Here's what Blair would do over again

Okay, so now we know that Tony Blair would "do it all again" regarding the illegal, immoral war that is Iraq.

So what exactly would he do again?

Well, just for starters, he would participate in a war where the facts had been fixed around the policy, instead of the policy being dictated by the facts.

And he would sit in on a conversation with Idiot Son, during which Idiot Son discussed the possibility of entrapping Sadaam, by flying U2 reconaissance planes over Iraq, but disguise them as U.N. planes by painting them in U.N. colors. And if Sadaam shot at them, he would be in violation of U.N. resolutions.

So, to Freeper trolls on here, I just thought I'd let you know exactly what Tony Blair would do all over again!!

"by flying U2 reconnaissance planes over Iraq, but disguise them as U.N. planes by painting them in U.N. colors"

If so, I'm dumbfounded.

of this with Blair. He was so concerned about the lack of evidence against Sadaam, that during an Oval Office meeting w/ Blair before the invasion began, he discussed the possibility of flying our U2 reconnaissance planes over Iraq, but painting them in U.N. colors.

That way, if Sadaam shot them down, he would be thinking he was shooting down U.N. planes, and thus be in violation of U.N. resolutions.

Here's the article:

Bush told Blair we're going to war, memo reveals
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2006-02-02 20:32. Evidence | White House Memo
By Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian (UK)

· PM backed invasion despite illegality warnings
· Plan to disguise US jets as UN planes
· Bush: postwar violence unlikely

Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.

A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.

"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".

The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:
· Mr Bush told the Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach ".

· Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".

· Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

The revelation that Mr Blair had supported the US president's plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave parliament shortly after. On February 23 2003 - three weeks after his trip to Washington - Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving "Saddam one further final chance to disarm voluntarily".

He added: "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime - I hope most people do - but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."

On March 18, before the crucial vote on the war, he told MPs: "The UN should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action ... would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other single course that we could pursue."

The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction in breach of UN disarmament obligations. It took place a few days before the then US secretary Colin Powell made claims - since discredited - in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq's weapons programme.

Earlier in January 2003, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, expressed his private concerns about the absence of a smoking gun in a private note to Mr Blair that month, according to the book. He said he hoped that the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, would come up with enough evidence to report a breach by Iraq of is its UN obligations.

The extent of concern in Washington at the time is reflected in the plan to send US planes over Iraq disguised in UN livery - itself a clear breach of international law.

Prof Sands also says that Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassador at the time, told a colleague from another country that he was "clearly uncomfortable" about the failure to get a second resolution.

Foreign Office lawyers consistently warned that an invasion would be regarded as unlawful. The book reveals that Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the FO's deputy chief legal adviser who resigned over the war, told the Butler inquiry, into the use of intelligence during the run-up to the war, of her belief that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, shared the FO view.

Lord Goldsmith told the FO lawyers in early 2003: "The prime minister has told me that I cannot give advice, but you know what my views are", according to private evidence to the Butler inquiry.

Shortly afterwards, in February 2003, Lord Goldsmith visited Washington where he had talks with William Taft, Mr Powell's legal adviser. Mr Taft is quoted in the book as as saying Lord Goldsmith also met "our attorney general , and people at the Pentagon".

On March 7 2003 Lord Goldsmith advised the prime minister that the Bush administration believed that a case could be made for an invasion without a second UN resolution. But he warned that Britain, if it went ahead, could be challenged in the international criminal court. Ten days later, he said a second resolution was not necessary.

Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat acting leader, said last night: "The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours in the hope of provoking Saddam Hussein is a graphic illustration of the rush to war. It would also appear to be the case that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31 were simply going through the motions, with decision for military action already taken."

Sir Menzies continued: "The prime minister's offer of February 23 to Saddam Hussein was about as empty as it could get. He has a lot of explaining to do."

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/7408

Hussein was in violation of so many UN resolutions already. I just don't see how this would've meant much.

Bush realized there was a lack of evidence against Sadaam. And he was willing to entrap him, to justify his case for war.

I think that should outrage all of us.

Right after Bill Clinton's "third way" approach to politics.

I never thought I'd be so disappointed in Blair!!!

-- bLiar is some sort of fundamentalist, with private schools for his co-religionists, a real true believer who supports private religious schools that teach creationism. Clinton seems comfortable with his religion but obviously not tied down by it.

-- bLiar is frenetic, always on the go, busy, busy, busy like he needs the whirlwind to propel him. Clinton was alway busy but more as a means to discharge his considerable energy and intellect.

-- Look how they present themselves when speaking to the public. bLiar is tight as a snare drum, tense, intense, and, while articulate, very forced in a precise sort of way. Clinton is just
talking to you, letting you in on his secrets, charming you. Relaxed

-- bLiar comes from an upper middle class, in tact family. Clinton from a broken family with a very intelligent but somewhat eccentric mother. Unlike bLiar, Clinton experienced poverty.

-- Clinton has a massive intellect and, despite the good old boy charm, is clearly capable of very deep thought and analysis. It is difficult to imagine bLiar actually taking the time to think about anything.

-- Clinton is sane. bLiar is a fruit cake, screw ball, jumble of contradictions, and general all-around twit.

But, hey, that's just this citizens position. I'll tell you one thing, I'd take Clinton over bLiar in any situation.

England has, ever since state schools began, had schools which are mainly funded by the state, but which the Church of England had some control over (and contributes a little money to). The church gets to reserve some places for children of active members of the local church. For many years (certainly since before WW2, and maybe right from the beginning of state-funded education), the Roman Catholic church has also had similar schools, and there are also a few Jewish, and now Muslim and one or two other faith schools. See http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,593365,00.html

Blair is keen to expand these, which I think is a mistake - it just divides children more, which builds up problems for the future. I think many Americans would look on the present system as an awful example of the combining of state and religion, and I'd personally agree. But what really worries us recently is Blair's "foundation schools". These allow anyone who makes a similar commitment to the religious establishments I've already mentioned (putting up about 10% of the capital cost) to have a say in how the school is run - choosing the governors, who will choose the head teacher, and so on. One multi-millionaire has set up some schools in the north-east which teach creationism as a valid alternative to evolution - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2982933.stm . The problem is that these schools are the main school in an area, so parents have to go out of their way, literally, to avoid them. And Blair's happy with this.