Watching Tony Blair’s post-Chilcot release press conference, with him stood in front of a sickly yellow flock wallpaper backdrop is a disturbing yet fascinating experience. In the footage, Blair clings to the wreckage of his torpedoed psyche, a man adrift, a man slowly drowning in the swirling sea of his own delusions.
He grasps at his opinions which are, as ever, hopelessly at odds with the facts surrounding the fomentation and instigation of the war on Iraq. One is reminded of that other murderous character, Macbeth:
“I am in blood
Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”
For instance, he claims ‘the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein’, a man whom he readily admits to conspiring to murder, with his co-partner-in-crime, the cowboy puppet, George ‘Dubya’ Bush. RM knows nothing of allegations that the two were ‘bedfellows’ in more ways than one, but it is certainly not impossible that Blair’s marriage to Cherie is a lavender one. Yet, looking at the footage of them together, the wide-eyed public school boy and the leather jacketed cowboy, the eyeing up of Bush by Blair is eerie – almost as though he is besotted by the president and simply loved being on this butch ‘ride to war’ with him:
“I’m with you, whatever” – hardly the measured language of a prime minister is it?
What is clear is that Blair and Bush were conspiring to kill another man – Saddam Hussein – on the false premise that they were somehow embodied with the right to do so. Yet, under natural law, no man has the right to take another man’s life unless he is acting in self-defence towards his aggressor and is in genuine fear for his own life. This, of course, is why Blair and Alistair Campbell went to such lengths to fake a threat of attack from Saddam Hussein, when all the evidence of Hans Blix, Dr David Kelly and the UN weapons inspectorate pointed to the fact that, as Robin Cook so brilliantly stated in his resignation speech, Iraq’s military capabilities had been sorely diminished from the previous war with Iran and the first Gulf War.
Blair, just like any other war-mongering politician, had to provide evidence that there was a clear and imminent threat to the safety of the peoples of these lands from Iraq. This is why, even now, it is creepy to hear him claim that the ignition of the devastation of Iraq was a decision he had to take as prime minister: he is suggesting that a PM is imbibed with special powers that magically place him above the law, and that he is not therefore culpable for his actions. In other words, he is attempting to hide behind the title of prime minister.
Non-culpability? How does that work, Tony? It’s the modus operandi of the ‘powerful’, whether it be via ‘Acts’ of Parliament, memberships of private think tanks or lobby groups, hidden directors such as the Fabian society, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg and the Carlyle Groups, the Freemasons, B’nai B’rith, the Church, the Holy Roman See – all who operate within these groups falsely believe they are somehow beyond culpability for those actions they initiate under the false pretence they are superior in some way to the rest of us.
This schism between individual culpability and positional in-culpability is manifest in Blair. He knows he is guilty of fomenting a terrible war and plotting the murder of another man. Yet, simultaneously, he denies it by claiming, with the full force of his glibness, that he had to do it because, ‘Hey, guys, come on, I was the top man – it was a tough decision but I had to take it.’
However, as a matter of fact, he did not.
A million marched on London to express their opposition. Hans Blix and David Kelly provided all the evidence to show there was no WMD threat. Robin Cook and Tony Benn both expressed it most cogently. Andrew Gilligan, the journalist, was shown the proof by Kelly that Blair and the notorious Alistair Campbell (who’s pulling his strings? one might well ask) had ‘sexed up the dossier’ – a dossier that came via Mi6 and was, apparently, based on the plot for the film, ‘The Rock’. It is beyond doubt that there was material evidence that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed any threat to the people of these lands.
So, why did he do it?
Anyone who is paying attention will look beyond the puppet show that is the British Parliament to those who are really pulling the strings, the manipulators who reside in the shadows, particularly the Crown House of Rothschild and all its associated entities who profit from guns, oil and banking.
All of which would explain how and why Blair has been so handsomely rewarded since he left office.
In the simplest of terms, Blair is a bitch but whose bitch is he? Who was writing his scripts? What forces were controlling him? What was the real nature of his relationship with his buddy, Bush? What do the controllers have on Blair that makes him dance to their tune? How culpable is the unaccountable and unelected Campbell?
Blair is the consummate actor but what is his motivation? Was he pumped up on some kind of chemical imbalance of his brain? Had he taken leave of his senses? Was he lost in his ego? Is he mad or utterly deluded to believe and to promote the lie that he is not culpable for his actions?
By his actions shall he be known.
Blair has admitted to plotting the murder of another man and initiating a chain of events that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, that unleashed chemical weaponry, that allowed foreign entities like the oil companies, Halliburton, the Carlisle group, arms manufacturers and, of course, the Rothschild controlled central banking system to come in as vultures and pick over the carcass of Iraq, its peoples and natural resources – pure piracy of course and long-planned, with Blair an enthusiastic puppet, doing the bidding of those who operate from behind the curtain.
How is Tony Blair a criminal? In order for a crime to have taken place, there needs to be a victim. Consider a man who is found guilty of having stolen a watch off another whom he mugged at knife point. One victim, one criminal.
By analogy, ask yourself ‘did Tony Blair’s acts result in injury or loss to others?’
How many Iraqis died as a consequence of his initiation of war under the false pretence that Iraq posed a threat to the peoples of Britain?
In Blair’s case, there are hundreds of thousands of victims. On that reasonable basis, he is a criminal. What price a charge of misfeasance in public office?
In most cases, the essentials to bring an action of misfeasance in public office are that the office-holder acted illegally, knew they were doing so, and knew or should reasonably have known that third parties would suffer loss as a result.”
Tony Blair? He’s not waving; he’s drowning.
Acknowledgment: Many thanks to David R for his kind donation last month. Any and all donations, of whatever size, are gratefully received, so the reader is encouraged to feel free to give what he or she can. Blessings to all.