Ahead of Wednesday's release of the long-awaited UK government inquiry into the Iraq War—which took a full seven years to complete—many anti-war critics are demanding that Tony Blair and other prominent officials finally face justice for the disastrous decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
Americans have trouble with the truth. Isn't advocating torture a war crime?
Tony Blair will be prosecuted just like George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condelisa Rice, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. We need to find someone from the 99% and pin the crime on him or her and severely punish that person. Then, after the propaganda machine is finished framing the story, most of the sheeple will be satisfied. Of course, those who think will know better.
Abhaya: I meant to reply to the post not to your comment. By the way, it is a good comment though.
If Tony Blair shot Jeremy Corbyn to death on a London sidewalk the British press would post endless editorials expressing outrage that Corbyn chose to interfere with the flight of the bullet.
I expect the ultimate result of the Chilcot inquiry to be the holding of a ticker-tape parade where the war criminals that orchestrated the Iraq war are wildly celebrated. Meanwhile, the millions of increasingly destitute British people locked outside the parade route will be beaten with truncheons and lambasted as "work-shy" in the Murdoch tabloids.
'tis but the weary way of the world ... and you and I are like strangers in this world. Where is justice? Where is peace? Not here... Tomorrow? Who knows? So we keep on looking.
Funny, they seem to have proved it with most of the whistleblowers they've prosecuted.
In the UK, New Zealand, Australia and Canada the Prime Minister is neither Head of State nor C-in-C of the armed forces.
Obviously, Blair provided misleading advice not only to the people of Britain and to Parliament but also to the Head of State. Once upon a time the Crown's Ministers who deliberately misled the Monarch might have lost their heads
He had absolved Cheneybush from scrutiny/prosecution long before he got into office. That was in the summer of '08, while he was a senator running for prez the first time. After vowing not to vote for a FISA bill that included immunity for the telecoms, he worked behind the scenes for, and voted for, the immunity version. Aka, the Cheneybush Get Out of Jail Free bill.
Blair will face the precise identical 'reckoning' upon this report's release.
Hey Chuck, if you want to reply to a specific comment, then you need to hit the corresponding reply button at the base of that comment, not the reply button at the bottom of the page.
The comment you just wrote was obviously in response to Abhaya, and you responded to one of my comments in the same manner of not using the correct reply link.
That said, your characterization of CD "promoting the lesser evil" is unfair. Apparently you haven't read the scores of articles published on this cite taking Hillary Clinton to task on corruption, and the rest.
Just like how you have picked a fight with me. Why? All I did initially was ask you a fucking question that you FINALLY answered (although I had to hunt it down because you didn't use the correct reply link).
As to your answer. Well good for you. You don't have to pay taxes, because it is legal for you to not pay taxes.
Yet you leave that tiny little qualification out, when you criticize others for having to abide by the law?
Did you pay for Hillary and Obomber to fly on Airforce One today with your Tax Dollars today (I do not pay taxes)? Enjoy Peace and Justice. Who is the D candidate? Has it been decided? Who really decides?
Actually, that you were once a stock broker, makes perfect sense indeed.
After perusing your non-stop insults against CD, I do hope they ban you once again.
A better slogan would be: WAGE PEACE WITH JUSTICE, which is just what many of us progressives did in the 1960s and 1970s. What I devoutly hope we did NOT do is to oversimplify the issues, treat everyone with whom we disagreed as a war criminal, and mostly muddy the waters. Those no longer seem to be priorities today, when making severe unproven accusations against possibly innocent people has become collateral damage. The peace movement has slipped, sadly.
Actually, I think it means 'We will keep doing those War Crimes."
Wrongly accusing innocent people is a bad thing. Overlooking evil is also wrong. Wonderful nice people who play ostrich to everything that is unpleasant to them, are just a guilty of the crimes as the perpetrators.
Right along side Bush and Cheney at the Hague. Obama and the Clinton's too. The rot is systemic.
You are absolutely correct, JohnJ. Perhaps, judging from your photo, like me, you remember the Nuremberg Trials of Nazis after WWII, which helped re-establish those doctrines which you so glibly, yet correctly, advocate.
Where you fail, however, is by your sanctimonious and patronizing tone and comments, and by your God-complex which leads you to decide just how guilty those whom you see as ostriches may be. That is the worst kind of arrogance and hubris, comparable to that of the Menendez brothers, who killed their parents and then demanded mercy as they were now orphans. What Chutzah! Shame on you!
One can only hope that the poodles drags his masters down with him.
I have no god complex. I am an atheist. People who see evil and say nothing are evil them selves. That is a fact. There is nothing sanctimonious and patronizing about that at all.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
You should at least have the common decency to credit Pastor Martin Niemoller for his classic and memorable comments during the Holocaust. A tiny bit of research would have been worth taking the time and effort to do, as otherwise you make the quote appear as your plagiarism.
My other comment has to do with how your previous post came across to me, which you are ill-equpped to judge, as it is my prerogative to state how I regard that post. As such, I stand by my previous comments, and these as well,