Blair at Chilcott
Posted by: Bruce Woodhouse on 21 January 2011
I know this is water under the bridge for many but personally the anger had not faded.
Here is some detail from the inquiry today, from the BBC website;
"The inquiry also released a note from Mr Blair to Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, shortly before his visit to then US President George Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, in which he argued that Labour should be "gung-ho" about dealing with Saddam Hussein. In the note, Mr Blair said that, from "a centre-left perspective", the case for action against the Iraqi dictator should be "obvious". "Saddam's regime is a brutal, oppressive military dictatorship. He kills his opponents, has wrecked his country's economy and is a source of instability and danger in the region," he wrote. "I can understand a right-wing Tory opposed to 'nation-building' being opposed to it on grounds it hasn't any direct bearing on our national interest. "But in fact a political philosophy that does care about other nations - eg Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone - and is prepared to change regimes on the merits, should be gung-ho on Saddam."
I find the implications of that thinking quite astonishing. So national interest is irrelevant, the centre-left has a political right/duty to interfere in those regimes it identifies as unfit. Not forgetting the selective list he chooses. The fig-leaf that this ever had anything to do with WMD's (believed or imagined) or indeed the UN or direct national interest has been blown away at every turn, yet we do not bring this man to account for his decison-making. We declared war on a nation and killed hundreds of thousands of people because of this personal conviction/messiaic zeal. This was not legal or justified. This was a man abusing his power as the UK PM.
As the posters said eloquently at the time; not in MY name
Bruce. (Angry)
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by Howlinhounddog
Bruce,
To quote George Galloway from last nights question time. " That man should be sitting in a dock in the Hague defending himself against charges of war crimes and sitting along side him should be his Goebbals, his Lord Haw Haw, Alisdair Campbell. "
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by Mike-B
I'm not disagreeing that Blair might possibly be considered for an action in the Hague, but quoting George Galloway completely destroys your point.
George Galloway has zero - sub zero - creditability in my book. His kiss arsing with Sadam was nothing more than shameful & those TV clips of him kowtowing made me cringe. Just think what would have happened if he had been an Iraqi doing the same with one of the many of Sadams least favourite countries; he would have disappeared & probably never made it out of the airport on his return home.
Sadam & his regime was nothing short of total & utter evil & Tony Blair's description (above) is absolutely spot on, but I do agree we had no right to invade & carry out a regime change.
BTW - I worked in Iraq on & off 1980 thru 1995
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by JMB
Quoting George Galloway does not destroy any point. The fact is that GG simply stated what many people believe. Blair is a war criminal.
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by Don Atkinson
"Blair is a war criminal"
You forgot to add "IMHO".
I was not aware that Blair had been put on trial, never mind found guilty!
Invading Iraq when the USA/UK/Others did, was never a sensible thing to do IMHO - and I said so at the time on this forum. However, whether it was legal/illegal is not so clear-cut (again IMHO).
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by Mike-B
The discussion on Blair's guilt and the possible indictment of War Criminal is perfectly valid
Quoting George Galloway belittles & degrades it.
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by Howlinhounddog
George Galloway has zero - sub zero - creditability in my book. His kiss arsing with Sadam was nothing more than shameful & those TV clips of him kowtowing made me cringe.
Mike, you may not agree with Galloway however he at least met Hussein in an attempt to avoid conflict. As he also said to the house of representatives in the U.S. " I have met Saddam exactly the same amount of times as Donald Rumsfeld the only difference is I was trying to avoid a war and Rumsfelt was selling him Arms !"
Sadam & his regime was nothing short of total & utter evil & Tony Blair's description (above) is absolutely spot on, but I do agree we had no right to invade & carry out a regime change.
Then we all three agree, George Galloway included that Blair is guilty of war crimes.
Sorry for the lack of quotes around your text Mike but I'm still getting used to the new format
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by Mike-B
No "we" don't all agree
I agree the invasion was - IMO - possibly illegal. The argument of if the approval was valid or not revolves around the wording of the various UN resolutions, & specifically 1441.
1441 was adopted unanimously by UN Security Council offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations"
Iraq did not comply, therefore the final resolution was "arguably" taken to its intended conclusion.
I do not agree that Blair is a war criminal - that is a very specific indictment most of which imply personal complicity in acts of violence against various international laws relating to war.
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by JMB
To correct my previous posting I should have said both Blair and Bush are war criminals. Their actions led directly to the deaths of thousands of people.
The Iraq war was probably based more on the US's need to punish someone for nine eleven rather than on any justifiable military requirement.
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by George Fredrik
"Tony B Liar*
He was the closest to a Fascist that ruled the UK since democracy, and no less than the mad Nazis he diserves to hang according to the the law as seen in Nuremberg, or the Den Hague. GW Bush is safe enough provided he never sets foot in Europe of couse.
ATB from George
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by Bruce Woodhouse
The issue of legality under 1441 will presumably remain subject to debate. What gets me is that Blair is not really that bothered by it. His justifications are littered with what he believes are his duties and moral rights to wage war on that regime. His arguments appear to carry the message he would have found any and all justification for his actions, UN or otherwise. Sod the facts, all you need to know is he personally felt he was doing the right thing. That is OK then.
Blair was entitled to make arguments for overthrowing a corrupt and violent regime (and the list of candidates remains long) but these were not the arguments he used to persuade the British People. War was not waged in the name of the UN but in the name of the United Kingdom. If he wished to lead a personal crusade of believers in direct action then fine, but he made this a national policy and then dressed it as part of the all-encompassing war on terror.
I don't think most UK citizens see it as the right or the responsibility of the UK to be involved in regime change by waging war without agreed international mandate on whoever our PM wishes to target, irrespective of the direct national interest (as he states in his memo in my first post).
Is he a war criminal? No idea. Did he manipulate the evidence and lose touch with his responsibilities as an elected leader, I'd say yes. Did he provide Bush with uncritical support, surely. Does he appear to have any insight into what he unleashed, the terrible costs of his actions to innocent men women and children in Iraq; I don't think so for a second. That is what makes me seethe, his apparent blissful conviction that he was morally empowered to agree to the killing of so many people, his apparent disdain or even incredulity that others might disagree
Bruce
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by Don Atkinson
" I should have said both Blair and Bush are war criminals. Their actions led directly to the deaths of thousands of people."
Adding further victims to the lynch mob's hit list doesn't generate legitimacy.
War, in general, leads to the deaths of thousands of people. This, by itself, doesn't make the leaders war criminals.
Be as angry as you like, neither Bush nor Blair will ever stand trial as war criminals.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by Dungassin
Let's face it, when Blair first came into the public eye, my immediate first impression was "Used Car Salesman", and nothing he did ever changed that.
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by JamieWednesday
It continues to astonish me that only now do so many people realise that Tony Blair is a bit of a git.
Politics (& the image of politicians) aside he and the other 'horsemen' thrived on 'spin spin spin' 'lie lie lie' 'spin spin spin'. Just tell 'em often enough and long enough and they'll believe it. I don't personally believe he even had his heart in the right place and was simply a poor decision maker. He is not a nice person, IMHO.
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by David Scott
George, your political opinions are fabulously immoderate.
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by JMB
Bruce,
I think you have summed up Blair's belief in himself exactly. It makes one wonder how on earth we came to elect such a shallow narcissist to lead our country. The brief reports I have seen of his performance at the enquiry are just nauseating.
Posted on: 21 January 2011 by Mike-B
Just for pig iron, & not that it changes my views posted earlier
Years before Blair when Maggie was PM, I was on a Belfast-LHR flight with the usual end of week go home business crowd. My seat was next a group of 2 or 3 labour politicians some I had seen on TV, Tony included. We started chatting, mostly the usual throwaway plane stuff. But one thing I remember was a remark he made ... that all the politicians that have made their mark in history had a "good war", Lloyd George, Churchill, now Margaret has the Falklands.
Maybe Iraq was his perceived opportunity to make it into the history books
Looks like he might have been spot on
Posted on: 22 January 2011 by Bruce Woodhouse
Just when you are searching for the right words Steve Bell comes to your rescue
Posted on: 22 January 2011 by JMB
The alliance between Bush and Blair was an alliance between the Dim and the Deluded.
Dim was going to invade Iraq no matter what the position of the UN. Arguments about legality are irrelevant. Deluded was canny and political enough to try to claim UN cover for an invasion that was going to happen anyway. Their reasons for invading remain spurious and listening to Deluded trying to justify the invasion was both embarrassing and heartbreaking.
Remember - thousands upon thousands of people were killed by this pair of war criminals in an unnecessary war.
I just hope Chilcot has the balls to pin the blame for the UK's disastrous Iraq involvement where it belongs.
