Populism in Europe: Rise in populism threatens European democracy, warns Tony Blair think tank - by Gavin Gordon

Europe has seen a surge in support for “populist” political parties which threatens to destabilise democracy across the continent, a report by Tony Blair’s think tank has warned.

The survey by the former Prime Minister’s Institute for Global Change found the share of the vote taken by populist parties from both right and left has almost trebled since 2000 – rising from 8.5 to 24.1 per cent.

Over the same period, it said the number of European countries with populist parties participating in government has doubled from seven to 14 – creating an unprecedented “populist belt” from the Baltic to the Aegean.

Read more at: Rise in populism threatens European democracy, warns Tony Blair think tank | The Independent

Populism: Rise in populism threatens European democracy, warns Tony Blair think tank

Europe has seen a surge in support for “populist” political parties which threatens to destabilise democracy across the continent, a report by Tony Blair’s think tank has warned.

The survey by the former Prime Minister’s Institute for Global Change found the share of the vote taken by populist parties from both right and left has almost trebled since 2000 – rising from 8.5 to 24.1 per cent.

Over the same period, it said the number of European countries with populist parties participating in government has doubled from seven to 14 – creating an unprecedented “populist belt” from the Baltic to the Aegean.

Read more at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/populism-tony-blair-think-tank-uropean-democracy-global-change-p-a8132681.html

BRITAIN-BREXIT: Tony Blair predicts future of Britain once they get rid of Brexit

Read more at:
https://extra.ie/2019/04/30/news/brexit/tony-blair-predicts-future-of-uk-once-we-get-rid-of-this-brexit-thing

Britain: Tony Blair says second referendum is the best way to go if Brexit plan fails in parliament

EU chiefs should prepare for second Brexit referendum, ex-UK PM Tony Blair tells euronews

Read more at: 

https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/14/eu-chiefs-should-prepare-for-second-brexit-referendum-ex-uk-pm-tony-blair-tells-euronews

Britain: Ditch Meaningful Vote And Back Second Brexit Referendum, Tony Blair Tells Theresa May - by Rachel Wearmouth

Referendum 2 - Britain's future generations can't be sacrificed

Theresa May should ditch the seemingly-doomed parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal and immediately switch to backing a second referendum, Tony Blair has said. 

The former prime minister said a re-run should include just two options: remain “with a renewed offer from Europe” on immigration and a Canada-style hard Brexit.

The Labour grandee said May’s only route out of Brexit gridlock was to “go back to the people” as a Commons compromise was becoming increasingly impossible.

It comes as the deal the government has negotiated with the EU faces a resounding defeat, with as many as 100 MPs – from Labour, the SNP and May’s own backbenches – set to reject it in a showdown on Tuesday.

Blair went on: “Personally I don’t see what the point is of plunging along and being defeated very heavily.

Read more: Ditch Meaningful Vote And Back Second Brexit Referendum, Tony Blair Tells Theresa May | HuffPost UK

Britain-Brexit: British Brexit proposal doomed to fail, says former British PM Tony Blair

Via euronews: UK’s Brexit proposal ‘doomed to fail’, says ex-PM Tony Blair – Exclusive

Read more at: 

http://www.euronews.com/2018/09/02/uk-s-brexit-proposal-doomed-to-fail-says-ex-pm-tony-blair

Tony Blair: If Brexit is a disaster we must have right to change our mind says Tony Blair -

Britain hurtles towards a triggering of Article 50 next March, with no clear idea of what life outside the EU, and especially outside the European single market, really looks like.

Nonetheless, any hint of braking or slowing down is condemned in some quarters as a treasonous denial of the will of the people.

The British people "have spoken", we are reminded.

That is true but no reason for us now to shut up and go along with whatever version of Brexit we end up negotiating, good or bad. We can carry on speaking and debating. This is democracy.

 Our "will" is not some immutable, semi-hallowed expression of opinion that, once given, cannot be changed or adjusted irrespective of facts which emerge that might make a reasonable person doubt the wisdom of the course we have taken.

First, let us deal with the argument that following the vote of June 23 we can choose between different types of Brexit - not that the choice is ours alone because it depends also on our European partners - but that we cannot choose no Brexit

We have to respect that people voted as they did. But we have to believe in the people's innate sense, that they're also open to a better argument in the light of the facts as they come to light.

The world is dangerous right now, not simply for all the conventional reasons. It is dangerous because Western politics is at risk of losing its way and its character.

Just look at this presidential election in the US to see it.

Brexit has always meant more than Brexit.

So I come back to the central point. Keep our options fully open.
Above all, stay firm. We're a sovereign people. We can make up our mind; and we can change our mind. And whether we do, is up to us.

EU-Digest

US Foreign Policy: ISIS and European Refugees Crises A Direct Result of Iraqi War

Blair and Bush launch Iraq war based on false information:

Why are Governments keeping silent about the undeniable fact that the terrorism and security crises Europe is facing comes as a direct result of the Iraqi war.

Also,  as more and more innocent victims die as a result of terrorism in Europe and around the world, Governments need to recognize the facts and identify the culprits who provided false information to the so-called "coalition of the willing" which resulted in  more than a million civilian and military deaths.

During the years following the aftermath of the Iraqi war it should be crystal clear to our political leaders that military actions are not the answer to solving any political crises  So far this strategy has only increased the security problems around the worls and resulted in a very unstable political and social environment..

Across Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey people have crossed borders and traveled many kilometres within their own country to find respite from war.

Millions have crossed continents and have ended up in Europe seeking that same respite. By and large it's taken Europe by surprise. Opinions vary on how to deal with the crisis. Some say Europe and the US should step up. Others say the rich Gulf states should use their enormous wealth to help.

The fact remains: why is no Government leader in the US or Europe backing the obvious that a strategic mistake was made by the invasion and occupation of Iraq?  Can our Governments still be trusted ?

March 2003 was the pivotal point. Based on controversial evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the war drums beat loudly.

The WMD claim was eventually publicly discredited by the CIA's own Iraq survey group report . That report proved whispers and intelligence community doubts from the time that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

But it wasn't just those who questioned the evidence. Mass opposition from the British and American public concluded in marches in various Western capitals opposing the war.

Those voices went ignored and in March 2003, the then US president George Bush Bush  and the British prime minister Tony Blait  met in the Azores, Portugal, with the Spanish prime minister, and set into motion events that now include the dead body of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi that washed up on a Turkish beach.

The Arab Spring was officially launched when Mohamed Morsi, who became Egypt's first democratically elected president, was toppled by the military in 2013. Initially it was not religious or even violent in nature.

It was popular anger at dictators propped up by the West coupled with frustration at the lack of economic development.

Down the dictators fell, and with them, decades of religious suppression. That religious fervour found expression in anger at the US' role in Iraq.

Suddenly religious groups were able to speak freely, and freely they did, mainly about the US and its role in the region.

Then when the protests reached Syria, President Bashar al-Assad knew he didn't want to suffer the same fate as his Arab counterparts.

The West quickly abandoned him and said no negotiations while he was in power. Left with little choice he moved on those that opposed him in a violent and bloody manner.

The Iraq war was the war too far - the one that has changed the Middle East.

It was the war that solidified and unified disparate young men from different countries into following the path of violent jihad.

Had the Iraq war not happened, then Saddam Hussein would have been contained as he was.
This dictator was a threat to freedom and to his own people, but was no longer a threat to his neighbours.

The leaders of ISIL and other radical groups would have found death in Afghanistan or prison elsewhere. However, hindsight and "what if" are the words of those that have the luxury of not living in a tent.

The Iraq war did happen.

The refugee crisis is happening.

Now the only questions the world perhaps should be asking is how we can bring about a political solution to the war in Syria and how we bring all sides to the table.

What the refugee crisis has done is force the Western European public to think. Whether they can force their governments to act and bring about a solution is another question.

The architects of the Iraq war still say their actions had nothing to do with the current crisis.

It is high time that the US, EU members states and other Nations, including China and Russia step up to the plate and let international justice take its course by prosecuting those who lied about the weapons of mass destruction, for war crimes. 

In the same breath, these nations under auspices of the United Nations should also declare the Middle East a nuclear and military free zone and weapon sales to this area should be prohibited.

The NATO, which has outlived its cold war purpose should be disbanded,  and replaced by a Multi-National Development Network to initially benefit the populations of Middle Eastern and North African Nations, and eventually also other nations ravaged by famine, war or tribal conflicts.

All this might sound like a utopian fantasy or unattainable dream, but it is certainly worth the effort and a far more productive proposition than enriching the weapons industry which is killing millions of innocent civilians around the world today.

EU-Digest

Poland: Nato summit and the Chilcot Report: will the big lie of the Iraq War also be discussed before NATO starts another confrontation?

NATO and the Chilcot Report

The British Newspaper "The Guardian" reported NATO leaders flew into Warsaw for a two-day summit with the hope of steadying nerves following the UK’s vote to leave the EU and restoring western cohesion in the face of the challenge from Russia and terrorism.

The summit will authorise the stationing of four multinational combat battalions in Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and is expected to announce a new stage of readiness of a missile defence shield in eastern Europe. Alliance officials are presenting the creation of the 1,000-strong battalions, led by the US, the UK, Canada and Germany, as a carefully calibrated response to Moscow’s more assertive military stance and intervention in Ukraine.

They insist that the defense system is intended to counter a missile threat from Iran and Syria, not to blunt Russia’s deterrent. But analysts warn that there is a risk of Russia overreacting to Nato’s moves, fuelling escalation on the latter’s tense eastern border.

The summit, which began today Friday, July 8, is being held in Poland’s national stadium on the east bank of the Vistula river. In this location, during the summer of 1944, Stalin halted the advance of the Soviet army long enough for the Nazis to obliterate a mass uprising by the Polish resistance in Warsaw.

The Polish government has declared a high state of alert, with 18 presidents and 21 heads of government due to converge on the capital. For the duration of the summit, which will involve foreign ministers on Friday and heads of state and government on Saturday, boats will be banned along a section of the river near the stadium and light aircraft will be prohibited from flying through the country’s airspace within a 62 mile (100km) radius.

On the eve of the summit, Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda, and the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, insisted that Brexit would not affect the strength of the alliance.

“The EU and Nato are quite separate organizations,” Duda told journalists. “The UK is one of the strongest members of Nato, and I have no doubt that its participation and cooperation in the alliance will continue at least at the same level.”

Even though no mention was made at all by NATO, the US or any of the NATO members prior to this meeting about the Chilcot Report, one can only hope the attending participants in this NATO meeting will also address this "historical" big lie used by the US to drag Britain and other European countries into the Iraq war, and obviously also NATO's role in this lie.  

It certainly would be productive to do so, specially before, and if, some of the latest proposed NATO plans to reinforce NATO troops on Russia's Baltic borders are put into effect. Not doing so could once again drag the EU and other NATO member countries into another disastrous conflict, like the one in Iraq, with all its horrendous, and ongoing consequences (massive refugee problems and security issues) experienced by the EU today. Issues which also indirectly resulted in BREXIT.

EU-Digest

Chilcot Report: ‘US and British military interventions have been catastrophic for West’s true interests’

Many people have suspected there was a plan to topple countries, such as Iraq, that are also enemies of Israel, the US, and UK, security analyst and former UK army officer Charles Shoebridge told RT.

The Chilcot Report on the UK's involvement in the Iraq war was finally released, after seven years of investigation. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said he apologized for the mistakes made in planning and executing the intervention but he stood by the decision to go to war. He also dismissed accusations that his decision undermined the UN Security Council's authority.

RT: Blair says Russia and France would have vetoed Iraq intervention at the Security Council. So is that fair justification for his decision to invade Iraq?

Charles Shoebridge: No, if anything, it is saying publicly as indeed many of us were saying at the time that: “It has been ruled unlawful, but therefore I am going to go ahead anyway.”

After all, other than self-defense, which is clear and was clear at the time - notwithstanding how it was marketed at the time – that there was no imminent danger from Saddam Hussein; notwithstanding how much of the intelligent community, much of our politicians, and indeed much of the UK and US media tried to spin it into some kind of imminent threat.

Therefore, there was no imminent treat, so self-defense couldn’t be invoked. It would have to be by a UN resolution in the Security Council to allow that action to take place. Of course Blair knew that. But in some ways possibly France, particularly at the time and Russia even may perhaps unwittingly played into Tony Blair and George Bush’s hands by announcing that so publicly beforehand that they would veto it if it went to a UN Security Council resolution.

The reason they were going to veto, remember, is because the UN’s own arms inspectors hadn’t completed their work. They wanted to give a chance to Hans Blix and others to find those weapons that the US and the UK were claiming existed. Hans Blix and the inspectors were saying at the time to the US and the UK intelligence services: “Give us that information, give us that intelligence.

We will go and check this out!” That intelligence was never forthcoming. That in itself, along with all the other aspects that are contained in this report, many of which are still to emerge, because it is still going to have very close scrutiny. It is of course questionable as to the extent to which that intelligence was reliable, and whether people knew it was reliable at the time.

RT: Tony Blair also said he regretted that parliament had voted against intervention in Syria. What do you make of that?

CS: It is an interesting line in one of his memos from 2001 – as far back as that to Bush – saying that shortly after 9/11 seeing the opportunity to attack Saddam; saying in many ways it could be interpreted as: “Ok, we’re looking at toppling Saddam, we can move on to Syria and Iran at a later stage.”

Many people have suspected over the years that there was a plan, of which Iraq was just a part, to topple countries that by coincidence, some might say, are also enemies of Israel, of the US, and the UK, notwithstanding their own geopolitical situations.

But that aside, it is really clear that much of the intelligence we know from Chilcot, that it was badly assessed; it was ill-thought-out and ill-informed intelligence in the first place. It was rushed; it wasn’t correctly assessed and analyzed properly.

It will still leave many, including so many in the intelligence community, who will ask the question, which doesn’t seem to have been addressed, or at least the accusation has not been made by Chilcot, as far as I can see at this stage whether there was any deliberate  falsification of that intelligence; whether MI6 particularly and… other actors within the US and UK intelligence establishment deliberately falsified or exaggerated intelligence to support the government of the day and Tony Blair in a decision already made to go to war.

It seems that in many ways the security services have been let off lightly, because they have been condemned not for dishonesty, deceit, or perhaps even for illegal activity – which many suggest has taken place – but for gross incompetence, which at the end of the day that intelligence – some would argue and argued at the time, was intended to justify going to war.  Once that war decision was taken and war happened, of course it doesn’t matter if subsequently it was found that intelligence was faulty, or even didn’t exist, because some would argue that the whole purpose of it was to justify the war, not be the real reason behind it.

When US and UK forces invaded Iraq, the country had not one weapon with which to resist, and had been totally disarmed and starved down by the sanctions, said Sara Flounders the head of the International Action Center.

RT: Would do you expect to be Washington’s reaction to the inquiry? Do you expect anyone to be held accountable for what happened?'

Sara Flounders: Of course the US wants to bury this immediately and Pentagon officials refuse to study it. But the real question the people of the world should be asking is: “When do the war crimes trials start?”  Clearly this war by every count, and once again confirmed in this report, was a criminal violation of international law by every measure and by every standard.

Any discussion that doesn’t involve a war crimes trial against these criminals that destroyed Iraq and led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, left a whole society in ruins, and has led to the terror that we face on a global scale today. Anyone who is isn’t asking that question and is going to push this off for further study or bury it – is not in any way serious, or really part of the cover-up.

This report which was to take a year, took seven years, 12 volumes. It is ridiculous and yet it must be used as a basis to demand accountability of these criminals in Britain and certainly here in the US.

RT: How likely is it that the US will hold a similar investigation?
SF: The US won’t discuss their criminal conduct in anyway whatsoever and they have refused to account for this war. I don’t expect them to respond to this, or to their use of torture; their use of tens of thousands of people detained in the war on terror; their massive destruction of Iraq, of Afghanistan, of Libya – on all of these they are silent. Yet, I think this is a time for the people of the world to demand that they be charged as criminals.

Read more: ‘US and British military interventions have been catastrophic for West’s true interests’ — RT Op-Edge

US Iraq War: Chilcot Report: U.S. 'Pushed Britain Into Iraq War,' Says Former Ambassador to U.N. - by Lucy Clarke-Billings

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight program Wednesday, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, U.K. ambassador to the U.N. in 2003, said it would have been “much safer” to give weapons inspectors in Iraq another six months to continue their work before intervening
.
“I felt that at the time, the British felt it at the time, I think the prime minister felt it at the time, that the Americans pushed us into going into military action too early,” Sir Jeremy said.

“The Americans weren’t genuine about it—but the prime minister was genuine about it—because he thought there was a chance that Saddam could be made to back down before we had to use military force.

Read more: Chilcot Report: U.S. 'Pushed Britain Into Iraq War,' Says Former Ambassador to U.N.

Britain: Tony Blair unrepentant as Chilcot gives crushing Iraq war verdict - by Luke Harding

A defiant Tony Blair defended his decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 following the publication of a devastating report by Sir John Chilcot, which mauled the ex-prime minister’s reputation and said that at the time of the 2003 invasion Saddam Hussein “posed no imminent threat”.

Looking tired, his voice sometimes croaking with emotion, Blair described his decision to join the US attack as “the hardest, most momentous, most agonizing decision I took in 10 years as British prime minister”.

He said he felt “deeply and sincerely ... the grief and suffering of those who lost ones they loved in Iraq”.

The head of the Iraq war inquiry said the UK’s decision to attack and occupy a sovereign state for the first time since the second world war was a decision of “utmost gravity”. Chilcot described Saddam as “undoubtedly a brutal dictator” who had repressed and murdered many of his own people and attacked his neighbors.

But he was withering about Blair’s choice to sign up to a military plan drawn up in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 by the US president, George W Bush, and his neo-con team. Chilcot said: “We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

Overall, Chilcot’s report amounts to arguably the most scathing official verdict on any modern British prime minister. It implicitly lumps Blair in the same category as Anthony Eden, who invaded Egypt in a failed attempt to gain control of the Suez canal. Chilcot’s 2.6m-word, 12-volume report was released on Wednesday morning, together with a 145-page executive summary.

Note EU-Digest: Tony Blair needs to be put in jail together with Bush Rumsfeld and Cheney. They (the US) are the root cause for our European refugee and terrorism problems which came as a direct result of the IRAQ war and US's Middle East policies..

It is high time the US Congress also puts together an investigation committee to investigate Bush, Cheney and Rumsfelds role in the IRAQ war and their lies to the US population and the countries who were called upon to support the US in this disastrous war.

Read more: Tony Blair unrepentant as Chilcot gives crushing Iraq war verdict | UK news | Th

Britain Chilcot Report: Blair Should Be 'Stripped Of All Honors' if He Lied About Iraq

Tony Blair should be “stripped of all honors” if the long-awaited Chilcot Report reveals he lied about Iraq, a senior Tory backbencher has said.

The 2.6 million word-long inquiry, due to be published Wednesday, is expected to criticize the former Labour prime minister for misleading Parliament and the public over the 2003 conflict.

The report collected evidence from more than 150 witnesses and over 200 cabinet meetings, and has analyzed 150,000 government documents.

Note EU-Digest: When will the US Republican controlled congress set up a similar investigation inquiry for the former US President George Bush who committed the same crimes which ultimately caused all the refugee mess the EU finds itself in today. 

Read more: Chilcot Report: Blair Should Be 'Stripped Of All Honors' if He Lied About Iraq

Brexit: Michael Moore: 'Britain Is A Toxic Place... Should Vote To Stay In The EU'

The Oscar-winning documentary-maker was promoting his new film, ‘Where to Invade Next’, which sees him visiting European countries to claim their best features for his home nation.

The UK does not feature in the film as it has nothing to offer against the likes of Italian holiday entitlement, Norwegian prisons and French school lunches. Michael Moore explained:

“It was a conscious and purposeful decision to not come to the UK. I mean this with respect, we didn’t feel like there was anything left to learn here. And that you had given up on yourselves.”

In particular, the Guardian reports, Mr. Moore cited Tony Blair’s support for allying Britain to the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the poisoning of the UK’s reputation, saying:

“You may be over Tony Blair. We’re not. We expected George W Bush to start that war. That wasn’t a surprise. But he was able to do it because you – the Brits, under Tony Blair – gave him back-up. You made it possible for him to say: ‘Hey, it’s not just me!’

“Honestly, if Blair hadn’t supported that war, I don’t know that [Bush] could have pulled it off. We’re not quite over the damage that this country has done to us and to the world by so-called liberals here voting and revoting for an individual who was anything but a liberal.

“This is a toxic place.
”
Mr. Moore did suggest that the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader atoned for some of the country’s sins, claiming: “that’s getting back to what Labour stood for, its roots. I wish Tony Benn were still around to see this.”

Nevertheless he identified what he sees as a further blot on the UK’s record, namely people voting for “bonkers” Brexit in the upcoming referendum.

“Why would you do this? You saved Europe. Europe today is, in large part, because of you, the UK. Why would you want to leave?

“Because, see, what are the arguments I’ve had to listen to this morning already on the news?  ‘It costs too much money…it’s 50 billion pounds a day…immigrants, immigrants, immigrants, immigrants…’
“Really? You know, that’s not who you are.”

Mr. Moore went on to draw comparisons between the EU referendum and November’s U.S. Presidential Election. He believes it likely that Brexiteers are similar to Donald Trump supporters, being more dedicated to their cause and therefore more likely to vote.

“I’m guessing the majority of Brits don’t want to leave the European Union,” he said. “But on election day who’s going to be out there? The haters.”

Read more: Michael Moore: 'Britain Is A Toxic Place... Should Vote To Stay In The EU'

Iraq: 10 years ago we told you not to wage war in Iraq, who will stop the bloodshed now? – by Faiza Iqbal

It was a chilly February morning in 2003 when my sister and I trudged into central London with a couple of school friends to voice our utter revulsion at the upcoming Iraq invasion that was being planned by Tony Blair and George Bush.

Where people from all walks of life; the elderly, the disabled, the very young and very frail out in the millions to scream at the top of their lungs,

 ‘No war! No war!’

The atmosphere was electric and people rallied together with a unified message knowing full well that war would completely destroy the region.

So more than ten years later, it seems that our worst fears have only come true with a terrorist faction called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) sweeping across Iraq in a most brutal manner; beheading anyone or anything that stands in their way. This particular group is so deadly in their methods that even Al-Qaeda has tried to avoid being associated with them.

Iraq’s two main cities, Mosul and Tikrit, are now under militant control and yesterday, a third city, Tal Afar has been invaded by these military fighters who are trying to merge their group from Syria and Iraq to form a separate nation for Sunnis. Whatever their plans, the presiding Iraqi army and police force have been powerless to stop the invaders and have even resorted to fleeing their posts as the militants now have their eyes set on Baghdad.

So it came as no surprise when this week the US and the UK ruled out military invasion to support those helpless Iraqis caught up in this storm. It angered me so much because the Americans and the British were supposed to help the Iraqis when they originally invaded in 2003 from a supposed mad, tyrant.  Instead, their country has been destroyed by 10 years of war and now looks set to be embroiled in even more bloodshed.

Tony Blair, refusing to take responsibility for his botched Iraq invasion, now says the militant uprising had nothing to do with him, instead, pinning it on an overflow of terrorist factions from Syria. The whole basis of the 2003 Iraq invasion was on the pretence of weapons of mass destruction being discovered which were, of course, never found. When Iraq’s leadership was overtaken by a Shia government, a spate of violent car bombings began which have continued to terrorise the Iraqis.

The car bombings pale in significance compared to the carnage that Iraq is now witnessing. This instability now threatens to destroy the region and could even result in a split in the country as a way of preventing further sectarian violence.

In a surprise move, Barack Obama is now considering the prospect of talks with Iran, its archenemy, as a way of finding some way to resolve the crisis. However, time is of the essence and the militants are advancing at a rapid pace, and with extreme precision towards Baghdad and its surrounding cities. It is, of course, needless to say that the oil fields that America is so desperately trying to protect remain relatively unscathed. It will be interesting to see how well America and Iran will cooperate with each other given Israel’s concern about the latter’s nuclear development programme and general animosity that exists between the two nations.

Read more: 10 years ago we told you not to wage war in Iraq, who will stop the bloodshed now? – The Express Tribune Blog

Middle East: Let’s trace chaos in Iraq back to its roots - H.A. Hellyer

“What just happened? Terrorists who are too extreme by al-Qaeda’s standards suddenly overtook Iraq? Wow, that was totally unexpected!”

Except, of course – it wasn’t unexpected at all. That’s part of the problem.

Iraq is back in the world’s news – for reasons no Iraqi would sympathize with. The last time there was a country that so possessed the strategic planners in Western capitals for its housing of terrorism was in 2001 and that country was Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was the then home of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, sheltered by the Taliban forces. But in truth, despite the horror that then came to bear on the U.S. on 9/11, the seeds for something quite different – and potentially far worse – have been sown on Iraqi soil.

The “blame” game is now out in full force – the Iraq War of 2003, pitched as part of the “war on terror,” is being saddled with the responsibility for creating this situation. The “cop-out” game is also being played in full force, with former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who led the UK into the war alongside the United States, describing as “bizarre” the notion that the war essentially led to this outcome. It’s not that either of these arguments is right – they’re actually both wrong.

Read more: Let’s trace chaos in Iraq back to its roots - Al Arabiya News

European Entrepreneurs: Former British PM Blair builds business empire abroad

On a snowy morning in the middle of February, Tony Blair, looking trim from his four- to five-times-a-week workout regime, is sipping coffee in his office in London's Mayfair district.

He's sitting in a Georgian town house that was in the late 18th century the site of the first US embassy to the Court of St James's. Now, almost six years after he resigned as British prime minister, it serves as the epicenter of a new Blair empire, Bloomberg Markets magazine will report in its May issue.

"If you become prime minister and step down in your early 50s," Blair says, "what are you going to do? Play golf? It fills me with total dread."

Blair, 59, has reinvented himself as a dealmaker, globe- trotting adviser and philanthropist. He presides over a network of companies and charities that operate in more than 20 countries, with financing from a tangle of private, corporate and government sources.

Former British PM Blair builds business empire abroad | Business Standard

Britain: Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair says nothing new and shows no remorse

Clutching a sheath of documents, a tense-looking Mr Blair sat down in a London conference centre to answer questions from the Iraq Inquiry, a wide-ranging investigation commissioned by the government to scrutinise the behind-the-scenes machinations from 2001 through Britain's decision to join the costly and unpopular Iraq war.

He said nothing new so far and held on the his belief that the war was justified. "The primary consideration for me was to send an absolutely powerful, clear and unremitting message that after September 11, if you were a regime engaged in WMD [weapons of mass destruction], you had to stop."

Mr Blair said other world leaders did not feel the same way he and Bush did. "Although the American mindset had changed dramatically [after 9/11] - and frankly, mine had as well - when I talked to other leaders, particularly in Europe, I didn't get the same impression."

For more: Blair fear: attacks deadlier than 9/11 - World - NZ Herald News

Britain: Blair Aide Campbell Defends Britain's Role in Iraq War - by Catherine Mayer

A capacity crowd that queued before dawn to attend Britain's seven-week-old Iraq inquiry as it prepared to welcome its first headline act, former Labour premier Tony Blair's communications supremo Alastair Campbell, sought more than respite from the cold. "I'm here because I hold this man partly responsible for that terrible, terrible war," explained a retired therapist, shivering in her tweed coat.

What they got was an unyielding defense of Britain's role in the Iraq conflict and a tantalizing hint of bigger revelations to come when the former Prime Minister submits himself to the inquiry, sometime in the two-week period commencing Jan. 25.

Campbell revealed for the first time the existence of private letters in 2002 from Blair to U.S. President George W. Bush. The "tenor" of these letters, said Campbell, was "We are going to be with you making sure that Saddam Hussein faces up to his obligations and that Iraq is disarmed. If that cannot be done diplomatically and it is to be done militarily, Britain will be there."

That assurance was given at a time when Blair was publicly pushing the U.N. to force Saddam into compliance. Campbell denied any lack of sincerity in the efforts to secure a solution through the U.N.

For more: Blair Aide Campbell Defends Britain's Role in Iraq War - TIME

Daily Mail: Blair in last-ditch push for EU presidency - by Tim Shipman

For the complete report from the daily Mail Online click on this link

Tony Blair and his allies will launch a last-ditch bid this week to crown him European president. His friends are urging him to speak directly to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy to persuade them he is the man for the job. Sweden, which holds the presidency of the EU, has said that it will now begin consulting intensively about names to hold the post created by the Lisbon Treaty. Downing Street sources said Gordon Brown would be 'hitting the phones and speaking to member states' to campaign for Mr Blair. 'We want to build a consensus around the best names,' said one. The former prime minister's fate is expected to be sealed at a special summit, possibly on November 12.