One War Criminal Down, A Fistful to Go

This is confusing. Your title says something about a war criminal but your post is about Tony Blair.

How did you mess up and get this title with this article? It seems hard to imagine such a mistake.

What article was supposed to go here?

 

From the article:

"Because of Blair’s support for the European Union, Blair could find himself hauled before the International Criminal Court. The US government has been careful to keep itself outside international law. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and a number of others are regarded as outlaws, but there is no marshal with the authority to arrest them and hold them accountable. Only Congress can do that."

Also from the article:

"Many wonder why Blair destroyed his reputation and that of his country, put himself at risk of being hauled before the International Criminal Court, and squandered his time as prime minister providing cover for George Bush’s war of aggression. The answer must be money. We will see which US corporate boards take Blair as a director and which groups pay him six-figure honorariums for speeches."

1 Tim. 6:10 (ESV)
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

 

Typical hate Bush over the top rhetoric from Roberts.

 

I guess it couldn't be that TBlair was trying to act on his conscience and agreed with the fundamental idea that the radical Islamists were trying to kill his nations people, just like they said they would. That couldn't be it, could it?

And this International court ought to be convened and then every member jailed, as enemies of the world.

 

Not likely as under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule Iraq was a secular state and radical Islamists wouldn't have probably lasted very long under his rule as they would have been a threat to his power.

 

==And of course, according to President George Washington, that is the way it should be:


"As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils . Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." -George Washington (Farewell Statement, 1796)

We should not allow any foreign government have any say, control, or power over our leaders, citizens, laws, or rights. We are a free nation and we should behave as such.

 

So you are equating Tony Blair with your assessment of GWB, and that they are both to blame for following their consciences, and the judgment of a bi-partisan Congress, and the whole free world.

 

It's more like they were following the dictates of neocons who wanted to establish American worldwide hegemony. I am not saying the neocons are evil, just that they are very badly misguided in their beliefs.

 

What possible motive would Tony Blair have in that.

 

From the article:

"Many wonder why Blair destroyed his reputation and that of his country, put himself at risk of being hauled before the International Criminal Court, and squandered his time as prime minister providing cover for George Bush’s war of aggression. The answer must be money. We will see which US corporate boards take Blair as a director and which groups pay him six-figure honorariums for speeches."