Channel 4 has the Attorney General's advice on Iraq

[muriel_volestrangler]

There was always a bit of doubt if the Daily mail had actually seen a copy, or just heard a verbal version. Jon Snow is waving it around in his hand on the news.

Dated March 7th, it says:

The safest legal course was to get a second UN resolution

A court might conclude a further decision needed

Hard and compelling evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation would be needed if relying on resolution 1441 alone

The views of UNMOVIC and IAEA would be vital for that hard evidence.

Said Channel 4's legal expert: "it reeks" and "it will stain his premiership" forever.

The military said they wouldn't go to war on the basis of this opinion. The solution? The decided not to ask Hans Blix if Iraq was complying - but to ask Tony Blair instead. Lord Goldsmith then based his last legal opinion on Blair's opinion.

[Kagemusha]

1. I'm shaking my head...

This proves Goldsmith told Blair the truth that Blair did not want to hear, and then used the dignity and power of his office to conceal, warp, and then, with Goldsmith's meek acquiesence, loudly deny in front of Parliament, proclaiming that Blair's truth was the only truth that existed. I can hardly call Goldsmith's final opinion "advise" under any legal standard. Absolutely reprehensible.

Which doesn't mean I want a Tory in charge over there, for the record. But it's sad to see that a PM can do this, get away with it, and stand tall like he's an... American or something.

Subject edited to reflect how on second thought nothing can possibly come of this except leaving the public in despair.

[ben_packard]

2. watching it now

pretty damning but i doubt much will come of it now.

[Briar]

3. They've posted it here

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=91

[Anarcho-Socialist]

4. I've never been able to understand why Blair did this...

Was it oil?
Was it done just to keep up the U.K.-U.S. 'special relationship'?
Was it done to get access to advanced U.S. military equipment/technology for U.K. forces?
Was it done because his friend Bill Clinton advised him to go along with it?
Was it done for imperialistic reasons?
Was it done for neo-liberal ideological reasons? (to create a free trade, tariff-free, democratic country in the Middle East to sell U.K. goods to)
Did he hear 'voices from God' telling him to go to war?
Did he do it because of some threat or blackmail?
Was it done because war is popular with the Murdoch press?
Was it done because being a 'war leader' was going to get him re-elected?

I would like to know this, what reason it was, or what mixture of reasons.

Had Blair not taken Britain into the Iraq war, he would have been an above-average Prime Minister, and because PMs tend to be below-average this would have made Tony Blair one of the better British PMs of recent years. Now he'll go down in history as a liar, with disdain and stigma like Richard Nixon.

[fedsron2us]

5. I think you are being unfair to Nixon.

At least he did not start the Vietnam war.

[ikri]

7. Blair...

Has a stubborn streak in him and he's something of an idealist.

I'd guess that initially Blair thought that he could persuade the US to get full UN backing for an attack on Iraq. He'd already planned for that eventuality.

He'd not prepared for the US ignoring the UN completely.

Unfortunately for Blair, * had already decided to invade Iraq with or without the backing of the UN. At that point he had no choice but to follow through with the invasion.

If he'd backed off invading Iraq without the UN he would have been painted as a weak leader by the hawks on all sides.

Essentially he ran out of choices. If he had managed to persuade * to follow the UN he would have been lauded as a great statesman and if the invasion of Iraq had used the script that the neo-cons imagined then he'd have been lauded as a great leader and he could have laughed at all of the war detractors.

But he is stubborn. Even when everything went wrong and he wasn't able to get * to follow the UN's line he had already staked his reputation on following the US. His idealism prevented him from imagining the most powerful nation of the world becoming a rogue state.

In the end he was left where he is now, debating legalese on the legality of the war and missing the problems with his poor judgment.

[D-Notice]

6. The Guardian has an copy of it here:

PDF:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf

[D-Notice]

8. Question Time might be interesting tonight

the guests are Bliar, Howard & Kennedy. BBC1 - 8.30 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4492727.stm

Wonder what possible topic the audience's questions will be on?

[Englander]

9. Is it actually being broadcast live?

:bounce: :party: :applause: :toast: :bounce:

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Yes, but they're not being asked the questions together

"A live TV audience will question the three main party leaders in BBC One's Question Time this Thursday at 8.30pm.

Charles Kennedy, Michael Howard and Tony Blair will appear in turn each for nearly 30 minutes. "

Pity - I'd love to get them able to make points, have the others answer them, press them on it, and so on.

[tjwmason]

11. Each time round there's an attempt

Howard made clear his willingness to debate with poodle boy, but I'm not sure that he wanted Kennedy to be there. I can imagine that it would work well for Howard, as a former barrister he is good at constructing and deconstructing arguments - but then the P.M.s a former barrister as well.

Poodle boy has declined completely.