And don't forget that grin.

The man who heckled Corbyn during his speech was no other than New Labour Ian Austin. Disgusting little runt.

The Sun's headline should not be using the word 'squaddie'. Squaddie is slang for soldier of a low rank.

A main point is and I have no time for Tony Blair.

This inquiry could not really look at the legality of the invasion.
So immaterial of what the press use for their sensationalist headlines, this thread asks as to Chilcott, can Blair be called a war criminal.
The short answer is no after this report.

He has been made to look really foolish and misguided, also his obvious determination to do nothing to upset President bush and totally following the lead there also brings in incompetence.

We should not have invaded, we should not have supported the USA to do so.

Really little has come out of this report that I and others in my circle of political opinion didn't expect.

He could have never supported the action had the Commons maybe delved deeper as to the vote.
Over 130 of Blair's MPs voted against the action, it only got through parliaments thanks to the opposition votes.

As David Cameron said yesterday, all who supported it have to look at themselves too.
Obviously as the PM, Blair has to rightly take the blame and full burden of responsibility for the handling of the issue.

However those wanting him brought up for war crimes, I feel are going to be disappointed, so to justifiably call him a war criminal has not been supported or indicated by this report.
As understandably infuriating and frustrating that is to many.

He should be prosecuted as a war criminal, evil ****

Report findings or no eport findings, there is much more to Criminal Liability than deliberate intent, there is Criminal Neglect - and on that score Smiling Boy Blair is emphatically guilty.

He sent our troops into a war zone woefully under-equipped after years of under-funding in the MOD. For that alone he should be prosecuted... and if he claims he didn't know, well, ignorance is no defence.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: His fecking ears are big enough - He should have LISTENED to advisors.

You know, the American troops called our troops "The Borrowers" because they didn't even have the basics and the Americans were lending them stuff. Our guys were writing home for families to send them equipment.

Didn't we always know, all along, that Blair would come out of this giving only an apology?

Not only just an apology, but a half-assed insincere one at that...and then says he would do it all again........

I forgive him. You can't blame him for having such a high opinion of arabs to think they could embrace democracy. Only racists think we created chaos in the middle east, they think that all arabs need to be controlled by a dictator. i agree with tony that arabs are capable of democracy. i won't be like most on here that think they are all just savages.

Arabs are people too! you wouldn't think it the way most on here see arabs as just a wild horde that need to be controlled by tyrants.

The crux of this story is that he sent our soldiers into war on a big fat lie. Documents were doctored and the truth was dispensed with. We lost nearly 200 military personnel, not even counting the dead Iraqis. Your own army was well-equipped and ready for the conflict, ours were not. They had their funding stripped to the bone and yet Blair felt okay sending them into a war zone having to borrow kit off other countries' soldiers.

No one has said on this thread or anywhere else, that Arabs are savages. That's not what this is about. It's about being duped by a liar who went on to be a Middle East Peace Envoy. You couldn't make that sh1t up.

Your entire post is odd and makes not a jot of sense.
Are you saying that Bush and Blair were trying to create democracy?

You don’t create democracy by mass murder. It was never about creating a democracy, it was all about creating and re-structuring a new government who would be more compliant with the West. Creating a democracy doesn't include the needless murder of hundreds of thousands of people.

Oh I agree with you, I personally think he has much to answer for and your points are strong all through as to Blair

However what this report has done is not support any real'criminal' wrongdoing.
Therefore I cannot see him being forced to do more now.
As wrong, and a big wrong that is, to that too.

He is a war criminal and this is mere;y another stepping stone to the hague for this psyychopath

The late great tony benn put it into a nutshell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Dz3TM2GCA

Bush and Blair are war criminals, have always said that.

David Davis is trying to put down a contempt motion against Tony Blair this week.
It doesn't mean that much or carry any real weight but I agree it is worth doing .

even two jabs two jags prescott says he is ashamed of it and it was illegal he also praise corbyn for apologising on behalf of the labour party

He has indeed, that actually surprised me as to both.

prescott for all his many flaws his usually a pretty straight shooter, this is a serious killer blow to the vile tony bliar. as for gordon brown ? he has said absolutely nothing, his reputation will also collapse the longer he supports that illegal decision

Confidence will never be restored, because they are still doing the exact same thing :/

'Tony Blair did long-term damage to trust in politics when he put forward a case for war that went beyond the “facts of the case”, the author of the scathing official report into the Iraq War has said.

Sir John Chilcot, who has remained silent on the report since its publication in July, told a panel of senior MPs be believed it would take many years to repair the harm the former prime minister’s actions had caused.

After an inquiry lasting seven years, the Chilcot report found that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein posed “no imminent threat” at the time of the invasion of his country in 2003, and the war was unleashed on the basis of “flawed” intelligence.

Its publication led to calls for the prosecution of Mr Blair, but the former premier insisted that, while he felt sorrow for those whose loved ones died, he stood by his decision to commit Britain to the US-led military action.

Asked if trust in politics had been corroded because MPs were told things that could not reasonably be supported by the evidence, Chilcot told the House of Commons liaison committee: “I think when a government or the leader of a government presents a case with all the powers of advocacy that he or she can command, and in doing so goes beyond what the facts of the case and the basic analysis of that can support, then it does damage politics, yes.”

He told MPs he “can only imagine” it would take a long time to repair the trust.

Chilcot said Blair’s decision to describe the threat the Hussein regime posed as imminent had been the “best possible inflection” of the evidence he had.

“A speech was made in advocate’s terms and putting the best possible inflection on the description that he used,” he said.'

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live

Chilcot says witnesses subjected to the Maxwellisation process respected the confidentiality of the process. And they also responded within a reasonable time, he says. He says one or two asked for extra time, but they had a lot of material to read.

Facebook Twitter Google plus
8m ago
16:24
Q: Did any of the witnesses offered the chance to respond to the draft report water it down?

Chilcot says the inquiry thought it was important that witnesses had the chance to respond to the draft. This process (Maxwellisation) was essential for fairness. But it also improved the report, he says.

He says the Maxwellisation did not hold the process up, because while witnesses were being consulted, the inquiry team carried on working on other matters.

What the heck is 'maxwellisation'?