Why is Tony Blair so unpopular?
Discussion
rohrl said:
audidoody said:
rich888 said:
Any decent journalists in the UK or abroad should be thoroughly investigating this to uncover what actually happened.
D-Notice Most journalists don't like prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DA-Notice
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b063dcg2
audidoody said:
He had the (almost) entire Conservative Party behind him because he was claiming in Parliament that Saddam Hussein's regime posed an existential threat to the UK (WMD in 45-minutes). The Conservative Parry quaintly thought that they would not be lied to in the Palace of Westminster.
Also presumably busy whips (in the political sense!) and toeing the party line. Much noise was being made in the press about Britain's "special" relationship with the USA (i.e. lapdog!).And when people say that these events are all about oil, that doesn't always seem to be the case. An example, prior to the deposition of Gadafi, BP had a drilling campaign and investments in Libya which obviously went to rats
t in the subsequent national meltdown.MarshPhantom said:
Willy Nilly said:
He has done a rather good job of destabilizing the Arab world and tries to convince us he's made it a safer place. Like them or loath them, those countries needed tyrants in charge to keep the warring factions from killing each other. So he removed a tyrant and they all start shooting each other, and us. A tit of the highest order.
The exact same could be said of Cameron and Libya yet he doesn't cop any flak for that.Most believe what the BBC or the tabloids write, which usually isn't that little fact.
I despise Blair , basically because he fked the country, with Gordon Brown ably playing Robin to Blair's Batman. Even , usurping him, I'm unsure which of the two caused the most damage.
The demolition of the economy, the Human rights act and basically allowing himself to rolled over and his tummy tickled by the EU, have done this country incalculable harm .
As for Iraq, unlike others it seems , I have an open mind on this. We did not go in alone, it has to be remembered , and its fairly easy to guess at who's behest we went in to achieve regime change. After all, how would the average bod feel if he had Saddam Hussein as a neighbour?
However, did Blair actively lie to all and sundry , including parliament, or was he simply beleiving what he was told/briefed? Did he actively drive our participation knowing full well that the WMD did not exist or do so beleiving they did?
Indeed, if it was a deliberate hoax concerning WMD, then who created and drove the hoax?
I've a feeling that the Chilcott report has/is taking so long because the truth is spectacularly complex, and likely involves several countries. Who knows what deals were done behind closed doors, particularly in Jeddah.
Hopefully we will find out, sooner rather than later , if Blair did lie to Parliament, was part of a WMD conspiracy, what could be done with him? Could it also mean other leaders could be hoisted for their actions?
As said, hopefully sooner rather than later.
ked the country, with Gordon Brown ably playing Robin to Blair's Batman. Even , usurping him, I'm unsure which of the two caused the most damage.The demolition of the economy, the Human rights act and basically allowing himself to rolled over and his tummy tickled by the EU, have done this country incalculable harm .
As for Iraq, unlike others it seems , I have an open mind on this. We did not go in alone, it has to be remembered , and its fairly easy to guess at who's behest we went in to achieve regime change. After all, how would the average bod feel if he had Saddam Hussein as a neighbour?
However, did Blair actively lie to all and sundry , including parliament, or was he simply beleiving what he was told/briefed? Did he actively drive our participation knowing full well that the WMD did not exist or do so beleiving they did?
Indeed, if it was a deliberate hoax concerning WMD, then who created and drove the hoax?
I've a feeling that the Chilcott report has/is taking so long because the truth is spectacularly complex, and likely involves several countries. Who knows what deals were done behind closed doors, particularly in Jeddah.
Hopefully we will find out, sooner rather than later , if Blair did lie to Parliament, was part of a WMD conspiracy, what could be done with him? Could it also mean other leaders could be hoisted for their actions?
As said, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Cheese Mechanic said:
I've a feeling that the Chilcott report has/is taking so long because the truth is spectacularly complex, and likely involves several countries.
No it's because Chilcott is an ex-civil servant and has been using every delaying tactic available to drag it out as long as he can. By the time it's finally out it'll have taken longer than our actual involvement in Iraq.Beati Dogu said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
I've a feeling that the Chilcott report has/is taking so long because the truth is spectacularly complex, and likely involves several countries.
No it's because Chilcott is an ex-civil servant and has been using every delaying tactic available to drag it out as long as he can. By the time it's finally out it'll have taken longer than our actual involvement in Iraq.Mermaid said:
Beati Dogu said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
I've a feeling that the Chilcott report has/is taking so long because the truth is spectacularly complex, and likely involves several countries.
No it's because Chilcott is an ex-civil servant and has been using every delaying tactic available to drag it out as long as he can. By the time it's finally out it'll have taken longer than our actual involvement in Iraq.The committee of inquiry, the members of which were chosen by Gordon Brown,Comprises
Sir John Chilcot (chairman), a career diplomat and senior civil servant who was previously a member of the Butler Review
Sir Lawrence Freedman, a military historian, and Professor of War Studies at King's College London. His memo outlining five tests for military intervention was used by Tony Blair in drafting his Chicago foreign policy speech
Sir Martin Gilbert, a historian who supported the invasion of Iraq and claimed in 2004 that George W. Bush and Blair may one day "join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill"[17]
Sir Roderic Lyne, former Ambassador to Russia and to the United Nations in Geneva, previously served as private secretary to Prime Minister John Major
Baroness Prashar, a crossbencher, member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the current chairwoman of the Judicial Appointments Commission
The alarming part is who chose them. The US , (as example) has been reluctant to release documents.
I have many left wing friends. They were quite happy to defend the achievements of the last Labour administration - child tax credits, increase spending on public services, all that (off the balance sheet) investment in new hospitals and schools. Now they're all for Corbyn and saying that the Blair government was basically Tory.
Blair 'tory-lite'.
The electorate has yet to determine the viability of a Corbyn 'Nationalise Everything' party.
However, the chicken-gibblets may appear to be saying 'NOT EVER' which may have implications for the careers of the political hacks currently seeking endorsement for Lab leadership.
The electorate has yet to determine the viability of a Corbyn 'Nationalise Everything' party.
However, the chicken-gibblets may appear to be saying 'NOT EVER' which may have implications for the careers of the political hacks currently seeking endorsement for Lab leadership.
An accomplished actor and politician who could play the game well, make everyone feel that he was on their side. He was elected at a period of national pride and said popular things followng Saint Diana's death. The events of September 11 2001 propelled him into the role of an "international statesman" (or the articulate front for US neo-conservative ambition). He was ultimately undone by his own self-belief and has never shown any apparently genuine humility.
His government did some good things, many in a Tory way, but spent far too much in the process.
I never liked he smarminess of Blair, from when he became party leader onwards.
It is interesting that public opinion of John Major is now more favourable than when he was PM -he always seemed a fairly genuine man.
His government did some good things, many in a Tory way, but spent far too much in the process.
I never liked he smarminess of Blair, from when he became party leader onwards.
It is interesting that public opinion of John Major is now more favourable than when he was PM -he always seemed a fairly genuine man.
MC Bodge said:
It is interesting that public opinion of John Major is now more favourable than when he was PM -he always seemed a fairly genuine man.
Probably because, over time, it's became clear that Major was an end of an era, last true genuine 'statesmen' PM in the traditional mould......... they've all been fake, plastic 'career' types ever since, and probably will be in the future as well.....regardless of the colour of the 'party rosette' they may wear.Thing is I also remember the Kosovo campaign where we bombed the fk out of Serbia, which now appears to be much less clear cut than it ever seemed at the time.
Someone mentioned Cameron and Libya and I can't help but wonder that if was Clinton or Obama in power when the US went into Iraq, if it would have worked out differently for Blair's legacy. He'd probably still be in power!
k out of Serbia, which now appears to be much less clear cut than it ever seemed at the time.Someone mentioned Cameron and Libya and I can't help but wonder that if was Clinton or Obama in power when the US went into Iraq, if it would have worked out differently for Blair's legacy. He'd probably still be in power!
aeropilot said:
MC Bodge said:
It is interesting that public opinion of John Major is now more favourable than when he was PM -he always seemed a fairly genuine man.
Probably because, over time, it's became clear that Major was an end of an era, last true genuine 'statesmen' PM in the traditional mould......... they've all been fake, plastic 'career' types ever since, and probably will be in the future as well.....regardless of the colour of the 'party rosette' they may wear.jmorgan said:
rohrl said:
audidoody said:
rich888 said:
Any decent journalists in the UK or abroad should be thoroughly investigating this to uncover what actually happened.
D-Notice Most journalists don't like prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DA-Notice
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b063dcg2
I'm not sure why a D-Notice should be issued due to an 'apparent suicide' for 'reasons of national defence', or was it a cold blooded murder that's being covered up here? I seem to recall that at the time questions were being asked by the press as to why there were no finger-prints on the knife which he cut his wrist with, which I find somewhat strange, why would you cut your wrist then wipe the knife clean of your finger-prints, moreover how was he able to do this? also recollect that there were several other abnormalities over the circumstances of his death including lack of blood where he was finally discovered, all very fishy. I wonder what involvement Teflon Tony had in all of this?
Now if Dr David Kelly was murdered on orders from above, surely this shouldn't be covered up and censored by the use of this D-Notice, this is the UK not some third world country being ruled by a paranoid dictator.
I did a search on google.co.uk for Dr David Kelly and it would seem that many of the newspapers aren't letting this rest, though at lot of the news reports stop in 2013. I also noticed that some search results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe, so make sure you use www.google.com to search.
Tony Blair has a lot to answer for, and his actions will never be forgotten... will he be remembered as a warmonger or peacemaker?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff