Tony Blair vs the Iraq inquiry: the verdicts
Updated on 29 January 2010
The stage has been set for a long time, but what is the verdict on the performance of the former Prime Minister Tony Blair at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war.
Tony Blair has been giving evidence for most of the day today, and faced questions on why he took the country to war and his reasons for doing so.
But did his answers satisfy the questioners? Political experts, protestors, our own correspondents and tweeters give their view.
Blair's performance
The day began with a lot of tension and political correspondent Cathy Newman notes that:
"Although he looked uncharacteristically nervous at first, he's so far given a pretty assured performance.
"On the April 2002 meeting at President George Bush's Crawford ranch, Mr Blair swatted away suggestions from Britain's former ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer, that he had 'signed in blood' to go to war."
However later, Mr Meyer distanced himself from the "signed in blood" claims he had made last November saying
"I have had Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Powell, and now Tony Blair basically criticising me or dismissing me for something I didn't really say. I am sure psychologists would have something interesting to say about that.
"I had always found it very striking how Blair had talked about the 'blood debt' that Britain owed to the US, that's why I used that phrase - but I never said that a deal had been done. I don't know to this day why it has been interpreted in this manner.
"If the panel members are under the impression that I said a deal was done that's wrong, I said perfectly the opposite, I did not know what deal had been done... I was not there [Crawford], I was not involved."
The former ambassador's appearance before the inquiry last year had created the impression with some that he thought a secret Blair-Bush deal had been done at Crawford, but he told Channel 4 News such an assumption was wrong.
More reaction to Tony Blair's appearance at the Iraq war inquiry
- Falconer defends Blair's lack of regret
- Any regrets? Blair should have said yes
- Mansfield: Blair changed stance on Iraq
- Toby Litt: Blair too fast for the committee
- Iraq inquiry blog
- Iraq inquiry: day by day
The legal argument
The afternoon session focused heavily on the legal aspects of the war that many thought would be pivotal to the day. However our political correspondent Gary Gibbon noted on his blog that:
"As Sir Roderic read out his 10-minute summary of the existing legal position, Tony Blair scribbled furiously on his file notes, flicking backwards and forwards in a file that bulges with legal and government document photocopies – I could see lots of marginalia and triple underlining.
"In the end, the legal section presented him with little difficulty."
The soldier's story
However outside the Inquiry, one man in particular was not so forgiving.
Gerald Cartwright, father of James Cartwright who was killed two and half years ago fighting in the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, explained why he attended the inquiry but chose not to go inside:
"I know exactly what's going to go on in there. Nothing.
"I don't believe anything will come of it. It's a bit of a waste of time. The intentions might be good, but Tony Blair isn't going to be brought to book for anything at all.
"He basically let British soldiers down in Iraq."
Another former British soldier Adnan Sarwar tells us that he believes Tony Blair's decision to go to war has eroded the reputation of the British army.
He says:
"I believe Blair taking us to war in this way has eroded the reputation of our army being fair. His actions have made us extremely cynical of the government and this was taken further by the recent expenses scandal. Are Tony's actions going to make it harder for us as a country to make important decisions?
"I will never deny I was, as other soldiers were, happy to do the job we were trained to but we were confused as to why we were going and I will never forget the people we lost in the wars and it would have been the right and moral thing to do to pay them a tribute in his last response which he absolutely failed to do."
In support
As the inquiry drew to a close not all were stacked up against the former prime minister. Lord Falconer defended his friend Tony Blair saying:
"I think, myself, that the arguments he is putting are right. I think history will judge him in part influenced by what the tribunal of inquiry eventually decides. Because remember they have access to all of the documents."
The former Lord Chancellor also told Channel 4 News: "He was absolutely clear that he thought that he had taken the right decision. In those circumstances it's very difficult to be remorseful for a decision that he thought was the right one."
The QC's verdict
Finally, as the inquiry ended we asked one of Britain's most famous barristers Michael Mansfield QC to cast his legal eye over the day's events, who had been watching the day's proceedings. He said that Tony Blair had changed his position in his arguments.
"I'm not sure how many people have picked this up," says Mansfield. "Blair has changed his stance."
Blair, according to Mansfield, is no longer saying he believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
"What Blair now says is: 'Saddam had an intention to possibly reconstitute his weapons programme. This was about preventing a risk, a possibility. This was a pre-emptive exercise'".
Now under International law that is precluded, says Mansfield. "He is not allowed to be doing that."
Twitter and the web
Of course, not all the reaction took place in the Inquiry. Twitter and online sites were alive with commentary. Just a few of them are posted below.
The reaction on twitter and online has been varied, but it is undoubted that Mr Blair ahs come in for some criticism:
bob hirst - "Is the world a safer place with the removal of Saddam?"
McCaul - "Blair seems to be producing rehearsed answers to predictable questions."
mbrandrethjones - "if Saddam used WMD internally ..chemical weapons etc .. he wouldn't think twice against west"
Guest - "how would the demonstrators feel if twin towers would have been centre of London and their families had been wiped out and more threats were forthcoming?"
LAWUncorked: "He believes his own truth...just as A Campbell did... for him that is what counts... Innocent? Guilty? Not really an issue."
deililly: "Has he given a straight answer at any point? My head hurts."
[irene] - "Blair is behaving as if he were in the chair half the time. He thinks he's controlling proceedings."
