Sir Michael Rose is a retired senior General in the British Army and commanded the UN protection force in Bosnia.

He is calling in this article for the UK parliament to impeach Prime Minister Tony Blair over his decision to go to war in Iraq.

It adds to the debate to have a senior military figure come out against the decision to go to war, but the chances are that aside from keeping the pot bubbling, it wont actually happen.

BUT...

If Tony Blair were held to a full account of his actions and decisions over Iraq, and the result were that he WAS impeached and ejected from office in disgrace - would this have any implications for the Bush administration?

Would congressional opponents of the President gain confidence enough to attempt impeachment?

Would it work?

On what grounds do you think what you think?

Same stupid political nonsense as we have here and NO it will not work – there OR here. The grounds do not exist and never will.

But I think we DO have some grounds to blame the UN for the Oil for Food payoffs and their complicity – which IMO lead us to go to war with Iraq while the UN sat on its collective butts.

It would have zero implications. British politics hardly affect US politics. Anyway, it is my understanding that Blair won't be Prime Minister for long but that is on his own account...so impeachment is unnecessary. The Republicans control both houses of Congress....lets wake up from this fantasy.



Again, British politics doesnt affect American politics (other than certain policies) in the slightest bit. The Democrats have nowhere near the political capital necessary to even talk of possible impeachment proceedings and if it was enacted...the Dems would be destroy themselves because they would easily be framed as fanatical and out of the mainstream. Say what you will about the pre-war Iraq intelligence...but no proof of malice has been brought about. Bush has done a great job with the war on terror and the economy (the most underreported story of 2005)...no way he will be touched.

This isn't about British politics and the effects on US politics at all. The basis for Mr. Rose's call for impeachment is based on leading their nation to war based on faulty, poor, ambiguous, distort, patchy, inconsistent intelligence.



Now, one can assume that the US was working from the same copy or something very similar to the perfunctory British intelligence. Therefore, Bush did the same thing Blair did, led a nation to war on faulty, poor (etc.) intelligence. Both leaders made the same mistake. So, if Blair gets impeached or at least this becomes a major issue, the American people are (hopefully) smart enough to say, "Hey wait, Bush did the same thing Blair did, maybe he should bear the consequences of his decision instead of my 18 year old son."

Would congressional opponents of the President gain confidence enough to attempt impeachment?
I'm just hoping this becomes something Americans start to discuss and keep in mind next time they vote. It's time this administration and all republicans start to learn the meaning of the word accountability.

I can only hope someone is bold enough to build a solid case and present it to Congress. Make there be a discussion. I wish just one of those fools on the hill had the conjones to go down swinging...what do you have to lose? It's not like you're going to accomplish anything anyways in your upteen years of lip service. Make the case, rattle some cages, tick some people off, have you 15 minutes of fame on TV, and get voted out of your office (not because you are wrong, but because the Rep. Noise Machine will paint you as a unpatriotic, anti-american, liberal, hippy, commie, extremist.) and then you know what...write a book and make the same amount of money as you would've on the hill.


Would it work?
No, the Republican noise machine is too loud.


On what grounds do you think what you think?
The key is to build a solid case. Find the infractions, find what constitutes and impeachable offense, make it all encompassing and then shout it from the rooftops so hopefully the American people get a glimpse of what this administration is really about.

A quick review of the question would reveal that it WAS asked IF the effect of Blair's impeachment would result in the impeachment of Bush.



I think that we both know that the American people aren't that smart.

But i find your labeling of the invasion of Iraq off of faulty intelligence as a mistake very fitting in contrast with the usual "Bush lied" dribble.



Why is it time and again that people have to be reminded that if people are going to place blame on Bush for going to war, that the same blame must rest on the shoulders on the Congressman who voted for it?...many of whom include Democrats. Perhaps we should impeach the President and every member of Congress who voted for war...maybe then your logic will hold. The reason that nobody on the Hill will even bring up the discussion is because it is founded on a radical ideology that will knowingly backlash on both the representative who brings it up and the Democratic Party as a whole. It would force Democrats who are not as extreme to choose sides and split the party...not something that should be done before elections. Furthermore, we both know that the American people do not support such an action and any attempt to see it through would be met with high opposition.



Yes...this MUST be the answer. Of course there is no other rational explanation for why such proceedings would fail.



We went to war in early 2003...it is now 2006...wouldnt such evidence have been compiled by now (if there ever was such evidence)? The American people voted for Bush in the 04 election and that is who is leading this country. Trying to frame the American people as simpletons who obviously lack the reason to see the evil of the Bush administration is fruitless.

Leder, read the question:

First of all, the question did not necessarily presume that Bush would be impeached as well. It simply asked if the impeachment of Blair would have any implications for the Bush Administration. Second, the key word is implications. In your original answer, you dismiss any possibility of implications because "British politics hardly affect US politics." The Blair/Bush alliance fermented at the start of the Iraq war. Now hypothetically one of them just got impeached and you think Bush is just going to be left off the hook? Please! If Blair gets canned for leading his nation to war using faulty intelligence, you don't think the American people are going to ask, "Hey, I wonder if Bush used the same faulty intelligence Blair did?"



No, actually, I think he did lie. We had a former member of the CIA come speak at my school, he clearly stated, "Standard operating procedure in politics, regardless of which party is in power, is that if your political policy failed, you blame the intelligence." I have many other reasons for thinking that he lied but I'll keep this on topic.




Well, let's assume as Mr. Rose said that the intelligence was faulty and Bush/Blair ran with it. Now, Congress votes for a war based on faulty intelligence that was given to them by their leader. How can you hold them accountable? Had they received the whole story and were given a better picture of the intelligence then maybe they wouldn't have voted that way. If you're going on the assumption that all members of Congress had the same access and intel as Shrub did (which is another thread on here I believe) then fine, hold them all (all 29 dems too) accountable. (note, holding people accountable doesn't necessarily mean impeach them). That is of course, if you feel that a "leader" is supposed to pass the buck and not have any accountability at all.




Well, seeing as how Mr. Rose is in the processes of doing something similar I don't see it as that far fetched.

Ok, I've been asked what the impeachment process is for the UK.

To be honest, unlike the USA, I'm was not sure that there IS a formal impeachment process in the UK, so I had to look it up. There is a website called "impeach Blair" (ImpeachBlair.org) which is run by anti-war campaigners, including some MPs. It looks like Mike Rose is just echoing what has already been said by these people.

From this site, the procedure for impeachment is that the two Houses of the British parliament charge, try and convict an impeachment target. The Lords acts as the judges, and the Commons as the prosecutors - "ultimately, an offence is impeachable if the House of Commons declares it to be the case". In the event that the defendant is found guilty, the Commons sets the sentence.

There are more links to US law than I (or anyone here) thought - it's been so long since any impeachment proceedings (1805) took place in the UK that US law would most likely be used as precedent, at least to decide what offences might or moight not be impeachable. This is especially the case, given that the laws used for it in the US were based on UK law in the first place. (Apparently! - Blame ImpeachBlair.org if this is not the case, not me).

So I'm not so sure that, if this were to go ahead against Blair, there would necessarily be zero implications for Bush, because the charges would of necessity be quite similar, as would the process. Certainly, if nothing else, I think that the anti-Bush contingent would be given more ammunition.

In summary, it seems that the procedure is essentialy very similar, within the constraints of the parliamentary system. To get the ball rolling, an impeachment motion would have to be put forward, and a majority of MPs in the Commons would have to agree that there is a case to answer. They then form a committee to draw up the Articles of Impeachment (in effect, "the charges"), and instruct the Lords to appoint from among their number the prosecutors. The case is then heard before the Judges that sit in the Lords.

For the record, though, I don't think Blair will be impeached any time soon (certainly not while he's still PM - as far as I can tell there's no statute of limitations, so he might be dragged back in 20 years, but nothing will happen this decade). And, despite the rather convincing case that is made against him, I'm not sure he SHOULD be impeached, or that if he is, the penalty should be anything more than the demand of an apology and stripping of his office.

His actions were consistant with those of the US and intel shared by most of the worlds governments. This statement by Rose:
Most importantly a clear justification for the war in Iraq was never sufficiently made by Tony Blair - for the intelligence he presented was always embarrassingly patchy and inconsistent. What is more, his unequivocal statement to the House of Commons that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction

Is ludicrous. There was nothing “patchy” about the mountains of data on Iraq’s WMD.


On what grounds?



No way.


Iraq clearly had (and used) WMD. Iraq never complied with a single UN resolution and needed to be dealt with by the UN. The UN declined to act and we know now why.