If You Could Live In Another Decade,...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
If Joe Public Is Not Allowed To Know The Full Details Of The Chilcot Inquiry Why Was There The Need For Such A Costly Inquiry?
6 Answers
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Maybe Chilcot is pulling a fast one. He's probably had to negotiate to get what he has from the Bush/Blair archives, knowing full well that once published the clamour by the public and families of those killed on active service to find out the truth will prove overwhelming, resulting in the release of everything, as it should be.
In 2011, Sir Gus O’Donnell, the then Cabinet Secretary to a Labour government, wrote a widely-published opinion which said:
“Exchanges between the UK Prime Minister and US President represent particularly privileged channels of communication, the preservation of which is strongly in the public interest. Even where immediate sensitivity may have passed, disclosure of the material could still prejudice relations by inhibiting future exchanges.”
So, anyone who was paying attention has known for three years at least that there was no likelihood whatsoever that notes/conversations between Tony Blair and George Bush would ever be published in full. Yet, when the current Cabinet Secretary to a Tory-led government, Jeremy Heywood, finally agrees with the very same principle - regarding immediate and long-term sensitivity - there is an outcry of, “Whitewash! Whitewash!”
When you've been TOLD you're not going to get something it’s absurd - even childish - to whinge when you don't!
“Exchanges between the UK Prime Minister and US President represent particularly privileged channels of communication, the preservation of which is strongly in the public interest. Even where immediate sensitivity may have passed, disclosure of the material could still prejudice relations by inhibiting future exchanges.”
So, anyone who was paying attention has known for three years at least that there was no likelihood whatsoever that notes/conversations between Tony Blair and George Bush would ever be published in full. Yet, when the current Cabinet Secretary to a Tory-led government, Jeremy Heywood, finally agrees with the very same principle - regarding immediate and long-term sensitivity - there is an outcry of, “Whitewash! Whitewash!”
When you've been TOLD you're not going to get something it’s absurd - even childish - to whinge when you don't!
the Prime Ministers and Cabinet are usually covered by the 30 years rule whereby their communications and actions remain secret until they are well out of office. All we have here is a continuation of that practice. It is a privilege enjoyed by every past Prime Minister of both colours.
The communication between Thatcher and Reagan at the start of the Falklands War were not published at the time, and nor should they have been. These are special channels of communication and a lot of money is spent keeping their contents from being revealed.
david cameron's communications with Obama about Syrian intervention will not be known for a very long time.
Obviously I would like to know exactly what Blair said, and what Cameron is now saying, but if such information was made public, talks between countries would no longer be candid, if either party thought their words would be revealed. There is a need for secrecy for diplomacy to work. As unfortunate as that is in this case.
The communication between Thatcher and Reagan at the start of the Falklands War were not published at the time, and nor should they have been. These are special channels of communication and a lot of money is spent keeping their contents from being revealed.
david cameron's communications with Obama about Syrian intervention will not be known for a very long time.
Obviously I would like to know exactly what Blair said, and what Cameron is now saying, but if such information was made public, talks between countries would no longer be candid, if either party thought their words would be revealed. There is a need for secrecy for diplomacy to work. As unfortunate as that is in this case.
It's a complete cover up. An insult to the servicemen and servicewomen who have died, and continue to die as a result of these two war criminals dubious actions.
These politicians should send their own sons and daughters into conflict, before glibly committing uk forces to wars that don't concern them. Blair and Bush are both on a lower level than rodents in my book.
These politicians should send their own sons and daughters into conflict, before glibly committing uk forces to wars that don't concern them. Blair and Bush are both on a lower level than rodents in my book.
1 to 6 of 6
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.