One down, one to go...

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by dong20, May 10, 2007.

  1. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Blair finally did what was long overdue today. We knew it was coming of course but until the movers arrive.....

    He said; "Believe one thing: if nothing else, I did what I thought was right for our country."

    Sorry, but I don't.

    He told supporters at Trimdon Labour Club in his Sedgefield constituency: "Ten years is enough for me - and the country."

    While we have had PM's I have disliked far more on ideological or political grounds, I can't recall one I had such little respect for in terms of integrity. So, on balance I have no disagreement on the bold.
     
  2. Ethyl

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,476
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    495
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Philadelphia (PA, US)
    I remember reading an article a few years ago about Bono and how he thought Blair was sincere but wrong in his stance on the war in Iraq. The US certainly had much more to gain (oil). I'm not sure how Blair thought the country could benefit from becoming involved in this mess other than keeping in good standing with the US.
     
  3. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    If one presents oneself too smoothly, many people will assume that one's real character and motives are being disguised in some way.
    Blair is certainly smooth, perhaps the smoothest politician seen on the world stage in several decades.
    But I personally never felt that he was hiding anything.
    His smoothness, in that sense, was unfortunate.
    People can easily find him insincere and yes, lacking in integrity.
    But he just doesn't ring that way with me.
    My impression only, of course.
     
  4. Ethyl

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,476
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    495
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Philadelphia (PA, US)
    Also my impression. Smooth? Yes. Slick? No.
     
  5. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    He certainly was smooth, superficially for public consumption, and incredibly shrewd. I may be doing him an injustice but while it's fair to say on balance I have little short of contempt for politicians as a species fror the last 5 years he set off my BS radar rather more than most, even some Tories!!

    You suspect he may have thought it would benefit the UK's standing throwing his lot in with GW, I'm unconvinced. I am however pretty convinced that the reasons (and evidence) for doing so were wilfully and deliberately manipulated with the express intent to perpetrate a fraud. Even if ithe acted with what he percieved as honourable motivation, (though as I said I'm not convinced of that) it was a betrayal of the first order, of the political system, the electorate and most of all the Armed forces and Iraqi people who paid for it with their lives. That alone was grounds for his resignation.

    Turn on it's head; if he were 100% sincere then his judgement was appalling, and not just with the 20:20 benefit of hindsight, the evidence was in plain sight. Whatever faults he may have, I don't beleive poor judgement in the big picture sense such as that is one of them, that leads me to believe he knew exactly what he was doing, like his partner in crime.

    Let's hope Scotty can do better, though I won't hold my breath.

    >> Cue BD with his soap box.
     
  6. Principessa

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,494
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    If only George W. Bush would follow suit, I would be so happy I would dance naked in the street.
     
  7. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    Don't start dancing yet, until Little Dick Cheney also resigns. The thought of THAT man (Cheney) is worse than Bush.

    I don't think that Blair had poor judgement. Blair followed the basic policy that has been followed since World War II. The U.S. and the U.K have pretty much been joined at the hip. The UK gets from the US all the technology that the US develops. With US help, the UK is the only other true world power. (The UK can still send troops pretty much anywhere. No other nation can do that except the US.)The UK heads up the Commonwealth of Nations, The Queen is officially the queen of all English speaking nations except the U.S. And judging by her visits her, she is as popular or perhaps more popular here than in the UK. In America, we don't read about the day-to-day activities of any royal family except the UK. In spite of the American Revolution against King George, the Queen is still recognized as an important figure here.

    All this to say, that Blair and the military establishment and probably the royal family felt a duty to support the US. To not do so would have disrupted the US/UK alliance that together the other English speaking countries where the Queen is still the Queen, is extremely imposing on the world. The UK has far more world weight than her population would come close to indicate. Blair was not going to take a chance on losing that.
    So the UK joined the US even when it was in the best interest of both to not get into the mess in Iraq.

    I'm also sure that Blair never dreamed that Bush would keep this going on and on and on. Blair was expected a few weeks war and then peace. Most everybody was. And it could have been that way. Could have. But we have an idiot in the White House, whose wisdom continues to decline by the day. And Cheney is his boss, who covets power for the sake of power no matter how much it hurts everybody else including the citizens of the UK and the US.

    In good times and bad, right or wrong, the US and the UK have been moving toward each other more and more since 1812 when the British conceded that the US was really independent and not a semiautonomous region of the British Empire
     
  8. dreamer20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Providence
    and vice versa.:wink:
     
  9. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    I think largely for the reasons I mentioned.

    Frankly, I can't now sort out what the Brits did in the runup to the Iraq invasion from what the Yanks did.
    But I don't at all doubt that Blair was very sure that the Iraqis had WMDs. Remember, Clinton himself was convinced, as he acknowledged, in exculpation of Bush.
    Did they (the Bush and the Blair teams) torque the evidence in the runup to the war? It now seems obvious they did. But they sincerely believed that war would serve a good purpose and were sure that those WMDs would be found, effectively erasing the moral hedging of the inflated descriptions of the Iraqi 'threat.'
    And they fell utterly on their faces because their assumptions were full of shit from the get go, though they hadn't known that.
    I don't think this is moral turpitude of the first water in a matter of war; probably more like par for the course; but when you throw the dice in such matters and are found to be completely wrong, history's verdict (quite rightly) is harsh.

    He knew he was doing what? Invading a country that had no WMDs? Starting an invasion that could only blow up in his face? I'm not convinced of either of those.

    He may very well have bought the Bushian doctrine that democracy would bring civility to the Middle East. And that seemed a fair bet, I suppose ... at least at one time.

    Was it worth risking the lives of thousands of soldiers? The near certainly that tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would be eventually killed? (The scorecard is still counting on this one.)

    Frankly, I didn't think so. I expected things to go pretty much as they've done. You don't invade a country of such ethnic fragility as Iraq, so fraught with tribal and sectarian loyalties, without being prepared for the worst possibilities to happen.

    So I think there is great blemish on his judgment -- but not, for me, on his morality and character.
     
  10. No_Strings

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    4,100
    Likes Received:
    6
    Well I'm personally sad to see him go, I believe he did a better job at running my country then anyone else could have done over the past 10 years(or ever during my conscious lifetime), and just think he is actually a nice guy.

    I disagree with the war in Iraq, but feel that Iraq is in a better state now than it was previously, no matter how far from ideal the situation at this moment.
    This was such a small part of his reign though, and is not hugely relevant on how I formed by opinion about his leadership skills.

    I'll now be abstaining from voting, which would've previously gone towards Labour under Mr. Blair.
     
  11. rob_just_rob

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Nowhere near you
    I had heard somewhere that Britain joined in the invasion of Iraq with the expectation of a quid pro quo from Bush: Adding the Irish Republican Army and related groups to the US list of terrorist organizations (the USA had been, up to that point, a major source of funds for the IRA).
     
  12. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    There seems to be considerable unenthusiasm for Gordon Brown.
     
  13. Yorkie

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,024
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    102
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Yorkshire, UK
    He will get my vote.I don't ever want to suffer the misery of another Conservative government.
     
  14. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Nor I.

    The UK's former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, was the one who actually did the right thing by resigning in March 2003 amidst all the lies and distortions leading up to the debacle in Iraq. Too bad our own Secretary of State, Colin Powell, didn't have the stones to follow suit, the sycophant.

    Blair, like Bush, will no doubt be happy to leave clean up of his mess to a successor.
     
  15. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    Wasn't Robin Cook's issue the fact that Bush and Blair hadn't gotten their own electorates and the UN onside?
    He wasn't so much charging dishonesty in how B & B had proceeded, that I recall.
    Though to be honest, SG, it's all getting a bit hazy now, four years later.
     
  16. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    Hmmm.
    I may concede a little more to my friend, Dong
    As I've been watching the Blair clips that have been omnipresent on TV, I do detect (or fatuously assume I do), as I have before, a soft focus at the core.
    He was (is) a bit of a chameleon, able to become whatever is needed at a given moment.
    But I still find him more sincere than Dong does.
    George Burns said, 'If you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.'
    Blair didn't quite learn that trick.
    Which doesn't mean he was (is) insincere ... merely that whatever sincerity he has doesn't perhaps quite come across.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted