Blair speaks up for Ehud Olmert, the "former Labor leader"

I'm worried about this.  The Jerusalem Post has reported that Tony Blair has written to the court dealing with Ehud Olmert's sentencing for corruption.  According to the Post' report Blair,

pleaded for the former Labor leader not to serve any jail time.

I'm not aware Olmert was a Labour leader of any kind.  Have I misread?  Did they mean that Blair pleaded for himself not to serve any jail time? Or maybe they mean Kadima.  Or maybe they mean that Israel's Laborites have been led by Likud for some decades now.  Or maybe when he led Kadima he was technically Labour's leader.  But then if it's all down to technicality, does Israel even have a party called Labour or Labor?

UPDATE: Round about 11:50 am  I noticed the reference to "the former Labor leader" had been removed.  I searched for a cache version but they seem to have been faffing around with the article so much google cache couldn't keep up.  Anyway now they've overhauled the article completely.  The curious thing is that the page seems to have gone through at least three changes since I first posted at 9:40 and yet there is no mention of any update and the date and time say 5/5/2015 10:07.  Funny people.

Surreal sycophancy from Blair on Abdullah

Oh just look at this from Tony Blair's website:

I am very sad indeed to hear of the passing of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah.

"I am very sad indeed to hear of the passing of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah.

“I knew him well and admired him greatly. Despite the turmoil of events in the region around him, he remained a stable and sound ally, was a patient and skilful moderniser of his country leading it step by step into the future. He was a staunch advocate of inter faith relations. He founded KAUST, the science and technology university where women and men are educated equally. And today there are more women in higher education than men. He allowed thousands to be educated abroad people who have experience of the world and will play a big part in the future of the country. He appointed women Ministers. He invested in renewable energy. And of course he launched the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 which has stood the test of time as a potential basis for a solution to the Israeli Palestine issue. 

“He was loved by his people and will be deeply missed."

I knew him well and admired him greatly. Despite the turmoil of events in the region around him, he remained a stable and sound ally, was a patient and skilful moderniser of his country leading it step by step into the future. He was a staunch advocate of inter faith relations. He founded KAUST, the science and technology university where women and men are educated equally. And today there are more women in higher education than men. He allowed thousands to be educated abroad people who have experience of the world and will play a big part in the future of the country. He appointed women Ministers. He invested in renewable energy. And of course he launched the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 which has stood the test of time as a potential basis for a solution to the Israeli Palestine issue.

He was loved by his people and will be deeply missed.

Comment?  Yuk!

They've got Blair taped

I just got this video clip from The Guardian.   Here's The Guardian blurb:

Tony Blair warned of the growing threat of Islamic extremism in a speech to Bloomberg in London on the state of politics in the Middle East on Wednesday. Here, mashup artist Cassetteboy edits the former prime minister-turned-peace-envoy's speech and imagines what Blair was really trying to say

I've downloaded it to free it from the annoying advert at the beginning though I'm not sure it's gonna work:

Hmm, seems to have worked.

But for analysis of his actual speech This Sceptic Isle piece is probably more informative.

Blair's Hypocrisy and the Riddle of the Sphinx

From Private Eye magazine number 1344:

The same page (5) has a brief summary of Blair's love affair with democracy in Egypt:

Who better to offer a hopeful sermon to strife-torn Egypt than roving Middle East vicar, Tony Blair?

"I am a strong supporter of democracy," the great peacemaker wrote in Sunday's Observer.  "This struggle matters to us.  The good news is that there are millions of modern and open-minded people out there.   They need to know we are on their side, their allies, prepared to pay the price to be there with them."

The former PM knows Egypt well, of course.  As we pointed out after the 2011 revolution that toppled president Hosni Mubarak, Blair was happy to take his Christmas hols in the country no fewer than five times between 2000 and 2005 when the Egyptian dictator's regime was at its zenith.  At the first of those visits, Blair was "a guest of the Egyptian government at two private government villas at Sharm-el-Sheikh", according to his entry in the register of MPs' interests, while on at least one subsequent trip Mubarak paid for the flights.  Can this be what the vicar means about showing pro-democracy Egyptians that "we are on their side" and, er, "prepared to pay the price to be there"?

Of course as neoconservatism's ambassador at large, indeed, the man who puts the Con in NeoCon, Blair can excuse anything that doesn't quite tally with his professed commitment to democracy.  And here's a little nugget reported in The Observer (Guardian online)  that the Eye missed out:

"I am a strong supporter of democracy. But democratic government doesn't on its own mean effective government. Today efficacy is the challenge." 

Leaving it to The Observer to note:

Having taken this country to war in Iraq in 2003 despite huge public opposition, including a march by more than a million people through London, Blair now argues that shows of public unrest such as that in Egypt – fuelled and organised through social media – cannot be ignored.

I don't know, maybe there is a certain consistency there.  Lots of people on the streets in Egypt, send in the army.  Lots of people on the streets of the UK, send in the army...to Iraq.

PS: I was looking on google for a quote about Blair from former Tory MP, Matthew Parris.  I couldn't find it but here's Parris on Blair from Wikipedia:

I believe Tony Blair is an out-and-out rascal, terminally untrustworthy and close to being unhinged. I said from the start that there was something wrong in his head, and each passing year convinces me more strongly that this man is a pathological confidence-trickster. To the extent that he ever believes what he says, he is delusional. To the extent that he does not, he is an actor whose first invention — himself — has been his only interesting role.

What I find interesting about this quote in the Matthew Parris Wikipedia entry is that the quote itself says nothing specific about Parris though it does sum up Blair.  It would be more appropriate for Blair's own entry.  It appears that hatred of Blair is so widespread some people will use any outlet to vent it.

Blair role as Israel lobbyist exposed....by Cameron

It took a little time but Tony Blair has finally disagreed with UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, about something.  Look at The Guardian:

Since his departure from No 10 just over six years ago, Tony Blair has gone out of his way to be polite about his successors.

But the former PM's patience finally snapped on Thursday when David Cameron sought to fend off questions about the business interests of the Tories' chief election strategist Lynton Crosby by drawing a comparison with Blair. Cameron said the former PM was a "good example" to compare to Crosby, saying "he does lobby me from time to time".

A spokesperson for Blair then hit back, saying nobody could "seriously compare" Blair's work as Middle East envoy with that of a business lobbyist. "Tony Blair does not 'lobby' David Cameron," the spokesperson said. "You cannot seriously compare Tony Blair's role as quartet representative, which requires him to talk to governments around the world about the Middle East peace process, to that of a lobbyist."

So there we have it. According to the British government Blair is no more than a sleazy Israel lobbyist. Of course, Blair denies it but who can believe anything Blair says?

So where was the Reverend Tony Blair?

Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minister and Israel's envoy to the so-called Peace Quartet, at first came out in favour of Israel's operation against Gaza.  See this from The Daily Telegraph a few days ago:

The former prime minister and current Middle East Peace Envoy says that Hamas militants in Gaza must stop firing rockets, to put an end to Israel's retaliation and prevent the conflict from escalating.

Note the assumption that Israel, not Hamas, is retaliating.

See some more, this is from 15 November 2012, by the way

Tony Blair told ITV News: "If rockets are fired out of Gaza by Hamas or other militants in Gaza and aimed at Israeli towns and villages with the express purpose of killing Israeli civilians, the government of Israel is going to retaliate and the Israeli people will expect them to do so.

"So the most important thing is we stop the rockets from coming out, the retaliation can then stop, we get some ceasefire or calm into the situation and then work out a better way forward,

Now let's look at the Reverend's website on 19 November 2012:

Commenting on the conflict in the Middle East, on his 92nd visit to the region, Quartet Representative Tony Blair said:

"The suffering of innocent civilians, Palestinian and Israeli, makes a complete cessation the urgent objective. Israeli families need to be free from fear of rocket attacks and Gazan families relieved of the pain of the air strikes, so a ceasefire should be brought into being as soon as possible. We can then work on an agenda that ensures long-term the security of Israel and the return to normal life for Gaza, which has been absent for too long.

“We also continue to work on a credible political horizon for the two state solution that is, and remains, the only viable solution."

Note four days after openly siding with the racist war criminals of the State of Israel he now makes a pretence of even-handedness.

Now that Hamas appears to have won this latest round of Israel's Palestinian cull let's see The Guardian report on the cessation:

Announcing the ceasefire in Cairo, Clinton commended Egypt's mediation. "This is a critical moment for the region. Egypt's new government is assuming the responsibility and leadership that has long made this country a cornerstone for regional stability and peace."

She also thanked Egypt's Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi, for his mediation efforts and pledged to work with partners in the region "to consolidate this progress, improve conditions for the people of Gaza, and provide security for the people of Israel".

Despite securing support from western governments for its initial military operation against Hamas, Israel had failed to win US and European backing for a ground invasion as a series of key US allies in the region, led by Egypt and Turkey, strongly protested against the Israeli assault.

The agreed truce, mediated by Morsi and his spy chief, Mohamed Shehata, came after days of talks and frantic shuttle diplomacy involving regional leaders, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and Clinton.

So where was the Reverend Tony Blair? Let's go back to His website:

Commenting on today's announcement, Quartet Representative Tony Blair said:

"I very much welcome this ceasefire, and highly commend the central role that Egypt’s government has played in bringing it about – with the helpful efforts of Secretary Clinton and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

“We must now act quickly to ensure long-term progress in the region so that the security of Israelis is ensured, and that life returns to normal for Gazans through continual improvements in their infrastructure and economy.

“We firmly believe that a two state solution is the way forward.”

Actually, unless this is the calm before an even bigger Israeli storm then what appears to have happened here is that resistance from Gaza together with support for the Palestinians from Egypt and Turkey has had the US ordering Israel not to persist in its Palestinian cull for the time being. There are many lessons which can be drawn from this, I'm sure, but Blair seems to have played no role in this whatever, except to side with Israel, pretend not to side with anyone and then report a ceasefire deal on his blog as if all the main players were working for him. So that's where he was.  Same as me, he was at home updating his blog.  So former UK PM, Israel's envoy to the Peace Quartet, Very (excruciatingly) Reverend, Tony Blair, can now tack on to the end of his CV (resumé for Americans), blogger. Yes, it's Blogger Blair!

Tutu boycotts Blair

According to The Observer Archbishop Desmond Tutu has refused to attend a conference in South Africa on leadership because Tony Blair was going to be there and, because of the war in Iraq, Tutu didn't want to be anywhere near the lying toad:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for Tony Blair and George Bush to be hauled before the international criminal court in The Hague and delivered a damning critique of the physical and moral devastation caused by the Iraq war.

Tutu, a Nobel peace prizewinner and hero of the anti-apartheid movement, accuses the former British and US leaders of lying about weapons of mass destruction and says the invasion left the world more destabilised and divided "than any other conflict in history". 

Writing in the Observer, Tutu also suggests the controversial US and UK-led action to oust Saddam Hussein in 2003 created the backdrop for the civil war in Syria and a possible wider Middle East conflict involving Iran..

Look how much Blair got for attending the conference:

A longtime critic of the Iraq war, the archbishop pulled out of a South African conference on leadership last week because Blair, who was paid 2m rand (£150,000) for his time, was attending. It is understood that Tutu had agreed to speak without a fee.

It would have killed Blair to agree to speak without a fee.

Let's see how Blair responds to Tutu's criticism:

In a statement, Blair strongly contested Tutu's views and said Iraq was now a more prosperous country than it had been under Saddam Hussein. "I have a great respect for Archbishop Tutu's fight against apartheid – where we were on the same side of the argument – but to repeat the old canard that we lied about the intelligence is completely wrong as every single independent analysis of the evidence has shown.

"And to say that the fact that Saddam massacred hundreds of thousands of his citizens is irrelevant to the morality of removing him is bizarre. We have just had the memorials both of the Halabja massacre, where thousands of people were murdered in one day by Saddam's use of chemical weapons, and that of the Iran-Iraq war where casualties numbered up to a million including many killed by chemical weapons.

"In addition, his slaughter of his political opponents, the treatment of the Marsh Arabs and the systematic torture of his people make the case for removing him morally strong. But the basis of action was as stated at the time.

"In short, this is the same argument we have had many times with nothing new to say. But surely in a healthy democracy people can agree to disagree.

"I would also point out that despite the problems, Iraq today has an economy three times or more in size, with the child mortality rate cut by a third of what it was. And with investment hugely increased in places like Basra."

Priceless! The poor state of the economy and the numbers of children that died had nothing to do with "genocide by sanctions" then. And didn't the west side with Iraq in the war against Iran? And who supplied those chemical weapons together with the delivery capabilities? It would be wonderful to believe that the ICC will one day be able to put these questions to Tony Blair but I don't think that day will come.

Loveable failures?

Here's an amusing letter in The Independent today:

Aggression? No, just an error

Your have referred to the Israeli raid on the Gaza aid convoy last year which killed nine men as "bungled", and I've lost count of the times commentators describe the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in terms such as "an error of judgement".

If, as the terms imply, these people have evidence that the aggressors in these cases had benevolent intentions that went awry through want of skill or foresight, would they please reveal it? Otherwise some of us cynics might continue to see in the smirks of Blair and Netenyahu something other than the philosophical resignation of loveable failures.

Mark Kesteven, York

So it was about oil..or was it?

The Independent is reporting an exposé of the discussions regarding the sharing of the spoils of the war on Iraq.  Here's the main article:

Not about oil? what they said before the invasion

* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."

* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: "Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."

* BP, 12 March 2003: "We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement."

* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: "It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil."

* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding: "We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'."

So what was happening before these statements were made?

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis."

The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time".

BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.

Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.

Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on Fire is published next week, said: "Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq's oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.

"We see that oil was in fact one of the Government's most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize."

Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment.

The Independent's Patrick Cockburn doesn't think it was all about oil:

It has never seemed likely that the US and Britain invaded Iraq primarily for its oil. Reasserting US self-confidence as a super-power after 9/11 was surely a greater motive. The UK went along with this in order to remain America's chief ally. Both President Bush and Tony Blair thought the war would be easy.

But would they have gone to war if Iraq had been producing cabbages? Probably not.

Is any of this disturbing any more? It's certainly not surprising. Anyone who thought the Chilcot Inquiry was going to be a genuine attempt at getting to the truth about why the US and UK invaded Iraq will certainly be disappointed to know that the above mentioned "documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war". But did anyone believe that anyway?

I just checked the Chilcot Inquiry website to see if when they are going to report and if there would be an opportunity to include the new information and "On 02 February 2011, Sir John Chilcot said:

“We will provide a reliable account of almost nine years of the United Kingdom’s involvement in Iraq. It is a significant task. We believe it's important that we do justice to all the oral and the huge amount of written evidence we have received. My colleagues and I are also aware but completely unsurprised that different people have different perspectives of the same event. We shall also want to reflect on the many submissions we have received. We will reach our conclusions and recommendations on the basis of our analysis of all the evidence, and in the interests of transparency and public understanding, we will, where necessary, seek the de-classification of additional documentary evidence to support and explain our report.
“It is going to take some months deliver the report itself. I don't want to set an artificial deadline on our work at this stage. What I can say is that my colleagues and I want to finish our report as quickly as possible.”

The Inquiry will deliver its report to the Prime Minister. Publication will be a matter for the government but the Inquiry expects that the report will be published as a Parliamentary paper and debated in both Houses of Parliament.

So what are the chances of the oil business being included? I'm guessing they are about as likely as the oil business being excluded from the spoils of the war.

UPDATE: Following a comment from Gabriel, I'm adding the comment to the post and I've added "or was it?" to the original title, which was "So it was about oil". Now please read on:

"Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil."

That is false. The US has no interest in cheap oil. Cheap oil mean low profits for oil companies and lower accumulation for the capitalist class. The essence of capitalism is accumulation, and the cartelisation of oil that produces profits in the thousand percents (from a cost of $3 a barrel to a "market price" of $150!) is one of most potent drivers of capitalist accumulation in the world. This is both true of the US, see the stock market capitalization of Exxon-Mobile, and in the world. See Dubai, a city constructed out of oil profits.

Note that BP didn't push for the war. It pushed for a share of the spoils after the war. That is very different. Of course, oil companies are "national". Each oil company has its own little government. BP has the UK as XOM has the US and Total has France. So once there is war, there is a "national" competition over spoils. But that wasn't the driver of the war.

"Reasserting US self-confidence as a super-power after 9/11" is a very stupid "motive" for war in Iraq. It is totally circular. The US must fight a war so that it has the confidence to fight wars. But why should it fight wars?

The War in Iraq is not an isolated event. The war of Iraq was the latest stage in the DESTRUCTION of Iraq by imperialism. This started by the CIA helping Saddam Hussein take power. It followed with the US helping both Iraq and Iran to destroy each other. It then continued with the trap of Kuwait and the first Gulf War (fought with Saudi money), followed by the genocidal sanctions regime. And then there was the second Iraq war and occupation.

Iraq has been systematically destroyed from the late fifties by US interventions, and the destruction of Iraq has been US policy for over 50 years now. Talking about the causes of the war on Iraq outside this long history is nonsense.

Now why was there a policy of destroying Iraq for over 50 years? The best hypothesis is that this was done to prevent competition with Saudi Arabia, and in particular to concentrate capital accumulation through oil in the friendly and retrograde regimes of the Gulf, primarily Saudi Arabia. That meant primarily preventing Iraq from producing oil, and then preventing it from profiting from oil. In relation to this policy, BP, shell and Total were not competing. There were all on the same side as they all benefitted from a friendly and US dominated regime of accumulation through oil that centered on Saudi Arabia.

Where now for Blair?

A gem from Mark Steele in The Independent:

The most worrying side to world events is if Gaddafi and Berlusconi both depart, there'll be hardly any world leaders left to offer Tony and Cherie Blair a free holiday. It only needs Murdoch to be overthrown and the Blairs will have to go to Pontins at Camber Sands.

Good one.

Israel's envoy to the peace process supports Mubarak

Tony Blair, for it is he, isn't the first person to see the rising in Egypt through the prism of how it all stands with Israel. Here's The Guardian:

Tony Blair has described Hosni Mubarak, the beleaguered Egyptian leader, as "immensely courageous and a force for good" and warned against a rush to elections that could bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

The former prime minister, now an envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, praised Mubarak over his role in the negotiations and said the west was right to back him despite his authoritarian regime because he had maintained peace with Israel.

But that view is likely to anger many Egyptians who believe they have had to endure decades of dictatorship because the US put Israel's interests ahead of their freedom.

For Lenin at the tomb this means that "Blair must die". I think he is already dead in the water. Surely when the dust settles Egypt can't support the Gaza blockade. Also, if new rulers in Egypt are true to their people will they not have to demand the removal of Blair from the position he should never had held in the first place?

With friends like Blair's....

Blair has cancelled another self-promo, this time scheduled for the Tate Modern art gallery. Here's Bloomberg:

Tony Blair cancelled a reception scheduled for tonight at London’s Tate Modern Gallery to mark the publication of his memoirs after the threat of protests.

His decision marked the second public event the former prime minister has called off while promoting the book, “A Journey.” He cancelled a book-signing in London this week after he was pelted with shoes, eggs and plastic bottles in Dublin on Sept. 4 by people protesting the Iraq war. He wasn’t hurt.

“It is sad in a way because you should have the right to sign books or see your friends if you want to,” Blair told ITV’s This Morning program today. “But it was going to cause so much hassle. The people at the party tonight are friends -- and some of them are not political at all.”

If they're friends why doesn't he just invite them to one of his own houses rather than sully the reputation of an art gallery.

Of course, Blair being Blair, he gets even more nauseating in his self-promotion. The cancellation of the gallery do isn't for himself you understand:

“I don’t mind going through protesters; I have lived with that all my political life,” Blair said. “But for other people it can be a bit unpleasant and frightening.”

So can you, you nasty self-serving creep!

Hats off to Ireland, Shoes off to Blair

Great news from Ireland. According to The Guardian Blair thought that the Irish would love him so much for the fact that he put the finishing touches to a peace process in Ireland that was initiated by his Tory predecessor, John Major, that he wouldn't get the rough ride he can expect in the UK when he flogs his stupid book.

Violence has broken out at the first public signing for Tony Blair's memoirs, with anti-war protesters hurling shoes and eggs at the former prime minister.

The projectiles did not hit Blair as he arrived at a bookshop in Dublin, Ireland, to be greeted by scores of demonstrators chanting that he was a "war criminal" and had "blood on his hands" because of the invasion of Iraq.

Irish police blocked off streets around the Eason store on O'Connell Street following the clashes with activists who tried to push down a security barrier.

The demonstrators also shouted: "Hey hey Tony hey, how many kids have you killed today?"

The city tram service was suspended and shops in the surrounding area also closed.

Buyers at the signing had to hand over bags and mobile phones before entering the store. Undercover detectives mingled with the crowds taking names before Blair arrived at the shop at about 10.30am.

Hmm, "projectiles did not hit Blair"? I used to support the aims and objectives of the anti-war movement but maybe the aim needs a bit more work.

Many thanks to Sarah in the comments.