Questions linger on after Chilcot

SIR John Chilcot has refused to say Tony Blair was lying but instead said he was “emotionally truthful” when talking about the Iraq war when almost 200 British soldiers were killed.

That sounds remarkably the same as “being economical with the truth”, which is another popular expression bandied about by politicians.

Chilcot, after seven years of investigation, said Blair’s decision was based on “flawed intelligence”.

There were flaws surrounding Dr David Kelly, the weapons inspector who had just returned from Iraq, saying that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

Chilcot barely mentions Dr Kelly who, later when he realised Blair was ignoring him, blew the whistle to the BBC.

Despite only airing it once, the head of the BBC (Greg Dyke) was sacked and a few days later Dr Kelly was dead.

The first action Hutton took was to cancel the inquest and instead set up an “inquiry”.

This made it the first and only suspicious death in the history of this country not to have had a full inquest.

His inquiry could not compel anyone to attend it nor be obliged to answer any questions or be required to give evidence under oath which is totally unlike an inquest, which enforces both these requirements.

Later 20 eminent English doctors tried unsuccessfully to get a court ruling to have a proper inquest because they felt there were too many suspicious and unanswered questions - and there are still many.

Relatives of soldiers who were killed are trying for a second time to take Blair to court. Hutton, Chilcot and the BBC should also come under scrutiny.

WJ CASEY, North Shields