An unjustified war, tens of thousands slaughtered, who’s to blame? Tell us, Lord Butler
Photograph: John McHugh/AP

How evil are you? Well?

Perhaps you’ve nicked some petty stuff, maybe from shops, maybe from your workplace. That’s theft. Very naughty but also a very common transgression.

Maybe you’ve been unfaithful to someone you’ve been seeing. Used them, mislead them. Lied to them. That’s getting nastier.

Okay, let’s get more serious.

You’re a burglar. Or a rapist. Or you’ve killed someone.

That means you’ve hugely damaged or ended someone’s life. You’ve probably also sent ripples of despair and hurt out to their family and friends.

These crimes are rightly villified in any civilised culture, they’ve been reviled through the ages.

But just compare them to what Tony Blair has done. He’s taken part in the ravaging of an entire country, already hideously scarred by the US/UK protégé Saddam Hussein. Blair’s made orphans out of tens of thousands, blighted the lives of hundreds of thousands of relatives and friends. Iraq is now a country occupied by the US military, its people have no democracy and are subject to terror and torture from all sides. They’ve simply had a change of dictatorship. This is the evil that Butcher Blair has done.

The Butler Report had this to say today:

The inquiry said that when the government began considering military action against Iraq in March 2002, the intelligence was “insufficiently robust” to justify claims that Iraq was in breach of United Nations resolutions requiring it to disarm.

And it said that since the conflict, key claims based on reports from agents in Iraq, including claims that the Iraqis had recently produced biological agents, had had to be withdrawn because they were unreliable.

It said that Tony Blair’s statement in the Commons may have “reinforced the impression” that there was “fuller and firmer” intelligence behind the assessments in the dossier than was actually the case.

(Source: The Guardian)

Decoding the governmental bullshit, Butler is basically saying that there was no case for war. There were no solid grounds for the invasion of Iraq.

But the report also exonerates the head of MI6. And Tony Blair. It says that there was “no deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to mislead.”

So…

That’s as clear as mud then. A country illegally invaded, over 10,000 civilians murdered by the US and UK invaders, scores of innocents imprisoned and tortured by the same “liberators” and who’s to blame?

No-one.

Thank god for Britain and our wonderful sense of honour and justice. It’s the best in the world!

So, the next time you have a little pang of conscience, take a tip from our Tony and keep smiling through! You’d have to go a long way to equal his cheery, arrogant evil.

Butcher Blair, the smiling mass-murderer

Tony Blair has said Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction “may never be found”.
Mr Blair said he had “to accept we haven’t found them and we may never find them” – but that did not mean Saddam Hussein had not been a threat.
He said the former Iraqi leader had been in breach of UN resolutions and his weapons may have been “removed, hidden or destroyed”.
Mr Blair also said US security concerns had to be tackled before British detainees at Guantanamo Bay are freed.
(Source: BBC News)

A lot of my rants focus on the USA and its rogue government. This combination is currently the most violent and vicious regime on this planet. Not the people of the US, but their court-appointed rulers. Bush is nothing more than a startlingly unintelligent and ignorant puppet of the PNAC cabal. Therefore, despite his ordering the illegal invasion of Iraq, I can’t hold much personal animosity towards him. The man can barely string a coherent sentence together: it’s pretty obvious he’s not making any of the big decisions.

But Tony Blair is a different case

Unlike Bush, Blair had no hereditary privilege, no neptotistic leg-up on the political ladder. He clawed his way to the top of the Labour party and then re-made it in the form he desired, as New Labour. His vision was to ditch socialism and replace it with the vague liberalism of the US Democratic party. He succeeded. And now the only choice we have in Britain is between three parties who only differ in the way they manage capitalism. No party wants to change or replace it. As in satellite tv or washing powder, we’re presented with minutely varying flavours of the same thing. So much for choice.

It’s now becoming obvious how his success has warped him, made him intransigent, arrogant and ruthless. He tried to impose his choice of candidates in Wales, Scotland and then the London Mayoral elections. He failed miserably each time, the public choosing to humiliate him at the polls. The same thing happened recently in the local elections, with every political pundit claiming it was the British public’s judgement on his warmongering.

And yet he still blusters on, braying that he was right to follow the US lead, to send British troops to invade a non-aggressor country. What attack had Iraq made on Britain or the US?

None.

What factual evidence did Blair have of the existence of Iraqi WMDs?

None.

For him to claim now that it was all a mistake of interpretation is the biggest pile of bullshit he’s ever laid. We remember how his cronies doctored intelligence reports, we remember how they manufactured ‘evidence’ when none existed, we remember his preposterous claim that Britain was ’45 minutes’ from a serious attack.

It’s clear that Blair was determined to have his little war whatever the evidence, or lack of it. He wanted to prove what a loyal little lapdog he is to the USA. And the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians were sacrificed on the altar of his political amibtion.

All those people. Murdered. All butchered with the help of Blair.

I’ve said many, many times that anti-Americanism is just racism. Sadly, it’s prevalent in UK lefty circles because it’s an easy option: you don’t need to read or educate yourself, you just start shouting catchy slogans about Bush and the USA. Whilst I’m not denying the pure evil of William Kristol and the other PNAC Nazis, we have to look closer to home. Why complain about the US when we have a monster in No.10?

Blair is one of the major reasons those Iraqis are dead. Without Blair, the US government would have lost one of their most important international supporters. Perhaps if we’d had a PM more concerned with human lives than his career, the US would have been reined in.

If there were any true justice in this world, Butcher Blair wouldn’t be facing a committee of parliamentary pals, grinning and joking while more people die in Fallujah. He’d be in the dock next to Saddam Hussein, tried as the war criminal he is.

More US “reconstruction” of Iraq

The senior Foreign Office lawyer who resigned after ministers ignored her advice that the war in Iraq was illegal has issued a damning legal critique of the occupation, claiming that the alleged abuse of prisoners “could amount to war crimes”.
(Source: The Independent)

Lawyers are usually very precise in their use of language. Lawyers who have risen to senior positions within the British Foreign Office commonly exceed the average precision.

So when Elizabeth Wilmshurst gives an interview in which she roundly attacks the current occupation of Iraq, that censure must carry some weight, even in establishment circles.

Iraq is swarming with foreign invaders. Not the much-hyped legions of “Islamists” but rather the armies of the new Christian crusades, as under the aegis of Pope Dubya. All the justifications used for the slaughter and invasion are now forgotten: let’s not mention those WMDs, eh?

Now the occupiers have installed their own Vichy regime, complete with an ex-CIA contact as its head. This puppet government can only bluster since it’s still the US military (and its imported civilians) which is in charge of Iraq and the alleged Iraqi government has zero control over these invaders.

160,000 foreign troops.

Does that sounds like a sovereign nation or an occupied country?

And what protection does the Iraqi people get from the crimes of their “liberators?” None.

Ms Wilmshurst expressed concern about the size of the US civilian presence in Iraq. She also said she was worried about the lack of legal protection for Iraqis if they were harmed by allied troops or civilian contractors, including private security guards. She said it was “worrying” that the occupying powers had given immunity to US and British civilians which was “very, very wide” and “not what you would expect”. They would be protected from prosecution even if they seriously injured Iraqi women and children.
(Source: The Independent)

Why grant yourself immunity from prosecution? What can your kindly troops be doing that requires this kind of blanket protection?

Again, put yourself in the position of an Iraqi. A foreign army occupies your country. They say they’re here to help, to liberate you from your dictator but the first thing they do is bomb your capital flat and let lawlessness reign everwhere except for the oil-related assets. Then they demand legal exemption from any charges of harming civilians, even though it becomes publicly known they have been torturing innocent men, women and children. In fact, they’ve kidnapped children and held them without trial for over 18 months in a foreign prison called Guantanamo.

Is that liberation?

Meanwhile, the US air force continues to bomb any target it pleases, justifying every attack as being on insurgent safehouses. No proof is ever provided that the people they are massacring are insurgents and not just more unlucky civilians. There have been four airstrikes since June 19th. Today, they dropped two tons of bombs on one single house. There weren’t any suspects left to question, just dismembered limbs.

In Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, rescue workers picked up body parts after the U.S. airstrike, witnesses said. Video from Associated Press Television News showed the explosion flung bricks blocks away, and blood was splashed on a nearby wall.

Men gathered at the 30-foot-deep pit where the house had been and pulled out clothes, including a young child’s shirt, from the rubble.

“Is this acceptable to the Iraqi government?” asked an angry man at the scene, who declined to identify himself. “Where are human rights?”
(Source: San Diego Tribune)

Where indeed?