The Iraq Inquiry - Chilcott's Circus Clowns Come to Town

[Jan Klimkowski]

This is devastating for New Labour ministers.

The historical record, including newly released documents, strongly suggests that senior New Labour ministers and advisors decided to delay or even simply not to ask the FO legal department for their advice on international law because they knew they would be told that the war was illegal.

It's a tragedy Wood and Goldsmith didn't show the same integrity and courage as Elizabeth Wilmshurst and resign on principle once it was clear that Blair and his cronies were determined to launch what their lawyers were clearly telling them was an illegal war.

The question put to FO lawyers by Straw's private secretary - "Could HMG or individual service personnel be vulnerable in the UK or other courts to charges relating to unlawful use of force and would the issue of legality of our actions therefore be determined in our domestic courts?" - strongly suggests that Straw at least knew he was in danger of being hauled in front of the C21st equivalent of the Nuremberg trials, an International Criminal Court, for launching an illegal war.

Jack Straw's evidence to Iraq inquiry challenged by former legal adviser

Sir Michael Wood says former foreign secretary rejected his advice out of hand

Jack Straw's chief legal adviser at the time of the Iraq invasion today told the Chilcot inquiry that the then foreign secretary overruled his advice against military action.

The revelation by Sir Michael Wood, the top Foreign Office lawyer at the time, challenges the evidence Straw, now justice secretary, gave to the inquiry last week in which he insisted that he had "very reluctantly" supported the conflict.

Declassified documents released by the inquiry show that Wood warned ministers three months before the invasion that it was not certain if military action would be legal.

Separate evidence given to the inquiry by David Brummell, then a senior aide to the attorney general, has revealed that Lord Goldsmith warned both No 10 and Straw in November 2002 he was "pessimistic" that UN security council resolution 1441 could be used to justify military action without a second resolution.

In a collection of evidence that intensifies the pressure on Tony Blair, who is due to give evidence to the Iraq inquiry on Friday, the panel also released a memo written by Wood that refers to a Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) cable detailing a meeting between Straw and Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, in which the foreign secretary reassured his American counterpart a year before the invasion that he was "entirely comfortable" making the case for war.

The meeting took place before Blair visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, where the then prime minister was accused of "signing in blood" an agreement to join the US in an invasion.

Wood this morning told the inquiry panel, which is looking at the legality of the war, that he had rejected the government's argument that resolution 1441 – passed in November 2002 – requiring Saddam Hussein to disarm was a sufficient basis for military action.

"I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law," he said.

"In my opinion, that use of force had not been authorised by the security council, and had no other basis in international law."

However, when he presented his view to Straw in January 2003, he said it was dismissed out of hand.

"He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn't used to people taking such a firm position," said Wood.

"When he had been at the Home Office, he had often been advised things were unlawful but he had gone ahead anyway and won in the courts."

He said this was "probably the first and only occasion" that a minister rejected his legal advice in this way.

"Obviously there are some areas of international law that can be quite uncertain. This however turned exclusively on the interpretation of a specific text and it is one on which I think that international law was pretty clear," he said.

"Because there is no court, the legal adviser and those taking decisions based on the legal advice have to be more scrupulous in adhering to the law."

In a newly declassified letter to the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, released by the inquiry, Straw complained at the attitude taken by government lawyers.

"I have been very forcefully struck by the paradox in the culture of government lawyers, which is the less certain the law is, the more certain in their views they become," he said.

Wood said there had been a reluctance by ministers to seek the attorney general's views until very late in the day.

"They really needed advice, even if they didn't want it at that stage, in order to develop their policy in the weeks leading up to the failure to get a second resolution," he said.

In his evidence to the inquiry, Brummell recalled that Goldsmith was worried his views on the legality of the looming conflict were not being sought around this time. On 11 November 2002 Goldsmith telephoned Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, to express concerns that his view on the legality of invasion had been wrongly described as "optimistic".

He offered to give formal advice at that stage but Powell said No 10 had "no illusions" about his views and suggested the matter could be discussed later, the hearing was told.

Goldsmith called Straw the next day and repeated his worries about "Chinese whispers" suggesting he did not believe a second Security Council resolution was needed.

Straw said it was "pretty clear" that with resolution 1441 the UN Security Council was telling Iraq "comply or else", the document shows.

Lord Goldsmith replied, saying the question was "who was to decide the 'or else'".

Brummell told the panel : "I remember a conversation he had with the foreign secretary in October, and in the course of that he made it clear that he did have concerns with the way in which things were going, the way in which things were developing, and he was concerned that he should advise to make the position clear."

Brummell said Goldsmith expressed "provisional views" about the legality of the Iraq war after resolution 1441 was passed, but came to a firm decision when he gave Blair detailed advice on 7 March 2003.

Wood's comments on Straw's rejection of his lawyers' advice were backed up by his former deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who quit just days before the first attacks on Iraq after telling her superiors that an invasion without UN sanction would be a "crime of aggression".

As deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office between 2001 and 2003, Wilmshurst worked with Wood and other lawyers advising the government on all major legal issues in the run-up to the war.

She told the inquiry this afternoon that it was "rather uncomfortable" to have Straw reject hers and Wood's advice, and that she saw it as a challenge to her role.

In a statement to the inquiry, released ahead of her appearance this afternoon, the former civil servant said the invasion was not only illegal but would damage the reputation of the UK as a law-abiding nation.

"Collective security, as opposed to unilateral military action, is a central purpose of the charter of the United Nations. Acting contrary to the charter, as I perceived the government to be doing, would have the consequence of damaging the United Kingdom's reputation as a state committed to the rule of law in international relations and to the United Nations."

Another declassified memo showed Straw asking government lawyers for "an urgent note about the practical consequences of the UK's acting without international legal authority in using force against Iraq".

The note, from Simon McDonald – Straw's private secretary at the time – asked whether an invasion would open government officials up to legal action in courts at home or abroad.

He asked: "Could HMG or individual service personnel be vulnerable in the UK or other courts to charges relating to unlawful use of force and would the issue of legality of our actions therefore be determined in our domestic courts?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/26...ot-inquiry

[Jan Klimkowski]

These politicians have acted in a clearly unconstitutional and improper fashion.

All of those involved in this disgraceful subversion of process, including Attorney General Goldsmith, are revealed as unfit to hold public office.

Britain is supposedly a representative democracy, where the people we elect are meant to represent our interests fairly, honestly, without fear or favour, bathed in the bright shining light of truth.

What a crock. :eviltongue:

Chilcot inquiry: all the legal advice that was fit to print

No wonder Jack Straw suppressed the record: it was he who ensured the cabinet was misadvised on legality of the Iraq war

No wonder Jack Straw wants to forget all about the cabinet discussion of the legality of the Iraq war that took place three days before it started.

Documents disclosed by the Iraq inquiry today show that the attorney general thought he might tell the cabinet that "the legal issues were finely balanced". Straw talked him out of it. Straw then tried to cover up the lack of discussion at that cabinet meeting.

I'm not sure that Straw could have come out of today's evidence much worse. Despite his evidence last week, he seems to have been gung-ho on the war from the outset and the Foreign Office's chief legal adviser, Sir Michael Wood, kept having to pull him back. Straw eventually got fed up with this and rejected Wood's advice outright.

Both Wood and his deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, have today strongly disagreed with the view that the then attorney general Lord Goldsmith eventually came to, after being parked for months at a time for fear that he would come up with the wrong answer. On 7 March 2003, Goldsmith gave advice that was still too equivocal for the chief of the defence staff to commit British troops to war, but by 13 March had come up with a "better view" that the war would be legal. Four days later, the cabinet was given an unequivocal statement of Goldsmith's view that persuaded them to back the war. That statement was drawn up to be as strong as possible, for public consumption.

Last year, the information tribunal ordered the government to release the minutes of the cabinet meetings of 13 and 17 March but Straw – for the first time ever – used the veto that he had himself put in the freedom of act to block publication. It had emerged during the tribunal hearing that there was considered to be insufficient discussion of the legal issues at the second meeting. It has since been admitted during the inquiry that all that happened at that meeting was that Goldsmith's very short legal advice was tabled and that a request by Clare Short for a discussion was rejected by the majority of the cabinet.

This lack of discussion is one of the key political and constitutional issues around the war. Should the cabinet have discussed the legality of a decision for which they were constitutionally collectively responsible?

Former defence secretary Geoff Hoon doesn't think so, as he told the inquiry last week. For him, a view from the attorney general one way or another was all that the cabinet needed. Former cabinet secretary Lord Turnbull took a similar line. It is now clear that Goldsmith thought the cabinet should perhaps be fully informed but he was talked out of it.

We know this because the inquiry has for once published actual documents that back up what the witnesses are saying. There is a letter from Wood to Straw's private office in March 2002, a year before the invasion, warning Straw not to be so sure that a war would be legal.

There is correspondence from before and after the passage of UN security council resolution 1441 and – as most papers are reporting – correspondence between Straw and Wood in which the former explicitly rejects his legal adviser's legal advice. There is also documentary evidence that supports the government's claim that Goldsmith changed his mind on 13 March before a meeting with Blair allies Sally Morgan and Charles Falconer, in spite of what the Cabinet Office told me.

Wilmshurst today described as "lamentable" the process by which Goldsmith had moved from an initial view that a second UN resolution would be needed, to a different but still equivocal view on 7 March, and then to a definite view ten days later. She made clear her view that Goldsmith should have been asked earlier to give a formal view and that by the time he was asked, he had little choice but to back the war because the alternative was to give Saddam Hussein a massive propaganda victory.

But what happened after Goldsmith finally made up his mind to back the war on 13 March is also crucial. The events of that day can be deduced from Goldsmith's diary, and a note by his legal secretary David Brummell, published by the inquiry. Goldsmith appears to have told Brummell in the morning that he would back the war long before a meeting that evening. Indeed, at 6pm that afternoon, Goldsmith held a meeting with Straw where he told Straw that he would back the war; and as Brummell told the inquiry today, Straw was "duly grateful".

According to the Foreign Office's note of that meeting, Goldsmith told Straw that "in public he needed to explain his case as strongly and unambiguously as possible", but that "he thought he might need to tell the cabinet when it met on 17 March that the legal issues were finely balanced."

Straw warned him of the danger of leaks and advised him that it would be better to present the cabinet with a draft letter to the Commons foreign affairs committee as the basic standard text of his position, and then make a few comments. "The attorney general agreed."

It is noticeable that Straw did not try to persuade Goldsmith of the line that the government has used since – that the Cabinet should only ever get an unequivocal view of the attorney general's view. He merely argued that they could not be trusted with the truth.

As it happened, the cabinet got an even shorter statement of Goldsmith's view – the written parliamentary answer that was clearly designed to be as strong and unambiguous as possible, and Goldsmith said virtually nothing at the meeting. Short has said that she wanted to ask him both why he had taken so long to come to a decision – which we now know – and whether he had any doubts.

When Straw blocked the release of the cabinet minutes, I wrote here of the problem of using arguments about cabinet confidentiality and collective cabinet responsibility to obscure an apparent failure of cabinet collective decision-making. It now appears that Straw himself engineered that failure. The cabinet backed the war unaware that the legal issues were finely balanced. That is a scandal that can be firmly laid at Straw's door.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...jack-straw

[Magda Hassan]

Government Ban Protest Outside Blair Iraq Hearing

Not content with spending £250,000 on "security" for the war criminal Tony Blair's appearance on the Iraq Inquiry, the government have banned protestors from areas where Blair will see them. This from Stop The War:
Negotiations between the police and Stop the War broke down
today when it became clear that the government is trying to
hide our legitimate peaceful protest from Tony Blair when he
gives evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry on Friday.
After days in which we were told by the police that they would
try to facilitate our protest, Stop the War has been told we
will not be allowed to protest on the grass outside the QEII
Conference Centre.
This is a denial of our democratic rights and Stop the War
will now call for the widest possible mobilisation, not just
to express the majority view in this country that Tony Blair
should be held to account for war crimes, but in defence of
the right to protest.
Why should the public be denied the right to peaceful protest,
particularly when the latest evidence given to the Chilcot
Committee shows beyond doubt that Tony Blair knew he was
taking Britain into an illegal war, and that he doctored legal
advice to deceive his Cabinet, Parliament and the British
public.
Stop the War is calling on all its supporters, local groups
and affiliated organisations to mobilise the widest possible
support for the Blair protest on Friday.
We urge everyone who can to join the demonstration at the QEII
Conference Centre from 8am. Full details for the planned
events are here: http://bit.ly/8mKM0T
Spread the word as widely as you can among your family,
friends, work colleagues, fellow students etc, etc
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

[Peter Lemkin]

I say, good show old chaps! This is just getting a tad interesting! :hello: The National Security State is always there to protect the criminal class from the righteously angry People and the Truth. Ever was thus, sadly. And this they call Democracy and due process. What a farce. :flute: Personally, I think he'd make a great addition to the tourist attractions at the Tower of London, where he belongs....where so many in British and American government belong. What a shameful goon show!

[Jan Klimkowski]

The British Foreign Officer lawyers all agreed that the second Iraq war would be illegal in the absence of a fresh UN resolution.

To get a gaggle of lawyers all to agree on something is pretty astonishing.

UK Attorney General Goldsmith also agreed with this legal judgement. Until, almost on the eve of war, he took a trip to the US, "spoke with" Bush's inner circle, and.....

and.....

"Changed his mind."

Goldsmith has not articulated his reasons for changing his mind, nor did the so-called Iraq Inquiry ask him for the reasons for his new legal judgement.

Here's what should have happened (NB none of these words below in italics were actually uttered, but it is, imo, the essence of what should have happened):

Attorney General: Then I decided the Foreign Office lawyers were all wrong. I changed my mind."

Iraq Inquiry: "Why did you change your mind, Mr Attorney General?"

Yup. The so-called Iraq Inquiry didn't ask the question an eight-year-old would have asked.

Why not? This silence and refusal to ask meaningful and necessary questions is disgraceful.

The senior British government law officer, the Attorney General, can't simply chat to some American politicians and change his mind without providing any legal justification.

Then, when the AG finally went to cabinet, there was no discussion of the AG's new legal advice.

A democracy? Where our elected representatives seriously and carefully ponder matters of the gravest moral import?

Nah.

AG Goldsmith "changes his mind" for unknown reasons.

Blair ticks the boxes by trotting the AG out in front of Cabinet.

And, wahaay, Tony can join in Dubya's illegal war.

Iraq inquiry: Second UN resolution was not necessary, says Lord Goldsmith

Former attorney general admitted to changing his mind over necessity of further justification for military action

Lord Goldsmith the government's attorney general at the time of the Iraq war, has told the Chilcot inquiry that he believed in 2002 there was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein's regime that would have justified the use of force against him.

While he told the inquiry this morning that he believed a second UN resolution would have been "safer" to justify military action, he admitted he eventually concluded that a further reinforcement to the earlier resolution 1441 was not necessary.

Goldsmith has told the inquiry he changed his mind "for good reasons" but has not spelled them out, nor yet been asked by the inquiry what they were.

The change appears to have happened in late February 2003, just before the war, when he told the prime minister's advisers that there was "a reasonable case" that a second UN resolution was not needed. This was sufficient to constitute a "green light," he said. His previous advice had been preliminary.

The former attorney general spoke of the government as his "client". He said the prime minister had told him at a meeting shortly before the war: "'I do understand that your advice is your advice.' He accepted it was for me to reach a judgment and he had to accept that."

Goldsmith told the inquiry that he subsequently learned, over lunch with the French ambassador to London, that the French government did not believe it was necessary either. In the run-up to the war, the French president, Jacques Chirac, had made clear that France would not support a new resolution.

Goldsmith has also told the inquiry that in his judgment regime change was not a legitimate basis for the invasion.

He told the inquiry he had not attended cabinet meetings or cabinet committees discussing the possibility of war during 2002 and that he gleaned information about possible allied military plans from the press. He said "it would have been better" if he had attended cabinet; his judgement would have been important once the government's course of action had been agreed.

Goldsmith said: "My judgment was that there was not an imminence of threat that would justify us resorting to the use of force."

He said that he did not think his advice was welcome to the prime minister. Smiling, he told the inquiry: "I don't know, you'd have to ask Mr Blair that." The former prime minister is to appear before the inquiry on Friday.

He told the inquiry that he had told the then defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, that he was wrong to say that there was a clear basis for military action.

Goldsmith told the inquiry that the three justifications for the use of force against Iraq would have been self-defence, to avert a humanitarian catastrophe or authorisation by the UN.

He said he did not agree with the US policy of pre-emption. "The self-defence argument did not apply. There was no immediate threat," he said.

Goldsmith added that he was frustrated by the government's decision not to declassify some documents – a frustration clearly shared by Sir John Chilcot, chairman of the inquiry.

The former attorney general told the panel: "What I was anxious to do was to reach correct legal advice. I also had some concerns about public statements being made about what our position would be."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/27...aq-inquiry

[David Guyatt]

I like Chilcot. He has a nice weak chin and an affable, political manner (imo!). He's wonderful and I want to have his babies. If I do (have his babies - which I can't of course) one will very, very good and the other one will be very, very bad.

because Chilcot wants to be good, but is bad. Or perhaps he is bad but, deep down, wants to be good.

The contrast and flaw in his character is why he was chosen, methinks and is reflected in the two Fleet Street rags-cum-comics that represent polar opposites in their opinions and readership.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15...eo-cut-off

Chilcot censors Iraq inquiry's live broadcast
Sir Jeremy Greenstock's evidence on political mistakes after invasion is interrupted

Tuesday 15 December 2009 17.13 GMT

Sir John Chilcot, chairman of the Iraq inquiry, cut the live video of today's hearings, raising fears that he is suppressing evidence on grounds of embarrassment rather that any damage to national security.

"I interrupted the broadcast because of a mention of sensitive information," he said after hearing evidence from Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassador before the invasion and special envoy in Baghdad afterwards.

snip....

Then we have the spooks favourite comic, the Daily Bellylaugh

Iraq inquiry is being ‘gagged’ after secret documents withheld
Crucial evidence about the reasons Britain went to war against Saddam Hussein is being kept secret it has emerged – leading to accusations that the Iraq inquiry has been “gagged”.

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent
Published: 6:00AM GMT 28 Jan 2010

In an apparent breach of the Inquiry terms, Sir John Chilcot, head of the probe, expressed his “frustration” that he was unable to refer to key documents while questioning Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General, about why he gave the “green light” for war.
Lord Goldsmith also said that he was unhappy at being denied the opportunity to discuss documents including a letter from Jack Straw, then-former foreign secretary, about United Nations negotiations.

Yes folks, roll up to the Big Top, crane your necks and go "Aah" to the dizzying antics of the High Wire artists, and clap your belly and laugh out loud to the antics of the painted faced clowns.

The Circus is in town and it's role is to awe and amuse you.

But beware of the inactive hand of the resident Magician. As he pulls pound coin out of your ear with one hand he is stealing your critical mind with the other....

[Peter Presland]

Further to my post #6 on the terrorist threat alert thread ( http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15699&postcount=6 )

Here is the latest from the 'Stop the War Coalition' on the demo planned for Blairs appearance tomorrow. Not sure how the attempted police ban on assembly within sight of Blair (if he enters through the main entrance) is going but there does seem to be a head of steam building on this. Stay tuned for tomorrows fireworks - they might just be worth witnessing.

STOP THE WAR COALITION
NEWSLETTER No. 1139
28 January 2010
Email office@stopwar.org.uk
Tel: 020 7801 2768
Web: http://stopwar.org.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/STWuk

UPDATE: BLAIR INQUIRY PROTEST
People are coming from across Britain for the protest outside
the Iraq inquiry when Blair gives evidence on 29 January.

Colin Redpath, whose son Kirk died in Iraq in 2007, sums up
why we'll be there: "If you are found to be lying and have
misled the British public, and we were taken into an illegal
war, what I want to know is, will he be tried for this crime?
If not, why have this inquiry?"

Stop the War has had wide media coverage this week (see video
here: http://bit.ly/bqjeHN ), and is urging everyone who can
to join the all-day protest, which begins at 8.00am and
culminates around 4.00pm as Blair leaves the building, when we
aim to ensure that he knows there can be no hiding place for
war criminals.

The full timetable is as follows:

TIMETABLE OF PROTEST

8.00: PROTEST STARTS AS BLAIR ARRIVES
Press Conference with military families.
A delegation including Iraqi citizens and grieving military
families will deliver a statement and the People's Dossier of
questions for Tony Blair to Sir John Chilcot.

9.00-10.00: NAMING OF THE DEAD CEREMONY
When Blair's testimony begins, names of Iraqis killed in the
war will be read by novelist A.L Kennedy, Musician Brian Eno,
actor and director Sam West, actor and director Simon
McBurney, playwright David Edgar, Lancet editor Richard
Horton, former UK ambassador Craig Murray, Iraqi author Haifa
Zangana, comedian and author Alexei Sayle, actor Miriam
Margolyes, and more.

10.00-11.00: SPEECHES, READINGS AND PERFORMANCES
Including by many of those participating in the Naming the
Dead ceremony.

12.00-13.00: PERFORMANCES
Lowkey, King Blues and other Musicians.

13.00-14.00: MILITARY FAMILIES NAMING OF THE DEAD
Members of military families who lost loved ones in the Iraq
war will read the names of all 179 British soldiers who died.

16.00: PROTEST AS TONY BLAIR LEAVES THE INQUIRY
Let Blair know that there must be no hiding place for
mass-murderers.

[Peter Presland]

So far I have seen no reference to the demonstration outside the Chilcott Inquiry venue in the UK MSM. Wide coverage of his questioning so far with the consensus being they haven't laid a glove on him yet.

It's left to Middle East On Line to come up with this:

First Published 2010-01-29


'He does not have the integrity to come and face the people'
Demonstrators' anger as Blair slips into Iraq inquiry

Protesters slam 'coward' Blair as former PM avoids public, main entrance of conference centre.

LONDON - Former British prime minister Tony Blair took his seat before the public inquiry into the Iraq war on Friday, at the start of a long-awaited day of questioning into his account of the conflict.
The chairman of the public inquiry, retired civil servant John Chilcot, said the point of the questioning was to establish "Why did we invade Iraq?".
Relatives of soldiers killed in the conflict are among the audience watching the evidence in a central London conference venue.
Anti-war protesters accused Blair of being a "coward" Friday after reports that he was driven into the building hosting the Iraq war inquiry through a side entrance.
Blair did not enter the central London conference centre through the front exit, reporters said.
A motorcade swept into a side entrance of the building at 0730 GMT, two hours before Blair was due to give evidence, although there was no immediate confirmation that Blair was in one of the vehicles.
Hundreds of demonstrators outside the Queen Elizabeth II centre chanted "Tony Blair, War Criminal" as police lines held them behind crash barriers.
Activists said they were convinced Blair had given them the slip.
Lindsey German, convener of the Stop The War Coalition, said: "He doesn't have the decency or honesty to face up to the public, military families, and Iraqis who will be here today in huge numbers to show their opposition to the war.
"He does not have the integrity to come and face the people.
"Sliding in by a back door entrance is typical of his lies, deceit and evasion."
Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said Blair should be arrested and put on trial for crimes against humanity.
"He should face a court. The way he arrived today was just sneaky. He just does not want to face up to his crimes -- it is an outrage," she said.
Reg Keys, whose son Thomas died in Iraq in 2003, said he wanted to hear why Blair approved a dossier used to justify the case for war by claiming Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.
"It's a day we've waited a long time for and I want to hear what he's got to say," Keys said.
"He needs to explain why he misled parliament, why information was changed in the dossier... and why we found our loved ones in a conflict that was very questionable."
Reports said Blair is likely to admit to some mistakes in the execution of the war, but will maintain that he remains satisfied that he committed British troops to the US-led invasion.
Blair left office in June 2007.

[David Guyatt]

Exactly Peter. The questioning of Herr Bliar is timothy-tim-stupid-and-dim.

One reason why a Government funded inquiry - especially one without legal clout - I have elected to call a Circus.

But Gordo will pleased as will be the powers behind the scenes. As you know, the only purpose of a Government inquiry is to earth discontent - like a lightening rod, put on a merry TV show (with a 1 minute delay in transmission just in case anything juicy pops out by accident), and to generally keep most of the people off balance and in the dark about the realite.

And we can, of course, count upon the MSM to perform their role as Circus Seals, balancing spinning balls on their nose and clapping their flippers together at pre-determined times.

[Helen Reyes]

The only slightly not simple question I saw posed to Blair today was when Chilicot said "You went to war based on Iraq's non-compliance with weapons insepctions while at the same time Hans Blix was not saying they were uncompliant."

The audio died at the beginning of the feed via BBC World for about 30 seconds. It seemed intentional. The coverage had the message "One-minute delay" rather than "Live." The general impression was that the whole dialogue was rehearsed beforehand.