Inquiry starts tomorrow?
by Chris Ames
Yesterday’s Independent on Sunday carried a piece from political editor Jane Merrick, asking “Could you really stomach Blair being EU president?”, based on the strong feelings that exist over Iraq and the incident on Friday where the father of one soldier killed in Iraq refused to shake Tony Blair’s hand, saying that it had blood on it.
The piece also stated that:
This Tuesday, he [Blair] will face more raw anger from families of soldiers when the first independent and public inquiry into the war begins in London.
…
Sir John Chilcot, who is chairing the inquiry, will open the hearings on Tuesday by taking evidence from soldiers’ families, including those of the 179 troops who died in the war.
It is not clear what this is based on as the Inquiry has not made any formal announcement about its plans to consult families, although I reported here that Rose Gentle, a supporter of the Digest, is to attend such a meeting later this month. The description of such meetings as the start of the Inquiry is something of an exaggeration, and the statement that “the Chilcot hearings will be well under way” at the end of this month seems like wishful thinking.
The refusal of Peter Brierley, whose son Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley died in Iraq, to shake Blair’s hand made an understandable impact, as did the criticism of policymakers by Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury. In this part of the Guardian’s account of Friday’s events, Williams appeared to be referring to the Inquiry:
“Reflecting on the Iraq campaign, we cannot say that no mistakes were ever made – when has that ever been the case?” Williams said. “But we can be grateful for the courage and honesty shown in facing them. Justice does not come without cost. In the most obvious sense, it is the cost of life and safety. But there is another sort of cost involved in holding back the easy instinctive response and checking that you are genuinely doing something for the sake of long-term building or healing.”
He alluded to the vexed questions those responsible had faced, however, even as he emphasised that the justice of the war itself remained under debate.
“In a world as complicated as ours has become, it would be a very rash person who would feel able to say without hesitation, this was absolutely the right or the wrong thing to do, the right or the wrong place to be,” he said.
2 Responses to “Inquiry starts tomorrow?”
Pingback from Rowan Williams : Biography, news, pictures, videos
Time October 13, 2009 at 5:09 pm
[...] Inquiry starts tomorrow? Iraq Inquiry Digest – PeopleRank: 1 – October 12, 2009 …Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury. In this part of the Guardian’s account of Friday’s events, Williams appeared to be referring to the Inquiry: “Reflecting on the Iraq campaign, we cannot say that no mistakes were ever made – when has that… Cited people : Tony Blair Rose Gentle Jane Merrick John Chilcot Lance Corporal Peter Brierley Shaun Brierley + vote [...]
Comment from BlairSupporter
Time October 13, 2009 at 12:41 am
In the past The Archbishop had a wordy and ‘inclusive’ way of trying to sound as though he was facing two ways at the same time. Some might say confusing the issues with rhetoric that could challenge the most gifted of politicians.
This dual-headedness became a bit of a pain in the neck after a time, as it has proved in the job he is supposed to be doing in the Anglican Church.
At the St Paul’s “commemorative service” to mourn the dead, recognise their sacrifice and thank them, their families and the present defenders of the realm, His Grace got seriously off-balance. He forget what he was FOR.
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/what-do-the-archbishop-the-nobel-peace-committee-the-independent-have-in-common/
Looking around our hate-filled press he somehow concluded that there weren’t enough people questioning the Iraq war, the reasons for the Iraq war, and the truth about the Iraq war. So he took the opportunity to leap in and regale us with HIS thoughts.
He should have kept them between him and God.
His self-obsessed opining was not lost ON THIS OCCASION to those gathered. The captive audience … I mean … congregation included the Queen and members of the royal family, with serving and past members of the forces. It also included serving troops from the Iraq war AND their families. They must have felt SO-O-O-O reassured that HE was right and their cause had been wrong. After all it was St Paul’s, and would an archbishop lie in a Cathedral?
But above all else His Gracelessness was speaking to and about politicians and ABOUT one politician in particular.
The whole diatribe was a dishonourable disgrace.
It is not for an Archbishop to impart his politicised opinion about a controversial conflict and its decision-makers in this arena and on such an occasion. Despite the emollient-sounding words you quote it is clear what he was saying and WHOM he was attacking.
“… it would be a very rash person who would feel able to say without hesitation, this was absolutely the right or the wrong thing to do, the right or the wrong place to be.”
The message? Tony Blair was that ‘rash’ person.
We all recall that Blair left office saying that he believed it was “the right thing to do.”
As for a link to the Iraq Inquiry in Williams’ words – perhaps, since John Chilcot too was in that congregation. If so, it proves that this politicised churchman was speaking above his job description and out of line.
Something tells me that this nudging will NOT have gone down well with the Chairman of the Iraq Inquiry. He needs no lessons from this ecclesiastical quarter on his responsibilities regarding “judging” blame or imparting guilt.
There are enough ‘Blair baiters’ out there without this man encouraging additions to their numbers.
The very idea that politicians, who are elected ‘by the people for the people’ and speak with that mandate, never sat down and discussed “what if” is an insult to democratically elected politicians.
The worst aspect to his insults and disrespectful behaviour was the dishonour his questioning laid on those who only asked for support for their defence of our country – our armed forces.
This was not the time nor place for liberal ‘intellectuals’ to lay their thoughts and doubts on the already heavily laden shoulders of the strong, disciplined and decisive amongst us.
As for the poor bereaved father – yes, he has been bereaved as have been several hundred in the last several years. For them all we naturally feel sympathy.
But how many such families have insisted that our political leaders were to blame for their deaths? Knowing, as we do, that insurgents were by far the main perpetrators it is disgraceful that this pacifism nonsense is continually rammed down the throats of the brave, espeially when we are not at peace.
Rose Gentle, one or two others and Peter Brierley are the leaders of this group, perhaps all of this group. Mr Brierley also supports some groups The Daily Mail in its “wisdom” forgot to mention in their recent attack of Tony Blair.
I have written about it here, sourced from Oliver Kamm’s article.
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/censorshiptruth-lies-inside-the-daily-mail-den-of-left-alliance/
As for the Independent’s mention of the Chilcot Inquiry “start”. You didn’t really expect them to get THIS right, did you? It’d be a first if they got ANYthing right about Blair and/or the Iraq war.