Chilcot report: Tony Blair takes 'full responsibility' for Iraq war as Jeremy Corbyn 'apologises sincerely on behalf' of Labour party

Former US president George W Bush has backed the arguments of Tony Blair in defence of their decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Mr Bush insisted the world is better off without despotic Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in power and said "there was no stronger ally" than Britain when Mr Blair was prime minister.

Mr Blair was severely criticised by Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the Iraq War, with his closeness to Mr Bush and his July 2002 assurance that he would back the US commander in chief "whatever" coming under particular scrutiny.

Mr Bush's communications director, Freddy Ford, told BBC News: "President Bush is hosting wounded warriors at his ranch today and has not had the chance to read the Chilcot Report.

"Despite the intelligence failures and other mistakes he has acknowledged previously, President Bush continues to believe the whole world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

"He is deeply grateful for the service and sacrifice of American and coalition forces in the war on terror. And there was no stronger ally than the United Kingdom under the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"President Bush believes we must now find the unity and resolve to stay on the offensive and defeat radical extremism wherever it exists."

Peter Brierley, whose son Shaun died during the conflict, was among those who had a private meeting with Mr Corbyn and heard his public apology.

He said: "It's something I would have expected from Jeremy - he's always been anti-war.

"For him to be able to stand up there and give us that apology - it means more than if the right bloke had done it.

"He is under fire, he did not have to do that."

Mr Brierley said it was right that Mr Corbyn did not attack Mr Blair in his speech, adding: "That is not what he was there for. He was talking about the Chilcot Report and what happened in Iraq and he did not mention legalities and he didn't mention people who did wrong."

But the 65-year-old, from Batley, West Yorkshire, challenged the former prime minister to a face-to-face meeting to explain his decision.

"I know that he does not want to face us - he seems to be frightened in our presence," he said.

After Jeremy Corbyn made his apology in a second speech after PMQs, Labour MP Mike Gapes - a former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee - condemned the leader's move:

Speaking on his LBC radio show, Alex Salmond - the former leader of the SNP - said he believes parliamentary action could be taken against Mr Blair.

"I still think some form of cross-party parliamentary action and accountability is required. I'm open minded about what it should be.

"There have been talks between MPs across the parties. We wanted to see the report first, we'll be meeting over the next few days.

"It's going to take people time to assimilate all the information in the report but I favour such action, I favour a means of parliamentary accountability because I don't believe that these things can just be sorted out by saying we will improve the intelligence gathering, we'll restore cabinet government, we'll have a sequence of decision making.

"At the end of the day these were decisions made by a human being and that prime minister was Tony Blair."

Jeremy Corbyn has apologised "on behalf" of the Labour Party for the decision to invade Iraq, reports Peter Dominiczak.

In a speech that his allies hope will save his leadership, Mr Corbyn said he was making the apology to the people of Iraq, the families of British soldiers who died in the conflict, and the millions of people in the UK who opposed the war. 

"I now apologise sincerely on behalf of my party for the disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq in March 2003.

"That apology is owed first of all to the people of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and the country is still living with the devastating consequences of the war and the forces it unleashed.

"They have paid the greatest price for the most serious foreign policy calamity of the last 60 years.

"The apology is also owed to the families of those soldiers who died in Iraq or who have returned home injured or incapacitated.

"They did their duty but it was in a conflict they should never have been sent to.

"Finally, it is an apology to the millions of British citizens who feel our democracy was traduced and undermined by the way in which the decision to go to war was taken on the basic of secret ‘I will be with you, whatever’ understandings given to the US president that have now been publicly exposed.

"The decision to go to war in Iraq has been a stain on our party and our country, but we now have the chance to work together to build more constructive and mutually beneficial relationships with the rest of the world based on cooperation, peace and international justice."

Consideration should be given to prosecuting former Labour leader Tony Blair for his decision to go to war in Iraq, a member of the shadow cabinet has said.

Shadow Commons leader Paul Flynn said the Chilcot Report amounted to an "utter condemnation" of Mr Blair's "terrible" decision to commit British troops to the US-led invasion.

But he said the whole of Parliament was "on trial", because it voted in favour of military action on the eve of the 2003 invasion.

Mr Flynn, who was one of 139 Labour MPs to vote against war in the crucial division, said Mr Blair had only "slight and sporadic" evidence of the threat Saddam Hussein posed and indulged in "definite deception" to win Parliament's support.

He told BBC2's Daily Politics: "I'm afraid this is an utter condemnation of that terrible decision to go to war that resulted in immediate deaths and injuries to our troops and the 150,000 deaths of Iraqis and the chaos that country is in.

"I think there should be serious consideration of him being prosecuted for this."

But he added: "I think the important issue here is not one individual. Parliament is on trial. It wasn't just Tony Blair, it was most of the Labour backbenches, it was all the Tory backbenchers except half a dozen ... There were three select committees that were gung-ho for war, the leader of the opposition was gung-ho for war.

"It wasn't clear there was a case for war. There was more opposition to it in 2003 than almost any war we have had. This was a terrible decision."

Responding to the report, Lord Goldsmith - the Attorney General during the Iraq War - said he continued to believe that military action was "lawful". He said:

"As I explained in my detailed evidence to the inquiry, it was my honestly-held, professional opinion that there was sufficient authority in UN Security Resolution 1441, together with Resolutions 678 and 687, to go to war.

"This was my conclusion after an in-depth study of all the available information.

"I welcome the fact that there is nothing in today's exhaustive report that challenges either my conclusion or the fact that this was my honestly-held view.

"Sir John today expresses concern about the process by which my advice was obtained. I agree that process should be improved for the future.

"As I said in my evidence, I think that there ought to be a Cabinet sub-committee to consider issues relating to the legality of government policy, and that legal advisers should be closely involved in the policy-making process.

"In purely technical terms, legal opinions can differ. I provided my advice to the best of my abilities and aware of the seriousness of any decision to go to war. In my opinion, that decision was in accordance with international law and it was permissible for those with the responsibility for taking the decision to proceed.

"So, I believed then - and I still believe - that military action was lawful."

Families of those who died in the Iraq war on Wednesday welcomed the release of the Chilcot report on Britain's involvement in the conflict.

The 2.6-million-word report is an exhaustive verdict on a divisive conflict that - by the time British combat forces left in 2009 - had killed 179 British troops, almost 4,500 American personnel and more than 100,000 Iraqis.

The report continues to divide Britain and overshadows the legacy of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair.

For some families of British troops who died in the conflict, the long litany of mistakes by Blair and others provides some vindication of their struggle to hold the war's planners to account.

The report did not declare the conflict illegal, which might have opened the way for Blair to be prosecuted for war crimes.

Harriet Alexander in New York has spoken to Karl Rove, the Hawkish senior adviser to George W Bush who was one of the most vocal champions of the 2003 war.

He says he hasn't read the report - as he's on holiday in Europe, and about to buy his tickets to go in and see Da Vinci's The Last Supper.

Tony Blair has insisted he did the right thing in taking Britain to war.

He said: "There is no inconsistency in expressing my sorrow and regret and saying what I think I did was right."

The key findings from the Chilcot report, which has concluded the invasion of Iraq was "unnecessary".

Tony Blair's former spin doctor Alastair Campbell insists that his ex boss was testing the intelligence on Iraq all the time, contrary to the claims in the Chilcot report.

Mr Blair said that while the report found that in March 2003 war was "not the last resort", it was the "last moment of decision" for the UK if it was to join the US-led military action.

"I had to decide. I thought of Saddam and his record, the character of his regime. I thought of our alliance with America and its importance to us in the post 9/11 world and I weighed it carefully with the heaviest of hearts," he said.

"As of March 17 2003 there was no middle way, no further time for deliberation, no room for more negotiation. A decision had to be taken and it was for me to take as prime minister.

"I took it, I accept full responsibility for it, I stand by it. I only ask with humility that the British people accept that I took this decision because I believed that it was the right thing to do based on the information that I had and the threat I perceived and that my duty as prime minister at that moment in time was to do what I thought was right.

"At moments of crisis such as this it is the profound obligation of the person leading the government of our country to take responsibility and decide. Not to hide behind politics, expediency or even emotion but to recognise that it is the privilege above all others to lead this nation.

"But the accompaniment of that privilege when the interests of our nation are so supremely and plainly at stake is to lead and not to shy away, to decide and not to avoid decision, to discharge that responsibility and not to duck it."

Tony Blair ends his speech by saying: "There will not be a day in my life where I do not relive or think about what happened."

Asked if he can look affected families in the eye and say he did not mislead them, Mr Blair said: "I can look the families and the nation in the eye and say I did not mislead this country.

"I acknowledge the mistakes and accept responsibility for them, but what I cannot do and will not do is say we took the wrong decision."

Tony Blair has maintained his claim that Saddam needed to be toppled in order to stop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) falling into the hands of terrorists who could perpetrate a "British 9/11".

And he insisted action was needed specifically in Iraq as Saddam was the only global despot who had actually used WMD, for example in the chemical weapon massacre in Halabja.

Mr Blair said: "The final Iraq Survey report, which was conducted into Saddam's WMD programme and ambitions after the Iraq War, and these findings are accepted in this report, found that Saddam did indeed to intend to go back to developing the programmes after the removal of sanctions.

"So I ask people to put themselves in my shoes as prime minister.

"Back then, barely more than a year from 9/11, in late 2002, in early 2003, you're seeing the intelligence mount up on WMD, you're doing so in the changed context of mass casualties caused by a new and virulent form of terrorism, you have at least to consider the possibility of a 9/11 here in Britain and your primary responsibility as prime minister is to protect your country.

"These were my considerations at the time."

Tony Blair says history has "an addiction to think the worst of everyone" but insists it will not "falsify my motive" for going to war.

He said: "I took this decision with the heaviest of hearts.

"I did it because I thought it was right."

Tony Blair says there was "no secret commitment to war" and adds that "the report makes clear there were no lies and parliament and cabinet were not misled".

A tearful Tony Blair, with his voice breaking, has expressed is "sorrow and regret" and accepts "full responsibility without exception and without cause".

The former PM admitted going to war in Iraq was the "hardest, most momentous and agonising decision" he had taken. "For that decision today I accept full responsiblity without exception and without excuse," he said.

"I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you may ever know or can believe," Mr Blair said.

"I recognise the decision felt by many in our country. I feel deeply and sincerely - and in a way no words can properly convey - the grief and suffering of those who lost loved ones.

"he intelligence assessment turned out to be wrong, the aftermath turned out to be more hostile.

"A nation whose people we wanted to set free instead became the victim of sectarian terrorism.

"For all of this I express sorrow and regret."

Green MP Caroline Lucas is asking why the Tory benches in the Commons are so empty during the discussions about Chilcot.

Sarah O'Connor, one victim's sister, broke down in tears as she reflected on the Chilcot report.

"There is one terrorist in this world that we need to be aware of and his name is Tony Blair. The world's worst terrorist," she said.

Jack Straw said the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq "will live with me for the rest of my life" as he acknowledged that "with hindsight" different choices would have been made.

Mr Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time of the 2003 invasion, insisted that "difficult decisions were made in good faith, based on the evidence available at the time".

The former Cabinet minister said he did not take "at face value" the intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction - which Sir John Chilcot found was flawed - and disagreed with the Iraq Inquiry's conclusion that diplomatic options had not been exhausted at the time of the invasion.

But he acknowledged: "With the benefit of hindsight, different decisions would have been made on Iraq, and the inquiry sets out the clear lessons which need to be learnt.

"But the decisions made by me and others can only properly be judged in the context of the time. I take full responsibility for all those that I made."

David Cameron tells the Commons that Britain must learn the lessons from Iraq while Jeremy Corbyn describes the war as an "act of military aggression launched on a false pretext".

Mr Cameron has offered an interesting definition of when MPs get a veto in military action - it is when the action is "premeditated". This means that an unprovoked invasion needs an MP's vote but a reactive force deployed overseas does not. 

David Cameron will not admit the Iraq invasion was a mistake. Asked directly about it the PM says that it was a "disaster in so many ways".

His aides also will not say sorry to the British people on behalf of the Government for the war despite historical apologies being issued on other occasions such as the Hillsborough tragedy.

The people around Tony Blair at the time Britain went to war have started to react to the report.

Alistair Campbell, Mr Blair's former spin doctor, insists there were 'no lies, deceit, deals, 'sexing up'."

 Jack Straw, Mr Blair's foreign secretary, added:

There should be "serious consideration" as to whether Tony Blair  is prosecuted, Paul Flynn, the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons has told the BBC's Daily Politics.

When asked whether he thought action should be taken against Tony Blair following the publication of the Chilcot report, he said: “I think really there should be serious consideration to him being prosecuted for this but I think this remains to be seen.”

When asked where he would be prosecuted, he repeated "that remains to be seen" and that the details of the report need to be seen first.

“I think that the important issue here is that it is not just one individual, Parliament's on trial. It wasn't just Tony Blair, it was most of the Labour backbenchers, it was all of the Tory backbenchers - except half a dozen. "

James Kirkup offers this analysis of the Chilcot Report.

One single fact stands out from the Chilcot Report, a fact from which every decision and consequence follow. Oddly though, this central fact is never quite stated explicitly, merely implied. 

That fact is this: America was going to war to remove Saddam Hussein, regardless of what Britain did. 

"President Bush decided at the end of 2001 to pursue a policy of regime change in Iraq," Chilcot said. 

At that point, British policy on Iraq was to contain and if possible disarm Saddam, not remove him. The story of Britain's war in Iraq is, to a large degree, the story of Tony Blair's attempts to reconcile the difference between those two policies. 

But the big picture is that once George W Bush resolved in late 2001 to remove Saddam, all that remained for Mr Blair and Britain was to decide whether to oppose or support that policy.  Changing it was essentially not an option; Chilcot seems not even to consider the possibility that British opposition to war could have stopped that war. 

Mr Blair decided to back the war in hope of influencing US policy for the better.  

 Chilcot finds he largely failed, on issues including post-war planning: 

"Mr Blair undoubtedly influenced the President’s decision to go to the UN Security Council in the autumn of 2002. On other critical decisions set out in the Report, he did not succeed in changing the approach determined in Washington."  

Mr Blair had another reason for backing the US.  He believed that failing to do so would badly damage the US-UK relationship on which British foreign policy has rested since 1945, and possibly tip America into the sort of isolationism that Donald Trump now extols. 

Chilcot disagrees:

"Had the UK stood by its differing position on Iraq – which was not an opposed position, but one in which the UK had identified conditions seen as vital by the UK Government – the Inquiry does not consider that this would have led to a fundamental or lasting change in the UK’s relationship with the US." 

In other words, Mr Blair could have refused to back Mr Bush and US-UK relations would have continued largely unchanged.

If that sounds like quite a bold statement, even Chilcot appears to concede, in Mandarin-speak, that it's hard to prove the point beyond doubt: 

"This is a matter of judgement, and one on which Mr Blair, bearing the responsibility of leadership, took a different view."

In other words, Mr Blair made a decision in 2002, which now, with the benefit of 14 years' hindsight, Chilcot says was mistaken.  

But Chilcot also accepts that verdict is a subjective opinion, not a statement of fact.  This report does not even pretend to be able to settle definitively the debate about that decision.

PM David Cameron has ruled our giving MPs a veto on whether to commit troops in war, reports Christopher Hope.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, proposed a War Powers Act in his speech to the Commons in response to the PM's statement on the Chilcot report.

However, Mr Cameron said that while he had considered such a law it would be a "legal mess".

Here's the main crux of Jeremy Corbyn's speech.

He seized on the Chilcot Report as backing his assertion that the Iraq War was an act of military aggression based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

The Labour leader, who voted against the 2003 invasion, again insisted the conflict was illegal as he set out his response to Sir John Chilcot's inquiry.

Mr Corbyn has been an anti-war activist for decades and previously chaired the Stop the War coalition, which was founded after former US president George W Bush set out his intentions to wage a "war on terror" in 2001.

The Labour leader told the Commons: "The war was not in any way, as Sir John Chilcot says, a last resort.

"Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext, as the inquiry accepts, and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion."

Ian Austin - a former spad to Gordon Brown - is heckling Jeremy Corbyn saying: "You are a disgrace." And "shut up" while he is delivering his Chilcot statement.

While Corbyn is speaking, Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, has given her response:

"The impartial findings of the Chilcot inquiry panel are comprehensively damning – of the then Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues and our intelligence agencies.

Basic adherence to the rule of law, evidence-based policy making and the protection of human rights came second to egos, ideology and political grandstanding.

The resulting failure to plan for the aftermath of war led to the deaths of more than a million of people and grave human rights violations on a massive scale that continue to the present day.

The Chilcot report must mark a turning point – an end to UK government ministers’ systematic and cynical demotion of human rights. Sir John’s recommendations must be implemented and respect for due process, evidence and human rights values must be restored to public policy making.

Only then will our leaders truly learn the lessons of Iraq and ensure failures on this incomprehensible scale can never happen again."

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said the Chilcot report showed the Iraq war was  "an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext" and insisted the  conflict has long been regarded as illegal. 

Meanwhile, Hilary Benn, the former shadow foreign secretary is sat next to former army man Dan Jarvis in the Commons.

Mr Benn appears to be speaking behind his hand and occasionally shaking his head as Mr Corbyn gives his statement.

There is certainly a lot of mumbling going on across the house - not much of it supportive.

MPs murmur support for David Cameron's plea for the UK's vital special relationship with the US in the wake of the Chilcof depot.

The PM says "we need to speak frankly... as best friends". He adds that because intervention is "difficult it does not mean it is not necessary".

He concludes by warning that Chilcot should not be used to rule out future military interventions. "Britain must not and cannot shrink from its role on the World stage or fail to protect its people," he said.

Jeremy Corbyn now takes the floor.

The SNP are making the most noise in the chamber so far, although almost all MPs are listening to the report in a silence that is unusual in the Commons.

Jeremy Corbyn is clutching his printed speech which he will give shortly. He is not adding to the text or scribbling, as he normally does. MPs are expecting this to be a landmark moment as one Labour leader prepares to attack another. 

Mr Corbyn is wearing a black tie for the occasions, as the Prime Minister also appears to be.

Mr Corbyn's son Seb is in the public gallery to watch the statement on the Chilcot report.

He is John McDonnell's aide and is sat at the back of the Labour staff gallery looking directly at the opposition benches. 

 

Amnesty International UK director Kate Allen said: "It's a tragedy that politicians and their advisers failed to properly assess the human rights consequences of such a massive military operation, including the horrible sectarian violence it helped unleash, and it's also a tragedy that the horrors of Abu Ghraib and cases like Baha Mousa all followed.

"Hundreds of thousands of people died in Iraq, during the invasion and its extended aftermath, including UK service personnel. It's therefore vital that lessons are learnt after Sir John Chilcot has so comprehensively pointed towards what some of those are.

"One way of showing that the Government has tried to learn lessons from Iraq would be for it to ensure that all credible allegations of unlawful killing, torture and unauthorised detention at the hands of the UK armed forces in Iraq are properly investigated."

Unite union general secretary Len McCluskey said: "Chilcot confirms what millions of us knew in 2003 - the case for war had not been made. It was an unnecessary conflict, launched on the basis of flawed intelligence, secret diplomacy and with no sound legal basis.

"It has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and made both the Middle East and the wider world less secure.

"Today our thoughts must be with those who lost loved ones, and with the people now living in the wretched insecurity that followed this war, but it is long past time that those responsible were held to account."

The PM is now making a statement on the Chilcot report and almost every MP who was present for PMQs has stayed to hear it, many of them with copies of the report in their hands.

He says there will be an opportunity for two days of debate about the Iraq war next week. The SNP are chanting "No" everytime the PM asks questions which were raised by the report, including whether the country was properly prepared for war or for the aftermath. 

Other MPs are telling them to shush.

PM also says the late Robin Cook had shown there was an alternative interpretation of the evidence that Tony Blair used as the basis for war.

Meanwhile, Russia has said the Chilcot Report shows the Iraq War was "unjust and highly dangerous" and claimed it warned Britain of the consequences.

The Russian Embassy in London tweeted a graphic with the text "Keep Calm but I Told You So".

 

Prime Minister David Cameron  is about to speak in the Commons about the Chilcot report.

Earlier he said he will discuss it in detail later and won't pre-empt his statement but he says we must "learn the lessons" of the report and the war itself.

He added that what he has put in place in terms of post-Iraq planning "are designed to avoid the problems that the Government had in the case of Iraq".

He said there are "No set of actions and plans" that can provide a perfect post-war outcome and adds that it would be "naive" to think there is.

This just in from Steven Swinford in Westminster:

MPs from all political parties have stayed in place after Prime Minister's Question to hear David Cameron's response to the Chilcot report.

The public gallery is packed for the historic moment - behind the glass put in place after protesters threw purple powder at Tony Blair - while pretty much every seat on the green benches is taken.

A handful of well-known peers haven also entered the Chamber to hear the debate, including Lord Archer, the former MP and author, and Lord Willetts, who served on Mr Cameron's front bench.

Mr Cameron's early statements have been met with respectful silence from MPs except for when he lists key questions about the Iraq War, such as whether there was a legal basis for the invasion or sufficient intelligence for the existence of WMDs - to which SNP MPs cry "no" after each.

After Sir John Chilcot issued his statement on the Iraq War, many politicians on Twitter described the findings as an indictment of Tony Blair and the British government's actions.

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon wrote: 

Mrs Sturgeon said the revelation that Tony Blair had told George Bush "I'll be with you whatever" in 2002, "suggests pre-determination and lack of proper decision making".

And she described as "appalling" the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the conflict, and the failure to properly equip troops - both of which were findings of the report.

Shortly after Sir John's statement, Tony Blair released a response, saying he "will take full responsibility for any mistakes without exception or excuse", but adding that the report "should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit".

Mrs Sturgeon, however, tweeted that the report "does no such thing. On the contrary, in fact."

Green MP Caroline Lucas said the findings of the inquiry were "shocking", tweeting: "

Footage posted on Twitter by Press Association reporter Ryan Hooper also showed Ms Lucas telling campaigners that the report "confirms all your worst fears".

Conservative MP James Heappey, who was previously a serving officer in Iraq with 4th Battallion The Rifles, wrote:

 

The families of some of the 179 Britons killed during the Iraq War have said they cannot be proud of the way their loved ones were treated by the government.

Roger Bacon's son, Major Matthew Bacon, died when a roadside bomb exploded, hitting the vehicle he was travelling in, near Basra.

He said: "Never again must so many mistakes be allowed to sacrifice British lives and lead to the destruction of a country for no positive end.

"We were proud when our husbands, sons and daughters signed up to serve our country. But we cannot be proud of the way our government has treated them.

"We must use this report to make sure that all parts of the Iraq War fiasco are never repeated again. Neither in a theatre of war, nor in the theatre of Whitehall.

"We call on the British Government immediately to follow up Sir John's findings to ensure that the political process by which our country decides to go to war is never again twisted and confused with no liability for such actions."

Meanwhile, the anti-war protests outside the QE II Conference Centre are continuing:

 

Paul Waugh has noticed something odd about the report:

 

In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, the report says that Mr Blair “took an active and leading role” building a coalition to counter the terrorist threat, writes Peter Dominiczak.

Mr Blair wanted to stop the US unilaterally launching military action in Iraq “which he considered would undermine the success of the coalition which had been established for action against international terrorism”.

The report states: “In December 2001, Mr Blair suggested a strategy for regime change in Iraq that would build over time, including ‘if necessary’ taking military action without losing international support.

In January 2002, George W Bush gave his annual State of the Union speech and described states including North Korea, Iran and Iraq as “an axis of evil”.

In public statements in February, Mr Blair and Jack Straw began to say that Iraq was a threat that had to be dealt with.

At a Cabinet meeting on March 7, Mr Blair and Mr Straw “emphasised that no decisions had been taken and Cabinet was not being asked to take decisions”, the report states.

The Cabinet endorsed a conclusion that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction “posed a threat to peace”.

Mr Blair then visited President Bush at his country retreat in Crawford, Texas. The report states: “Mr Blair offered President Bush a partnership in dealing urgently with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. He proposed that the UK and US should pursue a strategy based on an ultimatum calling on Iraq to permit the return of weapons inspectors or face the consequences.”

In July 2002, the UK Government had concluded that President Bush was “impatient to move on Iraq and that the US might take military action in circumstances that would be difficult for the UK”, the report states.

Mr Blair then wrote the crucial note to President Bush guaranteeing British backing “whatever”.

Mr Blair’s note to President Bush said: “I will be with you, whatever. But this is the moment to assess bluntly the difficulties. The planning on this and the strategy are the toughest yet. This is not Kosovo. This is not Afghanistan. It is not even the Gulf War.

“The military part of this is hazardous but I will concentrate mainly on the political context for success.”

Mr Blair said that getting rid of Hussein was “the right thing to do”. He added: “He is a potential threat. He could be contained. But containment…is always risky. His departure would free up the region. And his regime is… brutal and inhumane…”

Mr Blair told President Bush that the UN was the simplest way to encapsulate a “casus belli” to justify war, the report states.

He believed that the would be “an ultimatum to Iraq once military forces started to build up in October”, the report says.

Crucially, the Chilcot report finds that Mr Blair’s note “had not been discussed or agreed with his colleagues” and “set the UK on a path leading to diplomatic activity in the UN and the possibility of participation in military action in a way that would make it very difficult for the UK subsequently to withdraw its support for the US.”

A defiant Tony Blair has issued this statement in response to the Chilcot Report:

"The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit. Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country.

I note that the report finds clearly:

- That there was no falsification or improper use of Intelligence  (para 876 vol 4)

- No deception of Cabinet (para 953 vol 5)

- No secret commitment to war whether at Crawford Texas in April 2002 or elsewhere (para 572 onwards vol 1)

The inquiry does not make a finding on the legal basis for military action but finds that the Attorney General had concluded there was such a lawful basis by 13th March 2003 (para 933 vol 5)

However the report does make real and material criticisms of preparation, planning, process and of the relationship with the United States.

These are serious criticisms and they require serious answers. I will respond in detail to them later this afternoon. I will take full responsibility for any mistakes without exception or excuse.

I will at the same time say why, nonetheless, I believe that it was better to remove Saddam Hussein and why I do not believe this is the cause of the terrorism we see today whether in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world.

Above all I will pay tribute to our Armed Forces. I will express my profound regret at the loss of life and the grief it has caused the families, and I will set out the lessons I believe future leaders can learn from my experience."

Peter Dominiczak is getting into the meat of the report.

The Chilcot report finds a series of major failings by Britain’s intelligence services in the build-up to the war.

It states: “The judgements about Iraq’s capabilities and intentions relied too heavily on Iraq’s past behaviour being a reliable indicator of its current and future actions.

“There was no consideration of whether, faced with the prospect of a US-led invasion, Saddam Hussein had taken a different position.”

It adds: “The extent to which the JIC’s [Joint Intelligence Committee] judgements depended on inference and interpretation of Iraq’s previous attitudes and behaviour was not recognised.

“At no stage was the hypothesis that Iraq might no longer have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or programmes identified or examined by either the JIC or the policy community.”

 

Tony Blair had doubts about the invasion of Iraq just two months after sending British troops into battle, letters between the former prime minister and George W Bush reveal.

In a private note to Mr Bush sent on June 2 2003, Mr Blair warned that the task in Iraq “is absolutely awesome and I’m not at all sure we’re geared for it”.

He added: “And if it falls apart, everything falls apart in the region.”

The long-awaited official report into Britain's involvement in the Iraq War has delivered a scathing verdict on Government ministers' justification, planning and conduct of a military intervention which "went badly wrong, with consequences to this day".

Here we reflect on how politicians, media commentators and international organisations have reacted to the report's findings.

Tim Farron, Liberal Democrat leader said:

“Blair was fixated in joining Bush in going to war in Iraq regardless of the evidence, the legality or the serious potential consequences.

Daesh has arisen from the complete absence of any post conflict planning by the government.

Charles Kennedy’s judgement has been vindicated in every respect. I hope those in the Labour and Conservative parties who were so forceful in their criticism of him and the Liberal Democrats at the time are equally forceful in their acknowledgements today that he was right. An absence of scrutiny by the Conservative party opened the door for Blair and the Labour Government to pursue a counter-strategic, ill-resourced campaign. 

I hope Sir John Chilcot’s findings can in some way provide comfort to the families of the British servicemen and servicewomen who lost their lives, and to the people of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives and a generation has been shaped by this illegal war.

Far from being Bush’s passenger, Blair was his co-pilot in taking this catastrophic decision which has destabilised Iraq, provided the hotbed for Daesh and tarnished Britain’s reputation around the word."

Summing up the Inquiry’s findings, Sir John has said that the war was “an intervention which went badly wrong, with consequences to this day”.

He said that military action “might have been necessary at some point” but in March 2003 “there was no imminent threat from Saddam; the strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time, and the majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring”.

He said it was vital to learn the lessons of the Iraq war to inform future military interventions. Mr Blair, he said, “overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq”.

Sir John said that the UK-US relationship “has proved strong enough over time to bear the weight of honest disagreement” and does not require unconditional support where British interests differ from American ones.

He said that above all, the lesson of the war is that: “All aspects of any intervention need to be calculated, debated and challenged with the utmost rigour, and when decisions have been made, they need to be implemented fully.

“Sadly, neither was the case in relation to the UK government’s actions in Iraq.”

Sir John has now started discussing the issue of inadequate military equipment, which families of the dead have blamed for unnecessary loss of lives.

He said the Inquiry had found that the Ministry of Defence was “slow in responding to the threat from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and that “delays in providing adequate medium weight protected patrol vehicles should not have been tolerated.

“It was not clear which person or department within the MoD was responsible for identifying and articulating such capability gaps. But it should have been.”

Sir John said the British armed forces did not have the resources to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time.

He said it was “humiliating” that by 2007 UK military commanders were doing deals with militias to release prisoners in exchange for an end to guerrilla attacks on them.

He added: “The UK military role in Iraq ended a very long way from success.”

Sir John said that the armed forces fought a successful campaign, achieving their objectives of taking Basra and helping topple Saddam and take Baghdad in less than a month, showing “great courage in the face of considerable risks”.

He said: “They deserve our gratitude and respect.”

He said: “More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict in Iraq. Many more were injured. This has meant deep anguish for many families, including those who are here today.”

The invasion and its consequences had also led to the deaths of 150,000 Iraqis by July 2009, said Sir John, with more than a million displaced. “The people of Iraq have suffered greatly.”

He said the government had “failed to take account of the magnitude of the task of stablising, administering and reconstructing Iraq, and the responsibilities that were likely to fall to the UK”.

The decision for the UK to take charge of four provinces in south east Iraq was taken “without a formal ministerial decision” and without ensuring that the UK had the capability it needed.

On the issue of planning and preparation, Sir John said that Mr Blair and Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, only settled on the British military contribution in mid-January 2003, when the number of brigades the area in which they would operate was decided.

“There was little time to prepare three brigades and the risks were neither properly identified nor fully exposed to ministers,” said Sir John.

Promises that Cabinet would discuss the military contribution were not kept, he said.

Mr Blair told the Iraq Inquiry that the problems of post-war Iraq could not have been foreseen, but Sir John said: “We do not agree that hindsight is required.

"The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and al-Qaeda activity in Iraq were each explicitly identified before the invasion.”

Sir John said policy on Iraq was made “on the basis of flawed intelligence and assessments. They were not challenged and they should have been”.

When inspectors went into Iraq after the invasion they did not find the “vast stocks” of weapons described by Mr Blair and Mr Straw.

Mr Blair told the Commons that while Saddam may not have had “stockpiles of actually deployable weapons” he “retained the intent and capability…and was in breach of United Nations resolutions”.

Sir John said: “That was not, however, the explanation for military action he had given before the conflict.”

Turning the issue of intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and how it was presented to support the case for war, Sir John said there was an “ingrained belief” among UK intelligence officials that Iraq had retained some chemical and biological capabilities, that it was determined to preserve and enhance them and acquire nuclear weapons if possible, and that Saddam was able to conceal this from UN weapons inspectors.

Mr Blair’s report to Parliament on September 24, 2002 about Iraq’s WMD and the dossier published the same day contained judgement about Iraq’s capabilities that “were presented with a certainty that was not justified”.

The Joint Intelligence Committee should have made clear to Mr Blair that the intelligence had not established “beyond doubt” that Iraq had continued to produce chemical or biological weapons or that it was still trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The JIC had also concluded that sanctions were preventing Iraq from developing nuclear weapons and that it was years away from being able to deploy long-range missiles.

Yet Mr Blair told Parliament on March 18, 2003 that Saddam’s arsenal “posed a clear danger to British citizens”, said Sir John.

Mr Blair had been warned that an invasion would increase the threat to the UK from al-Qaeda and would increase the chance of Iraq’s weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

Sir John says the Inquiry has not expressed a view on whether the invasion was legal, because that issue “could only be resolved by a properly constituted and internationally recognised court”.

But the Inquiry panel concluded that “the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory”.

Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told Mr Blair in mid-January 2003 that a further UN resolution would be necessary to provide a legal basis for war. At the end of February he said that while a second resolution would be preferable, a “reasonable case” could be made that 1441 was enough. He set out that view in writing on March 7.

The armed forces and the civil service both asked for “more clarity” on whether forced would be legal. Lord Goldsmith then said that the “better view” was that there was a secure legal basis for military action without a second resolution. On March 14, he asked Mr Blair to confirm that Iraq had committed further “material breaches” of 1441, and Mr Blair did so the next day.

“However,” said Sir John, “the precise basis on which Mr Blair made that decision is not clear.

“Given the gravity of the decision, Lord Goldsmith should have been asked to provide written advice explaining how, in the absence of a majority in the Security Council, Mr Blair could take that decision.”

Sir John said this was one of number of occasions when policy should have been considered by a Cabinet committee and then discussed by Cabinet itself.

At the Crawford, Texas meeting, said Sir John, Mr Blair sought a partnership with Mr Bush, proposing a UN ultimatum to readmit UN weapons inspectors or face the consequences.

On July 28, 2002, Mr Blair wrote to Mr Bush to say he would be with him “whatever”, but if the US wanted a military coalition there would need to be progress on the Middle East peace process, UN authority and a shift in public opinion in Britain, Europe and the Arab world.

On November 8, the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441 to give Iraq a final chance to disarm or face “serious consequences”. 

The following month, Mr Bush decided weapons inspections were not enough, and committed to war. By early January, Mr Blair had concluded that “the likelihood was war” and accepted the US timetable for invasion in March. Mr Bush agreed with Mr Blair’s suggestion to seek a second UN resolution which would say that Iraq had failed to comply with 1441.

But the UN refused to pass the second resolution, saying peaceful options had not yet been exhausted.

Mr Blair and Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, blamed France for the “impasse” and claimed Britain was acting on behalf of the world to “uphold the authority of the Security Council”.

In fact, said Sir John, without UN support for military action, “we consider that the UK was, in fact, undermining the Security Council’s authority”.

In a damning assessment of the Blair government, Sir John said that “the judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were presented with a certainty that was not justified.

“Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate.

“The government failed to achieve its stated objectives.”

Summing up the events before the war, Sir John said the Cabinet decided to join the US-led invasion on March 17, 2003 and Parliament voted to support the decision the next day.

But he said the decision was the culmination of 18 months of “key choices” made by the government.

Mr Blair, he said, initially urged President George W Bush not to take “hasty” action on Iraq after the 9/11 attacks on America in 2001.

When the two meant met at Mr Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas in April 2002, “the formal policy was still to contain Saddam Hussein”.

But by then, there had been a “profound change” in Britain’s thinking.

The Joint Intelligence Committee had concluded that Saddam could not be removed without an invasion, the government was saying that Iraq was “a threat that had to be dealt with” by disarming or being disarmed, and contingency planning for a “large contribution to a military invasion” had begun.

Tony Blair took Britain to war in Iraq “before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted”, Sir John Chilcot has said as he publishes his long-awaited report into the conflict.

Seven years after he began his inquiry into the six-year engagement, which cost the lives of 179 British service personnel, Sir John said military action was “not a last resort”.

Sir John is speaking at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in London, where his 2.6 million word report is being digested by families of the dead.

Describing the decision to invade another sovereign state for the first time since the Second World War - a decision of the “utmost gravity” - Sir John said that Saddam Hussein was “undoubtedly a brutal dictator who had attacked Iraq’s neighbours, repressed and killed many of his own people, and was in violation of obligations imposed by the UN Security Council.

“But the questions for the Inquiry were: whether it was right and necessary to invade Iraq in March 2003 and whether the UK could - and should - have been better prepared for what followed.

“We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

Gordon Rayner and Peter Dominiczak are at the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre and will bring you more shortly.

Families of troops killed in Iraq are hoping to use the Chilcot report to bring a civil legal action against Tony Blair, writes  Robert Mendick.

Lawyers acting for relatives will comb over the 2.6 million-word report over the next few days before deciding on a course of action.

It is understood the lawyers at McCue & Partners want to sue Mr Blair for 'misfeasance in public office' - in essence accusing the former Labour prime minister of abusing his power in office to wage an illegal war.

The civil action is the most likely option for the relatives. The alternative - to have him prosecuted at the International Criminal Court  for war crimes - has effectively been ruled out because the actual decision to go to war falls outside the remit of the court, based in The Hague.

It only looks at war crimes committed during a conflict. If Mr Blair was to lose the civil case then he would face a potentially crippling legal bill.

Although he has earned tens of millions of pounds since leaving Downing Street, the cost of defending himself in the civil courts would be huge.

Just a reminder on how the report will be released in just a few minutes.

First, Sir John Chilcot will make his statement. We will report the key points as it happens.

Then, when Sir John has finished, the full report will be made public and we can report on it. It is big (see below) but we will provide a detailed summary, analysis and all the reaction.

 

Tony Blair's former foreign secretary Jack Straw refused to answer questions over the Iraq War until he's read Sir John Chilcot's long-awaited report into the conflict.

He'll be frantically reading it now, as our reporters are, and with 25 minutes until it is made public we expect he's got a good idea of what to say.

The anti-war protest in Westminster organised by among others the Stop The War Coalition and CND has started and is being broadcast live on Facebook.

Here's what's happening:

 

Remember this iconic image of the US invasion of Iraq?

The man in it, Kadhim Sharif al-Jabouri, pictured here taking a sledgehammer to a statue of the country’s dictator Saddam Hussein, now regrets his actions.

Read Josie Ensor's report here.

Protesters have unveiled a giant banner calling for Tony Blair to face a war crimes trial over the Iraq War outside the former Prime Minister's home.

 

With an hour to go until the release of Sir John Chilcot's long-awaited report into the Iraq war, the hashtag #Chilcot is already one of the top trends on Twitter in the United Kingdom.

A host of MPs have been tweeting in anticipation of the publication, which many expect to be critical of Tony Blair - prime minister at the time of the 2003 invasion.

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted:

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, who is reading the report before its release, shared a similar sentiment: 

Labour MP Gavin Shuker described the war as a "shameful disaster" that was "our generation's Suez", adding: "Let's learn from Chilcot today, not use it to fight a proxy war."

Meanwhile, the families whose loved ones died in the Iraq War have been arriving at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre to read Sir John Chilcot's long-awaited report into the conflict.

 

Tony Blair did not bewitch us into backing war in Iraq - we let him do it, writes James Kirkup. Read his full piece here.

Meanwhile David Blair, our chief foreign correspondent (and no relation to Tony), has written this piece on how Saddam Hussein's monumental error led to Britain invading Iraq.

 

Tony Blair makes no comment as he leaves home on the day the long-awaited Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War is published:

 

Sir Anthony Seldon, Vice Chancellor of the University of Buckingham, who has written biographies on Tony Blair and edited academic books on his Government, said:

"The Chilcot Enquiry should have taken just three years and has been an administrative farce.

"There is absolutely nothing at all that we have learned that we couldn’t have been told four or more years ago. Such enquiries need to be time-capped at an absolute maximum of three years.

"The policy implications of these reports need to be digested far more quickly - the mounting costs of the report, the loss of opportunities to learn from the fast-moving struggle against terrorism and war and causing distress to the families of those involved in the conflict – all of this requires a much prompter system.

"This is not to blame Chilcot but the whole way in which these reports are set needs to be dramatically and speedily changed."

The eyes of the world are on this man this morning, Sir John Chilcot. 

Here he is leaving his home in central London:

 

Here's a more detailed breakdown of how the day will infold:

8am: Reporters and families will be locked in with copies of the report ahead of Sir John Chilcot announcing his findings. They will not be able to communicate with the outside world. A copy of the report has already been sent to the Prime Minister  on Tuesday morning  and circulated around affected departments including the MoD, Foreign Office and intelligence agencies.

11.05: Sir John will make a statement on his findings.

11.35: Sir John’s statement expected to end and the report is published to the public.

11.45: Families of the Iraq dead are due to hold a press conference in response to the report.

12.00: Prime Minister’s Questions. David Cameron may face questions about Chilcot

12.30 onwards: David Cameron is due to give a formal statement on the Iraq Inquiry. This will be followed by a statement from Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition.

Later: Tony Blair is due to announce a press conference later in the day.

The families of more Britons killed in Iraq have been speaking about their hopes for the report this morning.

John Miller's son, Simon, was one of six military policemen murdered in the country in 2003. Mr Miller said he hoped Mr Blair would be put on trial at the International Criminal Court.

"There's got to be some kind of court case, be that In The Hague or elsewhere. I want to see him in the dock," he told Sky News.

Karen Thornton, whose son Gunner Lee Thornton died in 2006 after being shot while on patrol in Iraq, said she wanted Mr Blair to face war crimes charges if it is proved he lied.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme:

"I just think it was all based on lies, I think everything that comes out of that man's mouth has been a lie regarding Iraq.

"I think the people who lied should be held to account for what they have done," she said. Asked what that would mean, she said: "Charged with war crimes. They are responsible for the deaths of so many people."

The parents of Senior Aircraftsman Peter McFerran, 24, from North Wales, who was killed in southern Iraq in 2007, arrived shortly before the report was released to families at 8am.

The couple had travelled to London from Flintshire and wore "Justice for Peter" T-shirts.

Mr McFerran's mother Ann, 64, said she was "apprehensive" and "didn't know what to expect".

She said it was her husband Bob's 73rd birthday and added: "The right outcome would be a good birthday present."

Asked what that outcome would be, she replied: "Justice for Peter."

Relatives of some of the Britons killed in the Iraq war arrived in London as their wait for answers over the conflict entered its final hours.

Families insisted they have not been told what is in Sir John Chilcot's historic report, which has been seven years in the making.

Mark Thompson, whose son, Private Kevin Thompson, 21, from Lancaster, died in 2007 from injuries he suffered when his truck was attacked in Basra, said he felt "nervous" ahead of the publication.

He said:

"We've all been told nothing. We know just as much as you do. It's nerve-wracking for all the families.

"It is going to be very nervous because none of us know what to expect.

"There's not a lot to say, really, because it's going to take a long time to get through it all."

The long-awaited report will be boycotted by relatives of some of the 179 Britons killed in the conflict, who fear it will be a "whitewash".

Master Engineer Gary Nicholson, 42, from Hull, was one of 10 servicemen who died when their Hercules C-130 aircraft was shot down in 2005.

His mother Julia said:

"It will be a whitewash. I'm absolutely disgusted. I'm not going because it will be a whitewash.

"Tony Blair has got blood on his hands. He will have covered his back and (George) Bush's back."

Janice Procter, whose son, Private Michael Tench, 18, from Sunderland, was one of the youngest British soldiers to die in Iraq when he was killed in 2007, said:

"It's been horrendous, I'm very apprehensive about this.

"This man (Blair) has put 179 kids to the slaughter - there's no justice. It (the report) is not going to give me any closure or comfort.

"I'm not going down on the day, I'm not going to waste two hours of my life reading it."

The father of Lieutenant Alexander Tweedie, 25, from Hawick in the Scottish borders who died in 2003, said he expected the report to be damning of Tony Blair.

Gavin Tweedie said:

"I'm hoping that Tony Blair is heavily criticised but more than that I don't know what to expect."

"I think he (Mr Blair) will be but we have to wait and see."

Mr Tweedie said he was unable to make the trip to London but had asked for a copy of the report to be sent to him and his wife.

Sarah O'Connor, whose brother Sergeant Bob O'Connor was killed in action when his Hercules plane was shot down in 2005, said the length of time it had taken to complete the report made "a mockery of the inquiry system".

She said:

"For many people this has been - from the first knock on the door - that next step. But it has taken so long.

"At the beginning, Sir John came around to the families and said we were at the forefront of the investigation. I had such faith in this process.

"But it has been like the toner cartridge in a printer. What has started off strong and bold has now become just a faint line.

"The length of time it has taken to get this has made a mockery of the inquiry system - for Iraq, for Rotherham ... Anybody who has found themselves on either side of the scales, this has taken too long. It's been a farce."

It's nearing 8am, which means the lock-in at Queen Elizabeth's Conference Centre, London, is about to begin.

Reporters will be presented with the report three hours before it is made public to give them time to read it.

However, the details of the report are strictly embargoed, and to ensure no leaks during that three-hour period those in the lock-in won't be able to contact the outside world.

Our men Gordon Rayner and Peter Dominiczak are there and will be filing their first impressions from 11am, when Sir John Chilcot makes a statement.

While that is happening, an anti-war protest will take place in Westminster.

Leaders of the Stop the War Coalition, CND and other groups will demand "truth and justice" and there will be calls for former prime minister Tony Blair and others to face the full force of the law.

Following that we will have plenty of analysis on the fall-out.

Tony Blair is then expected to hold a press conference before David Cameron makes a statement after PMQs, which will be followed by Jeremy Corbyn.