Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

New let's watch the bastard wriggle

Just finished watching Chilcot deliver his summary and it doesn't look good for Blair. Whether the evidence is enough to mount either a civil action  or a private or public criminal prosecution for malfeasance / misconduct in public office is now a question for the lawyers. As we will now probably see the Blair millions draining away to legal costs, I suppose there is some satisfaction.

However, when I joined a million others in London in February 2003 on a wonderfully warm and sunny day to walk to Hyde Park (and I must admit, unlike a million others, then to enjoy a full afternoon's lunch, a real 8-bottler, in a fine restaurant in Shepherd's Market) I knew the WMD claim was tosh, knew that Blair was manipulating the truth and knew without question that the invasion was wrong.  I see the Telegraph carries a story by James Kirkup "Blair did not bewitch us into backing war in Iraq. We let him do it". You did, chum, not me. I did absolutely everything I could within my power to prevent it; I wrote real letters by the score to MPs and peers, I marched, I protested. 

Even when I started this blog in 2007 opinion was divided; many still supported the war on the grounds that regime change was positive. After the UK's humiliating withdrawal from Basra - not the fault of the troops, not even slightly - the voices were fewer. After the most recent 200 dead from a car bomb I'll be surprised to hear anyone defend Blair's actions on the grounds of regime change. And now, today, no-one even need ask to whom the title of this piece refers. And that's some consolation. 

Justice of course would be the transfer of all of Blair's wealth to the families of the 200 Brits for whose deaths he is responsible. That's not going to happen. So we must just revile and loathe him the best we can.


Anonymous said...

Bill of attainder­čśĆ

Anonymous said...

In the outset, in the first place, in all truth.

In Iraq, in 2003, other than warmongering bullying idiocy: we had no earthly excuse to be there.

rapscallion said...

Surely charges can be brought - a la Nuremburg. Conspiracy to Wage aggressive war and Crimes against peace.

Concur that his millions should go to the families of those killed through his actions, but as you say it probably won't happen. If his millions are removed through legal fees so that he is left with nothing then that will go only a small way towards justice. In reality he should be tried as a war criminal and then publicly executed.

Anonymous said...

Agree with your hopes Radwald, but I think that Blair is particularly oleaginous and could well use the "I was badly advised" defence, and likely get away with it.


Barnacle Bill said...

“The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit.”

I'm afraid the only thing that would lay to rest those questions would be the public execution of one Anthony Charles Lynton B-Lair. Preferably unhooded and using the short drop method. If they are looking for a Public Executioner for that day I would do it for free.

I, too was there in Feb 2003 Radders but even before then I knew that B-Lair was a "bad 'un". I will never, ever forgive B-Lair for what he did to my country.

As for the Strawman; I just hope he's next in the queue that day I get the chance to give my services to my country for free.

mike fowle said...

I'd really like to have seen Alastair Campbell in the frame.

Anonymous said...

Just remember he had to get his war wish through parliament and to do that he used shock, viz. a rocket with [insert warhead of choice] will hit you in 45 minutes. Complete bollocks. Not one politician bothered to challenge him - and there were several former artillerymen in the chamber that day - and that makes the decision even more ludicrous.

Attacking a sovereign country (to get rid of its leader) is not a precision hit and will cause mass casualties. The total for non-combatants was well over one hundred thousand men, women and children. The ensuing chaos has taken that figure to over a million, and it's still climbing.

The shear dimness gets me. Experts knew what kind of forces would be released if Saddam was suddenly removed. And they compounded that error by standing down the whole of the army, and the police, and civil the service. Sectarianism and factionalism would surely follow and it did, in spades. The British Army would eventually leave Basra because if it.

Blair should be impeached and sent down for 10 years minimum. Never forget though, it took a majority of parliament to vote through his War on Iraq.


DeeDee99 said...

I didn't march, but I did write opposing the war. And I never once voted for Blair .... from the minute he became Labour leader I instinctively mistrusted him.

I hope he's charged with Malfeasance in Public Office. And I hope he is never again given an opportunity to pontificate about British governance and political issues. At the very least, his judgement is badly flawed. At worst, he's a liar and a war criminal.

I hope he's hounded by lawyers to the end of his days. I hope the foreign governments and businesses which pay vast sums for his advice, abandon him. And I hope he knows that the Hell he believes in has a special place for him, when he eventually goes to meet his Maker. God may forgive him. I don't.

Dioclese said...

Nicely put. Saves me writing it!

anon 2 said...

He and Bush both are culpable. Must admit that, at the time, I wondered if their decision involved security/infiltration considerations about that very long Iran/Iraq border. I haven't, since then, studied the situation enough to know whether or not that was so; but might not the presence of Western forces have prevented a powerful liaison against us? Including proliferation of WMDs? How they conducted the war is another matter, of course.

Otherwise, Bliar is undoubtedly a loathsome specimen who has betrayed Britain terribly - especially through his promotion of (and by) the euSSR. One trusts that he cannot control his own image-making now, and that the legal process will cost him everything you all suggest. It would be wonderful if those he has injured could receive some useful recompense.

Human vengeance is a nasty, pointless, even self-defeating business - and I tend to think it un-British. Just destruction of Blair's image, though, could serve the British well. In light of truth, we might encourage his present admirers and followers to perceive the error of evil ways; our politicians, in office and in training, might learn the merits of choosing a better path. One can but hope.

Anonymous said...

On the rare occasions that I've seen Blair on TV since he stepped down he seems to age exponentially. I'm always reminded of "The Portrait of Dorian Gray".

Saw him on TV this evening at the 'emotional' bit of his statement at which, with a catch in his throat, he expressed his sorrow, the depth of which people might not, he acknowledged, be prepared to believe. Either he has truly endured the agonies of guilt since Iraq and will continue to do so or he hasn't but is acutely aware of the contempt of the many who hold him responsible which must be almost unbearable for an ego which resulted in the decision in the first place. Either way his millions and property portfolio won't compensate and I suspect that he'll be a broken man until the end of his days.


Gareth Davies said...

And to think that this asswipe thinks he can represent us negotiating with the EU.

Utterley priceless!

Whenever I've seen him claiming that role in the Torygraph Kipling's copybook headings comes to mind 'they delivered us bound to our foe'.

anon 2 said...

Excellent quote,Gareth Davis. Very apt: thank you.

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

Concentrating on Blair and Straw allows the scope and depth of the debacle to be overlooked.

I can understand and have sympathy for the enmity on display here - but there is a wider picture.

The American approach ...

FIASCO - a chilling picture of the deceit, stupidity, wishful thinking, lack of forward planning and total intellectual failure of those behind the invasion deserves to be read alongside Richard North's "Ministry of Defeat".

The 'Merkans have as much if not more to be annoyed about.

Anonymous said...

At every turn he's [Bliar] fucked this country, Jesus and all his Saints must weep, I know I do, especially when the pope of Rome allowed him into the Church, that day, parody died, I wonder what Ratzinger said, "how the devil are you?!"

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...


He was a secret Catholic anyway - Cherie going in the front door of Westminster Cathedral and Tone sneaking in through the vestry back door for communion.

Then - there's the matter of his weekly advice sessions from Cardinal O'Connor and the placement of co-religionists in his administration.

I did laugh when Mathew Parris caught him venerating the bones of St. Theresa a few years back.

He should be sectioned - it'd save a fortune in security alone - "I'll negotiate Brexit for you" - is absolutely barking bonkers.

Anonymous said...

Don't count on Blair's money being drained in legal costs.
His bloodstained dosh has been off-shored already or made over to his fugly wife.
He will qualify for Legal Aid as a final twist of the knife.
Asil Nadir qualified whilst staying at a swanky London address . A way will be found for Bliar.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

I yield to no-one in my detestation of Blair - I never trusted him after he put on that pathetic wobbly voice of his when Princess Diana died.

But we should heed the wise words of Dioclese above: "Human vengeance is a nasty, pointless, even self-defeating business - and I tend to think it un-British." Hear! Hear!

And be careful of this "illegal war" business - one day it will come back to bite us when we need to do something genuinely necessary and right. I'd rather have a few Blairs around than world government by the anointed, frankly.

Cuffleyburgers said...

He can wriggle and writhe but his reputation is shot, what must we do to shut the bastard up?

The point has been well made elsewhere that although it is true that the font of this evil was Blair - I have no doubt it was he and his coterie of favourites that organised the over egging of the dubious ntelligence and it was he who said to Bush that he would be there for him come what may (and thereby acted ultra vires quite obviously) and as a result there may just possibly be the material there for a class action civil lawsuit by the families of British and Iraqi dead, if we could include Americans on the basis that he was hand in glove with Bush and with out his encouragement Bush wouldn't have dared to act, and press suit in New York then basically there'd be nowhere for the bastard to hide.

However let's not forget his many cheerleaders in the press and parliament who deep down knew it was all bollocks and could have stopped him but didn't.

Obviously nobody with a brain is comfortable being on the same side as the "stop the war coalition" but in this case they had a point. That was no time to be squeamish.

As is pointed out in Spiked magazine, Blair has taken one for the whole establishment team who are collectively to blame.

Span Ows said...

Barnacle Bill, get in line! I applied for that job even before the Iraq war! My ex wife (a foreign lady with not much English back then) saw through Blair the first time she saw him, that was in 1995! The Iraq war lies are just part of along list: I advise public pillory for at least a week for execution. And I agree with others here that Campbell should go too. I am happy to spread the work load if the whole New labour cohort of lying corrupt shysters is lined up for the drop too.

hatfield girl said...

The sections on de-Ba'athification in the Iraq Inquiry are worth closer study in the context of the UK's leaving of the European Union, and its management.

After the fall of a repressive regime, steps inevitably have to be taken to prevent those closely identified with that regime from continuing to hold positions of influence in public life. The development of plans which minimise undesired consequences, which are administered with justice and which are based on a robust understanding of the social context in which they will be implemented, should be an essential part of preparation for any post‑conflict phase. This should include measures designed to
address concerns within the wider population, including those of the victims of the old regime, and to promote reconciliation.

It is vital to define carefully the scope of such measures. Bringing too many or too few individuals within scope of measures like de‑Ba’athification can have far‑reaching consequences for public sector capacity and for the restoration of public trust in the institutions of government.

It is also important to think through the administrative implications of the measures to be applied and the process for their implementation.

The potential for abuse means that it is essential to have thought‑through forms of oversight that are as impartial and non‑partisan as possible.

' government by the anointed' threatens just as much after the Brexit vote and its avoidance needs careful weeding of permanent administrative functionaries and review of institutions, not the wholesale wrecking visited on Iraq post-invasion.

Cuffleyburgers said...

Hatfield girl - as I said at the time they were guilty of throwing the baby out with baath-water

Anonymous said...

Let us not forget either, he should have 'trod the boards' cripes on a bike what a fucking performance it was yesterday, all it needed was John Cleese narrating, "and yes here is the faux remorse and floods of reptilian lachrymal effusion" and Eric Idle and wrapping onions round his neck, inwardly, inevitably: I retched.

Wannabe rock star, in order to ingratiate himself with Michael Foot, Bliar reincarnated himself as a tofu eating beatnik - ban the bomb, free lerve, psychodelic flower pot smoking conshie, later he shape changed and reinvented himself as the K-bar wielding, black baccy chewing "kill the motherfucking gooks" red neck NeoCon. How's that for role reversal, should give him a bloody Bafta/Oscar.

Bliar, is a fuqwit blank canvass, he has no clue as to what day it is, let alone of what he is about. Cherie Bliar runs him, a hand up his arse night and day and remember who it was who made fucking damn sure that, the expenses chittys were minced - think on.

Anonymous said...

Anybody remember this? It tells you much of what you need to know - money and more moolah and if you can grab a freebie, pile it high............ go to war on Iraq - it's all in a day's grabbing, for her.

[...]The Prime Minister's wife, who is in Australia for an international law conference, was reported to have walked away with 68 items of free designer clothing after she was invited to visit a fashionable Melbourne store. Mrs Blair left the Globe International store in Port Melbourne with clothes worth
Aus$5,000 (£2,000), the Herald Sun, a Melbourne daily newspaper, reported.

Most of the clothes were said to be for her children Nicky, 17, Kathryn, 15, and Leo, two, who were with their mother on the visit.

The paper said the haul included jackets, sweaters, polo shirts, T-shirts, mini-skirts, jeans, shorts, belts and bags. Books, an alarm clock, a lunchbox, necklaces, a beach play-set, pillow cases, pyjamas, socks and boxer shorts were also listed.

"We didn't actively seek her to come down, which is what we have done with the likes of Robbie Williams," Globe's marketing manager, Anna Craig, told the paper. "It was more about an Australian company offering hospitality to the wife of the second most powerful man in the world. We did not single her out because we want her to wear the label. It was more a gesture to save her time and, though this may sound tacky, welcome her on behalf of Australia." Ms Craig would not say whether Mrs Blair paid. "I am not in a position to answer that. That would be confidential," she told the paper. [/quote].

This bit "We didn't actively seek her to come down" isn't that fucking priceless?

Always the end justifies the means - for some and forget the moralizing crap - it doesn't mean jack shit to a sociopath.

Recall, you damn well should; she got him to enact the HRA and that was a act of treason against the British people and only done for personal gain and thirty pieces of silver.

Anonymous said...

"....was reported to have walked away with 68 items of free designer clothing..."

My impression at the time was that she hadn't paid and that it was an appalling, yet unsurprising, breach of manners.

I wonder if the two of them ever get invited anywhere.