Saturday, January 30, 2010

Slow Saturday Special: Britain's Bliar Admits War Crimes


"Five killed at Baghdad aid office; 2 injured in blast; motive baffles officials" by Sameer N. Yacoub, Associated Press | January 19, 2010

BAGHDAD - In London yesterday, a panel looking into Britain’s involvement in Iraq said former Prime Minister Tony Blair will give his highly anticipated testimony next week. Blair, whose popularity suffered because of his decision to back the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, will face several hours of questioning at the five-person tribunal on Jan. 29.


Have until 30th to report, Globe.

They DID!!!

"Blair defends his decision to invade Iraq; Sept. 11 attacks changed view on Hussein" by John F. Burns and Alan Cowell, New York Times | January 30, 2010

LONDON - Almost seven years after he ordered British troops to join the US-led invasion of Iraq, former prime minister Tony Blair mounted an unwavering defense of his actions yesterday, saying he would take the same steps again to counter what he depicted as a threat from Saddam Hussein that had assumed far greater dimensions after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In an appearance before an official inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq war, Blair sought to reshape the unflattering legacy molded since he left office in 2007 by his many critics in Britain. He has been accused, often bitterly, of pliantly following President George W. Bush’s lead into an illegal and unpopular war, and misleading his country about his reasons for doing so.


For Blair, a grueling six hours of broadcast testimony amounted to a rare return to the public spotlight at home after 30 months of frenetic travel as a Middle East peace negotiator, and as the beneficiary of lucrative public-speaking engagements and consultancy deals, many of them in the United States.


The sense that he has used the stature derived from 10 years in office to amass a fortune - said by British newspapers to be worth at least $30 million - has helped to make the 56-year-old former prime minister, once popular enough to win three general elections, into something approaching a pariah at home.


Concern for his safety led the police to mount a huge security cordon around the conference center in central London where the inquiry has been taking testimony. The protests largely fizzled, however, with fewer than 300 demonstrators mounting a noisy vigil outside the conference center in a drizzling rain.

Of course, if it was huge the NYT would not have mentioned it.

But whether Blair’s standing was enhanced or diminished by his testimony was uncertain, particularly after a jarring exchange at the end of his testimony, when he was asked by the inquiry’s chairman, John Chilcot, if he had any regrets. After Blair said he accepted “responsibility’’ and regretted the divisions the war had caused in Britain, but did not feel “regret for removing Saddam Hussein,’’ decorum in the hearing room briefly collapsed.

Then HEAD ON OVER to the Hague and TURN YOURSELF IN, Tony!

“No regret, come on, man!’’ shouted James Sadri, a young man in the public gallery. That was followed by the sounds of sobbing from women in the gallery whose soldier sons had died in Iraq. “You are a liar!’’ one woman cried, followed by another saying, “You are a murderer!’’

They are RIGHT!!!!

A third of the seats in the gallery were assigned to relatives of the 179 British servicemen and servicewomen killed in Iraq in the six years of conflict that ended for Britain with the withdrawal of its last units in July last year. Blair defended his close relationship with Bush, depicted by Blair’s adversaries - and by some of his former aides in their testimony before the inquiry - as having involved a covert plan by Blair to circumvent hostile opinion both in Britain and at the United Nations.

Yeah, KEEP READING for what the NYT won't touch (after all, they brought all the lies to you, readers)!

“This isn’t about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception,’’ Blair said. “It’s a decision. And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam’s history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over a million people whose deaths he had caused, given 10 years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons program or is that a risk it is responsible to take?’’

Still selling the SAME OLD LIE!!


And it is WHAT is IS ABOUT, Bliar!!!!

Blair offered no apology for joining Bush in toppling Hussein, saying repeatedly he thought it was in the best interests of Britain and the world. “The decision I took - and frankly would take again - was: If there was any possibility that he could develop weapons of mass destruction, we would stop him. It was my view then and that is my view now,’’ he said.

F*** a trial, just lock him up! He's deranged and in denial!

The former prime minister said the attacks of Sept. 11 had hardened his resolve on the need to curb the threat that he said Hussein posed with his years of defiance of UN resolutions. “The crucial thing after Sept. 11 is that the calculus of risk changed,’’ Blair said. “The point about this terrorist act was that over 3,000 people had been killed on the streets of New York, and this is what changed my perception of risk: If these people inspired by this religious fanaticism could have killed 30,000, they would have.’’

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO with that INSIDE JOB, asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On several occasions, Blair urged the inquiry to shift from its focus on what led Britain to war to the “2010 question’’ of what the situation would have been without the invasion.


If the United States and Britain had not toppled Hussein, he said, “we would be facing a situation where Iraq would be competing with Iran on nuclear weapons capability and in support of terrorist groups.’’

Know the best way to shut up a lying s*** bag?

Oh, yeah, that's a WAR CRIMINALS SENTENCE, too!!!


Related: Slow Saturday Special: Brits Take Stock of Iraq War

Seems to be a PATTERN, huh?

Other reaction:

Tony Blair Forced to Testify on His War Crimes

Blair's 'we're with you' letter to Bush is kept secret from Iraq inquiry

Saddam's WMDs could not be ignored after 9/11, says 'coward' Blair after avoiding protesters Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was defiant Friday at the Iraq War Inquiry, saying he made it clear he would join the U.S. in a war to topple Saddam Hussein even if the US failed to get UN backing. Blair said 9/11 convinced him he couldn’t 'run the risk' of allowing Saddam Hussein to use chemical, biological or nuclear missiles.

Blair Defends Iraq War: Tells Inquiry That Sending A Message Was 'Primary Consideration' An unrepentant Tony Blair defended his decision to join the United States in attacking Iraq, arguing Friday before a panel investigating the war that the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks made the threat of weapons of mass destruction impossible to ignore.

"Memo to Tony Blair:

1. Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

2. 9/11 was an inside job.

3. Apparently the millions of Iraqis killed, maimed, or who fled as refugees as a result of this war are of no consequence. Sociopaths like you (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al), have utterly no conscience.

4. The oil, however, was of great consequence to you and Washington. The first buildings to be protected and guarded during the invasion of Iraq were the oil ministries.

In short, Tony Blair, you have a massive amount of blood on your hands.

History will judge you through the dark and harsh lens of the truth." -- Wake the Flock Up

I've already made mine.

"A January 2003 meeting between Bliar and Bush that puts the lie to all the diplomatic posturing -- and exposes an even more NEFARIOUS and SINISTER side of the actions our governments have taken to lead us to war.

After reading this, please tell me again how 9/11 could not possibly or conceivably be an inside job.

According to Sands, Bush was
"determined to invade Iraq... even if arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons... the start date... was penciled in for 10 March."

Both leaders knew no weapons had been found, or would likely be, so
"Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colors of the UN in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein."

So there it is!

Discussion of a real-live, honest-to-goodness FALSE-FLAG OPERATION!

Oh, and the assassination talk, um, George, that's a violation of law. Add another WAR CRIME CHARGE to the IMPEACHMENT LEDGER!!!

As for a second UN resolution, the US would "
twist arms and even threaten."

Or SPY on MEMBER STATES, according to the brave British civil servant Katherine Gun.

And how did Bush and Bliar think the war would go?

They were
"supremely confident... envisioned a quick victory... Bush predicted that it was 'unlikely there would be internecine warfare,' " and Bliar agreed.

Blair asked about post-invasion planning and
"Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand... Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."

However, buried deep in the middle of the piece is an incredible acknowledgment, by Bliar.

Bliar wanted the second UN resolution
"because it would serve as an 'insurance policy against the unexpected' if anything went wrong with the military campaign... [it] would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."

Do you comprehend the significance of the statement, reader?

When Bliar talks about an "insurance policy
against the unexpected' if anything went wrong with the military campaign," he recognizes that what he and Bush initiated is a WAR CRIME!!!

When Bliar is concerned about the military campaign and "unexpected" events, he is concerned about the fact that THEY MAY LOSE!


Despite their "supreme confidence" and certainty in their case and cause, these guys were AWARE that they were COMMITTING a WAR CRIME by invading Iraq.


Related: Downing Street Memos

Sands Memos


LONDON - The British university attended by the man alleged to have attacked a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day said yesterday that it would investigate whether there was anything at the school that could push students toward extremism....

Yeah, the pro-Zionist inculcation, 'er, indoctrination, um, brainwashing, I men ejerkashun, can really get to you, pfffft!

Media and counterterrorism experts have highlighted an antiwar conference....

Yeah, to be ANTIWAR is EXTREME!!!


Why don't you CHECK OUT the WARRING HALLS of CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT instead of the FALSE FLAG PATSIES British intel grooms, 'eh?

Also see: War Crimes Reminders