How screwed is Blair?

Clarky · July 2016

when I was driving to the studio yesterday [at 0mph on the M25 for quite some time] I was listening to Chilcot's speech on the radio..

what I was hearing just blew me away..

not being a legal type, how screwed is Blair??

octatonic · July 2016

I don't think anything will happen to him in terms of a prosecution, although it is possible.

He has to live with everyone thinking he is a cunt.

His extreme wealth probably cushions the blow though.

Skipped · July 2016

I am a little bit biased..... only in this sense.
I am sick of people (on other forums) shouting War Criminal every 2 minutes.

I think that Chilcot saying that Blair and Campbell did not tamper with the dossier is absolutely huge for both of them. The Dossier may still be dodgy but it is the Expert Intelligence that was dodgy.

slacker · July 2016

IMHO simplistically it's incompetence rather than dishonesty.

rolls1392 · July 2016

IMHO I think a lot of George W's motivation was to finish the job that his dad didn't. Regarding the intelligence: we will never know what is was crap or accurate.

equalsql · July 2016

He values his own personal wealth above all else. It would be justice if some court out there could strip him of his ill gotten gain and distribute the proceeds to all the families his arrogance has destroyed.

It amazes me that no one has 'taken him out'.

xSkarloey · July 2016

I heard parts of Blair's speech yesterday. I heard him on the radio this morning.

I genuinely think that, once his mind is made up, he is incapable of seeing things from a different point of view.

Some have called it a Messiah complex.

Some call it arrogance.

Others think it's a sign of insecurity.

I honestly think there's something not quite right with him socially and possibly cognitively. Never has been in the past, certainly exacerbated by the Report.

thomasross20 · July 2016

He has too much money, law doesn't apply. Sorry, cynical!

quarky · July 2016

It was interesting to hear the story of "Curveball."

But of all people, his own agents provided Washington with the key bit of evidence which helped fuel the war hysteria: the story about the mobile biological weapons laboratories. It was information that helped justify a war that has cost more than 500,000 lives and plunged the Middle East into chaos. And this information came from just one man: Curveball.

He was, as Tenet said then, an "invaluable asset." Today, it is clear that "Curveball" is an imposter, a fabulist, a man who, in the US, is referred to as the "con man who caused the war." "Curveball," writes spy-thriller author Frederick Forsyth, is responsible for the "biggest fiasco in the history of secret intelligence."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-real-story-of-curveball-how-german-intelligence-helped-justify-the-us-invasion-of-iraq-a-542840.html.

That article was written EIGHT years ago, and he is still being protected as far as I know.

menamestom · July 2016

Skipped said:

I am a little bit biased..... only in this sense.
I am sick of people (on other forums) shouting War Criminal every 2 minutes.

I think that Chilcot saying that Blair and Campbell did not tamper with the dossier is absolutely huge for both of them. The Dossier may still be dodgy but it is the Expert Intelligence that was dodgy.

It's quite clear Bush and Blair made their mind up to go to war and looked for whatever they could to back them up legally, rather than going to war due to a genuine threat. The world and his dog knew Saddam was no major threat to world peace and the WMD claims were flakey.
So Blair gets off the hook, in the eyes of the law he'll hell not be classed as a war criminal, due to questionable legal backing, the worst he will face is some kind of political misconduct charge or accusation, for not fully briefing and consulting the correct poeple before marching on with his crusade.
I actually find it more disturbing that he did believe he was doing the right thing and he some how had God's approval to do so. If he is not a war criminal lets just call him a 'deluded megalomaniac who assisted in the deaths of half a million people for no good reason'. Or for short 'founder member of ISIL'.

Clarky · July 2016

from what I heard of Chilcot's speech, it sounded like the US had already come up with a solution and were looking for evidence and reasons to justify it and so the invasion was pretty much a foregone conclusion no matter what.

Blair though did manage to convince Bush that he needed to handle this via the UN in order to get some sort of mandate.If I understood it correctly, some countries in the UN opposed this [Germany, France and Russia.. and some others I think]. So the UN didn't quite deliver what Bush hoped for.

I think it was around this time when Blair sent that iffy mail effectively stating that the US would have the support of the UK no matter what the outcome in the UN. From then on I think the military planning was already under way.

A former senior navy fella on commented that they in his opinion, they expected it to be rather like Kosovo; whereby the allies will defeat the Iraqi military, sort out Saddam, and then Iraq would step up and move forwards with a new democratically elected government and become a nice country. He did point out though that Blair had been warned from several sources that the situation in Iraq with more complex than that with some deep religious, political and tribal divisions within it.

It seems that this advice was not really taken on board and the invasion went ahead anyhow.

it looks to me like the allies were so successful in destroying the Iraqi military, that the country no longer had the capacity to defend itself from threats from within as a result of the power vacuum after the invasion.

also that much of the former Iraqi military went underground to continue fighting against the occupying allies and would eventually reemerge forming the core of the ISIS fighters.

the new Iraqi army, equipped and trained by the west had little or no combat experience were facing a more determined and experienced enemy. Apparently many of them threw down their weapons and kit and fled - which in turn equipped ISIS.

The navy fella did say though that the invasion of Iraqi would have had to happen at some point and that all they had to do was wait a while, and then Saddam would have eventually caused some sort of situation that would have legitimised UN military intervention but this time with a proper mandate.

Sadly it seems that the US didn't have the patience for this.

I looks to me like Blair was caught between an ally chomping at the bit to get going, and trying to get the ally to see sense and do things the right way via the UN.

I'm wondering if Blair found himself between a rock and a hard place and eventually caved in to support the US.

The other thing though is the Blair has proved repeatedly [during his term as PM and since] that he can't be trusted and he's a seriously good actor.

I'm beginning to think that Blair is in a 50-50 situation where he knowingly did the wrong thing at the wrong time and is guilty of some sort of crime, but also felt compelled to support an ally to rid the world of a very nasty man and his regime..

Chalky · July 2016

Like Thatcher in her latter days, Blair questioned whether he was right, and used his antagonists as his guide - the more of them there were and the more vehement their antagonism, the greater his self-assurance that he was right and they were wrong.

Gassage · July 2016

His lack of contrition and sheer smugness beggared belief. Self awareness bypass

Clarky · July 2016

I reckon Blair should be tested by the law on this and face a trail [but on what charge I have no idea cos I'm not a law type]

he's left a trail of destruction and lost lives that continues today

no matter what the outcome, the families of the dead and maimed would at least get some comfort that he'll either face some sort of consequences for his actions, or he'll be cleared of any wrong doing

I've don't like Blair at all..

I voted for him when he first stood, and within months he'd gone back on almost everything he promised..

I never voted Labour again

it's been stated many times what a good actor he is, and how good he is at manipulating people and public opinion..

one thing I will say though… at least he did have the nuts to stand up and face 2 hours of questioning in public..

Bush would never do that.. and probably couldn't do it..

probably because his story would unravel pretty quickly

Snap · July 2016

Whatever else people level at Blair, he is a master politician, a true heavyweight, the like of which we haven't seen since he packed up.

I remember both Iraq wars, very well. What seems to be being overlooked in this race to burn Bush & Blair at the stake, is how Saddam continually blocked inspectors, moved things around and generally stoked the fires of belief that he did in fact have WMD. He did plenty to bolster the view that he was in possession of weaponry that could take all and sundry out.

What is clear with hindisght is that a lot of Saddam's behaviour was macho posturing, and also lunatic posturing. He was playing a game of blink with world leading militaries, and we took the bait.

The sad thing is that thousand of lives got caught in it.

I think if parliament were in the same circumstances again, they would vote to war.

What is black and white to me is that they believed that they were right to invade but critically also clear is that there was no plan whatsoever, anywhere, for what to do after Saddam was removed and its left the whole region in chaos.

Lets not forget, Saddam was keeping a lot of extremist and radical factions in check, in amongst his brutality and tyranny. Historically the west had been quite happy to encourage him in his grip on the region. Nothing was planned to deal with the aftermath.

Kids with guns, thats what the Allies were. Running round causing havoc and then looking round at the mess, thinking, "shite, what now then??"

Emp_Fab · July 2016

Screwed ? Not at all. Nothing will happen to Teflon Tony.

Bucket · July 2016

Snap said:
Lets not forget, Saddam was keeping a lot of extremist and radical factions in check, in amongst his brutality and tyranny. Historically the west had been quite happy to encourage him in his grip on the region. Nothing was planned to deal with the aftermath.

This is something I find difficult to wrestle with.

On the one hand, yes, he was a brutal and awful dictator and it must have been shit living under his rule.

But on the other hand, one can't help but wonder whether the wider world would actually currently be in a better state if he was left in power. Or at the very least, if they had some kind of actual successor in place.

TheBlueWolf · July 2016

At best Tony Blair was grossly naive. I'm not an expert on law ( or the conditions under which a war is legally allowed ) but it does seem that the reasons for the Iraq war and it's justification were tenuous.

I'm in the camp that thinks not much will happen to Blair in a legal sense. He really does live up to his 'Teflon' moniker

menamestom · July 2016

Snap said:

I remember both Iraq wars, very well. What seems to be being overlooked in this race to burn Bush & Blair at the stake, is how Saddam continually blocked inspectors, moved things around and generally stoked the fires of belief that he did in fact have WMD.

But seriously, you don't go from old soviet scud missiles and not being able to hit targets a few hundred miles away to having the sophistication for nuclear weaponry. Saddam stoked nothing but Blair and Bushes ego's. His mistake was not realising they would be stupid enough to mount an invasion.

Snap said:

What is clear with hindisght is that a lot of Saddam's behaviour was macho posturing, and also lunatic posturing. He was playing a game of blink with world leading militaries, and we took the bait.

I think if parliament were in the same circumstances again, they would vote to war.

They are, North Korea. Kim jong-un is a certified lunatic. Macho posturing is his hobby. The only difference is it wouldn't be an easy fight, so the west will leave well alone. Iraq, they knew the march to Bagdad would be largely routine, being that Saddam was no match for their military might.

The West knew North Korea were developing nuclear weapons but didn't do anything about it because they were too interested in a fight they knew they could win against Saddam, because Bush Snr didn't finish the job and Jr had a score to settle.

impmann · July 2016

He needs to stand trial for war crimes. Others have stood for less.

He won't, though.

Too many greased palms and too many 'friends'.

He's a disgrace to his party and to this country.

JezWynd · July 2016

It must be odd for a man whose religious faith runs so deep, to even consider that he might be responsible for thousands of deaths. But then religion has caused more grief and suffering than practically anything else since time began, so nothing new there. He wears his belief in his righteousness as a shield to hold at bay all the grief of the families of victims.

I think it's possible he may face some private prosecutions, either from families of service personnel or maybe a kind of 'class action' suit bought by victims in Iraq. There seem to be some senior army people who are willing to stand up and say he ignored best advice and facts that he chose to reject.

If it only serves to tangle him up in the legal system for the next ten years it will be some consolation to victims and be a constant reminder to him of what misery he has wrought.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

How screwed is Blair?

Comments