See that interview? He doesn't look real to me. More like a CGI version of a mad automaton........(nearly Max Headroom).
Didn't see the interview but I don't trust that guy. Out of all the world leaders my dear old mum wrote to over the years, Blair was the only one who couldn't be arsed to reply. Yes, I include Sadaam Hussein. His staff did reply to her.
No, me neither. - Can't trust any salesman who's that good. Blimey! Got any interesting extracts worth posting?
I'll see whether the replies to Mum's letters still exist. I hope so, they could be fascinating. I cannot remember what Sadaam's reply was like ... I expect it was Cameron-bland in nature though.
Blair is a cheesy, creepy, self-serving toe-rag. He got Britain involved in more wars than any prime-minister since WW2 - mostly to further his own career. History will not be kind to him...
I have always thought he looks like the joker in early batman comics, one day he may realise his document of mas deception resulted in several hundreds of thousands dead.
Ignoring the outcome of the Inquiry still to be published; should Blair be tried for 'war crimes' or should he at least go on trial for misleading or lying to Parliament? I suppose the best 'wriggle' he will use to get out of any prosecution is that he didn't know the dodgy dossier was bullsh*t.
Blair,the PM who's government brought in the freedom of information act and wanted to redact his official communications with Bush to the inquiry. Says it all really.
I'm a labour man but refused to vote for this Tory lite, lying scheming odious little prick who no more has a social conscience as a middle leg. Equally abhorrent is his awful wife. 2 greater oxygen thieves I cannot imagine.
I don't agree with Labour's politics, but I could respect the reasoning behind them. As soon as Blair removed Claus 4 from Labour's constitution it became obvious that he would do anything to remain in power and he lost all credibility: "Just don't mention socialism, it's not too popular with middle England..." And now he's poncing about, pretending to be a great world leader... To answer Arq's question - invading another sovereign nation purely to achieve regime change is contrary to the UN constitution - and that is exactly what Blair did in Iraq... so yes, he should be put on trial for it. The only reason that Hans Blix and the UN investigators were never allowed time to finish their search for WMD was that both the British and American governments knew, without any shadow of doubt, that there was nothing there to be found. If there was any trace it would have been found by now... So, the only conclusion is that Blair deliberately, cynically, lied to the British Parliament... And in the process got hundreds of people killed.
Is it just me, or does Blair remind anyone else of the king from Shrek ? "Some of you are going to die, but that's a risk I'm prepared to take..."
Hundreds of thousands not hundreds of dead. He destabilised Iraq with the help of the chinless wonder ex alcoholic George dubbya. This was done with cynical intent and to bolster his standing. Having de stabilised we withdrew, leaving tribal warfare to ensue. Terrible cynical behaviour with no thought for the real consequences. The living embodiment of power corrupting.
There are similarities to what Thatcher did over the Belgrano, the sinking of which killed off any posibility of a negotiated settlement. I think Blair is correct in recognising that our values are under threat but then going on to suggest bombing the side with the upper hand is just misguided.
Trust me John, as someone who lives and works in the Falklands and has studied the history of the conflict in great detail - there is no similarity between Blair and Thatcher at all. There was no chance of a "negotiated settlement" at any time - before or after the sinking of Belgrano - you cannot negotiate with a totalitarian government intent on taking a country away from its citizens. Why should the Britsh government have negotiated anyway? The Falklands have never belonged to Argentina and he British population (that has been there since 1833) does not want to to be anything other than British. If the Argentinians want to complain about British "colonisation" they should remember two things - the Falklands were unoccupied when the British claimed them (years before Argentina even existed as a country) and secondly the vast majority of people who live in Argentina are descended from Spannish colonists who destroyed the indigenous population... Thatcher was defending British people against a foriegn invasion... Blair was invading a foriegn country to further his own personal career - not the same...
There are some interesting pesrspectives in Secrets of the Conqueror: The Untold Story of Britain's Most Famous Submarine: Amazon.co.uk: Stuart Prebble: Books I am certainly not saying Britain should have ceded the Falklands to the Argentinians. The similarities are that rather than being entirely honest about the circumstances of the sinking of the Belgrano the government of the day actively misled both the people of the UK and parliament and compounded the problem thereafter by repeated denials of the facts. One example is that the Belgrano was 'closing with' elements of the task force at the time of the sinking, which was untrue. In the same way Blair and his WMD claims are still being defended. The coverup becomes the story and muddies the rights and wrongs of the original act.
The Argentinian plan to invade the Falklands should never have gotten off the drawing board. However, it was allowed to do so. Really? None of the security forces, of the US or the UK, caught any wind of it? I'm asked to believe that? The way the US studiously stood clear of the conflict - I know, the US did not want to upset its South American neighbours. Right. The whole thing was Iraq in reverse - allow an invasion that you know can be repulsed, provide the masses with a glorious victory, in order to turn around the waning popularity of the Thatcher government (Reagan's staunchest foreign ally). Theatre at its cynical and manipulative best. And of course, soldiers are paying for the most expensive tickets. Not the same thing as Iraq at all - as different as heads and tails (on the same coin). Blair makes me sick to my stomach, and worse so than Bush - not that I was expecting a shred of integrity from either low-life. Of course, the pair of them together pale into insignificance when compared to Thatcher.
I don't have a problem with Bush having been an alcoholic in his past - I've known a few people who have overcome the same problem. However, in addition to the WMD claims, what was unforgiveable was for Bush & Co to suggest that there was linkage between 9/11, al-Qaeda and Saddam: BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Iraq and al-Qaeda: What's the evidence?
