End of week one and time for a quick Chilcot Inquiry report card.
You could be forgiven on the basis of the first night reviews alone for thinking the whole committee a sorry sham, a weak-spined hotchpotch of place-men (and women) chosen to legitimise the Bush-Blair war.
But before you do so it’s worth a quick spin through Google News’ cache of the week’s Iraq inquiry stories. By close of day four we had:
Britain ‘failed to establish legitimacy’ of Iraq invasion.
Deal might have been ‘signed in blood’ by Blair and Bush in 2002.
Iraq War build-up ‘left-us scrabbling for smoking gun’ says ex-ambassador.
Tony Blair told there were no WMD in Iraq 10 days before invasion.
Iraq invasion based on weapons intelligence rated as ‘four out of 10′.
All the above being legitimate interpretations of evidence given by witnesses, all of it uttered by very senior past or serving civil servants. Not all that bad going for one week – what do you think?
Back next week here and via Twitter IraqInquiryBlog.
Author: |Posted: November 27, 2009
Tags: Iraq inquiry/ Iraq war/ Saddam Hussein/ Sir John Chilcot/ Sire Jeremy Greenstock
8 Responses to “Iraq inquiry: week one's report card”
Today I attended The Chilcot Inquiry. I am the old man behind Sir Jeremy Greenstock taking pencil notes. This is important as my notes differ in parts from the printed record of the procedings.
This Inquiry is a stitch up. Questions are highly selective. Sir Jeremy was not cross examined. The majority, if not all the panel, are obviously pro-war from the remarks they make as asides and body language. ( these asides are EDITED OUT of transcript). In the build up to Resolution 1441 and the Second Resolution, at no point was Sir Jeremy asked about the bugging, eg ” Was he aware of it ? Did he play any part in it ? ” SO BUGGING WILL NOT APPEAR IN THE INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS at all.
Nor did anyone ask the question, ” Did he have any regrets about producing an ambiguous resolution ?” Nor ” What was his reaction to Kofi Annan’s statement that the war ” was not in accordance with the UN Charter”?
No one cross examined him on the following statement in his testimony:- ” One notable public occasion was the presentation by Secretary Powell on 5 February ( at the UN) of a voluminous amount of evidence of Iraqi
activity on and concealment of WMD material.” No one asked the question :- ” Did you take the aspirin bottle of Anthrax seriously Sir Jeremy? What are your views on the rumor that Jack Straw and Colin
Powell had doubts about the rubbish they were talking in the UN?” Contrary to Sir Jeremy’s view that it was a very important speech, according to the to the following report Powell was upset by his speech on 5 Feb 2003:-
Former aide: Powell WMD speech ‘lowest point in my life’
Tuesday, August 23, 2005 Posted: 1444 GMT (2244 HKT)
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell presents the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2003.
(CNN) — A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state’s presentation to the United Nations on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was “the lowest point” in his life.
“I wish I had not been involved in it,” says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. “I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life.”
Wilkerson is one of several insiders interviewed for the CNN Presents documentary “Dead Wrong — Inside an Intelligence Meltdown.” The program pieced together the events leading up to the mistaken WMD intelligence that was presented to the public. A presidential commission that investigated the pre-war WMD intelligence found much of it to be “dead wrong.”
So IN THREE HOURS WE HAVE SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK’S version of his role, unchallenged by anyone. Sir Jeremy said ” The role of Israel in this saga….. ” HAS BEEN OMITTTED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT . So we even have a censored version of what was said .
But you can bet your boots that anyone the panel wants to rubbish they will rubbish.
Permalink|Report|
So Greenstock said that the invasion of Iraq was ‘legal but not legitimate’. What sort of gobbledegook is this? Please could someone explain to me how something is legal but not legitimate? I can find but a microscopic difference between the two, and feel it is a prime example of fence-sitting in order to cover a derriere, both temporal and physical.
What a sham! It seems that letting us see the proceedings each day is a sop masquerading as openness. Depressing.
Permalink|Report|
APOLOGIES RE CHILCOT
The transcripts of the Chilcot Enquiry ARE an accurate version of the statements made.
I was mistakenly looking at written evidence. I apologise for this error. However the rest
of my comments stand. Nicholas Wood
Permalink|Report|
i have only watched bits . i must admit i thought the witnesses i saw had it very easy , much easier than in a court of law . They were allowed to present their views without question . I must say though that what i have heard so far did nothing to suggest the war was legal, and that Blair and Bush were not guilty of an illegal act in prosecuting the war .
Permalink|Report|
Sir, I for one called the UN before the invasion and tried to speak to Jeremy Greenstock and asked the British office at UN why are the wishes of the British people ignored and why are we being snowballed into a war that only Bush and Blair want. I was fruestrated that the UN was highjacked by the US and it’s poodle the UK. They could only get support from banana republics by offering aid in return for thir UN vote. It’s amazing we all knew we were being lied to and yet the peopl were powerless to do anything about it. Is this the pillar of democrocy we wish to export to the 3rd world? I think it is repulsive how we even now try to manipulate the truth and try to dhide the lies. Unless there is a real charge ofWAR CRIMES against Blair then really what i the use of this iquirey? If a CEO of a company had lied and caused death like that of British Soldiers, Iraqies as well as Afghans. There would be a charge of corporate man slaughter.WHY IS THIS NOT THE CASE WITH BLAIR? Surely no one must get away scott free with abuse of office and telling lies as well as causing death. Blair has harmed our trust in democrocy and there should be a price paid by Blair. Personally Ihave n trust left in any politician of any party. I ould rather the Queen take over rulig our great country. We can lie in the UN and suffer no punishment?
Permalink|Report|
May I remind everyone how hawkish the UK and the US were and were not prepared to listen to anyone or anything Hans Blicks was all of a sudden of no use when he said there were NO WMDs. anyone who dis agreed with UK and US was ignored the word Bully comes to mind. I can’t beleive how the world was so bullied and even states like Israel were smirking shouting that Arab countries will be thought a lesson. Even now we don’t debate Israels 82 nuclear war heads that always get ommited from any debate including Irans capability. ne rule for US and it’s friends Personally US and UK has shown the cant be trusted sooner Arab countries have Nuclear cabaility sooner they will be safe fom bullying. Lets all discuss Israels nuclear capapbility too.
Permalink|Report|
I decided to attend The Iraq Inquiry in person on Friday 27th November.I studied Law as an undergraduate and was both surprised and suspicious to read in the press that the inquiry would have no legal powers.Upon arriving and signing for my pass I was shocked to see how few members of the public were attending the inquiry on the day that one of its most articulate star witnesses, Sir Jeremy Greenstock no less, was giving evidence.The two rooms set aside to follow the inquiry on cctv on the ground floor were practically empty.I went up to the dingy little room where the inquiry was being held on the second floor,only after first passing through airport level security, and remember vividly seeing Nicholas Wood (see above post) painstakingly taking down his notes.I agree that the inquiry is a “stitch up” but you might never know unless you visited the inquiry in person,smelt the trepidation and fear;saw for yourself how the inquiry is being conducted.Put simply the public were outnumbered by those with knighthoods and I have never seen such fawning and obsequious behaviour shown by an investigating panel towards its witnesses.The whole impression is of a gentlemen’s club where it would be considered bad manners to ask penetrating questions. As for the quality of the evidence given and the reporting of it.I am not surprised that Nicholas Wood had the impression that there might have been omissions from the transcripts as there were frequent technical problems caused by the fact that the panel were mumbling their questions and were frequently inaudible;even Sir Jeremy had to ask the panel to speak up and the stenographer frequently missed out words and sentences on the live text screen.The whole tawdry affair seems best summed up by Sir Jeremy’s earnest inference,pleading almost it seemed to me,that somebody ask him what role was played by Israel ‘in this saga’ by which he presumably meant the machinations that took place behind the scenes at The UN and elsewhere in the build-up to The Iraq War.Nobody was really listening except perhaps Nicholas Wood and myself… Afterwards I watched the tired and sorry figure of Channel 4′s Simon Israel,and the rest of the sorry media presence, pathetically running after Sir Jeremy…but,like Elvis, he had already left the building.Pearls to be had there were,but unfortunately it’s pearls before swine.
Permalink|Report|