After seven years, Sir John Chilcot has finally published his inquiry into the Iraq War. It numbers twelve volumes and is, therefore, going to take some time to fully digest. It is, however, already clear that those hoping that Chilcot would find evidence that Tony Blair lied are to be disappointed. This comes as no surprise to me, for as much I as disagreed with Blair's foreign policy and found that the evidence did not justify his approach, it was clear that he never actually lied. What is of interest though is the extent to which his decision-making and the way in which intelligence was presented is criticised. Perhaps the most crucial point is that Chilcot concludes that all diplomatic paths had not been exhausted before the decision to go to war was taken.
Tony Blair, of course, rejected this and any notion that he had taken the wrong decision during a two hour news conference yesterday. His long speech involved stating his case all over again, repeating arguments from thirteen years ago. Some of his most perplexing comments pertained to the idea that Iraq is in a better state now than it was then. He cannot have watched the programmes that I've seen or listened to the Iraqis who have been regularly interviewed over the last thirteen years to reach such a conclusion.
While it took far too long for the report to come out, I'd say that, based on what I've seen so far, it was worth waiting for. What do the rest of you think?