Iraq Inquiry Digest

Comment from Stan Rosenthal
Time October 7, 2009 at 5:03 pm

Mr Ames,this site is being presented as an impartial watchdog over the proceedings of the Chilcot inquiry, whereas the names and writings of the key contributors would suggest that it is mainly about interpreting the proceedings from an anti-war stance to produce as much material as possible to discredit the proponents of the war or if such material does not emerge to dismiss the whole thing as a whitewash.

Why don’t you come clean and admit this in your preamble so we all know where you are coming from?

Comment from Andrew M.
Time October 9, 2009 at 3:10 am

In response to the previous comment please see:

http://www.iraqinquirydigest.org/?p=2048

Comment from Peter Curran
Time October 20, 2009 at 11:56 am

As far as I can see, Stan, there is nothing to stop anyone, whatever their position of the Iraq War, from supporting and contributing to this site. There is nothing to “come clean” about.

For the record, I was totally opposed to the war and believe that the the Commons and the British electorate were lied to, but I am also fully prepared to keep an open mind, and listen to the conclusion of an objective and impartial enquiry if Chilcot proves to be such, as most hope it will.

Nothing Chilcot or anyone else could say now could convince me that the decision to go to war was right. Nothing that Blair said then would have convinced me that it was right, even if he was not lying, and did not deceive the Commons and the people.

Have you got anything to “come clean” about, Stan?

Comment from Peter Curran
Time October 20, 2009 at 11:58 am

http://moridura.blogspot.com

Comment from rose gentle
Time October 23, 2009 at 3:30 pm

all the families are asking for is that the inquiry
shuld look into how we whent in to iraq and how our troops did not have the wright equipent to do a job that our government was asking them to do we have herd so much as how we whent into iraq its
hard to believe, the government how we did go in
the familys have the wright to know what we lost our love one for

Comment from Lee Roberts
Time November 23, 2009 at 8:03 pm

Stan and I crossed swords for many months over Mr Blair and Iraq. I look forward to rejoining the joust. Although you couldnt find two people who disagree on Iraq as strongly as Stan and I, I regard him as a worthy adversary, and I hope he still feels that way about me.

Comment from Lee Roberts
Time November 23, 2009 at 8:11 pm

I believe it is absurd for Chilcot to say he will not focus on the legality of the war, and as far as I can judge, making such a statement is not even within his competence. He has no mandate to exclude such a consideration. If evidence emerges that demonstrates the illegality, there is nothing Chilcot can do to supress that. Neither does he have any power to prevent prosecutors in the UK, the Hague, Belgium, Germany, and Spain making use of that evidence. So this statement about not considering legality should be regarded as puffery from someone apparently intent on circumscribing the scope of this enquiry.

Comment from Lee Roberts
Time November 23, 2009 at 9:24 pm

I have just been pondering why Stan’s use of the words “impartial watchdog over the proceedings of the Chilcot inquiry” seem so odd. A watchdog is by definition not impartial. A watchdog is, in fact, very partial. In this case, concerned to ensure that the enquiry is conducted properly and is not used to cover up important facts and protect those involved in the decisions to back Bush’s Iraq invasion. Is Stan is concerned that Chilcot may be unfair to Blair and trick him into confessing, I suggest that Stan play that watchdog role on this site.

Comment from Stan Rosenthal
Time January 20, 2010 at 7:51 pm

I have just reminded myself about the contributors and supporters at this site.

I think the way the inquiry has been largely reported at this site has confirmed my initial thought about the mindset of those those behind it.

I think it can be summed up by these extracts from Peter Currin’s comment above.

“I am also fully prepared to keep an open mind, and listen to the conclusion of an objective and impartial enquiry if Chilcot proves to be such, as most hope it will…..Nothing Chilcot or anyone else could say now could convince me that the decision to go to war was right”

And Lee, a watchdog can be impartial if it picks up on the pro-war testimonies being presented as diligently as it does anything that supports the anti-war case. I seem to be the only one doing the former and I hate to think what it would have been like if I hadn’t sent in my previous comment on this page which resulted in Chris (to his credit) inviting me to be a contributor. I still feel that way about you btw (i.e. you being a worthy adversary as well).

Comment from buthaina al-Nasiri
Time January 29, 2010 at 11:09 am

There should be nothing impartial about war. War, whatever the justifications, always, is a crime against humanity.

I fully, support the contributers to this website.

Buthaina Al-Nasiri
Iraqi writer and activist