Chilcott wants public Iraq inquiry

I, along with the vast majority of the general public, beg Sir John to ensure that he conducts a true, open, forthright and total transparent inquiry. The major 'players' should be questioned on oath as this is the only way that they will provide the background and action which led to such a disasterous and futile loss of life, finance and degregation for once such a proud country.
Do not be overshadowed by people who are attempting to cover up each others bad faith actions in order to preserve their own skin and enhance their sleazy rise in today's political fun fair.
Marcel Ranford - Port Talbot, West Glamorgan

The Enquiry begins today and whilst I would like to think that candour and rigour will be the order of the day I fear we will all be sorely and bitterly disappointed.

Despite Sir John's protestations to the contrary I feel sure Blair will have been scheming tirelessly behind the scenes and already set the rules with Brown.

It's to Sir John's credit that Brown's original edict to have the Enquiry held in camera was overruled. But one must never underestimate Blair's ability - as with both Hutton and Butler - to manipulate a whitewash.

Already the Enquiry has no teeth -no counsel to cross examine and no witnesses placed under oath.

As with Blair's completely absurd appointment as 'Peace Envoy' in the Middle East he's manipulate the powers because of his standing in America. And what ostensibly hurts us hurts the US also. Which is why all efforts will be made to minimize the damage. And thus another whitewash will ensue.

What is - for me - indisputable is that Bush went to war under some homespun misguided Texan philosophy to avenge his father's failure in Iraq. 9/11 presented him with the ideal platform/reason to do so. Blair had by then assumed his own lust for glory persona and was happy to jump on board - despite advice and overwhelming public opinion. And as we know, what followed began one of most appalling chapters in our history resulting in the quagmire we find ourslves in today.

Blair is utterly accountable for his actions perfectly exemplified by the father of a soldier who refused to shake Blair's hand at the recent memorial service. How he had the brass neck even to attend beggars belief. If there HAD been a cast iron, legal reason, if the war HAD been handled correctly and if there HAD been the right troop equipment(and so on) his handshake may have been reciprocated. But just as MP's still now don't grasp the full extent of the public's fury over their expenses (and for all Brown's denials I for one think £12,000 on gardening expenses is utterly reprehensible) we have heard nothing about Blair's expenses. He seems to have come though such a furore unscathed. Yet I'm quite sure there's a different story somewhere to be told. As with Iraq. Sadly I don't think we'll ever get to hear it.
John Dellingham - London UK

Its difficult to believe leaders of two important countries could go to war failing to take into account the concerns of their Armed Force Commanders in respect of readiness and lack of planning for a government of occupation - a complete disgrace to both UK & USA
Peter Drayton - Ross on Wye UK

this inquiri should have been taken place after the general elections,so that nobody from the old rigime would enterfer with inquiri.AND THE SHAIRMEN SHOULD BE CHOSEN FROM PRIVET CITIZEN NOT TIDE TO ESTABLESHEMENT.
GORO MOMO - YORKSHIRE

1.
I have yet to hear a question or indeed an offering of what was thought by the term ‘Weapons Of Mass Destruction’

A hand grenade is a weapon of mass destruction in a crowded room. So what did the politicians understand by the term ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’?

There was absolutely no way Iraq had a weapon that could directly attack Britain, or the USA, Israel possibly e.g. the Scud missiles, but certainly not the UK


2. Today it was reported that the information was ‘passed by Ministers’, that Saddam had not ordered the putting together of the warheads which would give him the capacity to deliver chemical weapons.

Was this information written down in the form of a memo, a report or an e-mail? If not, then it could come down to who do you believe when witnesses suffer from selective amnesia.

If the information was indeed written down then who did not use it, which Minister?

Was it suppressed so the Prime Minister did not see it or did the Prime Minister choose to ignore it?

If the supposed threat from chemical weapons was known to be untrue, 10 days before the war, then why were our troops pumped full of chemicals? The outcome for some soldiers we now know to be lethal.


The questions should not be put to extract a statement, they should be put in a way a Coroner poses question. No one is on trial at a Coroners CCourt only the truth is sought.

How, Where and When
HOW did we get into a war with a country which was percieved to be a low threat?
WHO made the decision to go to war?
WHEN and WHERE were the real decisions taken?
John E Adey - Chester-le-Street

This being a fact finding enquiry relating to the Iraqi War, I am surprised that Sir John allowed Sir Christopher to comment what would have happened if Mrs. Thather were in Power during the time. Such comparison is irrelevent for the inqueri purposes, and Sir Christopher was making a poltically slanted comment which should be disallowed. Unless Sir John is carefull the other witnesses might take cue from Sir Christopher and use the enquiry as their poltical platform
Amal Basu - Manchester/Individual