Blair and Bush at the Whitehouse, 2003

Despite the long since uncovered lies, the deceit and corruption, the intensifying violence of the state, the broken lives, shattered families, splintered society, breakdown of law and order, looting and collapse of the economy and disenfranchisement of the people under a nightmare parody of democracy, there remains a small body of loyalists who cover their eyes, block off their ears, hold their noses and speak sweetly and softly of the warmonger, the serial bomber, the self-obsessed man monster who is Tony Blair.

Not only in Britain did he leave such a trail of destruction, he reserved a special malevolence for his overseas victims. Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan and then Iraq again fell under his blood-drenched, openly criminal policies. Driven by his self acclaimed vision of “right” and “wrong” and in contempt of any and all other opinion, most notably the British peoples’, like his accomplice in Washington Bush the “Decider“, he swept the nation through a state sponsored crime wave, outright terrorism by any definition.

He heaped bloodbath after bloodbath on our shoulders whilst allowing his corporate friends to lavish the treasure of nations upon themselves. Thus he doubly loaded the average citizen’s burden, both physically and morally. To this day he has made no apology for his despotic behaviour, indeed he unashamedly defends himself with the idea that his beliefs alone are sufficient to explain and excuse every crime, every murder, every theft and every lie.

It is necessary to make leaders hesitate before indulging in “the paramount war crime” to quote the judges of Nuremberg, of “unprovoked aggression against a defenceless country”. Unless leaders fear that they might be tried for their war crimes, we will live in an increasingly violent world, where The Geneva Conventions are treated as a joke, the UN is of no account, and death, destruction, torture, and repressive policing are commonplace. At the moment such leaders enjoy more and more trappings of power, and retire with vast sums of money, houses, medals and lucrative contracts. –
Blair War Crimes Foundation

Usefully for Blair, his small and faithful army of disciples is more than willing to apologise on his behalf and even now, many months after he was finally levered from power and cast aside in scorn by the British people, this workforce busily promotes the agenda of Blair, the man of peace, Blair, EU President most perfect. A man of conviction they proudly suggest and without a trace of irony as others, more willing to examine the stark evidence, insist a very different type of conviction is long overdue.

This is why the upcoming Iraq Inquiry is of such a worry to the loyalists. Already they have positioned their champion as being forced between a rock and a hard place, damned if the inquiry has teeth and he is forced to break the habit of a political lifetime by telling the truth, damned if the inquiry is a re-run of the Hutton and Butler whitewashes and he evades responsibility once more – to the disbelief of the watching public.

The “Get Blair” crowd, apparently, won’t be satisfied until their prey is shackled and incarcerated. For them, much like the “Get Myra Hindley” mob or the “Get that guy who we just saw with our own eyes commit a huge crime” rabble, nothing but direct punishment will be sufficient. The Blair faithful are horrified at the injustice of it all. I can see (right through) their point, which after the bluster is set aside is to suggest a British leader should never have to answer for his actions. How else can their open hostility to the idea of an inquiry be explained? They use other excuses that are just as unlikely. National security will be put at risk if he testifies, for example. Or a leader cannot lead effectively if he is challenged. Or even that British sovereignty itself is placed under threat when the representatives of the people are quizzed by the people, for the people. What is their definition of representation, I wonder?

All of these excuses distil to a basic idea. The state must be allowed to proceed in whatever manner that supposedly promotes the interests of the nation and the governed are not permitted to ask any questions in order to determine whose interests are actually being served. The assumption exists that the state will always act in our best interests. Beside that assumption is a mountain of woeful evidence that dispels the far fetched lie. Ask yourself these simple questions. Whose interests were served when Blair lied us into war? Whose interests were served when he handed the keys of the city to the profit lusting bankers? Whose interests were served as he embarked on his program of destroying education, or converting our health services into faceless corporations, or inviting his cronies into public office, or pocketing cash for favours, the list goes on but the questions remain. Whose interests?

Will national security be compromised simply because Blair has to explain himself? Does anyone seriously imagine the establishment will openly discuss its dirty little secrets on national TV? It’s a preposterous claim and can be rejected outright as a reason for excusing Blair’s appearance at an Inquiry. Is the leadership role diminished or undermined if we question our leaders? Tell me, what sort of leader cannot tolerate scrutiny? If a leader is acting in the interests of those being led then his role is greatly enhanced and his chances of successfully leading the group are multiplied if he is as open and honest in his intentions as possible. Leadership in the dark is counter-productive and highly suggestive of a hidden agenda designed to bring followers to places they may not willingly wish to go. Leadership by decree is not leadership at all, it is dictatorship.

Is British sovereignty at stake when we insist our leaders be held accountable for their deeds? I think not and I’m looking forward to meeting the people who suggest as much at the next anti-Lisbon “Treaty” rally – a process that Blair and the recipient of his soviet style succession, Brown, have denied us a voice in despite their repeated promises. Once a liar… How can Britain suffer if it shows the world it is prepared to treat each and every one of its citizens equally under the law? How can it not fail to be harmed when it demonstrates the opposite?

As for Blair’s right to follow his own course regardless of the will of the nation, or even his cabinet as it turns out, has he the right to take any action and provoke any consequence, no matter how catastrophic, just because he has been elected as the senior administrator in parliament? Is he a dictator, a monarch of old, above the people, above the law? This is precisely what Blair’s advocates seem to be suggesting. Even the thought of him answering a few questions amongst friends is abhorrent to them.

Would it be fine if this notorious war criminal entered your home, shot your family, claimed you were a terrorist, blew up your house, locked you up, tortured you and kicked you out on the street years later without any explanation for what had been done to you and with a dismissive claim that it seemed like the right thing to do at the time? Would you be satisfied with that kind of treatment? Rinse and repeat thousands of times and you begin to reach the horizon of Blair’s criminality. Of course he may not be done yet, there are many more special interests that might require his unique brand of humanitarianism and Europe beckons.

If you had been the victim of what so many others have had to suffer and were driven by a desire for justice (why wouldn’t you be?) who would you call on for assistance? What if the police simply weren’t interested and sent you away for “lack of evidence?” What if your MP crossed the road to avoid you? What if the BBC planted Nick Robinson outside your tormentor’s door to fawn over his moral courage? Would that upset you? How badly would it upset you? And if justice was denied to you, would you settle for revenge? Or would you instead start hating your neighbour “because he is free?”

This has been the full extent of Blair’s “interrogation” to date, protection by a thoroughly corrupted establishment, praise from on high blasted at a volume that drowns out the torrents of criticism and contempt surging up from the general public. Oh yes, the mix-up over WMD was unfortunate but for the small price of an uncounted number of dead, let’s say a mere 100,000 compared to the ridiculous claims of those that have actually tried to count, Iraq is now a bombed out, radiation poisoned, non-functioning, hell hole of a democracy. Democracy meaning, as always, control by an elite few who ignore the people and operate in the interests of big business.

So now Blair will have to sit in front of a carefully selected panel of insiders and play out the lead role in another theatre for the masses. Only the most naive will have to wait until the end of the show to determine the outcome, and even if they don’t fully grasp all the plot twists and limited hang-outs the media will be on hand with a study reader.

I’ve no doubt even the highest and mightiest will suffer mild criticism here or there, “Oh Tony, you must be more careful in the future… Tony, Tony, Tony, you have to learn to share with the other boys and girls…” The euphemism for avoiding all consequences, “Lessons learned”, will become a catchphrase again as we are informed in cosy terms that it’s true, our leaders are above the law and they can kill when they like, who they like, how they like and steal what they want, when they want, how they want. Because in the end they did it for us, in our best interests and with the best will in the world. Case closed, bury the dead, move on to the next lesson to be learned again.

Are you still buying it? All the dead bodies, the destruction, the rip-off bankers and their new round of bonuses, the crumbling national infrastructure that could have been rescued for a fraction of the hand-outs laid at the feet of the swindlers in the city or the billions of pounds converted to bombs and dropped on Iraq? The crimes, the lies the corruption. All for you, all done on your behalf. Are you grateful? Indifferent? Do you feel helpless, powerless? Do you believe I am mad for deviating from the mainstream script? Should I be punished, interrogated maybe, forced to face the consequences of my words even though I have thrown no sticks or stones?

Because you see, the law applies to you and I. Every law you can think of and thousands of new ones since Blair infected the nation in 1997. Leave your bin handles pointing out or be fined, Don’t speed on empty roads, or be fined. Pay your ballooning taxes, or be fined. Don’t let your child drop his food on the pavement, or be fined. All of these serious crimes are punishable when we wreak them upon society.

But lie to a nation, wage the very worst kind of war as defined in the Nuremberg Principles, open the safe to every crook in a suit and watch the innocent thrown from their jobs and homes or blown in pieces out of them and apparently there’s no need to even turn up and account for such acts, according to those who make it their mission to apologise for Blair.

What have they to fear? Can’t they spot a whitewash as it appears over the horizon? They’ve had enough practise by now. Maybe they are engaged in pre-emptive apology, just in case the world goes mad and justice is done.

Bernie Ecclestone

In assembling a list of Tony Blair’s top ten lies to the British people, Iraq and Saddam’s fabled weapons of mass destruction would surely top the charts. This was the lie that finally knocked Blair’s halo askew in the eyes of the public. Until that point many took him at his word when he claimed he was “a pretty straight sort of a guy”.

A liar would say that, wouldn’t he? A dishonest man is hardly going to admit his dishonesty, it’s simply not in his nature.

When thinking back to Bernie Ecclestone’s purchase of Tony Blair, New Labour’s first major scandal though certainly not the last, the sum of £1,000,000 probably jumps into your head. That was the amount Ecclestone donated to Blair’s party in secret in January, 1997 before Blair became the PM.

To dwell on the million pounds would be to miss the key issue in the “cash for access” affair. In those early days of New Labour’s reign Blair was already developing the methods of deception and corruption that he would return to repeatedly during his time in office.

Smoking is the greatest single cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK. We will therefore ban tobacco advertising. – 1997 Labour Party Manifesto

In the election manifesto Blair had pledged to put an end to all tobacco advertising. No exceptions were indicated. Health Secretary Frank Dobson and Minister for Public Health Tessa Jowell were responsible for driving the new policy through. Jowell, in particular, had a reputation for being staunchly anti-tobacco.

On October 16th, 1997 Ecclestone and FAI boss Max Mosley meet Tony Blair to argue against the proposed ban. Literally hours after the meeting Downing Street wrote to Jowell instructing her “to look for ways of finding a permanent derogation for sport, in particular F1.” Despite the about face, and in a demonstration of the principles and integrity of the woman, on 4 November she argued in Brussels for an exemption for Formula One.

Ecclestone and Mosely had warned Blair, “Motor racing was a world class industry which put Britain at the hi-tech edge. Deprived of tobacco money, Formula One would move abroad at the loss of 50,000 jobs, 150,000 part-time jobs and £900 million of exports.”

Considering the meeting lasted all of 20 minutes it’s doubtful whether these claims were examined in any detail. And taking into account what we now know, that it only took a few hours for Blair to issue his instructions to Jowell, it’s safe to assume little or no attempt was made to verify the claims.

By this stage journalists were trying to establish whether New Labour had received any donations from Formula One. On November 9th Downing Street admitted Mosely was a party supporter but remained silent on whether Ecclestone had made any donations. The next day Gordon Brown claimed he had no knowledge of any contributions from Ecclestone. With pressure growing, on the 11th November New Labour eventually admitted to the £1,000,000 donation.

Stretching credibility to breaking point, Blair tried to sell his policy reversal as an attempt to protect British jobs. Think about that for a minute. If he was telling the truth, he was effectively admitting the manifesto was prepared without due care and attention. If he was telling the truth the proposed tobacco advertising ban was nothing more than a thoughtless and cynical pre-election sound-bite.

In late November the government was condemned by two cross-party parliamentary committees for reversing its policy on the ban. Jowell admitted the number of jobs lost if Formula One left Europe might not be as high as previously estimated. By estimation I assume she meant the instruction taken from Ecclestone and Mosely.

Unknown at the time a November memo from the DTI to the health department stated, “We believe it is unlikely that if F1 should leave the UK there would be an immediate effect on the industry as a whole.” A little late considering Blair had taken no time to make his decision and even going by his own spin the decision to exempt Formula One was made in October.

Eventually Blair had to hand the million back to Ecclestone. After issuing the cheque Downing Street announced if it was not cashed the total amount would be donated to charity. Ecclestone, down to his last billion, cashed the cheque. There would be no honourable conclusion to the sordid episode and Ecclestone triumphed by having his cake and eating it.

We had to wait until 2008 before documents released under the Freedom of Information Act finally confirmed Blair had lied, lied and lied again about his role in the Ecclestone affair. The year after Blair resigned, internal Downing Street memos revealed the decision to overturn the Formula One ban had been made at the time of the meeting, and not two weeks later as Blair stated in Parliament.

The transcript of Tony Blair’s meeting with Bernie Ecclestone