Tony Blair A War Criminal?
Posted on July 15th, 2016

 By Jonathan Power Courtesy The Daily Mirror

The crime of aggression (planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”) was described by the Nuremberg Tribunal that tried Nazi leaders as the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”.
President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have been accused by many as war criminals for starting the war against Iraq and, second, for not watching carefully enough to make sure that war crimes carried out by individual soldiers were not covered up, and for the torture that Bush initiated and Blair appeared to tolerate.

Did Blair lie over the reason for going to war with Iraq – the supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction that Iraq possessed? It depends on how you define a lie. If you define lie as saying this cat is black when in fact it’s white he didn’t on the big issues. But what he did do was to give the impression the cat was assuredly white when in fact it was a sort of greyish one.

But as the just published government commissioned report made by a distinguished civil servant, John Chilcot, has made clear the caveats were left out of intelligence briefings and the presentation was polished by the Prime Minister’s office. We in the public didn’t have the pre-polished version but Blair did and he must have known in his mind, if not his heart, he was taking a gamble with the evidence. Why he was not prepared to persuade George Bush to wait a few more weeks until the evidence that Hans Blix, the Chief UN arms inspector, was in the midst of collecting on the ground inside Iraq, was available, was gravely irresponsible. Moreover, sanctions had Saddam Hussain boxed in. He was able to harm no one outside his country. The UN policing and inspecting, imposed after the first Gulf War, had led to ridding Iraq of all the weapons of mass destruction. The war itself had effectively wiped out Saddam’s air force and navy and broken the back of his army.

Evidence has come to light that Bush, with Blair’s knowledge and support, had given the green light for going to war long before Blix got to work. Blair covered this up.

Yes, the word lie” cannot quite be used, although it was pretty near it. The Conservative Party, then in opposition, banded the word around. But in a related matter it can. It concerns the controversy over the naming of the Ministry of Defence’s weapons’ expert, David Kelly, who shortly after he was ousted in the press as the source of reports claiming the government’s public dossier on Iraq’s weapons had been sexed up”, committed suicide. Although an inquiry exonerated Blair of any blame for precipitating the suicide, a BBC interview much later caught Blair out, lying in a way we could all understand. He told the interviewer, I don’t believe we had any option, however, but to disclose his name [to the press].”

Until that interview Blair had always maintained that it was completely untrue” that the government had done this.

A.N. Wilson, the acerbic novelist and literary critic, wrote in the Financial Times in January 2014 that the obvious lesson is that the war brought more disasters than it solved. It is not one that we’d expect many politicians to have learnt, for politicians get drunk on war; they enjoy it. Witness the obscene expression on Tony Blair’s face, to this day, when he defends the invasion of Iraq”.

The UK’s ambassador to the US during the run up to the war, Christopher Meyer, wrote a scathing attack on Blair, who he served, in his book DC Confidential”. Meyer argued that Blair could have secured a delay to start military action and thus bought time for post-conflict planning that might have avoided much of the violence now plaguing Iraq. A delay would also have made it possible for Blix to properly finish his job and prove beyond all doubt that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. Meyer wrote that Blair was seduced” by the glamour” of US power and failed to take tough negotiating positions. As a result, the Premier let himself be taken for granted” by the White House. We may have been the junior partner in the enterprise but the ace up our sleeve was that America did not want to do it alone”.

Meyer’s colleague Rodric Braithwaite, former UK ambassador to Moscow and later chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee that prepares intelligence for the prime minister, wrote in the Financial Times in August 2006, whilst Blair was still in power, saying much the same thing: Blair’s total identification with the White House has destroyed his influence in Washington, Europe and the Middle East itself. Who bothers with the monkey if he can go straight to the organ-grinder?” He then added: A spectre is stalking British television, a frayed and waxy zombie straight from Madame Tussaud’s”.
Never have I read such a vicious attack on a prime minister by a former top diplomat. Braithwaite continues: Stiff in his opinions, but often in the wrong, Blair has manipulated public opinion, sent our soldiers into distant lands for ill-conceived purposes and misused the intelligence agencies”.
Blair and Bush were responsible for starting an unnecessary war that claimed half-a-million lives. Isn’t this an evil big enough for them to be charged with war crimes?

– See more at:

4 Responses to “Tony Blair A War Criminal?”

  1. stanley perera Says:

    I said this long time ago. Unfortunateley war crimes tribunal can only jail the bloody BAS….s .

  2. Ananda-USA Says:

    Even before addressing the Root Causes of Terrorism, let us address HYPOCRISY and DOUBLE STANDARDS of the means used!

    These Western Nations apply one standard when terrorism strikes them, and they apply an entirely DIFFERENT standard to Sri Lanka when Sri Lanka ERADICATED TERRORISM after suffering for 30 long years from attacks by Tamil Terrorists, given safe haven and assistance by these very same W4estern Countries to wage terror in Sri Lanka.

    Even now, these HYPOCRITICAL Westerners are HOUNDING Sri Lanka for HAVING UTTERLY DEFEATED the TERRORISTS after wasting 30 years suffering rampant murder and mayhem listening to their HOLIER THAN THOU bilgewater advice to negotiate with and APPEASE TERRORISTS!

    Will the French now NEGOTIATE with & APPEASE Al-Quaida, the Islamic State, and other assorted Islamic terror groups?

    HELL NO! French President Hollande has VOWED to rain hell, fire and brimstone on the Islamic Turban Heads in Syria and Iraq! ‘

    Now let us see how he ensures “human rights” and “democracy” for the peoples of those countries, while attacking terrorists hiding in their midst using them as human shields! Calling Kouchner & Millibanda …. where art thou? Here is where you can REALLY SHINE spouting bilgewater in defence of the TERRORISTS!

    Will Hollande send FRENCH GROUND TROOPS to sort out and differentiate between innocent civilians and armed terrorists at close quarters, as the Sri Lanka Armed Forces did against the LTTE, or will they avoid a high death rate among French troops by firing long range missiles from offshore ships and airborne drones killing 100 civilians for each AK-47 wielding terrorist in their midst? Will he magnanimously accept the HIGH TECH CARNAGE as COLLATERAL DAMAGE among civilians as an acceptable trade off for the lives of French Troops in their Western Style War on Terror! If he does, why do they say the OPPOSITE when the SriLanka Armed Forces had the LTTE Corralled in Puthumathalan? Why?? Is it because French Lives Matter MORE than Sri Lankan Lives??

    I bet Hollande will do PRECISELY THAT, and will be praised to high heaven by all Western Leaders even as they CONTINUE TO HOUND Sri Lanka for HAVING FINALLY ROOTED OUT the Tamil terrorists who killed over 150,000 innocents in Sri Lanka with the help of these MEALY MOUTHED HYPOCRITES who initiated a global crusade and are prosecuting it sowing chaos and destruction worldwide!

    These Westerners say they are FOR DEMOCRACY, but they are HOUNDING the ONLY DEMOCRACY that eradicated terrorism in the last CENTURY in our own country, by our own efforts without inviting in one foreign soldier, sacrificing our own blood and treasure, with the most humane treatment of civilians yet witnessed in a war zone!

  3. NAK Says:

    The real disappointment is that nothing will happen eve after Chilcot report.

  4. Ancient Sinhalaya Says:

    Depend on the country, not the crime. These laws only apply to countries like Sri Lanka and their governments’
    allegiance to the west. If the country is not a backer of the west, then of course it is a war crime. In Blair’s
    case, these laws don’t apply to him since uk, ds (formerly known as united states, now called divided states
    since they killed their own at a drop of a hat while preaching human rights to the world), germany, etc. etc.
    make these laws and pay these ‘human right’ champions.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress