"This is nation building - not the starry-eyed type, but nation-building nonetheless. It is not just reconstruction: jobs and simple governance that works are key, and there has to be a strong reconciliation element to the latter...Long enough for tens of thousands of ours and hundreds of thousands of theirs to lose their lives for the Nation Builders, eh, Dave?
The Army's role might evolve, but THE WHOLE PROCESS MIGHT TAKE AS LONG AS 30 TO 40 YEARS. There is absolutely no chance of NATO pulling out."
On 9 August 2009, Paul McGuigan was murdered in Baghdad along with Australian, Darren Hoare.
Their fellow security contractor, Daniel Fitzsimons, a former paratrooper, shot them.
In March 2011, Fitzsimmons was sentenced to twenty years in jail by an Iraqi court.
"Our advocacy is for a fair process overseen by the Independent Election Commission, taking into account the decisions of the Election Complaints Commission, a process which then elects a government that is legitimate and reflects the will of the people who voted...Holbrooke, who has since died, was Jewish.
During that process there are going to be many claims of irregularities; THAT HAPPENS IN EVERY DEMOCRACY. We recently had a senatorial election in Minnesota which took seven months to determine the outcome, THERE WERE SO MANY CHARGES OF IRREGULARITIES... THAT HAPPENS IN DEMOCRACIES, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR."
“Before the US invasion of March 2003 some very shrewd heads who knew that weird country well tried to advise Washington that it would not work simply to invade, conquer and then presume all problems would be over. In fact, the White House was informed, the problems would just be beginning.The Daily Telegraph quoted Peter Brierley thus as Tony Blair offered to shake his hand during the reception that followed a service at St Paul’s to commemorate the dead of the Iraq war:
But those two MALIGN IDIOTS DONALD RUMSFELD AT DEFENCE AND DICK CHENEY AS VICE-PREZ KNEW BETTER. The invasion and conquest was textbook but with the massive superiority in firepower why would it not be? THEN CAME UTTER CHAOS.
Without a clue what to do next the terrible twins fired the entire Iraqi army who, unemployed but armed to the teeth, promptly became insurgents. Also fired en masse was the Baath Party and with them went any chance of administering the conquered country. Al Qaeda had a field day. Previously proscribed by Saddam Hussein, who was a secular monster, not a religious one, THE RELIGIOUS NUTTERS FORMED COMMON CAUSE WITH THE REBELLIOUS IRAQIS AND THE DEATH TOLL OF AMERICAN AND BRITISH TROOPS BEGAN. That lasted for six years, LONGER THAN THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
As for the cost, don’t even ask. THE AFGHAN MISCALCULATION HAS BEEN JUST AS BAD… It is a simple fact that you cannot defeat a fanatical terrorist movement if it has four things. LIMITLESS FUNDS (THE HEROIN CROP), LIMITLESS RECRUITS (THE MADRASSAH SCHOOLS), A FRIENDLY BORDER (THE PAKISTAN SANCTUARY) AND A DISCREDITED AND CORRUPT SPIV AS THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT (KARZAI).
Now General McChrystal expresses the hope he can persuade the Taliban to return to their villages and join the struggle to rebuild Afghanistan. As what? Why, AS A SECULAR DEMOCRACY. But that is exactly what the Taliban loathe. THEY WANT AN ULTRA-HARSH SHARIA-GOVERNED CALIPHATE...
Maybe our Yankee allies should listen a bit more. We have a lot of experience and superb fighting men and women. TROUBLE IS WE ALSO HAVE A RUBBISH GOVERNMENT".
“DON’T YOU DARE. YOU HAVE MY SON’S BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS!”Peter added:
“AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THAT MAN IS A WAR CRIMINAL. I can’t bear to be in the same room as him. I cannot believe he’s been allowed to come to this reception. I sat through that service listening to people preaching to me about tolerance but I DON’T THINK ANYONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO TOLERATE BEING IN THE SAME ROOM AS HIM.Flight Lieutenant Kristian Gover
HE HAS MADE £14MILLION ON THE BACK OF TAKING US TO WAR AND THEY ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT MAKING HIM PRESIDENT OF THE EU. But I BELIEVE HE’S GOT THE BLOOD OF MY SON – AND ALL OF THE OTHER MEN AND WOMEN WHO DIED IN THAT WAR – ON HIS HANDS.
The truth is that WE WENT TO WAR ON THE LIES OF BLAIR AND HIS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. HE SENT OUR FINE MEN AND WOMEN TO FIGHT WITHOUT PROPER TRANSPORT, KIT OR ARMS. And as a result of that decision, I have lost my son."
, was quoted thus by The Times:
“I HOLD TONY BLAIR PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF MY SON. There’s a lot of anger here, and I WOULD LIKE TONY BLAIR TO BE INDICTED AS A WAR CRIMINAL… I’d like someone to apportion blame for what happened in Iraq.Kristian was killed in Iraq. According to The Times, at the official inquiry, the families of servicemen killed in the conflict were saying:
TONY BLAIR LIED TO HIS CABINET, HE LIED TO THE GOVERNMENT, HE LIED TO THE COUNTRY. HE DECEIVED THE COUNTRY ABOUT IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION BECAUSE HE HAD AN AGENDA WITH GEORGE BUSH.”
"TONY BLAIR SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH WAR CRIMES FOR ORDERING BRITISH TROOPS TO INVADE IRAQ”.Amen to that.
“What makes me furious is the demonstrable lack of respect shown by the Government to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, the war dead...The Times added:
I couldn’t believe it when I read that Gordon Brown had phoned Simon Cowell to ask how Britain’s Got Talent contestant Susan Boyle was when she had a breakdown. HE DOESN’T PHONE ANY OF THE BEREAVED MILITARY FAMILIES... I thought it was absolutely disgusting, a real slap in the face for the parents of the hundreds of soldiers killed...
My medal says I am a hero of the Iraqi conflict, a man of outstanding valour and strength of character. But NOW I WORK IN A CALL CENTRE ON HALF MY ARMY PAY."
"Meanwhile, a former senior civil servant has disclosed that he had been critical of the safety of Sea King helicopters used in the Iraq war. Two of the helicopters collided in mid-air in 2003, killing six Royal Navy personnel and one American serviceman. The former civil servant told The Sunday Times that HE HAD WARNED THEY WERE UNAIRWORTHY BUT HAD BEEN OVERRULED BY SUPERIORS, WHO WERE TRYING TO CUT COSTS."Christopher Finney is the Army’s youngest holder of the George Cross. He won it at the age of 18 in Iraq in 2003 when he saved the life of a comrade, Lance Corporal Alan Tudball, after two American A10 Warthog aircraft attacked his Scimitar reconnaissance vehicle in a friendly fire incident that killed Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull.
On 23 May 2009, John Burton, Tony Blair’s political agent in his Sedgefield constituency for 24 years, described his former boss thus in The Telegraph:
“It's very simple to explain the idea of Blair the Warrior. IT WAS PART OF TONY LIVING OUT HIS FAITH… Tony's Christian faith is part of him, down to his cotton socks. He believed strongly at the time, that INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO, SIERRA LEONE, IRAQ TOO, WAS ALL PART OF THE CHRISTIAN BATTLE; GOOD SHOULD TRIUMPH OVER EVIL… HIS RELIGION GAVE HIM A TOTAL BELIEF IN WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG”.That's the shiny-eyed Messiah responsible (along with his best pal, George) for creating hell on earth in Iraq and Afghanistan this twit is talking about. 'Living out his faith?' Whilst so many others were dying from it? Not my kind of Christianity, Johnny. And not Jesus Christ's either.
On 29 July 2009, as the vast majority of British troops were about to take their formal leave of Iraq on the 31st, Giles Merritt, the director of the Security and Defense Agenda Forum Europe, a Brussels-based think-tank, said this:
"By placing so much emphasis on the removal of Saddam Hussein, the British and the Americans ignored all the expert advice. While Saddam was a brutal dictator, he actually kept the lid on the pot and controlled the warring factions. Once he was gone, the coalition found out that Iraq was not a real country as westerners would perceive one and that it had no real social cohesion. It's a patchwork nation, like Afghanistan, and this was where the post-invasion disaster began...Some 46,000 British troops were deployed to Iraq in March and April 2003.
If you send troops into a war without an exit strategy, with no real understanding of the tribal rivalries and historical feuds, and with no appreciation of the politics of the country with which you're engaging, it's asking for trouble… The same can be said, sadly, for Afghanistan.”
A total of 179 would die there. 54 British 'contractors', most of whom were security personnnel, also lost their lives in Iraq.
Darren George was killed in Afghanistan in April 2002.
Ten years later, we were still there and 421 more men and women of the British military had been killed.
“Seven years of military involvement and civilian aid in Afghanistan have succeeded in subduing al-Qaida's activities in that country, BUT HAVE NOT DESTROYED THE ORGANISATION OR ITS LEADER, Osama bin Laden. Nor have they succeeded in eliminating al-Qaida's protectors, the Taliban. THERE CAN BE NO GUARANTEE THAT THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS WILL BRING SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER SUCCESS…Who installed the 'Kabul government?' The Bushes, the Blairs, the bought media and the US-Jewish Neoconservatives who instigated and guided the whole process, that’s who.
It would be better… TO BRING HOME THE GREAT MAJORITY OF OUR FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN... to secure our own borders, gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain, EXPAND OUR INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS ABROAD, CO-OPERATE WITH FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES...
WE WOULD NEED TO REINVENT OURSELVES DIPLOMATICALLY AND MILITARILY... In particular, relationships with our Nato partners, ESPECIALLY WITH THE AMERICANS – our most trusted and valued allies – would alter fundamentally.
LIFE INSIDE THE UK WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE. THERE WOULD BE MORE INTRUSIVE SURVEILLANCE in certain communities, MORE POLICE OFFICERS ON THE STREETS...
THE SIZE OF THE AFGHAN CONFLICT MIGHT GROW, RATHER THAN DECREASE… Recent attacks in Kabul and other centres suggest that THE PRESENT BALANCE OF TERRITORIAL CONTROL IS AT BEST LIKELY TO REMAIN – OR, MORE LIKELY, TO SHIFT IN FAVOUR OF THE TALIBAN…
I ASSUMED, WRONGLY, THAT A DESIRE AMONG ORDINARY AFGHANS FOR PEACE WOULD PREVAIL over the prospect of continued war...
A deadly combination of ANTI-DEMOCRATIC ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM, CORRUPTION AND THE PROXIMITY OF SAFE PAKISTANI HAVENS FOR TERRORISTS ALL MILITATED AGAINST THE NOTION THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE CONVINCING THE BRITISH PEOPLE THAT THEY SHOULD PREPARE THEMSELVES FOR A ‘30-YEAR’ CAMPAIGN...
Sooner rather than later A PROPERLY PLANNED, PHASED WITHDRAWAL OF OUR FORCES FROM HELMAND PROVINCE HAS TO BE ANNOUNCED. If it is an answer that serves, also, to focus the minds of those in the Kabul government who have shown such A POVERTY OF LEADERSHIP OVER THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, then so much the better."
Kim Howells is a former representative of the Communist Party of Great Britain. He now chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee. In February 2009, the former Communist was appointed to the Privy Council.
“The first big American mistake was to give unqualified backing to the Pakistani government, HEEDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THE PAKISTANI ARMY WAS SUPPORTING THE TALIBAN, AND EVEN SENDING AIRCRAFT TO RESCUE ITS LEADERS FROM AFGHANISTAN…On 6 November 2009, Kevin Toolis opined thus in The Daily Express:
Thanks to U.S. Army bungling in the mountains around Tora Bora, Osama Bin Laden and much of the Al Qaeda leadership escaped over the border, taking refuge in Pakistan's anarchic tribal areas.
Then, MUCH MORE DISASTROUSLY, BUSH AND THE WASHINGTON NEO-CONS, SUPPORTED BY TONY BLAIR, DECIDED TO SEIZE THE EXCUSE OFFERED BY 9/11 TO TOPPLE SADDAM HUSSEIN.
I remember a conversation with General Sir Mike Jackson, then head of the Army, in October 2002, months before Blair sought Parliament's endorsement for joining the Iraq invasion. Mike had just returned from talks in Washington about the military planning. 'Getting to Baghdad won't be hard,' he told me. 'But THEY HAVEN'T THE SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO WHEN THEY GET THERE.'
So it proved, of course. Iraq BECAME A QUAGMIRE WHICH HAS COST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES. In recent months, the country has seemed relatively quiet as the U.S. Army has pulled back. But the Americans are desperately apprehensive that the place is a powder keg, where CIVIL WAR COULD ERUPT AT ANY MOMENT...
As for Afghanistan, in 2006 the allies belatedly realised that THE COUNTRY WAS LAPSING INTO A SHAMBLES WHERE ONLY OPIUM-GROWING FLOURISHED. Nato committed troops - pathetically few in number - to stabilise the country and promote democracy…
We entered Afghanistan to evict Al Qaeda. Today, Al Qaeda has moved to Pakistan. But we are still attempting to achieve wholly different and ill-defined objectives in Afghanistan, IMPOSING CENTRALISED ORDER WHERE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN SUCH A THING.
We have got into a situation in which we are there because we are there, and NOBODY WANTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE DEFEAT. Far from building support for Western purposes, IN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN WE ARE TODAY VASTLY MORE UNPOPULAR THAN WE WERE IN 2001, chiefly because of our military operations.
A Pakistani journalist called Ansar Abbasi told the visiting U.S. Under-Secretary of State in August this year: ‘YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT WE HATE ALL AMERICANS. FROM THE BOTTOM OF OUR SOULS, WE HATE YOU.'
Tens of millions of his fellow countrymen feel the same way - and WE, THE BRITISH, ARE INCLUDED IN THEIR BLIND RAGE… We, the British… must stand square with the Americans on the battlefield until they make their own decision, because WE ARE AN ENTIRELY SUBORDINATE PARTNER…
THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IS UNWINNABLE… The sooner President Obama acknowledges this, the sooner our soldiers can come home. We can then pursue new policies towards the Muslim world, in place of THE HUGE FOLLIES WHICH THE U.S. AND ITS ALLIES HAVE PERPETRATED SINCE 9/11.”
"NO WESTERN POLITICAL LEADER CAN ACTUALLY EXPLAIN WHAT OUR TROOPS ARE FIGHTING FOR. Instead WE HAVE BEEN TOLD AN EVER-CHANGING SERIES OF LIES BY BLAIR, BROWN AND BUSH THAT THE TROOPS WERE DYING FOR 'DEMOCRACY, WOMEN’S RIGHTS, DEVELOPMENT AND THE WAR ON TERROR'…Anyone out there disagree with Mr Toolis? Ah yes, the usual globalist suspects. The ones who never seem to do any of the fighting and dying.
Our very presence as ‘foreign crusading invaders‘ is a rallying call for the Taliban’s recruiters and their brain-washed followers. IT IS TIME TO STOP PRETENDING WE CAN TURN AFGHANISTAN INTO A DEMOCRATIC STATE…
We should leave the Afghans to get on with their own wars.”
No one else.
This came in the wake of the deaths of five British soldiers, assassinated by a member of the Afghan security forces, whom they were 'training and mentoring.'
“When people ask why we are in Afghanistan… I ask them to look at this list of terrible atrocities, and I ask them to remember that in Britain alone since 2001, MORE THAN 200 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF PLANNING TERRORIST PLOTS."'Atrocities' and 'plots' that would never have materialised if a treacherous, governmental establishment hadn't, over the course of many decades, conspired to flood our country with foreigners against the stated will of its native, British inhabitants. Brown continued:
"When the main terrorist threat facing Britain emanates from Afghanistan and Pakistan... when we know that they (Al-Qaeda) continue to train and plot attacks on Britain from the region, our mission must not fail... That is the responsibility of leadership, of government, and of our armed forces: to do what is necessary, however difficult, TO KEEP THE BRITISH PEOPLE SAFE. We cannot, must not and will not walk away.”You and Tony Blair were trying 'to keep the British people safe?' Forgive me, Gordon, I thought you and Tony were just trying to butter up Gerge Bush and his Neoconservative mentors. Remind me again, who was it that imported all the Germaine Lindsays, Mohammed Siddique Khans, Shehzad Tanweers and Hasib Hussains into our country? Who has imported millions more since 52 innocent people got blown to bits on 7/7/2005?
Who created all the Brit-bashing race laws to encourage and promote such people and cow a disenfranchised majority into saying and doing nothing as their country was taken from them? Who is it, even now, that a vicious, name-calling PC elite seek to demonise if they ever dare say "boo" to the immigrant goose?
You've always known the answers to these questions, Gordon. When the majority have figured out what you and yours have known all along, when they realise that "the main terrorist threat facing Britain emanates" from Westminster, Washington, Wall Street and the City of London, I doubt that they‘ll be thinking that you were trying to keep them safe. Brown added:
“The biggest domestic threat continues to come from the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan, so it is right that our first line of defence is there.”No, Gordon. Our invasions of Afghanistan upset, and are still upsetting, the Muslim populations of the planet. The sooner we leave, those already here, along with those planning to come, will have less to be upset about.
The first line of defence, Gordon, if you were truly interested in protecting us, would be the Schengen Agreement, the tearing up thereof, and the renunciation of globalism. Schengen ensures that our borders are porous, globalisation ensures that there will always be more who are willing and able to come here and, once here, to ratchet up the 'domestic threat.' Brown added:
“Nowhere is democracy a perfect system.”Least of all here. If democracy worked the politicians whom the majority elect would do what suited that majority instead of routinely ignoring what they want. Brown continued:
"WHAT PEOPLE HERE IN BRITAIN ASK FOR is the same as our forces on the ground ask for – IT’S A CLEAR SENSE OF WHAT SUCCESS IN AFGHANISTAN WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND HOW WE WILL GET THERE."I'm afraid that's nonsense, Gordon. What most of the people here in Britain want is for you to pull the troops out!
On 15 November 2009, The Independent on Sunday reported thus:
"SEVEN OUT OF 10 BRITONS BACK THE INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY'S CALL FOR A PHASED WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM AFGHANISTAN as a landmark report by Oxfam this week exposes the real human cost of the war.Another Independent poll in December told us that 'of 1,000 voters, only 21% backed the argument that the UK was safer as a result' of our being in Afghanistan. That’s 47 per cent v 21 per cent, Gordon. With 71 per cent wanting our lads out of there!
The powerful dossier by the aid agency reveals how WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN AFGHANISTAN ARE BEARING THE BRUNT OF THE ONGOING CONFLICT, undermining the international community's claims that they are the very people being helped by the West's activities.
Its contents will add to mounting concerns… that THE US AND THE UK ARE FIGHTING AN ILL-CONCEIVED AND ILL-JUDGED WAR THAT HAS LEFT AS MANY AS 32,000 AFGHANS DEAD AND 235,000 DISPLACED.
In a ComRes poll for the IoS this weekend, an overwhelming proportion – 71 PER CENT – SUPPORTED THIS NEWSPAPER'S CALL FOR A PHASED WITHDRAWAL OF BRITISH FORCES FROM AFGHANISTAN within a year or so, while JUST 22 PER CENT DISAGREED. NEARLY HALF – 47 PER CENT – THINK THAT THE THREAT OF TERRORISM ON UK SOIL IS INCREASED BY BRITISH FORCES REMAINING IN AFGHANISTAN".
The percentages tell us that your presumption of 'what people here in Britain' actually want is mistaken. Of course, it’s not a mistake really. You know what we want. It's just that, as usual, you, and those who pull your strings, are not in the business of giving it to us.
“Tony Blair for President of Europe is one defeat Gordon Brown should welcome. THE WARMONGER WHO RAN AWAY FROM PARLIAMENT TO MAKE HIS FORTUNE doesn’t deserve the prestigious role… The Cabinet sounded like a Government yesterday when, for once, Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband sang from the same song sheet. But Blair slithering through a divided field tomorrow night to be crowned King of the EU with his Cherie Antoinette would be a disaster. THE SELFISH EX-PM DOESN’T DESERVE THE BRUSSELS JOB AFTER QUITTING THE COMMONS TO CASH IN ON HIS INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS, MAKING £15MILLION AND BUYING A COUNTRY MANSION.There he was, saying all the right things about Blair and up popped the crumby, left-wing Europe-sniffer. They just can’t help it, can they?
Major, Thatcher, Callaghan and Wilson all served their time after eviction from No.10 instead of being too grand to go back and represent their constituents. BLAIR HAS ALSO PROVED A LOUSY MIDDLE EAST PEACE ENVOY, THE IRONY OF APPOINTING THE INVADER OF IRAQ TO WAVE AN OLIVE BRANCH PROVING NO JOKE FOR OPPRESSED PALESTINIANS…
Dodgy Uncle Tony’s such a toxic figure these days it would be impossible to make the EU case with him lording it in Brussels… Labour’s priority, and that of the Euro-friendly Liberal Democrats, must be to persuade people that the EU is a good thing.”
On 21 November 2009, Peter Oborne opined thus in The Daily Mail:
“There are three main areas where Blair may have committed illegal acts while in office. The first concerns corruption, whereby BUSINESSMEN OR LARGE CORPORATIONS WERE ABLE TO INFLUENCE GOVERNMENT POLICY OR GAINED OTHER FAVOURS IN EXCHANGE FOR DONATIONS TO THE LABOUR PARTY (for example, the change in policy over tobacco advertising secured by Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone after he gave £1million to the party).
But the most shocking aspect of the Blair administration - which is ironic, since it introduced the Human Rights Act - was its apparent indifference to human rights. Fresh evidence is emerging every week of the alleged COMPLICITY OF THE BRITISH STATE IN THE TORTURE OF TERRORIST SUSPECTS, particularly after President Bush's White House took a much more brutal approach to such enemies of America after the bombing of the Twin Towers in 2001.
It is inconceivable that British intelligence agents would have been involved in the torture of terror suspects without explicit ministerial sanction. The question is how much did Blair himself know - and THE EVIDENCE HE DID IS GETTING NEARER HIS DOOR ALL THE TIME. A Human Rights Watch report into British complicity with torture is to be published on Tuesday and will add to the pressure.
The third area of potential illegality concerns the still highly controversial decision TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ in March 2003. A number of legal experts argue that THE WAR WAS ILLEGAL AND TONY BLAIR IS THEREFORE GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES. This is why the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war, whose public hearings finally get under way in London next week, is potentially SO DANGEROUS FOR BLAIR. The key question under review is whether THE FORMER LABOUR PRIME MINISTER LIED TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE…
Now that he is a private citizen, and his dreams of the European presidency have evaporated, he is vulnerable as never before.”
Sir Oliver said:
“BOTH GILBERT AND FREEDMAN ARE JEWISH AND GILBERT AT LEAST HAS A RECORD OF ACTIVE SUPPORT FOR ZIONISM. SUCH FACTS ARE NOT USUALLY MENTIONED IN THE MAINSTREAM BRITISH AND AMERICAN MEDIA.”The Jewish Chronicle added:
“Sir Oliver drew attention to the appointment of Holocaust historian and Winston Churchill biographer Sir Martin Gilbert, and the war historian and ‘BLAIR DOCTRINE’ ARCHITECT Sir Lawrence Freedman, who advocated HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO AND AFGHANISTAN. THE TWO MEN WILL BE MADE PRIVY COUNSELLORS in order to sit on the inquiry committee.”
The fact that both of these Jewish gentlemen would almost certainly be sympathetic to the governmental behaviours of New Labour would not be likely to increase the confidence of those hankering after 'fair play.'
“In his infamous Commons speech, Blair conjured up an apocalyptic vision of the danger that a bomb composed of nuclear materials might pose on the streets of London. The implication was clear, in order to avert such a threat, Iraq had to be invaded as soon as possible. Yet THE IDEA OF IRAQ BEING ABLE TO PLANT SUCH A DIRTY BOMB ON THE STREETS OF LONDON WAS PURE FANTASY.
SUCH MENDACIOUS BEHAVIOUR FROM A PRIME MINISTER IS BREATH-TAKING. If the chairman of a leading company which was being floated on the London stock exchange had been as cavalier with the truth about his firm’s financial wellbeing, there is no question that the fraud squad would have mounted an investigation and that the chairman would have been arrested, tried and, in due course, sent to jail. The irony is that Tony Blair has since moved into the City, where HE WORKS AS A CONSULTANT TO THE INVESTMENT BANK MORGAN STANLEY.
Meanwhile, Blair is not alone in his complicity in spinning lies in the run-up to the war with Iraq. How many of his senior Cabinet ministers... knew what he was doing, yet failed to lift a finger to stop him? For instance, JACK STRAW WAS FOREIGN SECRETARY AT THE TIME. HARRIET HARMAN, LABOUR’S DEPUTY LEADER, WAS IN A SIMILAR POSITION. Back in 2003, she was Solicitor General and would have been aware of all the details of how Blair brought pressure to bear on the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to make the crucial judgment that the war was legal. She, too, must have at least suspected that Blair was lying.
The biggest question, however, relates to the position of Gordon Brown. At the time of the invasion he was Chancellor and by far the most powerful member of Blair’s Cabinet. The Chilcot Inquiry must now find out what access Brown was given to intelligence material. Most vitally, WAS HE PRIVY TO THE CONSPIRACY TO DECEIVE THE BRITISH PEOPLE ON THE EVE OF WAR?”
“Mandelson now only seems truly at home in grand country houses or on the yachts of billionaires such as his Russian oligarch friend Oleg Deripaska, whose guest he was during the summer of 2008.
The truth is that his attendance at a shooting party with Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi's son is a perfect parable of the decadent Left's embrace of everything it claims to despise. Nor is Mandelson an exception.
PRACTICALLY EVERY MEMBER OF TONY BLAIR'S CABINET WHICH TOOK OFFICE IN 1997 HAS SINCE SOLD OUT TO WEALTH AND POWER. BLAIR HIMSELF IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. SINCE LEAVING OFFICE, HE HAS BECOME A POPULAR MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL PLUTOCRACY; A CONSULTANT TO AN INVESTMENT BANK WHO HAS EARNED AN ESTIMATED £15 MILLION SINCE LEAVING DOWNING STREET. WHILE AT NO 10, BLAIR WAS SHAMEFULLY ATTRACTED TO EXTREMELY RICH MEN…
Numerous ministers from the Blair years have exploited their Whitehall experience to go on to earn fat fees in the private sector. Indeed, SOME OF THOSE WHO BOASTED LOUDEST ABOUT THEIR WORKING CLASS CREDENTIALS, SUCH AS JOHN PRESCOTT, HAVE BEEN AMONG THE GREEDIEST.
Nor should it be forgotten that MPS' CULTURE OF CHEATING OVER THEIR EXPENSES TOOK ROOT DURING THE NEW LABOUR YEARS (although, of course, many Tories were just as bad…
THE LABOUR PARTY HAS LOST ITS MORAL CENTRE. ITS LEADERS HAVE NAUSEATINGLY SOLD OUT TO THE ARISTOCRATIC LIFESTYLE AND WORLD OF HIGH FINANCE THAT THEY CLAIMED TO ABHOR.”
“I regarded our invasion of Iraq as legal but OF QUESTIONABLE LEGITIMACY, in that it didn’t have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states or even, perhaps, of a majority of people inside the UK.”
“The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. THIS WAS A FOREIGN POLICY DISGRACE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage. It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that TONY BLAIR ENGAGED IN AN ALARMING SUBTERFUGE WITH HIS PARTNER GEORGE BUSH AND WENT ON TO MISLEAD AND CAJOLE THE BRITISH PEOPLE INTO A DEADLY WAR THEY HAD MADE PERFECTLY CLEAR THEY DIDN’T WANT, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible. Who is any longer naive enough to accept that the then Prime Minister’s mind remained innocently open after his visit to Crawford, Texas?…The rats are leaving the establishment ship at a wonderfully alarming rate, are they not? If anyone out there thinks I’m being harsh, associating MacDonald with the bringers of Black Death, I ask you this: why did he not speak out when it mattered? Was he really 'tricked into war?' Were the parliamentarians and the press who lusted for it at the time equally 'tricked?'
BLAIR’S FUNDAMENTAL FLAW WAS HIS SYCOPHANCY TOWARDS POWER… WASHINGTON TURNED HIS HEAD AND HE COULDN’T RESIST THE STAGE OR THE GLAMOUR THAT IT GAVE HIM. IN THIS SENSE HE WAS WEAK AND, AS WE CAN SEE, HE REMAINS SO. Since those sorry days we have frequently heard him repeating THE SELF-REGARDING MANTRA THAT ‘HAND ON HEART, I ONLY DID WHAT I THOUGHT WAS RIGHT‘. But THIS IS A NARCISSIST’S DEFENCE AND SELF-BELIEF IS NO ANSWER TO MISJUDGMENT: IT IS CERTAINLY NO ANSWER TO DEATH. ‘Yo, Blair‘, perhaps, was his truest measure…
IN BRITISH PUBLIC LIFE, LOYALTY AND SERVICE TO POWER CAN SOMETIMES COUNT FOR MORE TO INSIDERS than any tricky questions of wider reputation. IT’S THE REGARD YOU ARE HELD IN BY YOUR PEERS THAT REALLY COUNTS, SO THAT STEADFASTNESS IN THE FACE OF ATTACK AND THREATENED EXPOSURE BRINGS ITS OWN RICH HIERARCHY OF HONOUR AND REWARD. Disloyalty, on the other hand, means a terrible casting out, a rocky and barren Roman exile that few have the courage to endure…
IT IS PRECISELY THIS PRIVATELY ARRANGED NATURE OF BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT POWER, STUBBORN BEYOND SYMPATHY FOR YEARS IN THE FACE OF THE MODERN WORLD, THAT HAS BROUGHT OUR POLITICS SO LOW. If Chilcot fails to reveal the truth without fear in this Middle Eastern story of violence and destruction, the inquiry will be held in deserved and withering contempt. This would be a serious blow to the integrity of the State. It would not restore trust…
THE TAX ON DISHONESTY IS RISING… CITIZENS BELIEVE DEEPLY IN A DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO KNOW AND THEY NO LONGER ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR UNWORTHINESS TO ENJOY ITS NOURISHMENT. Naturally, THIS IS A LESS COMFORTABLE WORLD FOR PEOPLE IN POWER, BUT IT’S A MUCH BETTER WORLD FOR EVERYONE ELSE. The real tragedy of Iraq, beyond all the danger and the terrible loss, is that it rendered any affair of the heart between government and people no more than a wisp, like A LIE IN THE WIND. It broke faith…
We have seen enormous acts of courage on the part of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most heart-rending sacrifices have been made… But none of this sprinkles, as he might once have hoped it would, any starlight on Tony Blair. On the contrary, it is entirely the work of WARRIORS THRUST CARELESSLY INTO DEATH’S WAY BY A PRIME MINISTER LOST IN SELF-AGGRANDISEMENT and a governing class too closed to speak truth to power.”
Ladies and gentlemen, many thousands of us knew the score. We knew why the war was being fought and in who’s behalf. But the bought media did not allow us a mainstream voice. The establishment, of which Ken MacDonald was an integral part, was banging the drum for war and it didn’t want those unworthy of the 'right to know' afforded the 'nourishment' of any truth contrary to the Blairite spin.
Many of the elite characters slavering for a great slaughter at the time will, indeed, have been 'tricked,' in so far as they chose not to question what they ought to have been questioning. In so far as they did not investigate in any depth what they should have.
MacDonald was one of those who went along with 'a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions.' He wasn’t interested in challenging and/or exposing Tony Blair’s 'sycophancy' at the time. He, with many others, aided and abetted Bush and Blair as they 'went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want.'
The MacDonalds were much better placed to know what the reality was than the many, outside the loop, who protested. And, if they were not aware of the full facts, they would easily have been able to find out what they were if they had chosen to do so.
“Like witch-hunters of the 17th century, they were convinced they (Bush and Blair) had their witch in front of them… THEY SEARCHED FOR THE EVIDENCE AND BELIEVED IT WITHOUT CRITICAL EXAMINATION… THEY EXERCISED VERY BAD JUDGMENT. A modicum of critical thinking would have made them sceptical. WHEN YOU START A WAR WHICH COST THOUSANDS OF LIVES YOU SHOULD BE MORE CERTAIN THAN THEY WERE…After Blix said that Bush and Blair had 'MISLED THE PUBLIC,' The Daily Mail opined that Bush and Blair were 'men who were so desperately seeking to justify the invasion… that THEY WERE DEAF TO REASON AND BLIND TO LOGIC.' It continued:
We found a few documents and some conventional weapons - grenades and so forth - NOTHING MORE. The message that should have gone to the intelligence services was that YOUR SOURCES MUST HAVE BEEN BAD. IF YOUR SOURCES ARE BAD IN THESE CASES, MAYBE THEY'RE BAD IN OTHERS…
If the UK had really insisted then on the UN path being exhausted, they could have slowed the military build-up ... but that wasn't the case… They eventually had so much military in the Gulf that THEY FELT THEY HAD TO INVADE…
THE WAR, IN MY VIEW, WAS ILLEGAL... THE BRITISH KNEW THE EVIDENCE WAS THIN, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE REMEMBERED THAT BEFORE THEY STARTED SHOOTING”.
“Hans Blix… revealed that Mr BLAIR TRIED TO FORCE HIM TO CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT THE ABSENCE OF WMDS IN IRAQ TO PLACATE THE AMERICANS…
Mr Blix dismissed the 'dodgy' Downing Street dossier on Saddam's weapons which made the case for war as 'A POLITICIAN'S TWIST'. The claim that Iraq could fire chemical weapons in 45 minutes was 'HYPERBOLE'. Mr Blix's inspectors viewed 700 supposed WMD sites in the months before the war but found nothing more than a handful of empty chemical munitions.
Five weeks before the invasion he revealed these findings to the UN and six days later Mr BLAIR TOLD HIM HIS REPORT HAD UNDERMINED AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR THE UN PROCESS. But Mr Blix stuck to his guns AND WARNED THE FORMER PRIME MINISTER NOT TO INVADE…
Asked whether Mr Blair could be tried for war crimes, Mr Blix said: 'Well, YES, MAYBE SO'… Mr Blix said HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO TESTIFY TO THE CHILCOT INQUIRY INTO THE WAR BUT HAD NOT BEEN ASKED TO ATTEND.
The inquiry heard yesterday that BRITISH TROOPS WERE DELIBERATELY PUT IN GREATER DANGER IN ORDER TO INCREASE MR BLAIR'S INFLUENCE WITH THE AMERICANS…
The chances of Gordon Brown being called to give evidence increased yesterday when THE INQUIRY HEARD HE HAD REFUSED TO RELEASE ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO REBUILD BASRA FOLLOWING THE INVASION…
He (Blair) knew for certain soon after the occupation that SADDAM HAD NO CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS... Disgracefully, however, IT TOOK THE BRITISH AND AMERICANS MONTHS TO ADMIT THAT THEY WEREN'T THERE, and it wasn't until January, 2005, that the U.S. announced that the search had finally been abandoned...
The Chilcot inquiry has clearly reawakened so many memories... Sir John would only need to lift the phone and - much to Blair's discomfort - THE MAN WHO WARNED HIM ABOUT THE ABSURDITY OF GOING TO WAR ON A FALSE PREMISE would board the next London-bound plane.”
"If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?"Blair replied:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO USE AND DEPLOY DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE THREAT.”We know, Tony. No matter what we wanted, you would have 'deployed' whatever argument you thought might get us into Iraq alongside you best buddy, George, wouldn't you? In the end, you and the smirking chimp knew so much better than the rest of us, that’s the real point, isn’t it? In a democracy, the elite just can’t afford to let the people decide. They might just do something that doesn’t suit the suits. Blair continued:
“I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons in charge.”Saddam may have been a monster but, if he had still been in charge, and Bush and Blair hadn‘t invaded, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive today who are now dead. I guess even a consummate liar like Tony B would have to admit the dead would have been 'better' off.
“That's why I sympathise with the people who were against it for perfectly good reasons and are against it now”.Pardon me? I seem to remember you sneering at the peaceniks. Didn’t you say this the day after two million Brits marched in protest against the looming war in Iraq?
"I read the anti-war sites and listen to the protesters and I realise that they haven't a clue, or worse, they just don't give a damn."Blair continued:
“This was obviously the thing that was uppermost in my mind. THE THREAT TO THE REGION.”The region? You mean Israel, don’t you, Tony?
“Also the fact of HOW THAT REGION WAS GOING TO CHANGE AND HOW IN THE END IT WAS GOING TO EVOLVE AS A REGION and whilst he was there, I thought and actually still think, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE CHANGED IT IN THE RIGHT WAY."The right way? That would the way Israel and the US Neocons (most of whom were Jewish) wanted it, I suppose?
“Having written a two-volume biography of Blair, and edited three further books on his governments, I believe that something has changed within him and that HIS CONVICTIONS HAVE MOVED TOWARDS PERVERSITY…Trust me, Anthony, this man has never been up for putting any 'pressure on Israel'. That’s never been his job and never will be. If 'pressure on Israel' was part of the job description, he’d resign.
Deep down, he must know that HE MADE ERRORS OVER IRAQ, but he adamantly refuses, like Eden, to acknowledge them. A similar insensitivity can be seen over HIS CONSPICUOUS DISPLAYS OF AFFLUENCE… He cannot seem to see that IT IS NOT WORDS ABOUT RELIGION OR MORALITY THAT CARRY FORCE WITH PEOPLE, BUT ACTIONS…
HE SHOULD ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MISLEADING THE BRITISH PUBLIC OVER THE REASON FOR COMMITTING BRITISH TROOPS TO FIGHT… BLAIR SHOULD SHOW CONTRITION FOR OTHER ERRORS OF JUDGMENT…
Blair's style rarely tolerated divergent opinions. MANY IN THE FOREIGN OFFICE AND ACROSS THE ARMED FORCES WERE UNHAPPY OVER THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR AND THE WAY IT WAS PLANNED, BUT BLAIR DID NOT CREATE A CLIMATE CONDUCIVE TO THEIR VIEWS BEING HEARD…
He should admit to failing to… achieving real pressure on Israel to move towards a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict WHICH UNDERLINES SO MUCH OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE MUSLIM WORLD WITH THE WEST”.
“It’s not true that NOBODY LIKES ME… There is a completely different atmosphere around me OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY… They don’t see anything wrong with being successful financially and also DOING GOOD WORK.”Doing good work for whom, Tony? For the many hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis who are now dead? For the dead and wounded British soldiers and their grieving loved ones? Haven’t seen much evidence of that, Tony.
The Sunday Times articles told us that Tony B believes he is 'doing good work… in Palestine.'
I wonder how many Palestinians would agree with his assessment? Perhaps he’s had a change of heart recently but, when he was Prime Minister, he was just about the most pro-Jewish holder of that office ever.
Anyone out there doubt what I’m saying here? Do you think Our Dear Former Leader went to war in Iraq on behalf of the most convincing, charismatic and politically persuasive leader of the Western World ever, George Bush? Well, maybe, but who was pulling the smirking chimp's strings behind the scenes? I’ll give you a clue. In the 5 April 2003, edition of the Israeli daily, Ha’aretz, the admirably honest Israeli journalist, Ari Shavit, said this:
"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, MOST OF THE JEWISH, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history."'Pushing' you as well, eh Tony? The Sunday Times added:
“Since leaving office in 2007, Blair has divided his time between unpaid humanitarian work and LUCRATIVE ACTIVITIES ADVISING BANKS, COMPANIES AND ARAB GOVERNMENTS. There has been criticism of his high fees for public speaking, but Blair responded…'Do a business model,' Tony? Reaping the rewards of your treachery, more like.
'If all I wanted to do was make speeches, let me tell you, I COULD MAKE FIVE TIMES THAT NUMBER… Nobody says Bill Gates is bad for moving from business to philosophy. Why shouldn't a politician DO A BUSINESS MODEL when they change their life’?”
On 22 December 2009, Gordon Brown said this whilst being interviewed by the British Forces Broadcasting Service:
"I have got absolutely no doubt that WE ARE TAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY…In his 1985 book A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, Professor, Charles Silberman tells us this:
The very presence of our forces in Afghanistan, taking on the Taliban and preventing the return of al Qaida, has A DIRECT LINK TO THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF PEOPLE IN OUR STREETS AND IN OUR NEIGHBOURHOODS IN BRITAIN TODAY. Every time I think WE HAVE TAKEN THE RIGHT DECISION about what our objectives have got to be. We have got to protect the safety of British citizens…
If you are trying to deal with a terrorist threat that operates from Pakistan and has links to Afghanistan, you have got to deal with it where the epicentre of global terrorism is. So I think WE HAVE MADE THE RIGHT DECISIONS ALL ALONG on this…
WE HAVE BEEN IN AFGHANISTAN LONGER THAN THE SECOND WORLD WAR, LONGER THAN THE FIRST WORLD WAR… IT HAS TAKEN A LONG TIME, BUT WE HAVE A STRATEGY."
“Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief… that JEWS ARE SAFE ONLY IN A SOCIETY ACCEPTANT OF A WIDE RANGE OF ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOURS, AS WELL AS A DIVERSITY OF RELIGIOUS AND ETHNIC GROUPS. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social issues’.”
Professor Kevin McDonald comments thus upon the above quote:
“He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of THEIR REAL GOAL OF DILUTING A SOCIETY'S HOMOGENEITY SO THAT JEWS WILL FEEL SAFE… Likewise, as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, JEWS MAY SUPPORT DEVIANT MOVEMENTS, NOT BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY BUT BECAUSE IT IS GOOD FOR THE JEWS.”
There you go, Dave!
Two more "extremists" who aren't too keen on your favourite world-changers. Both of them utterly deserving of a Cameronian ban, don't you think? Oh, I beg your pardon, Professor Silberman is Jewish, isn’t he?
Guess you’ll have to make do with our Kev.
David Cameron's great-grandfather was a Jewish immigrant.
"TONY BLAIR WAS WARNED TWO MONTHS BEFORE THE INVASION OF IRAQ THAT IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL TO GO TO WAR WITHOUT UN BACKING... SENIOR GOVERNMENT LAWYERS TOLD THE IRAQ INQUIRY THAT THEY ADVISED THE ACTION HAD 'NO LEGAL BASIS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW'.
Last night it was reported EVERY ONE OF THE 27 LAWYERS IN THE DEPARTMENT ADVISED THE WAR WAS ILLEGAL. Yesterday Sir Michael Wood, who was the Foreign Office’s chief legal adviser, told the hearing HE WARNED THE THEN FOREIGN SECRETARY JACK STRAW AN INVASION WOULD 'AMOUNT TO THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION'.
Sir Michael said he considered resigning in protest at the decision to join the US-led attack. He described how HE WAS SIDELINED AFTER HE MADE CLEAR HIS OBJECTIONS TO MILITARY ACTION. His deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, quit in protest on the eve of the invasion in March 2003...
Newly declassified Government papers show Lord Goldsmith, then Attorney General, was initially 'pessimistic' that there was sufficient legal basis for military action. HE WAS URGED TO CHANGE HIS VIEW BY MR STRAW – AND EVENTUALLY RULED IT WAS LAWFUL. Sir Michael told the inquiry: 'He [Straw] took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that HE WASN’T USED TO PEOPLE TAKING SUCH A FIRM POSITION.'
Ms Wilmshurst told the inquiry the FOREIGN OFFICE LAWYERS HAD BEEN UNITED IN THEIR BELIEF OF THE NEED FOR A SECOND UN RESOLUTION. But she said: 'IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS NOT GOING TO STAND IN THE WAY OF THE GOVERNMENT... THE PROCESS THAT WAS FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE WAS LAMENTABLE'...
Labour MP John McDonnell SAID IT BROUGHT THE PROSPECT OF A TRIAL OF TONY BLAIR AND OTHER LEADERS OF THE GOVERNMENT AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION A STEP CLOSER. 'The net is clearly closing in on those who took us into the illegal and immoral war. The time is coming when THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE WILL BE FORCED TO CONSIDER THE PROSECUTION OF THOSE WHO PERPETRATED THIS ACT OF UNJUST AGGRESSION'."
On 31 March 2010, Leo McKinstry opined thus in The Daily Express:
“The belief that the party could regain its popularity by wheeling out Tony Blair shows how deluded and desperate Labour has become… In HIS SPECTACULAR GREED, DECEITFUL RHETORIC AND PHONEY MORALITY, HE IS A POTENT SYMBOL OF BOTH THE DISHONEST MISRULE OF THE SOCIALISTS AND THE SELF-SERVING ARROGANCE OF OUR POLITICAL ELITE…
BLAIR’S CAPACITY FOR DUPLICITY AND SPIN WAS ALMOST LIMITLESS, WHETHER IT BE OVER THE WAR IN IRAQ OR STATISTICS ON CRIME. ‘I’M A PRETTY STRAIGHT KIND OF A GUY,’ he said in 1998 during the scandal over the donation of £1million from the Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone to the Labour Party. Those words could hardly sound more hollow, after years of watching Blair twist the truth. This is why his speech in Sedgefield fell so flat. His performance was just another sham… HERE IS A MAN WHO HAS MADE A FORTUNE THROUGH THE RUTHLESSLY, CYNICAL EXPLOITATION OF HIS FORMER OFFICE, WHILE THE GOVERNMENT THAT HE LEFT BEHIND HAS PLUNGED THE COUNTRY INTO THE DEEPEST RECESSION SINCE THE THIRTIES.
Judging by his tangerine visage, Blair has been spending too much time in the past three years on yachts or poolside at luxury hotels abroad, yet throughout this period ORDINARY BRITONS HAVE BEEN GRAPPLING WITH JOB INSECURITY, FALLING PAY AND RISING TAXES, thanks to the epic mismanagement by his party…
Last week, Channel 4’s dispatches programme exposed THE ROTTEN CORE OF THE LABOUR-LED POLITICAL CLASS by revealing how A STRING OF EX-MINISTERS ARE SEEKING TO MAKE MONEY FROM THEIR PUBLIC POSITION. But Blair is by far one of the worst offenders of this sort. Since he resigned the premiership in 2007, he is estimated to have made MORE THAN £20MILLION BY TRADING ON HIS CONTACTS…
His money-grabbing activity includes reported deals with the Kuwaiti royal family and a South Korean oil company, as well as speech-making in the USA where he is reported to charge £100,000 a time. He has built up a property portfolio worth around £12million. Among his homes are a £3.7million town house in the West End of London and a £5.75million country pile in Buckinghamshire…
IN THE 2005 GENERAL ELECTION LABOUR ONLY RECEIVED 35 PER CENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE, and only clung on to power through the quirks of the electoral system. Since then, as Britain has sunk deeper into the mire, we can see even more clearly what an appalling legacy he left us. BLAIR WAS THE LEADER WHO DEGRADED OUR DEMOCRACY WITH SLEAZE AND DESTROYED OUR SOVEREIGNTY WITH HIS CRAVEN SURRENDERS TO EUROPE.
IT WAS BLAIR’S FASHIONABLE DEVOTION TO MULTI-CULTURALISM AND MASS IMMIGRATION THAT TORE APART OUR NATIONAL IDENTITY AND SOCIAL COHESION. HIS ADDICTION TO SO-CALLED HUMAN RIGHTS BELEAGUERED OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. HIS EDUCATIONAL REFORM LED TO A CATASTROPHIC FALL IN STANDARDS. HAVING DEPRIVED THE ARMED FORCES OF THE EQUIPMENT THEY NEEDED, HE FOUGHT TWO BLOODY WARS THAT WERE NOT IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST.”
“Urgent, selfless moral compulsion TO CHANGE THE WORLD for the better is right at the heart of the Jewish way of life. If I become Prime Minister, I want to see that idea of responsibility extend right across our society. A key part of that will be about building a stronger, more COHESIVE society - and that means doing much more to tackle the rise in anti-Semitism."Cohesive, eh Dave? 'Cohesion' being a long-standing Blairite buzz-word. Thing is, you remember the blokes who blew up 52 Londoners on 7/7/2005? Why on earth would anyone want to 'cohere' with the likes of them? Why would we want to hang out in your 'stronger, more cohesive society' when to do so might mean cuddling up to the likes of the 11,546 immigrants in our prison system?
“I was appalled when the Community Security Trust told me that there were more anti-Semitic incidents in the first half of 2009 than in the whole of any previous year.”Ah, the Community Security Trust, an organisation run by the Jewish jailbird and Guinness scandal fraudster, Gerald Ronson. Yes, I can see how our Dave might rate the likes of him. Check out the Community Security Trust.
“WE NEED BIG CHANGES to root out this extremism - stopping preachers of hate from entering this country, BANNING THOSE EXTREMIST GROUPS WHO ARE ALREADY HERE."I’m all for 'stopping preachers of hate from entering this country,' Dave, but as for banning 'extremists,' well, that would depend on your definition of 'extremist,' I guess.
For example, would an 'extremist' be someone who dared to point out Jewish misdemeanour on a regular basis? Because there’s lots of it about, you see. I mean, we’ve all heard of the Neoconservatives who forced the Iraq War upon the world. Not so many, however, realise that most of the leading Neocons are Jewish. Would I be 'banned' from telling such a truth if you were the boss?
What about the Russian Oligrachs who robbed the ordinary people blind during Russia’s particularly nasty variation on the privatisation scam? Would I be banned from telling the world that most of them are Jewish? Would I be able to tell the British people that a good few of them have been buying up the choicest bits of Britain with their ill-gotten gains and folks like your shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, and New Labour's Lord Peter Mandelson have been hanging out with them?
What about sub-prime, the credit crunch and the world-wide recession that we, who had nothing to do with its creation, are now having to pay for? In a society run by you would I not be allowed to point out the leading role that those who have this 'urgent, selfless moral compulsion to change the world for the better' played in it all?
“I am a great admirer of the Jewish people and your extraordinary achievements. I've long seen your community as A SHINING LIGHT IN OUR SOCIETY."We know, Dave. We really do. Most Tory parliamentarians think the same. 80 per cent of them are members of the Conservative Friends of Israel group. Which just happens to be the most influential and most substantially funded lobbying organisation in Westminster.
On 8 June 2010, after describing Tony Blair as the 'special envoy of the Quartet of Middle East peace mediators', the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, quoted him thus:
"I'M 100 PERCENT ON ISRAEL'S SIDE. ISRAEL HAS THE RIGHT TO INSPECT WHAT GOES INTO GAZA."Thus spake the wholly 'impartial special envoy'.
'There are rockets fired from Gaza and that there are people in Gaza who want to kill innocent Israelis,'continued the special one. Hey, Tony, are there any Israelis in Israel (and Jews in the wider world) who want to kill innocent Palestinians? How many of the recently killed and wounded peace activists would have been 'innocent,' do you think? For that matter, how many of the 1300 Gazans killed in the 2009 invasion would have been 'guilty?'
I wonder also, might there be any Israelis in Israel who'd like to kill innocent Iraqis, Lebanese and Iranians? If there were, would this incline you to be '100 per cent' on the 'side' of the Palestinians, Iraqis, Lebanese and Iranians? How about suggesting that the Palestinians, Iraqis, Lebanese and Iranians should 'have the right' to 'inspect' whatever 'goes into' Israel? That'd be fair, wouldn't it?
It's all gone quiet over there, Tony.
But wait! Tony B adds:
"Iran with nuclear weapons is not something we should contemplate or allow"!
How about an Israel 'with nuclear weapons,' Tony? Would that be something the Royal WE 'should allow?'
It's all gone quiet over there again.
Should the world ever afford itself the 'right' to 'inspect' Israel, I suggest that, when the inspection's over, it checks out Tony B's back yard, shed, garage and cellar as well.
“Surely we must now agree that if there was any breath left in satire's frail old lungs.. it was finally snuffed out yesterday WHEN THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER OF THE UNITED STATES AWARDED ITS COVETED ANNUAL LIBERTY MEDAL TO TONY BLAIR FOR HIS 'STEADFAST COMMITMENT TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION'.
With exquisite timing, the centre chose to add our former Prime Minister to its roll of honour… on the day after the declassification of the official advice he received on the legality of invading Iraq. The documents show that LESS THAN TWO MONTHS BEFORE THE 2003 INVASION, ATTORNEY GENERAL LORD GOLDSMITH WROTE TO HIM about the relevant UN Security Council resolution, saying: 'I REMAIN OF THE VIEW THAT THE CORRECT LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF RESOLUTION 1441 IS THAT IT DOES NOT AUTHORISE THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE without a further determination by the Security Council.'
Mr Blair underlined the bit about not authorising action, and wrote in the margin: 'I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS’…
Of course, Mr Blair understood perfectly well that HIS GOVERNMENT'S CHIEF LAW OFFICER WAS TELLING HIM IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL TO INVADE IRAQ without a new UN resolution… But then, Mr BLAIR NEVER DID GET THE HANG OF THIS LIBERTY LARK… Still less did he understand how it depends on subtle constitutional safeguards, including the office of Attorney General, that have evolved over the centuries to keep EGOMANIACAL PRIME MINISTERS in check.
So instead of adapting his conduct according to his advice, and calling off the invasion, he came up with A TYPICALLY BLAIRITE SOLUTION: HE SIMPLY SENT HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL AWAY TO THINK AGAIN - UNTIL, TO HIS ETERNAL SHAME, LORD GOLDSMITH RETURNED WITH THE ADVICE HIS BOSS HAD WANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Suddenly, and mysteriously, he pronounced it legally permissible for Mr BLAIR TO INDULGE HIS TASTE FOR WARMONGERING AND SUCKING UP TO THE AMERICANS - WITH RESULTS THAT THE PARENTS, WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF BRITISH SERVICEMEN AND COUNTLESS IRAQI CIVILIANS WILL MOURN FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.
How will the maimed and bereaved of that unjust and unnecessary war react when they see Mr Blair this September... accepting his Liberty Medal (and his cheque for $100,000) from Bill Clinton in Philadelphia?
But it's not only his Iraq adventure that makes the former Prime Minister SO SPECTACULARLY UNFIT TO RECEIVE AN AWARD FOR 'LEADERSHIP IN THE PURSUIT OF FREEDOM'. Indeed, I CAN'T THINK OF A SINGLE POLITICIAN IN OUR MODERN PEACETIME HISTORY WHO DID AS MUCH AS MR BLAIR TO ERODE OUR TRADITIONAL LIBERTIES, CHIPPING AWAY AT THEIR CORNERSTONES AND VANDALISING EVERY CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLE THAT STOOD IN HIS WAY.
Take the independence of the Civil Service - since Victorian times, one of the firmest guarantors of our freedom and the most reliable check on the lies of ministers. One of Mr Blair's first acts in office was to dispatch an army of partisan 'political advisers' into every Whitehall department, WITH THE JOB OF TWISTING FACTS AND FIGURES TO SUIT THE GOVERNMENT'S PURPOSES…
Or take Cabinet government - a system that evolved to prevent any individual from exercising excessive influence over the affairs of state. Mr BLAIR EFFECTIVELY DID AWAY WITH IT, PREFERRING TO DISCUSS THE DECISIONS THAT REALLY MATTERED WITH ONLY A HANDFUL OF UNELECTED CRONIES, SUCH AS HIS PRESS SECRETARY ALASTAIR CAMPBELL, from the comfort of his Downing Street sofa. On the most important decisions, his Cabinet colleagues were kept completely in the dark, while on others they were treated as mere rubber stamps.
Or Parliament. What other prime minister has treated Lords and Commons with such contempt, bypassing them wherever possible and SPINNING MOST OF HIS PROPOSALS TO THE MEDIA before deigning to announce them in the Palace of Westminster?..
More insidious still was Mr Blair's beloved HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, WHICH HAS TURNED JUDGES INTO LAWMAKERS, BEYOND DEMOCRATIC CONTROL… SETTING THE RIGHTS OF FOREIGN RAPISTS AND WOULD-BE TERRORISTS ABOVE THOSE OF THEIR VICTIMS…
It's the same with the European Union, THAT MONSTROUS AFFRONT TO OUR FREEDOM TO MAKE OUR OWN LAWS. IT WAS MR BLAIR, CLOSELY FOLLOWED BY GORDON BROWN, WHO BETRAYED LABOUR'S PROMISE OF A REFERENDUM ON THE LISBON TREATY, THEREBY CONDEMNING US TO EVER-TIGHTER CONTROL FROM BRUSSELS.”
Tony Blair 'VERY MUCH EXAGGERATED' Iran's role in supporting al-Qaida insurgents in their attacks on British and US forces in Iraq. Sir Richard added:
"I also felt at the time of Mr Blair's testimony to you that HE WAS SEEKING TO CAST A RETROSPECTIVELY BENIGN LIGHT ON A SERIES OF VERY BAD DECISIONS taken about the legality of an attack on Iraq by saying it was not only right to do it, but we might have to do it again...Sir Richard also described George Bush's depiction of Iran as part of an 'axis of evil' as A 'MONSTROUS ERROR.'
I felt strongly then and I do now that A MILITARY ADVENTURE AGAINST IRAN ... WOULD BE ILLEGAL IN THE ABSENCE OF AN IMMINENT AND REAL THREAT TO ANY COUNTRY FROM IRAN. No such nuclear threat exists at present."
“He is THE COMMITTED SOCIALIST WHO YEARNS FOR THE LUXURIOUS LIFESTYLE OF A WEALTHY OLIGARCH... The architect of the rebranding of his party HE ULTIMATELY CAME TO SYMBOLISE THE SHALLOWNESS, DECEIT, ELITISM AND HYPOCRISY THAT MADE LABOUR SO UNPOPULAR. This week Peter Mandelson, THE ‘PRINCE OF DARKNESS’, publishes his memoirs…
As we might expect from a politician who has spent a lifetime practising the arts of guile and duplicity MANDELSON’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY WILL HARDLY PRESENT THE RAW, UNVARNISHED TRUTH… Mandelson will no doubt glide smoothly over the disasters of his career such as his two resignations from Blair’s Cabinet or HIS CENTRAL ROLE IN THE CREATION OF THE £1BILLION MILLENNIUM DOME, THAT EXPENSIVE, HOLLOW MONUMENT TO NEW LABOUR’S VANITY…
Part PANTOMIME VILLAIN, part MACHIAVELLIAN OPERATOR… full of high theatricality and LOW CUNNING he was drawn to power and wealth like an eager bloodhound in search of its quarry... THE SON OF THE ADVERTISING MANAGER OF THE JEWISH CHRONICLE... his ambition drove him to the top... He enjoyed success as a television producer and then AS LABOUR’S CHIEF SPIN-DOCTOR UNDER NEIL KINNOCK...
He twice had to resign from the Cabinet in scandal, the first in 1998 over a property deal in which he failed to reveal that he had been given a private loan of £373,000 by the millionaire Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson, the second in 2001 over accusations that HE TRIED TO INFLUENCE THE AWARD OF BRITISH CITIZENSHIP TO AN INDIAN TYCOON...
He spent an unhappy few years as the British commissioner in Brussels before returning triumphantly to the Cabinet... This was the Indian summer of his political career as HE AMASSED AN ARRAY OF TITLES AND EXERTED UNPRECEDENTED CONTROL OVER GOVERNMENT…
Mandelson’s legacy... is a dubious one. THE TRIUMPH OF SPIN OVER SUBSTANCE DEGRADED POLITICS, LEADING TO ENDLESS MANIPULATION AND STATE PROPAGANDA. Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War, on the basis of a dodgy dossier, was the ultimate emblem of this approach. SPIN, MANDELSON’S CREATION, WAS THE POISON THAT DESTROYED LABOUR FROM WITHIN.”
“MAD, BAD, DANGEROUS AND BEYOND HOPE OF REDEMPTION… FLAWED, LACKING PERSPECTIVE AND HAVING A PARANOIA ABOUT HIM…This is what Blair thought about the man he resigned in favour of.
HE'S LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF THE MAFIOSI. HE'S AGGRESSIVE, BRUTAL… THERE IS NO ONE TO MATCH GORDON FOR SOMEONE WHO ARTICULATES HIGH PRINCIPLES WHILE PRACTISING THE LOWEST SKULDUGGERY.”
On 17 July 2010, in an interview with Matthew Norman, The Daily Telegraph quoted Lord Peter Mandelson as having described Tony Blair thus:
“HE’S ABSOLUTELY HOPELESS… HE’S WEAK, HE’S SHALLOW, HE VACILLATES, HE CAN’T MAKE A DECISION, HE’S ONLY INTERESTED IN HIS OWN GLORY”.On 19 July 2010, security contractor, Nic Crouch, was killed by a suicide bomb in Mosul, Iraq.
"OUR INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ RADICALISED A WHOLE GENERATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE… who saw our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as being an attack on Islam… Arguably WE GAVE OSAMA BIN LADEN HIS IRAQI JIHAD SO THAT HE WAS ABLE TO MOVE INTO IRAQ in a way that he was not before…And yet, despite the fact that Blair was left in 'no doubt' that the intelligence service 'regarded the direct threat from Iraq as low,' on 24 Sept 2002, Tony Blair said this in the House of Commons:
THERE WAS NO CREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE TO SUGGEST THAT CONNECTION AND THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT, I MIGHT SAY, OF THE CIA…
The nature of intelligence – it is a source of information, it is rarely complete, it needs to be assessed, it is fragmentary... WE WERE ASKED TO PUT IN SOME LOW-GRADE, SMALL INTELLIGENCE TO IT [THE SEPTEMBER 2002 DOSSIER] AND WE REFUSED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS RELIABLE…
WE REGARDED THE DIRECT THREAT FROM IRAQ AS LOW... WE DIDN'T BELIEVE HE HAD THE CAPABILITY TO DO ANYTHING IN THE UK..
It was communicated through the JIC assessments, to which I fed in... I believe they [senior ministers] did read them. If they read them, THEY CAN HAVE HAD NO DOUBT."
"It [the intelligence service] concludes that IRAQ HAS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, THAT SADDAM HAS CONTINUED TO PRODUCE THEM, THAT HE HAS EXISTING AND ACTIVE MILITARY PLANS FOR THE USE OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, WHICH COULD BE ACTIVATED WITHIN 45 MINUTES; AND THAT HE IS ACTIVELY TRYING TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITY."And, on 29 Jan 2010, he said this to the Chilcot Inquiry:
"THERE IS SOME INTELLIGENCE EVIDENCE ABOUT LOOSE LINKS BETWEEN AL-QA'IDA AND VARIOUS PEOPLE IN IRAQ... IT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER OF LINKAGES BETWEEN AL-QA'IDA AND IRAQ."He added:
"IF I AM ASKED WHETHER I BELIEVE WE ARE SAFER, MORE SECURE, THAT IRAQ IS BETTER, THAT OUR OWN SECURITY IS BETTER, WITH SADDAM AND HIS TWO SONS OUT OF OFFICE AND OUT OF POWER, I BELIEVE INDEED WE ARE. It was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office, and I DO GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD IS SAFER AS A RESULT."Anyone out there outside of the Westmister village, who thinks this creature should not be sent to The Hague and put on trial for war crimes?
Right, the odd Sedgefield tellietubby, a jostle of new Labour wannabes and some chap in the shadows called Solomon. Apart from that, the verdict semms to be unanimous.
In the 24 July 2010 edition of The Daily Express, Patrick O'Flynn stuck the boot into Tony Blair thus:
"In her testimony to the Iraq Inquiry the highly respected Baroness Manningham-Buller threw the kitchen sink at Blair. She said TOPPLING SADDAM HUSSEIN COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS, THAT IT GAVE OSAMA BIN LADEN HIS 'IRAQI JIHAD', THAT IT LED TO A LOSS OF FOCUS ON THE MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN AND THAT IT RADICALISED MANY YOUNG BRITISH MUSLIMS AGAINST THEIR OWN COUNTRY, INCREASING THE TERROR THREAT WE FACED AND LEADING UP TO 80 BRITISH JIHADISTS TO TRAVEL TO IRAQ TO FIGHT AGAINST OUR FORCES.
She might have added that THE WAR COST HUNDREDS OF BRITISH LIVES, THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN LIVES AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQI LIVES, LED TO IRAN BECOMING THE UNCHALLENGED REGIONAL SUPERPOWER AND DID IMMENSE DAMAGE TO BRITAIN’S REPUTATION… Meanwhile THE LABOUR LEADERSHIP CONTENDERS RACE TO DISSOCIATE THEMSELVES FROM HIM THOUGH ONLY DIANE ABBOTT OBJECTED TO HIS BASIC POLITICAL DIRECTION WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE...
US public opinion is furious about the release of the Lockerbie bomber having got wind of claims of a quid pro quo involving a BP oil deal with Colonel Gaddafi. IT WAS BLAIR WHO LAID THE GROUND FOR THAT OIL DEAL ON A TRIP TO TRIPOLI WHEN HE WAS PM...
A BYWORD FOR FAILURE AT HOME AND FOR CATASTROPHE ABROAD: this is about as far away as it is possible to imagine from the place in history Anthony Blair envisaged for himself."
“IT'S CERTAINLY THE CASE THAT THE THREAT AND NUMBER OF HOME-GROWN TERRORISTS… INCREASED AFTER THE IRAQ WAR. This makes life difficult both for the old government, who have criticisms to answer, and for the current Government. It makes their review of current terrorism law a delicate exercise because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE THREAT."Carlile is Jewish.
In August 2010, the last US combat troops left Iraq.
In the interview Aziz said this:
"Some things became clear to both myself and the president (Saddam) as the world leaders increased their rhetoric against us. THEY WERE GOING TO INVADE ANYWAY. BUSH AND BLAIR LIED INTENTIONALLY. THEY WERE BOTH PRO-ZIONIST. THEY WANTED TO DESTROY IRAQ FOR THE SAKE OF ISRAEL, NOT FOR THE SAKE OF THE US AND BRITAIN…I'm not saying that Aziz is the nicest guy that ever lived but he does seem to have more of feel for the facts of the matter than Bush and Blair, don't you think?
There is nothing here any more. Nothing. For 30 years Saddam built Iraq, and now it is destroyed. There are more sick than before, more hungry. The people don't have services. People are being killed every day in the 10s, if not hundreds. WE ARE ALL VICTIMS OF AMERICA AND BRITAIN. THEY KILLED OUR COUNTRY."
Despite having come to an arrangement with the US when he handed himself in seven years before, and having been sentenced to serve 15 years in prison at that time, in October 2010 Tariq Aziz was tried once again by an Iraqi court and sentenced to death.
On 5 September 2011, Israeli Defence Force General, Eyal Eisenberg, said this during a speech at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.
"It looks like the Arab Spring but it can also be A RADICAL ISLAMIC WINTER… THE LIKELIHOOD OF AN ALL-OUT WAR IS INCREASINGLY GROWING.”Oh, wow, so we shouldn’t be surprised if Israel launches a pre-emptive strike with the USA’s blessing, eh Eyal?
You know, to prevent the 'all-out war?'
“IRAN HAS NOT ABANDONED ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM. The opposite it true; IT CONTINUES FULL STEAM AHEAD!”
Oh no, we really shouldn’t be surprised if Israel launches a pre-emptive strike with the USA’s blessing.
“In Egypt, the army is collapsing under the burden of regular security operations, and this is reflected in the LOSS OF CONTROL IN THE SINAI AND THE TURNING OF THE BORDER WITH ISRAEL INTO A TERROR BORDER with the possibility that Sinai will fall under the control of an Islamic entity.”So, with the Egyptian army 'collapsing' and losing 'control,' I guess the Israelis better move their army into Egypt to make sure “an Islamic entity” doesn’t create yet another 'terror border' on Israel’s doorstep?
That’d be what you suggesting here, would it, Eyal?
“IN LEBANON, HEZBOLLAH IS GROWING STRONGER… IT HAS NOT LOST ITS DESIRE TO HARM ISRAEL, and the ties with Turkey aren't at their best.”I wonder why, everywhere you look, there are people who want to 'harm' Israel?
“THIS RAISES THE LIKELIHOOD OF AN ALL-OUT, TOTAL WAR, WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION BEING USED."There’s that 'all-out war' thing again.
Now look, Eyal, you have to be a bit more laid back about these things. If you keep on repeating the phrase, "all-out war," people might get the impression that you’re up for a bit of a kick about yourself!
"My biggest concern today when I think about a threat is the possibility that there'll be another major attack but next time they will have deadlier weapons… I worry very much about the possibility of A GROUP OF TERRORISTS GETTING THEIR HANDS ON A BIOLOGICAL AGENT OF SOME KIND OR A NUCLEAR DEVICE AND SETTING ONE OF THOSE OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF ONE OF OUR CITIES… The death toll would run into the hundreds of thousands.”Write this down:
If a 'biological agent or a nuclear device' hits 'one of our cities,' cherchez le Cheney. The man who got a 42million golden goodbye from Haliburton before 9/11 added:
“The farther we get away from the actual events of 9/11 without a follow-on attack, I THINK IT'S EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO FORGET WHAT THAT MORNING WAS LIKE or to be relaxed and say WELL THAT WAS A ONE-OFF AFFAIR AND THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.”So, you will be reminding them? You going to make sure it happens again?
"The problem still exists.”We know it does, Dickie. You and your proxies keeping doing the most terrible things to innocent people all over the planet. As long as the relatives of the dead still live, the rest of us are going to have that problem you mentioned. Seeing as how they might reasonably presume the Western majority might be closer in moral outlook to a psychopathic former Vice President than them.
“For example, there was a report in The New York Times and The Washington Post of North Korea buying technology from Pakistan in order to enrich uranium to make weapons-based uranium enrichment technology. They've now got the centrifuges, the feedstock and they're in operation."Keep your hard hats on, you Gooks!
"We did, in fact, have a program of ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.“We systematically interrogated the f*** out of the oil-rich enemies of Israel!
“It was done with the approval of the President.”The smirking chimp thought it would be a good idea.
“I heard one of the critics on television since I arrived here in Vancouver, saying this was done to dozens, hundreds of people and was done by the military. No, waterboarding, for example, was used on exactly three individuals.”But all the rest got the illegal treatment they deserved!
“I get as frustrated as anybody I know with the United Nations… Over time, it can be a very, very frustrating organization to work with.”A man like me shouldn’t have to listen to the rest of the world!
“Certainly in the U.S. we've got a major debt problem. I think it's driven primarily by our entitlements programs, the health program, social security and so forth. That's where the bulk of spending is in our budget.”Us rich folks loathe a loser.
“I worry that we'll go looking to the defence department to solve the long-term debt problem, and that won't work. The long-term debt problem is primarily one of entitlements."We’d much rather kill foreigners than take care of our own.
On 5 October 2011, Mohammed Ishtayeh, a member of the Central Committee of Fatah and a confidant of President Mahmoud Abbas, said this on Voice of Palestine radio:
"We do not expect much of the Quartet. THERE IS DISCONTENT WITH ITS ENVOY MR. TONY BLAIR… OUR GENERAL EVALUATION OF HIS EFFORTS IS THAT HE HAS BECOME OF NO USE AT ALL. HE HAS DEVELOPED A LARGE BIAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ISRAELI SIDE and he has lost a lot of his credibility. We hope the Quartet will reconsider the appointment of this person.”The Palestinians have only just noticed the ‘bias?’ Wow!
“WE DIDN'T KNOW ENOUGH AND WE STILL DON'T KNOW ENOUGH. Most of us, me included, had A VERY SUPERFICIAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION AND HISTORY, AND WE HAD A FRIGHTENINGLY SIMPLISTIC VIEW OF RECENT HISTORY, THE LAST 50 YEARS.”McChrystal also said that the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq undermined what they were trying to do in Afghanistan.
"I think they were made more difficult, clearly because THE IRAQ INVASION CHANGED THE MUSLIM WORLD'S VIEW OF AMERICA'S EFFORT. When we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, there was a certain understanding that we had the ability and the right to defend ourselves and the fact that Al Qaeda had been harbored by the Taliban was legitimate. I think WHEN WE MADE THE DECISION TO GO INTO IRAQ THAT WAS LESS LEGITIMATE IN THE EYES OF MUCH OF THE MUSLIM WORLD."On 1 November 2011, The Guardian quoted Palestinian Authority spokesman, Ghassan Khatib, thus:
"There has been a sustained attack since the morning from many sources in many countries. IT IS DELIBERATE AND CONTINUOUS."The Palestinian Telecoms Minister, Mashour Abu Daqqa, told Reuters:
"All Palestinian IP addresses have been exposed to a focused, organised attack from abroad. I THINK THIS IS ORGANISED BY A STATE".The Guardian explained:
“Internet services in the West Bank and Gaza have come under ‘sustained attack’ by unknown hackers in multiple locations... The attack came the day after THE PALESTINIANS WON A SYMBOLICALLY SIGNIFICANT VICTORY AT UNESCO, which voted overwhelmingly on Monday to admit the Palestinian Authority as a full member. THE MOVE TRIGGERED PUNITIVE FINANCIAL SANCTIONS AGAINST THE UN AGENCY BY THE US.”Hands up who thinks they know which state ‘organised’ the attack?
Yep, that’s what I think too.
On 2 November 2011, Sky News Middle East correspondent, Emma Hurd, reported thus:
"ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU IS TRYING TO RALLY SUPPORT IN HIS CABINET FOR AN ATTACK ON IRAN, according to government sources. THE COUNTRY'S DEFENCE MINISTER EHUD BARAK AND THE FOREIGN MINISTER AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN ARE SAID TO BE AMONG THOSE BACKING A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE TO NEUTRALISE IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS...On 2 November the Jewish-American journalist, Ben Shapiro, said this at Townhall.com
Mr Lieberman responded to the reports of a push to gain cabinet approval by saying that ‘IRAN POSES THE MOST DANGEROUS THREAT TO WORLD ORDER.’ But he said ISRAEL'S MILITARY OPTIONS SHOULD NOT BE A MATTER FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION.”
“Benjamin Netanyahu… has been bringing home hostages such as Gilad Shalit in anticipation of an attack on Iran. When that attack takes place, Netanyahu knows, every Jew in Muslim territory will be endangered.Not much room for doubt as to whose side Benny is on, is there? Nope. There’s no equivocation at all here. This guy is for ’brutal dictators,’ an ’attack on Iran’ and the ‘Arab Spring… buried beneath its own ashes.’
Why the sudden urgency from Israel?… The answer lies in President Obama's support for Islamist regimes across the Middle East. The Arab Spring… was an Islamist revolution of the worst sort, toppling BRUTAL DICTATORS WITH WHOM WE COULD DEAL with in favor of POPULIST Islamist movements that we cannot. And Obama stands behind all of it.
It started with his invitation to members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the supposedly moderate group that stands behind Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida and virtually every other terrorist entity in the region, to attend his speech in Cairo in 2009. His words in Cairo emboldened Islamists; his appeasement rhetoric suggested that the conflict between Western civilization and radical Islam is a mere misunderstanding, and just a few days before that, his statements calling America ‘one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,’ told Islamists that they had nothing to fear from the United States.
That was doubly true for Iran. America's policy on Iran has been feckless for the better part of three decades… Obama made clear from the outset that he would do nothing about Iran. In the presidential debates, he said he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; since Obama's ascendance to the White House, Ahmadinejad has visited the United States repeatedly… The United States will do nothing to prevent Iran, THE MOTHER LODE OF EVIL IN TODAY'S WORLD, from going nuclear.
Perhaps if Obama had shown half as much worry about the turn of the Middle East towards Islamism that he now shows towards AN ATTACK ON ISLAMIST NUCLEAR FACILITIES, we wouldn't be in this situation. Israel wouldn't stand alone. But it does, and it will, against all odds. MAY THE HITLERIAN ARAB SPRING END THE SAME WAY AS HITLER'S EMPIRE DID: IN UTTER FAILURE, BURIED BENEATH ITS OWN ASHES.”
As for what the people want, if their democracies don’t suit the Jew, ‘populist… movements’ can go to hell. And, of course, if you disagree with Benny’s appraisal, it is almost certain that you will be a ‘racist’, a ’hater’, a ‘Hitlerian’ Nazi whose outlook needs adjustment.
Hey, Benny! I’m guessing that if ‘who is the mother lode of evil in today’s world’ was a quiz question, a whole lot more people would answer ‘Israel’ than ‘Iran’! Oops! Here’s me, a Nazi, (according to the Benny type) indulging in ‘appeasement rhetoric’ just like Obama. Who is, according to Benny, an Islamist.
It’s a funny, old ‘Western civilisation,’ isn’t it?
The above is pretty typical of Ben Shapiro’s output. Check out what he was saying at the same web site on 27 August 2003:
“The time for HALF MEASURES has passed. BULLDOZING HOUSES of homicide bombers is useless. Instituting ONGOING CURFEWS in Arab-populated cities is useless. ROADBLOCKS, TOUCH FENCES, midnight negotiations and cease-fires are useless.Like I said, there’s no equivocation in our Benny.
Some have RIGHTLY suggested that Israel be allowed to DECAPITATE THE TERRORIST LEADERSHIP OF THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY. But this too is ONLY A HALF MEASURE. The ideology of the Palestinian population is indistinguishable from that of the terrorist leadership. Half measures merely postpone our realization that the Arabs dream of Israel's destruction. Without drastic measures, the Arab dream will come true…
Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then YOU MUST ALLOW ISRAEL TO TRANSFER THE PALESTINIANS AND THE ISRAELI-ARABS FROM JUDEA, SAMARIA, GAZA AND ISRAEL PROPER…
There is certainly room in the spacious Muslim states of the Middle East for 5 million Palestinians and Israeli Arabs… PALESTINIANS, whose claim to Judea, Samaria and Gaza is dubious at best, CAN BE EXPELLED. IT'S TIME TO STOP BEING SQUEAMISH. Jews are not Nazis. Transfer is not genocide. And ANYTHING ELSE ISN'T A SOLUTION.”
On 4 November 2011, Daniel Kalder told us this in The Spectator:
“Ah, Tony Blair, you can’t keep a good hustler down. One minute he’s singing the praises of formaldehyde at the opening of a methanol power plant in Azerbaijan (£90,000 for a 20-minute talk), the next he’s accepting a gig ‘consulting’ in Kazakhstan. For his advice on ‘issues connected with policy and the economy’, he could reportedly make as much as £8 million a year.
In May, Blair and a gang of his associates were spotted at a meeting of the Foreign Investors’ Council in Kazakhstan. Among them was Lord Renwick of Clifton, vice-chairman of JP MORGAN, WHICH (COINCIDENTLY) PAYS MR BLAIR £2 MILLION A YEAR FOR ADVICE, AND LAKSHMI MITTAL, BRITAIN’S RICHEST MAN, A GENEROUS LABOUR DONOR, AND THE LARGEST EMPLOYER IN KAZAKHSTAN. Blair praised the nation’s ‘wonderful’ achievements.
How things have changed. Ten years ago an authoritarian leader of an ex-Soviet state would get excited if Vanessa Mae came to town. These days, they find that IF THEY TOSS ENOUGH COINS AND CRANK UP THE ORGAN, FORMER LEADERS OF WESTERN GOVERNMENTS WILL DANCE FOR THEM LIKE PERFORMING MONKEYS.
BLAIR HAS NOW JOINED THE SELECT GROUP OF EX-STATESMEN FROM LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES WHO WORK FOR AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES. Tony Blair Associates has been building its foreign contacts book for some time: the government of Kuwait is among its high-paying clients…
KAZAKHSTAN… HAS NEVER HAD A FREE ELECTION; NO MAN CRITICISES THE PRESIDENT VERY LOUDLY IF HE KNOWS WHAT’S GOOD FOR HIM; AND THERE ARE MANY REPORTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.
Blair wasn’t the only former European leader in Kazakhstan in May: ROMANO PRODI, FORMER EU COMMISSION PRESIDENT and ex-Italian prime minister, was also lurking about… CONSULTING FOR DESPOTS, INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION LAUNDERING AS IT IS OTHERWISE KNOWN, IS A BOOMING TRADE.
It used to be the Americans who made the biggest bucks when dealing with despots. Until 2008, for instance, an organisation founded by Harvard academics called the Monitor Group netted $250,000 a month for providing Colonel Gaddafi with advice and face-to-face meetings with celebrityacademics. But THE BUSINESS OF REPUTATION LAUNDERING FOR TYRANTS NOW GRAVITATES TOWARDS LONDON. It is increasingly common for the capital’s top public relations firms to work for dubious countries, rather than dodgy people. Many of these firms have nice, shiny, anodyne names, Chime plc, for instance, is headed by the former No. 10 adviser Lord Bell, and includes Zambia among its clients.
Portland PR, run by Blair’s former press secretary Tim Allan, advises the Kremlin on its dealings with the British government… Bell is… candid: ‘I am not an international ethics body,’ he told the Guardian. ‘We do communications work. If people want to communicate their argument, we take the view that they are allowed to do so.’
Indeed, PR is a business… that requires you TO MANAGE, OR DISTORT, THE PUBLIC’S PERCEPTION TO YOUR CLIENT’S BENEFIT. Extending the service from making celebrities look slightly less odious to providing puffery for repressive regimes is a logical, albeit unscrupulous step… But the ethical calculus must change WHEN STATESMEN SUCH AS BLAIR BECOME INVOLVED. These, after all, are MEN WHO HAVE PONTIFICATED AT GREAT LENGTH ABOUT GOOD AND EVIL, AND DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM. MAYBE THEY’VE EVEN FOUGHT A WAR OR TWO IN THE NAME OF THOSE NOBLE CAUSES. Surely they mean some of that stuff they said? NO? Oh, all right then.
But if western statesmen are in it for the money, access to power and a continued sense of their own importance, what do their clients get? Valuable business and political contacts of course… Many dictators just pine for acceptance in the prosperous, democratic West… Kazakhstan’s president, however, seems to be aiming for something greater than mere social standing. HE ALLEGEDLY BELIEVES THAT BLAIR WILL BE ABLE TO SECURE HIM A NOMINATION FOR NEXT YEAR’S NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, to mark the 20th anniversary of his reign. Nazarbayev does appear to have a strong desire to be viewed as a Great Man in the world… A Nobel Peace Prize would be the ultimate PR coup, however undeserved.
When foreign statesmen can’t satisfy an authoritarian leader’s vanity, celebrities are still called in to help. Last month, Ramzan Kadyrov, the brutal head of Chechnya, celebrated his 35th birthday with a lavish theatrical extravaganza that featured tributes from 1980s action hero Jean-Claude Van Damme and the Oscar-winning actress Hilary Swank… And what is Tony Blair these days but a high-end version of Van Damme? He offers Mr Nazarbayev a propaganda triumph: ‘BEHOLD, CITIZENS! THE FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF THE OLDEST PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD IS WORKING FOR US!’…
Gone are the days when former prime ministers returned to the back benches and lived out their days on an MP’s salary… By acting as international consultants, today’s ex-statesmen can continue leading the lifestyle of a world leader, with the limos and security teams and the other perks…
THE LEADERS OF WESTERN DEMOCRACIES HAVE ALWAYS SCHMOOZED WITH TYRANTS, STRUCK DEALS WITH FASCISTS AND CROOKS... But the new, younger generation of western leaders seem to believe the same ethical standards apply to questions of self-interest. THEY’LL SHILL FOR JUST ABOUT ANYONE, SO LONG AS THE MONEY IS GOOD AND IT GIVES THEM A GROOVY FEELING OF SELF-IMPORTANCE.”
On 10 November 2011, The Daily Mail told us that 'ministers have been told to expect Israeli military action' against Iran and quoted a ‘senior Foreign Office figure’ thus:
“We’re expecting something as early as Christmas, or very early in the new year.”The Mail added:
“ISRAEL WILL LAUNCH MILITARY ACTION to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon as soon as Christmas, intelligence chiefs have warned… Sources say the understanding at the top of the British Government is that ISRAEL WILL ATTEMPT TO STRIKE AGAINST THE NUCLEAR SITES ‘SOONER RATHER THAN LATER’, WITH LOGISTICAL SUPPORT FROM THE US…Oh yes. Jewish support for a second Presidential term is much more important than lighting the blue, nuclear touch paper of World War III.
Officials believe President Barack OBAMA WOULD HAVE TO SUPPORT THE ISRAELIS OR RISK LOSING VITAL JEWISH-AMERICAN SUPPORT IN THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.”
On 11 November 2011, Channel 4 News told us this:
“A US army sergeant is convicted by court martial of murdering unarmed civilians and cutting fingers from their corpses as ringleader of a rogue platoon in Afghanistan's Kandahar province.Tony Blair's best pal, the Great Satan, at work.
The guilty verdict on all counts, returned after five hours of deliberations, carried an automatic life prison sentence, but the five-member jury panel then decided that Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs, 26, would be eligible for parole in eight and a half years.
Pentagon officials have said the misconduct exposed by the case, which evolved from a probe of drug abuse within Gibbs' Stryker Brigade infantry unit, damaged the image of the United States around the globe.
Photographs entered as evidence in the case showed Gibbs and other soldiers casually posing with bloodied Afghan corpses, drawing comparisons with the inflammatory Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq in 2004...
Military prosecutor Major Dre Leblanc argued against parole, reminding the panel that Gibbs had often said of the Afghan people he terrorised: ‘These people are all savages, look at how they live.’
Gibbs was convicted on three counts of premeditated murder in the slayings of Afghan villagers last year that were disguised as legitimate combat engagements. Prosecutors said he acted as the chief instigator behind those killings and other assaults by members of his self-described ‘kill team.’
Besides charges of murder, conspiracy and other offences, he was found guilty of beating a soldier who reported hashish use to superiors and of military code violations for cutting fingers off bodies as war trophies… Prosecution witnesses portrayed Gibbs as a blood-thirsty renegade who intimidated fellow soldiers and harbored a deep, ethnic hatred of the very people US troops were sent to protect from Taliban forces.”
“I was a military chaplain at The Princess Mary’s Hospital, RAF Akrotiri, in Cyprus... I spent my days as part of the medical and welfare network providing support to wounded and injured soldiers who only hours earlier had been engaged in battle as the American and British-led Coalition stormed into Iraq...On 13 November 2011, Simon Walters and Glen Owen said this in The Sunday Mail:
During the initial invasion of Iraq, questions were asked of me every day by those whose lives were now scarred or maimed, mentally as well as physically: Should I have fought? How do I live with myself? Will my partner still love me with my injury? These questions will be asked over and over again on a daily basis, possibly for ever, by those whose limbs are missing, by those whose faces will cause others to turn away in the street and by those whose relationships have ended or are altered.
Perhaps most discomfiting were the questions about Blair and Christianity, the myth that Tony Blair did not ‘do God’ has long since been recognised as a presentational fabrication, and how that squared with the way he sent troops off to war. Several soldiers seemed surprised when I did not offer the then Prime Minister the unequivocal support they somehow expected me to give. Furthermore, in recent years, to the many questions I have already mentioned has been added another, often by people who initially supported military action in 2003: Why did I go along with it?…
For months before the outbreak of war I was unconvinced by Blair’s arguments, though at the time my focus was on supporting those who had no choice about whether or not they would be going to fight, and the anxious families that would be left behind. To this day it is impossible for me to forget the look in one young mother’s eyes at the instant she learned that she was now a widow, that her children no longer had a father and that his body would be returned to her in a flag-draped coffin…
In light of all that I have seen and done and all the human miseries I have encountered, my suspicions are quickly aroused whenever I come across anyone using or abusing religious or moral imperatives for their own ends. Whether that person is a corrupt televangelist, a misguided Al Qaeda suicide bomber or an opportunist politician…
I have analysed Blair’s words and actions meticulously, never quite able to separate them from THE WHIFF OF HYPOCRISY AND INSINCERITY. I followed the Hutton and Butler inquiries into intentionally narrow aspects of the war with interest and read carefully what legal experts and political commentators had to say about the procedures and policies that were followed in taking Britain to war… For Blair, the legal, political and procedural issues were all subsumed within the real basis of his case for war: HIS PERSONAL MORAL IMPERATIVE, FUELLED BY AN UNSHAKEABLE BELIEF IN HIS OWN RECTITUDE.
A distinct pattern emerged in the final months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Blair’s legal case, based on Iraq holding weapons of mass destruction, was disintegrating rapidly as UN weapons inspectors repeatedly came up empty-handed at the high-value sites to which they were directed by British and American intelligence agencies. In an attempt to win public support HE BEGAN TO RELY ON MORAL ARGUMENTS, part of what his office called a ‘Rolls-Royce information campaign’ to convince a sceptical public. However, FROM HIS DISTORTION OF THE ANCIENT PRINCIPLES OF THE CHRISTIAN ‘JUST WAR’ TRADITION IN HIS ARGUMENTS, TO KEEPING HIS OWN CABINET MEMBERS IN THE DARK, TO SENDING SOLDIERS INTO BATTLE ILL-EQUIPPED BECAUSE OF HIS UNWILLINGNESS TO ALLOW THE ARMED FORCES TO PREPARE EARLY AND THOROUGHLY ENOUGH, BLAIR’S WORDS AND ACTIONS WERE, CONTRARY TO HIS INSISTENCE, THE ANTITHESIS OF MORAL...
In most cases he is damned by his own inconsistencies. Take, for example, the matter of regime change. Setting out his interventionist policy in 1999 he stated: ‘Intervention to bring down a despotic dictatorial regime could be justified on grounds of the nature of that regime, not merely its immediate threat to our self-interests.’ However, in January this year he contradicted that earlier view: ‘Well, again as I have said many, many times on this, the nature of the regime could not justify in itself the intervention.’ THESE ARE TWO UTTERLY OPPOSING POSITIONS ON REGIME CHANGE…
In desperation Blair increasingly incorporated into his speeches language that sits at the heart of his Christian faith: good versus evil. His remarkably simplistic reasoning can be summed up as: I am good; Saddam is evil; if you, the listener, are good you will support my fight against that evil. Correspondingly, ANYONE WHO DID NOT SUPPORT BLAIR WAS, BY THIS LOGIC, SIDING WITH EVIL, a divisive approach that has been used by leaders throughout history to increase the flammability of political discourse.
On September 11, 2001, as New York’s Twin Towers smouldered where they fell, Blair committed himself and Britain to this battle: ‘We, therefore, here in Britain stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends in this hour of tragedy, and we, like them, will not rest until this evil is driven from our world.’ He would subsequently state in 2003: ‘Our ultimate weapon is not our guns, but our beliefs.’
Blair’s only real consistency over the years has been his response to the various pseudo-judicial inquiries that have taken place since 2003: that HE DID THE RIGHT THING...
HE NOW OPERATES A HIGHLY LUCRATIVE MONEY-MAKING MACHINE…
The brief examples I have presented here… expose BLAIR’S MORAL BASIS FOR THE IRAQ WAR FOR WHAT IT IS: AN ILLUSION…
If a British Prime Minister sends our Armed Forces into battle without a compelling and immediate moral case, AS BLAIR DID IN IRAQ, THE VALUES OF OUR SOCIETY ARE VIOLATED AS SURELY AS THE BROKEN BODIES OF THOSE SOLDIERS I wept over back in that military hospital. THE BONDS OF TRUST THAT NECESSARILY EXIST BETWEEN GOVERNMENT, THE PEOPLE AND THOSE WHO BEAR ARMS TO PROTECT THEM ARE UNDONE.
On this Remembrance Sunday we recall the selfless sacrifices made by generations of military men and women – past and present – to bequeath to us the freedoms and peace we enjoy today. We can best pay tribute to their sacrifices by ensuring that IN THE FUTURE NO BRITISH SAILOR, SOLDIER, MARINE OR AIRMAN IS ASKED TO LAY DOWN THEIR LIFE EXCEPT FOR THE MOST URGENT AND HONOURABLE OF CAUSES.”
“Tony Blair is facing questions after ONE OF HIS CHARITIES LAUNCHED A BID TO GRAB A SLICE OF BRITAIN'S £8BILLION FOREIGN AID BUDGET. His organisation has taken the first steps to become eligible for grants awarded by the Department for International Development to rebuild war-torn countries.
The highly sensitive move has prompted concerns over a possible conflict of interest with Mr Blair's complex business dealings. OF HIS ESTIMATED £7M-A-YEAR EARNINGS, ABOUT £2M COMES FROM MERCHANT BANK JP MORGAN, WHICH HAS MAJOR INTERESTS IN MANY OF THE COUNTRIES RECEIVING BRITISH AID...
Blair's charity has applied to join the tendering process for the Department for International Development (DfID) 'security and governance' scheme, which undertakes 'peace-building' work in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The remit has raised eyebrows given THE FORMER PREMIER'S DISASTROUS DECISION TO BACK THE IRAQ WAR.”
“If the Prime Minister expresses his utmost confidence in you that means pack your bags. It always has done, especially with Cameron...
I THINK HE’S THE WORST POLITICIAN IN BRITISH HISTORY… HE’S A MOST DESPICABLE CREATURE WITHOUT ANY REAL REDEEMING FEATURES. If I can think of one ... he’s very rich, how’s that? That’s a redeeming feature.
WE’LL SACK HIM… WE’LL GET RID OF HIM… IF I DON’T KILL HIM… I probably will out of fun... I’ve never, ever come across anyone less suited to the job in my life. I would take a beggar off the streets and put him in that position rather than have Cameron. I loathe him...
WHY ARE OUR SOLDIERS DYING IN AFGHANISTAN. TELL ME WHY? Broadly, our soldiers are in Afghanistan and Pakistan so the countries don’t fall to bits… We shouldn’t have backed them at all (‘shouldn’t have backed’ New Labour’s call for the invasion of Afghanistan) ... CAMERON WAS AN ARSE. THAT’S A MATTER OF FACT, NOT POLITICS… He’ll go in the Spring. He’ll resign in the Spring.”
Fingers crossed, Patrick. And then? Mercer for PM? He’s an impolitic fool for letting the sauce loosen his tongue to such an extent but his passion, honest acknowledment that our troops should not be in Afghanistan and thoroughgoing dislike of the Blair clone deserves the utmost commendation.
On 15 December 2011, a US flag ceremony marked formal end of the Iraq war. Barack Obama said:
"Everything that American troops have done in Iraq, all the fighting and dying, bleeding and building, training and partnering, has led us to this moment of success...In the city of Falluja, scene of the US offensives in 2004, people burned US flags in celebration. Grocer, Ahmed Aied, said this to Reuters news agency.
You have shown why the US military is the finest fighting force in the history of the world. The war in Iraq will soon belong to history and your service belongs to the ages."
"No-one trusted their promises but they said when they came to Iraq they would bring security, stability and would build our country. Now they are walking out, leaving behind killings, ruin and mess."US Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, said this to the troops gathered at the ceremony:
"Your sacrifice has helped the Iraqi people to cast tyranny aside...During a visit to troops in Afghanistan, Panetta added:
We spilled a lot of blood... But all of that has not been in vain. It's been to achieve a mission making that country sovereign and independent and able to govern and secure itself...
Making a country sovereign and independent and able to govern and secure itself. A tribute to everybody - everybody who fought in that war, everybody who spilled blood in that war, everybody who was dedicated to making sure we could achieve that mission...
You will leave with great pride...lasting pride and be secure in knowing that your sacrifice has helped the Iraqi people to begin a new chapter in history."
"They're going to face challenges in the future. They'll face challenges from terrorism, they'll face challenges from those that would want to divide their country. They'll face challenges from just the test of democracy, a new democracy and trying to make it work. But the fact is, we have given them the opportunity to be able to succeed."4,500 American dead, 32,000 wounded, more than a trillion dollars spent, 'challenges' up ahead. Anywere between 100,000 and 1,400,000 dead Iraqis.
'A new chapter', yeah, that's what's needed alright. One where characters like Bush, Blair, Panetta and the wallet-stuffing, chickenhawk Zionists aren't running everything. Excuse me, are running ANYTHING at all.
On 23 July 2012, a BBC headline said: 'Iraq attacks in Baghdad and north kill 107'.
Check out the Fallen Heroes web site for a less impersonal acquaintance with those who lost their lives in Tony Blair's wars.