[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

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.