Another day another delay in the Chilcot Report - Beeb

[Heathrow Harry]

The Iraq Inquiry should be published in June or July 2016, its author says.


Sir John Chilcot said the two million word report would be finished in April, with two months or so then set aside for national security checks on it.


The mother of a British soldier killed in Iraq said it was "another let-down",

criticising the time taken to publish the inquiry, which began in 2009.


Prime Minister David Cameron said he was "disappointed" and offered resources to speed up the process.


The inquiry is considering how UK forces came to participate in the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its aftermath.
The new publication timetable was set out in a letter to Mr Cameron on the inquiry's website (http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/55941/2015-10-28%20Chilcot%20to%20Cameron.pdf).
In his letter, Sir John says the text of his report should be completed in the week starting 18 April 2016, at which point the process of national security checking would begin.


Such checking is "normal and necessary" with inquiries handling large amounts of sensitive material, he said.
It will ensure that national security and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life, are not "inadvertently breached" by publication, he said.
"I consider that once national security checking has been completed it should be possible to agree a date for publication in June or July 2016," he added.

[StickMonkey3]

What's the rush?

We all know what the truth is.
TB is still about as publicly welcome as TB.
We all know no convictions are going to result anyway.

[Rosevidney1]

I dread to think of the cost of the Iraq Inquiry Report.

[Hangarshuffle]

The newspapers said Chilcot was on £700 as a day rate. Which is probably correct and maybe appropriate, if a little low, really. Don't know what the rest of his team are on. (Has he 6?).


This story, the war is too big to be reported honestly and correctly, (like 9/11)?
We, Britain are too far gone and far too bent to get to the bottom of it and come up again for air. That's for future people to comment and reflect upon. It wont read well.


We could get a better, more believable and probably totally accurate report from the Russian Secret Services if anyone ever dare ask for it and publish it.
Chilcot as a man isn't big enough and the Establishment just ain't scared of him, its very clear.
Britains in a dark place at the moment and looking for someone or thing to lead it out IMHO>not because of the war but because of the ever onward repercussions.

[Chugalug2]

It seems that your glass is half empty, Hangarshuffle, while mine is half full. I don't dispute at all your take on this country, the war, or the inquiry chairman, but we don't live in a steady state society and it is the direction that we are going in that counts.

I doubt if such an Inquiry would have been set up in my time, and if it had been would it have been pure whitewash. The trouble that Chilcot has is that such a whitewash is no longer acceptable. Of course, we won't get the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but we will at least get some of it (a great deal of it perhaps).

Without wishing to drift this thread too much or climb onto a soapbox, much the same happened with Hatton-Cave and Lord Philips. Neither of them pleased all of the people all of the time, indeed I consider both of them to have failed in their duty, but their reports are a step in the right direction. The VSO's that issued illegal RTS's, hounded and condemned juniors who would either not comply or who were picked out as scapegoats, or those who tried to cover up such actions, never suspected that they would be challenged and their decisions reversed.

There is much that is rotten in this State, but at least we are now prepared to done gas masks and poke around into its murky depths. Perhaps Chilcot should have been more aggressive in his investigation, but at least he has investigated and hopefully will have something to say that will make the interminable wait by the loved ones of those who died worthwhile. We shall see...

[Bill Macgillivray]

Chugalug,

I really do hope that you are correct!!!

[Heathrow Harry]

"The newspapers said Chilcot was on £700 as a day rate."

yeah but I'll bet he was told he'd get a peerage as well

Tho' it would be a brave politician who handed him one after this omnishambles........

[Skeleton]

Phoney Tony and his mates can breathe a sigh of relief, not that I think they were ever in any real danger of facing charges. "National security checks" will no doubt make sure enough of the report is redacted to make it impossible for that to happen.

[megan]

Would John Chilcot face the same as David Christopher Kelly, CMG, should he not come up with the "correct" findings?

[ExRAFRadar]

No one will face criminal charges, not even censure.

Waste of time and money and everyone knows it.

For God's sake TB was made Middle East Peace Envoy !!

Seriously what do people expect to get out of this?

[smujsmith]

Perhaps I'm just getting old and cynical, perhaps previous government money wasting fests, just as Chilcott does, have ensured I have no faith in the honesty and integrity of modern politicians. I certainly agree with most of the posters on this thread who expect little from Chilcott, and certainly no serious calling to account for Blair or his henchmen, I would include Cameron in that as he supported him in "the vote". I do feel very sorry for a nation that seems to have easily accepted corrupt, venal and lying politicians as our leaders, who seem to despise anything that suggests a return to decent British standards of common decency. I'd like to see Blair in the hands of Jihaddi John though, I would lose no tears in that one.

Smudge

[Rhino power]

Jihaddi John

Please don't ever refer to that filthy, flea-ridden, lice infested murdering piece of vile scum by that media bestowed, buzzword name again, please!
It suggests an almost approachable, human quality to him, of which clearly he has none...

-RP

[exuw]

Smudge

The name's Chilcot, John Chilcot. :=

AND

the name's John, Jihadi John. :E

[Dougie M]

With respects to Adams of the D.T.


http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag76/dougiemarsh/6e329855-f848-43ad-9f52-bc273b86c950_zpskytiqv5v.jpg

[Hangarshuffle]

A lot of establishment people got very rich out of the war and the war on terror, and continue to do so.
Look at this link. Our country is very, very something and I'm afraid its from the top down (not the other way around, which they continually try to infer).


Former reviewer of anti-terror laws co-owns firm with ex-MI6 chief | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/03/former-reviewer-of-anti-terror-laws-co-owns-consultancy-with-ex-mi6-chief)


Chilcot is doomed. Too many people are mired in it and he just isn't powerful enough to pull it off. Chugger I used to believe in the country I really did, but no longer.
There's something deeply wrong about our country these days. Don't particularly want to go back to the general election, but the utter hideous coverage of the Labour Party leader at the time, or the left wing of our nation, by the right wing press was frankly unbelievable, but it clearly paints the picture of who presently in charge. Truth wont be out in the report.

[exuw]

Hangarshuffle

Are you Dave Spart in disguise?

I think we should be told (on page 94).

[Chugalug2]

Hangarshuffle, as I said before, I don't dispute your take on the grip of the establishment on any meaningful investigation of wrongdoing by governments of any persuasion.

I think you miss the point about Chilcot though, by suggesting that the right wing press are to blame. It would have a field day if he were to state that the Labour Government of Bliar had sent us to war deliberately on a false prospectus. It is not the press but the establishment that covers up the sins of governments of any hue, "in the interests of the State". As Sir Humphrey repeatedly and patiently explained to Hacker, it is he and not Jim that is in charge!

That is the system that has to be changed, in the interests of we the people. Now that really does smack of insurrection! It's going to take time, but information is far more readily available now, and the opportunities to suppress it becoming ever more difficult. Dylan might have written a song or two about it...

[exuw]

Indeed Dylan might.

Try "All Along the Watchtower" for a start.

[Chugalug2]

...to which one might add, The Times They Are A-Changin':-

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

[BEagle]

Due to be published at 11:00 local UK time today.

Some :yuk: pictures on BBC News of the swaggering GeeDubya in his leather flight jacket with the simpering poodle Bliar at Camp David....

No doubt Bliar will find a way of squirming out of any criticism in the report :mad:

[pr00ne]

BEagle,

Having read the thing, or as much as you can read of a 2.6 million word document with a 150 page exec summary between 8am and now, I'd guess that Sir John Scarlett, the rest of the JIC and a lot of VSO's are doing a LOT of squirming right now!

[BEagle]

And so they should. Preferably falling on their swords....

'Whatever'....:mad:

[Heathrow Harry]

The main points are:


The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
Military action might have been necessary later, but in March 2003: There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein; The strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time; The majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring.
Judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - known as WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
Intelligence had "not established beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.
Policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been.
The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory".
The invasion began on 20 March 2003 but not until 13 March did then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith advise there was on balance a secure legal basis for military action. Apart from No 10's response to his letter on 14 March, no formal record was made of that decision and the precise grounds on which it was made remain unclear.
The UK's actions undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council: The UN's Charter puts responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the Security Council. The UK government was claiming to act on behalf of the international community "to uphold the authority of the Security Council". But it knew it did not have a majority supporting its actions.
In Cabinet, there was little questioning of Lord Goldsmith about his advice and no substantive discussion of the legal issues recorded.
There was "little time" to properly prepare three military brigades for deployment in Iraq. The risks were neither "properly identified nor fully exposed" to ministers, resulting in "equipment shortfalls".
Between 2003 and 2009, UK forces in Iraq faced gaps in some key capability areas - including armoured vehicles, reconnaissance and intelligence assets and helicopter support.
It was not sufficiently clear which person in the department within the Ministry of Defence had responsibility for identifying and articulating such gaps.
Delays in providing adequate medium weight protected patrol vehicles and the failure to meet the needs of UK forces for reconnaissance and intelligence equipment and helicopters should not have been tolerated.
On 28 July 2002, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair assured US President George W Bush he would be with him "whatever". But in the letter, he pointed out that a US coalition for military action would need: Progress on the Middle East peace process; UN authority; and a shift in public opinion in the UK, Europe, and among Arab leaders.
Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were "wholly inadequate".
The government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than one million were displaced.
The report sets out lessons to be learned: It found Mr Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq; and the UK's relationship with the US does not require unconditional support.
It said ministerial discussion which encourages frank and informed debate and challenge is important. As is ensuring civilian and military arms of government are properly equipped.
In future, all aspects of any intervention need to be calculated, debated and challenged with rigour. Decisions need to be fully implemented.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36703778)
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36702175)

[Heathrow Harry]

"there were no substantive discussions of the military options, despite promises by Mr Blair, before the meeting on 17 March" - that was less than a week before the war began.

[Two's in]

•Between 2003 and 2009, UK forces in Iraq faced gaps in some key capability areas - including armoured vehicles, reconnaissance and intelligence assets and helicopter support.
•It was not sufficiently clear which person in the department within the Ministry of Defence had responsibility for identifying and articulating such gaps.


So what were the Capability Branches doing during this time - or is there even such a thing as a Capability Branch any more?

[A_Van]

It seems, from far away, that the issue is exaggerated. We all know that it's a mixture of good intentions and bad implementations. And as the time goes on, more and more mistakes become clear that could hardly be visible at the time when emotions prevailed.


E.g., was it good to remove Suddam as a figure? Sure, but who could predict at that time that this would trigger formation and strengthening of IS? Bad side of this is that no lessons were learned and after that the same game was played in Lybia and now is played in Syria. For the benefit of IS and likes.


WMD in the Saddam's hands? We in Russia never believed that the "chemical stuff" shown by Gen Powell in UN was indeed a proof of that (that turned out to be true - Iraq did not have them). But with the UK establishment having such a blind faith in "big brother" there was no surprise that the forces would be sent.
All the rest is just a fruitless and never ending discussion between pacifists and "hawks". After the troops are sent to war,everyone should be ready for losses. I assume that in UK all the servicemen and women are volunteers, nobody is caught in the street and told "you are in the army now". And that everyone understands the risk.


Thus, all those talks should not end with just handing out "labels"- bad or good guy Mr. X or Y is. Strategic issues and consequences should be analyzed and corrective actions made in the current policy. While in some aspects the situation is getting worse now. E.g., it is written that "Intelligence had "not established beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons". And "Policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and shoul dhave been."
Nowadays, instead of professional multi-check on the intel reports, information from social networks is often taken into account, nightmare.

[Heathrow Harry]

The trouble was Van that almost all these issues WERE known at the time but just ignored by Bush & Blair

They just wouldn't listen............

[tucumseh]

[QUOTE]
Between 2003 and 2009, UK forces in Iraq faced gaps in some key capability areas - including armoured vehicles, reconnaissance and intelligence assets and helicopter support.

It was not sufficiently clear which person in the department within the Ministry of Defence had responsibility for identifying and articulating such gaps.[QUOTE]


If he genuinely believes this, he's been seriously misled. AbbeyWood is full of people who could point him to the endorsed requirements, and the political decisions to cancel. Long before 2003.

[tucumseh]

By the way, I liked the contribution of one ppruner. Blair is a liar and the terrorist we should be discussing. Emotive perhaps, but she would claim fair comment.

[Hempy]

All the rest is just a fruitless and never ending discussion between pacifists and "hawks". After the troops are sent to war,everyone should be ready for losses. I assume that in UK all the servicemen and women are volunteers, nobody is caught in the street and told "you are in the army now". And that everyone understands the risk.

All any serviceman or woman can hope is that if politicians decide to send them into harms way, they do so for a good reason.

'All the rest' is not just a "fruitless and never ending discussion between pacifists and "hawks"", it's an insight into the decision making process, with the hope that the lives of those that serve are given a little more respect in the decision making processes of the future.

Military forces in a democratic nation don't mutiny en masse. That's for the general population to decide.

[Hangarshuffle]

Blair sounded broken when he was on Radio 4.

[Wander00]

HS - and well he might

[Wilders]

He deserves an Oscar for that performance.

[charliegolf]

He deserves an Oscar for that performance.

Well he has had the report for ages- lots of rehearsal time.

CG

[Haraka]

...............But still as ham an actor as we witnessed in his "Sigh, Pause, Slighly broken voice" scripted Princess of Hearts monologue of nearly 20 years ago.

[skua]

He's sounding less broken on Radio 4 today right now. But John Humphries is giving him his usual tough time.

[cats_five]

E.g., was it good to remove Suddam as a figure? Sure, but who could predict at that time that this would trigger formation and strengthening of IS?

Surely it was obvious a power vacuum would exist whenever Saddam was removed or died? We all know that power vacuums tend to lead to anarchy.

[tucumseh]

BUS

Were you allowed to give evidence? I submitted a few things and, for example, was pleasantly surprised to see that Chilcot effectively called Hoon and his merry men liars (although too polite to use the word) by stating that the limitations of Snatch Land Rovers had been identified "before 2002". (Government and MoD were claiming 4 years later they were perfectly adequate). He could have dated it more precisely (it was in the mid-90s) and he could have added that there was a long-standing endorsed programme to replace them, but that's as far as these inquiries go I'm afraid. But if the families are on the ball, they'll realise he has opened the door for them. Interesting that Hoon was wheeled out last night. I wonder if he realises he's been fingered?

[Big Unit Specialist]

No I was not invited to give evidence but if I was a cynical man I would guess that my version of the truth may have been inconvenient, just as my comments on shortcomings in leadership in Iraq in 2007 that contributed to fatalities at the cob were ignored

[tucumseh]

BUS

Agreed. I saw parallels with, for example, the report into the Chinook Mk3 fiasco (seeing as this is an aviation forum). There, the PAC said the person with management oversight couldn't be identified. Chilcot said responsibility for identifying and closing capability gaps wasn't clear. Stage 1 - look at the telephone directory. Stage 2 - phone them. If that doesn't work, Stage 3 - walk into AbbeyWood or Main Building and ask the first person you see.

[Pontius Navigator]

Tuc in defence, many years ago there was a root and branch reform of the AFD with branches closed, buildings returned to owners, telephones disconnected etc.

At the work face we carried on in ignorance. Many documents and manuals continued in use for a while until cracks started to appear. Only then did we discover there was no sponsor. No doubt some withered on the vine and others were picked up lower down the tree.

The unit I closed 6 years ago still features in some MOD documents. I was asked to contribute to one 10 years ago; I asked who would have ownership of the document. My question went unanswered.

[tucumseh]

PN

I agree. Too many reorganisations with entire functions omitted under the new one. The example I used (Chinook Mk3), we were sitting reading the report when the man they said couldn't be identified walked past! Anyone at a squadron should be personally involved in the identification of capability gaps. The CO, senior pilot, engineer, observer (delete as appropriate) then attends the Service-led committee that categorises the (mainly) constraints. The minutes are DEC's action plan for the following year. It's not difficult, but as you say entirely possible nobody bothers nowadays. But not bothering is quite different from the existence of a robust process, and it would seem Chilcot was misled. I suspect MoD didn't say anything, because the truth is infinitely worse.

[tucumseh]

I've managed to wade through Section 141 of the report (Military equipment).

While obviously sanitised, and in parts simplistic, I think it required reading for anyone thinking of criticising procurement delays. It is just page after page of beancounters in the Centre and politicians deferring ISDs and salami slicing budgets by a few million here, a few million there; while ignoring astronomical waste of hundreds of millions, if not billions. And the support they received from, frankly, sycophantic senior staff.

As for the top level criticism of identifying capability gaps (above) the report actually makes a pretty decent job of describing the process, although contracts two steps into one, implying front line fulfills a role undertaken by DEC. That would explain his criticism and he was probably very frustrated at the lack of answers from MoD, which doesn't come across as very helpful, probably down to the fact it no longer requires retention of corporate memory.

I can think of quite a few IPT staff who will see this as vindication. And many others who will recognise their significant contribution to Saddam's war effort. It will be interesting to see what it says about BOWMAN, and if it mentions that a replacement was endorsed, delivered and in theatre the week before the main contract was let to produce obsolescent and even obsolete kit. Now THAT is waste.

[Hangarshuffle]

Nowadays..the British establishment didn't or don't really care about young guys being killed in war, that much. Unless the press kick it up (which they do). Or am I wrong? Maybe they do care.?
When you think, in the past, we have sort of got it together a bit to counter a threat. I'm thinking say WW2 44-45 we did eventually develop a counter to Panther or Tiger when we eventually developed Archer, Firefly and Comet.
Or in NI we developed Wheelbarrow to counter bombers targeting our experts.
Why the slow reaction to deal with the failure of "snatch land-rover"? Why?

I spoke a lot about this with ordinary people and they were particularly hard faced. "You choose to join the military but are surprised to be killed or maimed? What did you expect". Is that the final answer?
Chilcott is already fading after 3 days.

[BEagle]

Good to see that at least one NuLabor politician of the day has had the honesty to speak out: John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878)

One might disagree with Baron Prescott's politics, but he cannot be accused of not speaking his mind honestly - and what you see is what you get.

[tucumseh]

Why the slow reaction to deal with the failure of "snatch land-rover"? Why?

Indeed. The report limits discussion to post-2002 and the later project intended to replace Snatch. It does not go back one step and explain that a replacement programme had already been endorsed in the 90s, and in 2000 (at latest) had a firm ISD.

It does however talk a bit about FRES (Future Rapid Effects System). When circulated in April 2002, the FRES URD was viewed with horror. The main problem was the relatively new concept of DEC not being allowed to specify ("solutionise" was the word), so most URDs had to waltz round the requirement and find a way of telling the procurers what was needed, without actually telling them. So, for example, on Survivability the URD says "protection required by FRES is assessed as being equivalent to [X mm] AP point blank and [Y %] probability of protection against 150mm fragments at 10m". (I haven't just inserted the X and Y - that's what it actually says). Straight away, most toppled and said WTF? From the viewpoint of the Snatch replacement project manager it wasn't at all clear if this new URD was replacing his programme (FNIPV) as well as consolidating others (TRACER, MRAV, etc.). Another KUR (Deployability) specifically omitted using C130 to transport any FRES vehicle, requiring use of A400 and "other FLA". Most here will recognise the impracticality of this, not least as it required FRES to wait and see what "other FLA" was. Again, a chorus of WTF?

Straight away you had major questions against 2 of the 11 KURs. Another, Interoperability, was also immediately in question, because simultaneously DEC had issued a directive that Interoperability was not to be mentioned in an even bigger and dependent Army programme. The URD was probably a fine example of a paper required at Staff College, but even in 2002 it was obvious that FRES was in many ways a huge savings measure, as it was more or less impossible to make progress and it cancelled, froze or seriously delayed all other related programmes. It was to be the Army equivalent of SABR (Support Amphibious Battlefield Rotorcraft). Years spent on studies, knowing there is no endorsed funding.

My point is, acquisition in general was being wholly compromised in this period by political machinations, long before procurers even saw the Requirements. A solution emerges...

[Heathrow Harry]

I haven't seen a list pf the SO's who were responsible for the whole Iraq debacle..................

If we're going to pilory the politicians and the Security boys I think the names of the guilty in the MoD and the armed forces shoul also be known - if only so we can ignore them when they write books, give interviews and pontificate in the press.

So far I haven't seen ONE get the full-on "Today" grilling......

[Just This Once...]

The scrutineer's fanatical pride in cancelling or delaying any programme that had any practical solutionising (as well as use of made-up words) was easily defeated by an intelligent Customer 1 / 2 careful drafting.

Otherwise known as deciding what you need right now with the end user and then listing its unique capabilities as KURs whilst trying to keep all the end-users gobs shut if the unique capabilities quoted were irrelevant to them but would prompt the purchase of what they wanted/needed.

[ExGrunt]

I haven't seen a list pf the SO's who were responsible for the whole Iraq debacle..................

If we're going to pilory the politicians and the Security boys I think the names of the guilty in the MoD and the armed forces shoul also be known - if only so we can ignore them when they write books, give interviews and pontificate in the press.

So far I haven't seen ONE get the full-on "Today" grilling......

I agree, The whole debacle would not have been possible without the active spinelessness of SOs. To a man they all decided that their gongs and pensions were more important than a shambolic strategic defeat.

EG

[tucumseh]

intelligent Customer 1 / 2 careful drafting

Hmmm!

My last aircraft programme, C2 declared they would not support the programme in any way, so it was just a DIY job from start to finish. My last Army programme, both C1/2 went AWOL, but the end users more than compensated, immediately accepting that the Yeoman of Signals knew what he was talking about, so no need to get involved above junior NCO. Completely ignored DEC's original KURs and delivered exactly what YoS wanted, much to the Management Board's annoyance. In fact, what you just said JTO!

In practice, the best way to deal with a nonsensical URD was for the project manager to prepare a "clarification paper", have C1 sign it and stick it in the back of the URD as an Annex. This avoided resubmission and many buoys. This became ever more difficult as PMs were no longer required to know this stuff, partly because aforesaid HQ sections had closed and no-one had the experience. I recall one job in 2002-3 when my spec called for systems integration (and, hence, functional safety). The sole purpose of the programme was to reduce battlefield casualties. A senior officer called a halt and let a 6 month contract on a consultant, asking for a report telling him what "systems integration" was in the first place. The problem was (is), MoD's rules rather assume this knowledge, merely mandating the procedures for implementation. A solution emerges....

[mopardave]

BEagle......could it be that he just threw his mate "phoney" under a bus? Prescott's been shrewd......he know's the shrapnel will start flying now, so he thought he'd get his apology in first. I don't think he did anything honourable there.
MD










Good to see that at least one NuLabor politician of the day has had the honesty to speak out: John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878)

One might disagree with Baron Prescott's politics, but he cannot be accused of not speaking his mind honestly - and what you see is what you get.

[simmy]

Baron Prescott failed his 11 plus (or whatever it was called in his day.) He now has a degree - in hindsight.

[tucumseh]

Defence Committee has announced MoD's response to Chilcot is to be sought and examined. Non/Ex-MoD witnesses have already been asked to appear, before the above announcement was even made! It would seem the message is getting through that MoD routinely lies to the committee, so an honest view is needed. Good try and it will be a test of Dr Julian Lewis.

[mopardave]

Baron Prescott failed his 11 plus (or whatever it was called in his day.) He now has a degree - in hindsight.


I used to think he was mildly amusing......now I think he's a treacherous hypocrite and a thug! At least he's stopped pulling that bloody pledge card out of his pocket......funny how he never mentions the 500 million he wasted on that bloody ridiculous regional assembly idea! He's kicked his mate phoney right in the nuts with his pathetic attempt at contrition......they're a disgrace.....the pair of 'em!!:ugh:

[Chugalug2]

HH:-
I think the names of the guilty in the MoD and the armed forces should also be known
I don't! That is the usual out for the VSOs who never get named! Sacrificial SOs up to and including 1* are regularly fingered by UK Inquiries into MOD scandals. Who fingers them? The Star Chamber that protects its own! The real problem is the MOD itself, the greatest threat to HM Forces.

Unless and until there is a thorough sweeping out of the Stygian MOD Stables and complete reform of it carried out, HM Forces will continue to go to war ill-equipped and ill-prepared for the "events, Dear Boy" that confront this nation.

The reason that crap vehicles and crap radios went to Iraq is the MOD. Reform it if you want decent kit at a decent cost!

[MACH2NUMBER]

Having had some experience of the MOD and my attempts to improve equipment and capability from the uniformed side, I would agree change is required. However in my opinion it is the Treasury scrutineers that cause most of the road blocks and poor compromises. They are imbedded all Government departments.

[walter kennedy]

Did the Dr David Kelly business get a mention?
Let's not forget that he had made the point that the case was intentionally exagerated ("sexed up") - who wanted it so and why, should have been explored - and don't forget that two heads of the BBC were chopped for daring to run with Dr Kellys (true) story.
And what does it matter whether puppets like Bliar are scolded - who really moves things in our "democracies"? - cui bono? - no potent enemies of Israel left in the Middle East, eh? - or is that the elephant in the room on these forums?

[Heathrow Harry]

Oh dear - I'm no admirer of Israel but that comment is really weird - ALL the evidence is that it was "personal" for Bush Junior and that some if not all of his acolytes could see great geo-political and economic benifits in replacing Saddam with someone more pliable

Blair was a pitiful PR guy who believed his own hype and signed up without thinking

TBH I have never seen, read or heard of any input by Israel, APAC or any other Zionist lobby into the planning of this shambles - they had little to gain TBH - Saddam wasn't a serious threat to them and he was very sound on people like Al Quaida & the Mad Mullahs in Tehran