{"id":3828,"date":"2010-01-25T22:32:43","date_gmt":"2010-01-26T03:32:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=3828"},"modified":"2010-01-26T20:47:32","modified_gmt":"2010-01-27T01:47:32","slug":"this-week-at-the-chilcot-inquiry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2010\/01\/25\/this-week-at-the-chilcot-inquiry\/","title":{"rendered":"this week at the Chilcot Inquiry…"},"content":{"rendered":"

subtract 5 hours to convert to EST<\/sup><\/div>\n
\n
Tony Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry: What could possibly go wrong?<\/strong><\/a>
telegraph.co.uk <\/strong>
By Will Heaven
January 25th, 2010<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

So Tony Blair<\/font><\/strong>’s appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry will be tinged with tragedy. “Where did it all go wrong?”, his wrinkled gang of admirers will ask themselves. Or, more poignantly, “Where have you been?” At the back of their minds, however, there might be an entirely different question: What happens if it all goes wrong for the former Prime Minister? Most people I’ve spoken to reckon he’ll cruise through the procedures as easily as if the inquiry’s panel were made up of Yale undergraduates. Matthew d’Ancona seems to agree: “Blair is many things, but a stumbling, easily foxed witness is not one of them. There is not a single question the committee can throw at him that he has not answered in his head a thousand times.”<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Coming Attractions:
Tuesday<\/u><\/strong><\/div>\n
\n
Yet the pressure is certainly mounting: tomorrow Sir Michael Wood<\/font><\/strong> and Elizabeth Wilmshurst<\/font><\/strong>, both senior Foreign Office lawyers at the time of the invasion, will face the Chilcot Inquiry. And, according to a report in the Observer, they will say the Government was “clearly advised” that the Iraq war was illegal without a second UN resolution. For Wilmshurst<\/font><\/strong>, this is nothing new – she resigned two days before the war, saying the invasion would be a “crime of aggression”<\/a><\/strong>. Wood<\/font><\/strong>, on the other hand, has never before revealed his doubts in public<\/a><\/strong>. Nor has his 2003 legal advice been published, which the inquiry could push for.<\/div>\n
\n
Reference: Elizabeth Wilmshurst’s Letter of Resignation<\/font><\/a><\/strong> <\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Wednesday<\/strong><\/u><\/div>\n
\n
Wednesday, with Lord Goldsmith<\/font><\/strong> on the stand, will be the game-changer if there is one. He’ll be asked whether he was bullied by the Americans or Downing Street into supporting the war. If he fluffs his lines, it’ll be Blair who will have to pick up the pieces.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Friday<\/strong><\/u><\/div>\n
\n
But come Friday the most unpredictable participants will be the audience members — 40 of whom are relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq. Could it be that they stage some sort of protest when Blair takes his seat? Will they shout him down as he offers another casual clarification? Will they walk out?<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
There are already reports out about what Sir Michael Wood is likely to say, tomorrow putting Blair’s Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, on the hot seat for Wednesday: <\/div>\n
\n
Iraq war was illegal, top lawyer will tell Chilcot inquiry<\/a>
The Observer
guardian.co.uk<\/strong>
by Mark Townsend, Toby Helm and Rajeev Syal
January 24, 2010 <\/div>\n

Tony Blair’s decision to take Britain to war in Iraq was illegal, the Foreign Office’s former chief legal adviser will tell the Chilcot inquiry this week. The Observer<\/em> has been told that Sir Michael Wood, who was the FO’s most senior lawyer, is ready to reveal that, in the run-up to war, he was of the opinion that the conflict would have been unlawful without a second UN resolution. This will provide an explosive backdrop to the former prime minister’s appearance before the inquiry on Friday.<\/p>\n

The evidence from Wood, who will appear before the committee on Tuesday, will provide the firmest proof to date of the bitter wranglings that divided the government in the countdown to war. His testimony will come the day before the appearance of Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, who is said to have dropped his legal objections days before the invasion, following intense pressure from Blair and his closest advisers, and the US authorities.<\/p>\n

A senior legal figure close to the discussions at the time told the Observer<\/em>: "The advice that was given consistently in the Foreign Office [by Wood] was that war would be unlawful without a second resolution. The important thing is that Foreign Office advice was given consistently in one way, and then the attorney general, right at the end, gave advice to the contrary. That is what will come out." It is also believed that the legal advice from Wood, who left the Foreign Office in 2006 and is now a barrister in private chambers in London, could be published for the first time by the inquiry…<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
And in light of all this testimony that the war was illegal, and that "regime change<\/strong><\/a>" was not a valid Casus Belli, what are we to make of this report? <\/div>\n
\n
Iraq inquiry to be told Foreign Office lawyer
thought war illegal as nervous Blair works until 3am to prepare <\/a><\/strong>
Mail Online <\/strong>
By Simon Walters
24th January 2010<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

In recent weeks, Mr Blair has appeared to adopt new tactics in his attempt to defend his decision to go to war. There was widespread surprise when he suggested to television interviewer Fern Britton that he would have supported the war even if he had not thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction…<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I’m not completely surprised that Tony Blair said this. It’s the same thing Bush said when he finally was interviewed after it became apparent that we weren’t going to find any WMD’s. He said, "You’ve got to understand. Saddam Hussein is a bad man." He said it as if that explained anything. So Tony Blair went to Crawford Texas in April 2002 and apparently signed on for war with Saddam [the bad man] – no matter what:<\/div>\n
\n
We will be there’: Blair gave secret pledge to Bush on Iraq war, Campbell reveals<\/a>
guardian.co.uk <\/strong>
by Richard Norton-Taylor
12 January 2010<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Tony Blair privately assured President George Bush in letters written a year before the invasion of Iraq that Britain would "be there" in any US-led attack on the country, it was revealed at the Chilcot inquiry today. The disclosure came during sometimes sharp exchanges with Alastair Campbell, Blair’s communications chief and close adviser, who described Gordon Brown, the then chancellor, as "one of the key ministers" Blair spoke to about Iraq. In almost five hours of questioning, Campbell:<\/div>\n
    \n
  • \n
    Defended "every single word" in the Blair government’s now largely discredited dossier on Iraq’s banned weapons programme.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n
    Said Britain should be "proud" of its role in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n
    Said Blair tried to get the conflict with Iraq resolved "without a shot being fired".<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
    Blair wrote "quite a lot of notes" to Bush in 2002 and their substance was not shared with the cabinet, Campbell made clear. Asked if the then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, knew their contents, Campbell replied: "I very much doubt if drafts went round the system … They were very frank." However, Campbell said they were discussed with Sir David Manning, Blair’s foreign policy adviser. He said the tenor of the letters was: "We share the analysis, we share the concern, we are going to be with you in making sure that Saddam Hussein is faced up to his obligations and that Iraq is disarmed.<\/font><\/strong>" Campbell added: "If that cannot be done diplomatically and it is to be done militarily, Britain will be there. That would be the tenor of the communication to the president.<\/font><\/strong>" The letters Blair wrote to Bush have been passed to the Chilcot inquiry. It has not given any indication about whether it will publish them…<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n


    the boy warriors<\/sup><\/p>\n

    What was it that created this bond between Bush and Blair? In our government, the neocons were committed to war with Iraq [Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton]. The Chilcot Inquiry is making it clear that Blair was in a very different environment. Everyone around him was urging caution, seemed to be trying to put on the brakes. But he pressed forward under full steam. Blair joined in the same campaign that Cheney et al mounted in September of 2002 that marched us to war. Why the Prime Minister of Britain signed on with Bush against the gradient in his own government just isn’t at all clear to me…<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    subtract 5 hours to convert to EST Tony Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry: What could possibly go wrong? telegraph.co.uk By Will Heaven January 25th, 2010 So Tony Blair’s appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry will be tinged with tragedy. “Where did it all go wrong?”, his wrinkled gang of admirers will ask themselves. Or, more poignantly, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3828","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}