Blogroll Me! How This Old Brit Sees It ...: Brit General Sir Michael Rose Says Impeach Blair For Iraq War ...

09 January 2006

Brit General Sir Michael Rose Says Impeach Blair For Iraq War ...








Finally, following in the footsteps of many more brave Brits who've already been bold enough to stand up and speak out publicly against Blair and Bush's bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq, comes a marvelous military man [and incidentally, genuine Knight of the Realm] of enormous experience, proven ultra-professional standing, immense personal integrity, unwavering & unquestionable courage, coupled with complete & utter credibility.

Retired British Army General Sir Michael Rose, ex-UN commander in Bosnia, now steps up to the plate to stand shoulder to shoulder with so many other truly honourable, best-of-British people.

Including a varied selection of MPs, ex-Ministers of the Crown, ex-Her Majesty's Ambassadors, concerned churchmen of all denominations, newspaper editors, clolumnists & commentators, professional political pundits & observers, acclaimed academics & seasoned strategists and -- perhaps even more importantly -- over two million members of the public who marched at the outset, en masse, in the streets of our country's capital city to protest the Blair-Bush plan to wantonly wage an illegal war in Iraq.

Here are today's relevant 'Rose' headers, hotfoot from the BBC news website.


Blair impeachment over Iraq urged

Prime Minister Tony Blair should be impeached over the war in Iraq, a former top British soldier has said.

The ex-UN commander in Bosnia General Sir Michael Rose said Mr Blair had to take responsibility for his actions.

"To go to war on what turns out to be false grounds is something that no one should be allowed to walk away from," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

And the best response the Bliar-bunch can come up with so far ?

.... Sir Michael was entitled to his view but had been retired for some time.
Oh, really ? Well, that's bloody big of 'em, eh ? A man's entitled to "his view".

Perhaps it's just as well the general has retired. Since here's something else he went on to say.

General Sir Michael said he would not have led troops into a war he believed was wrong.

"You cannot put people in harm's way if you don't believe the cause is right or sufficient," he said.
Strong stuff, eh ?

Several score members of British parliament also seem to see eye to eye with Sir Michael. As just last month, over 100 MPs from all across the Commons' benches, backed a call for an inquiry by senior MPs into the handling of the Iraq war and its aftermath.

Now read the BBC's relevant report in it's entirety,
right here.

Then listen for yourself to the honourable & knowledgeable general speaking in his interview for Radio 4's "Today" programme, by hitting this link here.

But before you do, let This Old Brit first 'brief' you a bit himself. The gallant General Sir Michael is one cool customer. His criticism-cum-condemnation certainly could not be clearer -- nor more clinically concise.

26 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

About bloody time too. Now, where are the rest of the brass?

Or are they happy to see our kids still being killed because of a pack of lias told by a pack of liars?

9:43 pm  
Anonymous Rex said...

Here's more on this story from the Guardian.

New call to impeach Blair over Iraq

Matthew Tempest and agencies
Monday January 9, 2006


Tony Blair should be impeached over the Iraq war, according to one of Britain's most senior former soldiers.
General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded UN forces in Bosnia, accused the prime minister of taking the country to war on what turned out to be "false grounds", saying it is something "no one should be allowed to walk away from".

Despite publicly insisting that his aim was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blair "probably had some other strategy in mind", said Gen Rose.


Article continues here.

10:12 pm  
Blogger markfromireland said...

'Bout time and he's not alone.

Note to American readers:

When someone like Rose who's are very highly regraded soldier stands up does something like that he does it at the behest of those who because they're still serving aren't permitted to do so.

11:53 pm  
Anonymous graniab said...

Is there any traction to this impeachment call? Sorry to appear so bloody clueless but I know nothing about how this is done in the UK - is there even a precedent? Didn't Tim Collins of the Irish Guards also speak out against the war?

12:23 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Then listen for yourself to the honourable & knowledgeable general speaking in his interview for Radio 4's "Today" programme, by hitting this link here."

Tried the link and got "Page Not Found". Is this a broken link, or has the video been pulled?

6:13 am  
Blogger Elaine Supkis said...

And they arrested the people who leaked the "Kill those pesky reporters" memos.

Arrest Blair. Arrest Bush. Put them on trial with Saddam.ayvpszj

10:54 am  
Blogger Richard said...

Anon,
Re:Audio interview link. Please use link @ BBC report page. It's right under picture of General Rose. It works fine - but the seperate audio link seems problematic. But believe me, it's well worth hearing.

11:18 am  
Blogger Richard said...

rex,

Thanks for that extra Guardian link.

mark,

That's a very good point. Thanks for pointing that out to those who may not have realised the full significance of this 'signal'.

graniab,

Impeachment legislation has been available here for hundreds of years, but has been very seldom used, and not for a long, long time. I'll post a bit more on this, here -- later.

elaine,

Same old, same old, eh? One law for "them" and another law for the rest of us. But I convinced karma will catch up with these crooks & liars -- eventually. (Look at Sharon and Arrafat before him).

11:28 am  
Anonymous kiwi said...

Richard, More great reporting-writing, but you forgot to mention in your list of those who stood up and spoke out -- scientists [like the late Dr David Kelly] and UN experts and weapons inspectors [like Scott Ritter and many others].

(That's not a criticism btw. But I'm sure you know that.) Keep this stuff coming.

12:19 pm  
Blogger Elaine Supkis said...

I cite your posting here, Richard: No Exit

The pictures of bubble boy are hilarious these days. He is either sloshed or sucking in his lips with his stupid weak chin a quiver.

He is the picture of a coward. I notice the Princes of England are doing a military duty stint now....unlike our lords and masters who are rank cowards.

12:38 pm  
Blogger Richard said...

Thanks for the cite, Elaine. Another great post at you blog today, I see. I've just read and commented [in Old Brit, strong language] over there.

Huh! MORE sacrifices, indeed. Yeah. Of other folk's families. "They" make one want to puke.

3:29 pm  
Blogger Richard said...

kiwi, thanks. You're far too kind. Don't worry though, I fully intend to "keep this stuff coming".

graniab (& all), here's a bit more on impeachment - UK style.

*If MPs believe that the government was out of control over Iraq, they could revive a procedure used against Charles I - and Richard Nixon

Dan Plesch Wednesday January 28, 2004 The Guardian

Say the word "impeachment" and people think of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky or, before that, Richard Nixon. In fact, it is an English invention. The men who wrote the United States constitution borrowed it from the House of Commons, where it was used for much of the 17th and 18th centuries.
But while impeachment has remained in print in the US constitution, in England it has been lost to history.
Nevertheless, it was to the high court of parliament that David Kelly gave evidence, as the MP Andrew McKinlay reminded him. And parliament could choose once again to act as a court.
Another MP, Peter Kilfoyle,[a fellow scouser AND Liverpudlian MP, just a ten minute drive away from Richard/This Old Brit, btw ... heh ... ;^]] recently asked the House of Commons library for a briefing on whether impeachment was still part of the constitution, and was assured that it was.
And senior Tory figures have let it be known that they would favour the impeachment of the prime minister.

Such is the length of English parliamentary history that there is even a precedent for reviving impeachment after a century of disuse. The process originated in the House of Commons in the late 14th century, the first accused being a merchant in the City of London.
Impeachment was used as a tool to bring high officials to account and was used for around 100 years in the political battles of late medieval England.

Under the Tudor dynasty, parliamentary factions and parliament itself declined in importance. By the time of the Stuarts, Charles I sought to abolish parliamentary authority and create an absolute monarchy. As part of the parliamentary response, a committee was created to investigate ancient rights of the House of Commons that could again be put to use, and by the 1620s impeachment was revived as a way of pursuing Charles's ministers, especially the Earl of Strafford.
Impeachment then remained a procedure used from time to time until the eve of the Victorian era, in the early 1800s.

3:48 pm  
Blogger markfromireland said...

Hi Richard,

Thanks for dropping over and your comment. Just popping in quickly to wish all your Muslim readers "Eid mubarak"

mark

5:34 pm  
Anonymous graniab said...

Richard - thank you so much for the impeachment British style summary - it was very gratefully received!

5:44 pm  
Blogger Richard said...

Latest update.

General Rose has today had an article published in the Guardian.


Enough of his excuses: Blair must be impeached over Iraq

The only way parliament can regain the trust of disaffected voters is to admit that it was wrong to support the war

Michael Rose
Tuesday January 10, 2006
The Guardian


Wars are won when the people, government and army work together for a common cause in which they genuinely believe. Whereas the people may be initially uncertain about military intervention, politicians will often be the strongest advocates - blinded by the imperatives of their political views. It will invariably be military commanders who are most cautious about using force - for they understand better than most the consequences of engaging in war.


Read the rest of General Sir Michael's powerful piece here.

8:16 pm  
Blogger Richard said...

You're welcome, graniab and mark; as always.

8:17 pm  
Anonymous James Hamilton said...

I presume from this that you, and your readers, would approve of the prosecution of Colonel Tim Collins, whose speech to the 1st Bn, Royal Irish Regiment, clearly puts him in the company of the "liars" you would seek to impeach? Because by your own definition, at best he can't be said to stand "shoulder to shoulder with so many other truly honourable, best of British people." A definition of honour which, of course, would include yourselves for all that you might - I suspect - not want it to include Collins.

11:39 pm  
Anonymous graniab said...

Sorry James who is prosecuting Col. Tim Collins? I thought he resigned his commission some time ago and to my recollection isn't he, with hindsight, currently speaking out against the war?

11:51 pm  
Anonymous bluey said...

Right on all counts graniab.

Here's something from Col Collins via Common Dreams.

Published on Friday, September 17, 2004 by the lndependent/UK
Officer Who Rallied UK Troops Condemns 'Cynical' Iraq War
by Kim Sengupta

UNITED KINGDOM - Colonel Tim Collins, the British commander whose stirring speech to his troops on the eve of the Iraq invasion was reportedly hung on a wall in the Oval Office by George Bush, has criticised the British and US governments over the war.
The officer, who has now left the Army, condemned the lack of planning for the aftermath of the conflict and questioned the motives for attacking Iraq. He said abuses against Iraqi civilians were partly the result of "leaders of a country, leaders of an alliance" constantly referring to them as the "enemy ... rather than treating them as people". This attitude was inevitably adopted by some soldiers on the ground, he said.

"Either it was a war to liberate the people of Iraq, in which case there was gross incompetence, or it was simply a cynical war that was going to happen anyway to vent some form of anger on Saddam Hussein's regime with no regard to the consequences on the Iraqi people. In that case it is a form of common assault - and the evidence would point towards the latter," he said on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

The speech of the commander of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Regiment was seized on by advocates of the war. Col Collins faced allegations of misconduct during the campaign, but was cleared by an inquiry, and subsequently was appointedOBE.

Yesterday Col Collins said that "the whole international community is dismayed by the result of the Iraq war" but he felt that liberating Iraq was still "the right thing to do. There is no doubt that the country needed to be liberated. Whether it could have been done in a different way must be judged by history."

He added: "The evidence would show, in hindsight, that the preparations for a free and fair Iraq were not made and therefore one must question the motivation of the powers that went to attack it.


More at this link.

12:49 am  
Blogger markfromireland said...

In reply to James Hamilton said:

Speaking for myself I would consider Collins to be an honourable man, a good hard-driving officer, and a British patriot. Who loves and is proud of his country.

There were allegations made by distraught relatives following the suicide of some of his men in Ulster that he created an atmosphere within his regiment that led to the said suicides. An enquiry revealed that that was very far from true and that, as all good officers should, he was passionately concerned for the welfare of his men while demanding and getting the best from them.

There were also allegations made about his conduct in Iraq again, he was cleared. I know from having spoken to officers within his regiment and more generally that Collins was less than popular amongst what for shorthand purposes I will call the more "establishment minded" of his peers and that the enquiry was conducted with such rigour that many felt that he was the victim of a witch hunt.

His speech to his men was rightly hailed at the time as an eloquent and moving reminder to his men of their duties both towards the UK and to the people whom Collins at the time thought that the UK was liberating. He now believes, in my view correctly, that he and the people of the UK were deceived and is again acting as someone who loves his country. That his country is not mine is irrelevant, that his politics may or not accord with that of our host is also irrelevant.

I recognise a man who behaves honestly when I see one and so I am sure does Richard and the others here. I will add that your attempt to prostitute Collins' case in the interests of making a partisan point to be entirely reprehensible how fortunate you are that the UK still produces men like Collins to protect your freedom to do so.

2:00 pm  
Anonymous graniab said...

Ahem.... I don't suppose James has any more comments after that roasting from Mark!

6:59 pm  
Blogger Richard said...

james,

I can't think of anything worthwhile I could possibly add to the [much more than adequate, I'd say]responses already made by regular Old Brit readers/posters.

8:18 pm  
Blogger Richard said...

graniab, bluey and mark,

Designate me a 'ditto-head' if you like, but what else can I say but "me too"? Except maybe to both commend and thank you.

My word! I can see this blog is certainly in safe hands whenever I'm otherwise occupied. Bravo. What a bunch of 'Old Brit' buddies. I'll stand shoulder with any of you, anywhere -- at any time and any place anywhere -- and be honoured to, to boot.

Btw, remind me not bandy words with you, Mark. Heh ... well ...... at least, never too much nor ever too often. Heh.

8:31 pm  
Blogger Gothamimage said...

Hey Old Brit,

Many brave and fierce American soldiers, sailors, and Marines have also denounced Bush's entreprise.

They are summarily attacked, their service is discredited by men whoare not fit to shine their shoes, and the media then reports the attacks as news, as if it was worth noting.

If Rose was an American, the WH would be denoucing him, thru proxies, as just another Commie, possibly a vegitarian, who watches Michael Moore movies, instead of eating Good 'Ol Big Hamburgers.

Who would you want leading you into battle? Rose or Cheney?

2:20 am  
Blogger Richard said...

Heh.

Gotham, the only people on the planet who could possibly prefer to face a cretin like Cheney face to face, would be whichever bunch of baddies were the target of the day.

9:40 am  
Blogger josh narins said...

Who would become PM if Blair was impeached?
In the US,
we have a line of succession.
You'd simply have a new vote for PM?

Instead of impeachment, couldn't you simply
have a new vote for PM?
How could that happen?

I'd guess that, in either case,
either Gordon Brown (or not) would become PM.
Which route is quicker ;)

6:34 pm  

Post a Comment

COMMENTS and Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home