¤
I really didn't want to add any more comment - I thought Peter Brooke's commentary was explicit enough, however, couldn't help but put on record here and now what I think of Blair.
¤
Blair lied to the British, to his friends in Europe, to the Europeans about why the UK should go to war Iraq; he aided and abetted Bush in committing an illegal war by fixing facts and intelligence around Bush's war on Iraq policy; not content with putting British ground troops in harm's way, he would not even get off his backside to provide them with the right body armour and war equipment so they could do their tasks efficiently... the worst thing he did was to turn a blind eye on his best friend Bush's wilfull violation of the Geneva Conventions, an act that would forever change the conduct of wars!
¤
And now, ta da da... police are coming after Blair, the political cheat!
¤
I say, Blair will go down in history as one of the most villainous, two-faced prime ministers Great Britain ever had...
Lest we forget: The leaked Iraq war documents by Michael Smith, The Sunday Times, June 19, 2005. Excerpts:
"The Foreign Office was particularly concerned over US lack of interest in planning for the aftermath of the war and the lack of a legal justification for ousting Saddam. Regime change for its own sake is illegal under international law. It was therefore seen as essential that the allies went first to the UN to obtain a Security Council resolution backing the use of force to oust Saddam."
¤
"Despite having been warned by his officials that “regime change per se is illegal” he had agreed to back military action to achieve it. There were three conditions attached to his agreement. But the most crucial of these, that “options for action to eliminate Iraq’s WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted” would never be achieved. "
To read Michael Smith's full report in The Sunday Times, click here.
'Failure is not an option, but it doesn't mean they will avoid it', Michael Smith's 13-page exposé published in The Daily Telegraph
Excerpts:
"The Downing Street Memo led to confirmation that the allies had begun the air war against Iraq in May 2002, shortly after the Crawford summit, without legal backing from either the UN or Congress, as I explained in this oped article for the LA Times."
¤
"The Prime Minister knew the US President was determined to complete what one senior British official had already described as the unfinished business from his father's war against Saddam Hussein."
To read Mick's complete report in The Daily Telegraph, click here.
¤¤
'When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change.' Cabinet Office Briefing Paper dated 21 July 2002 in The Downing Street Memos. ¤
Bush and Blair finally sealed their alliance for the war on Iraq and on 18th March 2003, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair went to Parliament to deliver his appeal for the country to back his sponsorship of Bush's war on Iraq. He opened the debate in the House of Commons on whether Britain should go with America on the war on Iraq.
¤
Blair's statement to Parliament - Excerpts:
"I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia.
"Today it is impoverished, 60 per cent of its population dependent on Food Aid.
"Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine. Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile."
To read Tony Blair's statement in full, click here.
¤ Almost four years separate the realities in Iraq today from these words pronounced by Mr Blair but the question remains the same: What evil did Saddam commit that couldn't be matched by the evils that Messieurs Blair and Bush have committed on Iraq and its people?
¤
¤
Speaking of which, I posted my comments in Michael Smith's weblog, on why General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief UK Army was right to go public to denounce Tony Blair's government's neglect of the British troops and to say why he believed the UK should pull out of Iraq. ¤
Mick writes:
"I'm afraid I agree with you wholeheartedly. the trouble is that there are far too many people who do not realise the above and who think that the defence experts writing that the army is in serious trouble because it is over-deployed are just exagerating it. Anyone who thinks as some here have written that the general should not have spoken out doesnt realise how many times the military have told the politicians the above and that it has not made a blind bit of difference.
"What is the point of protocol when British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan because not enough forces were deployed there, basically because we didnt have enough to send?
"Which reminds me. There is a US general who is prepared to speak out and we are luck enough to have him as the head of Nato. Gen James Jones has made himself unpopular with Donald Rumsfeld for speaking out about political interference in military matters.
¤
"He also pointed out that Nato was taking casualties in Afghanistan because the 1,000-man rapid reaction force that Gen Richards wanted was never sent. It was never sent because as ever British politicians promised troops they just never had. The British promised to send that force and then reneged on the deal."
Meanwhile, Stop the War Coalition has the following reports on what's been happening on the other side of the great Atlantic divide: 500,000 March on Washington
¤
%5B1%5D.jpg)
_697%5B1%5D.jpg)
