All, or most of the senior figures involved have more than an idea what is in it. They were given copies way back when, in order to respond to points made and their comments lead to the delay in publishing, as it was rewritten. The remit of the Iraq Inquiry is not to recommend anybody face trial or to declare the war illegal. It is to see 'what lessons can be learned' from the way the war was entered into and then conducted. It covers 2001-2009. Rumours are that Dearlove, head of M16 at the time and Blair will be heavily criticised, but anyone expecting them to be dragged away to the Tower will be severely disappointed. The scope of the inquiry has been public knowledge since 2009, anyone who dos not know what it's remit is only has themselves to blame.
Well, the report concludes that war with Iraq was 'not justified'. Lawyers for the families of those lost are keeping all options open. Hopefully, this means Bliar will get what has been coming to him for so long.
I doubt it. I heard him on the radio laying on the crocodile tears and emotional voice. The bloke is a complete twunt who should be done for treason. A top analyst on the radio said Iraq was not a threat and Blair was told this. He then went to parliament and then lied to MP's. He went on to say that 200 British citizens were killed and over 150,000 Iraqis, many of which were innocent woman and children. Blair is responsible for this and a few tears and won't fool anyone.
The consensus I heard on the radio today was that Blair didn't actually lie, he just exaggerated the information that was supplied to him by the experts over Saddams WMD capability. The UN weapons inspectors believed that he had some but couldn't be precise as to the amounts so added the caveats to that effect, and it was that part contained in the caveats that Blair didn't mention but then exaggerated the part relating to the existence of WMD.
TBH Tramore that email sent to Bush should really have condemn him. The point is whether he did lie or exaggerate, he sent our troops into a war that he shouldn't have and many people died because of it. The analyst told Blair that Saddam was no threat but he ignored it. He is Captain of the ship and did not listen to warnings. It really does make me sick listening to that twunt. He has a lot of blood on his hands
I think the final word on all this came from Blair himself yesterday, "I'd do it again"... Tells you all you need to know about this despicable man...
"There is no disputing the vicious brutality of the regime that ran the country before, but there is no serious disputing, either, that the suffering captured in these statistics of war [estimated 250,000-600,000 dead, possibly one in six of the Iraqi population displaced] are of another order to anything that would be endured in even tyrannical times of peace." This says it all as far as I'm concerned. The repercussions of the action in Iraq are still being felt, in the Arab Spring uprisings, Syria and the birth of ISIS. As far as tyrannical regimes and civil wars and uprisings in other lands are concerned, I generally subscribe to the notion that Britain should let them get on with it and develop appropriate relationships with the winner. I am proud to say that I was never a supporter of the war in Iraq* or Afghanistan, which were tantamount to acts of American imperialism, and it was always in the interests of the West that the likes of Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad remained in power, like it or not. Has their removal (or attempted removal) made the world a better place, not just for the citizens of those countries, but also for the West? Unquestionably no. Can there be a more loathsome creature than Blair? *It is interesting to note that that darling of the left, the late Christopher Hitchens (for whom I had a certain amount of time and respect) was an ardent supporter of US action in Iraq, whilst his brother was not. Who do you think got it right?
