Iraq war inquiry to be held behind closed doors.

[Gromit]

An independent inquiry into the Iraq war will be held in private, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has told MPs.

Can we trust it to be completely independent, and whatever happened to transparency in Government?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8100432 .stm

[Rollo]

It makes you think they might have something to hide doesn't it?

LOL

[Julnar]

British Governments are obsessed with keeping information from the public, while doing all they can to learn as much about us as is possible. I'm disappointed with the decision. I've just re-read my answer and accept it sounds like paranoid ravings!

[jake-the-peg]

Do you think the witnesses will say the same things with a TV camera staring at them?

What's important isn't whether it's held publicly but how much of the final report is public

[paraffin]

This is such a highly emotive subject which, no matter the decision, was bound to create a massive stir.

Those who have lost loved ones will understandably be outraged and deeply disappointed but they cannot be held to be the most objective people for very obvious reasons.

There was always going to be an element of secrecy because of security concerns and that is only right and proper. National security is paramount.

We have no guarantees that the enquiry will satisfy everyone, indeed wouldn't that be impossible? And as far as "transparency" goes, the only thing I can deduce is that the definition of that word to a politician differs radically to what any reputable dictionary would have us believe it should.

The dilemma was therefore that the remainder of the information could be viewed as a "halfway house" with large chunks missing, hence I suppose some of the rationale behind the enquiry being held in public.

It may also be that witnesses might be more forthcoming to a closed door enquiry rather than have their every word masticated and scrutinised to the nth degree by our avaricious media?

I do find it somewhat convenient for Mr Brown, though, that the findings will not be revealed for over a year, by which time of course he and his Government may well no longer be in power. Now, wouldn't that possibly get him out of a potentially damaging and embarrassing situation should the enquiry find against those politicians who actually had a part in sending our troops to Iraq in the first place?

[R1Geezer]

Can someone tell me WTF they are enquiring about, I think it's pretty well common knowledge by now!

We went in with the septics, because Tony said they had WMD's they never found any, booted out bad guys, tried to get some sort of democracy established, still trying, end of.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

In these compensation mad days, shouldn't employers think twice before employing certain workers in their companies.

Perhaps they should ask certain searching questions before employing them? But then they can't can they? because they would be breaching the numerous discrimination laws.

Incidentally she looks quite happy wearing the said dress.

[anotheoldgit]

Sorry the question has been wrongly posted.

[rov1200]

As the decision to go to war was decided by sofa government there's not a hells chance of finding out unless Campbell, Blair or Scarlett turned evidence.

Examining the evidence over 7 years just clouds the issue, its just the 6 month period before the war and the questions are fairly simple.

1. Why did Blair over-ride Hanz Blitz who said more time was needed for the weapons inspectors.
2. If Bush said he did not need British involvement in the invasion why did Blair still go along with it.
3. Why did Blair lie about Iraqs capability to attack Cyprus.
4. Blair's foundation to bring religions together. Why when he has created divisions so huge between religions it will take centuries to unravel.
5. Why did Blair change his tune when he initially supported the use of weapons inspectors but then changed it to regime change.