Tony Blair could face contempt of parliament motion over Iraq war
Source: The Guardian
Tony Blair could face a motion of contempt in the House of Commons over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has said he would probably support.
Conservative MP David Davis, backed by the SNPs Alex Salmond, has said he will present on Thursday the motion, which accuses the former prime minister of misleading parliament . MPs could debate the issue before the summer if it is accepted by the Speaker, John Bercow.
...
Davis said: Its a bit like contempt of court, essentially by deceit. If you look just at the debate alone, on five different grounds the House was misled, three in terms of the weapons of mass destruction, one in terms of the UN votes were going, and one in terms of the threat, the risks. He might have done one of those accidentally, but five?
Salmond said he believed Corbyns support would mean the motion had enough cross-party support. No parliament worth its salt tolerates being mislead, the former Scotland first minister told ITVs Peston on Sunday.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/10/tony-blair-contempt-motion-iraq-war-mps
It would be symbolic, nothing more, but it would damage Blair's reputation a bit more - the speeches and fees from financial corporations might flow less freely.
For the record, David Davis was on the Conservative opposition front bench at the time, and voted for the invasion of Iraq (ie he voted 'no' in the crucial 'case for war not established' division): http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=117&display=allpossible
T_i_B
(14,737 posts)I can't help but think that they should be looking at themselves for their failure to hold the executive to account at the time.
midnight
(26,624 posts)Hoppy
(3,595 posts)White House officials have lied to Congress time and time again without consequence. W.M.D., "We don't spy on citizens' phone conversations."
I think that means our Congress isn't worth its salt. No argument there.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)uawchild
(2,208 posts)Tony Blair, among others, should be tried for war crimes for orchestrating the totally indefensible invasion of Iraq.
Both the UK and the US should be made to pay war reparations to Iraq for the devastation they have caused. The Iraqi people are continuing to suffer as a direct consequence of the U.K.'s and the US's actions.
thucythucy
(8,043 posts)Yallow
(1,926 posts)Look at the profits!!!!!
PatSeg
(47,368 posts)I really liked Tony Blair, until he started hanging out with Bush & Co. I can't believe he bought into Bush's macho cowboy routine. Mothers everywhere have warned us about the company we keep. Maybe Blair wanted to be Churchill to Bush's FDR.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)In 1999, he was in the coalition that bombed Serbia because of the Kosovan situation. After that, he made a speech in Chicago putting forth what became known as the 'Blair Doctrine'.
In 2000, he supported the Sierra Leone government in their civil war (the rebels were associated with Charles Taylor), which is generally recognised as successful and justified.
All that happened before Bush.
PatSeg
(47,368 posts)president he was hoping for. Guess I really can't blame Bush for everything. Some people are just assholes naturally, but Blair did it with an English accent.