Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yahwehyadayada · 06-07-2003, 07:08 PM

First, Blair will concede that "mistakes were made" as No. 10 "regrets" the dodgy dossier

Then, we find that British intelligence has been practicing its own brand of CYA , complete with the following interesting tidbit of information:

"The mood is very fractious at the moment. Intelligence officials are keen that the inquiries should establish the demarcation between what was supplied to Downing Street by them, and what it received from the Americans."(emphasis mine)

Lastly, Downing Street goes on the attack, & gets exposed for that, too. Reid ordered to go on offensive against media

Any UK residents, please check in with your thoughts.

Monkeybot · 06-07-2003, 07:09 PM

Hey, that's what I already said!

yahwehyadayada · 06-07-2003, 07:20 PM

I couldn't get your first link to load for me, but I didn't post the article about the inspectors calling Blair on his lie about more than one source for the Niger uranium story. And here's another juicy one: Revealed: The Secret Cabal Which Spun For Blair

meritocrat · 06-08-2003, 11:17 AM

I'm British and I don't know what to make of this.

If Blair did lie in taking us to war (and no proof of WMD is ever found) then I feel he may be forced to resign (there is no impeachment process for a British PM like there is for a US president).

The AntiChris · 06-08-2003, 01:59 PM

I must confess that I'm at a loss as to what Blair's intentions were when he "argued" the case for war with Iraq.

If he knowingly lied, he's in big trouble. If he genuinely believed Iraq was an "imminent threat", then he's incompetently gullible.

Either way, he's in deep shit.

Chris

Happy Wonderer · 06-08-2003, 08:12 PM

I think I recall a speech from Blair where he said that preserving the "special relationship" with the US was of paramount importance. If you look at it with a really twisted viewpoint, he may have made the most practical decision available to him. The fact that the British have meddled in Iraq for decades may have something to do with it; leaving the US to take Iraq over alone would effectively cede British interests.

It would have been crystal clear to Blair that the US was going in no matter what (hell, we even said we were going in if Saddam resigned) so going along gives Britain some say. Remember that many in the US wanted absolutely no United Nations involvement in Iraq, Britain's involvement may moderate that somewhat.

He extracted a promise from Bush to work on the Palestanian mess, which he probably considers more important in the long run. Bush is reluctantly going along with what he promised (reining in Israel slightly), although I predict it will last for about a week.

In some ways I see it as a someone going along with a friend's stupid stunt to protect them from themselves...

hw

seanie · 06-09-2003, 01:59 AM

Blair's not in immediate trouble. At least not to the extent of resignation. It damages him certainly but it'll just add to a more general dissatisfaction, or rather dissappointment with him. And it all reinforces the public perception that the government is not to be trusted. Too much spin.

Even if they do find something it could well be too little too late. They built it up too much. A few rusty barrels of Anthrax ain't really gonna cut it. And the whole Palestinian peace process is going nowhere. It's a charade.

But ultimately you don't win or lose elections on this kinda thing, especially when your official opposition is so ludicrous. The only danger to Blair would be an internal coup but for that to happen his reputation would have to fall further. He's a long way off the electoral asset he once was but he's not yet a liability. And there's plenty of Blair loyalists to keep him secure for now.

I suspect the disingenuous fuckwit will be with us for some time yet.

yahwehyadayada · 06-09-2003, 10:32 AM

It looks to me that Blair's strategy is going to be the classic " Ignore it & it will go away "

There is no political will to depose Blair. I believe the only way he will be toppled is if his own constituency votes him out.

mecca777 · 06-09-2003, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yahwehyadayada
There is no political will to depose Blair. I believe the only way he will be toppled is if his own constituency votes him out.

Speaking as a lifelong resident of the North-East of England who grew up in a Durham mining town, I can confidently state that Fred Phelps will endorse gay marriage before the people of Sedgefield will vote in a non-Labour MP. It's the same in most small colliery towns around here; the Conservative party will never, ever be forgiven for what Thatcher did to the coal industries.

Blair will remain in power until Labour has won the next election (as it undoubtedly will). After that, I suspect that the Brownite faction will start the real pressure for a succession.

Zar · 06-09-2003, 01:23 PM

I do not advocate the following. It is merely an anaysis:

I don't know what Blair's intentions were. Perhaps he thought an Anglo-American alliance should simply not be broken and this overrides the crime of an illegal war against a bunch of towel-heads. Perhaps he hoped to be on the side of the "winners" and that the U.S. is a powerful winner you had to join with.

He's been kind of dumped now that he served his purpose for his real masters (From Washington? From global corporations?) and is flapping in the breeze a bit. It is interesting to think about what might become of him and the U.K./U.S. alliance going forward. It is uncertain. Even so, given the brazen disregard for the public that all governments in the "coalition of the deranged" displayed, perhaps Tony is expendable because you can always find another servant.

And if the U.K. totally self-destructed (not likely) all the more booty for America.

06-07-2003, 07:08 PM	#1
yahwehyadayada Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: WI Posts: 290	Things may be hotting up for Blair First, Blair will concede that "mistakes were made" as No. 10 "regrets" the dodgy dossier Then, we find that British intelligence has been practicing its own brand of CYA , complete with the following interesting tidbit of information: "The mood is very fractious at the moment. Intelligence officials are keen that the inquiries should establish the demarcation between what was supplied to Downing Street by them, and what it received from the Americans."(emphasis mine) Lastly, Downing Street goes on the attack, & gets exposed for that, too. Reid ordered to go on offensive against media Any UK residents, please check in with your thoughts.

06-07-2003, 07:20 PM	#3
yahwehyadayada Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: WI Posts: 290	Nope, these are different stories I couldn't get your first link to load for me, but I didn't post the article about the inspectors calling Blair on his lie about more than one source for the Niger uranium story. And here's another juicy one: Revealed: The Secret Cabal Which Spun For Blair

06-09-2003, 10:32 AM	#8
yahwehyadayada Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: WI Posts: 290	Thanks to all for your comments It looks to me that Blair's strategy is going to be the classic " Ignore it & it will go away " There is no political will to depose Blair. I believe the only way he will be toppled is if his own constituency votes him out.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-07-2003, 07:09 PM	#2
Monkeybot Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: North Carolina Posts: 8,102	Hey, that's what I already said!

06-08-2003, 11:17 AM	#4
meritocrat Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: England Posts: 2,608	I'm British and I don't know what to make of this. If Blair did lie in taking us to war (and no proof of WMD is ever found) then I feel he may be forced to resign (there is no impeachment process for a British PM like there is for a US president).

06-08-2003, 01:59 PM	#5
The AntiChris Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: UK Posts: 5,932	I must confess that I'm at a loss as to what Blair's intentions were when he "argued" the case for war with Iraq. If he knowingly lied, he's in big trouble. If he genuinely believed Iraq was an "imminent threat", then he's incompetently gullible. Either way, he's in deep shit. Chris

06-08-2003, 08:12 PM	#6
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	I think I recall a speech from Blair where he said that preserving the "special relationship" with the US was of paramount importance. If you look at it with a really twisted viewpoint, he may have made the most practical decision available to him. The fact that the British have meddled in Iraq for decades may have something to do with it; leaving the US to take Iraq over alone would effectively cede British interests. It would have been crystal clear to Blair that the US was going in no matter what (hell, we even said we were going in if Saddam resigned) so going along gives Britain some say. Remember that many in the US wanted absolutely no United Nations involvement in Iraq, Britain's involvement may moderate that somewhat. He extracted a promise from Bush to work on the Palestanian mess, which he probably considers more important in the long run. Bush is reluctantly going along with what he promised (reining in Israel slightly), although I predict it will last for about a week. In some ways I see it as a someone going along with a friend's stupid stunt to protect them from themselves... hw

06-09-2003, 01:59 AM	#7
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	Blair's not in immediate trouble. At least not to the extent of resignation. It damages him certainly but it'll just add to a more general dissatisfaction, or rather dissappointment with him. And it all reinforces the public perception that the government is not to be trusted. Too much spin. Even if they do find something it could well be too little too late. They built it up too much. A few rusty barrels of Anthrax ain't really gonna cut it. And the whole Palestinian peace process is going nowhere. It's a charade. But ultimately you don't win or lose elections on this kinda thing, especially when your official opposition is so ludicrous. The only danger to Blair would be an internal coup but for that to happen his reputation would have to fall further. He's a long way off the electoral asset he once was but he's not yet a liability. And there's plenty of Blair loyalists to keep him secure for now. I suspect the disingenuous fuckwit will be with us for some time yet.

06-09-2003, 01:23 PM	#10
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	I do not advocate the following. It is merely an anaysis: I don't know what Blair's intentions were. Perhaps he thought an Anglo-American alliance should simply not be broken and this overrides the crime of an illegal war against a bunch of towel-heads. Perhaps he hoped to be on the side of the "winners" and that the U.S. is a powerful winner you had to join with. He's been kind of dumped now that he served his purpose for his real masters (From Washington? From global corporations?) and is flapping in the breeze a bit. It is interesting to think about what might become of him and the U.K./U.S. alliance going forward. It is uncertain. Even so, given the brazen disregard for the public that all governments in the "coalition of the deranged" displayed, perhaps Tony is expendable because you can always find another servant. And if the U.K. totally self-destructed (not likely) all the more booty for America.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.