The inquiry rumbles on

Interesting to see a headline: ‘Prescott Iraq intelligence doubts’, although there are many who would doubt Lord Two-Jags on any subject and some who would maybe point out that the word ‘Iraq’ is actually superfluous in this sentence.

Lord IWouldNeverAcceptAPeerage has been giving evidence at the Chilcot inquiry into the War in Iraq and stated that intelligence on Iraq’s weapons threat was ‘not very substantial’. He said he was ‘nervous’ about the intelligence being presented in 2002, some of which he believed was based on ‘tittle-tattle’.

With so many people apparently having difficulty believing the so-called ‘evidence’, why did they all go along with it?

According to his Lordship, he did not have the knowledge to challenge the assessments. Back to square one then. Looks more like: ‘If you want to keep your job, tow the Party line’.

Lord Two-Jags said he was:

a little bit nervous about the conclusions based on what was pretty limited intelligence. When I kept reading them, I kept thinking to myself, is this intelligence?.

He described the intelligence as:

basically what you have heard somewhere and what somebody else has told somebody.

Sounds like more than enough for anyone to make a ‘challenge’. Unless, of course, you want to keep your cushy job.

%d bloggers like this: