Day 4: The ‘TRIAL’ of Tony Blair – House of Commons Debate on Iraq Inquiry

Original Home Page

All Contents of Site – Index

Ready for a good hanging? The press and the MOB are. Picture with thanks to a commenter at the Tory Iain Dale's blog.

Read full Hansard report of the Iraq Inquiry Debate here

Another Guardian APOLOGY to Blair – LOOK OUT – Rentoul will be counting!

RELATED Blair ‘TRIAL’ posts

Day 1: THE TRIALS, TRIALS & ‘TRIAL’ OF TONY BLAIR

Day 2: The ‘TRIAL’ of Tony Blair & Press/Internet Freedom

Day 3: The ‘TRIAL’ of Tony Blair – “The Independent can report that…”

Day 5: The “TRIAL” of Tony Blair – Opioides for Oborne

Day 6: The “TRIAL” of Tony Blair – Kelly/13 Doctors/Norman Baker/Bahai Faith

HEADLINES FROM THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE:

A Miliband u-turn? Pressed by senior Tory Sir Malcom Rifkind, the Foreign Secretary conceded that the Inquiry would have the power to apportion “blame”, though he said it is “not a civil or criminal inquiry”. This “blame” climb-down contrasts with Brown’s earlier ruling of ”no attributable blame”.  It may, whether wise or not, have swung some rebellion inclined Labour MPs behind the government. ALSO, Michael Mates’ confidential  bombshell (see here)

Comment at end

24th June, 2009

IRAQ INQUIRY DEBACLE – DEBATE, IN PARLIAMENT TODAY

They’ve had some fun and games in the Commons today re-asserting the sovereignty of parliament following the expenses debacle and other issues of trust. Never mind that they were supposed to be debating a “contentious motion” that was in actual fact no more contentious than the press’s view of the former PM’s guilt.

For once I agree with The Independent – it was an argument already won

So today I ease off on the press, more or less. This impassioned debate saw both sides, but particularly those against the Iraq war decision airing their multiple grievances.

SPREADING THE CONCLUSIONS BEFORE THE FACTS

I will however use this opportunity to take a swing at some irresponsible MPs who are already describing this as a trial, with judicial powers. Some in Parliament today have even described Tony Blair’s decisions as war crimes. I would like some clarification as to their right to say this. They are accusing a civilian, Mr Blair, of crimes, when he has not been convicted nor even tried for these “crimes”. Are they permitted to accuse ANYcivilian of (such) crimes prior to conviction, or only a select few?  Even if this IS permitted, and legal parliamentarians will know the position, it spreads the conclusions before the facts, so adding to the already widespread conviction that the “guilty” criminal Blair deserves all he gets, by whomsoever, whensoever.

Dangerous. If you need persuading that I am right to highlight this from MANY as irresponsible and dangerous, read the reports in tomorrow’s papers and guess at THEIR bias and opinions. Their sprog blogs will duplicate that opinion. In turn, their commenters will pile on their abuse and threats.  THAT I can guarantee you.

You can read the full Hansard transcript here.

---

SO WHAT WAS THE DEBATE ABOUT?

Primarily, nominally, to try to insist on an “open ” inquiry. This was overtaken by events as both sides had now agreed to this. Also to give Parliament the power to decide the ‘Terms of Reference’ of the Inquiry. Odd how they want an “independent inquiry”, but not independent enough to decide its own terms of reference.

The debate was about other things in actual fact, apart from opining, dressed as fact.

A CLEAN SLATE

MPs were trying to wipe the slate clean as far as the balance of power between the MPs and the Executive are concerned. They think that will help us trust them more. As if we’d prefer to trust ALL of them, rather than just ONE of them!

And some of them, particularly Labour MPs, high up on their glorious high-horses were trying to wipe the slate clean as regards having once had a leader who knew how to lead (but led ‘wrongly’ in one issue at least), compared with one who doesn’t know, but gets there eventually with a little help from his friends.

The debate was sparsely attended but was full and presented both sides of the arguments. Or I should say ALL the sides that the anti-war people could muster up versus the arguments of the war decision supporters.  The anti-Blair/anti-Iraq war MPs were present in far greater numbers than the others.

In the end, the government defeated the Tory motion and won by 39 votes, with 19 Labour MPs voting with the Conservatives.

Don’t ask ME how 19 Labour MPs could vote against the government. Especially since there was less than a cigarette paper between them after Brown’s u-turn on Open not Closed.  Ahhh, but there we have it, rebels will be heard. And we heard them.

I’d like to congratulate all those who spoke in support of Blair’s decision over Iraq, on both sides of the House. You were out-numbered, but quality will out. In particular David Winnick & Mike Gapes made memorabe contributions, the former speaking several times.

Mike Gapes, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select committee made some BRILLIANT points on background. Referring to the context BEFORE 2001, he thought we needed to study the whole run-up and not just Blair & Bush’s private conversations pre the invasion. He also reminded us that in 1998/9 the Liberal Democrats AGREED with the government to attack Iraq without a 2nd UN SC resolution. Personally I also recall Charles Kennedy, the then Lib Dem leader saying in 2003 that HE was against the Iraq war but that he couldn’t speak for ALL his colleagues. Wonder what brought them all together? Political expediency? Electioneering?

And so it went on, in a way which non-Brits would think was completely MAD. They spent six hours debating a Tory motion that they had already agreed on – that “as much of the Iraq Inquiry as possible should be heard in public.” Much of it was taken up with criticising the government’s continual caving-in and its evident lack of thinking through the original set-up of the Inquiry. Good points. And much of it was emphasising the likely outcome if under oath witnesses were found to have lied. Yes, folks, the hanging jury were out in force, ready to reluctantly do their duty by us, the good people.

And if you believe that …

So was it all worthless chatting time? Maybe. To be fair, the government was slow in coming to any sort of consensus on this inquiry and I think they WERE remiss and careless in that. And the parliamentary timetable was already set last week prior to the u-turn. Still, who could resist the opportunity to tear the former PM to bits again?

Tories attack Iraq Inquiry ‘Mess’

---

MICHAEL MATES GIVING AWAY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Michael Mates’ bombshell on “eye -watering” confidential papers related to legal advice during the Butler Inquiry into Saddam’s WMDs. (Surely he should NOT even be hinting at this? Isn’t he still committed to secrecy? Doesn’t this breed more suspicion aout MPs trustworthiness?)

Without implying TOO much it should be remembered that in 2004 Mates upset Michael Howard the then Tory leader when he decided to stay on the Butler Inquiry even as the Tory party withdrew its co-operation.  Perhaps Mates is making sure the present Tory leader knows that his rebellion against Howard was a one-off and a useful decision in the end.

But fancy me ascribing ulterior motives to MPs?  How could I? Why would I?

---

ONE OR TWO OTHERS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

A Lib Dem MP on “evidence under oath” said that witnesses whould be subject to perjury (referring to the Evidence Act 1861).

George Galloway echoed this and said that if the use of the oath led to conclusions of perjury, we should then charge and try those guilty. (WHO could he possibly mean?) And if a Nuremberg type trial was the outcome, well, so be it, said the Gorgeous One. Next thing he’ll be calling for the return of the death penalty. Give them enough rope …

---

But the subtleties if the opposition had won the motion should not be lost to non-Brits.

If the Tory motion HAD won, the opposition including the anti-Iraq war Liberal Democrats would have felt they had achieved the moral case to pursue further humble little aims. Like oaths for all, ensuring  jeopardy of … , all witnesses being compelled to attend when called, no time limits on witnesses just because they have to shoot off to the Middle East for instance, blame attachable thus ensuring the hoped for trial of somebody or other, somewhere or other, loads of Lib Dems on the Panel. No limit to the fun and games they would have visited on us if they had won. Looking backward seems to be the forte of our MPs.

The boil has not been lanced just because such as Galloway, Short and co have had their day in court … parliament. It may even have been re-infected. But the colour of their aguments have all been aired.

TYPICALLY NEGATIVE REPORTS ON DEBATE WITH MAINLY QUOTES FROM THOSE ’ANTI’ THE WAR

• http://www.thestar.co.uk/latest-national-news/Iraq-war-inquiry-39can-point.5398200.jp
• http://cromleysnews.blogspot.com/2009/06/news-from-uk.html

---

IN SUPPORT OF BLAIR

1. The excellent David Aaronovitch said on the Iraq Inquiry:

“… it will change no one’s minds.

The bit that won’t happen is the supposed “truth and reconciliation” element in which a cynical public is satisfied that – at last – there has been an accounting. This is impossible. Some of the most exalted and popular opponents of the war are implacable in their interior knowledge of the wrongness of the conflict and of the perfidy that led up to it. No facts or interpretations that they could possibly hear would ever change their minds. Instead, they await the unlikely moment when their beliefs are demonstrated, by some hidden memorandum or mandarin testimony, to be utterly and irrefutably correct. Then, perhaps, they will get the Trial of Tony Blair for War Crimes that they have been wanting for so long – the final scratch to their intolerable itch.”

I commented with this, which has not (yet) been published. Even Blair suppporters sometimes have their eyes closed to this danger.

Spot on, David. Minds are already made up. I have another concern over the way this is already reported in the press. It begets “sprog blogs” quoting as fact the thoughts of such as Clegg. Many threats result against Blair, regardless of the Inquiry. It only needs 1 success. Google “Keep Tony Blair”

2. John Rentoul is another Blair supporter always worth a read. Even if there are but few of us online regularly right now, we Blair supporters need to stick together

3. Blair Foundation says “Tony Blair was NOT on his own over Iraq decision”: ‘People must never forget Tony Blair’s role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. One of the most important political events I have witnessed was the dramatic run up to the peace talks that ended with an historic agreement.   [...]  Also, people must never forget that Tony Blair was not on his own in deciding to go to war in Iraq.’

4. This is Staffordshire – Sensible commentary: “Not only Blair who made the decision”

---

Brown announces the panel members for The Iraq Inquiry:

Mr Speaker, I can announce today that the Committee of Inquiry will be chaired by Sir John Chilcot and include:
Baroness Usha Prashar
Sir Roderick Lyne
Sir Lawrence Freedman; and
Sir Martin Gilbert

All are – or will become – privy counsellors

Mr Speaker, the committee will start work as soon as possible after the end of July, and given the complexity of the issues it will address, I am advised it will take one year.

As I have made clear, the primary objective of the committee will be to identify lessons learned. The committee will not set out to apportion blame or consider issues of civil or criminal liability.

---

1. Vanity Fair reports on an interview last night with Tony Blair (with video): Excerpt:

‘Blair, who has been accused of misleading Parliament during the run-up to the Iraq war, answered that the notion that politicians have secret, conspiratorial agendas is poisoning modern political discourse.’

Watch video of interview here. Graydon Carter’s introduction shows how SOME appreciate our former PM.  Mr Blair  – you know where to go if/when the littlies in our country really start gunning for you.

To my readers: watch the opening remarks of this video and then say to yourself, proudly – “Hey, that’s our very own war criminal he’s talking about”. Repeat it a thousand times. Then if you’re anything like Galloway and his inconsequential ilk, you might even start to believe it.

CBS Evening News - Tony Blair interviewed by Katie Couric, 24th June, 2009

2. Also in America – CBS interview with Blair – change is “fundamental” in Iran

Blair was asked about Britain’s upcoming inquiry about the run up to the Iraq war, and whether these hearings should be made public. Blair said, “I’m questioned about Iraq in public the whole time. I have been for years. But the important thing about the inquiry is it’s actually about the lessons learned.”

In response to a question about the financial scandal in his own country, Blair said, “I’ve learned that anything I say is … taken down and used in evidence against me in terms of interference in UK politics.”

---

ETCETERA

AFP report: Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the investigation, announced last week to fulfil a pledge for a probe once British troops have mostly left Iraq, would be independent and able to criticise whoever it wants.  Former premier Tony Blair will cooperate “fully” with a new British probe into the Iraq war, officials said Wednesday, as the government conceded the inquiry will have the power to apportion blame.  ”It can praise or blame whoever it likes. It is free to write its own report at every stage,” Miliband said, in what was widely seen as a concession on the remit of the probe originally intended only to learn lessons from the war.

The Manning Memo. This is supposed to be ONE of the incriminating factors that will pin Blair to the wall. We’ll see. As will they, and they, and they. Not that they’ll ALL accept anything that goes against their own conclusions.

THEY KNOW, y’know.

---

---

Tags: CBS interview Blair, David Miliband, George Galloway, Gordon Brown, Guardian apology to Blair again, Hansard Iraq Inquiry debate, Iraq inquiry, John Rentoul, Michael Mates, Mike Gapes, parliamentary debate on Iraq in commons, Tony Blair, Tony Blair with noose portrait, Trial of Tony Blair, Vanity Fair interview Blair