Is Tony Blair a war criminal?

[Dr Gloom 22143]

he's actually loving this opportunity to hold court with the media and give his side of the story. not really the desired result, hearing him bang on about how he acted in good faith

[Park Life 71]

he's actually loving this opportunity to hold court with the media and give his side of the story. not really the desired result, hearing him bang on about how he acted in good faith

Sidestepped the bloke who asked why he's got all these financial/business deals with the Gulf states as it has been clear for ages they were behind/had some part in 9/11...And that Iraq had nowt to do with it.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11668848/tony-blair-interactive-map-global-business-deals.html

 

Several “Blair-related outfits” were spotted “sniffing for work” in Tirana at the same time as the former Prime Minister completed a deal to advise Albanian government.

News of his associates’ activities was even included in a note sent back to Whitehall in October 2013.

Nicholas Cannon, the British ambassador to Albania, told how the former head of state was preparing to embed a team of consultants in the Albanian government, funded by “external sources”.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Park Life

[Christmas Tree 4821]

I'm a bit confused by this. Is chilcott saying he didn't lie and didn't sex up the intelligence?

[Rayvin 5295]

Well, I actually think Corbyn is going to spare Labour some of the barbs here. I think his presence at the head of the party, along with his consistency in speaking out against the Iraq war, has allowed the party to appear more credible in its apologies.

 

This was him speaking at the time:

 

[Rayvin 5295]

I'm a bit confused by this. Is chilcott saying he didn't lie and didn't sex up the intelligence?

 

As ever with these things, it's not hugely clear. I don't think anything will happen to actually put Blair onto a meaningful trial, but it has made it clear that he misled a lot of people by failing to adequately consider an alternative to invasion.

[Howmanheyman 33828]

I'm a bit confused by this. Is chilcott saying he didn't lie and didn't sex up the intelligence?

 

Stage 1 of CT = asks question to ascertain the general consensus.

 

Stage 2 will be along after he's got enough responses.

[Christmas Tree 4821]

 

Stage 1 of CT = asks question to ascertain the general consensus.

 

Stage 2 will be along after he's got enough responses.

 

It's nowt to do with consensus, I'm just confused. (I've only basically been following the news today from Blairs presser.

 

The main point the "dossier" was sexed up. Blair seems to say Chilcott discounts this but a few interviews following Blair (Greg dyke and Lord Hutton), still seem to be saying it was.

 

I am just a tad confused that's all.

[Park Life 71]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-indictment-of-tony-blair-could-hardly-have-been-more-serious

[Park Life 71]

 

It's nowt to do with consensus, I'm just confused. (I've only basically been following the news today from Blairs presser.

 

The main point the "dossier" was sexed up. Blair seems to say Chilcott discounts this but a few interviews following Blair (Greg dyke and Lord Hutton), still seem to be saying it was.

 

I am just a tad confused that's all.

The 45min doc was sexed up but we can't prove how much of a hand or influence Blair had in it.

 

He just falls back on this info he had at the time and it was a 'tough decision' claptrap...

Edited July 6, 2016 by Park Life

[Renton 21983]

The whole thing is ridiculous. There's simply zero evidence or logic in thinking Hussein had any links with terrorism. Not now and not then. It was obvious there was no WMD, the UN inspectors told us this.

 

Now some might laugh but I just don't understand the motives behind the war or what the intended outcomes were. I don't buy this shit it was about oil or openings for western business. Blair still won't tell us the truth. It's destroyed his legacy which I maintain was good on the domestic front.

[Rayvin 5295]

I always thought it was about encirclement of Russia, looking at where US military bases now are. Could be wrong though.

 

It actually could just be a fucking vanity project, depressingly.

[NJS 4411]

The whole thing is ridiculous. There's simply zero evidence or logic in thinking Hussein had any links with terrorism. Not now and not then. It was obvious there was no WMD, the UN inspectors told us this.

 

Now some might laugh but I just don't understand the motives behind the war or what the intended outcomes were. I don't buy this shit it was about oil or openings for western business. Blair still won't tell us the truth. It's destroyed his legacy which I maintain was good on the domestic front.

There were some incidental mentions of opportunities for oil companies but the most we got on motive was the usual shite about freedom, democracy and western values being established in the region.

 

Even if the motives were anywhere near noble, the methodology and lack of aftermath planning were appalling.

[Renton 21983]

I always thought it was about encirclement of Russia, looking at where US military bases now are. Could be wrong though.

 

It actually could just be a fucking vanity project, depressingly.

I think you're most probably correct in the latter assumption, but we were dragged into Bush's vanity project. It was personal for him. Look at the devastation it's caused which might go on decades yet. Tragic.

[Renton 21983]

BTW, shouldn't the US have an equivalent enquiry?

[NJS 4411]

I'd add the original cause of Iraq being such a mess was down to the British /French map drawing fiasco post WWI - it might have worked as three countries.

[Renton 21983]

Simpson on BBC has connected the political cynicism caused by the war to the referendum. I think he's right.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3964]

Bush wanted to defeat Iraq to be better than his dad. Blair wanted to feel Bush's cock push firmly into his anus.

[Park Life 71]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/george-packer/pnac-and-iraq

 

 

What most people do not know, however, is that certain high ranking officials in the Bush administration have been working for regime change in Iraq for the past decade, long before terrorism became an important issue for our country.

 

In 1997 they formed an organization called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). They have sought the establishment of a much stronger U.S. presence throughout the Mideast and Iraq's Saddam Hussein has been their number one target for regime change. Members of this group drafted and successfully passed through Congress the Iraqi Liberation Act, giving legal sanctions for an invasion of the country, and funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to Hussein opposition groups called the Iraqi National Congress and The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq."

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

 

There really is no mystery.

 

I expect if Clinton wins she'll double down on Syria and then go after Iran if not her successor will. The problem they have is that they didn't anticipate that Russia would pile into Syria. I honestly believe the Pentagon are mad enough to risk WW3. I mean it was touch and go they didn't send arms to Ukraine.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Park Life

[Alex 35571]

Stage 1 of CT = asks question to ascertain the general consensus.

Stage 2 will be along after he's got enough responses.

Stage 3 = mock indignation at the suggestion that he's on the wind up Edited July 6, 2016 by Alex

[Alex 35571]

Simpson on BBC has connected the political cynicism caused by the war to the referendum. I think he's right.

that and the expenses scandal

[Happy Face 29]

Some people might read Parky with some thought of conspiracy theory, so to be as kind as possible, you can look at what Bob Woodward said in his book - Plan of Attack. Woodward is not the antagonistic journalist he was during Watergate, he's now an established insider and based his version of events on interviews with everyone in the inner circle including the president himself. All of these people continued to be interviewed for several more of Woodward's books and have not challenged his version, which he summarised in interview...

 

Now, let's really drill down. The 9/11 attacks happened. Almost by the minute, when after that, how soon after that does Iraq start being discussed, and by whom?

 

That night, Don Rumsfeld says, "This is an opportunity to strike Iraq, perhaps." And [Paul] Wolfowitz, his deputy, is pushing very aggressively and has even proposed a kind of somewhat crazy enclave strategy of just taking the oil fields in southern Iraq and using that as a base for anti-Saddam military actions or commando operations. All of the discussion of Iraq, it's there, it's serious, but the president and Cheney reject it and adopt very clearly an "Afghanistan first" policy.

 

 

At a minimum, there were intentions prior to 9/11 and that event offered "an opportunity" to be exploited, without any evidence of any link whatsoever.

 

Ron Suskind is equally as establishment, and his book - The Price of Loyalty - has named internal sources that claim regime change in Iran was the first order of business for Bush in January 2001, 8 months prior to 9/11. Unlike Woodward, although the administration didn't deny his version, they attacked him for publishing it and the character of his sources. Their response was that regime change in Iraq was official US policy from 1998, which it was, but not by force...

 

 

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..." It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq.

[Happy Face 29]

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/210955/2002-07-23-minute-rycroft-to-manning-iraq-prime-mi-nisters-meeting-23-july.pdf

 

The newly declassified memo that told the Labour cabinet that the facts were being twisted by the US to fit the policy of regime change, almost a year before the invasion.

[Happy Face 29]

Blair's memo to Bush October 2001...

 

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/243721/2001-10-11-letter-blair-to-bush-untitled.pdf

 

Section 2 on Iraq is an interesting read showing Blair was quickly on board with the Bush goals and how blunt he was about the challenges to overcome.

 

Nice section (4) on propaganda in that memo too.

[PaddockLad 17643]

I've had a good read through this now....I think Blair and Campbell have lied to themselves more than they lied to the British people on this. They've lied to themselves about the evidence to go to war so much that it has become "their truth". So they can go into press conferences yesterday and blatantly claim not to have mislead us because that's the very thing they've convinced themselves of.

 

Chilcott rejects the evidence out of hand, he says there was no need to invade as Saddam wasn't a threat and he also says the UK goverment should've tested the evidence more before putting it to Parliament. I'm not a lawyer but I think given the "honest guv, that is wot we fort" defence that Blair is taking, it makes a war crime difficult to prove. Which Blair, as a very clever advocate himself, probably knew all along. I think we'll have to accept that the report blatantly rinses him on every single aspect of the invasion, and that he's responsible for the deaths of 176 UK service men and women, also the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed in the subsequent sectarian war that followed which Chilcott plainly states he was fully informed about and was aware of pre invasion. But he didn't lie....to us anyway...that much...

[Park Life 71]

Funded by the CIA and living briefly in Iraqi Kurdistan, Chalabi sent his men on a futile attack on the Iraqi army that the US had not authorised. In spite of this fiasco, Chalabi worked closely with the Clinton administration and played a major role in getting Democrats as well as Republicans to pass the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998."

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/ahmed-chalabi