ForumGarden

How on earth can this almost forgotten report take so long?

And seriously will anyone believe it's findings?

What the heck are you talking about.

Sorry.......Chilcot report: David Cameron condemns latest delay to publication of Iraq war inquiry

It's an abbreviation for the UK's inquiry, headed by Sir John Chilcot, into the origin of the 2003 Iraq War. The nation was glued to its TV screens five years ago when the big players were grilled. The inquiry has still not published its report, and has now promised to do so in July 2016. We have a thread awaiting the outcome.

The reason for the delay is that back in the 80s, at a guess, a loathsome Czech crook was criticized by a British inquiry and a court, I imagine, said he should have had a right to view and request changes before the report went public. It's called Maxwellizing, and means holding back publication of a report critical of oneself for as long as possible by waiting for deadlines in protracted exchanges of letters, thereby stretching matters step by tedious step.

spot;1488386 wrote: It's an abbreviation for the UK's inquiry, headed by Sir John Chilcot, into the origin of the 2003 Iraq War. The nation was glued to its TV screens five years ago when the big players were grilled. The inquiry has still not published its report, and has now promised to do so in July 2016. We have a thread awaiting the outcome.

The reason for the delay is that back in the 80s, at a guess, a loathsome Czech crook was criticized by a British inquiry and a court, I imagine, said he should have had a right to view and request changes before the report went public. It's called Maxwellizing, and means holding back publication of a report critical of oneself for as long as possible by waiting for deadlines in protracted exchanges of letters, thereby stretching matters step by tedious step.


And hoping that the passage of time dulls peoples memories, thus taking the heat out of the situation somewhat.

Smaug;1488399 wrote: And hoping that the passage of time dulls peoples memories, thus taking the heat out of the situation somewhat.


I'm sure some people referred to in the report have kept delaying its publication deliberately. I don't think it's Sir John Chilcot.

Let's not forget it was not just all about tony blair.



It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.

Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.


Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.


All those MP's who voted for war should resign in shame - I won't be holding my breath.

spot;1488419 wrote: I'm sure some people referred to in the report have kept delaying its publication deliberately. I don't think it's Sir John Chilcot.


Sir John is almost certainly blameless in this respect. I think we can all hazard a guess as to the guilty parties.

gmc;1488421 wrote: Let's not forget it was not just all about tony blair.









All those MP's who voted for war should resign in shame - I won't be holding my breath.


Depends on how much they were told, and how truthful that info was. WMD capable of being deployed within 45 mins was one of the major pretexts for military action. As no WMD have ever been found, does this add more weight to the argument that Blair is a war criminal? Not to mention Dubya.