Comment at end
5th December, 2009
THE DAILY MAIL … MAUL HAS HISTRIONICS OVER “BULLYING” A TYRANT,
A “WITCH HUNT”… & A PHONE CALL FROM A PRIME MINISTER
‘Bush and Blair misled the public… yes, it’s conceivable both could end up on trial’
SO, IT’S A TRIAL YOU WANT, IS IT … THE BRITISH PRESS?
I MEAN A REAL TRIAL?
The time will soon be upon us, as some of us have mentioned before, that The Mail and others will conclude that their “Get Blair in the dock” campaign has backfired. The Iraq Inquiry IS and always WAS a waste of time, money, effort and space.
Why? Firstly because Blair, if he comes out of it all relatively “clean” will have been, according to the antis, protected by a government and establishment “cover-up”. WE ALL KNOW that, don’t we?
Secondly, because if Blair comes out of it tarnished and is even charged with some offence relating to “lies” or “war crimes” at the Old Bailey and/or The Hague, the case will de dismissed before it starts. WHY? Because there are NOT sufficient people in this country/at The Hague, legally trained or not, with open minds. All thanks to the British press.
The press have been WARNED about this, over and over. They continue to fall into a trap of their own making.
There is clearly NO WAY that Tony Blair would ever get a fair trial in Britain or elsewhere in Europe, so decided are the ‘Decideds’ on his “guilt”. Any jurors who found him ‘not guilty’ would be terrified of repercussions.
The press’s fault. Again.
Julie quote, question to Blix:
Oh, one last question: WHY– if you were/are so damn sure that the war was illegal and no WMDs existed–WHY did you NOT say that publicly?
Because, according to Sir Jeremy Greenstock: “No member of the Security Council, not Hans Blix, not Mohammed ElBaradei, nobody, said to the United Kingdom, and I don’t believe they said to the United States, “We know that the Iraqi Government has no weapons of mass destruction.” (4th day of public hearings)
Rentoul quotes The Mail’s David Jones “browbeating the witness”. Some might call it “framing the question” to get the required answer:
“He is in no doubt that war was prosecuted unlawfully, then?
‘The war, in my view, was illegal, yes … ‘
Were Blair and Bush guilty of war crimes, as their fiercest critics maintain? ‘Well, some people…’ he begins, then stops himself, adding after a lengthy pause: ‘That would have to be tested by tribunal before you established it. I’ll leave that for others to decide. I’m not conducting any campaign.
‘But you have to be aware that the U.S. and UK acted on authorisation from Congress and Parliament.’
And what if Congress and Parliament had been deliberately misled? ‘Well, I have never said they acted in bad faith; that they knew there were no WMDs. As I say, the expression I would use is that they misled themselves, and then misled the public.'”
Blair Foundation Watch links here to the blogs of Julie, Rentoul and me. Perhaps others with a more destructive aim in mind will start to understand that they are not free to disparage without comeback.
Just for the record, Blix quotes:
September, 2003, Independent Saddam “denying access” – WHY? – Note how The Independent drops Blix’s word “probably” from its title. Misleading bastards.
“When asked why Iraq failed to provide evidence that it had destroyed its weapons in the run-up to the war, Mr Blix suggested that Saddam’s regime chose to keep up appearances to deter attack. Such a tactic implies that Iraqi officials were instructed to obfuscate on the issue and impede UN inspections.
He said: “Iraq might have tried to fool them surreptitiously in believing that there was something. You see, if they didn’t have anything after 1991, there must be some explanation why they behaved as they did. They certainly gave the impression that they were denying access and so forth.”
Blix’s own words, 19th February 2001:
“It is now over a year since the Security Council adopted resolution 1284 (1999) and established UNMOVIC. Neither the resolution nor UNMOVIC, which has been built up in the past year, have been accepted by Iraq, nor have any inspections taken place since UNSCOM left at the end of 1998. What will happen?
Iraq contends that all weapons of mass destruction have been eradicated, that the requirements of 1991 have been fulfilled and that the economic and financial restrictions should be immediately lifted. Public opinion in many parts of the world, sympathizing with the people of Iraq, supports a lifting of sanctions. At the other end of the spectrum, many warn that Iraq has not fully revealed its arsenal of WMDs and long-range missiles and that it may be taken for granted that more prohibited items have been produced and hidden during the absence of inspectors.”
“For its part, Iraq seems to be saying that, contrary to the view expressed by the Security Council, there are no unresolved disarmament issues and that it will demonstrate this by documents. It would be welcome if Iraq could volunteer new information that may shed light on issues – not least the biological ones – which were deemed unresolved, when inspections ceased at the end of 1998. However, such information will not obviate the need for new inspections. Given the statements of Iraq that all prohibited programmes have been eradicated and that this can be shown, it would seem natural that Iraq would avail itself of the opportunity to place relevant evidence, especially new evidence, before UNMOVIC as the professional international inspection regime set up by the Security Council.”
A comment at The Mail by a regular here at this blog (in case The Maul don’t publish it, as has been known, in their fair, balanced way.)
“So, yet another story of how the Butcher of Baghdad was not some evil, murdering, sadistic animal that needed to be taken out. I remember thinking, when the inspectors were allowed into Iraq, how comical is that? I remember pictures of Saddam standing with arms crossed and smiling heartily into the camera as the inspectors drove up in their limousines. Did they REALLY think the weapons were going to be there? Blix is wrong about the Iraqi scientists, too. Some of them “escaped” to Syria and are being “protected” there. That is a FACT. Maybe, this is the reason Blix is not being called. He simply does not have any credible evidence. Let’s face it, for the most part the UN has proven time and time again, just how useless they have become. What about Iran? Are we “inspecting” their nuclear facilities? They hid them for ten years? “Desert Surprises”??? The inspectors are useless and that is what Blix is upset about. He knows it.”
By the way –
More from the Recent Iraq Inquiry reference Blix:
DOWSE:I think we recognised that Dr Blix and we shouldn’t forget Dr ElBaradei as well, because the IAEA were also part of this that they were in a very difficult situation. They were, I think, acutely conscious of the fact that what they reported to the Security Council might make the difference between military action or no military action, and, in fact, it was an awkward position to be in. So one recognised that, but, as William says, they didn’t specifically come to us and say, “Give us another month or another six months and it will be done”. We were tending to hear that sort of message from some other countries on the Security Council, notably the French.
DOWSE: I think it does all go to give you the general picture that we were getting some hits, but and Dr Blix himself, I think, he had a rather good phrase. He said, “Inspections aren’t a game of hide and seek.” What we were looking for was for the Iraqis to be open to produce to provide the data which the inspectors could then go and verify, and that was not what we were getting. Again, it is this difference between passive cooperation and active cooperation.
FREEDMAN: Was Dr Blix, both in his report and in his more private conversations with you, puzzled himself by the fact that they weren’t coming up with more? He stated publicly that he expected to find more than he did.
EHRMAN: I think he was quite in his discussions with us quite carefully neutral.
FREEDMAN: Although Dr Blix, I think, compared favourably our support to the support they were given by the Americans.
EHRMAN: We can’t comment on the support the Americans gave, but they were giving support.
DOWSE: He described our support as the benchmark for assistance. Quite a lot of benchmarks.
CHAIRMAN: Is there more to be said about that or is that just it, in effect? There remained, of course, a very large number of issues of noncompliance as declared in Hans Blix’ final report before the invasion. Is that correct?
GREENSTOCK: But I don’t think that Hans Blix was clear in his own mind and he makes this very plain in his book that the Iraqis either had weapons of mass destruction or did not have weapons of mass destruction and, therefore, he was wavering on quite a broad spectrum, whereas the United States was wavering on a much narrower spectrum because they were of a mind to think that, if the WMD was not appearing, it was because it had been hidden, not because it was not there.
1. Just to add to the disparagement, vilipending and character assassination of Mr Blair in the Iraq Inquiry period, The Telegraph (soon to be followed no doubt by The Daily Maul) says: “Six Doctors demand inquest into death of Dr David Kelly”
All of this despite the fact that Kelly’s family were happy with the result of the Hutton Inquiry. It WAS 13 Doctors who originally called for this, under the prompting of the agenda of Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker. This call should be dismissed out of hand. Apart from trouble-making what other purpose would such an inquest serve right now as the Iraq Inquiry is proceeding? Trouble-makers United … please go away.
‘In the U.S., there are actually three other leaders who Americans have higher opinions of: former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (65%), The Dalai Lama (58%) and Pope Benedict XVI (54%).’
So, despite the British press wanting to lynch Blair, he is STILL considered a world leader and in the USA comes ahead of the Pope and the Dalai Lama, two years after retiring. Of course, here in Britain we still rate the Big O higher than any other.
3. Telegraph, January 2009: “History will show that George Bush was right”
5. Telegraph: Tony Blair funded by obscure oligarch. Tripe here. We are damned for not speaking to others, and damned if we do. Idiots.