What's the flippin point of the UK Iraq War Inquiry?

[andyandy]

Really. What?

It's cost millions upon millions of pounds.

It is simply rehashing over stuff that we already know.

It has put a procession of professional liars on the stand (Campbell, Goldsmith, Blair), who have very accomplishedly avoided saying anything remarkable.

It's a complete and utter waste of time and money. Is this just a jobs-for-bureaucrats exercise, or is there any actual point in it?

Discuss. :)

[Giz]

Some people feel very strongly about it so the government has decided it would be politically expedient to hold a "show inquiry" in order to appear contrite/shift the focus away from them/garner votes.

Nothing substantive will happen, it's just Gordon hoping that people will used to blaming Tony rather than him (before the general election arrives).



As a side note, I rather agree with Oliver Kamm's take on it:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2010/01/coward-blair.html

[Praktik]

its better than nothing.

Could you imagine Bush or Cheney answering the same questions in a similar format in the states?

[Sporanox]

What's the flippin point of the UK Iraq War Inquiry?

Good TV?

[WildCat]

The point? Politics you silly boy.

[Brainster]

One last chance for the anti-Blair, anti-Bush people to put on their silly masks (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Saddam-Hussein-public-inquiry-Shaun-Curry/photo//100129/photos_wl_uk_afp/875669b19e1208594e25e044b7cc4259//s:/afp/20100129/wl_uk_afp/britainiraqmilitaryinquirypolitics_20100129210010) ?:D

[Darat]

I've found it fascinating that we've had the chance to hear directly from many of the people involved at the heart of our politics without the usual filtering and spin of the media, I've certainly learned a lot. Don't read the newspaper reports about it - try to listen to as much of it as possible.

[Fiona]

I've found it fascinating that we've had the chance to hear directly from many of the people involved at the heart of our politics without the usual filtering and spin of the media, I've certainly learned a lot. Don't read the newspaper reports about it - try to listen to as much of it as possible.

I agree. I do not think it will lead to any practical outcome (such as indicting Blair) but I do think it is important that those who were involved in this are giving an account of themselves. This was a deeply divisive issue, and although I cannot know what proportion of the population opposed this war it was significant as the demonstrations showed. The perception that those views were completely ignored has done much to foster a cynical attitude to politics which I think is quite dangerous. And so this inquiry serves a purpose, if only in showing that there was no monolithic concensus within government, at the very least.

I do not think it is enough but I think it is a start

[lionking]

The darling of Australia's leftish, The Melbourne Age, has called for a similar inquiry concerning John Howard. Won't happen.

[Giz]

This was a deeply divisive issue, and although I cannot know what proportion of the population opposed this war it was significant as the demonstrations showed. The perception that those views were completely ignored has done much to foster a cynical attitude to politics which I think is quite dangerous. And so this inquiry serves a purpose, if only in showing that there was no monolithic concensus within government, at the very least.



Then people should grow up. We don't have a direct democracy, we have a representative one.

So the folks in charge made a decision you disagree with. So what? Wait until the next election and then vote accordingly. Trying to use the courts to punish government decisions that you disagree with appears to set a horrible precedent (IMHO). Part of living in a multi-party democracy is accepting that from time to time there will be people in power enacting policies you disagree with.

[Fiona]

Then people should grow up. We don't have a direct democracy, we have a representative one.

Certainly: one would hope we also have a responsive one. That is not the same thing as one which is populist in every circumstance but it is not an unreasonable aspiration on issues like a decision to go to war. Those are not really day to day matters.

So the folks in charge made a decision you disagree with. So what? Wait until the next election and then vote accordingly. Trying to use the courts to punish government decisions that you disagree with appears to set a horrible precedent (IMHO). Part of living in a multi-party democracy is accepting that from time to time there will be people in power enacting policies you disagree with.

First the enquiry is not a court so I do not see the relevance of that

Second: if the government breaks the law then I certainly do see a place for the court to review that; and that is an established part of the poliitcal system in the form of judicial review.

[lionking]

Second: if the government breaks the law then I certainly do see a place for the court to review that; and that is an established part of the poliitcal system in the form of judicial review.

Which law did Blair allegedly break?

[Fiona]

I don't understand the question as it relates to the part you quoted. The point was general.

As it happens I believe the government broke international law but that is a separate issue, though the inquiry may shed some light on that as well