Blair and Chilcot

Very well said, JONDHis defence has always been that he was given evidence even though it turned out to be false evidence. He (and Campbell) denies he made weak evidence stronger although that was indeed what he did, omitting all the caveats and qualifications from intelligence reports…"sexed it up)What he also neglects to say is that he ignored other much more credible evidence, the most important at the time being Hans Blix reports that he had not found anything and needed more time to conduct more searches, just to be extra sure before reporting there was nothing to find. The article linked to claims that part of his defence was that he had not decided prior to the vote in Parliament to go to war. If the vote had gone against invasion as another later did with Cameron in Syria who backed down from a bellicose approach, would have Blair? All rather hypothetical because Blair with made-up and invented "facts" did convince the majority of MPs to support the Iraq war. That was what i meant when i said he will have a ready made army of apologists, guilty by association, because unlike a million who marched against war these  politicians chose to be fooled by Blair's lies which were exposed by even the March vote for anyone willing to do the research. Their motives were far from upholding truth and genuine conviction but for careerism.When the Chilcot Report comes out, i predict some headlines and a flurry of opposing articles pro and anti-Blair. A week or so of that and it will be forgotten to become a footnote in history books. Blair's prestige and reputation will recover and he will continue ar he has – a ready source of quotes for the media and willing advisor to dictators seeking to improve their international PR…..OHHHH…how i detest that despicable man…Even Bush knows well enough to hide under a bush these days…but Blair…he has the affrontery to boast of his ignorance at the time as his excuse.