Chilcot Reactions

At long last, the Chilcot Report on the UK’s involvement in the 2003 Iraq War has now been published. It’s a mammoth document which can obtain in full here. Even the Executive Summary is 150 pages long.

I’m going to put my cards on the table straight away. I opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and have never wavered from that opposition. I would feel vindicated were I not so saddened by the agony the invasion unleashed.

I’m not going to pretend to have read the whole document, or even all of the Executive Summary, but all the reaction I’ve seen suggest that it is unequivocal in its condemnation of the (then) Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Here is an example:


I sincerely hope that Blair’s reputation will not recover, and indeed hope that some form of legal redress can be sought against him. Attention in this country is focussing on the 179 service personnel who lost their lives in Iraq either during, or as a direct result of, the invasion of Iraq. However, let’s not lose sight of the fact that it was the Iraqi people who suffered most – over 150,000 are thought to have been killed, though such is the chaos of a country ruined by invasion and its aftermath that the true figure will never be known.

A few days ago we remembered the thousands who died on the Somme with the words “Lest we forget”. We shouldn’t forget Blair either…




5 Responses to “Chilcot Reactions”

  1. Philip Moriarty Says:

    Reblogged this on Symptoms Of The Universe and commented:
    I’m reblogging this pithy summary of the Chilcot Report from Peter Coles (telescoper). As ever, Peter cuts to the chase…

  2. Anton Garrett Says:

    I was against the UK going to war in Iraq too (albeit for different reasons than the Left) and concur that legal redress should be sought against Tony Blair if at all possible.

    According to the new biography of him by Tom Bower (The Tragedy of Power, p577), the Chilcot committee did not contain a lawyer skilled in the art of cross-examination, and failed to ask Tony Blair two key questions: Did he press Goldsmith to change his advice; and – above all, because it is not susceptible to a Yes/No answer – why was the Cabinet not shown the complete version of Goldsmith’s final paper, but only a summary? Nevertheless the Report still makes telling points.

    • Anton Garrett Says:

      Correction: Bower’s book is called Broken Vows, and “The tragedy of power” is the subtitle.

  3. “I sincerely hope that Blair’s reputation will not recover”

    Do you regret your rose tattoo?

Leave a Reply to Anton Garrett Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: