Blair and cronies to face the ICC?

Boggit · July 10, 2016, 11:31:50 AM

To early to tell, and given his status, I suspect probably not. :( But it looks like he is to face a potential contempt of Parliament over his deceit on the Iraq War. I see his sidekick Lord Prescott who was then Deputy PM, is distancing himself for all he is worth! ;D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878

bayonetbrant · July 10, 2016, 12:45:31 PM

I think there are too many people confusing "deceit" with "mistake"

It's thing to be wrong, but it's another thing entirely to be knowingly deceitful.

I think we made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But I don't think many of them were intentionally deceitful. I just think a lot of them were poor decisions based on seeing what we wanted to see instead of what was really there. It was hubris, but last time I checked that wasn't criminal

bbmike · July 10, 2016, 03:56:15 PM

+1. This sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking to me.

airboy · July 11, 2016, 11:34:42 AM

Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 10, 2016, 12:45:31 PM
I think there are too many people confusing "deceit" with "mistake"

It's thing to be wrong, but it's another thing entirely to be knowingly deceitful.

I think we made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But I don't think many of them were intentionally deceitful. I just think a lot of them were poor decisions based on seeing what we wanted to see instead of what was really there. It was hubris, but last time I checked that wasn't criminal

+1

undercovergeek · July 11, 2016, 12:36:39 PM

Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 10, 2016, 12:45:31 PM
I think there are too many people confusing "deceit" with "mistake"

It's thing to be wrong, but it's another thing entirely to be knowingly deceitful.

I think we made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But I don't think many of them were intentionally deceitful. I just think a lot of them were poor decisions based on seeing what we wanted to see instead of what was really there. It was hubris, but last time I checked that wasn't criminal

Well said, didn't vote for him and never got on board with new labour but I think he did a very decent thing with the speech and told reporters he would answer any questions they had and for as long as they had them - and damn if id forgotten his presentation style and it's quite effective

Boggit · July 11, 2016, 04:12:52 PM

If not "deceit", then at least a considerable lack of probity on the evidence. In reliance of the dodgy evidence, a lot of good people got killed at his behest.

undercovergeek · July 11, 2016, 05:22:00 PM

And he's apologised for this

Doesn't make it better, wouldn't make me feel better, but he did

In fact one of things that touched me last week was an interview with one of the relatives of the dead. She was asked what she wanted Blair to do and amongst the anger and bitterness she said for him to apologise, admit he may have been wrong, say he didn't lie and show remorse - he did it all, in spades, and then they went back to her and said 'well, he's still a liar and a cheat and a murderer' - there will be nothing he can ever do to appease these people

undercovergeek · July 11, 2016, 05:24:42 PM

Thatcher went to the Falklands with all her advisors saying she'd lose - she won and got another 5 years in power and went down in history, I don't know if Blair had visions of the same kind of adulation when he returned the victor but that's how close it is. She pulled it off and became a hero, he didn't and faces what he must

Boggit · July 11, 2016, 06:41:24 PM

Quote from: undercovergeek on July 11, 2016, 05:24:42 PM
Thatcher went to the Falklands with all her advisors saying she'd lose - she won and got another 5 years in power and went down in history, I don't know if Blair had visions of the same kind of adulation when he returned the victor but that's how close it is. She pulled it off and became a hero, he didn't and faces what he must

Maybe. I didn't think Thatcher was a hero, but part of the problem that our forces had to clean up. My brigade got put on standby for the Falklands, and I'm glad we didn't have to go. I met a lot of guys from the Marines, Paras, and 5 Infantry Brigade on army courses after it. They had very little good to say of Thatcher, especially as the whole thing might have been avoided with the right diplomatic tone, and even minor flag deployments. She sent the wrong messages to the Argentinians, and a lot of other people paid for it with life and limb.

Any political lionising is small comfort for those who lose their mates, father's, sons etc or who are crippled for life from their wounds. An avoidable war fought for a politician's ego is disgusting, and shows the contempt the swine have for servicemen's lives. I don't think any servicemen want to be put in danger, but they accept it as part of their job. It is the Prime Minister's job not to put them in danger, unless there is no other way - being the only good reason for doing so.

Blair can apologise all he likes. He must be patently aware that unless he goes through this charade (and he's waited until now to do it), there will be more calls for him to face justice for misleading Parliament for his own ego. Even the Admiral, Lord West was not consulted on Chilcott, and he recently intimated on TV his concerns over reasons for the war. He mentioned that he was being asked to concentrate a build up for an attack as early as the September prior to 2003. Even David Kelly and Hans Blix didn't think there were any WMD, and pleaded with him to wait another 2 weeks. But he didn't. Blair and Bush had a schedule for their war. The WMD was just a pretext for regime change.