Iraq. It was for the oil, wasn’t it? That’s right. It wasn’t

February 9, 2010 by keeptonyblairforpm
  • Original Home Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.” See this recent signature comment
  • Comment at end

    Ban Blair-Baiting

    GoPetition

    9th February, 2010

    A few days ago on US TV Mike Huckabee interviewed Tony Blair, as covered here.

    A commenter at Huckabee’s feedback pages mentioned this; something most of us have forgotten, if we even heard about it in the first place:

    The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “More than all the Middle East put together” (and 18 times as much oil as Iraq.)

    The Bakken Shale, which under lies Montana and North Dakota, has been known since the 1950s but has been undeveloped due to the technological challenge of developing the resource. Modern advancements have opened this resource and today estimates range from 4 to 12 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from this “new” domestic energy source. See 14.

    The commenter’s full entry:


    Dear Gov,

    Why don’t we pursue the oil beneath North Dakota ??

    Here’s an interesting read: and some important and verifiable information :

    About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes brothers was the guest. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “More than all the Middle East put together.”

    Please read below:

    The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big! It was a revised report (which had not been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana …….

    Check THIS out:

    The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable. At $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

    “When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.” says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst.

    “This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years,” reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken.’ It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada. For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end.. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves. We now have access of up to 500 billion barrels.. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

    That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should – because the information is from 2006!

    U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World

    Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006

    Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this ‘mother lode’ of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

    They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

    - 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

    - 18-times as much oil as Iraq

    - 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

    - 22-times as much oil as Iran

    - 500-times as much oil as Yemen

    - and it’s all right here in the Western United States .

    HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.

    WHY?

    James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

    Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price – even with this find? Think again! It’s all about the competitive marketplace, – it has to.

    Do ya’ think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

    Got your attention yet? Now, while you’re thinking about it, do this:

    Pass this along. If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices -

    By doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

    Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.

    By the way…this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!

    GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.

    http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911


    MY THOUGHTS

    I realise that the “it’s all about the oil” aficionados will say that this oil is a recent discovery, 2006, well after the Iraq war started. And I understad the reservations about the cost of extraction. But it is clear that since the 1950s the USA has known about huge reserves under its territory.

    For the sake of balance – and who says I’m unbalanced? – the respected Snopes site throws some cold water on this claim, and provides other figures for perspective. It certainly lends little credence to the 41 years reserves from Bakken alone as claimed by some. As forthe claim in the comment quote “That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight” – no mention.

    From my own perspective the idea that America or any country would go into Iraq in order to “get” and transport their oil back to the states when America has known for decades that it is sitting on huge reserves at home is as daft as the idea that America or any country would go into Iraq on the basis of there being WMD while knowing there weren’t any. That “lie” on WMD would soon become transparent to all and be broadcast far and wide as a lie.

    Even when it is the truth.

    It would seem that there is oil enough to serve America’s needs for some time to come.

    There is also likely to be evidence of WMD in Saddam’s Iraq hidden under the sands.

    But conspiracies get halfway round the world before the truth has time to get its boots on. And so it has proved in the narrative and arsenal of the anti-Iraq war and New World Order conspirators.




    Free Hit Counter


    Pierce Brosnan – A Total Pillock, A TOTAL Pillock (on The Ghost/Polanski & Blair)

    February 9, 2010 by keeptonyblairforpm
  • Original Home Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.” See this recent signature comment
  • Comment at end

    Ban Blair-Baiting

    GoPetition

    9th February, 2010

    Brosnan on Blair – “A total puppet. A total puppet.”

    C/W Blair Supporter (and former Brosnan ‘Bond’ fan) on Brosnan -

    A total pillock. A TOTAL pillock

    Interview: Pierce Brosnan on Polanski, Percy, and R-Patz

    Excerpt from interview:

    I was under the impression that in the book, your character Adam Lang was supposed to be a thinly veiled version of Tony Blair. I thought yours had a twist of George W. Bush in there as well.

    On Blair

    PB: Well, I certainly didn’t go to Bush within it; I kept front and foremost Tony Blair and [David] Cameron and those people, and the rest was just me and my imagination – what if I were a Prime Minister and first and foremost, the great pretender, the great [performer]? And the vortex and the crisis that this man is in at this point in his life and the sham of his life and his leadership – that’s what intrigued me.

    Once I was off the hook, and I realized that I wasn’t going to be doing a Tony Blair impersonation or trying to be like Tony Blair – Michael Sheen had already done that – you know, I just had great fun with it. There was a real sense of irony to the character, and there was humor, and I’d like to think there was some heart to the man, and that his life was a bit of a sham, really, and he knows it and he knows that he’s absolutely hamstrung without his wife, and to… have so little to really fight for, that’s what kind of I tried to bring to the work… Once the camera starts rolling, the performance starts pouring out of him — the populist [who] wanted to be charming, wanted to be loved and to be witty, but absolutely has no f*ckin’ idea how to run a country. Absolutely none whatsoever. A total puppet. A total puppet.

    [...]

    On Polanski

    What was your reaction when you heard about Polanski’s arrest? Were you concerned that the movie would never see the light of day?

    PB: No, I wasn’t, actually. I wasn’t concerned for that. I was concerned for him, as a man and as someone who had become a friend. And, you know, I hoped for closure, I still hope for closure for him and for all parties concerned. I think what happened back then was wrong in every way, and I think he certainly would like to have closure.


    Ed: Closure? Closure on Polanski’s paedophilia conviction? But this pillock doesn’t hope for closure on Blair’s political decision, clearly.

    Hat tip to John Rentoul


    RELATED

    Take a peep at the titles of Brosnan’s Bond films

    Perhaps when this actor learns a little more about REAL politics and stops regurgitating his “friend” Polanski’s ‘thoughts’, Golden Eye will notice that Tomorrow Never Comes, The World Is Not Enough and we all expect to Die Another Day.

    You’re welcome to the plug.

    Meanwhile Brosnan remains a pillock.

    [Add this guy to my earlier cast of misfits - Polanski,  Stephen Frears, Robert Harris]




    Free Hit Counter


    Press Watch 1: Guardian Cif-er – “Suicide bomb” Tony Blair

    February 9, 2010 by keeptonyblairforpm
  • Original Home Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.” See this recent signature comment
  • Comment at end

    Ban Blair-Baiting

    GoPetition

    9th February, 2010

    “anti-war warriors out for a good hanging”

    If you thought it was a little OTT of me to say the above at the previous post, here’s something to chew on from Cif Watch, a site which monitors antisemitism on The Guardian.



    Advocating the blowing up of Tony Blair

    Here’s a comment from the recent Avi Shlaim thread from another gentle sandal wearing Guardian reader.

    I do hope that someone in the Guardian had the good sense to report this to the police.



    REPORT IT TO THE POLICE?  THE WRITER MUST BE JOKING!

    BUT TONY BLAIR IS NOT A JEW

    So what? Clearly, Tony Blair is viewed in the same way to Guardian commenters (and writers, in the main) as are Jews.

    Why say that he should be suicide bombed?

    A multitude of reasons, but partly that the typical Cif commenter thinks Blair understands and even sympathises far too much with the Israeli cause on Israel/Palestinian issues.  As the Quartet’s Middle East special envoy this will never do! Strap on your suicide belt, fellow-jihadists, this Cif commenter says. Blow him up!

    You might ask in this Free Speech land – “so what’s new?”

    That comment has now been removed, btw:



    ravi1

    3 Feb 2010, 9:31AM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.


    INCITEMENT IN BRITAIN – RECENT – INFILTRATION – NO LEGAL SANCTIONS
    This kind of hate and incitement of murder on web comment pages and particularly on blogs is NOT new in recent years, and particularly as regards Mr Blair. I have saved pages of them on file,  if the authorities want to ask me about them.

    But it is new in historical terms. Until recent years people in this country have never called for politicians or anyone, even our sworn enemies, come to that, to be killed.

    Why is it allowed?

    And who are these would-be assassins? Infiltrators and those who do not trust western politics or democracy.

    I’m afraid our ignoring of this is political correctness gone mad, as well as the heavy hand of the Human Rights Act. (This is applied to the inhuman as well as to you and me.)

    Many of these inciters are on the “peace-loving” anti-war but often pro-summary justice Left. They KNOW that they will never again hold power after Blair’s shifting of their ideology to the unreachable edges of the political  Left.

    WHAT ABOUT LIBEL?

    We should have clamped down on this when the first incitement to violence comment was published.

    And even this one  – “Blair is a war criminal”. And this – “Blair is a liar”. I was always under the impression that this was libellous.

    But in this constantly derided (by the Guardian and others) “police state”, we let it go. Free speech an’ all that.

    Now all sorts of previously considered balanced people and publications repeat these lies and libellous statements without compunction. And so they encourage the mad, often infiltrating, imho, to vent their spleen.

    Aside: How many have been charged with “incitement to murder”? See here, parliamentary questions, Feb 2006. NOTE – a diminishing, not rising number (1994- 2004). By 2004, both the numbers prosecuted and the numbers found guilty were on a markedly downward trajectory. WHY? When there are so many personal incitements against named politicians online? Or do politicians not count as being capable of being incited against? In the same way as they are not to be thought of as “innocent until proven guilty”?

    Be warned: ~(to paraphrase) “First they came for the politicians…”

    I’d like to put on record my disgust at this continuing online incitement. I would also be disgusted if it was said at all, not even as against Blair repeatedly, against Gordon Brown, David Cameron or Nick Clegg.

    The papers have refused to chase up or report this kind of comment to the Police. The government, although they must have been monitoring the internet (if not, why not?) have not followed up with charges of incitement.

    In my opinion, they could have done so under the Terrorism Act 2006. Excerpt:

    Encouragement to Terrorism
    “This makes it a criminal offence to directly or indirectly incite or encourage others to commit acts of terrorism. This will include the glorification of terrorism, where this may be understood as encouraging the emulation of terrorism.”

    Or does inciting to assassinate a western politician by suicide bomb or a bullet to the head, because he stood up  against international terrorism not qualify as “terrorism”?


    GUARDIAN CIF’S COMMENT POLICY vs DAILY MAIL’S

    The Guardian Cif comments are not monitored as are those at most of the other mainstream papers. Thus, nasties like this are allowed to stand for some time until a moderator removes them.

    It’s a toss-up to decide which is better. The Guardian – ‘publish then delete’, or the Daily Mail’s ‘monitor then cherry-pick’.

    In some ways the Cif approach is at least being more honest. From the Daily Mail it’s hard to get the impression that anyone in the entire world has a good word to say about Blair. Thus it spreads a destructive narrative, thus, imho, giving the nod to violence.

    The Mail NEVER, but NEVER publishes me, btw. I wonder why not?

    It must have been something (positive) I said.


    About Cif Watch

    Welcome to CiF Watch, dedicated to monitoring and exposing antisemitism on the Guardian newspaper’s ‘Comment is Free’ blog.

    What is ‘Comment is Free’?

    ‘Comment is Free’ is the online home of the Guardian and Observer that carries articles designed to engender debate and discussion through a post-moderated comment thread. The Guardian is one of the most influential media outlets in the world and the ‘Comment is Free’ blog is among the most popular blogs on the internet.

    In the 2008 Webby Awards for the best political blog, ‘Comment is Free’ came in as runner-up second only to the Huffington Post while in the 2009 Webby Awards, the guardian.co.uk, the platform upon which ‘Comment is Free’ resides, won the category of best newspaper ahead of NYTimes.com.

    The Guardian newspaper is a respectable and mainstream news outlet. How is it possible that there is antisemitism on ‘Comment is Free’?

    Despite the fact that the Guardian is a mainstream news outlet, it has allowed ‘Comment is Free’ to become a platform where antisemitism thrives.

    Antisemitism manifests itself most frequently on the section of ‘Comment is Free’ known as “CiF Middle East”.  There Israel is the subject of regular rebuke and moral opprobrium in a manner quite out of proportion to any other country in the Middle East or the world for that matter.

    Contributors to ‘Comment is Free’ regularly engage in one-sided anti-Israel diatribes that fuel what inevitably devolves into an anti-Jewish hate-fest on the comment thread, through the invocation of antisemitic memes and tropes. Coupled with this is a post-moderation policy, relying by and large on users to flag abusive comments, that consistently fails to delete large numbers of antisemitic comments (see CiF Commenters) despite in many cases the report of abuse. To add insult to injury, in some instances the moderators delete the comments of users who attempt to refute antisemitic comments without deleting the antisemitic comment itself.

    The Community Security Trust, a British charity established to ensure the safety and security of the Jewish community in the UK, in both its 2007 and 2008 reports on Antisemitic Discourse in Britain, singled out ‘Comment is Free’ as one of the main purveyors of antisemitic hate in the mainstream media.

    Moreover, in Antisemistism on Guardian Comment is Free Jonathan Hoffman authored a 57-page report dedicated to exposing examples of antisemitism on ‘Comment is Free’ which was submitted to the UK Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism.

    In short, ‘Comment is Free’ has become a platform for the expression of antisemitic  hate-speech and the proliferation of such speech in such a widely respected mainstream news outlet lends credence to such extreme views, poisoning the public debate. As Andre Oboler eruditely pointed out in  Online Antisemitism 2.0, “[w]hat in the mainstream-media era was clearly viewed as offensive is now so prevalent that it is increasingly gaining acceptability.”  As we know all too well from experience, acts of antisemitic violence are always a step or two behind the vilification of the Jews in the print and online media.

    How do you determine if something is antisemitic?

    We use the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism to determine whether an article, editorial or post on ‘Comment is Free’ is antisemitic.

    The EUMC Working Definition is the most widely used definition of antisemitism and has been relied upon by the UK All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism and the US State Department.

    Please visit How We Define Antisemitism for more on the Working Definition.

    By labelling something antisemitic are you not shutting down debate on what is perhaps a legitimate subject of debate?

    Absolutely not. We support vigorous and open debate about Jewish related issues, including issues of controversy, as long as such debate does not violate the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism.

    In particular, it bears emphasizing that we support open and honest debate about the Israel/Palestinian conflict including harsh criticism of Israel as long as the criticism of Israel is similar to that leveled against any other nation of the world.

    What is CiF Watch’s Mission Statement?

    We at CiF Watch hold the Guardian directly responsible for openly facilitating and encouraging such a platform in which antisemitism can thrive.

    As one of the most popular mainstream news sources in the world, the Guardian has an elevated responsibility to ensure that it presents a balanced picture of the Israel/Palestinian conflict in accordance with prevailing journalistic standards and to implement a zero-tolerance moderation policy to identify and remove antisemitism from its comment threads.

    By documenting and exposing antisemitism on ‘Comment is Free’, we at CiF Watch are committed to holding the Guardian accountable for its complicity in spreading hate-speech. Specifically, we demand that the Guardian adequately confront and address the problem of antisemitism on ‘Comment is Free’ by taking, at the minimum, the following actions:

    • cease with the obsessive focus on the Israel/Palestinian conflict in CiF Middle East;
    • present a more balanced perspective on the Israel/Palestinian conflict – rarely do we ever hear the perspective of moderate Israelis and Palestinians;
    • permanently ban users that consistently post antisemitic comments to ‘Comment is Free’ and permanently delete their comments from all archives;
    • do not delete the comments of those that refute antisemitism on ‘Comment is Free’ unless the antisemitic comment itself and all subsequent references thereto are deleted in their entirety;
    • do not rely on users to flag antisemitic comments (which disproportionately falls on Jewish commenters) – this is squarely the responsibility of the Guardian moderators and if the task is too burdensome due to the volume of comments, either employ more moderators or implement a pre-moderated comment thread;
    • ensure that moderators are not exercising bias for either side of the conflict in the exercise of their duties;
    • employ the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism as the standard for identifying antisemitism and ensure that moderators understand what constitutes antisemitism and in particular that certain criticism of Israel is antisemitic; and
    • appreciate the pain and suffering that antisemitism on ‘Comment is Free’ causes to Jews and non-Jews alike and its poisonous influence upon public discourse.

    Who is CiF Watch?

    We are a grassroots, unaffiliated group that is neither left wing nor right wing, religious nor secular, that is dedicated to exposing antisemitism on ‘Comment is Free’.

    Yes but this does not tell us who you are.

    Due to intimidation suffered by those that have spoken out about the very issues that we raise, we have regretfully decided to remain anonymous. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation points outs “anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse”. As the much cited  United States Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission states:

    “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”

    How can we get in contact with you?

    If you wish to contact us “offline”, please email us at contactus@cifwatch.com. We welcome your comments and suggestions.

    Check back frequently at CiF Watch for the latest!

    Cif Watch’s list of anti-semitic Guardian Cif commenters


    This from Hussein Al-alak, of th so-called “Iraq Solidarity Campaign” says (my boldings):

    “The mass murder of one million Iraqi�s, the creation of five millions orphans, the destitution of millions of refugees, along with the forced unemployment of millions, under the banner of “de-Baathification”, is not even worthy of a trial at the Hague but of direct justice at the hands of the Iraqi people.

    Mr Al-alak refers to this article from the Communist Party of Great Britain with this thought by Ben Lewis:

    “Frankly, following his [Blair's] utterly disdainful display at the Chilcot inquiry, many would not bat an eyelid if he was on the receiving end of a bullet to the head. But this is not the point. Focussing on him as a ‘war criminal’ who must be jailed is still playing within the rules of a bourgeois order that is rigged from the outset – skewed in favour of their property interests.”

    “Not the point”, is it?  Are you sure, Mr Lewis?

    And “direct jusice”, Mr Al-alk? How direct? Towards whom? Your followers in Iraq, insurgency groups- innocents all – are already taking direct justice against the troops who are there to free Iraq from decades of dictatorship. Presumably this is good news as far as you are concerned, as it is to the Socialist Workers Party who also want the our soldiers to be defeated in Iraq.

    Or are you suggesting action even more direct than that?

    In my opinion, at least where they are UK-based these people should be charged with incitement to murder.




    Free Hit Counter


    Blair on Iraq, Chilcot, scandal-obsessed & conspiratorial Brits

    February 8, 2010 by keeptonyblairforpm
  • Original Home Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.” See this recent signature comment
  • Comment at end

    Ban Blair-Baiting

    GoPetition

    8th February, 2010

    Blair: “There’s always got to be a scandal as to why you hold your view, some sort of conspiracy behind it,  some sort of deceit that’s gone on… when actually there’s a decision at the heart of it.”

    2/6/10 Huck interview with Tony Blair part 1

    From the YouTube site:

    “Finally, a liberal politician with half a brain (Tony Blair) and who seems honest and not trying to give people a snow job and who doesn’t come across like a used car salesman or a con artist. It’s only the second instance I’ve seen, the other being Joe Lieberman. If it sounds crass, I’m just trying to catch up with the libs but I’ve got a long way to go. That scene demonizing Blair behind bars using the evil looking doll is a good example. Why is it they scream murder when you do the same thing such as their Tea Party coverage when they were the people with the anti-war riots? I think of them as the hypocrisy party. See what Blair says on Iraq.”

    [Ed: Hypocrisy Party? I think of them like that too. Liberal Democrats, anarchists, anti-war warriors out for a good hanging, old unreconstructed Labourites, hypocritical Daily Mail supporting Conservatives. Strange bedfellows all.]

    Margaret, a regular commenter here has just sent me this transcript of the Huckabee interview with Blair. Thank you, Margaret. (Will tidy it up later):

    Huckabee: I’m Mike Huckabee from Jerusalem. Tonight my exclusive interview with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He’s been under fire recently especially from the British press over his involvement in the Iraq War icluding gruelling intense questioning at the recent Chilcot Commission. And the British press have been harsh on him calling  him everything from George Bush’s poodle to a liar. There are have been 4 official inquires the most recent the Chilcot Comission. Six hours of gruelling questions that you have (Blair smiling and nodding in agreement) that you have experienced . You said that you would have made the very same decisions that you made before. What gives you the resolve to be able to say that, especially with all the pressure you had?

    Tony Blair: The most difficult thing in politics is especially when you have won an election and then you come into power as I did as very much someone who in a sense wanted to please all of the people all of the time and we’d been 18 years in opposition as a political party. Um this was a huge moment – we were in there and as my time went on as Prime Minister I realised in the end you couldn’t please all the people all of the time, but when it came to the very big decisions you had to do what you thought was right. And I did what I thought was right in respect of Iraq and I in a sense the strength to carry on drives from that belief.

    Now I’m not, you know, I don’t, I don’t pretend I’ve got a monopoly of wisdom on it at all and that’s why I’ve always said I don’t disrespect people who hold completely the  opposite point of view. But that’s what I believe and I did what I believed.

    And I think as we look at it now in this – here we are in this region in the Middle East – I think we are better off and safer as a region and as a world without Saddam in power.

    Huckabee: There’s one other question. Are the United States, the UK safer now than we were before we went into Iraq?

    Tony Blair: My view yes because you got to ask what would have happened if we’d left Saddam there. The sanctions regime was crumbling, frankly, which was why they were trying to put together a new sanctions regime. We know now from the Iraq Survey group that Saddam retained every intention and also the intellectual know-how to re-start the nuclear and chemical weapons programme and he would have had several years of very large oil revenues so he would have had the money and he would have had the intent and meanwhile we would have backed off. Now if you can never – you’re always speculating – and hypothesisis to what would have happened, but my view being out here in the region is that the danger would have been that he would have ended up in a sense competing with Iran. Both to lead the extreme elements within Islam and also, of course, proliferating nuclear and chemical weapons.

    Huckabee: There have been the critics who said the destruction of his power in Iraq emboldened Iran and made them even more powerful and a greater threat. How do you respond to that criticism because it’s been out there?

    Tony Blair: Yeah it has been out there and it’s a very important criticism and important criticism to respond to. As I always say to people when people say-look Saddam was the strong -man that was the braek on Iran. I say -yep that was our policy through the 1980’s. We supported Saddam against Iran. What was the result? The result was an Iran-Iraq war which was the million casualties  it developed during the course of that and used chemical weapons. He emerged out of that and invaded Kuwait . The answer to Iran is not to get another extremist arm them and try and get him to be the brake on them. The answer actually is to allow people in Iraq to have the same freedom that we do to elect their government and to have next door to Iran a majority Shia country that is a country is democratic . Now it’s very fragile, it’s very difficult but the interesting thing and this is part of the evidence actually given to this inquiry is that today in Iraq the political parties are going across the sectarian divide and actually the worst thing of the people standing in the election is to be seen to be too close to Iran. Now I think that is a better way to deal with this than to say (Blair shaking his head) ‘let’s get another dictator and put them up against this dictator’. The very best way of dealing with their extreme ideas is to put before people a better idea. One thing ,you know I spend a lot of time out in this region, the biggest myth there is that people in this region for cultural reasons, for reasons of tradition and history and the history there is a whole elite in the West and sit here and say this these people don’t want really democracy they don’t want freedom they don’t quite know what it is and what to do with it you know they incapable of understanding these concepts. It’s nonsense .You know, you talk to the ordinary Palestinian here, what they want is to be able to elect their government they don’t. Believe it or not they’re no different from us.

    Huckabee: I don’t pretend for a moment  to understand American politics very well  (Blair smiling) I certainly don’t understand British politics but why so many of these inquiries? There has been four and they all have been relentless they haven’t been they haven’t really mined any new ground .

    Tony Blair: (shaking his head and laughing ) Um I think it’s partly because we have this curious habit I don’t think this is confined to Britain actually where people find it hard to come to the point where they say we disagree you’re a reasonable person, I’m a reasonable person but we disagree. There always has got to be a scandal as to why you hold your view er there’s got to be some conspiracy behind it. Some great you know um um deceit that’s gone on and people just find it hard to understand that it is possible for people to have different points of view and hold them reasonably full full figured reasons And so I think that is that there’s


    And here’s part of today’s Times’ coverage -

    Tony Blair has dismissed the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war as part of Britain’s obsession with conspiracy and scandal.

    Speaking for the first time since his controversial appearance as a witness, the former Prime Minister said people should accept that it is possible to have different opinions on the legitimacy of the invasion without any underlying deceit.

    The interview, broadcast last night, came as Jack Straw, the former Foreign Secretary, prepared to give a second round of evidence before the inquiry this afternoon.

    Mr Blair called for an end to this kind of speculation over ulterior motives during an interview on Fox with Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas who ran against John McCain to be the Republican nominee for President in 2008.

    Mr Huckabee asked: “I don’t pretend for a moment to understand American politics very well and I certainly don’t understand British politics but why so many of these [Iraq] inquiries? There’s been four and they’ve all been relentless – they haven’t really mined any new ground.”

    Mr Blair laughed and smiled. “Erm. . .” he began. “I think it’s partly because we have this curious habit, I don’t think it’s confined to Britain actually, where people find it hard to come to the point where they say we disagree – you’re a reasonable person, I’m a reasonable person but we disagree.

    “There’s always got to be a scandal as to why you hold your view. There’s got to be some conspiracy behind it. Some great, you know, deceit that’s gone on, and people just find it hard to understand that it’s possible for people to have different points of view and hold them reasonably for genuine reasons.

    “So I think there’s continual desire to sort of uncover some great conspiracy when actually there’s a decision at the heart of it – but there it is.”


    Mr Blair could be asked to reappear before the panel in the coming months, says The Times.


    Ed: Ah ha!!! He could be asked to reappear???

    No scandal hint, eh? By the conspiratorial press?

    Nah!

    Of course not.

    INTERESTED IN “THE TRUTH”?

    Watch the Iraq Inquiry here at the official site with ALL evidence videos, not press-selected clips. Including all 6 hours of Blair’s evidence and 249 transcribed pages of those 6 hours, (pdf format). Read and watch it ALL here. Don’t trust the conspiratorial British press’s interpretation. They have their ‘facts’ a*se backwards.




    Free Hit Counter


    British Jazz great, John Dankworth is dead

    February 7, 2010 by keeptonyblairforpm
  • Original Home Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. A recent signature comment: “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”
  • Comment at end

    7th February, 2010

    One of Britain’s Jazz Greats – musician, arranger and brilliant composer John Dankworth is with us no more.

    Johnny Dankworth (1927-2010)

    Sir John Phillip William Dankworth, CBE (20th September 1927 – 6th February 2010), known in his early career as Johnny Dankworth, was an English jazz composer, saxophonist and clarinetist.

    Sir John Dankworth plays his saxophone at Buckingham Palace, London, Thursday, March 2, 2006, after receiving a knighthood from the Queen British bandleader, composer and jazz saxophonist Sir John Dankworth has died. (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Andrew Parsons, Pool)

    Times obituary

    We’ll miss you John, and so will music.

    R.I.P.




    Free Hit Counter


    Alastair Campbell – “my emotional moment with Marr”

    February 7, 2010 by keeptonyblairforpm
  • Original Home Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. A recent signature comment: “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”
  • Comment at end

    7th February, 2010

    Following on from his emotional live interview with Andrew Marr. Watch it here

    At Alastair Campbell’s blog he responds to his interview at Andrew Marr’s Show today.

    On GB’s tears with Piers, and my emotional moment with Marr

    2010-02-07 16:04:56

    Cambell starts with reference to Gordon Brown:

    “Some commentators are already suggesting GB must have gone into his interview with Piers Morgan with his express purpose of crying over the loss of his daughter.”

    (Also see Campbell’s  subsequent interview with Adam Boulton on Sky)

    And then he moves on to his own experience this morning on Marr’s:

    “I had a bit of an unplanned ‘moment’ myself this morning, which judging by the volume of traffic online seems to have been noticed. I thought hardly anyone watched those Sunday politcal shows any more.

    With a new novel out – Maya, which I may have mentioned here a few times already – I had agreed to do Andrew Marr on the BBC and Adam Boulton on Sky, and I knew of course I could not expect them to restrict the interviews to me talking about what a rollicking good read my novel was (even if the reviews are saying exactly that).

    So of course I had expected the kind of questions Marr put on Iraq. I had also been telling myself that given the history between me and the Beeb over Iraq – and Marr was central as he was their political editor at the time of the war, and a key player in the agenda they sought to set – I must not lose my temper, or reopen old wounds.

    Fair to say I just about managed it, but it was a struggle. I could certainly have done without his glib introduction, in which he sought to link the September 2002 WMD dossier with the novel, ie my ‘latest piece of fiction’.

    But the reality is there is no question on Iraq I have not been asked many many times, and I guess it does get frustrating to be asked them again and again, knowing that most people have made up their minds one way or another. For years, we have been accused of lying when we know we didn’t. For inquiry after inquiry, we’ve faced perfectly legitimate questions which we have answered as best we can. I have been at four inquiries now, and though the first three cleared me of the serious allegations of wrongdoing I faced, it is never good enough for those who opposed what we did.

    Marr claimed he had no opinion or agenda, but it was exposed in the way he casually threw in a highly disputed figure about casualties – four to five times higher than the Iraq body count accepted by most organisations as the most reliable. As to his claim that his figure was backed by the UN, that was news to me and I suspect to them.

    Journalism is supposed to be about seeking after truth. But I really do believe now that on this issue, every aspect of which has been gone into for so long and in such detail, most of the media are no longer interested in the truth at all. They are interested in those parts that fit their analysis – that the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake and the consequences have been disastrous.

    There is another point of view but what I felt once more this morning is that whereas I can see how people reached the decision that we should not have taken military action, the critics refuse point blank to see how the other point of view could possibly have been adopted. And they cannot even merely accept that a ‘wrong’ decision was taken – they have to believe there was duplicity or conspiracy behind it too.

    So if I appeared lost for words, it was perhaps because there is nothing more to say, and if I had said what I was really thinking about the way the media has been covering the inquiry, and the way they cover public life more generally, I might have regretted it. So I let my mind race for a while, controlled the emotions surging around, then carried on.

    I was glad to have the chance to explain why I got emotional by going straight to Adam Boulton’s show. As I said, I do sometimes feel that people in public life are now treated by the media as though somehow they are devoid of humanity, do not have feelings, do not really care about anything.

    To be fair a lot of the  comments doing the rounds online seem fair and reasonable, and the reactions on social networking sites mainly friendly and supportive.

    But we now live in an age where people can pass instant comment on events as they happen. So before seeing the interview with GB, they can make judgements that suggest venality in his crying over his daughter’s death. Or imagine that I went onto a programme this morning to show a touchy feely emotional side to emphasise I am now as much a novelist as political operative.

    In fact what happened was that Marr asked a question, and I was struck by the insight that he had precious little interest in the answer, and the exasperation button was duly pressed.

    BUY A BOOK AND RAISE CASH FOR LABOUR … HALF OF PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF THE BLAIR YEARS GOES TO LABOUR http://www.alastaircampbell.org click on bookshop




    Free Hit Counter


    Ann Clwyd’s Iraq Inquiry evidence. The Press? Ooops, we forgot that.

    February 7, 2010 by keeptonyblairforpm
  • Original Home Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. A recent signature comment: “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”
  • Comment at end

    7th February, 2010

    This is cross-post from Ingrid at the Blair Foundation blogspot.

    Did you ever wonder what happened to Ann Clwyd’s evidence this week at the Iraq Inquiry? Lost on the internet? Nope! Hardly appeared. Why? For the same reason that John Reid’s evidence hardly appeared. Both suggested that Tony Blair was RIGHT.

    [See Julie here on Reid & Clwyd's evidence at the Iraq Inquiry]

    PRESS BIAS and MANIPULATION OF THE EVIDENCE.

    Ingrid addresses this post to John Rentoul. Why? Because very few other mainstream journalists are listening to this side of the story.


    From Ingrid  – hat tipped to David McDuff, Andrew Murphy and Harry’s Place:

    Question for John Rentoul re Chilcot Inquiry: Why was Ann Clwyd’s testimony on Iraq almost ignored by the mainstream UK press and TV?

    From A Step At A Time by David McDuff, Sunday, 07 February 2010:

    Ann Clwyd on Iraq
    Almost ignored by the mainstream UK press and TV, which had earlier devoted much air time and column space to Clare Short, the testimony of UK human rights envoy Ann Clwyd to the Chilcot Inquiry gives a picture of the genesis of contemporary Iraq that is rather different from the one propounded by the critics of Tony Blair’s policy who are currently so vociferous in the British media. For one thing, unlike many of the media “opinion-formers”, Clwyd obviously knows Iraq and cares about its civilian population, especially the Kurds among whom she has lived and worked at intervals for many years. Instead of focusing on issues from the past, she is concerned for the present and the future of the fledgling democracy that has emerged from years of brutal dictatorship – and like Iraqis themselves she sees an improvement. On police training, for example, she has this to say:

    Obviously we have been helping through our police training, through our training of judges –

    BARONESS USHA PRASHAR: When you say “our police training” — I was going to come to that — what sort of support have you been giving to them on police training? Because the evidence we have had shows that our kind of model is not necessarily relevant.

    RT HON ANN CLWYD MP: They have never actually said that in my hearing. I haven’t heard that from the Iraqis. In fact, they want more of the British. They have always said, I have to say, right from the beginning, you know, “The British understand us. We would like more of the British to come here, and, you know, we don’t want you to go away. We would like more help from you”. That’s why they can’t understand Inquiries like this. The Iraqis always say to me, you know — because weapons of mass destruction was Saddam — “Why are you still operating in this area? What we need is your help and your attention”, and obviously the Iraqis can pay for a lot of things themselves now, but nevertheless they appreciate the guidance that we can give them and we have had police trainers there. We have also had them in round tables.

    Ann Clwyd’s testimony can be viewed here (scroll down to Video 2), and the transcript is here (pdf). Via Harry’s Place

    - – -

    Ann Clwyd testifies before Chilcot
    From Harry’s Place by Gene, Saturday, 06 February 2010, 9:52 pm: (receiving many supportive comments)

    Labour MP Ann Clwyd Ann testifies before Chilcot

    Labour MP Ann Clwyd’s testimony before the Chilcot Inquiry won’t get a fraction of the attention paid to Tony Blair’s or Clare Short’s appearances– but it deserves every bit as much.

    You can watch it here (second video) or read the transcript here (pdf).

    Last year I singled out her and former Labour MP Harry Barnes for caring about what happens in Iraq even when it doesn’t give them a chance to blame the US or the UK for something.

    Clwyd has taken a passionate interest in the human rights of Iraqis since the 1970s, and that interest continues to this day. She first met Iraqi students who had been imprisoned and tortured through the National Union of Mineworkers. After the ouster of the Ba’ath regime in 2003, Tony Blair appointed her as the UK’s human rights envoy to Iraq. She has visited the country numerous times, before and after the 2003 invasion.

    Clwyd was deeply concerned with the situation of the Kurds in northern Iraq, especially after Saddam Hussein’s poison gas attack on Halabja in 1988. Before the war she was active in INDICT, a campaign to hold Iraqi leaders accountable for their crimes.

    She testified:

    In February 2003, before war was declared, I was on a visit with INDICT people to Kurdistan. Again, we were collecting evidence, and I was taken by the wife of the President of Iraq, Jalal Talabani. I was taken by his wife, who was in Kurdistan at the time, to the border with Iraq and Kurdistan, which is an area called Sham Shamal, and she pointed towards the hillside where there were rocket positions and she said, “That’s where they are going to fire the chemical weapons at us”, and we didn’t stay there very long. She said, “Let’s get away from here. It is dangerous to be here”, and it was then, at that time, when I saw the Kurds were fleeing from the towns, the Kurds actually were, you know, going on cars, buses, all sorts of things out of the towns into the country because they so believed that chemical weapons were going to be used against them again, and I can remember, in fact, Jalal Talabani, who was also in Kurdistan at that time, asking me to ask Tony Blair, when I returned to the UK, for chemical weapons protection suits.

    Now, the Kurds had their own intelligence and, you know, when you saw women going into the market and buying piles of nappies because they thought they could put the nappies over their faces to protect them from chemical weapons, you realise that people there took the very threat seriously indeed, the threat of Saddam attacking them again.

    The Kurds had never told me before that they wanted to war. I mean they had their uprisings, you know, against the regime, the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south, but I had never ever heard them say, “We want a war”. They had tried to overthrow him — Saddam’s regime themselves, but never had anybody said, “We want a war”. But this time they said to me, “There is no other way”, and that’s the first time I ever heard the Kurds — and I have a very long association with them — say that. “There is no other way”. So when I came back and we had this debate at the beginning of February — the beginning of March — middle of February in the House of Commons, and I spoke then explaining what I had just heard and seen in Kurdistan, and I said for the first time that, you know, with INDICT over the years we had tried every way, with sanctions we had tried, but actually even that twin-track approach had not managed to move the regime. So I felt myself there was no other option. I didn’t feel that I could go back and face the Kurds and say that I had argued any other way because I couldn’t on the basis of what I had heard.

    Like many others, Clwyd expressed her frustration in dealing with the seemingly clueless Americans in charge of the occupation, especially when it came to the treatment of Iraqi army officers.

    Mr Bremer was in charge of the operation there and the British were there and so we talked about some of these issues. One of the first things that struck me was — because, again, because of my friendships with Iraqis, one of my Iraqi friends had [a brother who was] a General in Saddam’s army. He was now in a staff college, but he was a General, and immediately after 2003, my friend rang me up and he said, “Do you know what is happening with the military? Because there are lots of the military that my brother knows who would help the British. There are 50 to 100 senior Iraqi officers who are ready to help the coalition”.

    Well, obviously, I passed that information on. But, you know, the army wasn’t there anymore, but they were queuing up in very hot weather for their pensions, for their stipends, and I discovered that the man — the brother of my friend had been queuing up every day for two weeks, and he was a senior, you know, army officer, and yet had never got to the front of the queue. He said — I spoke to him eventually, and he said to me, you know, “If they want to humiliate us, this is the way of doing it”.

    …Well, I think many people slipped through the net actually, senior people, who could have been used in those early stages to help the coalition and wanted to help the coalition.

    She told about visiting one of Saddam’s mass graves.

    [I]n 2003 they started excavating the Al-Hillah sites near Babylon, and I went there to look at what was going on because there was a UK forensics team also working there and giving assistance to the Iraqis about how to handle evidence, because — I mean, it looked like a moonscape, it was so huge, the site. They estimated — I don’t know if they’ve revised the estimates since, but there were 15,000 bodies actually buried at that site in Al-Hillah, which is near Babylon, and I thought it was a very sad way that the Iraqis had to go to those sites, because you saw elderly women — when they excavated bodies, I think they excavated several thousand in that first round — if there was no identification with the body, they would then put — or rather, if they found identification, but couldn’t identify the name of the person or persons, they would then put their possessions in a plastic bag on the top of the grave and rebury the body, and, you know, old, old women were going round these sites, looking inside these plastic bags and pulling out a watch or a ring or a piece of cloth or a lighter just to see if they could identify them, and I thought, you know, that was really a very great concern to see people having to try and identify their lost relatives in that way.

    Clwyd continues to visit Iraq regularly and sees steady improvement.

    I see progress in all areas. I have always been optimistic about the future for Iraq and one of the reasons for that is I monitored the elections in Basra, the first elections, in 2005, which was, you know, a particularly joyful occasion, because people were voting for the first time, and you know, it reminded me of being in South Africa when I monitored the first elections there. People came out with their black fingers and they were waving them in the air at us saying, “There, we have voted”. There was an attack on one polling station in Basra in 2005, but apparently the women — women had turned out in great numbers, you know, about 80 per cent turned out to vote in those first elections in 2005 and there was a rocketed attack on one of those polling stations which was mainly filled with women at the time, and, apparently, they all stood there and sang and defied those people that were attacking them, and the same now for the election — for the provincial elections.

    You can see that the secular is winning over the religious, because more secular parties, more secular candidates got elected in those provincial elections. Again, there is a 25 per cent quota for women, which is much better than ours in the UK, and you know, the 25 per cent quota I think is extremely important because it is also so for the next elections in March, 25 per cent quota.

    Clwyd said the Iraqis still want help from the British.

    They have always said, I have to say, right from the beginning, you know, “The British understand us. We would like more of the British to come here, and, you know, we don’t want you to go away. We would like more help from you”.

    That’s why they can’t understand Inquiries like this. The Iraqis always say to me, you know — because weapons of mass destruction was Saddam — “Why are you still operating in this area? What we need is your help and your attention”, and obviously the Iraqis can pay for a lot of things themselves now, but nevertheless they appreciate the guidance that we can give them…

    Speaking to the British and American families who have lost loved ones in Iraq, Clwyd said:

    You know, we sat in the House of Commons as Members of Parliament feeling particularly responsible when the Prime Minister read out the names of those who had died, and you know, we all feel great sympathy for those people, but I do hope that Iraq eventually will turn out to be the kind of country that everybody can be proud of, and, of course, not just British troops, but, you know, American troops, coalition troops, civilians who have died, many, many Iraqi civilians have died. Then I can only say how sorry I am and — but I hope that, at the end of it, Iraq will be a much better country. I know Iraqis — I say this because Iraqis tell me so often. You know, they feel great sadness about people from this country who have given their lives to achieve their freedom and they certainly appreciate it.

    This is just a small part of what she had to say. Watch or read it all.

    (Hat tip: Andrew Murphy)




    Free Hit Counter


    Marr Show on Iraq: Alastair Campbell cracking up? No bloody wonder!

    February 7, 2010 by keeptonyblairforpm
  • Original Home Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. A recent sig comment: “Blair was an outstanding prime minister doing his job very well. One of his jobs was to take decisions like going to war.”
  • Comment at end

    7th February, 2010

    On BBC’s Andrew Marr Show this morning Alastair Campbell lost his composure and to at least some extent broke down on live television.  It won’t make any difference to “public opinion” so honed by our blessed press over the last 7  or 8 years to distrust anything from those they seek to vilify.

    Alastair Campbell upset and emotional (5mins 19secs)

    From about 1m 10s in you can see that Campbell is starting to breathe heavily. His chest heaves, and he is clearly   hyper-ventilating.  His stopping for over 20 seconds mid-stream (around 1m 25s to 1m 48s) to control his emotions is most unlike Campbell. Already, to many all of this has been derided out of hand. It is said to be an act – put on for the camera.  Yet his eyes look heavy with bags under them. Hard to fake that.

    [See earlier Marr interview with Campbell on his book - "All  In The Mind"]

    At The Mail here you only have to read the comments to see the absolute, untarnished, unforgiving nature of the hatred felt for him and for Tony Blair. And WHO is responsible for this “vilification”? You got it – the Daily MAUL and the rest.

    Excerpt:

    “Alastair Campbell broke down and seemed close to tears on live television today as he was quizzed about his role in the Iraq war.

    Tony Blair’s chief spin doctor suddenly froze in his seat and appeared to be struggling to contain his emotions as he stared blankly at the floor during an interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

    The political interviewer was asking him about the ‘dodgy dossier’ and whether the ex-PM had misled Parliament over the threat posed by Saddam Hussein when Campbell went into meltdown.”

    The Mail provides these stills from The Andrew Marr Show.


    Top pic: “Alastair Campbell suddenly stops during the interview and closes his eyes…”


    Centre: “he exhales and looks away from interviewer Andrew Marr…”


    Bottom: “‘Forgive me for this, I’ve …’He finally broke a long and dramatic silence by saying: ‘I’ve been through a lot of this, Andrew… Tony Blair, I think, is a totally honourable man’.”

    THE PRESS-LED COMMENTERS WITH NO HUMAN EMPATHY

    Reading this from The Mail, especially its heavily ‘moderated’ and ’selected’ commenters, I see NO human empathy. None whatsoever, though I can’t stand being there long enough to read much of the junk. There may be a few human beings commenting there.

    A visitor from Mars would have to conclude that Campbell and his then-boss were tyrannical dictators being revenged for destroying their own people and their own countries.

    But that is what the chosen commenters at the Mail actually DO believe. WHY? The Mail and the rest of the British press, nothing else. They talk “public opinion” while feeding that ravenous public opinion with lies dressed up as truths. Added to by titbits of other reasons not to like Tony Blair, his wife, Campbell and Labour.

    (I repeat, if you are interested, that I am NOT a member or even a supporter of Labour and I have no party political axe to grind. But I am appalled at this destructive treatment of anyone.)

    The Tory supporting Daily MAUL is Hypocrisy Personified. The Daily Mail and the Conservatives KNOW that if the (Iraq war supporting) Tories had been in power at the time, they’d have done exactly the same as did Blair and with exactly the same assistance to get over the message as was Campbell’s job.

    Discussion on Campbell’s breakdown at the New Statesman.

    Suggestively titled -

    “Alastair Campbell – overcome by emotion? Really?”

    Stan Rosenthal, a frequent commenter here at this blog, and the man behind the Ban Blair-Baiting petition as well as the man who put his hand in his own pocket in order to put the other side of the “Blair the war criminal lied” story says this:

    So only anti-war people are allowed to be emotional?This is just another example of the kind of Blair baiting referred to in my New Statesman blog post “Why I placed that Ban Blair-baiting ad” and which also prompted me to put a 4 screen version of the ad at the website of those who are indulging in this latest blood sport. Click on here and scroll down to see it.

    http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/


    RELATED

    1. Read “Campbell defends Blair in emotional interview”, by David Hughes. This is a reporting article of the old-fashioned type, fair, and good to read. But note the commenters there too to see why I am so utterly ashamed at the semi-ignorant and dangerous ease of judgement of my fellow-countrymen.


    2. Confirming visibly exactly WHY Alastair Campbell is upset about the coverage of the Iraq Inquiry and the press’s and others’ relentless vilification of himself and Tony Blair over the decisions,  this is another YouTube video posted this morning. Same footage as the one above but a bit longer. A WHOLLY different approach from the ‘unbiased’ and non-judgemental poster and his heavily anti- commenters. Note its title:

    Alistair Campbell fake crocodile tears on difficult questions (07Feb1) (8mins 2secs)


    3. The Sun report – Excerpt:

    He added: “I don’t think people are interested in the truth any more.”

    Mr Campbell said the media was obsessed with “settling your scores and setting your own agenda”.

    He added: “I’m sorry if I do get upset about this but I was there alongside Tony, I know how that decision weighed on him, I know the care that we took.”

    He said he understood why people were “upset” about the decision to become involved in the conflict.

    But he said: “Tony Blair and the government made a decision. He has to stand by that decision.”


    MY THOUGHTS

    Campbell has suffered greatly from depression over the years and has had mental breakdowns on more than one occasion, on which he has gone public.

    It is time the vicious attack dogs in the press and on the internet understood that we are all people.

    Whatever you think of the Iraq war or of Labour as a party, or of Tony Blair or Alastair Campbell, please don’t drive Campbell to another breakdown. He already looks halfway there to me.

    Watch the entire Andrew Marr show here.  See 3 minute clip from the Andrew Marr website here.

    William Hague sounding more reasonable than he often does on Iraq and expressing personal sympathy for Campbell still maintains that “Parliament was misled”. At the same time he says that before we can decide whether or not he (and the Tories) would still have voted for the invasion, he says “we have to see the Inquiry as a whole.”

    Quite.  So WHY opine on it now, discrediting and vilifying Blair, Campbell and your political opponents along the way to seeing “the Inquiry as a whole”?

    REPEAT – HYPOCRITICAL CONSERVATIVES.

    Shame on you, Mr Hague.




    Free Hit Counter