Iraq Inquiry: Blair's "Happily Ever After"

“Don’t expect any truth coming from this war criminal this time either. He should have been handed over to the ICC at The Hague long ago. The so-called Chilcot Inquiry has been a ploy to save him from what he deserved.”

“The only journey Blair needs is one that has the Hague as its destination. The man was a liar, is a liar and has the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis on his hands. If he were a Middle Eastern leader he’d stand no chance.
Unfortunately he is British. The international Laws will be bent to accommodate him.

“The Chilcot inquiry is a waste of time and tax payers’ money. We owe it to all those who lost their lives to charge Blair and the obnoxious Campbell with war crimes and haul them before the War Crimes Tribunal. Anything less is an insult to the reatives and friends of the deceased.”

Personally, I don’t really see the point of the Chilcot inquiry anymore since we have WikiLeaks. The bottom line is the British just won’t arrest their former Prime Minister.. and arrested he should be.

The Inquiry is such a waste of time… and Blair is probably gettinga little too used to what-could-be his “happily ever after”

* * * * *

“Happily ever after”,
a stock phrase in fairy tales signifying a happy ending
-from Wikipedia

* * * * *

Tony Blair summoned back to Chilcot inquiry into Iraq war
Members of panel are believed to be concerned about damaging and conflicting evidence revealed since former PM’s last appearance
By Richard Norton-Taylor
Date: 26th October 2010
Source: The Guardian

Tony Blair is to be summoned back to the official inquiry into the Iraq invasion in light of damaging and conflicting evidence revealed since he appeared as a witness in January.

Members of the Chilcot inquiry are believed to be concerned about evidence in documents released in July showing that the former prime minister was warned by his government’s chief law officer that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal the day before he privately assured George Bush he would support US-led military action.

The Guardian first reported in February shortly after Blair testified that the inquiry team planned to question him again in light of evidence which it was already clear contradicted that given by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general at the time.

Documents released in July provided an unprecedented insight into how Goldsmith repeatedly warned the prime minister of the potential consequences of invading Iraq without fresh UN authority – much to Blair’s irritation.

They included a note from Goldsmith to Blair, marked secret and dated 30 January 2003, saying: “In view of your meeting with President Bush on Friday, I thought you might wish to know where I stand on the question of whether a further decision of the [UN] security council is legally required in order to authorise the use of force against Iraq.”

Goldsmith warned Blair that he “remained of the view that the correct legal interpretation of resolution 1441 [the last security council decision on Iraq] is that it does not authorise the use of force without a further determination by the security council”.

Goldsmith concluded: “My view remains that a further [UN] decision is required.”

A handwritten note, believed to be from David Manning, Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, warned: “Clear advice from attorney on need for further resolution.”

Demonstrating his frustration with Goldsmith, Blair scrawled in the margin: “I just don’t understand this.” An aide wrote: “Specifically said we did not need further advice [on] this matter.”

The following day, 31 January 2003, Blair flew to Washington for a meeting with Bush. Manning records the president – in a minute previously disclosed – telling Blair that military action would be taken with or without a second security council resolution and the bombing would begin in mid-March 2003.

The note records Blair’s reaction: “The prime minister said he was solidly with the president.”

On 14 January 2003, in a note handed to Blair, Goldsmith warned that UN security council 1441 “contains no express authorisation by the security council for the use of force”.

By 7 March, after a trip to Washington, Goldsmith told Blair that a new UN resolution might after all not be needed, although going to war without one would risk Britain being indicted before an international court.

Ten days later, on 17 March 2003, Goldsmith published a short note saying an invasion would be lawful.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s