Somewhat depends if you want to believe the US President over your own intelligence services ( who stated it was unlikely there were WMDs ). Blair decided to follow his political instincts rather than the advice from his own services.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Sir Tony Blair .................. ?
- Thread starter Steve Foster
- Start date
Somewhat depends if you want to believe the US President over your own intelligence services ( who stated it was unlikely there were WMDs ). Blair decided to follow his political instincts rather than the advice from his own services.
Utter bollocks.
Which are you, 'old' labour, 'I'd vote for a pig in a blue rosette' tory, or 'we shouldn't interfere in other people's business' liberal?
Read my post above. At no time during the press conference by Powell and Straw that announced the invasion did they say it was justified because they had found WMD.
He wasn't found guilty of anything. The Thatcher government amended the Official Secrets Act in 1989 to explicitly remove the defence of leaking sensitive government information in the public interest.
The idea that Broon would follow Blair was inferred from the fact they had a dinner and a discussion to decide which of them would stand against whatever loony lefties would step up to succeed John Smith. They needed a unified centrist approach and only one of them could stand. It was probably obvious to both of them who that man should be. But Blair never agreed to stand down after a particular number of GE wins so that Broon could succeed. He just said he'd support Broon's leadership campaign when he stood down. Remember, labour were not even in power and hadn't been for years, and Blair wasn't even labour leader. He had nothing to promise, and if a promise were inferred by Broon it just shows what a dick Broon was (good with money but shit at politics - an ideal chancellor).
As his successive general election wins, and Broon's increasingly obvious appalling man management skills (beyond his devoted clique), tantrums and plottings showed, Mr Tony was far far better equipt to run the country than Broon. But, alas, Broon made it effectively impossible for Mr Tony to govern, let alone win a fourth term.
I suspect Blair could have fought off the effects of the WMD crisis (inflamed, gleefully by his enemies on the left and right) but not with his chancellor stabbing him not just in the back, not just in the front, but in his actual face. Tony should have sacked him, but probably considered it divisive. In the end, having served his country well, and with the chance to make some serious money on the private lecture circuit, he figured, '**** it, time to hand it over to the mad jock if the party can stomach it'.
OzMike
Well-known member
Egotistical ****, self centered and all about him. Just wanted his name to stand out in the history books. He and his gargoyle wife wanted to be the Posh and Becks of politics. Can't stand them.
His term in office was all about preparation for the lucrative speaking circuit deals he would get after it was all over.
His term in office was all about preparation for the lucrative speaking circuit deals he would get after it was all over.
He was forced out because of so called damning evidence that he refuted. However, the gist of my post remains the same in that my understanding was that he was against Huawei having involvement in our telecoms network due to the security risk. If he did it, it would seem he did not for the public interest but for the security of the country, two different things.
OGH's Libido
New member
- Nov 30, 2014
- 154
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
That's a touching story. A wonderful man who served his country well and rewarded with the chance to make some serious money on the private lecture circuit. I usually read your posts with interest but I'm struggling to find any words to comment on that fairy tale.
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Terrible with gold though.
OK, tell me the alternative version of how Blair became leader even though Broon wanted it, and how Broon persuaded Blair to step down (the essence of my post on which you comment).
And are you arguing with the fact that after he left parliament we went on to make serious money on the lecture circuit? Like (not silky) Dave Cameron is doing? Like they all do? Do you object that they are making serious money (from you presumably communistic perspective)? Or are you just bitter that Blair in particular is making serious money (for, presumably, some deep-seated antipathy towards Mr Tony)?
I am flattered that you normally enjoy my posts, but I am baffled that you feel the need to dig me out, especially with a couple of apocryphal 'yah boo!' sentences. Yah boo to you too.
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 9,114
That could apply to any number of senior politicians.
See my posts above.
In short, telling the Yanks to sod off would have resulted in absolute uproar. The tories and all the media (except maybe the Grauniad) were all persuaded by Powell, and the facts. Only the LibDems were opposed, and sided with the Blix approach of perpetual failed attempts to inspect the weapons. Blair would have had to be stark raving bonkers to not engage with the yanks at the time. Happily for tories, he'd have been booted out at the very next general election.
I am astonished that people have allowed their disappointment with (or even hatred of) Blair to conflate with the total mess that resulted because 'we' just buggered off after executing Saddam leaving a big vacuum to be filled by ISIS. Enraged, and armed with your Acme Retrospectroscope you fulminate about Blair as if he was the worst ever British PM rather than the second best (after Churchill, albeit for very different reasons).
OzMike
Well-known member
Didn't Gordon Brown succeed Tony Blair.
OK, you hate him. But that is a ludicrous and childish bit of peevishness. Presumably your missus is a step up from a gargoyle or you wouldn't be so condescending.
Aside from that, he had 3 terms in office (you may not be aware of that, living so far away.....from reality).
If you did a bit of research you wouldn't need to ask such stupid questions. Just a thought.
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
OK, tell me the alternative version of how Blair became leader even though Broon wanted it, and how Broon persuaded Blair to step down (the essence of my post on which you comment).
And are you arguing with the fact that after he left parliament we went on to make serious money on the lecture circuit? Like (not silky) Dave Cameron is doing? Like they all do? Do you object that they are making serious money (from you presumably communistic perspective)? Or are you just bitter that Blair in particular is making serious money (for, presumably, some deep-seated antipathy towards Mr Tony)?
I am flattered that you normally enjoy my posts, but I am baffled that you feel the need to dig me out, especially with a couple of apocryphal 'yah boo!' sentences. Yah boo to you too.
Thanks, that made me smile.
not really digging you out, more Blair. I just despise the man and much of what he did, and his wife, and Brown. I I don't object to anybody making serious money either, from any perspective. I'm not bitter that Blair made serious money, but I don't think it was right. I don't think NSC wants to hear my list of reasons, nor do I feel inclined to publish them. Suffice to say, when he was elected I rode the same crest of the wave of optimism as most of the UK regardless of political persuasion. I was very disappointed with both Blair and Brown and others during their years in office.