Kamm exposes “blood on hands” Blair accuser (& allies)

Original Home Page

All Contents of Site – Index

Is ‘President Blair’ a shoo-in? Yes and No

“Ban Blair-Baiting” petition - please sign

UPDATE: Brierley on confronting Blair. Will the Yorkshire Post ask any questions of Mr Brierley’s association with anti-British troops organisations? Perhaps they’ll read Oliver Kamm and think again.

Comment at end

11th October, 2009

TONY BLAIR’S ‘blood on hands’ ACCUSER BRIERLEY …

CAMPAIGNS alongside those whose aim is …

TO DEFEAT OUR TROOPS

Kamm: ‘The SWP is a Leninist organisation that is not opposed to the war in Iraq. It is, instead, opposed to our side in the war in Iraq. This has always been its position. Paul McGarr, a party ideologue, wrote in Socialist Worker, 23 March 2003:

“The best response to war would be protests across the globe which make it impossible for Bush and Blair to continue. But while war lasts by far the lesser evil would be reverses, or defeat, for the US and British forces.”‘

READ THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN, PLEASE -

“But while war lasts by far the lesser evil would be reverses, or defeat, for the US and British forces.”

We should know our enemy. Our enemy is NOT Mr Blair but those with hidden, or sometimes not so hidden agendas. Such people and organisations are not above using and abusing those still in grief. Those such as Peter Brierley.

Peter Brierley, bereaved father of a British soldier, accused Blair, the "war criminal", of "having blood on his hands". But is Mr Brierley ALL he seems?

Oliver Kamm at The Times has an excellent and well-researched piece of work (copied in its entirety below) on the father of a dead soldier who accused Tony Blair of having “blood on his hands”. Mr Blair will be familiar with this accusation.  He has had to cope with this kind of blame game for years from many wrongheaded individuals and organisations.

The former prime minister is likely, too, to be aware of this man’s political background. But in the same way that Tony Blair never blames others for holding opposing views to his own on Iraq he will not come out and tell us where this man stands politically. Oliver Kamm’s article does tell us.

[The Socialist Workers Party - SWP, at Wikipedia]

---

Kamm’s article today at The Times

Protest and pernicious politics

Some years ago, the Telegraph columnist Nigel Farndale imagined this:

“November 14, 1944 Today the tearful families of soldiers killed in the assault on Arnhem laid the blame where they say it belongs – at 10 Downing Street. They placed a wreath of poppies on Winston Churchill’s doorstep during a symbolic minute’s silence. The relatives, who have formed a campaign group, Military Families Against Soldiers Being Killed in Action, delivered an emotional letter to the Prime Minister charging him with “morally unacceptable conduct” and of entering a “contrived war”. Afterwards they launched a savage attack on the Government and demanded that British troops be brought home.”

Of course it never happened. His point was to contrast the attitudes of military families in different generations.

But our own longserving foreign affairs correspondent (and now leader writer) Michael Binyon wrote a moving article last month about the 65th anniversary commemorations of the assault on Arnhem. I’d urge you to read it. One point that Michael doesn’t mention is that his father was one of the British servicemen killed at Arnhem. I thought it typical of Michael that when he got back to the office he recounted his embarrassment at having attended the commemoration in the VIP enclosure rather than with the press. But of course that’s where he belonged.

I merely mention this as preamble to a story couched in purple prose on the front page of the Mail yesterday:

“A father’s grief and anger boiled over yesterday when he came face to face with the man he blames for his son’s death. Tony Blair offered his hand to Peter Brierley during a reception following a service at St Paul’s to commemorate the dead of the Iraq war.

“‘Don’t you dare,’ roared Mr Brierley. ‘You have my son’s blood on your hands.’ Three of the former Prime Minister’s bodyguards sprang into action, ushering away a visibly shocked Mr Blair, who had earlier been criticised during the service by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

“But 59-year-old Mr Brierley, whose son Shaun died in the run-up to Iraq, was not finished. He told the Daily Mail: ‘As far as I am concerned that man is a war criminal. I can’t bear to be in the same room as him. I cannot believe he’s been allowed to come to this reception. ‘I sat through that service listening to people preaching to me about tolerance but I don’t think anyone should be forced to tolerate being in the same room as him….”

Brierley has suffered much, but his conduct remains boorish. In addition, and as I hope will not be overlooked by my profession, his is far from an apolitical protest. Brierley (whom I’m fairly certain I’ve been on television with before) is a longstanding campaigner in an organisation called Military Families Against the War.

MFAW describes itself in its mission statement as “an organization of people directly affected by the war in Iraq. Our relatives and loved ones are members of the British Armed Services”. If you look at the header of that statement, you’ll find that its author is one Adrian Cousins, who appears to provide the web hosting for the organisation’s site and is also the author of the group’s petition to Bring the Troops Home. Cousins signs letters on behalf of MFAW.

I don’t know if Cousins has a relative or loved one serving in HM Forces. I do know that he is an activist for the Socialist Workers’ Party. That is how he describes himself. You can find his Youtube channel here. He lists his “influences” as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Gramsci, Lukacs, Tony Cliff and Duncan Hallas. (Don’t worry – seriously, don’t give it a moment’s thought – if you’ve never heard of the last two.) So let us calmly and without rhetorical excess describe where the SWP stands on this issue.

The SWP is a Leninist organisation that is not opposed to the war in Iraq. It is, instead, opposed to our side in the war in Iraq. This has always been its position. Paul McGarr, a party ideologue, wrote in Socialist Worker, 23 March 2003:

“The best response to war would be protests across the globe which make it impossible for Bush and Blair to continue. But while war lasts by far the lesser evil would be reverses, or defeat, for the US and British forces.”

It’s one thing to oppose the Iraq War. But the SWP wanted Saddam Hussein, a tyrant of scarcely imaginable brutality, to prevail. That position was no aberration. Alex Callinicos, another party ideologue, made clear in an article in 2005 that there was an alternative to the barbarism of the Islamist head-lopper Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It was not, as you might think, support for Iraqi democrats and secularists. It was killing Coalition troops and Iraqi government officials. Callinicos insisted to his interlocutor, who was wary of unqualified support for the Iraqi “resistance”:

“What about the other tactics that are being used – for example, road-side bombs that kill American soldiers and attacks on Iraqi recruits to the puppet regime’s army and police and on its officials, like the Governor of Baghdad, who was assassinated last week? If you condemn these in Iraq, then you must condemn similar methods that were used again and again in anti-colonial guerrilla struggles – from Ireland to Vietnam to Cyprus to Algeria to Zimbabwe. I presume that you do in fact regard these as ‘legitimate attacks’…. “

Having had his moment in the headlines, Brierley really ought to be tested on his affiliations. The SWP supports the people who are attacking and killing Coalition soldiers. If Brierley isn’t aware of this, then he ought to be. If he is aware of it and doesn’t think it matters, or regards it as a mere detail in the wider anti-war campaign, then he should be exposed for it.

---

The Daily Mail, The Independent, The Guardian et al (you know who you are) OUTED as in alliance AGAINST OUR TROOPS

Like Mr Kamm I too found Mr Brierley’s attack on Mr Blair at the reception following the commemorative Service boorish. I don’t excuse him due to his grief.  This outburst was completely uncalled for, but was likely aided and abetted by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s disgraceful “sermon” inside St Paul’s.

People may well have legitimate grievances on defence procurement, trucks and other kit. They can even be angry about the reasons for going into Iraq in the first place. But Brierley’s behaviour was simply not acceptable.

Many, many people have lost family members in recent conflicts and many have lost loved ones due to accidents or other causes.  A balanced considered reaction is NOT this kind of vehemence towards anyone, even IF they do consider, wrongly in my opinion, a particular individual entirely responsible for their loss.

To be frank, I find it hard to accept that Mr Brierley is innocent enough to really believe that Mr Blair is guilty of ANY of these accusations. But it is an easy way to get a headline in this country using the facile “Blair lied, people died” phrase, especially if it promotes a so-called “peace agenda”.

Regarding equipment and procurement issues, yes, there are and always will be questions, especially in a country which, unlike America is never really on war standby. In reality there were many others involved in the procurement chain, as well as many others involved in the war decision in the first place.

Mr Brierley must know this. The MOD, the Treasury, civil servants, and even the army itself were as responsible as Tony Blair to come up with the goods. Mr Brierley must surely realise this. Unless he is an innocent abroad and is being used by others he is being disingenuous or at best naive in laying the blame at the feet of Mr Blair.

But it is a line behind which many choose to muster, laying as it does the entire responsibility for every death and injury where it suits so many.

What is MFAW? AND WHAT ARE THE MAINSTREAM PRESS SAYING ABOUT THEM?

Military Families Against the War – includes the “blood on your hands” man, Peter Brierley. He was one of three – 3, not 103 – people who wrote to Gordon Brown in March this year. The others are Reg Keys and Rose Gentle. These are probably the only three who are politically active in the press in this group and the names which keep popping up in this regard. They are afforded publicity beyond their politically deserved clout, mainly thanks to The Mail, the Guardian, The Independent … you know the rest. Those with an anti-Blair agenda; anti for whichever reason.

It is time the editors of the other mainstream papers who gleefully jump on any excuse to attack Tony Blair took a leaf from Mr Kamm’s book and looked at their OWN conduct. Their implied, under-the-counter support for the SWP, Military Families Against the War and others who seem to support killing our troops needs to be seen for what it is.

RELATED

Other sites linking to this “poor man” story. Hopefully their writers will now understand that things aren’t always all they seem.

• Someone else with “blood on his hands”. Interesting accusers here too.
  

• http://www.care2.com/news/member/465562773/1272051
• http://ardenforester.blogspot.com/2009/10/blair-bloody-handed-one.html
• Why I refused to shake Blair’s blood-covered hands
• Socialist Worker unhappy again!

Julie has also blogged on this here

---

---

Tags: Archbishop of Canterbury's disgraceful sermon. St Paul's, blood on your hands, Guardian, Independent, Mail, Military Families Against the War, Oliver Kamm, Peter Brierley, Reg Keys, Rose Gentle, Socialists Workers Party, SWP, The Times