He also inflicted Brown on us as Chancellor for the whole of his period as PM, and then (presumably in some sort of deal) resigned in 2007, only 2 years after being elected, letting Brown become PM (without having contested a General Election, and not even having faced a Labour Party leadership election, because so many Labour MPs nominated him).
yes, but remember that Brown stood up against Blair on the subject of taking the Euro. One spin is that Blair wanted to become Euro president and ditching the pound/selling this country out would have boosted his chances. There's not a lot that I respect Brown for, but standing up to Blair over the £ is one of them
Not quite Loz as far as I'm aware the US while conducting shuttle diplomacy were quietly supplying our guys with the an updated Sidewinder missile, without which the result could have been very different. You are correct about Thatcher et al could have (or did) see it coming and let it carry on. If Galiteri had left it a little later Knott would have sold the carriers (to Oz as I recall) and we wouldn't have had the power to go down there either. I don't have anything to say about Blair that hasn't been said already I am just amazed at how the guy can a) Sleep at night b) Square what he's done with his "religious beliefs" Most people would turn down the money rather than commit to these levels of atrocity and hippocracy John
They may do but Dick Cheney doesn't. The book Angler on Cheney's vice presidency explains the Iraq war. The Iraq war didn't happen principally for oil, or democracy, or weapons of mass destruction. It happened because it could. That is to say that the Americans wanted to give someone a bloody nose as a power projection exercise, as encouragement to other countries that they were top dog and not to be messed with. There were more justifiable people to invade but the outcomes looked more uncertain viz: Pakistan - they have nukes; North Korea - very nutty, unpredictable and may have a nuke (also China's back yard); Yemen - could have been good, but a supposed ally; Somalia - a complete wasps nest with little hope of a democratic outcome. Also Iraq had the bonus of looking threatening to Israel and no one liked Saddam, so Iraq got the nod. Cheney deliberately misled (deliberately lied to) other politicians in the States over WMD to get support for the war. Colin Powell was probably lied to as well so that he could make his nonsense UN claims. Blair was lied to and he lied to us. Even the CIA didn't believe in WMD but Cheney and co just built up other secret services which would tell them what they needed to hear and ignored the CIA. Let's face it, if the British public didn't believe the WMD story you think MI6 did? They're not dumb. So Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Rumsfeld and co started a war for no compelling reason and managed to con the rest of the US and the UK, notably, into joining it. And the result? Probably the first real modern attempt at an Islamic caliphate. Back of the net!
What continues to amaze me about tony b liar is his ability to push himself as a Middle East peace envoy? Wtf , so destabilise an entire geographic area by your actions then sell yourself as the solution . Snake oil salesman of the highest order. He had no political convictions, he just wanted absolute power absolutely. As has been said how this sits with his pious religious beliefs I have no idea. Don't get me started on his wife and her ideals and beliefs.
My tongue was in my cheek when I suggested the US were staying clear. I could have made that more clear The US was supplying support, you can be entirely sure of that.
I remember Cherie Blair's appearance on TV the day after the election, when the cameras caught her dishevelled and bleary-eyed at her front door. At the time I found the image endearing, very human and down-to-Earth. LOL. How naive I was. Theatre.
Simon Heffer in the Mail (I did stumble on this completely fortuitously) is suggesting that Blair should be impeached, which is, apparently, a constitutional possibility. It sounds like a very good idea to me and one which should be pursued. I imagine it won't be, such is the nature of the power of Westminster and the politicians' stubborn refusal to really represent the views of the people who elected them.
That's OK Glidd, you don't have to explain yourself for reading the Mail. It is a good idea, but it won't happen for the reasons you state. But, le Frenchies have taken to prosecuting former PM's, maybe we should learn something from them ?
The French are not only a lot bolshier than the Brits, but their government is a lot more corrupt. They have multiple reasons to put politicians on trial. Ours are just normally corrupt - it would be strange if their probity was never in doubt, no matter how much we would like to think that this is the case. But the French have to deal with multiples "affaires" as they term them. Underneath every rock there seems to be some evidence of law-breaking or venality or scheming.
The objective of impeaching a person who holds a high office is to remove them from that office. The impeachment of Richard Nixon had real justification and succeeded in removing him from office. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was just a manoeuvre by political opponents, was without justification, and did more political damage to the impeachers. As far as Tony Blair is concerned, in case anybody hasn't noticed he left office seven years ago so the whole concept of impeachment is utterly irrelevant - even if it had the slightest shred of justification, which it manifestly does not. This is just speculative journalistic yammering, no rarity in the Mail.
As far as Tony Blair is concerned, in case anybody hasn't noticed he left office seven years ago so the whole concept of impeachment is utterly irrelevant - even if it had the slightest shred of justification, which it manifestly does not. Pete, are you saying that were Blair still in power (hypothetically) that there would be no evidence nor justification for Impeaching him? If this is the case do you believe then that he acted ethically in the way that he took this country to war, irrespective of the consequences, and not letting the truth get in his way?
"I was having lunch last week with blah-blah, who was Tony Blair's something or other at the time. Blah-blah told me that no one ever did anything wrong at anytime and yada-yada old-boy-network something else." There you go, Pete. Saved you the bother.
Agreed, and a slimey, self-serving ***t at that. Always worried me when Blair would holiday at one (or more) of Berlusconi's properties, does anyone actually think Silvio let him stay because he liked him?...
