Tony Blair used "deceit" to persuade parliament and the British people to support war in Iraq, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, said today.
In an article in the Times, Macdonald attacked Blair for engaging in "alarming subterfuge", for displaying "sycophancy" towards George Bush and for refusing to accept that his decisions were wrong.
Macdonald's comments about Blair's decision to go to war are more critical than anything that has been said so far by any of the senior civil servants who worked in Whitehall when Blair was prime minister.
Macdonald was DPP from 2003 until 2008 and he now practises law from Matrix Chambers, where Blair's barrister wife, Cherie, is also based.
In his article Macdonald highlighted a remark Blair made in an interview broadcast yesterday about supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein regardless of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to explain why he thought the former prime minister was guilty of deceit.
Despite evidence to the contrary this blog was not started to expose the lies of Sarah Palin.
It was started to expose the lies of George Bush, and the Iraq War.
For years I dedicated hours, and hours to finding and revealing truths that were in direct contrast to the lies coming from the Bush administration. I discovered, as far back as June of 2005, that Britain had decided to follow America into Iraq regardless of the evidence.
The naysayers, and Bush apologists, attacked myself and my fellow bloggers calling us "traitors", and "hippies", and "liars", and refusing to listen to the evidence that was presented, or to even imagine that they had been lied to. Sound familiar?
Ultimately of course, I believe that the majority of Americans now realize that the Bush administration played fast and lose with the facts. And perhaps a smaller number know that they sent thousands of Americans to their deaths based on a lie.
When I voted for Barack Obama, I fantasized that he would be instrumental in bringing the criminal Bush administration to justice. I have less confidence in that ever happening, but if the Brits prosecute Tony Blair, perhaps the Obama administration will have no choice.
After all a blogger can dream, can't he?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As someone who screamed against the coming invasion of Iraq, I, too, had hoped the new administration would punish the torturers and those who protected them (it's called accessory after the fact), that they would expose the lies that took us into war, all the corruption, etc. But once again we see Democrats protecting Republican Evildoers "for the sake of the nation."
ReplyDeleteThis is how they got away with Nixon-Kissenger's Nazi-style repression of the left in Latin America, with Reagan's Iran-hostage treason and the Iran-Contra deals; now they are going to get away with the all the nasty ugliness of War on Terror. The problem is, no one seems to realize that the reason the Republicans break the law with such wild abandon is because they KNOW no one will ever hold them accountable. Yet the Republicans go after a Democratic president because they don't like what he does with his cigars.
On the other hand, with our country teetering on the brink of economic disaster, with health care at a crises point, ditto the environment, I can see why the administration might feel that no is not a good time, that they need to focus on our other problems.
I read somewhere Bush & Blair cooked up this war about a year in advance. Then filled in the blanks later....weapons of destruction etc. I know for me at the time, Tony Blair was a key reason I thought maybe there was valid reason for us to involve ourselves in Iraq. The British people are right to be pissed off at him. I am so disappointed that there has been so little punishmnet for our ex president.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the 3210 anti-bush songs on Neil Young's website:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/lt8fm
Song # 875 this week is titled, "War Crimes W."
Give it a listen!
I would like to see GWB and Cheney ( the shadow president, GWB was just a prop) be held accountable. But I do think that it needs to be done in the World Court and not on US soil. No matter what is done here, many in the rest of the world will think it is setup to let them off, while if its done in the World Court it would have more meaning of justice. Just my thoughts. But I would still like to have Senator Paul Wellstones plane crash re-investigated, because there are many things pointing to an assassinattion by Cheneys goons.
ReplyDeleteI doubt Blair will be prosecuted...
ReplyDeleteI'm so sorry Blair's involvement in this big lie convinced some Americans that there were valid reasons to invade Iraq.
We marched in London against the war and were royally ignored.
Dr David Kelly lost his life when he denounced the "cooked" dossier about the WMD. The inquest into his death decided that it was suicide. A lot of people believe he was murdered and it's not a conspiracy theory.
There's a lot of dirt in all of this, but I don't trust the British to get to the bottom of it or to take any action.
Blair already declared that he would have gone ahead with the invasion even without any evidence of WMD, he would have done just for regime change...
This is very important. Sooner or later, later or sooner, we will get to untangle the web of lies that led to un-necessary wars. It's complex and not black and white. At some point it will be essential to understand, truly, what did or did not happen on 9/11. In order to clear this path to truth, I think we need to de-mystify that word "conspiracy theory." Once that word is used, the discussion is manipulated into either accusations that someone is crazy or a defensive posturing on the other side, trying to prove that one is grounded in reality. STOP- cease and desist. Conspiracies actually DO HAPPEN!! By this I mean that groups of people actually do plan events secretly, all the time ! Has anyone heard of the D-Day Invasion of Normandy ?? How about the Manhattan Project ? What about the October Surprise that helped Ronald Reagan win the election in 1980 ? Better yet, have you ever planned a surprise party ? SO, first, let's stop acting as if secretly planned events don't happen. The POINT IS TO CRITICALLY EXAMINE THEM AND NOT GO TO THE PLACE OF PARANOIA OR FEAR. We don't need the GLEN BECK type of conspiracy thinking, because what he offers is illogical hysteria, meant to stir up folks who are already confused and fearful. We do need to critically evaluate all that happened before these wars. Clearly there were secret plans made and the public was manipuated in many ways. Now is the time to look at this all carefully and to WAKE UP !!
ReplyDeleteBe careful, what you wish for!
ReplyDeleteYes, it would be justice if the Shadow Master and his puppets were to be punished for their crimes, but let us face reality:
While we "Bleeding Liberals" will figuratively talk each other to death at a moment's notice, the dictatorial "Fanatic Right" would rather stomp, stab, stomp or bomb us to death!
If the Obama administration were to pursue a path of judicial punishment, the Unhinged of this Nation will unite in revolt of all that is progressive, Freedom of Thought and Expression of Indivduality. They probably would not even have to resort to violence. There are enough of them among us to do it through a few skewed ballot boxes. Remember Florida 2000!
Correction:..."stomp, stab, shoot or bomb...
ReplyDeleteRegina,
ReplyDeleteI lost a good friend, Senator Paul Wellstone and I still think its because of his very outspoken and intelligent fight against the Iraq war. It's too bad good people have lost their lives trying to bring the truth to the american people.
cr46
ReplyDeleteI too believe the Bush Adm. had something to do with the assisation of Wellstone. Have you ever read the book written by two Prof's from the University of duluth? It documents the way they,think Wellstone was assinated. I think the name was: The assination of a Senator. I drove through the area where his plane went down early that morning. The claim was because of fog and possible ice build up. It was cold and crispy that morning,but no fog.
I don't think Wellstone's plane accident was a Bush "hit job". The Bush/Cheney administration was most inept at doing anything. And that includes, as some people charge, orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. This was just not a smart bunch of people in that administration.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree with CR46 that bringing Bush and his cohorts would best be done by International Tribunal. What they did had world-wide consequences.
My greatest disappointment with President Obama to date is his refusal to uphold the rule of law by investigating the mountains of evidence that exist regarding Cheney/Bush lying and manipulating intelligence in order to get us into their recreational war.
ReplyDeleteAs happy as I am to have a president who is not a buffoon and is basically honest, if he ignores criminal behavior when their is overwhelming evidence, he is as at least guilty of aiding and abetting the criminals who committed the initial crimes. As Nixon's pardon was Ford's legacy, Obama's failure to investigate - and if warranted, prosecute - will be his legacy.
I think Obama's motivation is that he does not want to be labeled as engaging in partisan retribution for the Clinton impeachment. This is a profound mistake. If there were actual, real investigations and trials, unlike the bullshit kangaroo court charade that was the Clinton investigation and impeachment, it would do much to restore the Constitution and the rule of law. By taking his present course, Obama seems weak and terrified of the GOP than he is committed to defending the Constitution.
I hope that I am wrong about President Obama. If we let Cheney/Bush, et al., get away with their crimes we can be absolutely sure that similar abuses of executive power will happen again. If Nixon had been prosecuted and convicted, I don't think 5 Deferment Dick would have had the courage to overstep his authority. Now that it appears that Cheney/Bush will not be prosecuted, how long will it be before another president views the Constitution as an impediment to be gotten around?
If warranted, Cheney/Bush and others should spend time in federal prison. THAT will get the attention of the next would be Cheney who would wipe his fat cowardly ass with the Constitution.
Come on Mr. President. Pull up your big girl panties and do what the Constitution requires you to do: enforce the law.
Gasman, why resort to sexist remarks like "your big girl panties" to make your point? It cheapens your argument. There's enough sexism on the blog already...We look to you for leadership with your excellent posts.
ReplyDeleteanon at 8:15
ReplyDeleteAt the time of Pauls plane crash I lived 7 miles from the crash site. I am very familiar with the area(born and raised there) The claim that the plane "iced over" is bogus just on the fact that the plane "turned" and the pilot tried to make it back to Bodas road( a small paved low traffic road where a plane could have landed safety, another sign was that there was an "agent" onsite before locals on 4-wheelers ever got to the scene (closest FBI office was over 200 miles away) and he stopped rescuers from trying to put out the fire with exstinguishers, evidence was allowed to burn and the bodies were allowed to burn. I have read that book and re-read it on the anniversary of the deaths of my dear friends Paul and Sheila.
If any Alaskans remember a small plane crash that killed Begich(who happens to have relatives including a state rep in that Iron Range area of Minnesota--just FYI) in their state yrs ago, it was eerily similar.
People, Obama is not IN CHARGE of this decision.
ReplyDeleteHolder and the DoJ are.
There are any things in the way of an investigation, as we learned during the Plame incident. In a Palin-esque type attempt to avoide FOIA act requests and a trail of evidence, the computers were WIPED clean of all emails and evidence. DoJ computers, Cheney's computer, Rove's computer, etc.
Now, the guy who did that for them was also a part of the Ohio election fraud scandal. He was called to testify. He asked for protection from the DoJ as he said his wife and he had been threatened by Dick and Rove. The Bush DoJ refused him protection (surprise). He testified a few days, and the day before he was supposed to bring in evidence, his small plane crashed over Florida and he died.
Lots of plane crashes around the Bush Cheney folks.
At any rate, Holder has to decide based on the EVIDENCE (which is missing) to prosecute.
See what people like Palin do when they're in office?
By the way, the Obama administration has ushered in heretofor unseen transparency, even in the DoJ. FOIA requests and responses will be ONLINE. they've already published the ones from last year.
Yes, our president is restoring law and order to this country in ways most of us can't see. But ways which impact all of us.
I third the international tribunal.
We will get NOTHING done in this country with our CRAPPY msm and crazed right wing nut jobs. They will go on a shooting spree and kill innocent people.
This is a matter for international law tribunal -- and a reminder to get out and vote in your county, state and federal elections! It matters who you vote for!
All comments here have great merit. I TRULY believe the Cheney regime was above nothing to protect their charade. Just look at how many "suicides," "accidents," and "heart attacks" took place during those 8 years. It's horrible that one has to express this concern about their government, but of course, this has happened over and over again all over the world. When one is a sociopath who lusts for $$ and power, there is always self-justification for your actions. I feel for those honest people who lost their lives defending their principles.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I firmly believe that A LOT will come to light during the upcoming KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) trial to take place in NYC. Many of the key Bush/Cheney players seem to be so vocal and unrelenting in their protests of this civil trial that IMO, it belies their nervousness. If this is actually the case, the DoJ will do its job and the house of cards will start its freefall, from 9/11 to Enron to Iraq.
One can hope!
Gryphen, thank you for the history of this blog. I had no idea! But I'm one of the many who started looking for information about Sarah Palin after she opened her mouth on the public stage: so I could have guessed. It won't surprise me if we learn, eventually, that some behind-the-scenes powerful manipulator was the driver for both the Iraq war and the crazy woman who wanted to be president. But I am pleasantly surprised at just how many people have started out with a few simple questions and wound up very well educated about these schemers. grammy
ReplyDeletecr46.....I was working about 20 miles away from the crash site. It was sleeting and heavy fog where I was. I was devastated when I heard news of the crash, still am. I have not read the book you refer to, however, I wanted to let you know that where I was the weather conditions were terrible.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 8:47,
ReplyDelete"Big girl panties" is sexist? How? If I'd said "big boy panties" would that have been sexist? It had nothing to do with sexism. Is it not possible to make even a tangential reference to gender, in this case merely a garment, without being accused of sexism? That is no more sexist than Obama's "lipstick on a pig comment" was. To which gender was I casting aspersions? If no prejudicial content can even be inferred, how is the remark sexist?
I'll gladly accept criticism when it is deserved. I don't see any way in hell that that is a sexist remark.
Gasman, when male jocks address their teammates as "Ladies," that is sexist. When you tell a man to put on his "big girl panties," it is sexist. What are you saying? You are the one who assigned gender to it; you could have written the statement without gender assignation. Ask yourself why you did that.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteYou maintain that it is sexist but you do not say how. How is it sexist? Would it have been sexist to say "big boy panties?" If so, why? The gender was actually referring to the item of clothing, not to girls or women wearing them. In case you did not notice, I was actually referring to a MALE wearing what would normally be worn by a female. How is that sexist?
What stereotypical gender inference is made by referring to "big girl panties?" If I'd merely said "panties" would THAT have been sexist? If I'd made a remark about carrying a purse, would THAT have been sexist?
I think that you are over reacting and looking for sexism where none exists. If you can, please enlighten me as to why and how my remarks are indeed sexist. If not, please quit hurling insulting and defamatory remarks. I take exception to being labeled sexist.
Gasman, I am one of your fans. But with men usually it's "briefs," isn't it?
ReplyDeleteYou have not answered WHY you did it. Why are you talking about women's underwear in this context?
Face it: you were using the term as a pejorative; you were implying that Pres. Obama is "girly and weak" for not having pursued Bush and Cheney. That is sexist; it infers that women are weak.
Why didn't you tell him to pull up his briefs?
I don't really know how to interpret the phrase, but I assume that big girl panties is a way of saying he is weak, and to at least be as strong as a big girl, if not a man.
ReplyDeleteNot to belabor this point anymore than we already have, the Oxford Online Dictionary gives this definition of “sexism”:
ReplyDelete“Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.”
How is “big girl panties” prejudicial, stereotyping, or discriminatory? What group traits, characteristics, or assumptions have I implied based upon gender? As far as I can tell, that term does not met the criteria. Not even close. Am I to infer that any mention of any article of clothing or any object that might nominally be associated with a specific gender is to be considered sexist? Isn’t that overreaching a little? What if I’d said purse? How about perfume? What about “briefs?” How is referring to that item of clothing any more or less offensive? If briefs are nominally associated with boys, is that not also sexist? At what point is mentioning an inanimate object - which is what I did - sexist? The object itself is gender neutral, despite our associations. While the object in question is normally associated with a specific gender, the item itself possesses no gender. Where is the sexism? In all honesty, think this is a ridiculous assertion.
When author Roz Van Meter writes a book entitled, “Put Your Big Girl Panties On and Deal With It” is it sexist? The publisher describes the book as a “guidebook for real women ready to take charge of their own lives.” Does that sound sexist? If it is not sexist for Van Meter to employ the term, why is it so for a man? Is that double standard itself not sexist? If Van Meter can apply the term to girls and women, why is it ipso facto sexist if a male uses the term to apply to the opposite - i.e., his own - gender? And why do you take offense at that turn about of a term that is apparently perfectly acceptable for a woman to use? That sounds rather sexist to me. If it is offensive when a male uses the term, it should be equally offensive when a female uses it.
I have never, not once, NEVER, in my nearly 5 decades on this planet been accused of being sexist by anyone, EVER.
If you are going to hurl what I consider to be one of the most serious of defamatory insults possible, you better be able to illustrate very clearly how what I said actually was sexist. You have yet to do so I am a reasonable, well educated man who is not beyond learning and admitting error. Please, educate me. If you can convince me of how the remark in question could possibly be considered sexist, I’ll be the first to apologize. If I cannot see - or be made to see - where the sexism lies, how am I supposed to be able to avoid using it?
The term is common enough in modern useage and I can find no reference, anywhere on the web, by anyone else that has labeled the term sexist. Honestly, you are the first person I have ever heard label it so. If you are the only one to take offense at the term, why does that make it sexist? Why look for sexism where none exists?
If I don’t get the memos, how am I supposed to avoid being sexist?
Gryphen. I really enjoyed your post.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time we too protested here in Sydney, Australia. We arrived at the designated point in the CBD and we couldn't move because of gridlock, between the starting point and the finishing point. There were just so many people. It was estimated at the time to be around 100,000 people (there must have been many times that many people) but that number was given by the then "Liberal" government, whose leader was Mr. John Howard, a bum buddy of Bush and Blair. Who loved the idea of getting around with the "big boys", strutting the international stage and starting wars.
That day we marched with nuns and priests, the old and young and everything in between. It was one of the best days of my life and I really truly believed at the end of that day, with all of that goodwill, that we really could make a statement about this ridiculous war.
However that night on the news, we were told by our then Prime Minister, that "he was not going to be swayed by a bunch of rabble". There were similar protests in every capital city in Australia, but it made no difference to his decision to join Bush and Blair. To once again involve Australians in a stupid war.
I hope they try Blair (who I used to like) and I would love it if our current government did the same to our senile old former Prime Minister, who too has blood on his hands.
I just re-read my comment and it's like something SP would have written. Sorry about incoherent rant, but I'm very passionate about this topic.
ReplyDelete