Tony B liar to be impeached

With allies of Al Qaeda running amok in Iraq and heading for Baghdad, the disastrous legacy of Britain's entanglement there with the invasion of 2003 becomes ever more blindingly obvious.
Obvious to everyone, that is, except the man who ordered it.
Seven years after leaving office, and 11 years after British troops flooded across the southern border, Tony Blair continues to cause outrage and bewilderment over Iraq.
Noting the eruption of the jihad there, Mr Blair professes that ‘we have to liberate ourselves from the notion that “we” have caused this. We haven't.'


our constitution does provide a remedy, and for the sake of all parties to this argument it should not be dismissed as either obsolete or too extreme.
It is that Parliament should discuss whether to impeach Mr Blair, and have the question of his culpability thrashed out in public, at Westminster.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2659649/Impeach-Tony-Blair-As-Iraq-burns-Parliament-deluded-liar-trial-writes-SIMON-HEFFER.html#ixzz34sR3IzAG 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Excellent article.  Which though Parliamentarian will have the nonce to start the process ?

   WHAT a load of self-indulgent nonsense !

AS IF the Daily Wail, the British people, and the Gerbil have the power or the collective ability to "impeach" anyone, let alone Blair..

SINCE when has Blair been the former President of the USA ?  That is the only way anybody would see him "impeached" for the Gulf War !!!

  

AS for that idiot "Daily Mail" reporter ~ someday somebody should put him out of his misery ~ and point out to him that Britain DOESN'T even have a Constitution ! Let alone a president..

TALK about making up nonsense on the run...

 ://?roflmao?/: 

AS FOR starting Gulf War II ~

the main leader at the time was GWB, with Tony Blair and John Howard as his main ally support acts;

GWB's main domestic "deputy dawgs" were Rumsfeld and Cheney;
With Condoleeza Rice as their favourite cheerleader..

AS FOR the "flawed intelligence" report that the USA and its 19 willing allies used to argue it's position through their respective governments, and then before the United Nations Defence Council ~ that also wasn't prepared by the British Intelligence service, but by the Yanks..

WHEN none of the available intelligence briefs from all the normal regular sources didn't support their desired position, then the Pentagon used a preliminary PhD dissertation from one British uni' student as a basis for their "Intelligence" ~ this is all a matter of public record, for anybody willing to read up on their history..

  

THAT'S our forum's Gerber for y'all !

BIG on bluster, fictions, conspiracies and fallacies..

THIN on facts, truths, and any solid evidence in general...    

the message is that there are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns


ok they where no nukes found ....BUT its a fact he did have WMD`s he used them and people who keep going on about NUKES  convenitly ignore that fact

But as is a maybe.................

No evidence of Wmds..................

A whole portion of the world sent into turmoil on the lies and prevarications of two leaders who faced re election and their ego's needed power.  

Maybe the Middle east might have erupted into chaos.................  I doubt to the extent that we are seeing now.  But George and Tony each got another tenure, £millions in the bank and kudos for a while.
Interestingly George has been very quiet on the subject as opposed to Tony who is on any and every media station possible defending his actions and encouraging even more...............

Who was the actual ring leader............  George has been cited but he was President if the US of A......  Maybe it was Tony after all.  The one who refuses to release the Chilcott report into the beginnings, the during and the aftermath of the removal of Saddam.

gerber wrote:But as is a maybe.................

No evidence of Wmds..................

A whole portion of the world sent into turmoil on the lies and prevarications of two leaders who faced re election and their ego's needed power.  

Maybe the Middle east might have erupted into chaos.................  I doubt to the extent that we are seeing now.  But George and Tony each got another tenure, £millions in the bank and kudos for a while.
Interestingly George has been very quiet on the subject as opposed to Tony who is on any and every media station possible defending his actions and encouraging even more...............

Who was the actual ring leader............  George has been cited but he was President if the US of A......  Maybe it was Tony after all.  The one who refuses to release the Chilcott report into the beginnings, the during and the aftermath of the removal of Saddam.

WmD`s just don't consist of nukes G we know he used gas on the Kurds
sarin i think
Sarin is a Wmd
the tunes different but the songs the same

Korban_Dallas wrote:

gerber wrote:But as is a maybe.................

No evidence of Wmds..................

A whole portion of the world sent into turmoil on the lies and prevarications of two leaders who faced re election and their ego's needed power.  

Maybe the Middle east might have erupted into chaos.................  I doubt to the extent that we are seeing now.  But George and Tony each got another tenure, £millions in the bank and kudos for a while.
Interestingly George has been very quiet on the subject as opposed to Tony who is on any and every media station possible defending his actions and encouraging even more...............

Who was the actual ring leader............  George has been cited but he was President if the US of A......  Maybe it was Tony after all.  The one who refuses to release the Chilcott report into the beginnings, the during and the aftermath of the removal of Saddam.

WmD`s just don't consist of nukes G we know he used gas on the Kurds
sarin i think
Sarin is a Wmd
the tunes different but the songs the same

No arguements there, but the sarin I thought had long gone.  It was many years before we went in........ Dr. Kelly found no evidence.  He died................  and we went to war

Isn't it amazing the Kurds are now coming to the rescue of Iraq.  maybe if they had been given autonomy then the middle east might be a very different place.

But they were never the threat.  Just  a nation not wishing to be tied in by the carve up of the map following W11

gerber wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
WmD`s just don't consist of nukes G we know he used gas on the Kurds
sarin i think
Sarin is a Wmd
the tunes different but the songs the same

No arguements there, but the sarin I thought had long gone.  It was many years before we went in........ Dr. Kelly found no evidence.  He died................  and we went to war

Isn't it amazing the Kurds are now coming to the rescue of Iraq.  maybe if they had been given autonomy then the middle east might be a very different place.

But they were never the threat.  Just  a nation not wishing to be tied in by the carve up of the map following W11

wiki extract


Iraq became a member state of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2009, declaring "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter.[122] No plans were announced at that time for the destruction of the material, although it was noted that the bunkers were damaged in the 2003 war and even inspection of the site must be carefully planned.

The declaration contained no surprises, OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan indicated.[122] The production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers. Luhan stated at the time: "These are legacy weapons, remnants." He declined to discuss how many weapons were stored in the bunkers or what materials they contained. The weapons were not believed to be in a usable state

Korban_Dallas wrote:

gerber wrote:


No arguements there, but the sarin I thought had long gone.  It was many years before we went in........ Dr. Kelly found no evidence.  He died................  and we went to war

Isn't it amazing the Kurds are now coming to the rescue of Iraq.  maybe if they had been given autonomy then the middle east might be a very different place.

But they were never the threat.  Just  a nation not wishing to be tied in by the carve up of the map following W11

wiki extract


Iraq became a member state of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2009, declaring "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter.[122] No plans were announced at that time for the destruction of the material, although it was noted that the bunkers were damaged in the 2003 war and even inspection of the site must be carefully planned.

The declaration contained no surprises, OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan indicated.[122] The production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers. Luhan stated at the time: "These are legacy weapons, remnants." He declined to discuss how many weapons were stored in the bunkers or what materials they contained. The weapons were not believed to be in a usable state

Exactly.

now being a sufferer of dementia may I be the last to wish you a very Happy Christmas.....   

gerber wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:


wiki extract


Iraq became a member state of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2009, declaring "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter.[122] No plans were announced at that time for the destruction of the material, although it was noted that the bunkers were damaged in the 2003 war and even inspection of the site must be carefully planned.

The declaration contained no surprises, OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan indicated.[122] The production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers. Luhan stated at the time: "These are legacy weapons, remnants." He declined to discuss how many weapons were stored in the bunkers or what materials they contained. The weapons were not believed to be in a usable state

Exactly.

now being a sufferer of dementia may I be the last to wish you a very Happy Christmas.....   

Lol ........or the first ..

Korban_Dallas wrote:

gerber wrote:


Exactly.

now being a sufferer of dementia may I be the last to wish you a very Happy Christmas.....   

Lol ........or the first ..

But a definate first on this today..............  Sleep tight, goodnight hope the bed bugs don't bite in the wring places.

And as Bill said to Ben.............  " Little weed " 

I am no great fan of Blair , and his soiree into Iraq was ill judged at best.
That said, he HASN'T been impeached, nor are there any plans at the moment TO impeach him.
Rather makes a mockery of the thread title, and totally discredits the usual anti Blair, anti Labour Fail spin.

Handy Andy wrote:I am no great fan of Blair , and his soiree into Iraq was ill judged at best.
That said, he HASN'T been impeached, nor are there any plans at the moment TO impeach him.
Rather makes a mockery of the thread title, and totally discredits the usual anti Blair, anti Labour Fail spin.

No mockery.  He can be impeached, but it needs a MP to do so.................


Why is everyone so afraid of bliar.............  This is not a lw / rw thread.  he lied to our country..............

Whether his will be or won't be impeached is irrelevant, the thread title is factually wrong.
He MAY be impeached in the fullness of time - the correct title , without anti Blair bias should be "Blair may be/could be/should be impeached".
'Will be' infers that there is a 100% knowledge that it will happen, instead of the hope that he will be.

Call for Tories to explain Iraq support

As former Prime Minister Tony Blair gives evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry, Liberal Democrat MPs have called for the Conservative Party to explain its support for the Iraq War.

In 2003, Conservatives voted with the Government to send British troops into military action, while all Liberal Democrats MPs opposed the war. Tony Blair relied on Conservative votes to carry the motion authorising conflict, since 139 Labour MPs rebelled against their party’s whip.

Both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were shown the same intelligence relating to Iraq’s alleged stock of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yet Charles Kennedy and Sir Menzies Campbell campaigned with millions of protestors in London and all over Britain to give UN weapons inspectors more time to complete their work, and confirm whether or not Iraq presented a threat.

Iain Duncan Smith led Conservative MPs in demanding a rush to war as early as 2002.



Hypocrites

If it hadn't been for the Conservatives, Blair would never have got that bill through, as you say, Liberals voted against and so did 139 Labour MPs.