Ths video from the USA says about itself:
19 March 2010
Blair Tied to Iraq-Linked Oil Firm
The Guardian of London is reporting former Prime Minister Tony Blair has received payments from a South Korean oil firm with extensive oil interests in the US and Iraq. The company, UI Energy Corporation, hired Blair around the same time its Iraqi consortium struck a controversial oil deal with the autonomous Kurdish government. Blair denies his dealings with the company were linked to Iraq. His dealings with UI Energy were kept under wraps for twenty months after Blair convinced a British government committee it should be kept secret due to market sensitivities.
When George W. Bush and Tony Blair started the bloody Iraq war, government propaganda, slavishly echoed by the corporate media, said the war was
because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction … oops, it did not have those arms … the war was because secularist Saddam Hussein had links to ultra-religious Al Qaeda … oops, that was a lie as well … the war was because Saddam was a dictator and it would bring human rights to Iraq … oops, Saddam was one of many dictators, most of them supported by Bush’s USA and by Blair’s UK (like used to be the case for Saddam); and torture, killings, and other human rights violations got worse, not better, after Bush and Blair had invaded Iraq.
When someone dared to say “No blood for oil“, the Bushite and Blairite apologists for the Iraq war went hysterical. Their lovely baby, their lovely Iraq war, could never ever be about something as prosaic as oil corporations’ profits (or arms dealers’ profits … oil was and is a major factor in a complex of causes, not the sole 100% cause).
Let us return to Blair’s point about Saddam being a dictator, emphasized after the exposition of the “WMD” and “9/11 connection” propaganda lies. Is Tony Blair really opposed to dictators?
As turns out, he is not.
There is one of Blair’s many lucrative jobs, as an adviser to the Colombian death squad government.
And then, there is Blair and the absolute monarchy in Kuwait.
And, as this picture says, Nicolas Sarkozy is not the only prominent NATO country politician with a dodgy Libyan track record. It shows Blair embracing Colonel Gaddafi of Libya. Gaddafi, to whom Blair deported people for torture. Gaddafi, who later (like had happened to Saddam Hussein before), in the corporate media, suddenly magically transformed from an ally to the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. Gaddafi, who was brutally murdered with the consent of his suddenly ex-crony Tony Blair.
Tony Blair was very chummy with Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya while in office; including in torture scandals. After people in Britain had become sick of his warmongering and pro-fat cat policies, Blair had to resign prematurely as Prime Minister of Britain. After his resignation, Blair made lots of money. Not only from oil in Iraq; also as an overpaid adviser to Gaddafi.
But then, Gaddafi tried to increase to Libyan government’s share of Libyan oil profits. Suddenly, presto! Gaddafi’s friends among the rich and powerful in NATO countries turned on him. They waged bloody war on Libya and had Gaddafi murdered brutally. Tony Blair agreed completely with that flip flop.
Recent reports say that Blair considered asking the Queen to bestow a honourary knighthood on Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Then, more recently, Blair urged Western governments to stop ”wringing our hands” and intervene militarily in Syria: here.
And then, Blair and Egypt. Tony Blair said about Egyptian dictator Mubarak, just before the Egyptian people drove him away, that he was ‘immensely courageous and a force for good’.
From daily The Independent in Britain:
Thursday 30 January 2014
Robert Fisk: If only Tony Blair could grasp the truth about Field Marshal Sisi
Do the British people love Blair? Do they eat Blair chocolates and wear Blair pyjamas?
It was, of course, utterly inevitable that Tony Blair would back Egypt’s new authoritarian leaders.
After all, can you imagine Blair – our very own Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara – stepping forth to offer his courageous, unstinting support to a democratically elected President overthrown in a military coup d’état? Can you imagine him condemning a General – no, I forget, General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi has just been made a Field Marshal – whose men have gunned down 1,000 protesters since last summer and who has now put the elected President on trial for his life as a “terrorist”? Ye Gods, if such bravery burned within the heart of Lord Blair, we would all suffer immediate cardiac arrest.
So it was that the man who brought us victory in Afghanistan and glory in Iraq – and who has always fearlessly condemned the Israeli colonisation of the West Bank – yesterday threw his entire reputation and honour behind Field Marshal Sisi, Commander-in-Chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces, Deputy Prime Minister of the Egyptian Arab Republic and Minister of Defence. The Egyptian army had “intervened” and had done so “at the will of the people”. Thus quoth Lord Blair. And Field Marshal Sisi saw that it was good, and smiled upon him. But I have to admit – let’s be fair – that Field Marshal Sisi really doesn’t deserve this frivolous “peace envoy”. Unlike some of the dictators with whom Blair frolics, al-Sisi is a personally uncorrupt man. He comes from a conservative, decent family. His uncle was himself a Muslim Brother. Field Marshal Sisi spent months serving poor old Mohamed Morsi as a loyal minister before chucking him out. He even warned Morsi, faithful servant of state that he was, that a coup was on the cards. Sure, Sisi’s comrades killed hundreds of Egyptian protesters – but the Field Marshal doesn’t have the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on his hands. Besides, the Egyptian people love Sisi. Why else should Cairo be awash with Sisi chocolates and Sisi T-shirts and Sisi pyjamas? Do the British people love Blair? Do they eat Blair chocolates and wear Blair pyjamas?
Of course, for a man who said of Saddam that “he has used gas against his own people”,
which happened, by the way, when Saddam was an ally of the Reagan-Rumsfeld-Cheney administration in the USA and the Thatcher administration in Britain
it must have been difficult for Lord Blair to resist the phrase – on arrival in Cairo to meet another military autocrat – that “he has used live bullets against his own people”. Neither did he mention the lads of Al Jazeera banged up in the Tora jail for “terrorism” (ho hum) – why, isn’t that just what Blair should have done with his own country’s treacherous journos when they failed to back his and George W’s crusade against World Evil?
Blair, a prosaic man, thus concentrated on the banal. Egypt had “an ancient civilisation”, he said. Egyptians were “a great people” with “great energy and determination” – this was positively colonial in approach – and we should support these people who wanted an “open-minded society”. And that, announced Lord Blair, “means we support the government here in Egypt”.
If he could have grasped a mere semblance of the truth, Blair would have understood the irony of the words he used of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood, he said, “tried to take the country away from its basic values of hope and progress”. But isn’t that exactly what Blair did to his own country? Didn’t Blair – with his mendacious wars – take Britain from its basic values of hope and progress? It almost makes you wish that Sisi could have brought his chaps over to London in early 2003 to do a spot of “intervention” with the support of millions of Britons.
But Blair waffled away, apparently unaware that armies have been “intervening” rather a lot in modern history. Let’s forget for a moment that the Soviets also said that their army had “intervened” in Central Asia in 1979. But I was thinking of someone else. Austria? Czechoslovakia? Small man. Moustache. Used to be a corporal. No matter. Just comfort yourself with the thought of Lord Blair taking off his Sisi T-shirt tonight, pulling on his Sisi pyjamas and sucking away at his Sisi chocolates.