Tony, if you’re a ‘dead man walking’, challenge the treacherous bastards to CHARGE you

  • Original Home Page
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”
  • Comment at end

    Ban Blair-Baiting


    You may also be interested in this – “I was a witness (more or less) to the TRIAL of Tony Blair, aka the Iraq Inquiry”

    29th November, 2009

    The Independent: “The former prime minister has been appalled by high-profile evidence given by the mandarins who have appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry since the first round of public hearings began last Tuesday, close friends have revealed.”

    Reports that Tony Blair is “furious” over the mandarins’ evidence at his trial … the Iraq Inquiry, here and here come as no surprise to me. He must be spitting blood.

    But the mandarins are not the only ones salami slicing and then shredding his reputation while he is in no position to respond to them.

    Tony Blair is suffering under a two-pronged attack.

    First, witnesses speak. Then the press reports interprets.

    The press only reports interprets the juicy bits that serve their cause. After reporting interpreting, the prongs add to their number, seemingly organically.

    Now the attack has become three-pronged.

    Having devoured the press’s morsels, juicy bits spiced up for their greater enjoyment, the public joins in like  gladiators relishing the taste of blood.

    Civil servants know and understand all this. That’s what makes their capitulation to the press’s agenda so shameful and frankly so disturbing.

    They KNOW that the press are hanging on their every word and even every pause, which also goes reported opined.

    It is contemptible behaviour to feed this ravenous feral beast. It is unfitting for anyone who considers himself an honourable servant of the crown.

    But after only one week of the year-long Iraq Inquiry a pattern has emerged. These witnesses are free in this oft-derided “dictatorship” of ours to utter their often shoddy, part-remembered, usually partisan and part-informed views in a way which makes them able to be interpreted as the press wills.

    And it will, and it does.


    I wonder if these people would be so indiscreet if they had heard the Queen in some talks or agreements with a foreign head of state? Would they risk being charged with treason?

    This would never happen, of course, because the Queen is above politics. But I ask the question because today when monarchs do not hold political power but are merely figureheads and are yet protected under treason laws, I think we may need to re-think this position.

    We also owe allegiance to the country’s prime minister and/or former prime minister, especially in times such as these. The prime minister was one of us. An elected representative, fated to make tough political decisions.

    To hang him out to dry in this way is contemptible and degrades the meaning of loyalty.  Loyalty, if it means anything at all,  is NOT just to the crown, but also to the monarch’s chief representative, the main decision-maker. And for ten years that was Mr Blair.

    He cannot answer for himself or whisper a word of disagreement except when he provides his evidence which is due in a couple of months. After that the year-long inquiry will continue, and the press will continue to rouse the gladiators.

    Civil servants, sworn to secrecy, but highly unlikely to be charged with breaking the Official Secrets Act (as that would be interpreted as Blair’s/Brown’s revenge on poor honest justice seekers) can insinuate all they like with impunity, regardless that much of their innuendo is hearsay and worse, often only their opinion.

    But Blair’s intervention today will make little difference to future “evidence” or how it is delivered. These Sir Humphreys, experts at obfuscation and double-speak seem to have one aim in mind. To use the “get out of jail … it wasn’t me, Guv” card, just in case Blair is eventually charged.

    Civil servants care not if they throw Blair onto a fire already stoked by such as The Daily Mail. In their mandarinese they may even be quietly and as subtly as possible competing to see which of their evidence actually fires the gun pointed at Blair’s head. The cinch will be that in this cacophony of sound-bites no-one, not even the press, will be able to work out which of them actually pulled the trigger.

    Scandalous is far too weak a word for this behaviour.

    If nothing can be done to stop this opining which leaves so much space for inference and interpretation, AND if nothing can be done to stop such as The Daily Mail leaking and PROVING daily that Mr Blair “lied” to us in their Viewspaper, Mr Blair may have no other choice.


    Mr Blair may be forced to ask the government to suggest that the Inquiry be STOPPED or at least PAUSED dead in its tracks.  He can then challenge his many opponents to put up a legal case against him. This Inquiry has never been accepted as “to learn lessons”.  Chilcot’s words – “no-one is on trial” has fallen on deaf ears.

    We ALL know (as the know-alls are fond of saying on other matters) … we all know who exactly is on trial here.

    A challenge to put up or shut up may well prove a challenge too far.

    It is clear, as I have been arguing here for some time, that unless these people get Blair into a court of law to defend his position over Iraq, this Inquiry will not satisfy them anyway.

    And my fear is that if in the end they are unsatisfied one of the detestable madmen will take it upon himself to mete out summary justice on behalf of all – mandarins, press and Joe Public.

    That’s you and me.

    Well, NOT in MY name they don’t.

    Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here


    Free Hit Counter


    Tags: , , , , ,

    2 Responses to “Tony, if you’re a ‘dead man walking’, challenge the treacherous bastards to CHARGE you”

    1. Little Ole American Says:

      I am as angry as you are, maybe even angrier about this Inquiry business. What a farce this has become. A dangerous, dangerous farce.
      Are these people (the media and the Inquiry participants) really that stupid as to think this kind of propaganda will not endanger our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Your troops may be out of Iraq, but mine are not!
      Both of our troops are in Afghanistan. The enemy must be lapping up every single word printed in the Mail, the Guardian and all those other bloodthirsty, selfish, selfish, selfish, stupid media types. The government should not have allowed this Inquiry in the first place, not while the U.S. and other countries are still involved in the conflict. Are they that stupid and selfish to promote some dreamed up, imaginary conspiracy theory that Bush and Blair did something in secret? Are they living in the real world where there is a real war going on? If the bombings and attacks start to increase in Iraq and Afghanistan, I will be holding the media and the Inquiry personally responsible for the bloodshed. They accuse Blair and Bush of having blood on their hands, when it is actually THEY who have the dripping fingers.

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Excellent points, Arlene. Excellent.

        Selfish people have pushed for this Inquiry regardless of the fact that America is still in there. And regardless of how it arms our enemies with more propaganda.

        But of course we were over a barrel on this one. The government had said that we would hold an Inquiry when all our troops were home. If Brown had said, “No, when the American troops are home” that would have confirmed the opinion in the little minds of the antis that we are the USA’s poodles.

        I caught Blair on CNN today before the State of the Union speech. (Did Big O say anything useful, btw?)

        When he was asked about this Iraq Inquiry he refused to comment except to say that he wasn’t annoyed (as has been reported) over the civil servants’ evidence , and that if it was too hot in politics “keep out of the kitchen”.

        But he didn’t look at all depressed. I think I’d be tearing my hair out over the inquiry proceedings, but mainly because of the press reporting than because of the mandarins’ words. They actually said nothing we haven’t heard before, though the papers pretend they did.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s