John Chilcot Quotes

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort?

I would have voted 'no' on the Iraq war and 'yes' to Afghanistan.

The decision to attack Iraq in March 2003 was discretionary; it was a war of choice.

In my view, the military action taken in Iraq in 2003 was not lawful under international law because there was no U.N. resolution expressly authorising it.

On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction.

For no good reason, George W. Bush and the best and brightest he could muster, including the likes of Paul Bremer and Paul Wolfowitz, decided it made sense to attack Iraq.

Let's be clear: Neither Secretary Powell or I opposed the notion of removing Saddam Hussein by force, but we wanted to avoid the war if we could. But if we couldn't, the notion of removing Saddam Hussein from the scene seemed eminently sensible, given that you had, what, 16 or so U.N. Security Council resolutions basically saying the same thing.

Tony Blair took us to war in Iraq on the basis of the supposed threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

When Americans invade Iraq, Bush says, we will be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people, proving that taking out Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.

Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam hussein would still be in power today in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait.

We were told by the president that we had no alternative but to go into Iraq because of the threat that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction posed, but to date, these weapons have not been found.

My level of cynicism about the reasons that took us to war against Iraq remain just as well-developed as they were before I went.

Iran, Libya and Syria are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve.

Two European nations emerged with credit from the Iraq disaster: France and Germany. Both had the courage to withstand the Bush administration and oppose the U.S.-led invasion.

Regime change cannot be the objective of military action.

It was pretty clear in 2002 to anyone in the intelligence community that is where we were headed.[To war with Iraq].

Governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate self defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted.

The preemptive use of force has always been part of international law.

Unless the president can make a very compelling case that Saddam Hussein has his finger on a weapon of mass destruction and is about ready to use it, I do not think that now is the time to go to war against Saddam Hussein.

Opposing the U.N opposition to the American Invasion of Iraq was our finest hour. It was a war which, in my opinion, was illegal.

The centerpiece of the Bush administration's case for going to war in Iraq was Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council on February 5, 2003, six weeks before the invasion.

The United States of America, justifiably and proudly, went to war in Afghanistan in early winter of 2001. The United States invaded Iraq on a false premise in the spring of 2003.

I did not support the U.S. decision to intervene with military force in Libya. The evidence was not persuasive that a large-scale massacre or genocide was either likely or imminent. Policies other than military intervention were never given a full chance.

The use of military force against Iraq and Afghanistan was and remains just.

I abhor Saddam's regime, but the basis has to be disarmament.