There are not too many laughs emerging from the Chilcot Inquiry.
Anyone who has attended a major criminal trial and seen an able defence Barrister getting stuck in to a police officer's evidence, or seen the accused on the ropes in the face of a Prosecuting onslaught, will know what a combative cross examination looks like. The chummy and sterile nature of the Chilcot Inquiry appears designed to take up a huge amount of time whilst delivering oh so little. Just what is the point?
Still, we should not forget the ability of the 9/11 'truth' movement to deliver clowns to any major event. Useless as Chicot appears to be, Ian Henshall of Reinvestigate 9/11 has today put out a press release looking to add 9/11 to Chilcot's brief. Or in particular their belief that anyone other than the actual hijackers were responsible for 9/11. Is Iraq lacking in detail or something? Not enough big questions there? Is R9/11 worried the Committee need a little extra reading material in the evening? Please.
Still - thanks for the laughs guys.