An Executive Intelligence Review article by Nancy Spannaus
Blair Up for Impeachment: Can Obama Be Far Behind?
The crimes of the Queen’s poodle Tony Blair in lying to detonate the 2003 Iraq War began to catch up with him last week, when an outcry began in the British Parliament demanding his impeachment, an action which, in Britain, could lead directly to imprisonment. The implications of this action, by leading individuals in Great Britain, have huge portent for the fate of one of his leading chums in the United States, fellow royal stooge Barack Obama.
The sequence of events was rapid. On June 17, the senior correspondent of the Daily Mail, Simon Heffer, issued a call for Blair’s impeachment, based on the deaths of British soldiers and others, which his lies about the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to the West. That same day former Labour Party MP George Galloway, now representing the Respect Party in Parliament, formally initiated impeachment proceedings. The next day, June 18, Sir Peter Tapsell, a Tory, and the longest-serving Member of the House of Commons, confronted Prime Minister David Cameron during the Prime Minister’s Questions on what he called the “growing sentiment” that Parliament should exercise the “ancient but still existing power of Back Benchers to commence the procedure of impeachment” against Blair.
The rapid-fire actions, of course, have everything to do with the raging pace of the offensive by the bestial ISIS jihadis in Iraq, which the war launched by Blair and Cheney/Bush set the stage for, and which has the immediate potential for accelerating the British Monarchy’s drive toward a thermonuclear confrontation between the U.S. and Russia.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama—whose foreign policy advisor in the 2012 election was Tony Blair—is proceeding to carry out his next impeachable crime, by committing the U.S. to taking military action in Iraq, another unconstitutional, undeclared act of aggressive war, and he is running into resistance from both sides of the aisle in Congress, as a number of votes in Congress last week show. Prominent commentators, including a key author of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, have begun to raise the specter of impeachment.
Obama, like Blair, is ripe for immediate impeachment, as the necessary road to saving the U.S., and preventing nuclear war.
Blair ‘Totally Responsible’
The impeachment motion against Tony Blair is deadly serious. Although no such parliamentary proceeding has succeeded in Great Britain since 1806, the procedure for doing so is still in the law. As journalist Heffer pointed out, Parliament need only set up a Select Committee of MPs to draw up the Article of Impeachment, which, if it were voted up in the Commons, would be provided to prosecutors to present to the House of Lords. A simple majority of the Lords could convict, and, Heffer said, “could, in theory, involve Tony Blair being sent to prison.”
Heffer outlines a set of devastating charges: “Did Mr. Blair know he was lying to Parliament when he presented the ‘dodgy dossier’—which argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed against the West in just 45 minutes—and therefore gain Parliament’s authority to go to war on the basis of a deception? ... Is he therefore responsible for the 179 deaths of British service personnel, never mind the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died in the conflict? And for the £9 billion it cost us?
“Above all, has he damaged the interests of this country by creating long-term instability in the region because of a decision that was either criminally negligent or possibly taken on a fraudulent basis?”
Heffer concludes: “I suspect that as things worsen in Iraq—and they will—getting a majority in the Commons to impeach Mr. Blair might not be impossible. What the outcome in the Lords would be, when they decide on his guilt or innocence, would depend on the evidence. The public is crying out for that evidence to be heard. And impeachment is the right constitutional tool for a former Prime Minister accused of such behavior.” And if impeached, “we would finally know, once and for all, just what Tony Blair’s true place in history should be.”
Blair, the Queen’s prime minister from 1997 to 2007, was a leading force internationally for the policies which led to aggressive war, and depopulation wars, by NATO and coalitions of its members, against numerous nations, including Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, among others. His “rationale” came directly from the Crown’s policy of eliminating national sovereignty, as enunciated in his 1999 and 2004 speeches in Chicago in favor of eliminating the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, and launching the so-called Responsibility-to-Protect doctrine. In plain language, that policy dictates permanent barbaric war, and depopulation—as we see in Iraq, in particular, today.
The former prime minister, who, shamefully still holds the position of the EU’s ambassador to the Middle East Quartet, is passionately hated in Great Britain. The monarchy has continued to protect him in the Chilcot Inquiry into the lies he told to start the Iraq War, and Blair has stonewalled on providing the documents on discussion between him and George W. Bush which prove that Blair and Bush (and Bush’s controller Dick Cheney) had agreed to proceed with the Iraq war regardless of any alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Exemplary of what evidence is available is the exclusive interview given to Huffington Post UK June 18 by Cambridge University professor George Joffe. Joffe is a former deputy director at the Royal Institute of International Affairs and an Associate Fellow the British military’s Royal United Services Institute, and was invited by Blair to 10 Downing Street in 2003 to discuss the potential ramifications of an Iraq invasion. “It was clear that the decision had already been made,” Joffe said.
Asked “if a line could be drawn between the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003, and the current ISIS-led insurgency,” Joffe replied, “Absolutely”; Blair and George W. Bush bear “total responsibility” for what is happening.
Read more: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2014/4126blair.html
Replies
Incorrect....The state department and CIA, to, are behind most of the mischief contained within US foreign policy...The US military has many senior officers with a professional obedience, BUT a private aversion to war and conflicts...They know how mad their bosses in politix actually are and how unrealistic the imperial agenda is...and how overstreched they are....
Soldiers are loyal, under oath and won't grumble in public, but behind the scenes, speak of great foreboding for the future, if things do not change...That they live in a nation in which lions are lead by donkeys....
Soldiers know what it is to suffer losses in war, on both sides....they see the carnage, smell it, see it up close...Even Generals get to see the signed lists of deceased troops swerving under them...They get to see their victories made stale by a poorly constructed peace....
The politicians in comparison are viscious and heartless servants of darkness, by and large...As an admirer of Richard Nixon, you would know how divorced politicos are from society...and the common good.....Obama has his Watergate too...
How about showing some real manners and sticking to the topic of Blair, Nancy...??
You do enjoy the sound of bleeting sheep and also your own trumpet, I note....Though it does not fool all of us, here....
Oh, and you think yourself hard done by...?? A scapegoat...??
So do we blame Blair at all, or is he another "scapegoat...??" I suggest that Blair is a willing pawn of dark elites and the Pentagon is not behind half the things you claim they are....Many of those in the US military serve as unwilling pawns of elite economic and political forces...Yet many politicos, such as Blair, Cheney, Bush, Clinton, Obama, etc, enjoy the carnage they cause...
And speaking of those who elevate themselves, Obama is very much a current example...As are many politicians on the make, as you would know....
The military are much less warlike than the politicians........at least they know what war is really like....
..I Am...Naive.....How Unfortunate.......Feels Good Tho..............
People should realise that most channels are false....It takes a rare breed of channel to possess the needed skills, to relay accurate and useful data from those higher planes, than the astral....
The Masters are contacted upon the manasic plane, where higher MIND is the dominant energy and where the light body resides in mental substances...In contrast to that lofty and lighted plane, contact with the "plane of glamours," or astral plane, is a great distraction for many of the false channels, who mislead others in their own erratic way....
@ Phaedron,
The seven principles of the human being represent the stages of his/her evolution from animal to the divine:
The Conqueror = 1000
Intuitively wise = 999
The Higher mind = 888
The Cross = 777
The Lower mind = 666
Desire = 555
Serpent coil = 444
Sensuality = 333
In the Eastern esoteric philosophy it's as follows:
The Conqueror -- Atma
Intuitively wise -- Buddhi
The higher mind -- Buddhi manas
The cross -- Antaskarana
The Lower mind -- Kama manas
Desire -- Kama
Serpent coil -- Lingam
Sensuality -- Sthula
In Pythagorean numerology the number '6' means: "Perfection of work"
In the Tarotic enumeration it means: The Two Ways, or the Lovers. Denotes discrimination, knowledge of good and evil, conscience. Privilege and duty, instinct, sex relations.
Just my .02c
NANCY: you always blame the Pentagon for any of the U.S. messes on the international scene, and almost never the State Department and their bosses at the C.I.A. Benghazi was run by Ambassador Christopher Stevens and was a U.S. State Department (and C.I.A. directed) shipping point for U.S. weapons to our supposed enemy al-Qaeda (redefined as "rebels") in Syria, and now these same al-Qaeda forces armed by the U.S. State Department and C.I.A. are uniting with other Sunni Arabs as they march to Baghdad. The Pentagon had nothing to do with this arming of al-Qaeda forces in Syria (who are now marching with these U.S. weapons to Baghdad, about to start WWIII). so please point blame in the proper direction. Here's what former C.I.A. psychiatrist Steve Piezenek had to say bout the riff between the Pentagon and the State Department:
“The real issue is very simple, you have to think of two elements of the government fighting each other that are covert,” Pieczenik told the Alex Jones Show. “The government is never unified, it never has been unified. For over thirty or forty years there has been a conflict between the military and the CIA and the FBI… The CIA has been run for the last fifty years by civilians who are out of control.”
Nancy A's words are always worth giving attention and serious consideration to my fellow ACCers. She has been on the scene far longer than most of us and, for me has demonstrated an intimacy with 20th century events that is not only rare, but unique. The practice of open-mindedness has allowed me to consider so much more than if I had already drawn hard and fast conclusions as seems to be the case with so many here on ACC. Please give a few moments of your precious time to this possibility, after all what have you got to lose by being open to other than your precious forgone conclusions: http://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/kathryn-may-channeling-6...; Thank you for all of your life's struggle and work, Nancy, a respectful friend, Phylos
Yes, she has the right to play her decades-old scratched record, on her old gramaphone player, here, just as we have the right to remind her that it's got worn grooves, and is prone to repeating parts of tunes, over and over......
Could she please enter the 21st century now....and get modern and current, with what is happening now, rather than superceded events during the Nixon or Reagan administrations...
;-)
Here's another possibility for your consideration everybody; http://journal-neo.org/2014/04/30/the-obama-un-presidency/; Please take a few minutes to read. Thank you.
What happened during those earlier 20th century administrations has everything to do with where things are today. Are you trying to claim the past is irrelevant? I just have to say that is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard! As absurd as trying to blame Obama for Bush's wars. I think the ruined economy had its genesis during earlier 20th century administrations. The present is always built upon the past. If the Greeks hadn't of stopped the Persians at Marathon and slowed them at Thermopylae, thousands of years ago, the present would be quite different, I would imagine.
When I read and try to make sense of your arguments, Drex, Nancy's old gramaphone sounds pretty acurate and high fidelity, too. The past doesn't matter? Unbelievable! You can't be serious. That is in the twilight zone. Over the top. Even for you. No disrespect, just incredulity on my part.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next