Ex director of DPP Blasts Blair

[The People's Chimp]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/14/tony-blair-ken-macdonald-deceit

 

His immoral, deceitful and narcissistic decision to lie Britain prostrate in front of the Neo con US war machine is coming home to haunt him.

[Grumpy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/14/tony-blair-ken-macdonald-deceit

 

His immoral, deceitful and narcissistic decision to lie Britain prostrate in front of the Neo con US war machine is coming home to haunt him.

 

Bet he doesn't get charged with any war crimes though.

[shaun.lawson]

Bet he doesn't get charged with any war crimes though.

 

I don't see how he can be, because the war was - just about - legal. I'd also like to ask all the MPs who voted for it and are now complaining they were "misled" two things:

 

1. Why was the only British party opposed to the war, the Liberal Democrats, treated as a bunch of traitors and shouted down when they raised objections in Parliament? How very democratic and respectful of all those who opposed invasion.

 

2. If I knew Iraq had no WMD, why didn't any of you?

[P-Dizzle]

Would love to see him and his cronies sent to The Hague.

[Serj Tankian]

It would be good to see him behind bars for the rest of his life.

BLAIR THE KILLER.

[bigwull22]

If he'd been honest about his misplaced Faith he'd never have been PM either, you just can't take anything said at face value

[Grumpy]

I don't see how he can be, because the war was - just about - legal. I'd also like to ask all the MPs who voted for it and are now complaining they were "misled" two things:

 

1. Why was the only British party opposed to the war, the Liberal Democrats, treated as a bunch of traitors and shouted down when they raised objections in Parliament? How very democratic and respectful of all those who opposed invasion.

 

2. If I knew Iraq had no WMD, why didn't any of you?

 

I suspect a half decent lawyer could change that to "not quite" very quickly.

[P-Dizzle]

I don't see how he can be, because the war was - just about - legal. I'd also like to ask all the MPs who voted for it and are now complaining they were "misled" two things:

 

1. Why was the only British party opposed to the war, the Liberal Democrats, treated as a bunch of traitors and shouted down when they raised objections in Parliament? How very democratic and respectful of all those who opposed invasion.

 

2. If I knew Iraq had no WMD, why didn't any of you?

 

To be fair, we aren't privy to information that these men are. But everyone knew this was the case. Also, carpet bombing vast areas of a country to prevent the launch of ICBMs containing warheads that would cause destruction on a massive scale isn't the best idea. Would also render the Iraqi oil fields useless.

[shaun.lawson]

To be fair, we aren't privy to information that these men are. But everyone knew this was the case. Also, carpet bombing vast areas of a country to prevent the launch of ICBMs containing warheads that would cause destruction on a massive scale isn't the best idea. Would also render the Iraqi oil fields useless.

 

No, everyone didn't. The intelligence services didn't. Blair didn't. Much of the public didn't. By the time war began, there was a narrow majority in favour of it (if you don't have a majority at that point, you never will) - which makes no sense if "everyone knew this was the case".

 

If only the late Robin Cook's resignation speech had been made after Blair's call to arms in Parliament, we might never have gone to war at all. Cook knew Iraq had no WMD as well: but for reasons which remain unfathomable to me, the media didn't focus on this, and instead obsessed with personalities, Blair's premiership being under threat, that sort of thing. Barely any of the media discussed the substantive issues regarding the war at any point during the build-up to it; in that, they did the public as much of a disservice as the Parliament elected to represent our interests.

[shaun.lawson]

I suspect a half decent lawyer could change that to "not quite" very quickly.

 

Because of Saddam's obstruction of weapons inspectors, which contravened the terms of the peace agreed after the Kuwait war, and UNSCR 1441, I don't think they could.

[Cade]

Blair is a War Criminal by anybody's reckoning.

 

[Bonnie Prince Charlie]

RIP Dr David Kelly.

[Bonnie Prince Charlie]

RIP Dr David Kelly. We can only hope the truth comes out sometime.

[The Mighty Thor]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/14/tony-blair-ken-macdonald-deceit

 

His immoral, deceitful and narcissistic decision to lie Britain prostrate in front of the Neo con US war machine is coming home to haunt him.

 

Blair will suffer a rather uncomfortable few months and then will just drift into the background and live off the huge 'undisclosed' income the very same Neo-Con US war machine supply companies are slipping him. Allegedly.

 

There's no question of him facing the Hague. He's not even likely to face William Hague.

[shaun.lawson]

He's not even likely to face William Hague.

 

 

I like William Hague. Great orator; excellent Have I Got News For You? presenter. It's just that, like Melanie Phillips, he somehow manages to be completely wrong about absolutely everything.

[The Mighty Thor]

 

I like William Hague. Great orator; excellent Have I Got News For You? presenter. It's just that, like Melanie Phillips, he somehow manages to be completely wrong about absolutely everything.

 

Hague's getting better with age. He was far too young to take on the Tory party in 97 and was effectively thrown to the lions in 2001 by a party in total disarray. Some might argue they still haven't got a clue but are profiting from a spectacularly inept Labour party.

[Grumpy]

Because of Saddam's obstruction of weapons inspectors, which contravened the terms of the peace agreed after the Kuwait war, and UNSCR 1441, I don't think they could.

 

UNSCR 1441 gave Iraq an opportunity to comply with the disarmament requirements and set up inspections by the UN and IAEA - I was under the impression that Iraq complied but the UN and IAEA wanted more time to review the results. That was when Bush got impatient and went ahead anyway - maybe I misunderstood, but that's what I thought happened.

[I P Knightley]

RIP Dr David Kelly. We can only hope the truth comes out sometime.

 

Absolutely bang on. I was struggling to remember his name the other night when discussing "moment defining the decade (or last 10 years)".

 

 

I like William Hague. Great orator; excellent Have I Got News For You? presenter. It's just that, like Melanie Phillips, he somehow manages to be completely wrong about absolutely everything.

 

...as would you be, Shaun, if you only dedicated yourself to getting outside 14 pints a day, 'appen as like eee by 'eck lad.

[shaun.lawson]

UNSCR 1441 gave Iraq an opportunity to comply with the disarmament requirements and set up inspections by the UN and IAEA - I was under the impression that Iraq complied but the UN and IAEA wanted more time to review the results. That was when Bush got impatient and went ahead anyway - maybe I misunderstood, but that's what I thought happened.

 

It also provided an out if the US and UK considered Iraq hadn't complied (which was ultimately open to question). Weeks of work went into the wording of that resolution, because it left everything open: the US and UK could claim it made war legal, Russia and France could claim it simply provided for more time.

[Boab]

Psychopath!

 

Scoff if you like but read "Personality Traits of a Psychopath" with him in mind....it's worrying.

[shaun.lawson]

Hague's getting better with age. He was far too young to take on the Tory party in 97 and was effectively thrown to the lions in 2001 by a party in total disarray. Some might argue they still haven't got a clue but are profiting from a spectacularly inept Labour party.

 

I agree. Clarke in 1997, then Hague in 2001 is the order the Tories wish they'd taken now. And like all political leaders, he suddenly metamorphosed into Charles I when giving a brilliant resignation speech after the 2001 election (when he had to go: he'd been so weak, he'd allowed himself to be dragged ever rightwards, and into a campaign which was the biggest joke this country's ever seen from one of its two main parties).

 

This was extremely funny as well:

 

[scots civil war]

and what about that moneygrabbing sanctimonius **** bliar collecting 90 big ones for a speech given in a corrupt country about a cancer causing glue(formaldehyde) the other day eh

 

 

 

i want him berlussconi`ed

[Private Hudson]

RIP Dr David Kelly. We can only hope the truth comes out sometime.

 

We haven't heard the last of that particular 'story'. The truth may not be too far away...

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6945740.ece

 

Six doctors are to take legal action in a bid to reopen the inquest in to weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.

 

The scientist, 59, was found dead in woods near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003, after being named as the source that claimed the Government had "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

 

An inquiry by Lord Hutton concluded Dr Kelly, a Ministry of Defence advisor, had died from cuts to his wrist and an overdose of powerful painkillers.

 

But a group of six doctors want the case re-examined, claiming there is insufficient evidence to prove he committed suicide.

 

Trauma surgeon David Halpin, epidemiologist Andrew Rouse, surgeon Martin Birnstingl, radiologist Stephen Frost, Chris Burns-Cox, who specialises in internal general medicine, and Michael Powers QC, a former assistant coroner, have instructed solicitors and aim to approach the Attorney General Baroness Scotland to get the case before the High Court.

 

Dr Powers QC, said the wounds to Dr Kelly's left wrist, which cut an ulnar artery, would not have caused him to bleed to death and there was only a normal dose of co-proxamol present in his body.

 

He said a coroner had to be sure "beyond reasonable doubt" that a person intended to kill themselves before reaching a verdict of suicide.

 

Dr Powers, an expert in coroners’ law, said: “Suicide cannot be presumed it has to be proven. From the evidence that we have as to the circumstances of his death, in particular the aspect of haemorrhage, we do not believe that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he killed himself.”

 

He said that there was not enough information to determine whether Dr Kelly was murdered or killed himself.

 

He also criticised the decision to allow Lord Hutton, who is not a coroner, to oversee the inquiry.

 

“There are many times in political life that the country needs to have an answer and the desire to have an answer overwhelms the desire to get the right answer. There is that pressure to find a conclusion," said Dr Powers.

 

“I have no doubt that many of us when we read about this thought that he had killed himself. But you cannot be certain.

 

“Everyone’s death is significant. This death had a significance which was greater and I feel that the process of the investigation of death ought to have been a thorough one. That was not provided for him.”

 

Dr Kelly was identified as the source for a report by Andrew Gilligan on the Today programme in May 2003, in which it was claimed the Government wanted the weapons dossier "sexed up". Dr Kelly denied the claims and on July 15 2003, three days before he was found dead, he appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee.

 

Dr Kelly had some signs of heart disease which was not bad enough to have killed him, and it was never made public how much blood he had actually lost, Dr Powers said.

 

“Any doctor, any medical student will tell you that if you want to kill yourself by haemorrhage that is not the way to do it. Kelly was not silly,” he added.