The Butcher of Baghdad, Tony Blair, has written a very revealing comment on his website about the turn of events in Iraq last week which saw an Islamic extremist organisation, who even al Qaeda considers extreme, suspiciously very easily take over large parts of North East Iraq in just a few days. In doing so Blair has done an impression of Bart Simpson:
And in this The Guardian is doing its bit too.
The points of Blair's argument are:
1. that 4 years ago Al Qaeda in Iraq was beaten;
2. the situation in Syria has made a significant contribution;
3. we were right to go into Iraq in 2003 because
a. it has eventually forced Syria to declare it had a chemical weapons program;
b. although Saddam may not have had any WMDs that could have been used, he still retained a WMD program that could have led to him using WMDs in the future like he did against Iran;
4. imagine if Saddam had been left in power, then during the Arab Spring Saddam would have been violently putting down a Shia rebellion while Assad would have been violently putting down a Sunni rebellion, which would probably have led to an Iraq V Syria war;
5. we didn't cause the upheavals in the Middle East so we need not feel any guilt;
6. an inconsistent policy by the West has not helped;
7. Syria could become the greatest threat to national security in the West, bigger than Afghanistan was;
8. Obama is right to consider military action on ISIS;
9. we need a plan to deal with Islamic extremism;
10. extremists must be put down by force;
11. extremist terrorism is a global problem;
12. the Islamic extremists are never going to leave us alone, that's why 9/11 happened;
13. we were naive about The Arab Spring;
14. we cannot not interfere in The Middle East;
15. this is a problem bigger than the Middle East; Africa, Far East Central Asia are all problems;
16. the solution is not only bombing the Islamic extremists, it also involves educating these areas of the world, and it just so happens that Blair has formed an educational organisation for this very purpose;
And finally, in the last paragraph Blair lays all the blame on the situation in Iraq on...Syria!!!
The problems in the Middle East did not start in 2011, when The Arab Spring kicked off in Syria, which Blair is implying.
Nor did they start in 2003 when we invaded Iraq, which many anti war commentators are suggesting.
Nor did they start in 2001 when the USA suffered 9/11.
Nor did they start in 1998 when The Project for a New American Century was formed and they wrote to then POTUS Bill Clinton demanding regime change in Iraq.
Nor did they start in 1996 when Zionists wrote A Clean Break calling for war on Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
Nor did they start in 1991 when Paul Wolfowitz told General Wesley Clark that the USA had 5 to 10 years to take out those old Soviet client regimes; Iraq, Iran and Syria.
Nor did they start in 1982 when the Yinon plan was written.
Nor did they start in 1948 when Eretz Israel was declared.
Nor did the start in 1933 when the Haavara Agreement was reached between the Zionists, the Nazis and the British to transfer German Jews to Palestine.
Nor did they start in 1917 when The Balfour Declaration was made to the Rothschilds.
Nor did they start in the late 19th Century when the Rothschilds started to finance Jewish settlements in Palestine.
No. The problems in the Middle East started in the early to middle 19th Century when the Rothschilds and Montefiores started to use their wealth and influence gained from banking to interfere in Palestine and make serious suggestions for establishing Jewish colonies in Palestine.
So Blair is just a face that we can aim our anger and frustration at, rather like Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984. For Blair is just a frontman. NEVER FORGET THAT! Blair, and Bush, are just frontmen who are willing to take the blame for a few very big crumbs that fall from the Rothschild table.
Blair references 9/11.
The beginning of understanding is to appreciate that resolving this situation is immensely complex. This is a generation long struggle. It is not a ‘war’ which you win or lose in some clear and clean-cut way. There is no easy or painless solution. Intervention is hard. Partial intervention is hard. Non-intervention is hard.
Ok, so if it is that hard, why not stay out of it all, the current default position of the West? The answer is because the outcome of this long transition impacts us profoundly. At its simplest, the jihadist groups are never going to leave us alone. 9/11 happened for a reason. That reason and the ideology behind it have not disappeared.
[source : Iraq, Syria and the Middle East – An essay by Tony Blair, http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/, 14th June 2014]
Yes. 9/11 did happen for a reason. But not the reason that Blair implies.
9/11 was an inside job. And Blair knows it. That's why 28 pages of the investigation into 9/11 have not been published, because they reveal that Saudi Arabia ran the alleged perps. And as PM, Blair protected the Saudis by blocking investigations into the al Yamamah weapons deal, which LAPC suggest was used to finance 9/11.
PNAC wrote in 200o that they wanted a "new Pearl Harbor" to trick the American public into supporting wars on Iraq and Iran and others to assert US hegemony. And, lo and behold, on 9/11 Osama bin Laden made their wet dream come true when four passenger were planes were hijacked and flown unimpeded for nearly 2 hours before flying into the WTC and even...can you believe this...THE PENTAGON!! And all this while W was out of town and PNAC were in charge of the suspiciously AWOL US military.
And as General Wesley Clark has stated several times, 9/11 was to be used as the pretext for totaler krieg on seven nations in five years. Those nations were:
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Lebanon
Libya
Sudan
Somalia
Clark specifically named members of PNAC of running a foreign policy coup: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
Even Wiggly Woo, the worm at the bottom of my garden, can see that it is probably just a bit more than a coincidence that the nations we have been at war with since 9/11 are on that list:
Iraq - invaded in 2003, and the war that made Blair famous as a war criminal;
Libya - invaded in 2011, but not by UK ground troops. BSF were there aiding Jihadis while NATO was the Jihadi air force.
In 2006 Israel engineered a war on Lebanon.
And in 2013 an incident at Ghouta was supposed to provoke a war on Syria, but failed.
But the war on Libya and the attempted war on Syria were due to the presence of Jihadis. This is due to the war on Iraq causing war fatigue in the general public and military so this idea of R2P (that Owen Jones seems keen on) was pushed. Cutthroat Jihadis were to be unleashed onto nations like Syria and Iran to create crises, and NATO was supposed to save the day. Blair cites The Arab Spring and implies it was a genuine uprising without any assistance from the West. But The Arab Spring was financed by The US State Department, and was designed to enable NATO politicians to refer to the cutthroat Jihadis as 'freedom fighters', when in reality they slit the throats of defenceless children and eat the hearts of their executed prisoners.
Is Blair naive? Is he not aware of this, focusing on making as much money as possible out of the chaos in The Middle East?
I don't think so. I think he knows the plan.
During his appearances at The Chilcot Inquiry, Blair used the opportunity to push for war on Iran.
And in this essay (that should be awarded a big red F) Blair cites Syria as the main problem.
Iraq is part of a much bigger picture. By all means argue about the wisdom of earlier decisions. But it is the decisions now that will matter. The choices are all pretty ugly, it is true. But for 3 years we have watched Syria descend into the abyss and as it is going down, it is slowly but surely wrapping its cords around us pulling us down with it. We have to put aside the differences of the past and act now to save the future.
So when Blair imitates Bart Simpson and says, "I didn't do it.", we can say, "No, you did not personally write the PNAC manifesto, but yes, Tony you did your bit by telling us the lies and disinformation".
And when Blair imitates Bart Simpson and says, "Nobody saw me do it.", we can say, "Yes, Tony, we saw you speak in The Marsten House and on TV. We saw the bombs falling on Baghdad. We saw the men and women crying and screaming as they dug their dead children from the rubble of what used to be their homes."
And when Blair imitates Bart Simpson and says, "There's no way you can prove anything.", we can say, "OK, Tony, publish in full all correspondence that the Chilcot Inquiry is being denied.".
And not surprisingly The Guardian is doing its bit too.
But to claim, 11 years on, that what is happening now can be attributed to what was done then is both facile and insulting. It suggests, in a sort of inverted, postmodern neo-colonialism, that Iraqis remain incapable of assuming responsibility for their own country. The invasion, whatever else it did, gave Iraq the chance of democratic self-governance that it would never have experienced under Saddam Hussein. It is this imperfect democracy that is now under threat – and which must now be improved, even as it is preserved.
[source : Iraq: Isis can be beaten and democracy restored, Editorial, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/15/iraq-isis-can-be-beaten-democracy-restored, 15th June 2014]
And at first there may not seem to be too much in these closing comments:
Most of all, however, Iraqis must seize this opportunity to renew, strengthen and broaden the country's political leadership in order to end further destructive sectarian schisms. In this process, Maliki, as prime minister, has a key role to play. If he cannot do so, he should stand aside.
But having listened to Dr Webster Tarpley's latest World Crisis Radio, Maliki is aligned with Iran, much more than the USA and thus Israel would like. This rise of ISIS has damaged Maliki's standing in Iraq. Who would replace Maliki? Someone more aligned to Washington/Tel Aviv?
And throughout all these comments in NATO media on current events in Iraq, I have not seen mentioned that Saddam Hussein was a CIA agent who was given WMDs by the USA.
Regarding ISIS, they are at most 7000 strong, now armed with some military hardware and a few dollars more. On the other hand the Iraqi Army is 250000 with an air force, tanks, etc. ISIS will probably be pushed back into Syria and continue to fight the Syrian Arab Army with their latest loot and military hardware.
President Obama must resist all attempts to persuade him to bomb, bomb. bomb.
The Iraqi Army is large enough and equipped well enough to seriously damage ISIS and then chase ISIS back to Syria where the SAA can destroy them. After all, that's why they were in Iraq last week, because the SAA had all but destroyed them.
