Impeach Blair? Too bloody right we should.

#2
Don't worry after the US elections on the 7th of Nov, tony's house of cards will begin to fall - he'll have an interesting retirement what with the cash for peerages investigation with lord levy on record saying ' I will not go down for Tony'. With his Iraq legacy going on and on and on, its only a matter of time before he gets broken on the wheel - the new lot will need to aportion blame.
 
#6
I am willing to bet that there will be no cash for peerages convictions, that Blair will not be impeached or arrested (any more than any other major politician will be prosecuted)
 
#7
Sven said:
I am willing to bet that there will be no cash for peerages convictions, that Blair will not be impeached or arrested (any more than any other major politician will be prosecuted)
I agree, especialy with TB's PC Poodle sitting at NSY. It seems that Parliment have now asked for an update into the investigation as they fear it is being put on the back burner.
 
#8
#9
Sven said:
I am willing to bet that there will be no cash for peerages convictions, that Blair will not be impeached or arrested (any more than any other major politician will be prosecuted)
I am not sure but has there ever been another case whereby a lying politician who has caused unecessary death by lying to the nation has been brought to a court.
 
#10
Being totally serious for a minute, would any of his actions or indeed all of them considered together, constitute a treasonous act ?

What would constitute a treasonous act in today's "enlightened" moral market place?
 
#11
sheldrake said:
Being totally serious for a minute, would any of his actions or indeed all of them considered together, constitute a treasonous act ?

What would constitute a treasonous act in today's "enlightened" moral market place?
A Coup d'Etat
 
#12
Sven said:
sheldrake said:
Being totally serious for a minute, would any of his actions or indeed all of them considered together, constitute a treasonous act ?

What would constitute a treasonous act in today's "enlightened" moral market place?
A Coup d'Etat
Quite. I think that Britain has suffered a coup d'etat by stealth over the last 9 years and is only just coming to realise the fact.

Anyway, I suspect that although technically correct, your answer was made tongue in cheek, so I ask again, what would be considered treasonous?
 
#13
Henry Porter's articles are well worth a read - he provoked Bliar into a spittle-flecked rant in the Observer a couple of months ago.

Impeaching Bliar may seem far-fetched but it isn't really. I think if Bliar refused to fall on his sword following loss of a vote of confidence or one of the other triggers for resignation, then impeachment could be invoked.

Early Day Motion 1088 may prove uncomfortable, particularly if the US get a drubbing next month and admit that the game is up.

http://www.impeachblair.org/

CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY IN RELATION TO THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ

That this House believes that there should be a select committee of seven honourable Members, being members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath.

MPs from all main parties have come together to put forward a motion to review government policy in relation to the war against Iraq.

A committee will be set up, consisting of seven Members of Parliament and, leaving no leaves unturned, they will look into the central question that neither the Hutton and Butler Inquiries addressed - were the Parliament and country misled?

Too many questions remain unanswered and the people have been misled time and time again - this conduct cannot continue to go unchecked. The Members of Parliament backing this motion believe it is their duty to do all they can to hold this Government to account in order to restore the people's faith in the democratic process.

1. Clarke, Kenneth.
2. Simpson, Alan.
3. Campbell, Menzies.
4. Llwyd, Elfyn.
5. Salmond, Alex.
6. Hogg, Douglas.

Abbott, Diane.
Ainsworth, Peter.
Alexander, Danny.
Amess, David.
Ancram, Michael.
Austin, John.
Bacon, Richard.
Baker, Norman.
Baldry, Tony.
Barrett, John.
Benyon, Richard.
Binley, Brian.
Bone, Peter.
Bottomley, Peter.
Brake, Tom.
Breed, Colin.
Brooke, Annette.
Brown, Lyn.
Browne, Jeremy.
Browning, Angela.
Bruce, Malcolm.
Burstow, Paul.
Burt, Lorely.
Butterfill, John.
Cable, Vincent.
Campbell, Ronnie.
Carmichael, Alistair.
Caton, Martin.
Challen, Colin.
Clapham, Michael.
Clegg, Nick.
Cohen, Harry.
Corbyn, Jeremy.
Crabb, Stephen.
Cryer, Ann.
Curry, David.
Davey, Edward. Davies, David TC.
Dorrell, Stephen.
Dorries, Nadine.
Duddridge, James.
Dunne, Philip.
Etherington, Bill.
Evans, Nigel.
Farron, Timothy.
Featherstone, Lynne.
Fisher, Mark.
Flynn, Paul.
Foster, Don.
Galloway, George.
George, Andrew.
Gerrard, Neil.
Gibson, Ian.
Gidley, Sandra.
Goldsworthy, Julia.
Goodwill, Robert.
Gray, James.
Greening, Justine.
Greenway, John.
Hancock, Mike.
Harris, Evan.
Harvey, Nick.
Heath, David.
Hemming, John.
Hoey, Kate.
Holmes, Paul.
Hopkins, Kelvin.
Hosie, Stewart.
Howarth, David.
Hughes, Simon.
Huhne, Chris.
Hunter, Mark.
Jackson, Glenda.
Jackson, Stewart.
Jones, Lynne. Kawczynski, Daniel.
Keetch, Paul.
Kennedy, Charles.
Kilfoyle, Peter.
Kirkbride, Julie.
Kramer, Susan.
Lamb, Norman.
Law, Peter.
Laws, David.
Leech, John.
Liddell-Grainger, Ian.
Lilley, Peter.
MacNeil, Angus.
Main, Anne.
Marshall-Andrews, Robert.
McDonnell, Alasdair.
McDonnell, John.
McGovern, Jim.
Milton, Anne.
Mitchell, Austin.
Moore, Michael.
Moss, Malcolm.
Mulholland, Greg.
Murrison, Andrew.
Oaten, Mark.
Opik, Lembit.
Ottaway, Richard.
Pelling, Andrew.
Penning, Mike.
Penrose, John.
Price, Adam.
Pugh, John.
Reid, Alan.
Rifkind, Malcolm.
Riordan, Linda.
Robertson, Angus.
Rowen, Paul. Russell, Bob.
Younger-Ross, Richard.
Sanders, Adrian.
Shapps, Grant.
Shepherd, Richard.
Short, Clare.
Smith, Robert.
Stanley, John.
Streeter, Gary.
Stuart, Graham.
Stunell, Andrew.
Swinson, Jo.
Syms, Robert.
Tapsell, Peter.
Taylor, Ian.
Taylor, Matthew.
Taylor, Richard.
Teather, Sarah.
Thurso, John.
Trickett, Jon.
Vaizey, Edward.
Walker, Charles.
Wallace, Ben.
Wareing, Robert N.
Webb, Steve.
Weir, Mike.
Whittingdale, John.
Williams, Hywel.
Williams, Mark.
Williams, Roger.
Williams, Stephen.
Willis, Phil.
Willott, Jenny.
Wilshire, David.
Wilson, Robert.
Wishart, Pete.
Wood, Mike.
 
#14
MrPVRd said:
Henry Porter's articles are well worth a read - he provoked Bliar into a spittle-flecked rant in the Observer a couple of months ago.

Impeaching Bliar may seem far-fetched but it isn't really. I think if Bliar refused to fall on his sword following loss of a vote of confidence or one of the other triggers for resignation, then impeachment could be invoked.

Early Day Motion 1088 may prove uncomfortable, particularly if the US get a drubbing next month and admit that the game is up.

http://www.impeachblair.org/

CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY IN RELATION TO THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ

That this House believes that there should be a select committee of seven honourable Members, being members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath.

MPs from all main parties have come together to put forward a motion to review government policy in relation to the war against Iraq.

A committee will be set up, consisting of seven Members of Parliament and, leaving no leaves unturned, they will look into the central question that neither the Hutton and Butler Inquiries addressed - were the Parliament and country misled?

Too many questions remain unanswered and the people have been misled time and time again - this conduct cannot continue to go unchecked. The Members of Parliament backing this motion believe it is their duty to do all they can to hold this Government to account in order to restore the people's faith in the democratic process.

1. Clarke, Kenneth.
2. Simpson, Alan.
3. Campbell, Menzies.
4. Llwyd, Elfyn.
5. Salmond, Alex.
6. Hogg, Douglas.

Abbott, Diane.
Ainsworth, Peter.
Alexander, Danny.
Amess, David.
Ancram, Michael.
Austin, John.
Bacon, Richard.
Baker, Norman.
Baldry, Tony.
Barrett, John.
Benyon, Richard.
Binley, Brian.
Bone, Peter.
Bottomley, Peter.
Brake, Tom.
Breed, Colin.
Brooke, Annette.
Brown, Lyn.
Browne, Jeremy.
Browning, Angela.
Bruce, Malcolm.
Burstow, Paul.
Burt, Lorely.
Butterfill, John.
Cable, Vincent.
Campbell, Ronnie.
Carmichael, Alistair.
Caton, Martin.
Challen, Colin.
Clapham, Michael.
Clegg, Nick.
Cohen, Harry.
Corbyn, Jeremy.
Crabb, Stephen.
Cryer, Ann.
Curry, David.
Davey, Edward. Davies, David TC.
Dorrell, Stephen.
Dorries, Nadine.
Duddridge, James.
Dunne, Philip.
Etherington, Bill.
Evans, Nigel.
Farron, Timothy.
Featherstone, Lynne.
Fisher, Mark.
Flynn, Paul.
Foster, Don.
Galloway, George.
George, Andrew.
Gerrard, Neil.
Gibson, Ian.
Gidley, Sandra.
Goldsworthy, Julia.
Goodwill, Robert.
Gray, James.
Greening, Justine.
Greenway, John.
Hancock, Mike.
Harris, Evan.
Harvey, Nick.
Heath, David.
Hemming, John.
Hoey, Kate.
Holmes, Paul.
Hopkins, Kelvin.
Hosie, Stewart.
Howarth, David.
Hughes, Simon.
Huhne, Chris.
Hunter, Mark.
Jackson, Glenda.
Jackson, Stewart.
Jones, Lynne. Kawczynski, Daniel.
Keetch, Paul.
Kennedy, Charles.
Kilfoyle, Peter.
Kirkbride, Julie.
Kramer, Susan.
Lamb, Norman.
Law, Peter.
Laws, David.
Leech, John.
Liddell-Grainger, Ian.
Lilley, Peter.
MacNeil, Angus.
Main, Anne.
Marshall-Andrews, Robert.
McDonnell, Alasdair.
McDonnell, John.
McGovern, Jim.
Milton, Anne.
Mitchell, Austin.
Moore, Michael.
Moss, Malcolm.
Mulholland, Greg.
Murrison, Andrew.
Oaten, Mark.
Opik, Lembit.
Ottaway, Richard.
Pelling, Andrew.
Penning, Mike.
Penrose, John.
Price, Adam.
Pugh, John.
Reid, Alan.
Rifkind, Malcolm.
Riordan, Linda.
Robertson, Angus.
Rowen, Paul. Russell, Bob.
Younger-Ross, Richard.
Sanders, Adrian.
Shapps, Grant.
Shepherd, Richard.
Short, Clare.
Smith, Robert.
Stanley, John.
Streeter, Gary.
Stuart, Graham.
Stunell, Andrew.
Swinson, Jo.
Syms, Robert.
Tapsell, Peter.
Taylor, Ian.
Taylor, Matthew.
Taylor, Richard.
Teather, Sarah.
Thurso, John.
Trickett, Jon.
Vaizey, Edward.
Walker, Charles.
Wallace, Ben.
Wareing, Robert N.
Webb, Steve.
Weir, Mike.
Whittingdale, John.
Williams, Hywel.
Williams, Mark.
Williams, Roger.
Williams, Stephen.
Willis, Phil.
Willott, Jenny.
Wilshire, David.
Wilson, Robert.
Wishart, Pete.
Wood, Mike.
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 believe the NO's have it :roll:
 
#15
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!
 
#16
mad_mac said:
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. 8)
 
#17
mad_mac said:
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
 
#18
Surely there would be to many to list
 
#20
Sven said:
mad_mac said:
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.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top