Some questions that the Chilcot Inquiry will not address properly, if at all

'Why did Mr Scarlett put himself at the service of Mr Campbell? Why did Mr Goldsmith not resign? Why did the Cabinet allow itself to be sidelined? Why did Parliament in general, and the Tory Opposition in particular, so easily accept Mr Blair’s word?'

Read more in a rather good article in The Mail by Stephen Glover. The piece is entitled 'So it WAS all based on a lie. But don’t hold your breath waiting for Blair to be held to account over Iraq' and made me rather angry at the way Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell got away with so many wrongs and are now rich and/or lauded despite their histories.

News on Sky but not yet reported by BBC, but then is it really news?

Sky News report that:

'Two former Cabinet Secretaries have disputed Tony Blair's claim on Friday that the Cabinet knew military action against Iraq was likely a year before the invasion.

The former Prime Minister told the Iraq Inquiry on Friday that his cabinet were aware from early 2002 that they had endorsed a policy that would probably lead to an attack on Iraq.

But Lord Wilson, who was Cabinet Secretary from 1998 until 2002, and Lord Turnbull who was his successor, have both told the Inquiry that this was not the case.
Lord Wilson claimed that Mr Blair told his cabinet in a meeting in April 2002 that "nothing was imminent".

Echoing evidence given by other Downing Street officials, Lord Wilson described a lack of official cabinet meetings in those crucial 15 months before the invasion in March 2003.

...

Numerous witnesses have claimed that under Mr Blair's leadership, the Cabinet was not routinely consulted on key decisions and commitments that were being made regarding Iraq.

Lord Wilson told the Inquiry: "I don't think anyone would have gone away thinking they had authorised a course of action that would lead to military action."

His successor, Lord Turnbull, claimed that Mr Blair continually put off Cabinet discussions about the possibility of attacking Iraq in the months before the March 2003 invasion.

"The prime minister basically said, 'well, they [his ministers] knew the score'. That isn't borne out by what actually happened."

Lord Turnbull added: "None of those really key papers [options papers about Iraq and the threat posed] were presented to the cabinet which is why I don't accept the former Prime Minister's claim that they knew the score."

On Friday, when asked whether or not he had ensured his cabinet were fully informed, Tony Blair said: "I don't think there was any doubt about that at all.
"If you went back, unless people were not listening to the news or reading the newspapers, which is not my experience of the Cabinet Ministers, it was the issue the entire time."

Will Tony BliarBlair be asked to return to the Chilcot Inquiry yet again or is there really very little point? As I have said many times in the past - 'The chances of Tony Blair answering a question totally truthfully look slim and unless he is under oath and wired to a lie-detector I don't think that I will believe his 'evidence' anyway.'

Friday at the Chilcot Inquiry could be interesting

Tony Blair is due back at the Chilcot Inquiry on Friday so this BBC report may be of interest (my emphasis):

'Former attorney general Lord Goldsmith told the Iraq Inquiry he was "uncomfortable" about statements made by Tony Blair before the 2003 invasion.

Lord Goldsmith said Mr Blair's public suggestion Britain could attack Iraq without further UN backing was not compatible with his legal advice.

The disagreement emerged in written evidence published by the Iraq Inquiry.

The Chilcot committee is holding an inquiry into the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

Lord Goldsmith advised Mr Blair on 14 January 2003 that UN Security Council resolution 1441 was not enough on its own to justify force against Iraq.

But on 15 January Mr Blair told MPs that while a second UN resolution was "preferable" there were circumstances in which it was "not necessary" - in the event of the use of an "unreasonable veto" by a Security Council member.

He also told the BBC's Newsnight programme on 6 February 2003 that if a country vetoed a further resolution "unreasonably" then "I would consider action outside of that".

In a written question from the inquiry panel, Lord Goldsmith was asked if he felt those words were "compatible with the advice you had given him".

Lord Goldsmith replied simply "no".

He said he could not remember precisely when he became aware of the comments, but told the inquiry: "I was uncomfortable about them and I believe that I discussed my concerns with [then foreign secretary] Jack Straw and my own staff..."

He said: "I understood entirely the need to make public statements which left Saddam Hussein in no doubt about our firmness of purpose.

"It was more likely that he would co-operate if he thought that there was a real likelihood of conflict.

"My concern was that we should not box ourselves in by the public statements that were made, and create a situation which might then have to be unravelled."

In his evidence to the inquiry last year, Lord Goldsmith acknowledged he had changed his mind on whether a second UN resolution was needed ahead of military action in March 2003.

He had thought one was needed but had ultimately concluded, shortly before the war began, that military action was authorised by existing UN agreements dating back to 1991.

He denied that this came as a result of political pressure from No 10 or anyone else.

Lord Goldsmith's statement is among various transcripts from private hearings and written evidence published by the Iraq Inquiry on Monday.'

As I have said many times in the past - 'The chances of Tony Blair answering a question totally truthfully look slim and unless he is under oath and wired to a lie-detector I don't think that I will believe his 'evidence' anyway.'


When the Inquiry have covered the above area of questionning and Tony Blair has slimed his way out of trouble maybe perhaps they could ask Tony Blair the question that I posed on 22 July:

'At the Chilcot Inquiry, Tony Blair said that:

"If I am asked whether I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better, that our own security is better, with Saddam and his two sons out of office and out of power, I believe indeed we are.

"It was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office, and I do genuinely believe that the world is safer as a result."

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, in front of the same inquiry said that there was such a surge of warnings of home-grown terrorist threats after the invasion of Iraq that MI5 asked for – and got – a 100 per cent increase in its budget. Baroness Manningham-Buller, who was director general of MI5 in 2002-07, told the Chilcot panel that MI5 started receiving a "substantially" higher volume of reports that young British Muslims being drawn to al-Qa'ida.

She told the inquiry: "Our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people – a few among a generation – who saw our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as being an attack on Islam."

She added: "Arguably we gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad so that he was able to move into Iraq in a way that he was not before."

So was the world and/or the UK safer after the invasion, maybe the Chilcot Inquiry should recall Tony Blair and ask him about Eliza Manningham-Buller's evidence.

After being asked about the above, maybe he could be asked about Eliza Manningham-Buller's comments regarding the dossier that "We were asked to put in some low-grade, small intelligence to it and we refused because we didn't think it was reliable" '

Tony Blair recalled to the Chilcot Inquiry

I hear that Tony Blair has been asked to return to the Chilcot Inquiry for half a day next Friday.

The chances of Tony Blair answering a question totally truthfully look slim, as I wrote back in July '... unless he is under oath and wired to a lie-detector I don't think that I will believe his 'evidence' anyway.'

However if the Inquiry has the time perhaps they could ask Tony Blair the question that I posed on 22 July:

'At the Chilcot Inquiry, Tony Blair said that:

"If I am asked whether I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better, that our own security is better, with Saddam and his two sons out of office and out of power, I believe indeed we are.

"It was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office, and I do genuinely believe that the world is safer as a result."

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, in front of the same inquiry said that there was such a surge of warnings of home-grown terrorist threats after the invasion of Iraq that MI5 asked for – and got – a 100 per cent increase in its budget. Baroness Manningham-Buller, who was director general of MI5 in 2002-07, told the Chilcot panel that MI5 started receiving a "substantially" higher volume of reports that young British Muslims being drawn to al-Qa'ida.

She told the inquiry: "Our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people – a few among a generation – who saw our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as being an attack on Islam."

She added: "Arguably we gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad so that he was able to move into Iraq in a way that he was not before."

So was the world and/or the UK safer after the invasion, maybe the Chilcot Inquiry should recall Tony Blair and ask him about Eliza Manningham-Buller's evidence.

After being asked about the above, maybe he could be asked about Eliza Manningham-Buller's comments regarding the dossier that "We were asked to put in some low-grade, small intelligence to it and we refused because we didn't think it was reliable" '

What's the point?

The Mail reports that:

'Tony Blair is to be recalled by the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War to answer new questions about 'gaps' in the evidence he gave earlier this year.

The former Prime Minister is likely to be asked to clarify the political build-up to the 2003 American-led invasion.

He is also expected to further explain the legality of Britain's participation in the controversial war.'

The chances of Tony Blair answering a question totally truthfully look slim, as I wrote back in July '... unless he is under oath and wired to a lie-detector I don't think that I will believe his 'evidence' anyway.'

However if the Inquiry has the time perhaps they could ask Tony Blair the question that I posed on 22 July:

'At the Chilcot Inquiry, Tony Blair said that:

"If I am asked whether I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better, that our own security is better, with Saddam and his two sons out of office and out of power, I believe indeed we are.

"It was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office, and I do genuinely believe that the world is safer as a result."

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, in front of the same inquiry said that there was such a surge of warnings of home-grown terrorist threats after the invasion of Iraq that MI5 asked for – and got – a 100 per cent increase in its budget. Baroness Manningham-Buller, who was director general of MI5 in 2002-07, told the Chilcot panel that MI5 started receiving a "substantially" higher volume of reports that young British Muslims being drawn to al-Qa'ida.

She told the inquiry: "Our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people – a few among a generation – who saw our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as being an attack on Islam."

She added: "Arguably we gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad so that he was able to move into Iraq in a way that he was not before."

So was the world and/or the UK safer after the invasion, maybe the Chilcot Inquiry should recall Tony Blair and ask him about Eliza Manningham-Buller's evidence.

After being asked about the above, maybe he could be asked about Eliza Manningham-Buller's comments regarding the dossier that "We were asked to put in some low-grade, small intelligence to it and we refused because we didn't think it was reliable" '

Economical with the truth Mr Blair?

At the Chilcot Inquiry, Tony Blair said that:

"If I am asked whether I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better, that our own security is better, with Saddam and his two sons out of office and out of power, I believe indeed we are.

"It was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office, and I do genuinely believe that the world is safer as a result."

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, in front of the same inquiry said that there was such a surge of warnings of home-grown terrorist threats after the invasion of Iraq that MI5 asked for – and got – a 100 per cent increase in its budget. Baroness Manningham-Buller, who was director general of MI5 in 2002-07, told the Chilcot panel that MI5 started receiving a "substantially" higher volume of reports that young British Muslims being drawn to al-Qa'ida.

She told the inquiry: "Our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people – a few among a generation – who saw our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as being an attack on Islam."

She added: "Arguably we gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad so that he was able to move into Iraq in a way that he was not before."

So was the world and/or the UK safer after the invasion, maybe the Chilcot Inquiry should recall Tony Blair and ask him about Eliza Manningham-Buller's evidence.

After being asked about the above, maybe he could be asked about Eliza Manningham-Buller's comments regarding the dossier that "We were asked to put in some low-grade, small intelligence to it and we refused because we didn't think it was reliable"

Some torture related thoughts

The Mail reports that:

'Tony Blair was accused of ordering Jack Straw to 'violate the law' as the row over Britain colluding in torture took a new twist.

Previously secret documents exposed their alleged roles in sanctioning British citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay, where they were abused.

For the first time, the former Prime Minister's office is implicated in a series of explosive classified files which Labour ministers battled to suppress but which have been released on the orders of the High Court.

They cast a new light on Britain's dirty secret and lay bare the extent to which the Labour government allegedly turned a blind eye to the abduction and torturing of its own citizens.

Among the startling new revelations are:

* Mr Blair's office gave direct orders to the Foreign Office to deny help to a British citizen later taken by the CIA to the Guantanamo prison.
* Mr Straw, then Foreign Secretary, decided in January 2002 that Guantanamo was the 'best way' to ensure UK nationals were 'securely held'.
* The Foreign Office issued instructions that transferring British citizens from Afghanistan to Guantanamo was its 'preferred option'.

'

Read the whole article and wonder why David Cameron is not more keen for the lies of the last Labour government to be uncovered.


The passage that sums up the last Labour government's moral compass and sense of responsibility was this:

'Mr Blair has repeatedly refused to say whether he will appear before the inquiry, despite four former Labour ministers - Mr Straw, David Blunkett, David Miliband and Alan Johnson - indicating that they would give evidence to former appeal Court judge Sir Peter Gibson's inquiry if requested.'

Tony Blair must be held to account for his actions as Prime Minister, but will he be? Mind you unless he is under oath and wired to a lie-detector I don't think that I will believe his 'evidence' anyway.

The Prime Minister misleads the public AGAIN and the BBC think the story is really not that important

The BBC's bias is unreal, Gordon Brown gets caught out misleading the country again and the BBC report it with the lines:

'the head of UK Statistics Authority agreed with a Tory complaint that he had made inaccurate comparisons.

Downing Street said it accepted the statistics had been "unclear".

But it insisted that Mr Brown had since corrected them. '

Can you imagine the outcry on the BBC if a Conservative politician had mislead the country AGAIN? Indeed do you remember the furore when the Conservatives were accused of using misleading crime statistics, the story ran for days and there were strong interviews of the 'guilty'? But now the Labour Prime Minister does it then it's all forgiven by the 'fact' that Gordon Brown had corrected the mistake; no interrogations, no shock just acceptance that it was a mistake, and no mention that it was yet another in a long line of Gordon Brown 'mistakes'. Just as with misleading the Chilcot Inquiry & the House of Commons and then misleading the House of Commons again with his grudging "in one or two years..." when it actually fell in four years, Gordon Brown knows he can rely on the protection of the BBC.

What's news?

Yesterday Gordon Brown had to admit that he mislead the Chilcot Inquiry over the relative levels of defence spending. His admission did not encompass the whole truth as he said just that "I do accept that in one or two years defence expenditure did not rise in real terms." when in fact defence spending in real terms fell in four years. Gordon Brown did not apologise for misleading the House of Commons at last wee's PMQs when he repeated the same stark claim:

"I put the facts before the inquiry on Friday. I said to the inquiry very clearly first of all that the expenditure of the Ministry of Defence has been rising in real terms under this Government.

...

I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the defence budget has been rising every year. He might have had a complaint if we were cutting the defence budget every year, but it is rising every year."

Now this was not an off-the-cuff remark, it was a prepared response to the Chilcot Inquiry and one Gordon Brown was happy to use as one of his prepared answers at PMQs. So was Gordon Brown's research inadequate? Was he careless as to the accuracy of his claims? Did he deliberately mislead (some might say lie) in order to protect his position in front the Chilcot Inquiry, knowing that it was unlikely that the truth would come out that day? Questions that are a) interesting and b) relevant to understanding the man that is Gordon Brown.

So what is the BBC's reaction to Gordon Brown's partial admission of guilt yesterday? The News front page makes no reference to Gordon Brown's admission at all, although they do find room for "No 'secret' Ashcroft deal - Hague " as the fifth top story. So I take a trip over to the Politics News front page where the main story is the "No 'secret' Ashcroft deal - Hague" story with three further links to related stories " Q&A: Lord Ashcroft", "Tax status new to Cameron" and "Profile: Lord Ashcroft". The Gordon Brown story is relegated to position four, the first small headline and the headline chosen is "PM misled Iraq inquiry - Cameron". Yes the BBC turn the headline so that it seems as though the claim is David Cameron's rather than an admission by Gordon Brown. Hidden away near the end of the article is the Gordon Brown defence (my emphasis):

"Mr Brown's spokesman said the prime minister had "taken the first opportunity" to tell MPs about his mistake but would not say when he first became aware of it.

Asked how Mr Brown had made the mistake, Downing Street said budgets were "pretty complex" and defence was one of the biggest.

So Gordon Brown's team are not saying when Gordon Brown first knew of his mistake in evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry, ie: was it before or after last week's PMQs. The other line of defence is that the subject is "pretty complex"; so much for the giant brain that was supposedly possessed by Gordon Brown!

So I turn to the BBC's top political story; it's a supposed leak but the 'leak' seems as much an embarrassment to Number 10 as to the Conservative party as the article itself has to acknowledge, albeit quietly (my emphasis):

"Former Conservative leader William Hague has denied any "secret" deal was done over Lord Ashcroft's tax status.

The Tory donor was made a peer in 2000 after undertaking to become a permanent UK resident, which was widely believed to mean he would be a full UK taxpayer.

But Mr Hague told the BBC leaked papers showed No 10 knew the agreed deal had not included the peer's tax status.

...

"The idea that this was a secret Tory deal for Lord Ashcroft to avoid whatever people thought he should have paid is rather blown apart by the knowledge this was all copied to Downing Street," he told BBC Radio 4's Today."

However the best comment is saved for near the end:

'Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said the leaked document showed William Hague and Tory leader David Cameron had been "economical with the truth"'

You have to admire the cheek of Peter Mandelson to accuse anyone of being "economical with the truth", he truly is a man without shame.

But that's not the end of the BBC coverage, here's the very last sentence of this report:

'Lord Ashcroft has pumped millions of pounds of his own money into the Conservative Party over the years and in 2005 was made its deputy chairman, with responsibility for targeting marginal seats at the general election.'

Breathtaking the BBC bias isn't it?


Away from the BBC's bias it is also interesting to note that Lord Ashcroft is not accused of anything illegal, he is paying tax on all his UK income as he must do as a UK resident. However as a non-dom he does not have to pay tax on his foreign income as that tax is deemed to be paid elsewhere. The difference between residence and domicile for tax is not that difficult to understand but it is one that the Labour party and their propaganda wing - the BBC - are quite happy to confuse.

Of course the fact that the reappearance of the Lord Ashcroft story has occurred just as the media spotlight was being shone on the UNITE union's links to and control of Gordon Brown and the Labour government must be entirely coincidental.


The BBC are getting more and more desperate and so fearless in their support for this Labour government. The BBC realise that with, probably, less than two months until the general election there is very little time for the Conservatives to change tack and point out the BBC's political bias and so the BBC feel free to push on and see how far they can go. What is worrying is that the BBC are not yet on a war-footing; so if you think their bias is bad now, just wait a while...

"Brown admits mistake on defence spending evidence "

The BBC reports that:

"Gordon Brown is to correct his evidence to the Iraq Inquiry after accepting defence spending had not risen in real terms every year under Labour.

The PM, chancellor during the war, said he now accepted it "did not rise in real terms" in one or two years.

...

Mr Brown told MPs he had written to the inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot. "

That's odd because I blogged about Channel 4's "Fact Check" piece on Gordon Brown's armed forces funding claims last weekend. However this Channel 4 piece was not about Gordon Brown misleading the Chilcot Inquiry but about him misleading the House of Commons. I presume therefore that Gordon Brown will now apologise to the House of Commons for his claims that

"I put the facts before the inquiry on Friday. I said to the inquiry very clearly first of all that the expenditure of the Ministry of Defence has been rising in real terms under this Government.

...

I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the defence budget has been rising every year. He might have had a complaint if we were cutting the defence budget every year, but it is rising every year."

If Gordon Brown does not apologise of his own free will then I hope that an apology is demanded of him by the House of Commons authorities, as misleading the House of Commons is a very serious matter.

Claim after claim from Gordon Brown stated with absolute certainty as absolute fact, when he must have known it was not true. Here's that Channel 4 news piece for you to watch...

Now Gordon Brown has only admitted that defence spending "did not rise in real terms" in one or two years. The Channel 4 FactCheck shows that it actually fell in four years - 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2002-2003 & 2007-2008. As I said at the weekend I think "playing fast and loose with the figures" just about sums up Gordon Brown's performance on Wednesday and indeed much of his career since 1997. And that Channel 4 summary again: "Gordon Brown's central claim... is fiction".

First the lies and then the electioneering, has Gordon Brown no shame?

Gordon Brown's performance at the Chilcot Inquiry left me feeling sick to the core as he used his usual array of spin and liberal 'Brownies' to obfuscate the truth. As with Gordon Brown's budgets the truth emerges in dribs and drabs over the following few days but by then it is too late and the cheerleaders in the BBC and other tame media have determined 'the narrative' and Gordon Brown lives to lie another day.

Gordon Brown claimed on Friday that, as Chancellor, he had provided the military with everything they asked for. However since then this claim has come under fire from several former chiefs of the defence staff, who have accused him of being "disingenuous". Admiral Lord Boyce and General Lord Guthrie said that, while individual urgent requests for equipment had been financed, the military suffered from a wider shortage of funding to fight two wars.

Meanwhile Sir John Major accused Gordon Brown of "profoundly unbecoming conduct for a Prime Minister". The man who won a surprise victory in the 1992 general election claimed that Gordon Brown used British troops as a "party political prop" and that British troops could be forgiven for regarding the surprise visit as a "political stunt". Sir John Major continued "Of course, ministers should visit our troops. But to use them as a cynically-timed pre-election backdrop is profoundly unbecoming conduct for a Prime Minister"


So do the troops side with Gordon Brown or Sir John Major? Let's take a look at The Army Rumour SErvice:

"FFS The cyclopic cnut is now kissing arrse in Afghanistan to make up for yesterdays lieing f**k up. The Spindoctors must be on triple time payment. And I wonder how long ago the aircraft was tasked"


"Did he take any new kit out with him?"


"He's left it a bit late to show he cares, when it really mattered in the past he delayed or cut funds & left MOD officials angered & frustrated, all these other individuals can't 'all' be lying

Would this apparent suprise visit have anything to do with two former senior officers contesting his performance yesterday??

GB is two faced & only attempting to make up for all the past f**k ups."


"£500 to any squaddie that has an accidental discharge and zaps tosspot brown."


"He doesn't deserve to "Win", he's an incompetent disgrace, a self-admitted liar, a foul-tempered oaf and quite possibly a f**king nutter as well.He cares nothing for the future well-being of this country, only for his own reputation and that of his utterly discredited, demonstrably toxic political party. If he and they continue in office they will take this county over the edge of ruin. I wouldn't trust the man to tell me the time of day or run the proverbial whelk-stall. He's the Peter Principle writ large, only he's been promoted not one, but probably half-a dozen levels beyond his competence, the sooner we're shot of this crazed, delusional weirdo the better for the UK and us all.

There, I feels better now. (sucks thumb and gazes our of window, rocking slowly )"


"I do loathe him. Would like to see him have the balls to attend a 360 Degree Feedback group or a "Town Hall" meeting with the families of those taken from us or injured in Iraq / Afghanistan and face some real questions. This is a cheap photoshoot engineered by 10 Downing Street to get him out of the UK & to try be Army friendly in my humble opinion."


"If I was a cynic I'd say there was an election on the horizon... lets hope someone puts a round into the demented twat."

And that's just from page 1; it seems that the troops areb not fooled, even if the BBC and The Mirror might be.

'Mr Brown had been "disingenuous"'

Even the BBC are forced to report that:

"Two former heads of the armed forces have strongly challenged Gordon Brown's evidence to the Iraq war inquiry.

The prime minister, who was chancellor when the war began, said the military had been given everything it asked for.

But Lord Guthrie, ex-chief of the defence staff, said in the Daily Telegraph that armed forces had been denied a request for more helicopters.

His successor, Lord Boyce, told the Times Mr Brown had been "disingenuous", but No 10 rejected the criticisms.

Downing Street insisted that Mr Brown could not have been clearer in his response to questions about military funding.

It also repeated his statement that no request for equipment had ever been turned down.

Lord Guthrie, who held his post from 1997 to 2001, said the Ministry of Defence "received the bare minimum from the chancellor, who wanted to give the military as little as he could get away with".

He said: "The whole defence budget was extremely difficult to run in his time.

"For Gordon Brown to say he has given the military all they asked for is not true.

"They asked for more helicopters but they were told they could not have any more."

Lord Guthrie added: "He cannot get away with saying 'I gave them everything they asked for'. That is simply disingenuous."

Lord Boyce, who was chief of the Defence Staff up to the beginning of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, said: "He's dissembling, he's being disingenuous. It's just not the case that the Ministry of Defence was given everything it needed".

"There may have been a 1.5 per cent increase in the defence budget but the MoD was starved of funds." "

"disingenuous", "For Gordon Brown to say he has given the military all they asked for is not true.". I can hardly believe that anyone doubts that Gordon 'fearty' Brown has once again been economical with the truth. Just as a leopard cannot change its spots, so Gordon Brown cannot change his disingenuous nature.

Gordon Brown at the Chilcot Inquiry

I trust the Chilcot Inquiry will ask Gordon 'fearty' Brown about two statements made to it in previous weeks:
1. "when I arrived in the Ministry of Defence in October 1999 there was quite a strong feeling that it was not fully funded" - Geoff Hoon

2. Sir Kevin Tebbit, Permanent Secretary at the MoD from 1998 to 2005, who said that Brown imposed a “complete guillotine” on defence resources, so that he was “running essentially a crisis budget”. This in wartime; the invasion of Iraq took place between March and May 2003; it beggars belief that, in September of that year, Brown imposed stringent cuts on defence spending.


Of course as 'evidence' is not taken under oath, I doubt that Gordon Brown will feel obliged to tell the truth, expect many 'Brownies'.

It's a March election; probably

I have been leaning towards an early general election, March or early April for a while now, as it becomes clear that Gordon Brown cannot afford to wait for the next big sets of economic data to come out in early April nor hold a budget that will not steady The City. So Iain Dales revelation that: "Gordon Brown will appear before the Chilcot Inquiry on either Thursday 4th or Friday 5th March" leads me to believe that Gordon Brown will call an election soon, maybe even at this weekend's election themes unveiling, for Late March or early April thus putting off the Budget and his appearance before the Chilcot Inquiry.

Where Tony Blair and Jack Straw have been now Gordon Brown 'must' follow

Gordon Brown declared that he was happy to appear before the Chilcot Inquiry before the General Election and is still expected to do so, although I fully expect him to wriggle out of this commitment as he has done before with other promises...

However the BBC report that:

"Members of the public who want to watch Gordon Brown's much anticipated appearance before the Iraq inquiry will be able to enter a ballot.

There is still is no date fixed for the prime minister to give evidence to the panel, chaired by Sir John Chilcot.

But the inquiry team has confirmed that it will be early in March.

A similar ballot was held when Tony Blair, who was prime minister in the run up and aftermath to the war, was grilled by the committee last month. "

Whilst Tony Blair was smooth and controlled in his giving of evidence, albeit not always answering the question he had been asked and Jack Straw was controlled and convincing even as he contradicted the evidence of other witnesses, Gordon brown is likely to be less convincing. As no witnesses are under oath there is no prospect of getting the 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' from Gordon Brown, just as with Tony Blair and Jack Straw, but Gordon Brown is just not as convincing as the others and prone to inopportune anger. This could be ahot ticket...

Is this the Iraq invasion smoking gun that will show Tony Blair lied?

The BBC report that:

"The leader of Plaid Cymru's MPs has said he has a memo showing Tony Blair and George Bush struck a secret deal to invade Iraq a year before the 2003 war.

Elfyn Llwyd told the BBC's Straight Talk he had written to Iraq Inquiry chair Sir John Chilcot to say he would be prepared to hand the document over.

He said the memo, which is marked "Top Secret and Confidential" contradicted statements made by Mr Blair.

Mr Blair previously told the inquiry he made no "covert" deal with Mr Bush.

Mr Llwyd, who in 2004 launched a campaign to impeach the then prime minister for misleading Parliament over the war, said he could not be specific about what was in the memo, which he "believed" was American in origin.

"I've not shown it to anybody to try, because I, frankly, I didn't want to be in any position where I was accused of undermining anything that was going on at the time," he told interviewer Andrew Neil.

He said the contents of the memo were "in direct contradiction of many, many statements by the ex-prime minister in the House of Commons, including several questions he answered to me".

Asked if he believed it could be the "smoking gun" that anti-war campaigners have been looking for, he said: "It could be". "

How anyone could think Tony Blair lied to the Chilcot Inquiry is beyond me...

Anyway I suggest that Elfyn Llwyd stays away from woods and suspicious looking men in trenchcoats.

Thoughts on Tony Blair's appearance before the Chilcot Inquiry

So Tony Blair believes he was right; I am shocked. What is more shocking is that vital papers were kept secret from the Inquiry so not all the evidence was made available and of course that Tony Blair was not interviewed by a lawyer or under oath. Whilst I would not necessarily trust Tony Blair to tell the truth under oath I don't see how he is more likely to tell the truth when not under oath.

The Times revealed today that a 'top secret, Downing Street memo from 6 months before 9/11 showed that Tony Blair offered Britain's support to the US in overthrowing Sadam Hussein. Doesn't that blow a hole in Tony Blair's evidence? Maybe he should be called back to be questioned on this, but presupposes that the Chilcot Inquiry is about discovering the whole truth...

Tony Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry

Paul Waugh lists 20 questions that he believes Tony Blair should be asked today. Take a look at all 20, but here's the ones that I think are key:

"4 You had a Downing Street meeting on 23 July 2002 with MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove present. A now-infamous leaked memo recorded that Dearlove reported on his recent trip to Washington. It claimed that "military action was now seen as inevitable" but "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". It added that there was "littled discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Is any of this accurate?

5. The Attorney General was also at this meeting. The day after he wrote you a letter repeating the advice he had given verbally, that you would need a new UN resolution to authorise military action. He says that this letter was seen by Number 10 as not "terribly welcome". Did you tell any of your aides that this was your view?

7. You claimed in your foreword to the infamous September 2002 dossier that "assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons". Wasn’t it totally misleading to use the phrase ‘beyond doubt’?

8. You told the House of Commons later that month that Saddam's WMD programme was "active, detailed and growing". Isn't it the case that not a single piece of intelligence suggested it was "growing"?

10. Sir David Omand and Jack Straw both now admit that it was a mistake to have included the ‘45 minutes’ claim in the dossier. Do you agree with them or have any regrets about the way MI6 felt uneasy about revealing its sources?

12. Even after the UN adopted 1441, Lord Goldsmith wrote to you on January 14, 2003, to say that there was still no "reasonable case" for war without a further resolution. His advice was not requested by you. Did you have a deliberate policy of not asking for his legal opinion until the very last minute, precisely because you knew that would box you in?

15.The Cabinet met on March 17, 2003. The Attorney presented his new opinion that war was legal without a second resolution. He was ready to read it out and then say a few words, but someone told him 'don't worry, we can read it ourselves'. Who was that person?

20. Have you ever, for even a second, doubted that you made the right decision in going to war in Iraq?"

Today should be interesting and don't forget that you can vote whether you thing Tony Blair is lying "live" by voting here.

Is Tony Blair a liar?

The Telegraph's live coverage of Tony Blair's appearance before the Chilcot Inquiry will include a "lie detector" feature

"Viewers will also be able to vote throughout the hearing on whether they think the former PM is telling the truth or not using our on screen 'lie detector'.

Click the Vote button on the video to register your view, and the lie detector will show running results of public opinion. "

Just a bit of fun?!

Truth and the Chilcot Inquiry

The First Post has an interesting angle on this week's evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry. The First Post report thus:

" Two former government lawyers are set to blow the Chilcot Inquiry wide open tomorrow. In the week that Tony Blair and his good friend Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General, are due to appear before the panel to explain why Britain went to war against Iraq in March 2003 - Goldsmith on Thursday, Blair on Friday - the two lawyers could help Chilcot put Britain's former prime minister on the spot.

Quite simply, the two lawyers, who for different reasons have never publicly told their stories, will say that they always advised that war against Iraq was illegal without a second UN resolution and that Blair went ahead anyway because he was determined to help George Bush remove Saddam Hussein.

The two lawyers are Sir Michael Wood, who was the senior Foreign Office lawyer at the time, and his deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst. They are both fascinating witnesses - for quite different reasons.

Among friends, Wood is supposed to have made no secret ever since the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 that it would not be legal without a second UN resolution. Publicly, however, he has never broken his silence on the matter.

A year after the invasion, he was awarded a knighthood. In 2006 he left the Foreign Office to become a barrister in private chambers in London.

Yesterday, a senior legal source told the Observer that the advice Wood gave "consistently" to Lord Goldsmith was that war would be unlawful.

"The important thing is that Foreign Office advice was given consistently in one way, and then the Attorney General, right at the end, gave advice to the contrary," the source told the newspaper. "That is what will come out."

It is also understood that Wood's legal advice from 2003 could be published for the first time by the Chilcot inquiry.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst is in a very different position - because she she was convinced the planned war was "a crime of aggression" and chose to resign on principle from the Foreign Office on the eve of the invasion. Until now, she has never given a public account of her decision to quit.

According to a report in the Independent on Sunday, she will tell the Chilcot inquiry that she was not "a voice in the wilderness' in harbouring doubts about an invasion and that many senior Foreign Office colleagues agreed with her.

If both Wood and Wilmshurst say tomorrow what their friends are expecting of them, the Chilcot inquiry might finally get to the truth of what persuaded Blair, against public opinion and legal advice, to attack Iraq. Some believe it will also take him a step closer to being charged one day for war crimes."

Interesting, very interesting. This and the report that Dr David Kelly's post mortem and other documents are to be kept secret for 70 years really should be headline news. I wonder if any MPs would like to tackle Gordon Brown about these matters at PMQs on Wednesday? Mind you even they do no doubt Gordon Brown will evade answering the question, he usually does. And if he does the BBC will no doubt protect him form scrutiny.