Blogs

Tony Blair is advising a murderer. Is there anything he won’t do?

4 July 2014

4 July 2014

I see that Tony Blair is to advise Egypt’s president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi on economic reform. El-Sisi has incarcerated 20,000 protestors, a bunch of journalists and murdered 2,500 opponents. Is there anyone who Mr Blair would not advise? Does the man not have even the slenderest shred of shame? Incredible. Incidentally, some unnamed former colleague of Blair’s attacked him for his latest appointment, saying that it would do ‘terrible damage to new Labour’s legacy.’ Bandage up those ribs right now.

Tone makes an appearance in my column for the mag this week, which is largely about the exciting and vibrant leader of the Islamic Caliphate, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Abu is what we have now, in Iraq, as a consequence of Blair’s criminal and deeply deluded decision to invade the country.


More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us.

Show comments
  • JB_1966

    He felched Peter Mandelson for his support in the leadership contest, which is as true a statement as the “£10bn Black Hole” from the 1997 election campaign.

  • Dr. Heath

    Isn’t this Blair character the same chap who announced that the Russian tyrant, Putin, was someone that Blair, then a neophyte politician, reckoned he could “do business” with? He obviously has a talent for buddying up to murderers. A mere matter of personal chemistry being more powerful than the feelings of shame or disgust experienced by normal people. I think many people prior to the war reported feeling the same sort of embarrassing attraction to the German tyrant, that bloke whose name none of us is supposed to mention for fear of having anything we say discounted as nonsense by some adolescent wanker in charge of enforcing the arcane but terribly important rules of internet usage.

  • Bobby Morton

    Was it Robert Harris who thought he is bonkers or was it just most normal people? I remember seeing him quizzed by Sue Lawley on Nationwide when I was twelve, the mad grin and look nowhere eyes reminded me of my woodwork teacher in 1978.

  • anosrep

    Cross out the word “advising” in the headline.

  • Simon Fay

    In his longevity, unspeakable baseness and untouchability he is the human equivalent of a Westminster paedo scandal.

  • jesseventura2

    Why no fatwa on this vermin Blair?

  • maurice12brady

    A little naive here Ron & not quite your usual incisive standards — people like blair & cameron do work for murderers — it’s in the job description!

  • Daidragon

    I doubt he’d walk away from his kids because they might have an adverse effect on his social life. He wouldn’t do that.

  • DrWatt

    Tony Blair is a narcissist with a messiah complex – he is also a liar, a warmongerer and worst of all … he is a traitor to every traditional working class Labour supporter who saw their low incomes suppressed and livelihoods disappear due to his party’s policy of throwing open the doors to mass uncontrolled immigration – a policy that wrecked Britain.

    Tony Blair will go down in history – along with his ideological nemesis David Cameron – as the man who destroyed Britain.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    “Tony Blair pelted with eggs and shoes at Dublin book signing”
    After that (September 2010), the Irish forced Blair to abandon his the book signing ego trips.
    If you Brits made every public appearance a public relations nightmare, Blair’s value on the international stage would be severely compromised.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    So here`s the deal, you back off on exposing Tony and we`ll do the same with Ted.

  • john king

    Remember the Tory campaign under Howard? Devil eyes?
    Starting to make sense now.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      “New Labour, New Danger”

  • justejudexultionis

    Tony Blair is the most hated man in Britain, after Peter Sutcliffe and Ian Brady.

    • Cyril Sneer

      Nah I have higher regard for Sutcliffe and Brady.

  • john king

    The short answer to your headline question is NO. He’s sold his soul to satan.

    • Fergus Pickering

      What soul was that? Satan wouldn’t take it as a gift.

    • Inverted Meniscus

      How much did he get for it and has he declared the proceeds to HMRC?

  • Sean L

    Probably many things he wouldn’t do; but perhaps not many things he wouldn’t *say* to advance whatever cause he’s promoting at the time, which at that moment becomes an extension of his self. But isn’t that more or less true of everyone with a *cause*? Isn’t that what zealotry in effect *is*? Just a pity that Blair’s abundance of charm and vitailty is so ill-directed. But his liberal worldview is a function of a thoroughly British education, in his case reinforced perhaps by a no less zealous spouse.

  • Neil Saunders

    Absolutely nothing, as long as there’s money involved. Next question, Rod!

  • GraveDave

    Don’t you ever just wish that Tony had kept his guitar and made it in rock and roll first. Just think, in that universe, we could all be laughing at him now.
    Like Moscow Roscoe.

  • rtj1211

    He wouldn’t allow thig blog to promote Free Speech, that’s for sure.

    • arnoldo87

      No – of course not – not the man who gave us the Freedom of Information legislation.

  • wudyermucuss

    Apparently,

    removing mass murdering totalitarian psychopathic tyrant,who has invaded several of his neighbours,used WMDs,and committed genocide

    BAD

    instigating,promoting and enforcing the mass invasion and occupation of a previously pretty cohesive and vibrant country by millions of foreigners,many of whom are 3rd world,many of whom hold utterly savage views and practices which has led to a fractured,Balkanized ghettoized country

    PLEASE MOVE ALONG,NOTHING TO SEE HERE

  • WimsThePhoenix

    I loathe the disgusting vile creature Blair, but do you honestly think there could be a leader of Egypt who was NOT a murderer? Part and parcel of the Muslim Middle East, I’m afraid.

  • Hippograd

    He wouldn’t turn against Israel. Not unless a better offer came along.

  • edlancey

    If you are prepared to share a bed with Cherie, what’s a little bit of war crimes ?

  • beenzrgud

    Is there anything he won’t do????
    He started an illegal war that saw thousands killed, so I guess the answer has to be NO.

  • Terry Field

    Poor bloody Egyptians if they take that fool’s advice on economics – the prat can’t spell the word – he dismantled the great legacy of Thatcher, then gave it to the Scottish fruitcake to terminally screw it up – and save the world!
    Hubris
    Nemesis
    Justice and Jail???

    • ohforheavensake

      He was Thatcher’s true heir (as she herself recognised).

      • Terry Field

        We all make mis-judgments from time to time

  • John Smith

    If there is money in it Cherie will be kicking him out the door in the morning

    • Terry Field

      Is she not fragrant?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

  • Kitty MLB

    Oh darling Rod, You couldn’t make this up if you tried.
    The middle eastern peace envoy that is or was Blair, is an
    absolute deranged lunatic that should be in prison for war crimes
    and not helping despots.No wonder he led you to leave the Labour
    party.You have integrity even if he has not a drop.

    • arnoldo87

      “Oh darling Rod, You couldn’t make this up if you tried”

      Well, apparently Rod did, or at least swallowed a story from the Guardian.

      This is what Blair’s office had to say about the story:-

      “The story is nonsense and we have told them so. Tony Blair is not a formal advisor to Sisi he has simply said that it is vital for Egypt, the region and the world that the new President and his Government succeed in reforming their country and taking it to a better future and that the international community supports them in doing so. He has said this publically on a number of occasions and also stated he would be happy to help galvanise that support if he can.

      This is nothing to do with ‘business opportunities’ and we have absolutely no idea what correspondence the Guardian is referring to. Let me be very clear – neither Tony Blair, nor any of his organisations have any commercial interest in Egypt, nor are they seeking business in Egypt, nor have they ever discussed doing business in Egypt. This is simply incorrect.

      What is true and we have made categorically clear is that there is no commercial interest in, and absolutely no intention to make money from, Egypt”

      What were you saying about integrity, darling Kitty?

      • girondas2

        “This is simply incorrect.”

        So it’s true then.

        • arnoldo87

          Yes of course it’s true.

          No need to check your story for evidence where Tony Blair is concerned. Oh no.

          You’ve never believed in doing that have you?

          No – far better to stay in the comfortable arms of your fellow conspiracy theorists and carry on telling each other that you are all correct.

          When the truth is that not one of you can come up with even one lie that Blair told about Iraq.

          Even when you can be bothered to make the effort.

          • girondas2

            Yea Arnie, black is white and white is black.
            You are a servant of a corrupt man.
            It’s time to impeach Blair.

      • Justice seeker

        And, everyone’s, to believe the above. Like, there were weapons of WMD’S, to inflict carnage, on the UK, in 45 minutes, with an Oscar winning, performance, from Blair, to parliament and the nation. If, Blair has, this talent, to take, these, countries, to a better future (Look at Iraq, now) why did he leave, his own country, in such, a terrible mess. The reason?. Because, the public, could see him, for what he really is, and had had, enough of him. He couldn’t sweet talk, us anymore, and the most important, reason for him, he would, not of made, the millions. These, countries, he is suppose, to be helping, know him, as the ex PM of the UK, he’s a celebrity, to them. He will, sweet talk, them, and say, all the things, that, they, will, want to hear and more, he doesn’t, really, change things for them, but of course, he gives them hope, at the, time and they’ll, hug and kiss him, with, lots of smiles. Once he’s wormed, his way in, he, then, will be, introduced, to the, rich and we all, know, what happens then, another, home, worth millions, for Cherie, to add to the portfolio.

        • arnoldo87

          I see that you prefer the scattergun approach.

          • Justice seeker

            It, missed, you, as a target, but then, that was to be expected. Not, like, the bombs, in Bush and Blair’s ” Shock and awe” in Iraq and 7/7 bus bombings, in London. I, would love to know why, you defend him. Or, are you him, or one of his cronies?

            • arnoldo87

              Have you got a large “comma” button on your keypad?

              • Justice seeker

                Maybe, a bit heavy handed with the commas. Don’t want you, to get too out of breath. Can you please put your case forward and tell us, what the UK, has gained from the Iraq war. Then answer these.
                Do you agree, that when Labour left government, the debt that the UK was left in, was not caused by the war in Iraq?
                Do you agree, that the Iraq war has made the World a safer place and that hundreds of thousands, of innocent people, did not die in vain?
                Do you agree, that Blair was right to allow thousands of immigrants, into this small country.
                Would you mind, a houseful of criminal immigrants, living next door to you?
                Would you mind, living next door to one of the families, whose sons have gone to join Isis. And then, for them to return?
                Would you, have been happy to fight in Iraq, or for, one of your children, for your country and Tony Blair?
                Would you be happy to visit Iraq at this present time, maybe for a short break ? And it would be short.
                How would you feel now,if you had fought and lost both legs, would you shrug your shoulders and say “All’s fair in love and war”.?
                Do you agree, that we could afford to stay in Iraq for ever? Not only financially, but the lives, that would of been lost. Because what is happening now, would happen anyway. Tony Blair was warned, by experts of the consequences. He’s a coward as he, left the decision to leave Iraq, for someone else to make.
                He wanted to run with the big boys, Education, Education, Education was not exciting enough for him and nor was the UK . Not enough money, in it.
                And he still advises war, but then he’s not fighting and nor are his children and I don’t think you are, or have either.
                When warned by, an expert in the army of going to war in Iraq. All Blair could say was ” But Saddam’s evil, isn’t he”.
                As far as I can see, you are the only Pro Blair( Thank God ) on this site.

                • arnoldo87

                  How nice of you to take an interest in my views.

                  The answers to most of your questions can be found by clicking on my name and reading my posts over the past few years.

                  Please forgive me if I have omitted the occasional comma.

  • Wessex Man

    No not a thing, he should instead be in The Hague facing a war crimes trial.

  • guest14

    He’s a lawyer.

  • Jez

    Yes Rod, there is.

    He won’t fuck off.

    • post_x_it

      Why should he? People are paying him an awful lot of money to stick around and spout his opinions.

    • GraveDave

      How do you get that past the censors? They wont even allow me to say
      sh – sh- sh- sh- ite. I’m beginning to feel it’s personal.

  • arnoldo87

    “Abu is what we have now, in Iraq, as a consequence of Blair’s criminal and deeply deluded decision to invade the country.”

    No – what we have in Iraq now is a direct result of the West’s decision to withdraw its troops after the sectarian murder rate had been reducing year by year from the peak in 2005/6., coupled with the West’s decision not to help the original Syrian rebels in 2011 when they had the upper hand in 2011. Both of these decisions were supported by you and other non-interventionists (which I concede constitute the majority of the West’s electorate).

    However, the current situation in Iraq stems directly from those two decisions. It is the non-interventionists such as you, Rod, who this time have to explain away the death and destruction in Iraq and Syria.

    • saffrin

      You should never connect Government actions with the electorate’s wishes unless that Government is UKIP.

      • arnoldo87

        UKIP government? The very definition of an oxymoron.

        • Wessex Man

          head in sand still?

        • Inverted Meniscus

          But infinitely preferable to a Labour Government. And no, I am not a UKIP supporter.

  • davidofkent

    Perhaps I have missed something, but I though he was meant to be the Middle East Peace Envoy. If so, why is he nowhere near Baghdad or Damascus, or Gaza for that matter?

    • pablo58

      Yeah, that “Middle East Peace Envoy” thing’s going well, isn’t it?

  • Diggery Whiggery

    “Tony Blair is advising a murderer. Is there anything he won’t do?”

    Yes, turn himself in.

    I’ve got a special box in my garden shed. In it are several copies of Razzle from the 1980’s (oops too much info) and my pride and joy……a 6ft long piece of rope with Tony’s name on it (no really I wrote it on myself in permanent marker). His time will come one day and I’ll be front and centre when it does.

    P.S. To all the intrepid members of our security and intelligence community logging and analyzing this thread, can you please also log the fact that I’m joking i.e. I’m not being serious. Thanks for tuning in.

    • saffrin

      I know how you feel. I was half hoping Bliar would come knocking on my door canvassing.
      Could I get him before his protection team got me?

      • Cyril Sneer

        I had an acid bath ready and waiting should he knock on my door. Sadly he didn’t.

    • beenzrgud

      I’ve got a special pair of steel toe capped wellies to kick him in the goolies before he gets strung up. If the intelligence community are listening in I would advise them to keep out of the way lest they also receive a kick to the goolies.

  • Holby18

    You did not check your sources. this was first reported in the Guardian and then the Mail. the office of Tony Blair refutes the story.

    • Diggery Whiggery

      “Tony Blair is advising a murderer. Is there anything he won’t do?”

      Well his word is his bond as we all know.

    • Roger Harris

      That’s more misinformation from the Bliar. Compare Alex Thomson, Channel 4 News, July 2nd, following the claim that the Blair’s not getting directly paid:
      “So I asked, can we be clear – is Tony Blair acting in any way as an adviser to the Egyptian junta?
      Tony Blair’s spokeswoman put me on hold and then said she would have to get back to me on that.”

    • Fergus Pickering

      No it doesn’t. It denies it.

  • global city

    I hate Tony Blair, but, on the separate issue of Egypt….

    I see the situation in Egypt more like the improvement in Germany had the Army decided a year after the Nazis got in had collectively thought, ‘man, these people are feckin’ nuts, we’d better do something about it and remove them’

    Would that have been besmirching democracy?

    The Egyptians made a horrific mistake, and I bet they won’t repeat it the next time they have democracy restored….just as I bet the people of Gaza would not vote for Hamas, should they ever be allowed another election.

    • girondas2

      Well quite!. We must remain forever optimistic.

  • Aberrant_Apostrophe

    I was going to say ‘sell his soul to the Devil’, but I expect he did that when he entered politics.

    • Kitty MLB

      When his dark void of a soul benighted politics, that was
      a very shameful day. Blair is a vainglorious, deluded, shameless little man. He also has said he feels no guilt
      about anything he did during his time in office…
      Who can say they feel no guilt, especially with blood on
      their hands.

      • Tom M

        Some poor wretches like Lady MacBeth feel guilt even when they think they have blood on their hands.

  • mattghg

    “Is there anything he won’t do?”

    Well, sure: admit a mistake, turn down a lucrative offer, tell the truth about Iraq, defy his American overlords, …

    • Inverted Meniscus

      Invite Gordon Brown to his Birthday Party. You missed that one.

  • Colin56

    The straightforward answer to your headline question is ‘No, there isn’t.’ What do you expect?

  • Pootles

    For Pete’s sake, when is the man going to be sectioned?!

    • Colin56

      He’s not mad – just an extremely shameless, avaricious man trading on his reputation as a ‘statesman’ gained at taxpayers’ expense to persuade the gullible to part with fabulous sums of money for ‘consultancy’ or ‘advice’. Worked out well for him, hasn’t it?

      • Pootles

        Yes, that too. But I’m not sure that his apparently narcissic, psychopathic and delusional nature doesn’t constitute madness. He’s dangerous anyway.

        • Colin56

          I think you’re making excuses for him. He knows exactly what he is about. Just like he did when he took us to war on a lie. Nice of you to suggest it but most of the rest of us wouldn’t let him off the hook with the excuse of insanity!

          • Pootles

            I wasn’t intending it as an excuse. I don’t think the sw*ne should get off any hook (but he will), I just think Blair, and quite a few other people in various positions of power, aren’t quite right in the head compared with Mr or Mrs Ordinary Bloke.

            • Colin56

              I think that’s absolutely right: being not ‘quite right in the head’ is an attribute that one can easily apply to most politicians and to other leaders as well. I’m glad we can agree on that!

          • arnoldo87

            There was no lie. You certainly can’t name it. Quote, source and date please.

            • saffrin

              Vote Labour. An End to Sleaze.
              Dr Kelly committed suicide.
              I’ve done nothing wrong.
              Iraq has WMD capable of hitting our shores with 45min’s.
              I’m sure there are plenty more, many a time I have witnessed his lips moving.

              • arnoldo87

                The inquest concluded that Kelly committed suicide. Perhaps the coroner was in on the conspiracy as well?
                At no time did Blair say Iraq could hit our shores with WMD
                Why don’t you have a serious attempt, old chap?

                • saffrin

                  Try giving up that pot for a week, you might remember sumut?

                • girondas2

                  “The inquest concluded that Kelly committed suicide. Perhaps the coroner was in on the conspiracy as well?”
                  Maybe or maybe not, but at the very least he was hounded to his death for telling the truth.

                • arnoldo87

                  There is no evidence that Kelly told the truth.

                • girondas2

                  “There is no evidence that Kelly told the truth.”
                  Yes there is Arnie. – there were no weapons of mass destruction, were there Arnie? – just like Kelly said.

                • arnoldo87

                  If you knew anything about this subject at all you would be aware that David Kelly believed that there were WMD in Iraq.

                  All you have to do is read the subject up to rid yourself of your painful ignorance.

                • girondas2

                  And all you need do is stop pretending that Blair had genuine evidence of WMD in Iraq and rid yourself of defending his painful dishonesty.

                • arnoldo87

                  I gather that you have educated yourself on David Kelly, then?

                  No need to apologise.

                • girondas2

                  Aplogise for what Arnie?
                  By the way Arnie – where are these WMD – the ones that Blair had indisputable evidence existed?

                • Kitty MLB

                  Kelly did not commit suicide and WMD is not exist. Just an
                  reason to befuddle when Blair wished to partake in a illegal war. If they were present, why have they not been found.
                  You are being wilfully blind, old chap.

                • girondas2

                  I asked you a question Arnie:
                  ” – where are these WMD – the ones that Blair had indisputable evidence existed?”

                  cat got your tongue Arnie?
                  It’s
                  an important question, because if they exist, and we know they must
                  exist because Blair had irrefutable evidence that they exist, then they
                  must exist somewhere mustn’t they?
                  And if they exist somewhere then, as they are WMD, they must consitute a mortal threat mustn’t they?
                  A
                  sufficient threat surely, to justify hunting them down and invading
                  whichever country has got them now. Hey- might be Iraq -wouldn’t that be
                  fun?

                  But of course they don’t exist, and never did exist. All
                  Iraq had was the same few tubs of poison that just about every country
                  in the world can rustle up and Blair’s story was bullsh*t from
                  beginning to end.

                • arnoldo87

                  If you actually read the posts on this blog, I have already answered this question, but for your benefit here it is again:-

                  “All of the WMD claims were made by MI6.

                  Or did you think that Blair had his own intelligence outfit that KNEW there were no WMD, and yet he claimed there WERE some in the sure knowledge that after the invasion he would turn out to be proven wrong?

                  Do you REALLY believe that?”
                  You replied that you did not believe it, so it begs the question as to what you actually do believe. You have to believe in one or the other.
                  Not that I care – I’m looking for knowledgeable people to give me evidence of a lie – not chancers who really don’t have a clue about the subject.

                • girondas2

                  Oh but I did read the posts Arnie, including the excellent post from Pootles that demolished your argument and left you with nothing left in your armoury but bluster and insult.

                • girondas2

                  1

                • Neil Saunders

                  You’re a spook, arnoldo87. Report back toMI5, if you must, but leave decent people alone!

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  A typically disgusting smear. Lucky for you he cannot answer back.

                • arnoldo87

                  There is no evidence that Kelly told the truth.

                • Kitty MLB

                  If Kelly committed suicide then he was somehow forced into it,
                  but I believe there was something not quite right about the entire affair.

                • arnoldo87

                  I’m sure we would all be interested to know exactly how you can force a person to commit suicide.

                • Kitty MLB

                  Its possible to make a thoroughly decent person feel utterly
                  responsible that they feel death is the only way out. But there
                  was something very suspicious about the whole affair and I am
                  sure Blair knows the answers. How much blood does that man
                  have on his hands?

                • allymax bruce

                  There is a video interview of Bliar on 17th July 2003, when Blair was on his ‘World Traveller .. chartered British Airways
                  777 jet which was ferrying him round his ill-fated Far East tour’ (Daily Mail), that shows him sweating, vexed and seriously uncomfortable when told by a journalist that Dr Kelly had just (within the hour), been found dead. The Daily Mail tries to ‘shift the focus’ onto a different dated interview on 22nd July; but if you can get hold of the Bliar interview video footage of 17th July, then you’ll know for certain Bliar was up to his neck in it.

                • Justice seeker

                  Definitely, up to his neck in it. Poor, Dr David Kelly would, of put a spanner, in the works, he, said, that they, didn’t find WMDs. Well, Bush and Blair couldn’t have that, they couldn’t, have a war. Even medical experts, Dr David Kelly’s friends, protested and said it was impossible for him to cut his wrist, due, to a medical problem, he suffered with, also there was, hardly any blood, according to medics. Why,I wonder, did the Daily Mail, try to, shift it onto another interview?.

                • allymax bruce

                  Hi Justice seeker, thanks for your reply.
                  Yes, that’s the ‘official line’ of conspiracy put out by the Establishment at the time, but there was much more about to happen that this ‘official line’ disguises/hides. We, the world, is now reaching an overload of ‘transparency’ because of the difficulty in hiding/disguising Truth; the veil is truly being torn in two!

                • Kitty MLB

                  He was up to his neck in it, yet still managed
                  to sliver out. Justice must be done some day
                  surely, Ally.

                • allymax bruce

                  That’s on the way, Kitty; Home Secretary Theresa May has recently announced (inadvertantly), the inquiry would also be entitled to look into papers kept by the security services, and May said she would see if ‘former officials could be freed from obligations under the Official Secrets Act.’ It could include reports from Special Branch, intelligence services and submissions sent to Prime Ministers! This, ‘accompanied’ with/by Rome Statute ‘parameters of War Crimes’ from ‘acts of Aggression’ in war, being fervently pursued by ICC, using their recent Kampala Declaration of 2010.

                  Tony Bliar’s snake-charming days are over; the Middle East is the only place looking likely Bliar can ‘rest assured’.

                • Justice seeker

                  Agree and an awful lot of blood. After, hearing today on how corrupt, the powers that be, are. Tony Blair, will get away with murder.

                • girondas2

                  “How much blood does that man have on his hands?”
                  A lot. He is answerable to Iraq, at least partially, for the deaths amongst Iraqis. I say partially because Iraqis seem to have astonishing appetite for killing each other and we cannot hold him completely responsible for that – they don’t have to do it. However we can hold him completely resposible for the unneccessary deaths of our serviceman that he sent there.

                • Kitty MLB

                  Well I remember everyone becoming somewhat exited not so long ago with their Arab Spring nonsense. Yet with this astonishing appetite for sending each other to oblivion its more like eternal Arab Winter.
                  One of those wasted lives belonged to someone I knew, his mother asked the other week if he died in vein. People just say
                  to her that there is a special type of honour when you give up your life defending a stranger.. how can you say anything else.

                • Kitty MLB

                  Oh but I am not suggesting Blair saw the chap off himself.

                • girondas2

                  You can hound a man to his death Arnie.

            • David B

              The point about a lie is it has no basis in fact. So where do we start

              20 minutes to attach by Iraq
              WMD in Iraq

              That’s two for a start

              • arnoldo87

                20 minutes to attach?
                Accurate and impressive

              • Augustus

                In January, 2004, David Kay, the first head of the Iraq Survey Group, which conducted the search for Saddam’s WMD, told a British newspaper there was evidence unspecified materials had been moved to Syria from Iraq shortly before the war. “We know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD program”. Also, in his final report, Charles Duelfer, who succeeded David Kay as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said he couldn’t rule out a transfer of WMD from Iraq to Syria.

                A couple of years later, Georges Sada, who had been deputy chief of Saddam Hussein’s air force claimed Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war began.”Special Republican Guard brigades loaded yellow barrels with the skull and crossbones sign on each barrel onto two airliners from which the seats had been removed. There were 56 flights in all.” He said he was told of the WMD transfer by the pilots of the two airliners who approached him after Saddam was captured.

                I believe there’s quite a lot more evidence, including satellite imagery of non stop convoys into Syria. So, it’s probably true that he had chemical weapons, and plenty of them.

              • Flintshire Ian

                24 hours to save the NHS.
                That was his biggest lie of all.

                • arnoldo87

                  Quote, source and date please?

                • girondas2

                  Look it up yourself Arnie.

            • Pootles

              How about in the Commons a day before the attack on Iraq started, when Blair said that the whole business was NOT about regime change, and that if the Iraqis handed over all the (non-existant – read Scott Ritter) WMD then there would be no attack. So, it wasn’t about regime change ? Er…don’t think so.

              • arnoldo87

                No – it wasn’t about regime change, it was about getting rid of the WMD.Blair made this perfectly clear before the war, saying that the removal of Saddam would be a beneficial side effect of the invasion.
                So where is the lie?

                • Pootles

                  No, after the invasion, Blair said it was about regime change. And how could it have been about WMD when it was known that there weren’t any ?

                • arnoldo87

                  Sorry – you will not find any statement by Blair after the war that says it was about regime change alone. He always said that the reason for invasion was to get rid of WMD, and that regime change was the best way of doing it.

                  And as you yourself said, had Saddam proved that he had given up the weapons, there would have been no invasion with British involvement.

                  It was about WMD because almost the whole world believed before the invasion that there WERE some in Iraq. That was what resolution 1441 was about.

                  Were you in a coma at the time, or is it just now?

                • Pootles

                  Drop the insults – they just make you look silly. No, the ‘whole world’ (!) did NOT believe that there were WMD. The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the UN weapons inspector Mohamed El Baradi confirmed that there were not. Blair and Bush, and their acolytes, kept coming up with more and more absurd statements that were shown, at the time, to be false. One was the claim that Iraq was buying uranium in Africa that had ‘no civil nuclear application’ – that was shown to be rubbish at the time. The other was Blair’s statement that WMD ‘are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them’ .
                  Contrary to what you think, a large section (probably the majority) of public opinion, including the entire anti-war movement, did not believe there were WMD. Further, there were plenty of informed voices saying just that – have a look at ‘War on Iraq; what team Bush doesn’t want you to know’, Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, Profile Books, London, 2002.

                • arnoldo87

                  ” The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the UN weapons inspector Mohamed El Baradi confirmed that there were not”

                  Please give me the quote, date and source for this claim.

                  The 45 minute claim was made by MI6 in the dossier as was all of the intelligence. Or did you think that Blair had his own intelligence outfit that KNEW there were no WMD, and yet he claimed there WERE some in the sure knowledge that after the invasion he would turn out to be proven wrong?

                  Do you REALLY believe that?
                  Now, as for thisstatement:-

                  “Contrary to what you think, a large section (probably the majority) of public opinion, including the entire anti-war movement, did not believe there were WMD.”

                  I would really like to see your evidence for this – but of course you will not find any authoritative source to prove your claim.

                • Pootles

                  For the first, see, Randeep Ramesh (ed), The War We Could Not Stop (Faber & Faber, London, 2003), p.28.
                  The second: MI6 provides intelligence to the government and the Prime Minister, as do other agencies, for example, the Foreign Office. That intelligence always comes with caveats and cautions (I have done a lot of historical work with intelligence files from the 1920s-1970s, and very little is not without caution as to sources etc). It is up to the PM and his advisors to decide the balance of probabilities and assign different to weightings to different briefings and sources. We know that the dossier that led to so much trouble (the ‘sexed up’ one) came with strong caveats – until Alistair Campbell got his hands on it. There was a drive among the Blair camp to read every last bit of possible information in the light of their desire for war. It didn’t matter, in fact, whether there were WMD as far as Blair was concerned, because what he (and George Bush) wanted was war. It was a good excuse and they used it as much as possible to get the war. And they got what they wanted.
                  Third: do you think the anti-war movement (the biggest spontaneous movement in British history) thought that there were WMD, that they could be launched within 45 minutes of the order being given, and that they could hit Cyrpus, for example – (oh, the reference for that can be found in the map that went with the Evening Standard’s 45 minutes front page). Do you think that the anti-war movement would have been so big and so active if its members thought that gas or even nuclear attacks were likely ? Why don’t you give me a reference saying that they did ? Or how about a reference for your claim that ‘the whole world’ knew there were WMD?
                  Scott Ritter was an ex-US Marine and a UN weapons inspector – his voice carried weight.
                  Now, plenty have people have made it clear on this thread why they dislike Blair and his war mongering so much. and you’ve enjoyed yourself being abusive, pompous, sneering, and dismissive. Why don’t you tell everyone why you think Blair is such a marvellous chap, and explain why you think he is right about everything. Go on, have a go.

                • arnoldo87

                  For the first give me the actual quote not the page reference.

                  As for a reference that almost the whole world thought there were WMD, try UM resolution 1441, passed unanimously, calling for Saddam to prove that he had got rid of all his WMD.

                  I will look for some data on what Britons believed about WMD before the war and get back to you.

                • Pootles

                  I’ve given you a reference – you look it up.
                  Indeed 1441 did do that, and the weapons inspectors were pulled before they’d finished the job – precisely because they didn’t find any. Also I see you’ve now moved to ‘almost the whole world’. ‘Almost’ – do you mean there were one of two people who didn’t ? Who were they ? The anti-war movement – just a handful, of course.
                  I see you’re not giving us any idea of just why you think Blair is and was a decent fellow. Go on, I dare you!

                • arnoldo87

                  Don’t misquote me. please. If you had actually read the relevant post from me, you will see that I said “almost the whole world” in the first place.
                  Some Russians and George Galloway are the only people I am aware of that said that Saddam had no WMD before the invasion.

                • Pootles

                  Actually, Arnold, the first time you used the phrase ‘the whole world’, you did not qualify it with ‘almost’ – which is why when I quoted the phrase, I put an exclamation mark in parenthesis after it. I think you edited that post. Naughty!

                • arnoldo87

                  You are quite wrong again,Pootles. This is becoming a bad habit!
                  I refer you to the post from my good friend girondas2, just 3 posts below this one.
                  As you may be able to tell, he has cut and pasted my original comment in his post, and it clearly says “almost”.
                  So – no editing. The very idea!
                  Oh Dear – it’s not your day today, is it?

                • Pootles

                  No, I think you edited your post. God knows where the girondas post is.
                  I see you haven’t bothered to reply to my post commenting on your hagiographic fantasy about the Blair years. Particularly, you have said nothing about the WAR that Blair helped visit on a people who were no threat at all to this country.

                • arnoldo87

                  Quite Pathetic.

                • arnoldo87

                  I can’t look it up if I haven’t got the book.
                  However, El Baradi was only concerned with nuclear WMD, and the intelligence never claimed there were any of these, but said there was evidence that Saddam was trying to recreate his nuclear capability.
                  As far as I know he passed no opinion on the existence of chemical or biological WMD at that time .
                  As for Blair being a “decent fellow”, he was PM during the best period of economic growth that the UK had seen for 200 years, whilst improving both the the debt and deficit figures left by the Major government
                  He massively improved the educational and NHS infrastructure, reduced waiting lists for major operations, introduced civil partnership legislation, gave us devolution, the minimum wage, the Northern Ireland Peace Process, Surestart, Freedom of Information Act, reduced the crime figures, Winter Fuel Allowance, Free Bus Passes, Paternity Leave, Ban on Handguns, More Police, Nurses, and Doctors, and played a big part in winning the Olympics for London. Don’t forget he also made sure that Saddam Hussein was never able to redevelop his WMD capability.
                  All of this gave him a well deserved triple election triumph from the British Electorate, and a standing ovation from the Tories when he retired in 2007.
                  Is that enough?.

                • Pootles

                  You haven’t got the book ? Pop out to the library, then.
                  The whole ‘white uranium’ canard was part of the effort to convince people that Iraq was on the way to nuclear WMD, so El Baradi’s comments were relevant.
                  Economic growth at the time was universal in the West and was built on two things – China’s incredible economic growth, especially in manufacturing, allied to a deliberately undervalued Chinese currency. The China effect enabled a boom without the inflationary pressures that had characterised other booms. The second element of the boom was a result of the fininacial bubble that arose from inadequate regulation – and we have lived with the effect of that bubble bursting for seven years now. The schools and NHS infrastructure boost that you talk about was done on the back of PFI, and the country will be paying for that for decades. What was also happening was a decline in care standards and a complete lack of transparency – the Stafffordshire case being the best known example. The NI Peace Process owed its origins to John Major. Surestart was scaled back way before any real evidence was available on what was meant to be a generational improvement, but what mattered was it gave good headlines for a little while. Scotland and Wales got devolution (even though there was almost no desire for it in Wales, with only 25.4% of Welsh voters saying ‘Yes’), but England got nothing. The Olympics were an utter waste of money – a real bread and circuses business.
                  What Blair also brought was WAR. You know, appalling suffering, maiming (remember the little boy with no arms? – do you want a reference for that?), hatred, the unleashing of sectarian mayhem, the almost complete destruction of the Iraqi Christian community, instability for generations, the emergence of Islamism where it had not previously been, the emergence of a new, very potent, terrorism in the UK from among British born Muslims (it’s 7/7 today – do you want a reference for that?). And, the deaths and maiming of young British service men and women – but, not, I see, any of the Blairs’ offspring. Did you fight in Iraq or Afghan ? Did your sons ? For me, I would rather that Blair had done nothing in the UK if it meant that he hadn’t brought war, totally unjustified war, to people who were no earthly threat to this country.

                • arnoldo87

                  You said:-

                  “Contrary to what you think, a large section (probably the majority) of public opinion, including the entire anti-war movement, did not believe there were WMD.”

                  Here are some data on opinion in Britain before the war:-

                  yougov.co.uk/news/2013/03/14/majority-think-iraq-war-was-wrong/
                  In there you will find that over 70% of the population believed that there were WMD in Iraq, and less than 10% thought there were not (presumably the anti-war brigade).
                  So – certainly not a majority of non-believers that you claim was probable.
                  In addition to that all of the intelligence services of the West thought that there were WMD, and all of the mainstream British Political Parties, and we had a unanimous UN resolution 1441 calling on Saddam to prove that he had got rid of them.
                  So the overwhelming opinion in the world was that there were indeed WMD’s in Iraq.
                  Now- Pootles – THAT’s what is called evidence.

                • Pootles

                  You’ve given a very partial reading of the YouGov opinion poll round up. For example, on 18 March, 2003, the day the war started, 50% of the UK population thought it was right, while 42% thought it wrong, and 9% didn’t know. So, that’s 42% who did not agree with the government’s analysis.

                • arnoldo87

                  You think I don’t know I’m in a minority?

                  But our debate was on your specific claim :-

                  “And how could it have been about WMD when it was known that there weren’t any?”

                  The surveys show that your claim was wrong. It was NOT known that there weren’t any.

                  All the other survey data is no doubt accurate, but not relevant to the point we were discussing.

                  However I don’t blame you for trying to obfuscate when you have been proven to be wildly wrong.

                  It must be a horrible feeling.

                • Pootles

                  How have I been proven to have been ‘wildly wrong’? The simple fact is that there were no WMD – that is why none were found after the invasion. Not one. Do you remember how the war mongers got all excited for a moment when the ‘mobile gas laboratory’ was found – only for it to turn out that it was a weather balloon bit of kit, supplied by a British company? But it wasn’t just hindsight. It was clear that there were no WMD – that is why the weapons inspectors found none. And that is why they weren’t permitted to finish their job. They weren’t thrown out by the Iraqis, they were pulled out at the insistence of the US and UK.

                • arnoldo87

                  This can’t be good for your mental health, Pootles.
                  Stop digging and accept the truth.
                  It’s over.

                • Pootles

                  I tell you what, you stick with your belief that your idol, Tony Blair, was the innocent dupe of the intelligence services, and I’ll stick with mine that he is a swine who knew exactly what he was doing, and that he wanted that war above all else. But one thing you have to remember is that in wanting that war, he also wanted this:

                  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203977/Joy-Iraq-war-orphan-lost-arms-bombing-raid-plans-wedding-childhood-friend.html
                  Blair is covered in blood, innocent blood. You, however, are not, but you do have a moral responsibility for supporting the war and its inevitable consequences. You wanted the war, and you wanted that sort of suffering, and, horribly, even worse. If you have a god, I suggest you spend a good deal of your time making peace with him.

                • girondas2

                  “It was about WMD because almost the whole world believed before the invasion that there WERE some in Iraq”

                  Really? Did they?
                  They world only believed it because the world was told a pack of lies. .

                • Fergus Pickering

                  The whole world? Robin Cook didn’t believe it. And I didn’t believe it. That makes two.

                • arnoldo87

                  Fergus – I wouldn’t expect you to get it wrong – of course not.

                  BUT Robin Cook DID believe there were WMD. Quote (Cook Feb 8th 2004):-

                  “It’s clear from the private briefing I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities. But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions.”

                  Blair’s case was the risk of these WMD materials falling into the hands of terrorists, not the risk of strategic strikes against cities.

                • girondas2

                  “So where is the lie?”

                  Er ….. Claiming that Saddam had WMD in the first place.
                  Look Arnie, if you are going to make a career as a spin monkey you will have to do better than this.

                • arnoldo87

                  All of the WMD claims were made by MI6.

                  Or did you think that Blair had his own intelligence outfit that KNEW there were no WMD, and yet he claimed there WERE some in the sure knowledge that after the invasion he would turn out to be proven wrong?

                  Do you REALLY believe that?

                • girondas2

                  “Do you REALLY believe that?”
                  Nope – and I don’t have to.
                  Blair had no evidence – he needed some – so it was fabricated
                  You’re tying yourself in knots Arnie.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Are you a fool or a knave or both at once? Nobody believes a word of what you say. Everybody knows Blair is a c*nt.

                • arnoldo87

                  A fool is a person who swallows ridiculous propaganda without evidence. So far I have not seen one piece of evidence that Blair lied over Iraq.
                  Maybe you, someone I respect as always getting it right, can provide the evidence of such a lie,

                • Fergus Pickering

                  That horse you are flogging so industriously. It looks pretty dead to me. I must say if Blair were to be assassinated one couldn’t help seeing the upside.

                • girondas2

                  A tad brutal – but fair

                • arnoldo87

                  No evidence then , Fergus.
                  Thought not.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  So was invading Iraq a good idea? ( edited to correct typo)

                • Kitty MLB

                  The removal of Saddam was about Bush wishing for revenge
                  regarding 9/11. And Blair just went along with it because he is
                  a deluded poodle who loved being the world police and prancing about on the world stage. What about all those who lost their lives.

            • sfin

              Presenting intelligence to parliament as “detailed, extensive and authoritative ” when the original caveat was “patchy and sporadic” I was a serving soldier at the time and as soon as those words spewed from his mouth, I knew him for a liar – because in military intelligence terms, there is no such thing as ‘detailed, extensive and authoritative’.

              On a more detailed level… Alistair Campbell instructing John Scarlett to change the wording of his written advice from “they could be able to…” (deploy WMD’s) to “they are able to…”

              I will only quote these two examples on this forum – but let’s just say that the deception, mendacity – or lying, as I prefer to call it, was ‘detailed and extensive’.

              • arnoldo87

                The original caveat, as you call it, was made in the Spring of 2002, a full year before the invasion, and six months before the September 2002 dossier. After that, new intelligence arrived, according to John Scarlett. Also, Blair had access to US intelligence. His statement to the Commons in September 2002 was made with the knowledge of the new material.
                It all turned out to be wrong, of course, but it was the Spooks who got it wrong, not Blair.

                You claim that Campbell “instructed” Scarlett to change the wording. Where is the proof that this happened? Even if Campbell “suggested” a change, Scarlett didn’t have to accept it, and he did declare himself happy with the whole dossier.

                So just the usual bluster from you, I’m afraid.

                If the lying is “detailed and extensive”, you’d better tell us about it.

                But you won’t be able to. We’ve heard it all before.

                • sfin

                  The ‘intelligence’ evidence that Colin Powell presented to the UN was gathered by British intelligence and collated by the British government. That a large proportion of it was trawled off the internet and turned out to be someone’s PhD thesis should be scandal enough, let alone excruciatingly embarrassing. All of the evidence for the invasion was single source – it’s like invading another country because of ‘something a bloke down the pub said…’

                  No, of course Scarlett didn’t “have to” do what “his mate” Campbell wanted – not unless he wanted to be the next head of MI6, of course…

                • arnoldo87

                  So – no proof that Campbell “instructed” Scarlett? What a surprise.

                  Next – please provide the evidence that Powell’s UN presentation was:-
                  a) gathered by British intelligence
                  b) collated by the British Government
                  c) partially trawled off the internet.

                  Also where are the detailed and extensive lies?

                  Still waiting.

                  Not holding my breath, though.

                • sfin

                  You really need to get out more…

                  From the Bernie Ecclestone “pretty straight kinda guy” through to watching Jackie Milburn on the terraces of St Jame’s Park and the stowing away on a flight to the Bahamas…Your hero, I’m afraid, is a narcissistic, fantasist who is all the more dangerous for having the mainstream media eating out of his hand and proposing the unbelievably naive policy of global ‘liberal interventionism’

                  His narcism, twice, took this country to war at a national level. Not only did he lie in his justification for the decision, but he then lost those wars through lack of any strategic planning.

                  His greatest crime, in my view, was the politicisation of our public institutions. You are utterly naive to suggest that John Scarlett didn’t have to amend his report – if he had an ounce of ambition – of course he did. The politicisation of the higher command of the armed forces was taking place before my eyes at that time and it is to my shame that I clung on to my career for about 5 years too long.

                  I can tell you now – our armed forces are no longer the honourable institution which they once were and, like the police and the NHS, they are being found out.

                • arnoldo87

                  So now come the hackneyed old “lie” claims that we have yawned over many times before. The St James Park story was a fabrication by the local paper, easily researchable by the simplest internet search. The stowaway story is not even a claimed lie.

                  When challenged to produce evidence of claimed lies that, according to you, are “detailed and extensive”, you come up with vague accusations that carry no detail whatsoever.

                  Like many of your co-accusers before you, you are a busted flush.

                  Like I said – we’ve heard it all before.

                • Daidragon

                  Hmmm. Not doing yourself any favours here. Just repeating a lot of stuff which has been already shown to be untrue. There’s a real case to be made if you can restrain yourself from going down a conspiracy theory blind ally.

                • rtj1211

                  Which, of course, Scarlett miraculously became……

                • girondas2

                  “We’ve heard it all before.”

                  And you will continue to hear it, because the truth always come out in the end. It’s just a pity that so many people had to die before it did.

                • arnoldo87

                  “the truth always come out in the end.”

                  Maybe, but in the case of Tony Blair’s so called lies, it has so far been a really long wait!

                • girondas2

                  “it has so far been a really long wait!”
                  So?

              • rtj1211

                Well said and thank you for serving this country honorably.

          • allymax bruce

            You’re right; he is mentally fit & capable; it’s his ‘perspective’ on his life he’s stuck on. See this article by Pepe Escobar, http://rt.com/op-edge/166632-blair-killer-blamed-middle-east/

      • davidofkent

        Actually, I think he is slowly going mad.

      • post_x_it

        He’s got to be at least mildly psychopatic. Extreme megalomania, complete lack of self-awareness and absolute immunity to doubt and reflection are very much in evidence. Is it any wonder he had such an easy rapport with the likes of Gaddafi?

      • Viola

        He has a classic mental condition known as hubris!

    • Aberrant_Apostrophe

      He’s got to be hung and drawn first…

      • FrenchNewsonlin

        Well perhaps, burdensome beast that he is, but hanged would be better.

    • Kitty MLB

      God knows, he is without shame or guilt.
      Thus I clothe my naked villainy, with odd old
      ends, stolen of holy writ and seem the saint and play the
      devil. Blair really is the quintessential Shakespeare villain.
      If only he were to suffer the same fate as those who
      committed treason in Tudor England…such as the Catherine
      Wheel.

      • Pootles

        Indeed. I’ve often thought that he is straight out of a Shakespeare tragedy (or, indeed, a Jacobean one, one of the bloodier ones). And the Blair-Brown rivalry certainly was. Horrible.

        • Kitty MLB

          Oh yes, The absolute hatred between Blair and Brown was
          horrendous and coloured everything they ever did.
          Constant knives in the back.

      • Daidragon

        How do you feel about Cameron’s ‘no fly zone’ over Benghazi quickly turning into an attack on the regime in Libya? It’s now, like Iraq, a hotbed of Islamism.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here