hard2miss Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Question about this inquiry - is evidence given under oath and can the witnesses be persued for perjury if they're later found to be telling porkies (eg if several witnesses contradict the evidence of a single person)? Are witnesses legally obliged to give evidence? Ta. No, this is about not making future mistakes and not about atributing blaim so no one is doing anything under oath. They can lie if they want and probably have and will, but its upto the pannel to decide what evidance is valid and whats rubarb. The problem with lieing is that you have to be able to count on people to back your account up and in some cases its not happening already. I cant wait for the blair account for it all, especialy when its pointed out it was illigal and he knew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 No, this is about not making future mistakes and not about atributing blaim so no one is doing anything under oath. They can lie if they want and probably have and will, but its upto the pannel to decide what evidance is valid and whats rubarb. The problem with lieing is that you have to be able to count on people to back your account up and in some cases its not happening already. I cant wait for the blair account for it all, especialy when its pointed out it was illigal and he knew it. Thank you h2m. Tony Blair is exactly who I had in mind, he'll sit back, lie through his teeth and spin the same yarn he's always done. I wish it was under oath, making sure he tells the truth or be persued for perjury if he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoatwobbler Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 If you want to do your bit to ensure this isn't a whitewash may I suggest getting involved with the below camapign to ensure that Tony Blair is given proper tough questions on Friday http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/blairtoughqs#petition When Tony Blair appears before the Iraq Inquiry on Friday, it should be a chance to make him answer for his decision to take us to war. But the Inquiry questioners are under pressure to give him an easy ride. There's a high risk we could see yet another whitewash. The people asking the questions mustn't let Blair get away with more spin. Together we can make sure they arrive next Friday morning feeling ready to get tough with the former PM: they need to know that thousands and thousands of us expect them to challenge him properly. 38 Degrees members know what tough questions for Blair look like. We've suggested thousands, including: When did you first promise George Bush you'd back an invasion? When did you really realise Saddam Hussein probably didn't have WMD? Did you cover up advice that the war might be illegal? Why did you decide to ignore the anti-war protests by the British people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I have seen this and it needs a topic of its own. I think it all stinks of a cover up. Just have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Not liking or trusting the politicians because of their alleged actions in non-related issues is not a valid reason for automatically assuming the whole inquiry is a whitewash. Firstly because you are making assumptions about the conclusions. Secondly because those politicians are not involved in the inquiry other than as witnesses. I am talking about exactly the same politicians who are involved in setting up the inquiry, as opposed to politicians in general. How can what I have written be dismissed as'biased' when every allegation I have made against them is easily verifiable, including the one for which I have provided a link. You are the one who is talking in generalisations, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 The cover up continues. The Iraq enquiry Chairman has expressed his disappointment that key extracts of conversations between Bush and Blair are not being made public by the Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 conversations between Bush and Blair are not being made public by the Government. Wait for Wikileaks:D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 I can't think of anyone associated with the Blair government who comes out with any credit in relation to the decision to go to war in 2003. Straw now says he had misgivings, but supported the war anyway. Cook kept his mouth shut in the run up to the invasion, as did Claire Short. It has now just been revealed that Lord Goldsmith had 'misgivings' about how Blair was spinning his advice about the legality or otherwise of a military action without another UN resolution. Given the enormity of the decision, and the crucial importance of the issue of legality, why did not Goldsmith publicly correct Blair when he had the chance to do so? The answer is probably that he prioritised his brilliant career over his conscience (or perhaps he feared the opprobrium which would have been heaped on him had Blair been denied his war). Goldsmith's conscience may be stirring now, but it is too late - the damage has been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC33 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 they go to war, on the Iraq had WMD excuse, then they use WMD's [Depleted Uranium] against Iraq. if this was a fiction novel it would be rejected for being too unreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I can't think of anyone associated with the Blair government who comes out with any credit in relation to the decision to go to war in 2003. Straw now says he had misgivings, but supported the war anyway. Cook kept his mouth shut in the run up to the invasion, as did Claire Short. It has now just been revealed that Lord Goldsmith had 'misgivings' about how Blair was spinning his advice about the legality or otherwise of a military action without another UN resolution. Given the enormity of the decision, and the crucial importance of the issue of legality, why did not Goldsmith publicly correct Blair when he had the chance to do so? The answer is probably that he prioritised his brilliant career over his conscience (or perhaps he feared the opprobrium which would have been heaped on him had Blair been denied his war). Goldsmith's conscience may be stirring now, but it is too late - the damage has been done. It seems everyone (apart from Bush and Blair) had misgivings in retrospect....but none of them had the cojones to say anything at the time. Spineless, weak willed yes men. I bet some of them got really excited about the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.