. As did the vast majority of MP's.

David Cameron says the lesson of Iraq should not mean the UK should not stand with the United States when their interests are threatened.

The UK should be able to "speak freely and honestly, as best friends do".

He also says it is not true that we cannot rely on "our brilliant" intelligence services.

That would be the intelligence services that at best are ignored when politically inconvenient and at worst are targeted towards domestic political opponents. People you can trust, for sure.

David Cameron says Sir John Chilcot's report does not give a view on the legality of the Iraq War, but "Sir John is highly critical of the processes" through which the then-government's legal advice was arrived at.

Mr Cameron says Tony Blair gave commitments to US President George that were not discussed openly in cabinet.

However, "at no stage does he explicitly say that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead people", the current PM adds.

Again, this does not mesh with the summary above. If I convinced you to do something based on severe misdjudgements, uncertain intelligence that hasn't been questioned and a shaky legal basis while shouting that it's all totally legit, you might feel misled.

If you would be OK with this though I have a couple of Monuments to sell, pretty cheap. I'm assured the paperwork is in order.

[Junkenstein]

"There is a real willingness in the Middle East to get Saddam out but a total opposition to mixing this up with the current operation [bombing Afghanistan]... I have no doubt that we need to deal with Saddam. But if we hit Iraq now, we would lose the Arab world, Russia, probably half the EU and my fear is the impact of all of that on Pakistan. However, I am sure we can devise a strategy for Saddam deliverable at a later date."
Mr Blair went on to say phase one had to be military action in Afghanistan where the perpetrators of 9/11 were hiding, then phase two would be the campaign against terrorism "in all its forms".
Tony Blair to George Bush, 11 October 2001

Blair/Bush memo's

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36722312

"If toppling Saddam is a prime objective, it is far easier to do it with Syria or Iran in favour or acquiescing rather than hitting all three at once, I favour giving these two a chance at a different relationship…
And referencing involvement in Afghanistan, Mr Blair said if that gave new hope to people "in particular we shall have given regime change a good name which will help us in our argument over Iraq".
Tony Blair to George Bush, 4 December, 2001

"I would be happy to try to put all this together... But it needs a huge commitment in time and energy. So it's only really worth doing if we are all on the same page. On timing, we could start up after the (summer) break. A strike date could be Jan/Feb next year (2003). But the crucial issue is not when, but how."
Tony Blair to George Bush, 28 July, 2002

My emphasis added.

If this is the crap coming out now, I'm somewhat dreading the full details. Planning seems to have only applied to engineering the basis for war with no thought given to the realities.

It's also somewhat irritating to keep reading about the "179-200" UK personnel or the 4000-odd US personnel who have been killed as a result. The toll on the Iraqi side is orders of magnitude greater and still rising as a result of this shitshow. That's not even considering the global impact with migration away from fucked areas during the event and throughout the ISIS aftermath.

[Junkenstein]

Spin Continues, from the Chief spin doctor of the time:

Sir John was clear that the government’s objectives were not met. With regard to the aftermath, short, medium and long-term, that may be so, though Iraq is at least a democracy and one that is fighting terrorism.

Hey Cain, How's Iraq's democracy and fight against terrorism going? Good?

Statement is from his own blog:
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/07/06/many-mistakes-yes-but-no-lies-no-deceit-no-secret-deals-no-sexing-up-and-ultimately-a-matter-of-leadership-and-judgement/

But here is the difference between him(Blair) and other ministers and MPs, him and advisors, him and commentators, him and the public who three times elected him, including after the fall of Saddam. He had to decide. One way or the other. With the US or not. Topple Saddam or leave him. Knowing that either way there were consequences which were hard to foresee.

I wonder if there is anything in that summary above that would help confirm or deny this?

Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were "wholly inadequate".

Oh.

But one thing he will never apologise for is standing up to one of the worst, most fascist dictators the world has ever known.

No, he won't apologise for that. Not when his current client base includes a range of other equally shitty dictators that he's been doing PR for.

It continues at some length and is some seriously impressively deluded bullshit. Points wrap around to illogical conclusions and jump to irrelevant notes quickly. Any criticisms are "unfair" or just ignored and assumed to back up whatever point he's trying to make.

Many mistakes and shortcomings made alongside successes.

The only referenced "Success" is the removal of Saddam. The fact that anything bad may have followed is apparently nonsense and unrelated. Iraq's a working democracy now, you see?

The constant bullshit and propaganda of new labour was one of many reasons I despised it. It seems that this tendency is not dead yet.

[Junkenstein]

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the-report/

Started digging in random spots to see what I find.

[Junkenstein]

From the exec. summary:

909. In order to identify individuals with the right skills, there must be clarity about the
roles they are to perform. Wherever possible, individuals should be recruited for and
deployed to clearly defined roles appropriate to their skills and seniority. They must be
provided with the equipment needed to perform those roles to a high standard.

So the planning had neglected to bother with roles and responsibilities. And this is one of the lessons to learn for the future.

You know when you hear about MP's talk about how qualified they are to do shit because they're familiar with business? Turns out not so much when you can't even get the fucking basics right.

[Cain]

Hey now, the Iraqi Army have been fighting terrorism for 12+ years now.  They have fought the shit out of terrorism.

I mean, by any reasonable standard they must be learning something, inbetween all the fighting, right?

Someone should ask Chilcott "is this a good week to bury bad news?"  Or Blair, for that matter.

[Junkenstein]

It must be. With any luck the focus will shift to this for a while and everyone can forget about the brexit nonsense.

"It's my belief if we learn the right lessons, the next generation will see lasting peace in Middle East"

Blair, speech earlier today.

I assume he's come to this conclusion on the basis that you've got peace by default if everyone is dead. The full speech is quite odd. Very focused on justification and adamant that there was no other choice. It's also odd how he keeps crowing about "no deal in 2002" at someplace when the memos seem to indicate a deal being formed by late 2001. This isn't exactly unusual for Blair - Repeat your lie first and loudest and you may drown out actual facts.

It worked years ago and he seems to think it will work again. The depressing thing is he's probably right. There's no will from Cameron/Tories to nail him up and Labour is still filled with the clowns that supported this bullshit in the first place.

[Junkenstein]

Various places are reporting references to "The Rock", chemicals in glass beads, etc.

I've done a quick search through the docs that it seemed likely to be in and can't see it. No-one seems to be citing the doc in question either.

I'm not saying that it's not in there, but there will be a shitload of misinformation floating round from the back of this so I'm expecting to see more than a few silly claims. It's not like this one isn't perfectly believable, it just fits in to well to the "Bunch of fools" line for me to take it without seeing it in print myself.

[P3nT4gR4m]

One of those microexpression tics on minitrue news just now. Couldn't quite look the camera in the eye. Embarrasing.

[Junkenstein]

Likely the only good thing to come of this is these moments where that bastard runs around and squirms.

I'd be stunned if it goes further but the PR barrage he's having to do now to try and salvage some face is hilarious. The cherry picking of bits of the report is great too. "It said this...." he claims while ignoring what the previous volume or in some cases, paragraph was about.

Someone should find a way to convert this to a renewable energy source. The level of spin must be able to power a small town, say, London.