Monday, 27 January 2014

Yes it's Fisk, but he's right

Blair's regime change in Iraq, the 'new' reason for his illegal war after the lies about WMDs became unsustainable, has come to maturity. Unfortunately the press remains largely sheepish about reporting the brave new Iraq, and we must rely on Robert Fisk in the Indie. Yes I know - Fisk has form and linking to a Fisk piece is viewed in some quarters like admitting to an anal fistula. 

If Fisk's figures for the numbers of executions and for those waiting for the hangmen are right, Blair's new Iraq regime must be congratulated for achieving in just ten years levels of repression and brutality that it took Saddam twenty-five years to reach.

And is Blair now agitating for more, er, 'regime change' to halt this barbarous brutality? Um, no. Chilcot's report may well soon see Blair in the dock himself - so he's busy exculpating himself in advance. His efforts couldn't be bettered even if orchestrated by Max Clifford (which, for all I know, they may be - he can certainly afford Clifford's fees); all that's lacking is a photoshoot of Blair washing the Pope's feet.

Blair will be fortunate that any jail term he receives will be served in the comfortable surrounds of the Hague rather than in Abu Ghraib, where the screams of the victims of his new regime's torturers may disturb his sleep.


Sackerson said...

He cannot be touche, because there are many others who would follow him into the dock. Another case of just waiting for the bad men to die of old age.

Anonymous said...

Even his arch enemies won't go after him because they know full well that they could be next.

Coney Island

G. Tingey said...

Besides which he's a good little CHRISTIAN & we know they can't do any wrong, don't we?

Excuse me, while I just go outside & vomit

cuffleyburgers said...

@ G&T - another rather stupid comment. I hold no brief for Christianity, far less for catholicism and yet there be really be no doubt that being a christian protects nobody from anything nowadays, and in many parts of the world it is quite the opposite. Being a muslim, maybe yes thanks to our craven political class.

No, the reason he'll get off scot-free is that he is a member of our thrice beloved "international political elite", that coming together of rolls royce minds thinking only of our well being meeting in a spirit of humility and self abnegation to solve the world's problems which of course they did nothing to create, no of course not.

DeeDee99 said...

If Blair goes down, so will a great many other people.

So they will ensure that he is propped up, absorbing all the hatred that he and they richly deserve.

For a supposed Christian, he failed to understand that the love of money is the root of all evil and he can't take his with him.

History will not treat him any more kindly than we do.

Ed P said...

Where's the Chilcot report? Is it held up awaiting the delivery of a new consignment of whitewash?

Ed P said...

DD99: Money is the root of all religion.

Oldrightie said...

No doubt the Bliars receive a royalty for each execution.

Bill Quango MP said...

I don't see what Blair is guilty of.
He asked parliament for a vote which he won.
The UN didn't back Iraq but they are not the world arbiter of legal, illegal war.

So what charges can be laid at the door of Tony?

Incorrect evidence for war? The case wasn't founded on 30 mins to Armageddon and WMD. That was a part of the case along with much else.

Just imagine you are a lawyer and you must put the charges to the court. What are you going to say?

He gave evasive and misleading answers to questions?
He agreed to invade before consulting Psrliament?
He knew that there were no 45 minutes missiles about to rain down on London?
The weapons inspectors were being sidelined as the war timetable was running?

All true. But which exactly is the crime? You can defend those accusations easily, as he has done.

Does Chilcott have a smoking gun? Most unlikely. Just further evidence of shabbiness and spin. Not enough I wouldn't have thought, for jail.

Raedwald said...

Bill -

'Waging a war of aggression' was enough for us to send a score of Nazis to the gallows at Nuremberg - did we get that wrong?

Article 51 of the post-war Charter prohibits us from waging war except in self defence; the WMD claim was always fiction, and the UN was on the verge of proving it so when Bush and Blair took their last chance to invade using the pretence of such a threat. Should we abrogate our obligations under the Charter?

Thirdly, as General Sir Michael Rose writes as he sets out in his case why Blair should face trial:-

"Second, according to accepted international law of war, no country should go to war unless it is the action of last resort; its actions are proportional to the threat; and unless the end result is justified by the means used - in other words, that the situation in the country after the invasion will be an improvement, in human and security terms, on the original state of affairs.

The war in Iraq represents a clear breach of these three basic requirements: the UN believed there was no justification for going to war in March 2003, as we had not reached the point of 'last resort'; there was no threat whatsoever from Iraq in the absence of chemical weapons; and the woeful failure to commit proper resources to the post-war situation meant Iraq inevitably descended into a spiral of disorder, violence and chaos from which it has still not recovered."

Bill Quango MP said...

Good answer.

However, Blair acted within the democratic framework of the nation.
IF he had lost the vote on the war the country would not have joined the Americans. And Blair most likely would have had to resign.
this he knew and yet he still risked a vote, even though technically he didn't need one.

So his defence is "with the evidence available, AND the overwhelming agreement of a democratically elected parliament, the nation went to war. There was nothing more I could have done. No one else I could have asked!
The appointed representatives decided to back the call for action on the evidence presented and 99% of that evidence was proved correct."

I think he'd get off easily.

The fact parliament backed his actions legitimised the choice.
And MPs complaining they didn't have all the facts is their own fault. They did have the facts. But they did not question, or not enough of them did, the LEGITIMACY of the actions they were about to take, regardless of the facts presented.{which is what you state too.}

Other European parliaments did question the need for military action and took different decisions.

That is the defence. And its pretty convincing.

Raedwald said...

Bill, it's a good defence - apart from one flaw.

What if Chilcot has evidence that Blair lied to Parliament? That Parliament was more than misled, that it was deceived and manipulated? And moreover that Blair conspired with the US to deceive the Commons?

That sort of smoking gun would pretty well knock the arse out of his defence, wouldn't it?

Bill Quango MP said...

I don't think Chilcott has that evidence.

William Quango QC of Quango, Sixpence, Charter, Hunts are prepared to take the Blair defence case, should need arise.

I just want you to know we are taking it purely for the money. We know he is guilty. We also know it can't be proved.

cuffleyburgers said...

@ Bill

Blair deserves to go to jqail because he's an obnoxious lying socialist scumbag, who is responsible through his lying and dissembling for the pure purpose of self aggrandizement, for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Basically what is required is a class action suit against the political class.

Send the whole stinking lot of them to the gallows.

Johnm said...

The reality is: They don´t give a crap what you think. They don´t give a crap what anyone thinks. Nothing you can do will affect them unduly. The police will not protect the people against robber-politicians, the police are in the bag. The armed forces will, as proven many times in N-Ireland, fire upon citizens (those same armed forces are receiving civil unrest training as they return from whatever theatre they are serving in)(the police are to have water cannon).
Not elect them ?
That´ll work; Not.
Now we are part of the larger EU-UN we matter even less.
Too little: Too late
Even the US, with their very large and well-equipped (and very well armed) population, is at risk from its government (who now ignore the constitution on an every-day basis)(and who have their own army in the Department of Homeland Security).
This is not going to end well.