Reinventing A War Criminal

Britain’s most despised and discredited man ended his
10 year reign June 27 when he stepped down from office
transferring his ruling Labor Party’s leadership to
successor Gordon Brown. He had no choice because of
seething public displeasure over his allying with
George Bush’s illegal wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Most Brits oppose them, yet the vast majority of Labor
and Conservative MPs, including new prime minister
Gordon Brown, supported them early on, now may have
second thoughts, but are constrained by close
relations with Washington making them reluctant to
back down from what they once disingenuously trumpeted
as a noble cause.

That’s an open question, however, the London
Guardian’s Jonathan Steele posed and answered June 29
if Mr. Brown was listening. Steele’s message to "The
new man in No 10" is "seize the day....break with Bush
now....signal a fresh start by taking Britain out of
Iraq." Don’t bet on it. Steele says Brown is a
committed "Atlanticist." He’s likely weighing the
proper way to begin engaging his US ally. Steele
tells him how, pointing to other loyal NATO members as
examples. France and Germany sent no forces to Iraq,
and Italy, Spain and the Netherlands withdrew theirs.
It caused no rupture in relations with Washington for
any of them after some name calling at first. Why not
Britain now? Steele stresses how refreshing a policy
change at "No 10" would be "after the subservient
Blair years."

Tony Blair began his tenure May 2, 1997 with a
formidable approval rating as high at times as 90% but
ended it in the mid-20% range or lower. The same is
likely for George Bush already at 26% in the latest
Newsweek poll suggesting it’s even lower than that.
Immediately post-9/11, he was compared to Lincoln, FDR
and Churchill combined. It was laughable then and
seems ludicrous now for a hated man barely hanging on
and trying to avoid what growing numbers in the
country demand - his removal from office by
impeachment along with Vice-President Cheney.

The feeling of many in Britain is that by allying with
George Bush, Mr. Blair left a legacy of "dashed hopes
and big disappointments, of so much promised and so
little delivered." That’s in spite of helping advance
the Northern Ireland peace process, begun before he
took office, and that leaders in Ireland had lots more
to do with than him.

Just hours after standing down, the announcement
everyone knew in advance came, surprising no one but
angering most. Referring to the so-called Quartet,
the BBC reported June 27: "Tony Blair is to become a
Middle East envoy working on behalf of the US, Russia,
the UN and the EU." The London Guardian called him
"the Quartet’s fifth horseman," an appointment that
"beggars belief." In his new capacity, he’ll replace
former World Bank president James Wolfensohn who
resigned last year for lack of progress he never had a
chance to achieve in the first place.

Neither will Mr. Blair, nor will he try to, as Alvaro
de Soto, former UN Special Coordinator for the Middle
East Peace Process and envoy to the Quartet, explained
in his leaked End of Mission Report. It noted
Wolfensohn was originally to cover the entire peace
process, but what emerged for him was a narrowly
constricted role. De Soto said he was
"highjacked....by US envoys and (Secretary
Condoleezza) Rice." As a result, Wolfensohn stepped
down from his job in April, 2006 with "a more
jaundiced view of Israel (and US) policies than he had
upon entering."

Based on his sordid war criminal record post-9/11,
Tony Blair won’t likely have the qualms that got James
Wolfensohn to resign his job. He’s taking it to
reinvent himself, but that’s no more likely than
convincing carnivores to become vegetarians. He’ll
first visit Ramallah in the West Bank, showing up as a
Trojan horse fooling no one about what’s behind his
slick-tongued hypocrisy.

In its effort to obscure more than enlighten, BBC
omitted this explanation and could barely go beyond
saying Mr. Blair "faces an uphill task to address
Palestinian misgivings over his ties to Israel and the
US." Left out as well were the reasons why. How can a
war criminal reinvent himself as a peace envoy to the
region he waged war against and have any credibility
or hope of achieving anything. Further, how could he
do it when his brief is quite opposite public
pronouncements about it.

Under the false mantle of peacemaker, he’s
Washington’s man and the West’s envoy to Israel. His
job is to continue six decades of ethnic cleansing war
and repression against defenseless Palestinians,
support open conflict doing it if necessary, ally with
an illegitimate quisling Fatah government, and
outrageously claim he’s there seeking peace.

Tony Blair is a war maker, not a peacemaker. He’s a
criminal and, like George Bush and Dick Cheney, should
be held accountable for his crimes. He willfully
partnered with the Bush administration in its wars of
aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq and against the
occupied people of Palestine. He joined in cutting
off essential aid to the Palestinian people and
renounced its democratically elected Hamas government
without ever giving it a chance to prove itself. He
also supported Israel’s aggressive wars against
Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank, and, in short,
partnered in backing war and avoiding peace. He now
has a new title in his new job. His mission is the
same. He’ll bring no peace to the Middle East nor
does he intend to.

Blair’s appointment sends a clear message to the
region. Peace is not on the agenda nor will he help
Palestinians get what they want most - an end to 60
years of Israeli repression, discrimination,
occupation and colonization; freedom, justice, real
peace and security; a sovereign integral independent
Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital; and
the guaranteed right affirmed everyone in Article 13
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that:
"Everyone has the right to leave any country,
including his own, and return to his country." UN
Resolution 194 mandated Palestinians that right in
1948 and reaffirmed it in the General Assembly 130
times with near-universal consensus except for Israel,
the US and a Pacific Island state or two pathetically
going along at times.

>From "No 10" to the Middle East - A Record of Shame

Tony Blair is despised and discredited at home, hated
across the world, and the Arab street condemns him.
Appointing him peace envoy to the region he warred
against is a galling insult to its people, all others
of conscience and all humanity. Nonetheless, he has
the job and started off on his last day in office June
27 telling his Parliament: "The absolute priority is
to try to give effect to what is now the consensus
across the international community - that the only way
of bringing stability and peace to the Middle East is
a two-state solution."

The London Independent’s veteran Middle East
correspondent, Robert Fisk, summed up the feelings of
many in his article dated June 23 titled: "How can
Blair possibly be given this job?" He began it saying
"I suppose that astonishment is not the word for it.
Stupefaction comes to mind. I simply could not
believe my ears in Beirut (where Fisk is based) when a
phone call told me that Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara
(where British forces were defeated by the Ottomans in
WW I) was going to create ’Palestine.’ " Fisk
continued calling Blair "vain, deceitful, a proven
liar, a trumped up lawyer (with) the blood of
thousands of Arab (people) on his hands."

He’ll not be welcomed or aided with a brief
constricting him within vaguely stated areas of
Palestinian governance, economics and security rather
than letting him take on the entire range of issues
causing the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Unstated
is what his real mission is that Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert set straight by calling Mr. Blair
"A true friend of the State of Israel." Israeli
foreign minister Tzipi Livni added: "Tony Blair is a
very well-appreciated figure in Israel," and an
official Israeli government statement said Blair "will
(be) provide(d) with all necessary assistance in order
for him to carry out his duties."

Indeed he will, and it’s to support Israeli interests
by denying Palestinians theirs. Governance means by
the illegitimate Fatah; economics is funding it with
weapons and materials against Hamas as well as
propping it up financially; and security is by hard
line street enforcement and continued conflict aimed
at routing the elected government and installing a
quisling one over the entire Occupied Palestinian
Territories (OPT).

Tony Blair is the right man for the wrong job and the
wrong man for the kind of job he should be sent to do.
He has no interest in peace and a long sordid record
of contempt for Palestinian rights and justice from
his committed one-sided support for Israel. His job
is to further the concocted "clash of civilizations"
against "heathen Arab terrorists" blaming the victims
for crimes he helped commit against them. He feigns
helping Palestinians by allying with Fatah’s
traitorous Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank while
continuing to condemn and marginalize the
democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza.

Abbas conspired with Israel and the US going back to
Olso or earlier. He partnered with his
western-supported paramilitary warlord muscleman,
Mohammed Dahlan, for war on Hamas hoping to unseat it
violently but failed. He then brazenly dismissed the
legitimate Hamas government June 17, appointing an
illegitmate "emergency" quisling one in its place.
He’s its president and western darling and former
World Bank and IMF official Salam Fayyad was made
prime minister. Writer and editor Rami Khoury calls it
a "government of the imagination." He also said
"Appointing....Blair....is something like appointing
Emperor Nero to be the chief fireman of Rome," and add
to that the notion of having the fox look after the
henhouse.

He’s mandated to back Fatah in its role as Israel’s
enforcer and deny Palestinians any chance for freedom,
equity and justice. Tony Blair will go to the region
in a limited subservient role for Israel and the US.
He’s to play frontman shoring up support for Abbas,
Fayyad, and Dahlan, work against the interests of the
legitimate Palestinian government and its people, and
leave the heavy lifting undermining efforts to
Washington and Jerusalem. He’s going in spite of
being totally discredited in the region by people who
despise him. He did nothing for them nor will he ever,
yet this arrogant man claims he’s going to bring real
peace to the region.

Fisk refers to "His unique blend of ruthlessness and
dishonesty." The Arab street understands and despises
him for it, but his agenda "go(es) down quite well
with our local Arab dictators." Fisk refers to his
"slippery use of language....with appeals for
restraint on all sides....and moderation" while
backing what US State Department spokesman Sean
McCormack characterizes as a "well-governed state."
That’s one with hard line street enforcement and what
Fisk calls "lots of (tough) ’terror laws.’ "

It’s a perfect setup for repressive rule, denying
Palestinians all civil and human rights doing it.
Blair’s the right frontman - from war criminal to
street enforcer in the name of peace he has contempt
for. The irony is galling. Applied to him, it’s
"Beyond (the kind of) Chutzpah" Middle East expert
Norman Finkelstein wrote about in his book by that
title. Watch for him later to be nominated for a Nobel
Peace Prize for his "efforts." If it gets it, he’ll
join the ugly ranks of past war criminal honorees like
Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Shimon Perez, Yitzhak
Rabin, and Kofi Annan in a pathetic weak-kneed
supporting role. Mr. Blair will fit right in.

Back Home in London, It’s Business As Usual Scaring
the Public Twice Over

Episode number one:

On his second day in office, new British prime
minister Gordon Brown "was thrust into a new terrorism
alert" as the New York Times claimed June 29. London
police claimed they found two Mercedes Benz cars
"filled with (a significant quantity of) gasoline and
nails and a number of gas canisters parked close
together in an area known for packed night-clubs and
late-night bars," according to the Times. Police also
claimed they found and defused an "explosive device"
in the area overnight. At once and with no evidence,
Al-Queda was named suspect number one, heightened by
claims that had these bombs detonated they would have
caused great harm. Peter Clark, Britain’s most senior
counterterrorism police officer, said "there could
have been significant injury or loss of life."

So what to do? Round up the usual kinds of suspects
and pin it on them, Muslim ones, of course. The New
York Times reported July 2 "investigations (were)
moving (ahead) at breakneck speed, the police expanded
their hunt on Sunday (July 1) for the (London and
Glasgow) ’plotters’....the British government called
the work of terrorists linked to Al-Queda. Officers
raided homes in three cities" bringing the total
number apprehended to five (plus three more since).
"Police said they had recovered a ’rich trove’ of
evidence" but presented none beyond claiming earlier
to have found gasoline, canisters and nails, hardly
the makings of a major terror attack.

Front and center Gordon Brown beginning to earn his
bona fides saying "As the police and security services
have said on so many occasions, we face a serious and
continuous threat to our security. (This incident
shows) the need for us to be vigilant at all times and
the public to be alert at any potential incidents."
Sounding much like George Bush and Tony Blair, he
added Britain "will not yield" or be intimidated by a
threat from "people who are associated with al-Queda.
We will not allow anyone to undermine our British way
of life." Counterterrorism expert Sajjan Gohel
explained in a telephone interview he didn’t think it
was "a coincidence (this happened) the day after"
Brown took office replacing Tony Blair. A familiar
aroma from it is emerging.

Episode number two:

In case the public missed the June 29 event, it was
repeated the following day at Glasgow Airport,
Scotland. Here’s how the New York Times reported it:
"British officials raised the country’s terrorism
threat alert to its highest level on Saturday (June
30) after two men slammed an S.U.V. into entrance
doors at Glasgow Airport and turned the vehicle into a
potentially lethal fireball" 38 hours after police
"uncovered two cars in London ’rigged to explode’ with
gasoline, gas canisters and nails." For the Times,
the claimed presence of these items in the cars
constitutes their being "rigged."

Here’s the BBC version. Notice the important
difference: "Blazing car crashes into airport" it
headlined and continued saying "A car which was ’on
fire’ has been driven at the main terminal building at
Glasgow Airport. Eyewitnesses have described a Jeep
Cherokee being driven at speed (undefined) towards the
building ’with flames coming out’ from underneath."
The report continued saying "The car didn’t actually
explode. There were a few pops and bangs which
presumably was the (burning) petrol." With no
corroborating evidence, the report quoted a
"maintenance worker" saying he believed the men
"deliberately tried to set the car on fire (and) It
looked like they had Molotov cocktails with them."

Little attention was paid to the fact no evidence of
them was found, one of the two men in the car was
badly burned (a witness claimed by self-dousing with
petrol), in obvious pain, required hospitalization,
yet both were taken away in handcuffs. They’re both
now being linked, with no corroborating evidence, to
the "rigged to explode" cars found in London.

What do we make of these incidents? Do they sound
like terror attacks warranting closing down parts of
London and Glasgow Airport as well as heightening
security alerts across the UK and US? Did they
provide the government emergencies committee Cobra
justifiable reason to raise the nation’s threat alert
to its highest level where it might be put for an
impending major terrorist event, invasion or nuclear
attack? Or might there be another reason behind it?
And is it possible the Glasgow incident was just an
unfortunate accident or the work of a disturbed or
angry solo perpetrator or two? Also, might normal
items like nails, gasoline and canisters found in
unattended parked London cars have had nothing to do
with mischief? Some suggested answers below.

Since 9/11, Britain, under Tony Blair, chose to
partner with the Bush administration’s "war on
terrorism," leaving aside the question of its
legitimacy. Waging that type war or any other
requires public support, and what better way to get it
than by elevating fear levels with an outside threat
made to seem real. Enter Al-Queda and "Enemy Number
One" Osama bin Laden. Follow them up with
unsubstantiated terror threats or episodes labeled
terrorism. Then add color-coded alerts and
round-the-clock hyperventilating news coverage with
scary headlines at strategic moments like winning
public support for repressive legislation, diffusing
dissent, re-stoking public angst about terror threats
so people don’t forget them, and giving a new
administration cover to continue the same "war on
terrorism" hard line agenda as the previous one.

Isn’t the timing of the above British "terror
incidents" ironic at least? Don’t they raise
suspicions by coincidentally occurring on days two and
three of the new Gordon Brown administration at a time
his predecessor’s was hated? Might it also not be
important to check the record of past terror scares on
both sides of the Atlantic and examine their
legitimacy in hindsight? When it’s done, threats that
headlined for days or longer nearly always turned out
to be fakes based on cooked up intelligence or
unsubstantiated claims. They continue being used,
however, because they work. By the time they’re
exposed as phony, it’s on to the next cooked up plot.
Note Exhibit A, B and C below plus an additional
Exhibit D:

Exhibit A:

There’s no need reconstructing the phony
disinformation campaign about WMDs in the run-up to
the Iraq war. Case closed on that one.

Exhibit B:

Around Christmas, 2003, Air France got stand down
orders based on claimed evidence Al-Queda and Taliban
operatives were on Flight 68. It was later exposed as
a lie, but it kept Los Angeles International Airport
on "maximum deployment" throughout the holiday period
and FBI officials working round the clock. The nation
was put on "high risk" Code Orange alert, six
heavy-traffic Air France flights were cancelled for
nothing, and the public was scammed. The scheme was
all based on faked intelligence to heighten fear at a
strategic moment when the administration felt it was
needed.

This happens repeatedly like it did in Exhibit C:

In early June, hyped fake stories made headlines about
a plot to blow up JFK Airport’s jet fuel tanks and
supply lines some outrageous reports claimed would
have been "more devastating then 9/11" if it happened.
It never did, of course, no crime was committed, but
suspects were charged based on conversations between a
"source" (identified as an unnamed drugs trafficker)
and defendants. It was all faked to heighten fear
again, and the "source" was willing to say anything in
return for leniency on his pending sentence.

In his 2005 book, "America’s War on Terrorism," Michel
Chossudovsky explains the notion of a "Universal
Adversary." It’s being used to prepare the public for
a "real life emergency situation" under which no
political or social dissent will be tolerated. Other
claimed "terrorist" events may be being used as
prologue for a much greater one coming at a future
time. If it happens, it will trigger a Code Red Alert
in the US and something similar in Britain signaling
the highest threat level of severe or imminent
terrorist or other attack preparing the public for
possible imposition of martial law and suspension of
the Constitution.

Notice how close Britain is to that now in the wake of
two claimed terrorist incidents on June 29 and 30. As
stated above, the country was placed on highest level
terrorism alert, based on two incidents causing only
minor damage from one of them and no substantiation
either one was related to terrorism. It’s likely,
hindsight again will prove neither one was, but the
damaging effects of heightened fear by them will have
done their job. Gordon Brown is now empowered to be
as hard line as his predecessor and will likely have
broad support for it in the name of national security.
Sound suspicious?

It should surprise no one if one or more similar
incidents soon erupt on this side of the Atlantic.
The Bush administration needs to reinforce the terror
threat at a time popular support for its foreign wars
and homeland agenda is waning. What better way to do
it than by faking terror threats to heighten fear
levels. What easier way is there to win over Congress
and get the public to support any homeland measures
put in place to "keep us safe."

Exhibit D:

On July 1, ABC News reported a secret "US law
enforcement report, prepared for the Department of
Homeland Security, warns that al-Queda is planning a
terror ’spectacular’ this summer." The source is a
"senior (always unnamed US) official." The report
indicated a similarity to intelligence warnings in
summer, 2001 prior to September 11. It also mentioned
warnings of the Glasgow Airport incident never sent to
the Scottish government. Odd or by intent?

Do present and past terror scare incidents raise
suspicions the public is about to be scammed again but
this time end up losing what few precious rights
remain? People never realize it until it’s too late to
matter. Even worse, they never seem able to
understand the cost. They better learn because the
price for inattention and lack of diligence keeps
rising and may soon become too high. Edmund Burke
warned us that "The only thing necessary for the
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Let’s
hope enough of them in America and the UK got the
message.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour
at TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central
time.