This is an interesting post Bob. I certainly agree that any inquiry should wait until resolution. However your point about conservatives using such an inquiry in the way you suggest is I think dis-engenuous. At the time in parliament, the government front bench stated quite clearly that those voting against the war would be putting our national security ast risk - that's pretty powerful stuff and is hard to vote against.

Despite being on the other side politically, I really don't think Blair lied, I suspect that all the inquiry, when/if it happens will find is that the interpretation of the intelligence was at fault.

Merry Christmas!
Andy

Andy,

Merry Christmas to you too. I know it was powerful stuff, but a lot more Labour backbenchers... and the Lib Dems, voted against the war because they were not convinced of the WMD argument. I don't know whether Blair lied, in all honesty, but I think he was desperate to help Bush, and he exaggerated his case. I support a full and independent inquiry, and blame being allocated where necessary. Those who have died in this conflict deserve that... but not until the troops are withdrawn, otherwise I think they will feel stabbed in the back.

I don't think you can send people to fight and die, and then stand around in debating chambers discussing the rights and wrongs whilst they are doing it.

Any one with any knowledge (and I would hope most MP's had at least some) would be aware that the 'dodgy dossier' was exactly that and in reality there was absolutely no chance of Iraq delivering any WMD on UK soil short of sending one over in some ones luggage, which anyone with access to the internet and a little basic chemistry could do. The whole episode is a particularly tawdry interlude in a war which we should have very little involvement in, if we wished to depose Saddam we should have finished the job during Gulf 1.

Like you, Bob, I was angrily opposed to the Iraq invasion and resigned from the Labour Party over it, having,along with other members of Edgbaston Labour Party, had a pretty angry shouting match with the Edgbaston MP who remains, to this day, stubbornly supportive of the invasion.

I'm not entirely clear why an enquiry has to wait until the troops are withdrawn. If there are grounds for thinking an enquiry might make their lives in Iraq more dangerous then I would agree but I can't really see this. Nor can I see the 'stabbed in the back' argument. These troops are well aware of the arguments raging about the validity of the conflict already. They don't live in some news-free cocoon. Many already believe they are there to serve an American agenda. What is the harm in an enquiry now?

But what is such an enquiry supposed to achieve? If it is determined that Blair, Brown, Straw and co knew there to be no WMD, knew the military intelligence was 'dodgy' and worse, that it may well have been 'fitted up' to suit a pre-determined agenda of the Americans to achieve 'regime change' what is it going to recommend.

As we were party to murdering up approx 100,000 Iraqi men, women and children during the course of Rumsfeld's shock and awe tactics and later, then the truth is that Blair and his cohorts should face murder charges in the International Criminal Court. Is that likely to happen? No of course not - so what is it going to achieve. If it's simply another bit of 'tut-tutting',a mild reprimand for the government, and recommendations to ensure 'it never happens again' then its a waste of time!

Brian, whilst I clearly disagree with your first point, I think you are right about the second one. There is more chance of West Bromwich Albion staying in the Premier League than there is of Blair being put on trial.

However, inquiries are used to establish what events led up to decisions being taken, and to try to ensure mistakes aren't repeated, and I don't see that as a waste of time. It might prevent us being drawn into another conflict in Iran.

Oooooo ya claret and blue so and so..below the belt!!! :)

As one who served in the Falklands War I recall that the Franks Inquiry was set up after Argentinian forces surrendered. Iraqi forces surrendered years ago, if they fought at all, and British forces have been there mainly in a peacekeeping role ever since, so the case for an inquiry now is well made. Mrs Thatcher was happy to have an inquiry as soon as possible as the Falklands was a foreign policy triumph. TB/GB do not want an inquiry as the Iraq adventure has been a foreign policy disaster. Power in the Middle East was evenly balanced between Iraq and Iran but it has now tilted firmly to the latter. Yes, I'm sure Iraq had WMD but was this as protection against their mortal enemy, Iran, or to obliterate Israel, or both? An independent inquiry might shed some light on this and justify, or not, the spending of £billions, the deaths of 100s of servicemen/women, and the killing of 1,000s of innocent Iraquis.

Bob, Jean Charles De Menezes,took seven bullets.Loans and an unelected(omov=oMPov)PM.
No one knows anything.
The fabric of Labour conscience hangs by a thread and only by those who offer no questions and await instructions.
You're wasting ink.