LordChaverly Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 The head of the inquiry says 'no', but then he would, wouldn't he? You only have to look at the backgrounds of the inquiry team to realise that it has all the hallmarks of a classic establishment stitch up. The head of the inquiry, Sir John Chilcott, was a member of the Hutton inquiry, which was widely viewed as a whitwash. Moreover, at least two members of the inquiry were vocal supporters of the invasion. Martin Gilbert is even on record as comparing Blair to Churchill. Lawrence Freedman is generally regarded as the architect of the Blairite doctrine of 'liberal interventionism', which was used to justify the invasion in the first place and has been used subsequently by Blair to wriggle out of awkard questions about the missing WMDs. http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/iraq+inquiry+chilcot+promises+aposno+whitewashapos/3434497 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sausage Dog Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 The head of the inquiry says 'no', but then he would, wouldn't he? You only have to look at the backgrounds of the inquiry team to realise that it has all the hallmarks of a classic establishment stitch up. The head of the inquiry, Sir John Chilcott, was a member of the Hutton inquiry, which was widely viewed as a whitwash. Moreover, at least two members of the inquiry were vocal supporters of the invasion. Martin Gilbert is even on record as comparing Blair to Churchill. Lawrence Freedman is generally regarded as the architect of the Blairite doctrine of 'liberal interventionism', which was used to justify the invasion in the first place and has been used subsequently by Blair to wriggle out of awkard questions about the missing WMDs. http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/iraq+inquiry+chilcot+promises+aposno+whitewashapos/3434497 Wouldn't it be better to wait for the report to come out before dissing it? As I understand it, Chilcott is being very forceful in insisting that documents are made available, and that hearings are in public. I look forward to seeing Blair squirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funky_Gibbon Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 The head of the inquiry says 'no', but then he would, wouldn't he? Just like those who believe every theory about the 'real' reasons we went into Iraq and who believe that everyone involved should be in The Hague would say 'yes' if it doesn't agree with them completely. That's why this thing is a complete waste of time and money. Almost nobody wants to know 'the truth', they just want their own opinions to be confirmed and anything else is a whitewash/lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 The head of the inquiry says 'no', but then he would, wouldn't he? You only have to look at the backgrounds of the inquiry team to realise that it has all the hallmarks of a classic establishment stitch up. The head of the inquiry, Sir John Chilcott, was a member of the Hutton inquiry, which was widely viewed as a whitwash. Moreover, at least two members of the inquiry were vocal supporters of the invasion. Martin Gilbert is even on record as comparing Blair to Churchill. Lawrence Freedman is generally regarded as the architect of the Blairite doctrine of 'liberal interventionism', which was used to justify the invasion in the first place and has been used subsequently by Blair to wriggle out of awkard questions about the missing WMDs. http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/iraq+inquiry+chilcot+promises+aposno+whitewashapos/3434497 Gilbert is a 'Court Historian' his life's work has revolved around Churchill, Israel and the Holocaust so he won't be rocking any boats that tend to show Israel and the Israeli Lobby in anything other than a virtuous light. Freedman was one of Blair's Foreign Policy advisers and he was also one of the Chatham House gurus (probably a spook). The whole thing is but a cosmetic exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nodens Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 No whitewash? Yeah right, we believe you http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230824/Iraq-fourth-WMD-risk-list-inquiry-hears.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rioja Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 No whitewash? Yeah right, we believe you http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230824/Iraq-fourth-WMD-risk-list-inquiry-hears.html Well the more evidence that finds its way into the public arena the less the likelihood of a whitewash, or at least a whitewash that will be believed by anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Just like those who believe every theory about the 'real' reasons we went into Iraq and who believe that everyone involved should be in The Hague would say 'yes' if it doesn't agree with them completely. That's why this thing is a complete waste of time and money. Almost nobody wants to know 'the truth', they just want their own opinions to be confirmed and anything else is a whitewash/lie. By that logic, anyone who does not accept the results of the report - no matter what it says or how it is conducted - can be written off as cranks who are ubnable to make objective judgements on the issue. There is a long tradition of governments setting up inquiries where the results are almost a foregone conclusion because the people who are selected are biased in favour of those who have ordered the inquiry. If it is true what Lord C says, concerning the support for the war of various people involved in the inquiry, then it would be naive to dismiss out of hand, the strong possiblitiy that this is another rigged inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share Posted November 26, 2009 Well the more evidence that finds its way into the public arena the less the likelihood of a whitewash, or at least a whitewash that will be believed by anyone. But as with the Hutton and Butler inquiries, there will be enough equivocation, punch-pulling and ambiguity in the findings for Blair to claim exoneration from any wrong doing. It is a national scandal that this duplicitous warmonger, a man who led the UK into five wars in his first six years as PM and who is directly responsible for so much death and suffering, will escape the public disgrace that he so thoroughly deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowman Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Whitewashing and under the rug swept. Ahhhh, that's better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 It's an interesting development. Haven't followed it closely but from the snippet I caught on the news last night it seems the security services confirmed 10 days before invasion that they didn't believe there were any WMD, or any serious threat to the UK. With that in mind it seems like it's going to be quite hard to explain how Lord Hutton came to the conclusion that the evidence of WMDs hadn't been "sexed up", but had merely been "altered" subconsciously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.