BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Iraq inquiry: Your reaction

16:45 UK time, Friday, 21 January 2011

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been questioned for a second time by the Iraq inquiry examining the UK's role in the 2003 war. Did you follow his evidence?

He was asked about apparent discrepancies between his previous evidence and comments by former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, who told the inquiry he was "uncomfortable" about statements made by the then PM before the conflict.

The ex-PM said he disregarded Lord Goldsmith's warning that attacking Iraq would be illegal without further UN backing because it was "provisional" and believed his top legal officer would change his position on whether a second UN resolution justifying force was needed when he knew the full details of the negotiations.

Did the inquiry ask the right questions? How did Tony Blair handle the questioning? What do you think the inquiry will achieve?

Thank you for your comments. This debate is now closed.

Comments

Page 1 of 15

  • Comment number 1.

    He has no regrets?

    I suggest he get's himself to Headley Court or Selly Oak and spends some of his time and millions he has earned since walking away from his responsibilities as prime minister with the brave heroes who have lost limbs because of his decision to go to war based on a pack of lies.

  • Comment number 2.

    He should be in the Hague on a war crimes trial!

  • Comment number 3.

    All i can see from this is that he lied and now our troops and the US marines have taken the fight to Iraqi civilians based on lies and imaginary connections to Al Queda, which when we all know that the CIA had closer ties to them then Saddam! What part of 90% of deaths being civilian do you not see as shameful. Is it ok for the UK and US to have its own attrocities? will the UKs right wingers enjoy that we know have our own vietnam? Blair lied and justice needs to be shown to maintain any kind of dignity in the eyes of the world! and while he's at it, maybe he should mention how he manipulated the media and started the propoganda to support this ridiculous event!

  • Comment number 4.

    why are we even still on about iraq? stop dragging up the past!

    it doesnt matter why or what anymore!

    at the end of the day IRAQ is now a better place for the people, it was far from perfect before the war. yes they lost civilians but to say that was all the USA's fault is ignorant, would you stay in a war zone? or would you get out of the way?
    and i bet if Saddam was still in power they would have been 100's of thousands still disappearing or being "taken out" for disagreement.

    all that matters now is the end result, and that is Iraq is a better place and has a much brighter future than it did.

  • Comment number 5.

    The only question B'liar needs to be asked, is how long he needs to pack his bags, before being jailed for LIFE! The man is a war criminal & a traitor. Why the enquiry is being so soft on him is beyond reason - he is PERSONALLY responsible for the deaths of kids from this country HE sent to Iraq to die for his overblown ego!

    As a direct result of B'liar's actions the buffer between Iran and the rest of the middle east was removed - smart move from someone who should have known better!

    To rub salt into the wound, he now ponces around as a peace envoy! That is one of the sickest jokes in history!

  • Comment number 6.

    I expect more lies and self-satisfaction.

  • Comment number 7.

    The inquiry as far as I am concerned is a joke. No matter what comes out no one will be charged with anything.

    We know how man people the military lost and based on even the lowest figures for inocent civilian deaths and injuries. We adn the U.S. have killed more poeple than Sadam did in thename of peace. How very sad

  • Comment number 8.

    Mr.Blair may be realising in the cold light of reflection, that this decision will weigh heavily with him for the rest of his life.

    He perhhaps became to close to Mr.Bush and his policies - He may have allowed Mr.Bush to manipulate him into a far to close co-operation etc., the debate will continue for a long time yet, whatever decisions are arrived at today.

    Mr.Blair has amassed untold wealth, untold property ownership etc., along with a falling respect and esteem - I would not be in his shoes for all the World.

    We shall see, what the outcome is.

  • Comment number 9.

    It should never have happened we were told lies and no amount of enquiries will change that just more waste of money

  • Comment number 10.

    No I won't be watching it, I'm sick of the spin and lies Coming out of B-Liars mouth, and no doubt the wimps who are 'running' this enquiry will let him wriggle out of it.

  • Comment number 11.

    Here we go again. It may well turn out to confirm certain people's cynicism etc etc etc!

  • Comment number 12.

    the was is/was illegal. the murder of more than 200,000 civilians is a war crime. The murder without trial of 1 million Iraqi forces is undemocratic and contrary to any claim to be there to spread democracy. Where are saddam's trillions of dollars? Where is the Oil revenue going ? where is the WMD ? all questions unanswered by Blair and Chilcott. If we believe Saddam should be toppled for being a dictator and that this is LEGAL under international law, then why is Israel with WMD AND a DICTATORSHIP is being propped up by that same Blair? Hypocrisy. Shame on BBC and the UK for your foreign policy EVILS.

  • Comment number 13.

    Totally sick of this now!
    It's a waste of time quite frankly.
    Does anybody still care about this? Not me.
    I supported the invasion of Iraq at the time and this enquiry is a waste of taxpayers money - everyone knows what happened!
    The idea of this enquiry was NOT to investigate Blair or anything like that BUT as an exercise in how things could be done better in future - surely all that is crystal clear by now!
    The confidential documents which (bizarrely) the enquiry asked to be made public (and vetoed by Gus O'Donnell quite rightly in my view) should NOT be in the PUBLIC domain - that it just shambolic political opportunism, which just shows what a waste of space this enquiry is!
    If I were Tony Blair, I would not bother turning up! Why should he? He' s done his bit!

  • Comment number 14.

    here we go again.
    Bliar (and Brown)are war criminals and should stand trial for what they have done to the Iraqi people and the British military personnel.
    However such a trial will never take place whilst they are protected by the rest of the corrupt incompetents in Westminster, the police, civil servants and a couldn't care less judiciary.
    Its more important to prosecute a speeding motorist.

  • Comment number 15.

    Blair stands as a giant in British politics and in time his actions in Iraq will be exonerated. He and Bush did the right thing in getting rid of a middle east dictator. And they ought to have removed several more in that region. So what if the paperwork was incomplete, his actions were virtuous and the British people ought tto recognise that fact.

  • Comment number 16.

    He is not accountable - this whole piece of theatre is an expensive charade.

    Personally, I have no doubt that he took us into an illegal war, but I also have no doubt that the establishment will never allow the whole truth to emerge.

  • Comment number 17.

    it is not going away this one.it is a pity they was not more enquires into why and how we were led in to war through the 80s and 90s,it seems to me those were acceptable wars????

  • Comment number 18.

    Mr Blair has 'no regrets' despite his dossier being proved wrong, despite his assertion that the evidence was 'beyond doubt' that Saddam had WMD.

    Sounds like an arrogant man who will not admit his errors, and thinks if he keeps up with the same story of 'no regrets' and that he feels 'it was the right thing to do', then everybody will eventually come round to his way of thinking or just let it pass.

    Sorry Mr Blair, I will never forget what you and Mr Campbell did ..... in my view (I better put, in my view, otherwise this will get rejected), you lied to get this country to go to war. You lied to get your country into a war alongside the US to give your image a big up, and, in my view, to make money out of your friendship with the US when you were no longer leader of this country. In my view, you are a despicable traitor to this country who should be held to account. But you can continue to be smug and go no to make your mega bucks on the US lecture circuit, because you will not be held to account.

  • Comment number 19.

    Apart from Tony Blair saying that he has no regrets about the Iraq War, I do not believe anything else he says. So I won't be following the inquiry.

  • Comment number 20.

    Mr Blair should be in Iraq or Afghanistan at the wrong time and in the wrong place. Perhaps then politicians will be constantly reminded what happens when they lie. Thousands of people have died because of Blair and no confessional is ever going to change that fact.

    And let the current state of both Iraq and Afghanistan be reminders to meddling nations that you do not make something better through invasion and attack, you make it worse.

  • Comment number 21.

    No. 4 "why are we even still on about iraq? stop dragging up the past!

    it doesnt matter why or what anymore!"

    It certainly does matter when his lies cost not only thousands of lives but billions of pounds and rising daily, money which would put our economy straight. Instead, his lies have contributed to our demise and can only be described as zionist, otherwise known as "New World Order"... make them spend beyond their means so that the mega rich (who own banks like the Fed and do not appear on Forbes' list) can have more control and even more profit. It's been in the making for a long time.

  • Comment number 22.

    There still appears to be some pertinent evidence which continues to be buried within "secrecy" legislation - surely this enquiry, examining the actions of a previous Prime Minister - should have access to, and the power to publish, ANY relevant evidence, what is the point of an enquiry which has it's hands tied ? -It simply gives a huge amount of credence to the COVER UP allegations ! If Blair has nothing to hide then why is he so coy ? as a self declared christian it is surely his christian duty to tell the whole truth, not just the parts he wants us to hear !
    The enquiry must get tough and get categoric statements, not Blair's usual sneaky half truths and silly grins.

  • Comment number 23.

    It really is very simple.

    Bush and his stooges wanted a war to get rights to Iraqi oil.

    They wanted an excuse to invade.

    Blair helped them find an excuse and in the process misled Parliament and the people and bullied his own inside Ministers who knew better.

    People who knew the truth were shut up under instructions from the US and at least one of them shut up permanently.

  • Comment number 24.

    What questions should the inquiry be asking?

    -How does it feel to be the architect of half a million deaths?

    -How do you sleep at night?

    How do you think Tony Blair will handle the questioning?

    -With lies and spin.

    What do you think the inquiry will achieve?

    -Whitewash.

  • Comment number 25.

    2. At 08:53am on 21 Jan 2011, RonC wrote:
    He should be in the Hague on a war crimes trial!

    ---------------------------

    I'm always curious as to what war crimes he has meant to have committed.

    Perhaps you could explain?

  • Comment number 26.

    Blair's a liar; he always has been, he always will be. He wouldn't recognise the truth if it jumped up and bit him, so what is the point of this ridiculous charade?

  • Comment number 27.

    An article on Radio 5 has just mentioned that Blair will attempt to protect his legacy.
    His legacy? Is that the legacy as a warmongering, lying toady to Bush legacy? The legacy where hundred of British soldiers have been maimed and killed to satisfy his personal vanity?
    Blair wa the worst Prime Minister in history. A traitor to the UK, a liar and a fraud. His loegacy is one not worthy of protection. He should be standing in The Hague as a war criminal, not lying through his teeth in the Queen Elizabeth Centre.

  • Comment number 28.

    The Iraq inquiry. Just another way of transferring money from the less well off to the rich lawyers. Whatever the inquiry outcome it will make zero difference to anything but the lawyers bank accounts.

  • Comment number 29.

    13. At 09:10am on 21 Jan 2011, sledger10 wrote:
    Totally sick of this now!
    It's a waste of time quite frankly.
    Does anybody still care about this? Not me.
    I supported the invasion of Iraq at the time and this enquiry is a waste of taxpayers money - everyone knows what happened!
    The idea of this enquiry was NOT to investigate Blair or anything like that BUT as an exercise in how things could be done better in future - surely all that is crystal clear by now!
    The confidential documents which (bizarrely) the enquiry asked to be made public (and vetoed by Gus O'Donnell quite rightly in my view) should NOT be in the PUBLIC domain - that it just shambolic political opportunism, which just shows what a waste of space this enquiry is!
    If I were Tony Blair, I would not bother turning up! Why should he? He' s done his bit!

    ---------------

    Sledger10, whether we agree or disagree whether the war was right is neither here nor there, what is done is done. The point is that he lied to the people and to parliament in order to get this country into a war. He used, what can only be described at best as poor intelligence, to argue his case. So whether you think his moral choices were right or not on whether to remove Saddam, the fact that such a serious decision was coerced and backed up by such sketchy evidence is unacceptable.

    If the evidence had been nailed on 100% accurate, you can still argue the rights and wrongs of going to war. But with such sketchy evidence, the decision should never have been taken.

  • Comment number 30.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 31.

    Blair and Bush are the fall guys when the real culprits get away scot free.
    In 1991 during the first Gulf war both France and Russia used their UN veto's to stop Saddam being taken over. Both France and Russia had substantial investments in Iraq. France and Russia continued to use this veto until WMD was used as reason to invade Iraq.

  • Comment number 32.

    Mr Blair must be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth because hasn't he started the 'Faith Foundation?'
    No one, not even a politician, would lie to an 'Inquiry' that just wants to put the record straight.....would they?

  • Comment number 33.

    As I understand it there are plenty of internal documents stuffed into files which would tell the whole story. These documents are being denied the public venue despite requests, making the whole inquiry a sham and an horrendous waste of money. (Why doesn't Freedom of Information apply in this case?)

    We don't need to witness Blair in action one more time with a faulty memory and an urgent stutter when faced with yes/no questions.

    We need our inquiry (and tax money)to be seen getting to a truth we can all believe, and not what Blair believes.

  • Comment number 34.

    Over the course of the last year I have re-evaluated my opinion on Blair.

    Domestically he was an absolute disaster and we are all paying the price now, although this useless coaltion is just creating if bigger problems in the way they are dealing with it. But thats another debate.

    Internationally he could have done more in places like Zimbabwe, but as Iraq will always define him; that war is the one that will follow him and he will be judged against.

    The war was prosecuted badly because the planning was badly done, but the actual war to secure the country from extremists was right. Its a view I didn't have until recently. The prospects of countries like Iran and groups like Al Quada getting their hands on the technological know how that Iraq possesed (from the west when they were an allie) was too grave a danger.

    Its extremely sad about the deaths and maimed troops, but they know that risk when they sign up and have accepted it as part of the rsik of the job.

    Its a pity Blair didnt take on the left of his party with the speinding policies with the same vigour he defended western interests.

  • Comment number 35.

    23. At 09:26am on 21 Jan 2011, Bradford wrote:
    It really is very simple.

    Bush and his stooges wanted a war to get rights to Iraqi oil.

    They wanted an excuse to invade.

    Blair helped them find an excuse and in the process misled Parliament and the people and bullied his own inside Ministers who knew better.

    People who knew the truth were shut up under instructions from the US and at least one of them shut up permanently.


    ----------------------------

    Who has the rights to the Iraqi oil now?

    It's the Iraqi government.

    How do you think that the US could have the rights to the Iraqi oil in any way shape or form?

  • Comment number 36.

    The crucial documents relating to Blair and his collusion with George Bush in going to war come hell or high water, are not to be made public. This only leaves everyone with the conclusion that there is something very serious to hide in these documents. However, we all know what went on with out the need for an enquiry. The political love afffair between these two "leaders" is well known. Just sorry he won't be put on trial.

  • Comment number 37.

    Slippery Bliar will gabble away and say whatever he needs to say to wriggle himself off the hook. He is only interested in himself, as is now very evident from the day he bacame labour leader.

    I still dream of seeing him and his puppeteer Bush standing in the Hague Courtroom on trial from crimes against humanity.

  • Comment number 38.

    He is expected to be asked about apparent discrepancies between his previous evidence and comments by former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.

    But will he tell the truth? Just watch the snidey ***** hands.

  • Comment number 39.

    if this inquiry finds out all the truth from this liar and all the others who fail to be honest then tony blair will be the next pope another multi million pound talking shop that finds nothing new ,

  • Comment number 40.

    A small sector of the population is obsessed by this, and won't be happy till Blair is on trial at the Hague.

    The vast majority of the population will remained somewhat bemused by and indifferent to the whole thing.

    Remember - time and time we were told that Iraq was THE big issue. Blair never lost an election over it, despite the confident assertions of the BBC at the time.

    People were always much more concerned about immigration and the economy, the issues which eventually did bring Labour down.

    But hey, let's have yet another thread about Iraq.....

  • Comment number 41.

    "4. At 08:57am on 21 Jan 2011, scotty1694 wrote:
    why are we even still on about iraq? stop dragging up the past!

    it doesnt matter why or what anymore!

    at the end of the day IRAQ is now a better place for the people, it was far from perfect before the war. yes they lost civilians but to say that was all the USA's fault is ignorant, would you stay in a war zone? or would you get out of the way?
    and i bet if Saddam was still in power they would have been 100's of thousands still disappearing or being "taken out" for disagreement.

    all that matters now is the end result, and that is Iraq is a better place and has a much brighter future than it did."

    Iraq ia NOT a better place today! They have shootings and bombiings on a daily basis. There is now a power sturggle between the baathists and the Shias following muqtader el sada.

    How is that better? For sure Saddam wasn't a nice bloke (although he was put in power by the USA in the first place) but Iraq was far more peaceful and prosperous when Saddam was in power.

    I am sure Blair did have convincing arguments for the war in iraq but the thing is those arguments would of been economic, nothing to do with morality or security.

    Blair went to war because:-

    - Saddam had been threatening to trade oil in euros and had previously traded in francs and marks.

    - Saddam had cut off US and UK companies from drilling and rebuilding contracts in Iraq.

    - Saddam had cut off US and UK companies from suplying Iraq with arms.

    - The french and the germans were getting rich and the UK and US weren't getting anything.

    So thats why he went to war for money. For british jobs for british companies and to sure up BP which has all of our pension funds in it.

    When you combine that with the fact if we hadn't gone to war America would of secretly sanctioned us and cut us off from any future oppertunities Blair thought it wise to go to war.

    But it had nothing to do with any real threat from Saddam and it had nothing to do with feeling sorry for the kurds etc. Afterall both the UK and USA supported the gassing of the kurds at the time as they were seen as a threat to the northern supply of oil in Iraq.

    Blair is therefore a war criminal a liar and a whore. He should be charged and prosecuted and if we had access to the private letters he sent to Bush during that time we would see PRECISELY what the war was for.

  • Comment number 42.

    Until we see the communication between Blair and Bush we won't know even 5% of the truth. I don't trust Blair - never did. I think he did what Bush told him, in fact probably went further and encouraged Bushes delusions, massaging Bushes ego (I only said ego...) and furnishing Bush with whatever lies and pretence were required for the US to get their hands on Iraqi oil - which is after all exactly what this was all about. I suspect the 'payout' for this was the cushy little 'job' Blair now has - it certainly was no payout to the UK.

  • Comment number 43.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 44.

    after capturing saddam why was he not interviewed in front of the international press on the subject of WMD ? Why was all the evidence from saddam himself suppressed ? Surely there would be evidence against bush/blair - I say these were destroyed/suppressed to protect the real war criminals. Blair still says WMD - there werent any!!! So if the pretext for war didnt exist the war itself was illegal - simple truth. If the UK/US arrested someone and imposed a death sentence based on evidence that sisnt exist - which was discovered BEFORE saddam's execution, surely the correct thing to do would be to release the prisoner. That alone is a crime, under a democratic system, and the persons responsible for the miscarriage of justice would be held to account. Yet you/they keep saying the same line - we were there to spread democracy. With bombs and guns, with no trial, with no jury. In this case we are talking of the destruction of an entire nation and who is to decide which of the deceased was a terrorist when there has not been a single trial that has examined the evidence of each person that Blair and his lackeys murdered? The enquiry is pointless as many have said, this is a white wash. Where are the Iraqi's in this chilcott enquiry - why are all the judges and jury BRITISH? Surely, the Iraqi Politicians and Millitary leaders should be presenting their evidence too?!!!

  • Comment number 45.

    "35. At 09:43am on 21 Jan 2011, Fitz13 wrote:
    ----------------------------

    Who has the rights to the Iraqi oil now?

    It's the Iraqi government.

    How do you think that the US could have the rights to the Iraqi oil in any way shape or form?"

    Oh dear you have a very poor understanding of economics don't you? America has rebuilding contracts in iraq as does the UK. We also have drilling contracts.

    For all this to happen Iraq has to take out a loan, a loan it can never repay.

    So it has to sell us oil at a low rate for the forseeable future and it is traded in dollors.

    So every time ANYONE buys iraqs oil they have to first go to the federal reserve and buy some dollors (at a charge) in order to buy it.

    So we have 'stolen there oil' but that does not mean iraqs government doesn't own it it just means iraqs government doesn't control it.

  • Comment number 46.

    Aww the wee soul, Bliar arrived two hours early, probably to avoid protesters. He's pretty adept at that, be it a few, a million strong or the majority of a nation, ie. UK.

    Am watching the inquiry now and his instant wrigglings (yawn). I think the learn-ed inquirers will forensically pick at Blair's tiresome twaddle to get to the truth - that he lied to the UK people, totally disregarding valid protestations and dragged us into a war.

    I think the inquiry will achieve, already accumulating, further volumes of Blair's word play, designed to save his skin at the cost of hundreds of service personnel's lives and countless Iraqi deaths. Does he care? Does he regret it? Is he sorry? In my opinion - no.

    Truth is what we want, but Blair wouldn't recognise that if it bit him in the proverbial. He should be locked up and the key flung away.

  • Comment number 47.

    This enquiry can only make recommendations. No legal requirements, justice etc. etc. can be served here. This circus is just following the motions and will sadly be forgotten about by the masses when the media move on to another news item. GET ALL THOSE ACCOUNTABLE TO ANSWER AT THE HAUGUE - I'm sick of the lies.

  • Comment number 48.

    What has been done has been done and there can be no going back. Why waste so much public money on all these enquiries.

  • Comment number 49.

    I presume B&Q have now sold out of whitewash!

  • Comment number 50.

    : ty1694 why go on about it? How dare you suggest that. 100,000 men women and children killed in Iraq on the decisions of blair and bush which were founded on 'lies'. Do these innocent civilians deserve justice? Yes no matter how long it takes

  • Comment number 51.

    Look, yeah! Huh! I think you all know by now he's a priddy-strait-kindaguy so just listen to what he says and agree, yeah? All that matters is he cleared it with god first yknow?

  • Comment number 52.

    If the only outcome of the inquiry was to prevent Tony Blair benefiting from his crimes it would be worth it. Can't see that happening though.

  • Comment number 53.

    I am not a supporter of TB but he was right to confront the sit'n in Iraq. They had been defying the UN for years re WMD.The UN should have forced the action in Iraq but was incapable and although the info on Iraq'S WMD was wrong,TB and Bush could not avoid acting.Hussain had history on using WMD on his own people, 9/11 had occured.
    We should stop bleating, a collective decision had been taken for all the 'right' reasons.

  • Comment number 54.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 55.

    13. At 09:10am on 21 Jan 2011, sledger10 wrote:

    Totally sick of this now!
    It's a waste of time quite frankly.
    Does anybody still care about this? Not me.
    I supported the invasion of Iraq at the time and this enquiry is a waste of taxpayers money - everyone knows what happened!
    The idea of this enquiry was NOT to investigate Blair or anything like that BUT as an exercise in how things could be done better in future - surely all that is crystal clear by now!
    The confidential documents which (bizarrely) the enquiry asked to be made public (and vetoed by Gus O'Donnell quite rightly in my view) should NOT be in the PUBLIC domain - that it just shambolic political opportunism, which just shows what a waste of space this enquiry is!
    If I were Tony Blair, I would not bother turning up! Why should he? He' s done his bit!

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He' s done his bit!

    His bit as you describe it has been to help a sovereign nation fall apart while it was being bombed back into the stone age, his "bit" earned him over £20000000 (twenty million pounds just in case their are too many zeros for you to count). Most people now accept that Bliar was wrong in 2003, its a shame that more of these people couldn't see it at the time and an greater shame that this person will not be held to account for his stupidity or greed.

  • Comment number 56.

    15. At 09:12am on 21 Jan 2011, Dr Llareggub wrote:
    Blair stands as a giant in British politics and in time his actions in Iraq will be exonerated. He and Bush did the right thing in getting rid of a middle east dictator. And they ought to have removed several more in that region. So what if the paperwork was incomplete, his actions were virtuous and the British people ought tto recognise that fact.

    .........

    Giant in British politics??? Don't make me laugh! My cat has more integrity than this, I hesitate to use the word, man. B'liar is a liar, traitor & war criinal - it's a pity capital punishment is no longer practised in the UK - though perhaps he could be handed over to the Iraqis to stand trial for his crimes!

  • Comment number 57.

    He and Bush should be jailed for war crimes, at the very least.

    What gets me is why the stupid Americans aren't doing a similar inquiry with Bush.

  • Comment number 58.

    This is all about the benefit of hinsight. Leaders have to make tough decisions. Based on the info he had at the time, I think Blair made the right decision. Now we know there were no WMD, and Iraq still has troubles, people are saying 'it was all about the oil' and other clever comments that are easy to make with the benefit of hindsight. If it turned out that there were WMD in Iraq after all, and some peace were restored in Iraq, Blair and Bush would have been hailed heroes, and there would be no question over the legality of the war. He may not have led our country through the horror and strife that Churchill did (the Nazi uprising was no illusion!), but Blair is one of the best leaders we've ever had. He stuck by his guns, and is doing exactly what he should do now: sticking by his decision. I'd love to see some of today's politicians lead the country through that period with such deciciveness and authority! Blair is absolutely right not to apologise for his decision to go to war - a decision he never took lightly. Of course Blair regrets the loss of British lives! He's rightly being extremely careful not to apologise for his decision at the time. I feel sorry for Blair being dragged through this endless inquiry, during which he has refused to give in to all the clever hindsight hectors. It's so easy now to sit on the cosy other side of the desk and scrutinise his actions.

  • Comment number 59.

    Yes I'm watching right now - Watching him stumble and fall
    He's lying and stuttering like a fool

  • Comment number 60.

    Blair is a war criminal and should be in front of a war crimes tribunal along with George Bush. They are responsible for the deaths of 100's of thousands of innocent people. They are despicable. Blair should be sent to clean the soldiers toilets in Afghanistan for the rest of his miserable life. Middle East peace envoy! How ironic is that.
    I wonder if he and George still get together for a little prayer from time to time. Probably not, I doubt if George even remembers who Tony Blair is. Used by George and his neocons to legitimise their oil grab and then dumped. What a fool.

  • Comment number 61.

    It was frightening to see how easy it was for a few people behind closed doors to decide to take the UK to war and then convince parliament that it was the right course of action based on a dubious assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which would take 45 minutes to reach the UK.

    There seemed to be no safeguards or checks in place to ensure the right course of action was being taken once the process to take us to war was started.

    Equally of concern was that when lone voices were raised they were squashed. The Attorney General questions the legality of the war but then somehow ends up changing his mind and then there is the issue of Dr David Kelly.

    However, for me, the most troubling aspect of all is after the event nothing seems to have been done to put in place safeguards to prevent something similar happening again which is the same issue that concerns me most regarding the banking situation.

  • Comment number 62.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 63.

    Indirect, elliptical questioning on abstruse aspects of process, to which Blair responds with evasive comments on totally unrelated matters. For how much longer does this farce have to continue?

    The evidence that will incriminate Blair will never be released into the public domain. The inquiry panel know Blair is guilty of misleading parliament, Blair knows he is guilty of misleading parliament, but no one in any position of authority, it seems, is allowed to actually say it.

  • Comment number 64.

    Did he hope that by becoming a catholic that he could have his sins absolved? What a heavy burden to place on his local priest.
    I don't think we will ever get to the truth behind why he and his cabinet cronies decided to back the USA in a war of aggression. To many at the time it was illogical and unjustified. It also took the heat off Afghanistan and allowed the Taliban breathing space.
    Scotty1694 (no,4) doesn't want people dragging up the past, well tell that to the relatives of those killed by the car bombs in Iraq yesterday or the relatives of the soldiers from US and UK still dying in Afghanistan. The present is the result of the past.

  • Comment number 65.

    It's not been a very good week for the Labour party has it? Just when the Conservatives announce the largest reforms to the National Health Service since it was introduced focus has been moved back to the Labour party's failings when they were in government. First, one of the architects of their disastrous economics record ends up as Shadow Chancellor and now their former Prime Minister squirms at the Chilcot enquiry.

    I wonder what will happen next.

  • Comment number 66.

    "Former Prime Minister Tony Blair is being questioned for a second time by the Iraq inquiry examining the UK's role in the 2003 war. Are you be following his evidence?"

    OOhh arrr BBC, oi Be followin his evidence, followin it close, oi be.
    Oi hopes they "tear him a new one".
    ;)

  • Comment number 67.

    The only winners in this shambles are Blair who will walk away covered in whitewash, and his lawyer friends who will pick up millions in fees.

    Everyone else, including our soldiers, Iraqui civilians and the taxpayer, loses.

  • Comment number 68.

    Make Blair, and all his ky-pixie friends, PAY.

  • Comment number 69.


    #13 "Totally sick of this now!
    It's a waste of time quite frankly.
    Does anybody still care about this? Not me."

    Don't you? Well I suppose we'd better shut the whole thing down then.

  • Comment number 70.

    He keeps harking back to Sept 11. That had nothing to do with Saddam.

  • Comment number 71.

    More lies and smoke to achieve and establish nothing at massive (unaffordable) public expense.
    Good old Teflon Tony

  • Comment number 72.

    I like many here am shocked and angered by what has and is being said. But what does any of this achieve. It will not change the disaster, not just in Iraq but around the world that this egotistical money (fueled) war is doing, it will not being bring back those who have lost their lives or live in fear.

    I would love to see him and bis buddy Bush in the Hague but that isn't going to happen. This inquiry is wasting money and almost a insult to those paying the price of his action.

  • Comment number 73.

    12. At 09:05am on 21 Jan 2011, antidot wrote:
    "the was is/was illegal. the murder of more than 200,000 civilians is a war crime. The murder without trial of 1 million Iraqi forces is undemocratic and contrary to any claim to be there to spread democracy. Where are saddam's trillions of dollars? Where is the Oil revenue going ? where is the WMD ? all questions unanswered by Blair and Chilcott. If we believe Saddam should be toppled for being a dictator and that this is LEGAL under international law, then why is Israel with WMD AND a DICTATORSHIP is being propped up by that same Blair? Hypocrisy. Shame on BBC and the UK for your foreign policy EVILS."

    Calm down. Since when was Israel a dictatorship?

  • Comment number 74.

    amazing... I am watching as I type... a question asked that required a 'yes' or 'no' answer got a 3 minute stream of words that eventually found it's full stop, then the next question was asked and no one is any the wiser...

    is it any wonder the publics tolerence of politicians wears ever thinner... that no one trusts anything a politician utters...

    how long will the public put up with it?
    will there be a tipping point?

  • Comment number 75.

    What has happened to all the OIL in these 8 years we have been at "war"
    Thats my question...

  • Comment number 76.

    To try and explain a couple of points raised in earlier posts:

    My understanding of war crime charges is because the UN resolution allowed Iraq to be attacked because of having WMD. This is only allowed if there is, to use an americanism 'clear and present danger'. On these grounds the UN issued the green light to invade. They DID NOT issue a green light for any other reason so when you hear Blair say 'regime change' and 'Saddam had to be got rid of' this is a very clear breach of the UN resolution and thus an illegal invasion took place. It's a bit like your boss saying he has to sack you because of cutbacks - totally legal. You then find out he sacked you because he doesn't like you and will benefit financially from getting rid of you - I'm sure you would all be whizzing to the employment tribunals!
    Secondly - the q's re how USA benefited from Iraqi oil - the deeply held belief is Saddam was about to commit the most terrible crime in the eyes of George Bush and the American government - he was about to become the first and only government to start trading their oil in Euros instead of dollars. This would have had a totally destabilizing effect on the US economy (whilst bolstering the Euro countries) and thus on Tony Bliar's bank account (estimated to be worth $70m!). Bliar also arranged PRIVATE contracts with south korean oil company to go into Iraq after the war to rebuild the wells! Watching him now and notice how he has lost his newfound yank accent that he had last year!

  • Comment number 77.

    Now let's see!

    Tony's mate Gus refuses to allow the Bush/Blair correspondence to be made public. Now why would that be?

    Option 1 (Tony's preference for what gullible old Joe Public should believe).

    It's a matter of principle that world leaders should be able to communicate in private with each other without what they say being made public.

    Option 2a

    He's got something to hide. Such as that the letters would reveal that he did in fact give Dubya unquestioning support from Day 1.

    No contest IMO!!!!!

    Of course if the 'private' conversation was along the lines of:

    GWB: "Yo Blair, - how's it hanging? How's Cherie? How many new appartments you bought for the kids today?"

    TB: "Hello MR President sir. I'm fine thank you Mr President sir. How is Mrs President, Mr President sir?"

    then that would be OK.

    But when it comes to discussing death and destruction on the scale they were planning, NOTHING at all should be considered private - ever.



  • Comment number 78.

    This continues to be rather toothless to me and leads me to wonder why we are "investigating" ourselves-shouldn't it be the United Nations who decide if we followed their resolutions correctly and legally ? If so, they should be the arbiters of who's to blame, if anyone.
    Personally I don't understand why we adopt " Marquis of Queensbury Rules" when up against those who throw the rule book out of the window when we could probably justify engaging them by their lack of rules.
    If we aren't going to play by the rules why don't we just say so and justify that decision rather than pretending that we were playing by the rules?

  • Comment number 79.

    //56. At 10:17am on 21 Jan 2011, W Fletcher wrote:
    15. At 09:12am on 21 Jan 2011, Dr Llareggub wrote:
    Blair stands as a giant in British politics and in time his actions in Iraq will be exonerated. He and Bush did the right thing in getting rid of a middle east dictator. And they ought to have removed several more in that region. So what if the paperwork was incomplete, his actions were virtuous and the British people ought tto recognise that fact.

    .........

    Giant in British politics??? Don't make me laugh! My cat has more integrity than this, I hesitate to use the word, man. B'liar is a liar, traitor & war criinal - it's a pity capital punishment is no longer practised in the UK - though perhaps he could be handed over to the Iraqis to stand trial for his crime//

    You're actually calling for someone to be killed...do you realise that? What if people called for terrorists and their supporters here in the UK to be killed? Would you support that, too?

    You people are really obsessive about this. It's no wonder you're in such a minority. The vast majority of people in the UK really don't care much.

  • Comment number 80.

    35. At 09:43am on 21 Jan 2011, Fitz13 wrote:

    Who has the rights to the Iraqi oil now?

    It's the Iraqi government.

    How do you think that the US could have the rights to the Iraqi oil in any way shape or form?


    And how long do you think the Iraqi government would last if they decided to sell their oil to the Chinese?


  • Comment number 81.

    I have never believed Labor or Blair wanted to attack Iraq, knowing full well any miltary attack was ultimaltely about dwindling oil supplies to America and the west, this an establishment war. he cuts a sad figure having to defend something he did he never wanted to do with lie after lie, constructing this tiresome narrative, knowing the country knows its always about oil and Israel. But he is paid well and so let him suffer like we do when we have to break the rules at work to get the job done to avoid the sack, the so-called gray era our lives are lived in. To a vain man like Blair losing his hair and boyish looks over this is enough punishment for me.

  • Comment number 82.

    53. At 10:13am on 21 Jan 2011, pand wrote:

    I am not a supporter of TB but he was right to confront the sit'n in Iraq. They had been defying the UN for years re WMD.The UN should have forced the action in Iraq but was incapable and although the info on Iraq'S WMD was wrong,TB and Bush could not avoid acting.Hussain had history on using WMD on his own people, 9/11 had occured.
    We should stop bleating, a collective decision had been taken for all the 'right' reasons.


    Umm, how could Iraq have defied the UN on WMD when there weren't any? Iraq let the weapons inspectors in and complied with the UN fully.

  • Comment number 83.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 84.

    Recommend post 12, says it all.

  • Comment number 85.

    scotty1694 ... I presume you did not lose any family members or have them maimed as a result of the Iraq war (if this is the case then thank your lucky stars because many people - Iraqi, American, British and others - did and will be living with the fallout for the rest of THEIR lives). I suggest you enlist and head off to the war zones for first hand experience, perhaps then your attitude will change.

  • Comment number 86.

    This inquiry is an absolute waste of time and money. It will not come up with anything as evidence has been witheld. The two major players, Bush and Blair had conversations that were fundamental in the decision to send many of our troops to their death needlessly. These conversations are not to be given to the inquiry.

    I suggest we stop this pantomime and put the money that's being wasted to good use on the rehabilitation and wellbeing of the troops that have been injured in illegal wars.

  • Comment number 87.

    Bliar feels the hand of history on his shoulder.

    What a pity that hand isn't leading him to the cells.

  • Comment number 88.

    Blair is a glory hunting warmonger that cared little for the country he was voted into running, and should be tried on charges of war crimes at very least. All he cares about is his legacy, and what a legacy of ruin it has been.

    His primacy saw the country night on bankrupt, which 2 generations of Britons will be paying back due to his goverments irresponsibility, and an illegally prosecuted war. He is an unrepentant disgrace, and needs to be locked up with the key thrown away.

  • Comment number 89.

    There will be no justice, there will be no answers just more lies, ego protecting and justification.

    It reminds me of Aesop's Fable about the lion and the lamb "Any excuse will serve a tyrant."

  • Comment number 90.

    Tony Blair makes parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and multilateralism through international cooperation and alliances look like a farce! What little advances we were making in International Law, Tony Blair in collaboration with George Bush took us back a few decades!

  • Comment number 91.

    It should be remembered ,that before action was taken ,a vote was taken in Parliament.this was not Labour all for ,others against,rather a majority of the house on a cross party basis.
    It should also be remembered that over 40 countries took part in the conflict, do they all claim they were misled by Tony Blair? True there were claims of a 45 minute warning, but the newspaper reports that I saw at that time referred to a missile launch hitting British bases on CYPRUS ,not the british mainland. I think it is time that the tories stopped trying to rewrite history on this episode, They were not misled --------they were all for war long before any dossiers surfaced.
    Were the heads of all other countries also misled?

  • Comment number 92.

    62. At 10:22am on 21 Jan 2011, Willo wrote:
    "The war in Iraq is entirely down to Saddam Hussein's aggressive tyranny and stubborn intransigence. The way the BBC spins it, you'd think Iraq was a utopia before the West interfered."
    The war in Iraq is entirely down to George Bush's agressive tyranny and stubborn intransigence. We have found to our cost that holding a fractious country like Iraq together (a non-country created by us Brits) took a dictator like Saddam. I am not supporting him or his regime, but his heavy handed rule which murdered 10's of thousands pales into insignificance when compared to the 100's of thousands killed by our illegal invasion of Iraq.

  • Comment number 93.

    "1. At 08:52am on 21 Jan 2011, Tio Terry wrote:
    He has no regrets?

    I suggest he get's himself to Headley Court or Selly Oak and spends some of his time and millions he has earned since walking away from his responsibilities as prime minister with the brave heroes who have lost limbs because of his decision to go to war based on a pack of lies."
    _____________________________________________________________________

    He has explained that he regretted the loss of life but not the decision to go to war. Of course, if all you want to do is demonise the man, then there's nothing like a good bit of misrepresentation to support your cause.

    I think Tony Blair and NuLabour was one of the worst things ever to happen to this country but I'm astonished at how he's being villified over this - it is clear that the decision he took was not straightforward and that a lot of deliberation took place. The newspaper headlines may have irresponsibly simplified this into inflammatory headlines (45 minutes to war (before), War Criminal (after) and lets not forget Piers Morgans paper with the fabricated torture pictures (during)), but despite the media manipulation, I would have hoped that more people would be able to consider this more objectively.

    Perhaps symptomatic of Tony Blair's failures on Education. Education. Education.

  • Comment number 94.

    40. At 10:00am on 21 Jan 2011, Masons Arms wrote:

    A small sector of the population is obsessed by this, and won't be happy till Blair is on trial at the Hague.

    The vast majority of the population will remained somewhat bemused by and indifferent to the whole thing.

    Remember - time and time we were told that Iraq was THE big issue. Blair never lost an election over it, despite the confident assertions of the BBC at the time.

    People were always much more concerned about immigration and the economy, the issues which eventually did bring Labour down.

    But hey, let's have yet another thread about Iraq.....
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Couldn't agree more
    Times we were told that "the entire country" was against the war only to see Labour returned with a majority the current Tory lot would sell their grannies into slavery to get their hands on. That's how much the electorate cared about the war.
    What the enquiry should really be dealing with is the abject failure to realise that deposing Saddam, as bad as he was, would un-cork the sectarian bottle leading to the carnage that Sunnis and Shi'as inflicted on each other. Remember, the vast majority of the civilian casualties (like the "500,000 per year" postulated by some anti-British nut on the NI Blogs) were caused by this internal struggle, not by our troops.
    The coalition knew that winning the war would be relatively easy given the force imbalance. What they didn't plan for was winning the peace and this is where Chilcott should focus. Conflicting arguments over the legality or otherwise of the war only fuel the conspiracy theorists and line the lawyers pockets.

  • Comment number 95.

    No regrets? His decisions directly and indirectly killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, never mind the troops sent into combat and condemned millions to a life of misery as they had to live with a war-torn Iraq. Never mind the wider consequences of destabilising the entire region and strengthening Iran for generations to come. No regrets? Sickening.

  • Comment number 96.

    A liar and an alleged war criminal with Teflon shoulders who has managed to make millions upon millions whilst hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children have been blown to bits as a direct result of his decisions.

    Tony Blair appears to have no shame.

    He claims to be a man of faith so I expect he will meet his maker in Hell. And all his stooges in New Labour will hopefully meet the same fate.

  • Comment number 97.

    53. At 10:13am on 21 Jan 2011, pand wrote:
    I am not a supporter of TB but he was right to confront the sit'n in Iraq. They had been defying the UN for years re WMD.The UN should have forced the action in Iraq but was incapable and although the info on Iraq'S WMD was wrong,TB and Bush could not avoid acting.Hussain had history on using WMD on his own people, 9/11 had occured.
    We should stop bleating, a collective decision had been taken for all the 'right' reasons.

    ...

    Not a "collective" decision - it was a stitch up between Bush & B'liar. What were the "right" reasons - try explaining that to the families of those who died to satisfy B'liar's ego!
    Why was Burma not invaded? Zimbabwe not invaded? North Korea not invaded? Venezuela not invaded? All of these have dicatorial regimes.

  • Comment number 98.

    blair openly admits he already wanted regime change prior to 9/11 but that it needed to be based on WMD. Then after 9/11 everything changed - but we also know that 9/11 had nothing to do with saddam or Iraq. If it was, then why are we killing millions in Afghanistan ? You can plainly see, Blair is a war criminal (and the queen as head of the armed forces - Royal Navy Royal Air Force - ROYAL). Either the Iraq war is a war crime or the war in Afghanistan is a war crime. You cannot escape that fact.

  • Comment number 99.

    BBC Talking Point intro said:
    > Are you be following his evidence?

    Oo-ar, yes, I be following his evidence when I is allowed to see it. But I becomes suspicious and smells a fish very quickly when documents are kept secret from me by the cabinet secretary.

  • Comment number 100.

    60. At 10:21am on 21 Jan 2011, X_Sticks wrote:
    Blair is a war criminal and should be in front of a war crimes tribunal along with George Bush. They are responsible for the deaths of 100's of thousands of innocent people.

    ----------------------------

    I think you'll find that Blair didn't order the death's of any innocent people, unlike Saddam who ordered the gassing of 1000's of his own people in northern Iraq, an act of genocide.

 

Page 1 of 15

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.