Thread: Impeach Blair? Too bloody right we should.

Originally Posted by mad_mac

I hope that he does. With great power comes great responsibility. To abuse this responsibility for a personal agenda, whether that is to placate the American President or for monetary reasons is inexcusable.

I was quite happy to cross the start line on D+0, due to this being "unfinished business" from 1991,however, the reasons to invade were suspect at the very least.

Accountability must work at all levels and I seem to remember "Buffoon" stating that all the equipment was "in theatre" prior to the offensive.

That being the case, then why did I cross into Iraq with 10 rounds of small arms ammunition then!!!!! No plates for the CBA either. Insufficient rations, as during the "concentration" phase in N Kuwait the "MREs" we were supplied with (due to inadequacies of single meal rationing) were stopped by the Americans (No doubt they rationed for themselves and not the British Forces, understandably).

This was a lie from a Senior Minister of the Government. These politicians were voted in, and ultimately are accountable for their actions. In too many cases this accountability has been established through media pressure only.

Should Bliar be "impeached". Damn right he should. There has been so many dirty, underhand dealings with this Iraq liberation, from Goldsmiths "about turn" on legality of war, through to the suicidal pressure brought to bear on Dr Kelly, to the 10 year out of date students thesis on Iraqs alleged WMD, that anything else would be a travesty to the Servicemen who have given thier lives to a false cause.

In short, YES, HE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!

That was a very good post - well said that man-you really ought to post more. Very good points dude.

Originally Posted by mad_mac

I hope that he does. With great power comes great responsibility. To abuse this responsibility for a personal agenda, whether that is to placate the American President or for monetary reasons is inexcusable.

I was quite happy to cross the start line on D+0, due to this being "unfinished business" from 1991,however, the reasons to invade were suspect at the very least.

Accountability must work at all levels and I seem to remember "Buffoon" stating that all the equipment was "in theatre" prior to the offensive.

That being the case, then why did I cross into Iraq with 10 rounds of small arms ammunition then!!!!! No plates for the CBA either. Insufficient rations, as during the "concentration" phase in N Kuwait the "MREs" we were supplied with (due to inadequacies of single meal rationing) were stopped by the Americans (No doubt they rationed for themselves and not the British Forces, understandably).

This was a lie from a Senior Minister of the Government. These politicians were voted in, and ultimately are accountable for their actions. In too many cases this accountability has been established through media pressure only.

Should Bliar be "impeached". Damn right he should. There has been so many dirty, underhand dealings with this Iraq liberation, from Goldsmiths "about turn" on legality of war, through to the suicidal pressure brought to bear on Dr Kelly, to the 10 year out of date students thesis on Iraqs alleged WMD, that anything else would be a travesty to the Servicemen who have given thier lives to a false cause.

In short, YES, HE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!

What was the lie Mac

Surely there would be to many to list

I actualy think the US Mid Terms will have an effect on the UK, if Bush looses the support of either or better still both Houses, he will be out to save his own hide, so alot of the support for the gimp in No10 will disapear

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by mad_mac

Accountability must work at all levels and I seem to remember "Buffoon" stating that all the equipment was "in theatre" prior to the offensive.

That being the case, then why did I cross into Iraq with 10 rounds of small arms ammunition then!!!!! No plates for the CBA either. Insufficient rations, as during the "concentration" phase in N Kuwait the "MREs" we were supplied with (due to inadequacies of single meal rationing) were stopped by the Americans (No doubt they rationed for themselves and not the British Forces, understandably).

This was a lie from a Senior Minister of the Government.

What was the lie Mac

Sven,

Numerous from Hoon such as:

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, was accused of lying about his role in the public naming of David Kelly by the scientist's family yesterday before Lord Hutton retired to consider his report.

A National Audit Office report revealed that huge amounts of vital equipment, from desert boots to body armour and night vision equipment, had failed to reach the troops on time.

The report published last week by the National Audit Office controverted the evidence given by the Secretary of State to the committee. Quite plainly, he has misled Parliament.

Defence minister tells MPs he did not mislead inquiry
ISC 'disturbed' that Hoon did not detail concerns of intelligence staff about Iraq arms dossier

Geoff Hoon told MPs he had "no intention whatsoever other than to be open and straightforward" with the intelligence and security committee (ISC) over the Iraq dossier.

Depends which "lie" you wish to dwell on. For a man in such a Senior post, and supposedly possessing an "above average" intellectual capability, the amount of misleading (otherwise known as lies) information he has told the General Public and Parliament themselves about Iraq reports, and equipment is truly shocking.

Hope this answers your question.

Let me guess.

There are 119 or so associating with the early day motion. No - there are 156.

Now there are 664??? MPs in the House. 664 - 156 = 508

I would say that 156 signatures is very significant. The EDM is quite specific in what it wants.

There is only one person in Parliament who believes the Iraq war was handled correctly and was the right thing to do. There are a dozen or so ministers and ex-ministers who want the can kept firmly on this can of worms. There are also probably a few dozen Labour MPs who will never do anything that will allow the opposition to gain political capital.

There are probably a few dozen Labour MPs who will sign this once strategic failure is clearly evident (pretty much now) and another few dozen who will sign this to twist the knife into Bliar once he is fatally wounded.

I have some detailed Bliar lies I will reproduce shortly.

Bliar lies from the most grave to the trivial - there will be more since I dug these out a while ago. He even lies in his sleep!

1a. Bliar lie to Parliament, 4 June 2003:

The allegation that the 45 minute claim provoked disquiet among the intelligence community, which disagreed with its inclusion in the dossier - I have discussed it, as I said, with the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee - is also completely and totally untrue.

1b. Dr Brian Jones of DIS, in a minute dated 19 September 2002:

We have a number of questions in our minds relating to the intelligence on the military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, particularly about the times mentioned and the failure to differentiate between the two types of weapon.

2a. Bliar lie: PM's official spokesman, 22 July 2003:

(the case of Dr Kelly was) ...handled in accordance with MoD procedures and had been overseen by those at the top of the MoD in view of the fact that it had been the lead department.

2b. Bliar giving evidence to Hutton:


(in answer to a question whether procedures existed for such cases):

No. Obviously, you know, this was, as I say, a very unusual set of circumstances. (note: Downing Street took the key decision with regard to the Dr Kelly affair)

3a. Bliar lie: to Parliament in response to Abu Ghraib, 12 May 2004:

It is not correct that ministers or I were aware of these allegations in respect of American Troops. The ICRC report was not passed to us.

3b. Parliamentary answer by Jack Straw, 16 June 2004:

The President of the ICRC, Dr Kellenberger, did mention briefly to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in their meeting of 18 March that the February ICRC report contained allegations concerning treatment of detainees by forces other than UK forces.

4. Bliar's CV submitted in his bid to become Labour candidate for Sedgefield in 1983 claimed that he had "written for" the Guardian. His biographer John Rentoul states that "no published article can be found".

5a. Bliar, claiming to have stowed away on a flight to Barbados as a youth, to Des O'Connor in 1998:

(I) ..snuck on to the plane, and we were literally about to take off when the stewardess came up to me and said: "I don't think I actually saw your boarding pass".

5b. Bliar's father Leo:

The Bahamas? Who said that? Tony? Never. It's news to me.

5c. Newcastle Airport spokeswoman:

In our 61 year history we never had any flights to the Bahamas from here.

6a. Bliar lie: Appearing on Question Time speaking about the fox-hunting ban in 1999:

We had one try at it last season - people like myself voted in favour of banning fox-hunting. I voted for it.

6b. Bliar did not participate in this vote.

7a. Bliar lie: Paxman, asking about Labour accepting money from pornographer Richard Desmond, 16 May 2002:

They also own Horny Housewives, Mega Boobs, Posh Wives, Skinny & Wriggly. Do you know what these magazines are like?

7b. Bliar lying to Paxman:

No, I don't.

7c. Columnist for the Times Anthony Howard describes how the late Tony Bevins, political editor of the Daily Express, had a coincidental encounter with Bliar shortly after resigning from the paper in protest at Desmond's purchase:

Blair asked him why he was going. Bevins told me that, by way of reply, he simply took out from his briefcase some of the more lurid of the Desmond titles and threw them down in front of the Prime Minister - who, to be fair, shuddered and averted his gaze.

I have detested Blur since I first became aware of his exsistance.
'Snake Oil Salesman' is my prefered term.
However I do agree with Sven
Blur will get away with it as far as Legal matters are conncerned.
john
But his Legacy to Postiria will IMHO always be a Load of Arrse.

I assume there is no opposition to my evidence above that Bliar lies!

There is a debate this Tuesday sponsored by the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru on Iraq and the motion is based on the EDM quoted earlier in this thread.

http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/h...ngbusiness.cfm

Debate – Opposition Day (Un-allotted Half-Day). There will be a debate entitled “Conduct of Government policy in relation to the war in Iraq and its aftermath� on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party.

Bliar is unlikely to survive the debate unscathed (the silence on his own benches is likely to be most damning) although I doubt there will be any massive political upheaval - he will be relying on the Tories in any vote although a surprise U-turn on their part would be a most welcome development!

The timing is particularly uncomfortable - Bliar is dangling at the moment, prior to the US midterms. The Republicans are sticking to the "stay the course" line from which Bliar cannot deviate. He would have more latitude after the midterms, if there is any change in course in Washington - whether he could survive any radical change in direction is another matter. For the time being, he has to do as he is told.

Maybe we will find out if windmill boy is made of any substance at all.
SNP MPs are leading the charge to impeach Blair. Might be an interesting debate. The guilt of Labour MPs who voted for the war is palpable.

Originally Posted by nigegilb

Maybe we will find out if windmill boy is made of any substance at all.
SNP MPs are leading the charge to impeach Blair. Might be an interesting debate. The guilt of Labour MPs who voted for the war is palpable.

Scottish Parliament elections are coming up fast...Hector and his boys are going to get a beasting in the polls and for a Labour PM to "lose" Scotland is a death knell.

The Tories seem to be hinting that they may vote in favour of the motion tomorrow rather than helping to prop up Bliar.

A liar or an incompetent, but not the world statesman he wants to be remembered as.

Originally Posted by MrPVRd

The Tories seem to be hinting that they may vote in favour of the motion tomorrow rather than helping to prop up Bliar.

I understand that the motion is going to be around the post-war planning and administration of Iraq. That way, the Tories who supported the war can support the motion without doing a u-turn. Arguably, that leaves open the door to have a go at the FO, MOD and DIFID as well as the PM and possibly the Chancellor.