Thread: Chilcot report: MPs plan to impeach Tony Blair

Chilcot report: MPs plan to impeach Tony Blair over Iraq War using ancient law
Move could be made because of Labour leader’s alleged misleading of Parliament.



A number of MPs are seeking to impeach former prime minister Tony Blair using an ancient Parliamentary law.

The move, which has cross-party support, could be launched in the aftermath of the Chilcot Inquiry report because of the Labour leader’s alleged role in misleading Parliament over the Iraq War.

MPs believe Mr Blair, who was in office between 1997 and 2007, should be prosecuted for breaching his constitutional duties and taking the country into a conflict that resulted in the deaths of 179 British troops.

Not used since 1806, when Tory minister Lord Melville was charged for misappropriating official funds, the law is seen in Westminster as an alternative form of punishment if, as believed, Mr Blair will escape serious criticism in the Chilcot Inquiry report.

Triggering the process simply requires an MP to propose a motion, and support evidence as part of a document called the Article of Impeachment.

If the impeachment attempt is approved by MPs, the defendant is delivered to Black Rod ahead of a trial.


READ MORE
Blair hints he could reject Chilcot Inquiry findings
A simple majority is required to convict, at which point a sentence can be passed, which could, in theory, involve Mr Blair being sent to prison.

Last year, current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the former prime minister could be made to stand trial for war crimes, saying that he thought the Iraq War was an illegal one and that Mr Blair "has to explain that".

He added: “We went into a war that was catastrophic, that was illegal, that cost us a lot of money, that lost a lot of lives.

“The consequences are still played out with migrant deaths in the Mediterranean, refugees all over the region.”

It is believed the 2.6 million-word report, due to be published in July, will not make “any judgements on the legality [of the Iraq War]or anything like that, that is not the purpose”.

Chilcot will instead focus on the decision making behind the conflict and whether any lessons can be learned. Launched by the US with strong UK backing, the war lead to the deaths of between 150,000 and 600,000 Iraqis over four years.

Earlier this year, Alex Salmond, the former leader of the Scottish National Party, said the report will show that Mr Blair committed to the invasion of Iraq in private with President George Bush before 2003.

He said: “If, as I believe... Chilcot finds that there was a prior commitment from Blair to Bush at Crawford ranch [Bush’s Texas home] in 2002, that would provide the reason for pursuing the matter further.”

Chilcot report: MPs plan to impeach Tony Blair over Iraq War using ancient law | UK Politics | News | The Independent

So why did Tony Blair take the UK into war in partnership with George Bush?

He had access to all the original intelligence information so knew there was no threat.

If Blair was impeached, could that lead to Bush facing serious legal action in the US?
I hope so.

Bush is untouchable,

Originally Posted by Begbie

So why did Tony Blair take the UK into war in partnership with George Bush?

He had access to all the original intelligence information so knew there was no threat.

There is supposedly a photo of Blair looking utterly shell-shocked after the meeting with Bush and his henchmen that confirmed UK involvement with the Iraq invasion.

Must have been when they revealed their alien lizard faces..

Then lets carry on and find out who should be held responsible for attacking Libya and the destruction of that country and the murder of its people.

And on to the murder and destruction caused by the attacks on Syria.

Blair et al condemned deceased (murdered) UKs government appointed scientist Kelly's findings re WoMD in Iraq, that they simply didn't exist.

Kelly's political (and corporal) assassination was sanctioned by Blair and his advisers.

Originally Posted by kmart

Originally Posted by Begbie

So why did Tony Blair take the UK into war in partnership with George Bush?

He had access to all the original intelligence information so knew there was no threat.

There is supposedly a photo of Blair looking utterly shell-shocked after the meeting with Bush and his henchmen that confirmed UK involvement with the Iraq invasion.

Must have been when they revealed their alien lizard faces..

Or the dossier they had on Tony Blair.

Bliar's beady eyed crocodile tears don't fool anyone.
The families of the dead soldiers still want him to face trial for war crimes.
How many people have been killed in the region since the beginning?

When is the inquiry for him invading Serbia in 98/ 99 ?
that was an even more unfounded attack,
but didn't stop dumb Labour voters, voting him back in 2 more times so he could continue more of the same .....

One of the main charges at Nuremberg war crimes in 1945 was preemptive aggressive attacks on other countries...

Dismantlement of Iraq army, police force,knocking out the power stations, the water,
bombing schools and hospitals.
Bombed back to stone age.
No mention of oil yet.
And would they have bothered if there'd been no oil. All a bit ott.

Maybe he's being hung out by the establishment now to appease...

All seams a bit staged.

And timed too.

Politics, what a wonderful game!!

I was playing in a pool match in a bar, with BBC world news on in the background sound off. The ticker line read 'please stop saying I lied' with Blair in the background squirming under questioning, and becoming agitated.
This spineless jellyfish has all the moral fortitude of a wet lettuce. I hope he is impeached and prevented from taking any further part in public life. I also hope that a legal loophole is found that allows bereaved families take him to court and bankrupt him. Let him be found on the streets in rags and pissed on by tramps, the self aggrandising turd.

What utter drivel.

The war was fine and quite justified, it demonstrated to the entire Arab world the utter supremacy of American force, and I do recall the spontaneity of celebrations by the mass of Iraqis when Hussein and his Tikrit cabal were toppled unceremoniously. No, the real disaster, and ultimately unforgivable action, was the complete failure and inability of Bush and his Teutonic advisors to comprehend how one occupies and colonises a country in order to re-establish order.

Really, it was just another Septic fuckup, in a long,long line of fuckups and that was the problem: Americans are fucking useless in peace time politicking and embracing reality, preferring to impose their puerile iteration of democracy as envisaged by Donald Duck and Hollywood.

They should have maintained the infrastructure of the Ba'ath Party as a framework of government under the military control of a UN mandate leading to a federalised state incorporating the three distinct "states" of Sunni, Shia and Kurd semi autonomous regions.

Doubtless, it would have led to civil war anyway but at least it would have been "their" civil war.

Re-imagining this all as something that was the sole responsibility of Tony Blair seems...weird.

Yes, the guy was a cavalier tosser in the thrall of the US, but the decision to invade Iraq was ratified by Parliament.

Now there's talk of parliament being 'mislead' like some 5 year old being offered sweeties by a dodgy bloke in a playground.

Pathetic.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

The war was fine and quite justified,

It was an act of deluded imperialism initiated by an oil-hungry America and supported by a power hungry Blair.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Re-imagining this all as something that was the sole responsibility of Tony Blair seems...weird.

Yes, the guy was a cavalier tosser in the thrall of the US, but the decision to invade Iraq was ratified by Parliament.

Now there's talk of parliament being 'mislead' like some 5 year old being offered sweeties by a dodgy bloke in a playground.

Pathetic.

Parliament was most certainly misled by Blair and his immediate advisors.

Blair's deception was firstly in silencing Kelly the UK arms inspector in Iraq, who was murdered for refuting Bush et al's claims of Saddam's possession of WoMDs, and then, knowing full well of their non-existence, he pushed for and led UK into a catastrophic oil war that America wanted, which triggered the deaths of around a million Iraqis.

Chilcot report: US 'pushed UK into Iraq War too early', says ex-ambassador

In a 2002 memo, Mr Blair suggested he would be with the US president "whatever"

The US pushed the UK into military action in Iraq "too early", a former British ambassador to the UN has said in the wake of the Chilcot report.

The long-awaited report said ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair had overstated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein - and military action was not a last resort.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK ambassador to the UN in 2003, said Mr Blair had wanted a UN resolution backing action.
But he told the BBC senior US officials thought it was a "waste of time".

Sir John Chilcot - chairman of the the UK's Iraq War inquiry - concluded Mr Blair had sent ill-prepared troops into battle and had "wholly inadequate" plans for the aftermath.

Sir John Chilcot: "The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted"
The 2003 invasion was not the "last resort" action presented to MPs and the public, he said. adding that there was no "imminent threat" from Saddam Hussein, and the intelligence case was "not justified".

Sir Jeremy said he felt Mr Blair had wanted to wait longer before taking military action.
It would have been "much safer" to give weapons inspectors in Iraq another six months to continue their work, he added.

"I felt that at the time, the British felt it at the time, I think the prime minister felt it at the time, that the Americans pushed us into going into military action too early," he told BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight.

Mr Blair had wanted to secure a UN resolution before the conflict but US officials were not committed to a resolution, he added.

"The Americans weren't genuine about it - but the prime minister was genuine about it - because he thought there was a chance that Saddam could be made to back down before we had to use military force.
"And George Bush for a while agreed with him. But other people behind George Bush didn't agree with him and thought it was a waste of time."

Chilcot report: US 'pushed UK into Iraq War too early', says ex-ambassador - BBC News

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

The war was fine and quite justified,

It was an act of deluded imperialism initiated by an oil-hungry America and supported by a power hungry Blair.

Your stupidity is bottomless.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

The war was fine and quite justified,

It was an act of deluded imperialism initiated by an oil-hungry America and supported by a power hungry Blair.

Your stupidity is bottomless.

If I tell her that,...she'll hit me.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

The war was fine and quite justified,

no, it wasn't you silly British man

Blair kept all details and justification for the invasion to his inner circle. He did not brief the CGS or his own cabinet on the plan until 3 days before the invasion.
He should be shot and burned and then shot again. He is a cnut.

Alastair Campbell, Blair's goffer, adviser and spin doctor is the other sleeze trying to escape public scrutiny.

Originally Posted by ENT

Alastair Campbell, Blair's goffer, adviser and spin doctor is the other sleeze trying to escape public scrutiny.

According to Campbell's own spin Chilcott found him not guilty. Blair still trying to unspin his own guilty ass, the shifty backstabbing liar.