TONY F*CKING BLAIR AT THE IRAQ INQUIRY

[omaoma]

anybody else listening to this live? I CANNOT BEAR that tony's using this kind, reasonable, tone of voice like he's doing them a favour explaining all this difficult stuff to the poor littel panel....

little

where can I listen to it?

for omaoma

Radio 5 live

ha ha! thanks midnightexpress

I've got it on news 24 for a bit.
He's been working on this performance for months eh?

What happens if the inquiry finds it to have been illegal?
What does it mean to the people who made the decisions (who I guess will have to still say 'well we believed it was right')
And what happens for people like Claire Short, Robin Cook and others who resigned their jobs?

midnightexpress

Could anyone explain to me:

1. What the aim of the inquiry is

2. What the outcome will be if someone has found to have been doing something wrong (will they go to prison etc)

I don't really understand the purpose of the inquiry and I would like to!

I am glued to it he is such a tosser!

The inquiry keeps stressing that no-one is on trial. I think that the intention of the inquiry is to stop any mistakes made (or admitted to!) happening again.

Back to Tony!

Did I dream that they said they'd be back five past?

Aquitted himself well I thought

The important thing, MT, is whether anyone else acquits him.

Ok I have a burning question, which isn't at all important in the scheme of things but I've always wondered...

Why does Tony Blair refer to Saddam Hussein as 'Saddam'. It seems sort of familiar/friendly and incongruous. I'd expect Hussein or Saddam Hussein, but just his first name? Why does he do that then?

Bendybob - because Saddam is what they call(ed) him in the Middle East ie firstname lastname as in the UK is not the same in Iraq. Saying 'Saddam' is the same as saying 'Obama'.

There are a couple of other factors as well actually, if you really want a proper answer (because although it is true to say firstname lastname is not exactly the same in the Middle East some pedant will come along and correct me in a minute):

1. in his own mythology-building SH called himself Saddam - a bit like being 'Madonna' or 'Sting' IYSWIM - a one-word name
2. but after a bit of faffing about saying Saddam Hussein all the time it was much easier for Western politicians and Western journalists to say 'Saddam' instead - saves time and (arguably) if everyone else is doing it, makes you sound like you have privileged knowledge

Tony's got balls...

Twice as many as Dave who snipped his off inadvertently when he was trimming his 'charged to expenses wisteria'.

at the end of the dy he hadaccess to information that we didn't and will never have and had to make a decision based on that. Can we definitively say we woudln't have made the same decision? I don't think so and any potential PM that says they wouldn't have are lying.

Even now we are being protected without our knowledge and things are happeneing that the media either doesn't know about or can't print.

The alert level has been increased - hence something is happeneing

Thanks MrsB - good answers there.

Although thinking about it, it doesn't seem to happen with other rulers or leaders - using just the first name - none that spring to mind (although I'm no authority on world politics, not by a long shot)

I was a little shocked when one of my educated, seemingly intelligent friends anounced, in response to my question, "What do you think of Tony's performance?", that he thought Tony Blair was acting to the best of his ability with the knowledge that he was given at the time. There was a stunned silence, "So" I said, "Perhaps he didn't read the Scott Ritter report, funny how I managed to". (Scott Ritter was a former UN weapons inspector, a card carrying Republican, who resigned on the grounds that a war would be illegal). How does one remain friends with someone who condones a mass murderer? Iraq was already crippled after ten years of sanctions and we didn't even wait for Hans Blix to finish his inspection before we muscled in and claimed 'our' oil (It's just unfortunate that it happened to be in Iraq!). For further intelligent views go to aspiranthousewife.com.

I just found the whole thing sickening. It was a patronising performance from a consumate actor. Even if he thought he was wrong he would never admit it. Actually I think he really believes he is right so wasn't expecting anything different.

All of the evidence given by the government ministers is pretty nauseating actually. They're all out to save themselves and to hell with the truth and whatever advice they were given.

Moi cynical? Never!

Isn't the whole inquiry just a waste of more time & money?

If no-one is going to be punished then why bother?

All it has done is brought that loser blair back out from the shadows & give him another chance to tell us all how much of a huge favour HE has done for us all.

As for lessons learnt, who thinks Iran (who also has a lot of oil) will be invaded within the next 2 years?

Where there is oil there is profits. Where there is profits, there is tax & vat. Sadly, money comes before everything else in this world, human lives included.

In my blog the American Baby Plan in London I talk about how the Iraq war affected my family. I was at the 2003 Bush Blair protest and although I think the wars totally illegal, I met my husband as a result of the protest, so I guess I have them to thank!

leilalacrosse.livejournal.com

And what about Campbell crying on TV, he is just such a typical bully boy! Pity he and Blair weren't out in Iraq fighting.

Seriously though I can't think of anything more insulting to those who have lost family members in the conflict, from whichever side, than a tearful fit of pique from one of the most vicious spin doctors ever.