Gosh. Quite a morning, even if things sagged a little thereafter. The problem with Clare Short’s evidence was that she’s been so vocal (not to mention literary) since resigning from Cabinet in May 2003 that it was hard to be sure which of her battlefield munitions were new and which she’d deployed beforehand.
Cabinet jeered her – “Oh Claaaaaare!” – in March 03 when she alone asked the attorney general why his legal advice had changed (strong wafts of testosterone at this point). Goldsmith misled Cabinet. Blair misled her in September 02 when he claimed not to have been briefed on military options in Iraq.
The machinery of Government is unsafe, deceitful, secretive, driven by the 24-hour media, riven by leaks with no minutes, no scrutiny. Coffee sessions at which Brown said Blair was obsessed with his legacy, wanted a short war and a reshuffle. Blair “conned” her to persuade her not to walk out the door the same day as Cook. The US smeared Blix. HMG blaming the French for failure at the UN was a deliberate lie.
After a while we were out of breath in the room next door: trying not only to keep up with each allegation but to compare notes and consult Google to see whether she’d gone this far before. read more
Author: |Posted: 8:10 pm on February 2, 2010
I mentioned once before the Chilcot witness who likened Tony Blair’s involvement with Iraq to a Greek tragedy.
For the anti-war lobby at least, the tragedy for today’s key witness is that while Robin Cook’s principles led him to resign from Cabinet before hostilities Clare Short’s persuaded her to stay on until afterwards.
Even today Short is, I think it’s fair to say, political Marmite. read more
Author: |Posted: 7:12 am on
Short session but some pretty important points.
Missing kit and procurement problems have come up before but remember this; the Chief of the Defence Staff is “the professional head of the UK Armed Forces and the principal military adviser” to the Defence Secretary and the government. Put another way: top brass.
Jock Stirrup got in quick admitting that getting the right kit to the right places had been a problem. Specifically – crucially – he admitted that the army could have done better delivering enhanced combat body armour to the troops that most needed it. read more
Author: |Posted: 6:00 pm on February 1, 2010
‘Follow that up’ I hear you say, and it’s true that Friday’s session will be a hard act to beat. But even as the first public phase of the Inquiry comes towards its end there are still some key witnesses to hear from. read more
Author: |Posted: 9:36 am on
“The run-up to the war was an ancient Greek tragedy where the principal actor was brought down by his strengths as much as his weaknesses.
“For example, his convictions and interpersonal skills enabled him single-handedly to succeed in persuading Bush away from unilateral action (he would have overthrown Saddam whatever happened), to persuade a sceptical Security Council to issue the UNSCR 1441 ultimatum and to persuade almost all of his Cabinet to stick with him on the venture.
Author: |Posted: 6:57 am on January 29, 2010
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair gives evidence to the Inquiry from 09h30 on Friday (as you might just already be aware). We asked twitter.com/iraqinquiryblog followers what they would like to see Blair asked.
Here are a selection of your replies. read more
Author: |Posted: 3:01 pm on January 28, 2010
Just time for a short one tonight. The Chilcot panel has already taken evidence from several barristers, not least among them Geoff Hoon and Jack Straw (although of course neither was “an international lawyer,” as Elizabeth Wilmshurst remarked icily of Straw yesterday.
But today was arguably the greatest test for an inquiry team that has previously faced criticism for its lack of legal heavyweights. read more
Author: |Posted: 8:34 pm on January 27, 2010
The day Lord Goldsmith stepped down as Attorney General in June 2007 his departure was drowned out by that of the man who had appointed him, Tony Blair.
But the Iraq war and now the Chilcot inquiry will ensure that the two men’s reputations and legacies remain intertwined forever.
Author: |Posted: 8:48 am on
We’ve had generals and ambassadors, mandarins and spooks; today it’s the turn of the lawyers (oh, and Margaret Beckett). Six hours of evidence, four witnesses, one key question: was the invasion of Iraq legal or did it amount to a war of aggression?
First up is Sir Michael Wood, FCO legal adviser 2001-06, followed by David Brummell who was legal secretary to the “law officers” (that’s the Attorney General and the Solicitor General) 2001-04.
Author: |Posted: 9:13 am on January 26, 2010
Big week – really big. I know, I know: I probably say it each Monday, but it genuinely is this week and the overwhelming theme is legality.
We get a couple of defence secretaries this afternoon and then tomorrow Michael Wood (FCO legal adviser 2001-06), David Brummell (legal secretary to the law officers 2001-04) and Elizabeth Wilmshurst (FCO deputy legal adviser 2001-03).
You could be forgiven for not immediately remembering any of those names but at least two of them have the potential to be, well, explosive.
The Observer reported yesterday that it understands Wood will tell the inquiry he thought Blair’s decision to take the UK to war without a second UN resolution was illegal.
Elizabeth Wilmshurst could be equally devastating. She resigned from the FCO just two days before the war started because she too believed it to be unlawful.
Her resignation letter said that war with Iraq would be a “crime of aggression” – but crucially one key paragraph of it was censored; a paragraph which suggested, as Gary Gibbon revealed, that the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith – the Government’s chief legal adviser – had previously held the same opinion.
According to the Guardian he changed his mind after a meeting with two of Blair’s closest advisers one week before the invasion.
So who better to hear from on Wednesday than Lord Goldsmith himself. The vagaries of Chilcot timetabling (whole day Hoon, half day Straw, 90 minutes Omand?) are anyone’s guess but the fact Goldsmith does get a day to himself speaks for itself.
Oh and Tony someone or other on Friday. Apparently “domestic chatter” about Blair’s appearance at the end of the week led in part to the weekend’s terror threat-level hike.
Which seems peculiar as he’ll surely be better-protected at the QEII than at almost any other time, but greater minds appear to have reasoned otherwise.
Tweets from 14h00 at twitter.com/iraqinquiryblog.
By the way suggested questions for Blair much welcomed, either in comments here, on the Twitter page or
asktonyblair@gmail.com
Author: |Posted: 12:56 pm on January 25, 2010
Iraq Inquiry Blog on Twitter
