Could Jacques Chirac add to the Chilcot inquiry?

Vulture

Whatever your views on the Iraq war ( and I think it was the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez) at least we should wash our own dirty laundry.

The last thing we need is that embittered enemy of Britain Jacques-ass hopping across Le Manche to give us his own warped views. Besides, like so many French politicians hasn't he got his hands full in Paris trying to stay out of jail re. his own corruption? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

strapworld

Mr Korski, Please give it the proper title The English Channel. My calling it the channel you are giving the EU support for the dreadful 'The Channel Sea'

We do not want lying French politicians lying to our enquiry, it is a peculiarly Britis thing. A governmental/establishment whitewash.

David Parker

There have been some stupid articles upon this site, but this contribution by Daniel Korski must take the biscuit.

The enquiry is supposed to be about the handling of our entry into the Iraq war by the British Government, not about how this was regarded by other nations. As for asking for the opinions of the likes of the corrupt and discredited Kofi Annan and Chirac, just how deep does he wish to dredge the barrel?

Daniel Korski

David
British conduct was affected by many other nations' behaviour, but especially France's at the UN. In fact, much of what Blair said during his inquiry was about getting around the French position. So it would seem sensible to ask what that was. Why, if the war was inherently international, if British decisions taken were clearly impacted by those of other countries, should the inquiry be limited. That's like saying in a criminal case - we cant investigate this or that suspect or potential accomplice of a suspect because they are French. Makes little sense to me

Stronghold Barricades

We could always ask the Iraqi's what they thought of our intervention

Ruairidh

I'm normally a supporter of your posts Daniel but I cannot back you this time. If you want to explore this angle then we get in diplomats from the FCO. They will tell us the French position or at least our preception of the French position at the time (which is actually what you want to measure). Asking the French, especially a corrupt ex-President who has shown disdain and disrespect to this country and our leaders not to mention the idea of justice in his own, and expecting a straight and honest answer is.. a little optimistic.

mitcheltj

Vulture - you said - "he last thing we need is that embittered enemy of Britain Jacques-ass hopping across Le Manche to give us his own warped views. Besides, like so many French politicians hasn't he got his hands full in Paris trying to stay out of jail re. his own corruption? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

I could not agree more - though,come to think of it, the entertainment value might outweigh my scruples if it came to a vote. I suspect the old French crook might give Blair a run for his money in the charisma and slipperiness stakes, which would give us all a good and much needed laugh. And if "Dubya", Cheney or Rumsfield were to deign to put in appearance, well, even I might queue for a ticket. Imagine it, Chilcot v. Cheney, a clash of giants - the best thing since the rumble in the jungle?.

Cuffleyburgers

The french position consisted of two main strands:
a) if the americans were for it, they were against it
b) if the british were for it they were against it
c) if it worked they would reap the benefits anyway, if it didn't they could shout yah boo sucks from the sidelines, and
d) by the way they were doing very nicely thank you from various commercial links which american and british adherence to sanctions had made possible.

That's four, sorry.

Anyway I can't see Chirac standing up and admitting to any of it.

HJ

You don't need to be a genius to see why the French were against the Iraq war - it really had very little to do with the case for or against it.

1. The countries which armed Iraq (i.e sold it weapons) were principally France, Germany and Russia. The USA had sold them almost nothing (because they recognised what a nasty piece of work Saddam was) and the UK had sold Iraq very little, for the same reasons.

2. The countries which armed Iraq (and which to a large extent defied sanctions) were rewarded with substantial contracts for all sort of industries. If Saddam were removed, they were likely to lose those lucrative contracts.

3. Those same countries judged that supporting the war wouldn't help and would probably hinder other influence and commercial contracts in the middle east.

4. They knew that Iraq would lose any war quickly - which wouldn't do their arms producers' reputations much good. Who would wat to buy arms that were clearly no match for US (and to some extent British) weapons.

If Chirac were to give evidence, he would hardly admit this though, would he?

Geoff

And Rifkind thinks the way forward for our Armed Forces is closer cooperation / integration with France...