Did Blair mislead the Inquiry?

One thing for which I respect Chris Ames is that, in his detailed knowledge of Tony Blair’s role in the Iraq war, he is as impatient as I am with the tedious misreporting of the Chilcot inquiry by the antiwar media.

He’s as antiwar as the rest of them, but that does not stop him joining in my Questions to Which the Answer is No game, and inadvertently nominating the above as number 494 in the series.

He notices that several newspapers reported that two former Cabinet secretaries had accused Blair of “misleading” the “Iraq war probe”, and he asks a supplementary, number 494a:

Did Lords Wilson [right] and Turnbull accuse Blair of misleading the Inquiry?

Ames answers his own question:

I’m not sure that they did or that he did. They certainly contradicted his claim. But at this point, the panel have seen the cabinet papers and know what was and wasn’t said. If Blair was trying to mislead them – as opposed to us – he had little hope.

He therefore concludes that Blair must have misled someone else.

Meanwhile, I have to report two further additions to the series.

Number 495 was asked by David Marsh of Denis Healey at his talk on “Being Chancellor” at the Mile End Group last night:

Would David Owen [who was in the audience] have been a better Chancellor than Gordon Brown?

Healey gave the required answer.

Number 496 was asked by Will Straw:

Will Ed Balls be the recession’s Churchill?

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• Cameron on Gay Marriage Should Make Us Proud
• What Focus Groups Say About Ed Miliband
• Cameron's possibly winning position
• "Clearing the Battlefield"
• UKIP Surges to Record High

• Richard_SM

  Turnbull and Wilson certainly undermined Blair’s version, and I’m sure they knew exactly what they were saying and how it would be received. It was accusatory, in establishment-to-establishment language. I’ve no doubt the panel got the message.

  “Will Ed Balls be the recession’s Churchill?”

  No, he’s too divisive. But Yvette Cooper could be Labour’s Thatcher around 2020.

• LancashireLad

  Blair misled his cabinet, Parliament and the public; that is an established fact. What isn’t as well known is that Blair kidded himself. He truly believed that what he was doing was right.

  It wasn’t! What Blair did, was commit Britain to a war of aggression. Whilst Mr Rentoul can forgive this digression’ I cannot and neither can the international community.

  Blair must stand trial!

• aardvark10

  John Rentoul could surely benefit from a closer study of Chris Ames. He certainly never resorts to calling those who do not agree with him “bottom living creatures” and he has an open mind. His web site is thorough and well researched.

• petersimplex

  I respect Chris Ames enormously, not least for his unrelenting ferreting out of documents hidden away by the secret staten through FoIs, documents which will prove, ultimately, when we see more and more important ones, that all those at the top have been lying about Iraq,WMDs and David Kelly, amply assisted by supine (and prone) journalists like John Rentoul who would rather spend their time schmoozing in Mile End with “socialists” who have no idea what life is like for 95 per cent of Britons than telling their readers the truth.
  For once the answer may be No. Blair evaded the Supine Inquiry. All those who are not privy to the redacted passages, secret deals between Blair and Bush …we are all BOTTOM DWELLERS.

• BlairSupporter

  @ LL can we try YOU too for lying? Where’s the written-in-stone truth about Blair misleading parliament etc?

  I suppose this “established fact” must be the reason the international community is so content to have Blair working for it. The UN/EU/USA/Russia (Quartet). Ah, but they don’t count, presumably. Not “international enough!?!?! They’re probably all in with Blair misleading himself, eh? Empathising, cos they all do the same.

  The minute the main “actors” in the Mid-East process – Abbas and Netanyahu complain about Blair, he’s in trouble. Until then, please refrain from presenting us with your omniscience.

• BlairSupporter

  Around 2040, you mean? As I’ve mentioned at my blog it took Labour 33 years to find a leader who could WIN for them. Tony Blair 1997. He was aged 10 when their last winner – Harold Wilson did it in 1964. After that there was only Callaghan and Brown, both replacing elected leaders. Both doomed to fail. Blair was also their most successful leader EVER, the only one to win three consecutive elections. I have written about it- using historical evidence and FACTS. Search for “33 years to find a Blair”.

• takeoman

  ” using historical evidence and Facts” Do we take from this that the historical evidence is fabricated?