British General Calls For Impeachment of Tony Blair Over Iraq Lies

Retired General Sir Michael Rose, commander of UN forces in Bosnia during the war there, is calling for the impeachment of British Prime Minister Tony Blair for misleading Parliament and the public into supporting British involvement in the Iraq war.

"The impeachment of Mr Blair is now something I believe must happen if we are to rekindle interest in the democratic process in this country once again". Britain was led into war on false pretences, he says. "It was a war that was to unleash untold suffering on the Iraqi people and cause grave damage to the west's prospects in the wider war against global terror."

Reflecting widespread unease among serving military chiefs over Iraq, Gen Rose says most British people had consistently opposed the decision to invade.

"These people have seen their political wishes ignored for reasons that have now proved false. Nor has there been any attempt made in parliament to call Mr Blair personally to account for what has transpired to be a blunder of enormous strategic significance," he writes.

The General makes his views known in an article he penned for today's edition of the Guardian.

Although in a true democracy they (military leaders) must remain subordinate to their political masters, they have a clear responsibility to point out when political strategies are flawed or inadequately resourced. Since they might also have to ask their soldiers to sacrifice their lives, they must be assured that a war is just, legal and the last resort available. Yet three years ago this country was somehow led by the prime minister into war in Iraq where few, if any, of these requirements were met.

It would have been nice if the American brass had spoken up a little more forcefully in this matter.

Before the invasion, regime change was never cited as a reason for going to war. Indeed, Mr Blair insisted that regime change was not, nor ever could be, a reason for going to war. Had such a justification been fully debated in parliament, it is exceedingly unlikely that the necessary political support would have been forthcoming. It was the apparent need to defend ourselves against a dire threat - so vividly described by Mr Blair in the Commons - that finally won the political argument.

(...)

It is not a sufficient excuse for Mr Blair to say that he acted in good faith and that his decisions were based on the intelligence he had been given. For it is the clear responsibility of people in his position to test intelligence. No intelligence can ever be taken at face value. Indeed it is negligent so to do.

So much for President Bush's "failures of intelligence." Everyone knows wars are fought as a policy decision, not triggered by some level of intelligence information on potential threats. If that were the case, the U.S. would be fighting 10 or 12 countries at a time--all the time.

Mr Blair is an able barrister who should relish the opportunity to put his side of the case. No one can undo the decision to go to war. But the impeachment of Mr Blair is now something I believe must happen if we are to rekindle interest in the democratic process.

This is where Mr. Bush falls far short. He is not able. He is not a barrister. He doesn't relish having to defend his policies.

And he gives not a whit about the democratic process.