Chilcot – like his four whitewashing predecessors fails to go far enough – by failing to address the 3 burning questions adequately:
1/ Did Tony Blair lie in order to make the case for war?
2/ Was the war legal?
3/ Did the war — as Tony Blair promised it would — make Britain a safer place?
It speaks for itself when the pouting poodle who sexed up a dodgy intelligence dossier still claims he’d do the same all over again.
For the benefit of those inhabiting a parallel universe:
Prosecute and impeach the WAR CRIMINAL!
More than 7 years after Gordon Brown first announced that a public Inquiry would be conducted to identify lessons that could be learned from the Iraq conflict, the Chilcot report was finally published on7 July 2016. However, it was worth the wait. This post does not seek to summarise the report: there are many other good overviews (such as the BBC’s ). The report’s executive summary, in particular the key findings section, is also well worth a read. The intention is to cover in this and subsequent posts some of the key legal issues raised by the report. This post considers the relevance of the Chilcot report’s findings to the broader issue of whether Britain’s intervention in Iraq was legal – an issue which was not itself within the remit of the inquiry.
View original post 2,246 more words