Chilcot report: Tony Blair takes 'full responsibility' for Iraq war as Jeremy Corbyn 'apologises sincerely on behalf' of

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Labour party

Jeremy Corbyn has apologised on behalf of Labour for Tony Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq, saying it was a "stain" on the party and country, after the former Prime Minister insisted he stood by his actions.

The current Labour leader's comments came after a meeting with the families of some of the victims of the 2003 conflict and the occupation that followed, after the unveiling of the 2.6 million-word Chilcot report into the UK's most controversial military engagement since the end of the Second World War.

With his voice breaking at an emotional news conference that lasted almost two hours, Mr Blair expressed his "sorrow, regret and apology" for the "failures" over Iraq, but insisted he stood by his actions - and would make the same decision again.

Mr Blair said he expresses "more regret, sorrow and apology than you can ever know or can believe".

But anti-war Mr Corbyn used his speech to go a step further, as he apologised to the people of Iraq, the families of soldiers who were killed or wounded and the British public.

In a speech in London, he said: "The decision to go to war in Iraq has been a stain on our party and our country but we now have the chance to work together to build more constructive and mutually beneficial relationships with the rest of the world based on cooperation, peace and international justice."



Mr Blair earlier said he firmly believed he had done the "right thing" and that the world was a "better place" without Saddam Hussein, adding the decision to remove the dictator was the "hardest, most momentous, most agonising" of his 10 years in office.

And he insisted he would make the same decision again today if he was presented with the same information..

"If I was back in the same place, with the same information I would take the same decision because obviously that was the decision I believe was right," he said. "All I’m saying today, because obviously some of the intelligence has turned out to be wrong, the planning wasn’t done properly, I have to accept those criticisims, I accept responsibility for them."

The long-awaited official report into Britain's involvement in the Iraq war delivered a scathing verdict on Government ministers' justification, planning and conduct of a military intervention which "went badly wrong, with consequences to this day".



Mr Blair presented the case for war in 2003 with "a certainty which was not justified" based on "flawed" intelligence about the country's supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that was not challenged as it should have been, found report author Sir John Chilcot after his seven-year inquiry.

Mr Blair acknowledged that some of the families of the 179 British personnel killed in the conflict could "never forget or forgive" him for what happened.

While Mr Blair accepted the report contained "serious criticisms", he said it showed Parliament was not misled, there was no secret commitment to war, intelligence was not falsified and the decision was made in "good faith".



"A decision had to be taken and it was for me to take as prime minister. I took it, I accept full responsibility for it, I stand by it," he said, his voice close to breaking.

"I only ask with humility that the British people accept that I took this decision because I believed that it was the right thing to do based on the information that I had and the threat I perceived and that my duty as prime minister at that moment in time was to do what I thought was right.

"At moments of crisis such as this it is the profound obligation of the person leading the government of our country to take responsibility and decide. Not to hide behind politics, expediency or even emotion but to recognise that it is the privilege above all others to lead this nation.

"But the accompaniment of that privilege when the interests of our nation are so supremely and plainly at stake is to lead and not to shy away, to decide and not to avoid decision, to discharge that responsibility and not to duck it."

Families of some of the military personnel killed in Iraq branded the former prime minister a "terrorist", while Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Sir John's long-awaited report made clear that Parliament was misled and the invasion was "an act of military aggression based on a false pretext".

Source and full article

[Grumman]

"A decision had to be taken and it was for me to take as prime minister. I took it, I accept full responsibility for it, I stand by it,"

Awesome. So when will you start serving your sentence, Mr. Blair? I believe "imprisonment for life" is the going rate for crimes against peace.

[Dartzap]

Blair appeared to be having a psychotic break earlier. He was insisting the report entirely vindicated him. Which, uh, is entirly opposite to what the executive summary stated.

Good old Tony, always delusional.

[SpottedKitty]

Good old Tony, always delusional.

Be fair, he did say one true thing — no-one will believe that he honestly thought he was making the right decision.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

There are those accusing him of war crimes- I would love to see someone actually level a specific charge at him instead of mindlessly shouting "wah wah War Criminal!"

[Gandalf]

There are those accusing him of war crimes- I would love to see someone actually level a specific charge at him instead of mindlessly shouting "wah wah War Criminal!"

At Nuremberg, the charges laid against the Nazi leaders were as follows:

• Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
• Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
• War crimes
• Crimes against humanity

I'm not sure how the last two apply to someone like Blair, but the first two certainly work.

[Patroklos]

Yep, JUST like Nuremberg...

[Gandalf]

Yep, JUST like Nuremberg...

Huh?

[Elfdart]

Robert Jackson, who prosecuted at Nuremberg said that wars of aggression were the ultimate crime against humanity because they made all the other ones possible. Lying a country into a war is also a crime -one that Von Ribbentrop was hanged for.

Bush and Blair lied to start a war with Iraq and they knew it was all a pack of lies at the time. But they had a raging hard-on to start their war of aggression against a country that had attacked neither the US nor the UK.

I'll believe Blair takes "full responsibility" for Iraq when he does the honorable thing and kills himself.

[Channel72]

Bush and Blair lied to start a war with Iraq and they knew it was all a pack of lies at the time.

This is uncertain and will likely remain forever unprovable. Personally, I think it's more likely the Bush Administration actually believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs, but couldn't really prove it, so they cherry-picked whatever evidence supported their conclusion and then trumpeted that evidence around, believing that history would prove them right. The best case for an outright lie is the "marketing campaign" designed to establish some kind of (tenuous) link between Saddam Hussein and Sunni terrorism.

Regardless, to me the crime much worse than starting the war was how the Bush (and later Obama) Administration handled the occupation, from dissolving the Iraqi army, to installing a corrupt Shi'ite theocracy, to ignoring warnings about ISIS, etc. etc., the entire thing was a comedy of errors.

[Grumman]

There are those accusing him of war crimes- I would love to see someone actually level a specific charge at him instead of mindlessly shouting "wah wah War Criminal!"

I am levelling a specific charge against him, because that's what it's fucking called. Rudolph Hess was sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of two things: "crimes against peace" (read: "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;") and "conspiracy with other German leaders to commit crimes against peace".

Bush and Blair lied to start a war with Iraq and they knew it was all a pack of lies at the time.

This is uncertain and will likely remain forever unprovable.

This is a quote from a report given by the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the UN Security Council two weeks before the invasion:

There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.
There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.
There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.
Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.
...
After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.

Link
Unless Blair is secretly some kind of mushroom, there is zero chance that he did not know that the justification for the war was bullshit. People need to stop giving these assholes the benefit of the doubt.

[His Divine Shadow]

I see we're discussing noted war criminal, Tony Blair in this thread.

[jwl]

Robert Jackson, who prosecuted at Nuremberg said that wars of aggression were the ultimate crime against humanity because they made all the other ones possible. Lying a country into a war is also a crime -one that Von Ribbentrop was hanged for.

Bush and Blair lied to start a war with Iraq and they knew it was all a pack of lies at the time. But they had a raging hard-on to start their war of aggression against a country that had attacked neither the US nor the UK.

I'll believe Blair takes "full responsibility" for Iraq when he does the honorable thing and kills himself.

Chilcott doesn't really say that Blair really lied, it says that Blair certainly believed very strongly that Saddam had WMDs, it's just he often mixed up his own opinions with the evidence, which sounds more like confirmation bias or something similar than a deception.

[K. A. Pital]

Oh come on how dense one has to be to believe the Yellowcake forgeries? That is if someone even believed them, instead of ordering the intelligence to "get creative, but prove they have WMDs", which is not as harmless as the above sounds, but actually is CONSPIRING TO COMMIT A WAR OF AGGRESSION.

Tony is a criminal (just as his pal Bush) and should be glad he's getting it easy - compared to previous war criminals who had been tried.

This is no "comedy" but a criminal war of aggression that has claimed hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. Please remember that.

[LaCroix]

All the other western governments were not fooled and were quite vocal about the fact that these claims were made up.

[jwl]

Regardless, that's what chilcott said.

[Channel72]

This is a quote from a report given by the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the UN Security Council two weeks before the invasion:

There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.
There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.
There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.
Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.
...
After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.

I'm not inclined to start defending the Bush administration - I'd actually prefer that Saddam was still in power over the situation we have today. But let's please remember 2003 okay? The primary justification given to the American people was more about chemical (and to a lesser extent biological) weapons, the former of which Saddam Hussein was known to possess earlier (and used at Halabja against the Kurds), and also issues with compliance with UN regulations. A potential nuclear weapons program was tacked on as well, because why not. But again, the bigger issue here is that the technical/legal reasons that went into the whole casus belli were basically overshadowed by a marketing campaign that insinuated links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

But the point is, it's reasonable to assume that the Bush Administration probably believed they'd be vindicated by finding actual stockpiles of nerve agents or mustard gas, or at least facilities to develop such chemical weapons, since they figured Saddam Hussein at least definitely had such weapons earlier. If they really knew for sure they wouldn't find shit, then why not come up with a better justification that fit the actual post-invasion findings, such as, for example, forging better links between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, instead of pulling off a half-assed Nigerian yellow-cake scam (which was repudiated by the CIA in 2002) and hammering the American people over and over again with the idea that Saddam had chemical weapons? No, I think the explanation that better fits the facts is that the Bush Administration actually believed Saddam likely had chemical weapons facilities, but exaggerated/overstated the case for this belief, and also did everything they could to suggest some kind of link between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, confident that an actual post-invasion discovery of chemical weapons facilities would vindicate everything they said leading up to the war. Or to put it another way, the Bush Administration just threw everything at the wall that would stick, confident that any bullshit claims they threw would be forgotten/swept away by finding actual chemical weapons later.

I mean really, If I'm Dick Cheney in 2002 and my goal is to invade Iraq in order to increase Halliburton share price on the NYSE, I'm not going to trumpet around the idea that Hussein had chemical weapons if I wasn't at least like 70% confident he probably had them... otherwise I'd come up with a better excuse or at least come up with more convincing forgeries linking Saddam to Al-Qaeda.

[Thanas]

There can be no doubt that Bush conspired to committ a war of aggression and that Blair went along with it.

BTW Channel it does not make an inch of difference if one fabricates a goal to go to war or if one is convinced that the enemy has done bad things and therefore needs to go. Unless there are truly plans for an upcoming attack on you it is a war of aggression and thus illegal. The humanitarian intervention exemption does not apply either.

[mr friendly guy]

All the other western governments were not fooled and were quite vocal about the fact that these claims were made up.

Aside from those who join the coalition of the willing including my own country of Australia.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Nat ... 80%93_Iraq

I am going to assume middle powers like Spain and Italy counts as Western governments. I would also add minnow Denmark and the Netherlands. Not sure if you count other EU members like Poland, Slovakia,, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia as Western since they are predominantly in Eastern Europe. How about Georgia?

I can speak that Australia or at least the government was fooled. I am going to either assume that these other governments were either likely fooled or even worse, felt it was bullshit and still went along with the mad scheme.

[K. A. Pital]

As there was no threat from Iraq to the US nor to its allies like Britain, it was certain that the war was an illegal and aggressive one.

I am also not sure other governments were "fooled" by the US - more like coerced. Just like the US coerced Eastern European governments (which is a very easy thing to do, given the sorry state of their economies!) to create a web of CIA torture centers across the continent. Probably all it took was a threat to create some hurdles to investment. After all, we know that this is how the US makes others compliant, after Wikileaks and all.

But Britain, unlike the above, was clearly a willing accomplice.

[LaCroix]

All the other western governments were not fooled and were quite vocal about the fact that these claims were made up.

Aside from those who join the coalition of the willing including my own country of Australia.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Nat ... 80%93_Iraq

I am going to assume middle powers like Spain and Italy counts as Western governments. I would also add minnow Denmark and the Netherlands. Not sure if you count other EU members like Poland, Slovakia,, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia as Western since they are predominantly in Eastern Europe. How about Georgia?

I can speak that Australia or at least the government was fooled. I am going to either assume that these other governments were either likely fooled or even worse, felt it was bullshit and still went along with the mad scheme.

Not quite as "willing". Your link is showing the deployments "post-invasion" - which are mostly humanitarian missions. A completely different thing.

Also, when you look at your own link, you see that everybody just sent token gesture troops, usually just tasked with guarding civilian places, training local police, munitions disposal or field hospitals.

Italy - that was Il Grand Duche Berlusconi wanting to shine - the moment he was kicked out, Italy pulled out.
Spain - the same - th moment the next PM was elected, the troops were pulled out.
Norway -140 of 150 troops (engineers and mine clearers) withdrawn on June 30, 2004 citing growing domestic opposition - a token gesture, and even that did not work out with the Norwegian public.
Netherlands sent a field hospital and troops to guard it.

Eastern european coutries also mostly sent police and logistic troops.

The actual war, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War , was done by the US, UK, Australia and Poland.

So my point stands - most western governments were opposed to the war, and did not join in.
Only after the fact, these countries did send some troops to try helping to solve the mess that was created. Which is not the same as suddenly believing the "OMG WMD!" propaganda.

[mr friendly guy]

Fair enough that most western governments didn't buy it, although not ALL others as you originally stated since my own country, or at least the government of the day bought it, hook, line and sinker. I would argue though that contributing troops after the invasion tends to give legitimacy, although whether they did it because they wanted to fix the fuck up by the US/UK/Australia and Poland (who sent invading troops) or because they believed in the propaganda or because they wanted to support the US regardless is debatable. The first reason is somewhat commendable, the middle laughable and the last reason utterly despicable.