Blair, a traitor and war criminal
It seems a long, long time ago now, but in 2002 Blair stated that he was willing to pay the "blood price" to cement his "special relationship with the rogue regime in Washington. But, of course, he was not going to pay that "blood price" himself; instead he would send others to die for Bush, and his friends. On the 24th September 2002 Blair and his cronies released the first of 2 of those infamous dossiers on "Iraqs Weapons of Mass Destruction". However, by July 2003 the Foreign Affairs committee had ruled that this dossier had undermined the case for war because it contained material plagiarised from a 12-year-old graduate thesis found on the Internet. In January 2003, Blair endorsed the second dodgy dossier. This second dossier according to the foreign Affairs Committee gave "undue prominence" to a claim that Saddam's troops could deploy chemical and biological weapons at 45 minutes notice. In February 2004, a shameless Blair tried to blame the media for "exaggerating the importance" of the 45 minute claim! It also contained an incorrect claim that Iraq had recently sought significant quantities of uranium in the African nation of Niger. Indeed, Iraq did not even have to go anywhere to buy uranium, it had its own uranium mines which inspectors visited in 2002. The Hutton inquiry which was later held to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of a top British expert on WMD,Dr David Kelly failed to address properly the issues of high level orders to tamper with one of the dodgy dossiers. Instead, it decided to direct its criticisms toward the BBC. It is quite clear from the facts that Blairs endorsement of both of these dodgy dossiers means that he was either extremely incompetent, and was not aware of the facts at the time; or he deceived the British people. In either case, Blair should have done the decent thing and resigned. On the 23rd January 2003, Charles Kennedy the leader of Britains 3rd placed political party asked Tony Blair in the House of Commons if there were any circumstances in which Britain would not support US military action in Iraq. Of course Blair failed to answer the question as he had already decided despite what he was saying to the contrary that Britain would be involved in Bush's pet project. Therefore he lied to the House of commons and the British people that no decision had been made to attack Iraq before the vote had been taken in parliament. In March 2003, a 28 year old woman, who worked for the British GCHQ was arrested on suspicion of contravening the Official Secrets Act, because she dared to whistleblow. The GCHQ woker was just one of many working throughout Britains intelligence community unhappy at the push for war led by the regime in the US. Britons were startled to learn that the US was spying on UN members to "give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals..." By June 2003, after the mainstream media had begun to do its duty and reported on some of the inconcistencies in the arguments offered on both side of the Atlantic for attacking Iraq widespread legal opinion was that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. By November 2003, even a so called "hawk" loyal to the Bush regime, Richard Perle stated that the US breached international law when it decided to invade Iraq. By September 2004, Kofi Annan, the UN chief stated what the majority of people around the world also believed, that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. On the 2nd March 2004, the Legal Action Against War group submitted a petition to the International Criminal Court in the Hague to ask they investigate offences committed by Blair, Straw, Hoon and Goldsmith. Also in March 2004, it emerged that the US had told Britain to get legal opinion to back the invasion and occupation of Iraq after British government advisors had warned that invading the country would be illegal without the explicit backing of the UN through a second resolution. Britain has signed up to the International Criminal Court, however the US under the rogue regime has not. The Bush regime believed that they should not be subject to international law or any prosecutions for human rights violations carried out in Iraq. By this stance alone, Blair should have said no to Bush. Blair has now subjected not only himself to possible prosecution for war crimes, but also the British troops. Blair has through his deceit created a dangerous situation where if there was a real threat to this countrys interests, if he were to try to inform the British people of that threat he would not be believed. (And is there any wonder?) Blair needs to be impeached in the interests of British national security.