I had my suspicions and private thoughts about the men at the top of our last Government from the beginning, but do some of the latest revelations confirm them as men who were really not up to the job, or could we just put it all down to human error?
*Quote*
The former head of the Army has accused Tony Blair and Gordon Brown of letting down British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
General Sir Richard Dannatt branded Mr Brown "malign" for failing to fund the armed forces adequately and said Mr Blair lacked the "moral courage" to make his then chancellor deliver the money that was needed. The accusations come in a book, entitled Leading From the Front, serialised in the Sunday Telegraph.
From here;
And then this;
*Quote*
"I went up to him and I said 'Mr Blair, I'm here to make a citizen's arrest for the war crimes that you've committed'," she said.
"Immediately five security people grabbed me, started dragging me off.
"I cried out there was half a million people dead in Iraq, how can you live with yourself, you've committed war crimes."
From here;
Think this one could rumble on a bit Blue.
Of course there was human error, they were not up to the job or.....not fit for purpose.
Brown was just a bumbling buffoon handed the reigns of power through the back door. Nobody dared to oppose him when he wanted the leadership as all the other candidates lost their bottle.
Blair on the other hand is a different animal entirely.
You only have to listen to the army top brass to know the Government let down our troops. They sent them into war under equipped to do the job they were told to do.
Whatever Blair says most of us know he sent us into war with the evidence about as flimsy as a crisp packet, and on the basis is a liar and a fraud.
Most of us know he did it to please the Yanks and in particular Bush, which in those circumstances is unforgivable.
I have spoken to many soldiers who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and they all say they were well underfunded, which is the fault of Blair.........period.
Time will tell all about this conflict in years to come, but I know that he sent our troops into war underfunded, which affected their ability to do the job, and also in my opinion caused soldiers their deaths and injuries.
On that basis I believe he should have been brought to task, but he never will as the British establishment have done a huge cover up to protect him from any prosecutions.
The inquiry where Blair gave evidence was very well manufactured.....he was well briefed in what to say, and to me I believe he lied his arse off in that inquiry....I am not alone in thinking this.
For me one of the most sickening things I have ever seen in politics, is the fact that Blair sent our troops to war, underfunded and unable to do the job to the best of their abilities, our troops are dying and getting seriously injured in what I believe was always just to satisfy Bush. Then when he quit office he then became a peace envoy, yes the word peace sticks in my throat, to the Middle East.
How and why this was allowed to happen is one of the reasons that I believe politicians at World level are corrupt, and it is all about doing things for ya mates.
It is about as corrupt as Obama getting the Nobel peace prize....for doing what exactly???
I am suprised that Bush was not awarded that accolade to be honest, as it is always about dodgy hand shakes and dodgy deals done behind closed doors. The Nobel prize has been hugely devalued for giving it to a man that had done nothing other than win the USA presidency,purely because he was black.....that's put the cat amongst the pigeons now.
Then they will say it was suicide. :twisted:
British troops have been let down by every primeminister........
Blair has always acted in accordance with the evidence at hand. When the evidence is wrong, he arranges for someone to manufacture it for him. The blames that person for doing so.
Blair is a mover, he keeps just enough distance to be untouchable.
Why did he really attack Iraq? To go further than Maggy, and conquer the whole nation.
Why did he attack Afghanistan? To fight one more war than Maggy.
Why did he quit when he did? Because he had stayed in power longer than Maggy.
Should we try him? Yes, and cut his head off outside Parliament.
Travis
It must be nice to be so popular
Is that the hand of history on his shoulder?
A weasle and a fraud and now I can add coward to his CV.
I always knew he had a yellow streak down his back.
I would have thought this would have made for a good debate :sad: 