Should Tony Blair be indicted as a war criminal?

Much Ado About Nothing.

The Establishment has been seen to investigate one of its own so transparency and openness can be claimed and they can all pat each other on the back and tell each other how wonderful they are.

In terms of real input and clarity into what happened - nothing of real consequence.

Alwaysneil said:

I'm not sure I could be bothered to indict Blair.

Dr Kelly's death is an strange one in that it all looked a bit odd. It felt to me like what I would do if I was in a Bourne film or was Putin. Just deal with him.

I hope that didn't happen, his death did seem strange at the time.

Never!

"Operation Mason, the official police investigation into Dr. Kelly’s death, started nine hours before his family even reported him missing.

One of the key witnesses to the Hutton Inquiry and the man who found Dr. Kelly’s body, Detective Constable Coe, now admits that there was surprisingly little blood at the scene for a man who supposedly bled to death. Stunningly, he also admits that he lied to the inquiry in saying that there was only himself and his partner at the scene that day, now admitting that there was an unidentified third man there that many have speculated was someone with the security services.

David Bartlett, the paramedic who pronounced Dr. Kelly dead at the scene, claimed that his body had obviously been moved and confirmed there was surprisingly little blood near the body, saying “I’ve seen more blood at a nosebleed than I saw there.” He also said that as soon as the body was found, the police threw a “blackout” around the scene. He was even banned from speaking to his own control room over radio, the first time that this had happened in his career."


Nothing untoward went on there then!

Don't remember much opposition to the war in this country. A few hundred thousand marching in London when a few million would have stopped it. People just couldn't be bothered!

Absolute hypocrisy to blame Blair or Bush.

Interesting STEVEREEVE so if Blair and Bush are not to blame for the mess in The Middle East, the rise of fundamentalism in Iraq that never existed before who is?

I don't think the world is a worst place now Saddam is gone but what we have now is worse, Saddam's army was decimated in the first gulf conflict and represented no threat to the region from that perspective he was a busted flush but he did keep order in his own country. Sometimes you have to accept things that are not very edifying because the alternative is much worse.

This was all about Bush wanted revenge for the fact that Saddam very nearly polished Bush Snr. off when he was poisoned in Kuwait after Desert Storm and nothing was going the change that. Al Quida knew that 9/11 would initiate this and so it did, we played right into their hands.

so don't tell me Bush and Blair are not responsible they sit 100% in the middle of the mess they created

Read Norman Baker's book a few years back called ( I think) " The Strange Death Of Dr David Kelly."
It was certainly a very unusual matter, it would appear, from what our Norman had to say about it, especially considering he was himself an MP at the time.
I very much doubt the truth will ever be known by us. But it does appear that the official view is open to question.

Chilcott won't be able to fully find out what Blair was being told by the Americans with regard to WMD and the Iraqi's capability of using them. Why because the Americans won't tell him.

If there is a villain of this piece then I think you can look no further than the CIA.

cafctom said:

It's wishful thinking but is there any chance of just having a thread called "Politics"....and all this stuff can be debated in there along with Brexit, taxes, Boris Johnson and whatever else ?

Yes it's wishful thinking.

This piece of filth really is a top drawer C*NT who is very lucky to be walking freely without minimum incarceration.

Sharia Law isn't even good enough for him and Bush.

So many lives lost needlessly in their desire for the riches of Oil.

He really is the lowest of the low and the catalyst to a lot of the global unrest we find ourselves in.

daveaddick said:

Saddam's army was decimated in the first gulf conflict and represented no threat to the region from that perspective he was a busted flush but he did keep order in his own country.

Both the Fedayeen Saddam and the Iraqi Army were devastated by the First Gulf War. However, the Republican Guard were not, with only one division being disbanded after the war due to losses..

Indeed, the Republican Guard, made up mainly of Sunni Muslims, was made up of two Corps - both with Armoured Division including T72 tanks - and two further 'Special' Divisions for the 2003 War. An estimated total of over 80,000 highly trained and well equipped troops.

Lower_Westsider said:

This piece of filth really is a top drawer C*NT who is very lucky to be walking freely without minimum incarceration.

Sharia Law isn't even good enough for him and Bush.

So many lives lost needlessly in their desire for the riches of Oil.

He really is the lowest of the low and the catalyst to a lot of the global unrest we find ourselves in.

I've heard this claimed many times that the ulterior motive for that war was the oil. Is their oil now piped to the UK and the USA now then? Why didn't we pinch it after the first gulf war when Saddam's army was on its knees?
I (perhaps naively) believe that Saddam was sponsoring terrorism and the WMD thing was the excuse to invade and depose him.

I read somewhere that politicians are just the puppets of the profiteers.

Maybe in a novel or somewhere.

Plumstead_Micky said:

Lower_Westsider said:

This piece of filth really is a top drawer C*NT who is very lucky to be walking freely without minimum incarceration.

Sharia Law isn't even good enough for him and Bush.

So many lives lost needlessly in their desire for the riches of Oil.

He really is the lowest of the low and the catalyst to a lot of the global unrest we find ourselves in.

I've heard this claimed many times that the ulterior motive for that war was the oil. Is their oil now piped to the UK and the USA now then? Why didn't we pinch it after the first gulf war when Saddam's army was on its knees?
I (perhaps naively) believe that Saddam was sponsoring terrorism and the WMD thing was the excuse to invade and depose him.

Not a big expert on this, but what I remember was that Al Qaeda were diametrically opposed to Saddam, and while he wasn't being attacked by them, he was certainly not sponsoring them, or other terrorist groups either. I took this view was simply another excuse for Bush to invade, when almost any soundbite was considered acceptable if it pushed everyone to accept an illegal war.
I see Blair is still pushing the line that the world is better without Saddam. Really, he needs jail time, plus a series of good hard slaps to try and eradicate the nasty thing inside him that says he was always right, despite the facts saying otherwise, and everyone else was wrong. Don't see it happening, but I would love to see that hatefull lying conniving piece of filth in the dock - (re-reading that, it's as if I was writing about KM!!)