Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Blair Impeachment

There are some Tory MPs who were new to Parliament in 2005 who say that they would not have voted for the Iraq war. Hindsight perhaps, but they have the advantage in an impeachment debate of not having daily Iraqi blood on their hands.

This obviously goes for all the other parties, too. Admittedly a Tory movement towards impeachment might be seen as flagrant opportunism. It seems clear to me that given the scale of the climate crisis we are experiencing what appears to be opportunism might need to be embraced in order to effect a profound leadership change. The way we are heading is the path of being driven at breakneck speed by a reckless driver towards a cliff. We are in an emergency. Impeachment is an absolute last resort. It is an ambulance.
 
Mate, if its opportunism but it gets rid of Blair, then so be it ! :)

Will Cameron have the guts?

Will the Tory backbenches flex their muscles to show Cameron's modernisers they're still a force to be reckoned with?
 
Well it's unlikely that a budding PM in the Conservative party would have the guts to push forward impeachment proceedings. It is an absolute, absolute last resort and is reversed for times of emergency.

Having said that, if a strong majority of Conservative MPs backed him on it, yes I am sure he would go for it. The potential prospect of four more years of Blairism is enough to make anyone take risks - hence the murmurings on the backbenches.

This goes for the Liberal Democrats too, I am sure.

It would need to be a movement outside the House of Commons and within it: for the politicians within it would only really get moving if they sensed that it reflected the mood of the people.

What's your mood? Suspend disbelief for a minute. Forget the argument of "yeah but is it likely to happen?" for sixty seconds. In that sixty seconds ask yourself "do I want Blair to leave government?" instead. Imagine waking up the day the car sped out of Downing Street on the news. Imagine it. It might happen before a full impeachment procedure (or even debate) was necessary: if the pressure was strong enough a 'pre-emptive' resignation might come quicker than you could say 'pre-emptive strike on a country with missing WMD'.

Relax your mind and drift into that thought bubble. Then go back to reality and proceed accordingly!
 
MatthewEdwards said:
What's your mood? Suspend disbelief for a minute. Forget the argument of "yeah but is it likely to happen?" for sixty seconds...... Imagine waking up the day the car sped out of Downing Street on the news...

Relax your mind and drift into that thought bubble. Then go back to reality and proceed accordingly!
Click to expand...

Yeah right..... quick relaxation and back to reality..

I'm never going to hit the winning run in an ashes test...
I'm never going to walk on Mars....
I'm never going to see Blair impeached.....

Nice idea, but absolute bollocks I'm afraid.....
 
Jografer said:
... & just to cheer everone up, Clinton is backing Blair to take over from Kofi Annan @ the UN ........ sleep easy......
Click to expand...

That news, (or rumour) certainly cheers me up.

Blair will not slip into retirement, and I don't think he should.
 
It is possible.

Things are not going to be rosy over the next few years. The quality of leadership over the past eight has not been good enough for the challenges that are coming.
 
Jografer said:
... & just to cheer everone up, Clinton is backing Blair to take over from Kofi Annan @ the UN ........ sleep easy......
Click to expand...
if anyone was in any doubt about what an arsehole Clinton is...there's your proof!
 
Lock&Light said:
Blair will not slip into retirement, and I don't think he should.
Click to expand...
you're damn right he shouldn't slip into retirement, the mass murderer should rot in jail for the rest of his sorry life.
 
MatthewEdwards said:
New Labour has gone way beyond the Major government. I say that not because I look back with fondness at that corrupt and divisive administration which should have been that of Mr.Kinnock, who was vilified in a right-wing press as a "Welsh windbag'. I say that because New Labour has had longer in power.
Click to expand...
If you mean they've gone way beyond Major in terms of pursuing awful policies; I'd agree.
however, if you mean in terms of personal; corruption, that simply isn't true.
There were 23 resignations/sacking forced by scandal in the major era.
There have been NOWHERE NEAR as many with this lot.
In fact, all I can recall - off the cuff - are;
1. Ron Davies; an affair simply too bizarre to judge, IMO.
2.Mandelson; guilty of a relatively minor offence first time, and probably NOT guilty of what he was accused of, second time round (a report exonerated him); in fact, his true crime was to be so loathed by all his HoC collagues (bar one) that no-one chimed up to support him.
3. Bev Hughes - lied to the house, has to go, but hardly Hamiltonesque sleaze.
4. Blunkett-guilty as charged, but again, only due to the code of conduct introduced by new labour, in response to the scandals of the Major years.
In fact, more ministers (including PPS's) resigned over Iraq; 11 in all, if we count Short's monumentally-botched one.

Don't get me wrong; i loathe Blair & Co. It's a tragedy no-one's nailed their lies over Iraq.
But you do yourself a disservice with wild, haymaker accusations like these.
it damages your case, which is a shame.
 
The case is being built (and by many more knowledgeable and esteemed individuals than me, let me assure you) - it is not finished yet!

Iraq is the tip of the iceberg. What's the rest?

Don't forget that with the Major government you are talking from the hindsight perspective of knowing the END of the story.

With this mechanism called 'New Labour', we haven't come to the end yet. Hopefully we're beyond halfway (unless it's one of those thousand year jobbies) but that depends in part upon us, the electorate. We choose them, we pay them. Remember all that stakeholder waffle? Well, what kind of state are we in now?

What we do next is a part of that story, so no more 'it'll never happen' comments. If anyone wishes to remove their own power in writing the story of your country/society/people (delete as appropriate), feel free to do so. In private, please. Cynicism is like celebrities these days: over-exposed.
 
MatthewEdwards said:
Well it's unlikely that a budding PM in the Conservative party would have the guts to push forward impeachment proceedings. It is an absolute, absolute last resort and is reversed for times of emergency.
Click to expand...

However, it's much more complicated than whether or not the legal proceedings get to a certain stage.

Blair with a merely significant rumble of impeachment rumour stacked up against him becomes much more of a lame duck than he already is, and with the right confluence of other circumstances might end up being pushed out ignominiously as soiled/suspect goods in a way that leaves no room for anything like the UN post, even if actual proceedings get no further than some token step.

I expect Michael Rose is determined he doesn't get his hands on any such post. And it seems clear Rose is astute enough to make a major contribution to ensuring it doesn't happen.

If you're Cameron or Campbell, you have a choice over when to turn up the volume of that rumble, to choose the time of the Labour succession (which you hope will be an unseemly fight) to your best advantage.

And I wouldn't be quite sure Clinton's intervention was friendly. To be seen to be chasing other posts shortens Blair's shelf-life considerably. It's possible Clinton's actual message is "quit now before it gets nasty".


Anyway, last year's SNP Party Political Broadcast donated to the ImpeachBlair campaign was 10 minutes of sweet jaw-hitting-floor surprise.
 
Fong said:
I like what you say here, but I don't agree with one statement.

I was around during the Sleaze days and Labour not quite sunk that low yet.
Click to expand...

They are just as bad. Ask old two jags, anyone giving passports to mates or nannies and maybe the odd knight or lord who has popped a few bob in the labour fund. That's if you don't consider ads for baccy on formula one cars or Blair telling the country he was going to end sky's hold on major sporting events. That one was lost just before the first Labour win. Odd that Blair had just been to Oz to see a guy called Rupert and the Sun started getting pro labour.
The bright side is that with each new bent politician or each new weakness in the PM's armour we have a greater chance to see the back of him and see him in court.
I still don't think it's that strong a chance unless Bush gets his first.
Too much cash to loose from the yanks.
 
MatthewEdwards said:
Blair taking over from Annan at the UN?

That certainly is a Doomsday scenario. Gosh. Do you have a source for Mr.Clinton's acclamation of Dear Leader?

Fong, New Labour has gone way beyond the Major government. I say that not because I look back with fondness at that corrupt and divisive administration which should have been that of Mr.Kinnock, who was vilified in a right-wing press as a "Welsh windbag'. I say that because New Labour has had longer in power.
Click to expand...

Yeah but we not quite got to brown paper bags in train stations to prostitutes have we? Or questions bought and paid for? Or back to basics while having affairs left and right? The Trusty Shield of Bullshit and the Sword of Utter Bollocks? We haven't had any Labour MPs up on charges, convicted and sentenced as far as I know.

I think people too easily forget just how far down that conservative government sank.
 
In agreement with everyone, although I still believe we may see a greater or at least equal level of ignominy from New Labour as from Major by the end of the tale. I hear your comments though - Major's government was grim.

A quick list of sites from a Google search tonight. Enjoy:

http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Impeach Blair.htm
http://www.hudghtonmep.com/press/041116.htm
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=426&row=0
http://www.sundayherald.com/46373
http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec366.html
http://pro-se-institute.org/internationallaw/2006/01/british-general-calls-for-blair.html

Interesting how the news stories have progressed from 'a joke' and 'silly' to something firmer at the start of 2006:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3600438.stm
http://www.politics.co.uk/party-politics/new-calls-blairs-impeachment-$6093126.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4594216.stm

And of course, the Battle of Sedgefield 2005 -
http://www.keysforsedgefield.org.uk/

Good luck.
 
All power to Adam Price MP's elbow. Good on him for sticking to this one through thick and (so far) thin.

On Monday (9th January 2006), Mr Price said it was "essential a committee is established to investigate the matter thoroughly".

"If a government is not held to account for its actions, then democracy cannot be upheld.

"This government, who are willing to lead us into a war, must also be willing to take responsibility for those actions."

Hear hear.
 
kasheem said:
If George Bush or Dick Cheney get impeached the odds of Blair going will shoot up. I don't think he'll stay long enough to start a legal process. If he sees he's not wanted he'll go. With that concession his friends will protect him on the back benches.
Click to expand...

If we impeach Blair, or help force his exit through an increasingly vociferous impeachment movement, then the pressure on Bush and Cheney and the rest of that cabal starts to warm up like a planet with rapidly accelerating levels of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere.

This is one area - probably the only area, given the collapse of our manufacturing base and the selling-off of our institutions over the course of Thatcherism, Major and Blairism - where we Brits can take the lead and put the Americans on it!

Would be such a filip to the forces of sense in the USA.
 
Red Jezza, the corruption of Major and Blair is different in kind. Major was sleaze; Blair is spin.

The first is brown envelopes. The second is the complete destruction of language - its sanitisation, its banalisation, its extraordinary rendition into jargon to mask an underworld of extremely suspect government activity.
 
The final (Jack) straw

"I know you should know everything that's happening around government anyway, but I remember Mrs Thatcher once saying to me that the most important thing about Prime Minister's questions is that it gave you the opportunity to know exactly what was going on in all the different nooks and crannies of government." -

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page8849.asp

...

Here is what a real Labour Prime Minister looks like -

"The Attlee government instituted a remarkable social and economic programme characterised by radicalism: the foundation of the National Health Service; the nationalisation of heavy industries and the Bank of England; a huge building programme; and a new national insurance scheme."

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page133.asp
 
I note with interest that EDM 1088 is now signed by 154 MPs.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29437&SESSION=875

A sticking-plaster for heart disease isn't much use, and EDMs rarely get very far. However, this one might just be the catalyst that led to that golden taxi ride from Downing Street to the High Court of 2006.

Cannabis was used in Chinese medicine thousands of years ago. Check this one out - Shen Nung's pharmacopoeia. A real doctor, that one. Sure, too much pot and your brain turns into a sea cucumber. But the odd one here or there? Is that as bad as what Fred West was up to? Or what Toblerone was up to when he supped at the Faust-Bush war table?

Maybe Antoni-OverBlown might like to have a gentle, non-violent spliff in that taxi. Might chill him out for what is going to be a rather greenhouse effect grilling in the High Court. High in the High Court - think of the Sun headlines. While we're there, why not put Rupe in the dock? Who killed the Labour Party after, all? It was the Sun whodunnit. Allegedly, of course.

Imagine it. Imagine if Blair, the courageous and dashing pioneer of the Glorious New Label Middle Way, was the first MP to spliff up that TeeJay was questioning about. The next day we could all legally not beat anyone up at closing-time. It would be total social anarchy. Reefer madness. William Randolph Hearst and the suffocation of the hemp industry to feed his profits.

The whole lot of his rebel insurgent clone army need it. A spliff, a cup of rooibosch tea, a good book, a kiss from a loved one - and the idea of forcing us all to pay £93 to put our identities on a biometric card might suddenly seem to them the joke that it is to us.

Unless they're already hitting the bongs and have gone all jam-bongoed and so paranoid they really believe we're going to be fighting a 50 year war with Bush's shock and awe Luftwaffe. Why not get some new enemies and double it - New 100 Years War, anyone? That would be a popular gig. I'm in the recruiting office like it's August 1914 all over again.

Anyway. If your MP isn't one of the shining 154, hunt them down like Otis Ferry and badger bait them till their name is on that bit of paper. Non-violently, of course. Mine's signed up so I don't have to get the samurai swords of truth (my words - the pen is mightier than the sword, the mouse is mightier than the nulcear warhead) out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1182458.stm

Violence against MPs just isn't cricket. It's a bit rich. Mind you, so are they. And they're not playing by the rules or by the Corinthian spirit either - these so-called public servants who seek to win at all costs. For those that aren't listening to us, violent words to complement non-violent actions are perfectly acceptable and an important element in a democracy that isn't working. So is careers advice. The Guardian has a good jobs section, and MPs who think that their first loyalty is to this bully in Number Ten rather than to the needs of their constituents might like to consider fresh employment.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/02/334012.html

I hear from the daily bulletins of the Ministry of Public Enlightement that our glorious New Labour economy is doing really really well these days, so I'm sure the Cyril Snelgroves currently polluting the pews of the House of Commons with their Blair babe and Blair Ben Bradshaw boy bottoms will find it very easy to locate the kind of stimulating, fulfilling and well-paid work where our real talents are respected and developed that we are all fortunate enough to have to trudge along to tomorrow morning at nine a.m.

This Parliament? It's a Rump. The New Labour clones need to have their rumps swept out of it.

Politics is a VOCATION not a CELEBRITY PANTOMIME. We didn't call you to be MPs, after all.

Media sales is pretty hot this time of year, and there's always cleaning the toilets in the House of Commons for the minimum wage.

Oh, sorry, they're all on strike, aren't they?

GENERAL STRIKE IS EIGHTY YEARS OLD ON MAY 1ST 2006. THE MEN AND WOMEN OF 1926 ARE PRETTY CROSS WITH THIS BUNCH OF THIEVES OPERATING UNDER THE NAME "LABOUR". IN FACT, THE WHOLE LABOUR MOVEMENT OF THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES IS TURNING IN ITS GRAVES. A NEW MOVEMENT IS BEING BORN AND IS LEAPING FROM ITS CRADLES.

ANY MP WHOSE NAME IS NOT ON THAT EDM 1088 PAPER DOES NOT DESERVE THE MASSIVE WAGE THEY ARE PAID OUT OF OUR TAXATION. THE WAR WAS ILLEGAL. IT WAS IMMORAL. IT IS A DAILY WASTE OF OUR MONEY.

ONCE MPs WERE NOT EVEN PAID AT ALL.

LEADING A COUNTRY IS PUBLIC SERVICE. THINK SLAVE, NOT MASTER, HERR BLAIR.

http://blairwitch.typepad.com
http://www.myspace.com/blairwitchimpeachment

The land of the white armband - http://www.armsagainstwar.info
http://www.pledgebank.com/protest
http://www.pledgebank.com/giantimpeach

R.I.P. NEW LABOUR
1997-2006

:) :) :)
 
I'm with the General

MatthewEdwards said:
... General Sir Michael Rose is an extraordinary figure to come forward with criticism and it shows how disgust at this war and its conduct is not reserved to the supposed political left.

There are a lot of very dodgy things going on, as all of us know.
Click to expand...
Yes. One thing that's worth bearing in mind is that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had been contained. Many thousands of UK serviceman and intelligence operatives had worked hard for a decade or more to achieve that end, along with legions from the USA. This was done with the backing of the UN, and it had worked, albeit at great cost to the civilians of Iraq.

People like Dr David Kelly were real heroes. He and others like him would confront a bloody and murderous tyrant calmly and make sure they did their job of pulling his fangs. But the abomination that is mad Tony Blair was prepared to lie about these men's efforts and lie about the success they had had and lie to us all about the perils we faced. He trashed the efforts and the careers of many decent men and women as a precursor to launching his unnecessary war. This is no secret. It cannot be. Not to those Dr Kelly worked with in the military and in the intelligence services.

The supposed political left is embarassed, it seems, to acknowledge Blair's betrayal of our military and intelligence services. But betray them he did. After dissing the lives and careers and efforts of many men and woman with far more integrity and courage that he has managed to show, he then betrayed us all. He pretended there was a real and present danger from Saddam Hussein's safely defanged and contained basket-case of a state. The Case for Impeachment documents this very clearly.

General Rose is measured and circumspect. But his message is quite clear. In Blair and his sorry crew, we are dealing with men and women who are not interested in democracy. If you are prepared to trash the efforts of your own military and intelligence services; if you are prepared to build on that to deceive and panic the people into supporting an unnecessary and foolish war of aggression; if you are prepared to see widespread civilian casualties; if you are prepared to send honest and brave men and women to die for your lies, if you are prepared to do all of this ... what is it you will not do?

"Sometimes and in particular dealing with a dictator, the only chance of peace is a readiness for war."

Yes, impeachment is absolutely the last resort. It could be our last chance before we have to stand and fight all over again for the freedoms we have won over the centuries. Oh, hang on, someone at the door. Gotta go now ....
:cool:
 
vimto said:
You make a good case Mathew...as do others.

Top thread people :)
Click to expand...

Agreed, in particular the two matthews. Why do i allow myself a glint of optimism after reading what you have to say here? I'm not sure, but if it is indeed possible that blair may be called for impeachment, then that sure is exciting news. Not the least that it might lead to problems for the even bigger murderer across the big pond.
 
Having seen this article, I thought I'd bump this old thread on the subject rather than start a new one. Impeach Blair, and the sooner the better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1928634,00.html

Over the course of little more than a week, we have learned that civilian casualties so far in the Iraq war may be more than 600,000; that Britain's Chief of the General Staff believes the conflict could break the army apart; that a federal solution to the growing chaos involving the effective dismemberment of the country is being openly discussed in America; that the US Iraq Study Group, headed by Republican grandee James Baker, is recommending that the US military withdraws to bases outside Iraq and seeks Iranian and Syrian help; and that Britain is now the number one al-Qaeda target, partly, it seems clear, as a consequence of events in Iraq.

There should be at least one universal response to this in Britain. Why is Tony Blair still Prime Minister after leading his country into such a disastrous war? Any large company would by now have got rid of a managing director guilty of a mistake on that scale. Any institution you care to name would have done the same. Why is Blair immune from the normal requirements of high office?

Why, instead of being allowed by the cabinet to establish six new policy committees designed to entrench his legacy, has he not been impeached and thrown out of office? Even if his Iraq policy was formed in good faith, the scale of the error surely requires us to ask him and all those concerned with this disaster to leave.

It doesn't matter now whether you were pro-war, strongly opposed to it or somewhere in between, the policy in the Middle East has been an unmitigated failure, an outcome that was built into the earliest planning for the enterprise. People's views four years ago don't count now because Britain is at the heart of a world-changing catastrophe and as far as our interests go, there has not been a single advantage, not even the one of keeping the special relationship alive.

How did we get here? The answer is still not entirely clear. We think we know that Blair manipulated the situation, but we still don't have all the evidence. What is needed is for people to come forward and for the past to be examined more intensively than before.

For instance, it is well worth returning to a memo written by a young diplomat named Matthew Rycroft, which is still significantly undervalued as evidence of the Prime Minister's drive to war and of the innate negligence of American planning for the period after the invasion.

Rycroft is now safely tucked away in Sarajevo as British ambassador to Bosnia. But in the summer of 2002, aged 34, he was Tony Blair's private secretary for foreign affairs. In this capacity, he attended a secret meeting at Downing Street which included Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, John Scarlett, the head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, and Blair's military chiefs and the sofa cabinet - Alastair Campbell, Sally Morgan and Jonathan Powell. He then wrote a memo to his boss, Sir David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser.

It is really a minute of the meeting. The crucial passage reads: 'C [Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC [the US National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.'

The Downing Street Memo, as it became known, was published in the Sunday Times on 1 May 2005, five days before the general election. It certainly made an impact but by the end of that week, it had been washed away with the rest of the pre-election clamour. Blair had won a third term and his mysterious hold over the British electorate managed even to vanquish these revelations about British and American thinking eight months before the war.

It took a while for it to surface in the press in the US although its consequence was immediately grasped in the blogosphere. In Britain, the memo became part of the inconclusive miasma of the Hutton report into David Kelly's death and of the Butler review of intelligence on WMD; and it decomposed in the public's understanding at roughly the same rate. Indeed, one often wonders if Blair has been saved by the amount of material produced by public inquiries (Hutton is 740 pages; Butler 192). The more that is published, the more the issues blur.

But the memo is the goods. It establishes Bush's resolve to find a pretext for war, regardless of the facts on WMD and Saddam's links to terrorism. It further makes plain that there was little or no thinking about the postwar period, an error that now must be regarded as equal to or greater than the invasion. No surprise is expressed in Rycroft's account of the meeting about what was going on in America, which leads one to assume that among a very small group, the idea of invasion was a fully fledged possibility, even though Blair was assuring the public and cabinet colleagues outside the inner circle that nothing had been decided.

There was much more in the original Sunday Times report on the meeting. Jack Straw and Lord Goldsmith had doubts about the legal case for war, while Blair was committed from the outset to supporting US plans for regime change. At the time, no one seems to have remembered what Tony Blair had said in his evidence to Lord Butler's report into the intelligence on WMD, published eight months before the memo came to light. Blair said: 'I remember that during the course of July and August, I was increasingly getting messages saying, "Are you about to go to war?" and I was thinking, "This is ridiculous" and so I remember towards the end of the holiday actually phoning Bush and saying we have got to put this right straight away... we've not decided on military action.'

If not a direct lie, it is hardly the truth.

On the September dossier, Tony Blair said: 'The purpose of the dossier was simply to say, "This is why we think there is intelligence that means that this is not fanciful view on our part."'

It is clear now that he knew the Americans were fixing their intelligence for war and that he had to get his act together. In all the emails that emerged during Lord Hutton's inquiry, the pressure to make this case is clear. Here is one from young Rycroft: 'Part of the answer of "why now?" is that the threat will only get worse if we don't act now - the threat that Saddam will use WMD, but also the threat that Iraq's WMD will somehow get into the hands of terrorists.' Rycroft was helping to build the dishonest case he knew was being forged on the other side of the Atlantic.

There is a lot still to be discovered. I believe we need to know exactly what happened in 2002 in order to decide what we are going to do now. The collapse of allied purpose is clear, Iraq is in free fall, yet we still have not found out exactly how a small group of politicians and officials hijacked policy and took us to war against the clear wishes of the nation.

As the situation deteriorates in Iraq, Britain's need to distance itself from Blair's policy increases by the day. We need more answers. The call on the political establishment outside Number 10 is urgent. The House of Commons must show it is not been entirely debauched by party politics and bring the government to account and that includes Labour members.
Click to expand...
 
For me the case for Tony Blair's impeachment rests on one thing above all; Blair's lack of accountability to either Parliament or the people. It appears that he gave an assurance to Bush in early Ferbruary 2003 that he would be able to throw the support of Parliament behind the Americans, three weeks before the crucial Commons debate which was supposed to decide that.

It's about setting minimum standards in public life by which our politicians should be expected to abide.

I also think he should be required to tell us exactly why we went to war in Iraq, something he still hasn't done.
 
Meltingpot said:
I also think he should be required to tell us exactly why we went to war in Iraq, something he still hasn't done.
Click to expand...

If there is anything that Tony Blair has repeatedly said it has to be his reasons for getting rid of Saddam Hussein. You probably don't agree with his reasons, but he can not be accused of not explaining himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

maomao
Ian Blair dead
2
Replies
42
Views
957
stavros
S
weltweit
Bionic Eye Implant allows vision in blind people ..
Replies
3
Views
91
Coffeecup
C
starfish2000
I think the Bank of England Inflation calculator is being doctored.
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
ska invita
ska invita
HeAthen
Bob Vylan gigs cancelled due to political interference
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
Jennaonthebeach
Jennaonthebeach
PR1Berske
Tommy Sheridan - "I'm blacklisted"
Replies
23
Views
663
ouirdeaux
ouirdeaux
Back
Top Bottom