Archive for May, 2011

Obama/Cameron -”the essentially special relationship”. WHY the silly semantics?

May 31, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

31st May 2011

Cameron & Obama: “Ours is not just a special relationship, it is an essential relationship – for us and for the world.”

Pic below. Cameron?- This one’s essentially for me, Barack, even if it’s on your side of the table

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron play table tennis at Globe Academy in London May 24, 2011. Obama received a royal 41-gun salute at Buckingham Palace Tuesday to begin a two-day state visit aimed at ensuring the United States and Britain keep the "special" in their relationship. REUTERS/Paul Hackett

At the Foreign & Commonwealth Office site you’ll find the special sorry, “essential” relationship piece co-authored by David Cameron & Barack Obama.

So after decades of it being “special” our relationship is now deemed “essential”. Or at least by Mr Cameron. Mr Obama, and HM The Queen still seem content with “special”.

I can’t decide whether “essential” is an upgrade on “special”, but I fear it is a downgrade. Is our relationship of the essence or is it only essential in that one’s marriage may become “essential” when it used to be “special”?

It’s all semantic fun and games. It is mainly to appease those who wrongly think the special relationship that Blair & Bush nurtured and developed was bad for Britain and placed we Brits as underdogs – poodles -  when really we should have been far, FAR heftier creatures than that – bulldogs, say.

ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS

David Cameron and the President of the USA, reticent as they might have been at the start, have now come onto the same ground as Blair & Bush; more or less. But they’re not telling you.

Just don’t check out what Israel thinks of Obama or that Netanyahu tells Obama that Israel is what is right about the Middle East. And pay no attention at all to what the Jewish National Fund thinks of Cameron.

But realpolitik has its own momentum.

I don’t for one moment believe that Cameron is insane enough to fundamentally wish to change Britain’s longstanding support for Israel. But I do think he is daft enough to want to follow the vote-winning herd mentality in Britain – Palestinians good & right/Israelis bad & wrong.  Leadership from behind. And anyway, he has to do something to keep the wobbly Lib Dems on board.

Rather than just admit – “Hey, you know, George & Tony were onto something serious about our big pals act” -  these two leaders feel the western press-pressed need to pretend it is actually more worthwhile doing than G & T used to say it was. History is ready for David & Barack, it is thought by some, and the voters will swallow the new emphasis. Or thus goes the thinking. Until, thinks David and Barack, we can change their minds back to the correct way to state and do things. You know, the honest way. Like Blair & Bush did.

Unless they are liberally conning us while events unfold and they can ride in behind the dynamics and change course, why would Obama and Cameron struggle so valiantly to try to distance our two countries – UK & USA – from their predecessors? Predecessors who said, amongst other things:

BLAIR:

“When Europe and America stand together the world is a better and more prosperous place.”

“In retrospect, the millennium marked a moment in time, but it was the events of 11th September, that marked a turning point in history. It was a tragedy, an act of evil. From this nation goes our deepest sympathy and prayers for the victims and our profound solidarity with the American people. We were with you at the first – we will stay with you to the last.”

“I just want to say this. I want to say it gently but I want to say it firmly: There is a tendency for the world to say to America, “the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out,” and then to worry when America wants to sort them out.”

“We, therefore, here in Britain stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends in this hour of tragedy, and we, like them, will not rest until this evil is driven from our world.”

BUSH (excuse me for quoting GW Bush at such length. But even I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised):

“The United States has no truer friend than Great Britain.”

(on British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington, D.C., May 17, 2007) “My relationship with this good man is where I`ve been focused, and that`s where my concentration is. And I don`t regret any other aspect of it. And so I–we filled a lot of space together.”

“For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations.”

“My job is to lead.”

“America will never run… And we will always be grateful that liberty has found such brave defenders.”

“Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America`s gift to the world; it is God`s gift to humanity.”

“If America shows weakness and uncertainty, the world will drift toward tragedy. That will not happen on my watch.”

“We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. And the job is this: We`ll help the Iraqis develop a democracy.”

“America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens.”

“I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul.”

“We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. We know that oppressive governments support terror, while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst. We know that free peoples embrace progress and life, instead of becoming the recruits for murderous ideologies.”

“If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.”

“American foreign policy must be more than the management of crisis. It must have a great and guiding goal: to turn this time of American influence into generations of democratic peace.”

“I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul.”

“The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls, or martial laws, or secret police. Over time, and across the Earth, freedom will find a way.”

“In the defense of our nation, a president must be a clear-eyed realist. There are limits to the smiles and scowls of diplomacy. Armies and missiles are not stopped by stiff notes of condemnation. They are held in check by strength and purpose and the promise of swift punishment.”

(During a televised address on the night of September 11, 2001) We will prevail.

“We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.”

“The peaceful transfer of authority is rare in history, yet common in our country. With a simple oath, we affirm old traditions and make new beginnings.”

“The presidency is more than an honor, it is more than an office, it is a charge to keep and I will give it my all.”

“Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.”

We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

“I hope I stand for anti-bigotry, anti-Semitism, anti-racism. This is what drives me.”

“I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging the struggle for freedom and security for the American people.”

“The advance of liberty is the path to both a safer and better world.”

“The deliberate and deadly attacks which were carried out yesterday against our country were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war.”

More George W Bush quotes here – most not even funny! Though there are some which will make you giggle. But plenty more, perhaps unexpectedly, as inspiring as anything Obama has ever said.

RELATED

1. Nile Gardiner: Obama’s Top Ten Insults Against Britain, 2011 Edition

2. White House: President Obama Addresses British Parliament

3. Sky News report:

To conclude, the president proposed a toast to the Queen, but there appeared to be a mistake as the band played the opening bars to God Save the Queen before he had finished.

“To Her Majesty the Queen,” Obama began, but the orchestra – thinking the president had concluded – started playing the British anthem.

Obama continued with his toast, speaking over the music in citing the special relationship between the British and American people and quoting William Shakespeare’s tribute “to this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England” from Richard II.

“To the queen,” Obama concluded as the music played on.

When the music ended, Obama repeated, “to the queen,” and the audience, clearly confused by the turn of events, delayed a few seconds before applauding.

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

Tony Blair & Gordon Brown at State Dinner with Obama

May 24, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

24th May 2011

So there one has it.

Pic above from Daylife

Her Majesty and Her Majesty’s advisers thought they’d better do the right thing by Tony Blair, in order not to stop scaring the horses.  So they asked the former Prime Minister, his successor Mr Brown and their wives to the state banquet tonight in Buckingham Palace. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Mr Blair was seated next to his Iraq war critic the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.

One out of three is about the best that one can do, it seems. But I am in no hurry to forget that a place could not be found for both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown on William’s 2000-strong wedding list.

IF THE WEDDING OVERSIGHT WAS A STRATAGEM…

THE DUBLIN OVERSIGHT WAS A DISGRACE

It is true that in Dublin the Queen may not have had any input into the Irish state dinner list. However I cannot imagine she wasn’t asked if there was anyone she thought should be there. Omitting Tony Blair, even a mention of his name,  from every day of the four-day  Ireland get-together was like forgetting to ask Churchill to a WW2 victory commemoration.

I for one feel it is utterly reprehensible that there was not at least one reference to the man who led and completed the peace settlement in N/Ireland after decades of turmoil; compensating dinner tonight at the Palace or not.

The Guardian thinks it worth 18 words in reference to the presence of Blair and Brown.

The Queen and Obama both referred to the “special relationship” in their words to the guests.  Obama even used the “standing shoulder to shoulder” phrase with its Blair/Bush resonances on Iraq.

That will have been one in the eye for the over-rated former UK ambassador to the USA Christopher Meyer, who today, on hearing Cameron’s “essential relationship” game of semantics, said that the ‘special relationship’ phrase had outlived its usefulness.

Perhaps you too, Sir Christopher, as a commenter on public affairs, have reached that same cul-de-sac. I’m sure Mr Cameron can find you another job. He’s not bad at finding jobs for supporters.

The Telegraph -

The Royal family held out an olive branch to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown last night by inviting them to the State banquet with President Obama after controversially leaving them off the guest list for the royal wedding last month

The former prime ministers, who attended with their wives, joined John Major and his wife Norma on a list of guests who had been issued with “special invitations” by the Royal household.

The build-up to the royal wedding had been partially overshadowed by the row over the decision not to invite the former Labour premiers, when ambassadors representing tyrannical regimes including Libya were originally on the guest list for Westminster Abbey.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said “all former prime ministers who were well enough to attend” had been invited to the State banquet. Baroness Thatcher, who turned down an invitation to the royal wedding, was not at the dinner.

The Palace’s ballroom, where the Prince of Wales hosted a private dinner for 300 guests on the evening of the royal wedding, was the setting for a sumptuous dinner of sole, lamb champagne and fine wines.

Among the 170 guests were the film stars Tom Hanks, who sat next to Ffion Hague, the wife of the Foreign Secretary, Kevin Spacey, who was beside the Countess of Wessex, and the director Tim Burton.

Related Articles

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, found himself sitting between Helena Bonham Carter, the actress and wife of Mr Burton, and Princess Michael of Kent.

In a room dominated by a pipe organ at one end, with a throne at the other, which is used for investiture ceremonies, the diners sat around tables arranged in a giant U-shape, with six crystal glasses per person and gold-plated cutlery.

Mr Obama sat between the Queen and the Duchess of Cornwall on the top table, with Mrs Obama between the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales. David Cameron sat at one corner, next to Hillary Clinton.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, who had met the Obamas earlier in the day, did not attend the banquet, as the Queen’s grandchildren were not on the guest list.

Members of the Cabinet at the white tie event included Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, George Osborne and Ken Clarke, together with their wives. The Labour leader Ed Miliband and his wife Justine Thornton, and the Speaker, John Bercow, and his wife Sally were also present.

Richard Branson, the Barclays boss Bob Diamond and Sir Martin Sorrell were among the City figures at the table, together with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.

They were serenaded by an eclectic mixture of music played by the Band of the Scots Guards, including Swing o’the Kilt, South Pacific, Bach’s Air on a G String and a selection from My Fair Lady.

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

Question to The Independent: If not us – who WILL stand against terror and dictators?

May 23, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

23rd May 2011

As Britain finally leaves Iraq the hand-wringing leader at The Independent on Sunday begs this question-

IN THIS WORLD OF DICTATORSHIPS AND ANTI-DEMOCRACY STATES & ENTITIES,

IF BRITAIN AND THE WEST DO NOT STAND AGAINST THEM …

WHO WILL?

My own question to the Independent, notwithstanding their proclaimed longstanding support of TONY BLAIR’S liberal interventionism, reminds me of this -

THE TALE OF THE LITTLE RED HEN

Who will help me plant the grains of wheat (democracy)?

Not I, said the UN, I only do peace-keeping.

Not I, said the Russians, I only do deal-making.

Not I, said the Chinese, I don’t do human rights.

Right, said the Little Red Hen, I’ll have to do it all by myself.

[If you missed this Infant school story watch it here]

Intervention is as intervention does, dear Independent on Sunday.

For years, and even today in many quarters, the fond belief was/is that the purpose of the United Nations was to stand against such states and groups. This, despite their inaction and/or insufficient action over such as Sudan (2 million dead) still ongoing in Darfur.

It is now clear to all with eyes to see that the “peace-keeping” (what peace to keep?) UN is incapable of pro-activity. Even its reactivity to events is often too late to save hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of lives. And despite well-meaning intent it often  makes no real, lasting difference for good.

It also hardly needs pointing out – but I will anyway as The Independent and others of the “none of our business” ilk clearly need reminding – that seldom do other great nations of the world step in for humanitarian reasons, or even part-humanitarian reasons – where need is great. How often do Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, India, South Africa to name but a few, send forces to defend the downtrodden of this world?

This is not a rhetorical question. Please do send me a list.

For Iraq, and for the success story that it is to many(here and here) I thank Tony Blair (45,000 soldiers) and George Bush (148,000 troops) as well as the other nations’ leaders, Australia (2000),  Spain (1300) and Poland (194). When the going in was tough and other feet were cold and despite the UN’s shameful determination to ignore its own resolutions of the previous 12 years, these few nations were in the forefront. The scores of nations which came in after the initial invasion also deserve thanks but nothing like those due to the USA, United Kingdom, Australia, Spain & Poland.

Lest we forget the invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 70,000.[9] In the latter stages of the invasion 620 troops of the Iraqi National Congress opposition group were deployed to southern Iraq.[3] See Coalition & Allied contingent involvement

NOTE: On Iraq Wikipedia has been compiled in the main by those with an ‘anti’ stance. It doesn’t even mention Spain. Spain was forced to withdraw when terrorists scored a hit by attacking a train killing 200 hundred people. The Spanish government then lost the election which followed as the Spanish voters capitulated to terrorism. We Britons seem to be made of sterner stuff. Tony Blair won again in 2005 – a third historic victory for Labour.

Bodies of Qusay and Uday Hussein, in pictures released by the USA. It seems their faces were "reconstructed" after being killed. You'd think someone might have done the same to Osama Bin Laden, wouldn't you? Just to take a picture and put unbelieving minds at rest.

INEXACTITUDE 1

It would help if the anti-Iraq war Indie told the truth in its perpetual hand wringing as to the “number of dictators removed from control of Iraq: one.”

There were at least two more dictators-in-waiting that were removed (Saddam’s sons, pictured right & below) and others in Saddam’s administration who were later tried by the Iraqi government.

INEXACTITUDE 2

The Independent also chose its opinion polls selectively in this piece. I do recognise that most of the time, most polls here in Britain and in Iraq have not been supportive of the invasion. But they do change and move. To paraphrase Chinese words on French Revolution – “it is too early to tell”.

This opinion poll taken in Iraq in 2006 paints a very different picture

For a write-up on this and other polls in Iraq see World Public Opinion

Those who suffered most under Saddam – the Kurds and Shias  – were most pleased to be rid of him. Even at that 77% of Iraqis overall felt the same relief.

Referring to a BBC opinion poll in August 2007 the Independent leader says that 63 per cent of [Iraqis] said the invasion was wrong, and 37 per cent right.  The Independent also says that the British public agrees – “Before the war, in March 2003, 38 per cent approved of military action to remove Saddam.”

There is another poll – from ICM a month later – which shows that 63% of the British public approved

This will be the poll to which the Independent refers as “support briefly massaged to 63 percent”. Their message being that the British public were gulled or lulled into accepting (briefly) that the Iraq invasion was a good idea (when clearly, according to the Indie, it wasn’t.)

INEXACTITUDE 3

As if that wasn’t misleading enough the Independent then shows just how wrong-headed is its own analysis. It says, turning logic on its head -

“No democratic country can hope to sustain a successful military engagement with domestic opinion so divided, because public support is so essential to forces’ morale. “

They are forgetting that this democratic country DID sustain a successful military engagement, with or without supportive domestic opinion.  It sustained it for EIGHT YEARS.

Of course The Independent tries to score some common sense points of its own, with -

“What is surprising, perhaps, is that the Iraq disaster has failed to discredit the idea of liberal interventionism, which The Independent on Sunday .”

At the same time blaming Blair, THE INTERVENTIONIST (Chicago speech) – the Indie says -

“… the experience of Iraq may have ensured that interventions will now be more cautiously based on worst-case assumptions.”

This paper’s errors of judgement are compounded by supporting/excusing the Libya intervention with this -

“In Libya, for example, the situation was very different. There, Gaddafi was threatening a bloodbath in Benghazi; limited military action was justified, and the need for it was urgent.”

In other word the thousands that Saddam had already killed and those he had imprisoned, tortured and still threatened were no concern of ours? But those that Gaddafi might kill were our concern?

How careless. How selective.  How inconsistent. How utterly negligent.

The Independent then claims its own success with this -

“After many years, this newspaper’s campaign to persuade the Government to give legal force to the Military Covenant is finally bearing fruit. The covenant enshrines the terms of the deal, by which we promise to give service personnel and their families the support they deserve for risking their lives.”

And just to make sure all good Liberal Democrats (it can ONLY be Lib Dems who support this confused argument) leave their paper content on their high-horse it ends with -

“In the end, none of the statistics can adequately sum up the loss of life suffered, mostly by Iraqis, as a consequence of a bad American decision, wrongly supported by the British government. And what will never be forgotten about this chapter in British foreign policy is this statistic about the stated reason for our going to war – number of weapons of mass destruction found: zero.”

There is never any consideration given by these “where are the WMD” screamers that if WMD had been there (more than just those they had already used against the Kurds and Iranians) the Middle East and further afield could have been a tinder-box many years ago. There is also never any responsibility put upon the Iraqis (or near neighbours) who still today kill Iraqis. It is as though Tony Blair forced them to kill one another. Lulled and gulled again, eh, gullible, brainwashing Independent?

So once again, thank you Mr Blair and Mr Bush for your work for freedom in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

RELATED

Julie’s think tank has an excellent piece here -  Iraq: From dictatorship to Democracy

As the government of which he is a leading member battles for regime change in Libya, while pretending it is doing nothing of the sort, Nick Clegg must surely know the futility and even fallacy of his own words “democracy cannot be created by diktat” at least in relation to Iraq (Libya is as yet an unfinished story). If only Clegg and the Independent and other such were big enough to admit it.

EARLIER POSTS HERE ON THE UN

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

The “SO-CALLED war on terror”. It isn’t SO-CALLED. EITHER way!

May 18, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

18th May 2011

It IS a “war on terror”

From "The Religion of Peace" which keeps an updating list of Islamist terror acts around the world. (Click picture.)

FIRST CAME THE TERROR, THEN CAME THE WAR AGAINST IT

It was NOT the other way round. We who believe in standing and fighting terrorism didn’t CAUSE the terrorism. Even if we had caused it, it is our responsibility to fight it.  In his memoir, A Journey, Tony Blair refers to this issue of muddled semantics by those questioning George Bush’s phrase. Blair says, “if it isn’t a war on terror, what is it?”

The phrase “the so-called war on terror” is still regurgitated regularly by our so-called liberal literati. Our media, especially of the left, clearly don’t accept there is such a thing as a war. Or perhaps they do not accept that there is such a thing as terror! Or perhaps they do not accept that, even given the existence of terrorism, there is a need for a war against it.

See this early list of terrorist atrocities (dating from 1929 but stopping prior to 9/11.)

Why don’t the so-called thinkers make up their minds and say what they really think instead of hiding behind a meaningless and ambiguous phrase?

What they mean, surely, is -

“… this so-called terror”

or perhaps -

“… this so-called war”

or perhaps -

“this war, which is not against terror but against Muslims/Islam”

In other words – there’s no terror, or there is futility in fighting a war against it, or we are at war for different reasons than those which we state.

The reason they can’t or won’t admit their real opinions? It’s got to be the third of the options above. The other two are impossible to defend, even for the deniers.

Frankly, our pc media trust the poor hard-done by terrorists’ tales of victimisation more, far more than they trust western interpretations of the political facts.

BUT THEY “LIED” TO US

Many press minds have been polluted by the idea that we in the west were “lied to” by such as Bush and Blair. From that position anything else, even the obvious, is tainted by this bias. It’s not as though terrorists ever lie, after all, is it?

If such as Jeremy Paxman, whose Newsnight last night was one of the worst I have yet had the misfortune of watching (see here below) are so blinded by their pompous and juvenile distaste for western politicians’ so-called “lies” it’s time they opened their eyes to the facts of life, politics, the media, terror and war.

At least they’d be being honest for once. We could then put them into the correct bolt-hole.

1. Those that don’t accept there is any Islamist fundamentalist terror.

OR

2. Those that don’t believe there is any need for a war.

OR

3. Those that accept there is a war but also believe it is not a war being fought for the reasons given; the pro-conspiracy theorists, in other words.

When they find the relevant bolt-hole they should jump into it with courage and leave behind the weaselly words. Let’s hope it’s not the same sort of bolt-hole either Saddam or bin Laden chose to dig themselves into.

_____

IRRELEVANT NEWSNIGHT

Paxman, 17th May 2011 Newsnight (watch here). The day the Queen started her 4-day visit to Ireland Newsnight didn’t mention it. Indeed. they were determined not to mention it. They didn’t even do the ‘papers tomorrow’ as they usually do, presumably just to show they weren’t mentioning the Queen. It’d be imossible to mention the Queen’s visit to Ireland without mentioning the fact that Tony Blair and his government had a very big hand in making this visit possible.  And whatever the BBC, in this case Newsnight is for it’s not for applauding Tony Blair. For anything, even for his greatest achievement.

Instead the whole programme was given up to this irrelevancy:

“IN WHAT SORT OF COURT SHOULD WE HAVE TRIED OSAMA BIN LADEN?

FGS. Gimme strength!

__________

RELATED

1. On the fate of Osama bin Laden, Normblog has this thoughtful post – Both “either” and “or”

“But the US also had the right, under the laws of war, to kill him as an enemy combatant. Equally, the killing in war of key Nazi leaders or functionaries was a lawful and a justified option. Either-or.”

2.  Al Qaeda’s interim leader is Saif al-Adel

3. ‘A Just war’: In preparation for the Q & A panel with Jarrod McKenna, I read through Tony Blair’s 1999 speech to the Chicago Economic Club that Michael Sheldrick posted. You can access this speech here http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june99/blair_doctrine4-23.html

[...]

On a basic level, globalisation is international interdependence. Instability in one country will affect others. In respect to intervention in conflicts, Blair posits that the point at which intervention is acceptable is when there are “threats to international peace and security.” It is by no means an ideal answer, but that is the world we live in.

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

Her Ingracious Tory Majesty The Queen, on her 1st visit to Ireland, thanks Tony Blair

May 17, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

17th May 2011

HAS THE QUEEN THANKED BLAIR?

No, not quite. The Queen has NOT actually thanked Tony Blair, as far as I know.  She is supposed to be apolitical; supposed to be.

On her historical visit to Ireland tomorrow, a visit not one of her predecessors in a century has been able to make due to over two centuries of unrest and conflict in Ireland & Northern Ireland, the best we can hope for is that in a casual chat with someone she meets in Ireland she may allow a nod to Blair – the man who history will show brought peace to that blighted isle after decades, indeed centuries of turmoil which culminated in the recent, bloody Troubles. The Troubles ended after the Good Friday Agreement signed by Tony Blair in April 1998, less than a year after Tony Blair’s 1997 election landslide in Britain.

Blair:  “A day like today is not a day for soundbites, really. But I feel the hand of history upon our shoulders. I really do.”
Shortly before the Good Friday agreement, April 1998. [More Blair quotes here]

Of all Blair’s achievements in office, some controversial, the settlement in Northern Ireland is almost universally and inarguably – certainly now, in his lifetime – seen as his greatest success. In years to come another decision of Blair’s, Iraq, may be seen as even more of an historically significant achievement.

Perhaps it is too much to expect a mention of Tony Blair’s achievements from the monarchy. They do their politicking negatively, quietly.  But Blair’s work in Northern Ireland/Ireland does not seem to have registered with the Glorious BBC either.

BOMB ALERT IN LONDON FROM IRISH DISSIDENTS

For the first time in TEN years British authorities received, yesterday, an anonymous phone call threatening a bomb in London. It contained recognised Irish dissidents’ code, and the police and government took it seriously. This was clearly linked to the Queen’s impending visit to Ireland.

SEND HER VICTORIOUS

The visit of the Queen to Ireland is the first visit she has ever made to Ireland. In fact it is the first by ANY British monarch in 100 long years. The last monarch to visit was the Queen’s grandfather George V in 1911. And at that time Ireland was still under British rule and would remain so for another 11 years.

King George V and Queen Mary, July 1911, last visit by a British monarch to Ireland. They were accompanied by the Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII) and Mary, the Princess Royal.

More pictures here at RTE Ireland News

In the reign of our present Queen, approaching 60 years (since Feb 1952, which was more than a year before Tony Blair was born) Queen Elizabeth II (Wikipedia) has visited over 130 countries. But NEVER our nearest neighbour, Ireland. A land with whom we even share a land border -  Northern Ireland.

"Thank you, Mr Blair. If it wasn't for your efforts we still would not have peace in Northern Ireland and Ireland"

WHY NOW?

She is only able to visit Ireland now due to the determined and unstinting efforts over ten years (1997-2007) of one man. The same man she “forgot” to invite or to remind others to invite to her grandson’s wedding -

TONY BLAIR

I’ll say that again for the short of memory and hard of understanding -

TONY BLAIR

From having been furious about the lost-in-the-post wedding invitation, to feeling miffed that the present PM is tagging along with Her Majesty for the ride and reflected glory, my anger was compounded by the BBC’s report on this last night.

Not once in Alan Little’s BBC report was the name of our high-achieving former Prime Minister mentioned by the journalist. It was as though Tony Blair had never existed. In fact it got me wondering if Tony Blair had been a figment of my imagination!

There was another prime minister who was mentioned in the newscast, though. So clearly the BBC are not against mentioning all former prime ministers.  Oh, no. Just as the monarchy are not against inviting all former prime ministers to a small family occasion, broadcast to millions worldwide.

John Major, former Tory PM, who is remembered for an affair with a minister and this cartoon by Steve Bell

John Major.

Yes, John Major actually spoke on the BBC TV news on this momentous and historical visit.

The “grey man” who left us little than the memory of his affair with Edwina Curry, a cartoon of his underpants over his trousers and his landslide defeat at Blair’s hands  in 1997 – the worst ever defeat for the Conservatives since 1906.

John Major had an affair with Edwina Curry, another Conservative MP. Both were married at the time.

Yes, Major did do work on the Northern Ireland issues – far more than any of Thatcher or any in her government. But he was not the man who brought together arch enemies Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, after the settlement known as The Chuckle Brothers. That was due to Blair’s work. Not Major’s. Nor the Queen’s.

He was not the man who spend 40% of his time in one year working on the issue, as Blair did on first coming to office.

So – furious? You bet I am.

You won’t persuade me that the BBC is not biased against Tony Blair. Or that the Monarchy is anything other than the Palace’s Conservative Garden Party.

But on the Beeb’s news there was a few moments’ input from a man who DOES know -

BERTIE AHERN

One man who DOES now that Blair deserves a mention – far more than a mention – he deserves a medal was Bertie Ahern.  He was interviewed by Little and at his own volition he mentioned the work he and Tony Blair had done to bring decades of conflict to an end. That mention went unremarked by Little, and there was not one supportive follow-up word of recognition from the BBC journalists either reporting or linking this clip.

Disgraceful.

Independent:  11th May, 2007 as Blair announced his resignation date. (1997-2007 – The Legacy of Tony Blair, including his speech to his constituency party, Sedgefield)

Excerpt from Independent article:

The Labour MP Frank Field said he was “saddened” by Mr Blair’s resignation. He told GMTV’s Sunday programme: “We’re divorcing the person who’s been most successful in winning us elections and doing it in almost a clinical fashion.” He added: “My guess is as we never, ever, ever produced anybody like him to win elections, in 18 months time we may be looking back to this week and thinking, ‘Wow! How extraordinary that we shoe-horned him out in this fashion!’”

How extraordinary indeed.  And how disgraceful that we have a press and a monarchy both still bent on his destruction.

They won’t destroy him no matter how hard they try.

None of them, your inGraciousMajesty.

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

IMF sex scandal. No bail for DSK. He might disappear!!!

May 16, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

16th May 2011

UPDATE: According to this quoting this DSK DID have sex with that woman! It also says that she is “a devout Muslim” with a family, and that that is a reason to discount the “honey trap” theory. Not sure how they conclude that. Murkier and yet murkier…

IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn remanded in custody on sexual assault charges

So what do you make of this?

Does it show that everyone is treated equally under the law in the world’s greatest democracy? Or does it prove the opposite? Was IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn (known as DSK) treated more harshly than is reasonable in not being given bail, even though $1,000,000 was offered on his behalf?  I really don’t know what to make of it.

I took a few screenshots of the proceedings as televised today.

Above: The accused, looking tired, unshaven and dressed casually awaited his day in court while others’ cases were heard.

Above: The judge listens as DSK’s attorney puts the case for his release on bail of $1m.

Above: DSK listens to his attorney addressing the court.

Above: On the left the prosecuting lawyer states his case.

The prosecuting counsel said that DSK is a “flight risk” and that France had no arrangement for extradition to the USA for its citizens who tried to flee US justice. The judge found this argument compelling, even though it was made clear from the Defence that DSK’s passport was the only passport he owned and that it would be deposited with the court along with the bail money. We also learned, confirmed by the UN, that Mr Strauss-Kahn was not eligible for diplomatic immunity because he had not been in New York on business.

Hmmm…

Something fishy about this? I don’t know. But certainly this remand in custody seems a touch overkill.

Unless the USA does NOT trust France, despite their being such bons amis these days. Or unless the UN wishes to open the door for A N Other replacement for DSK (who was standing down in a year anyway, to stand for the Presidency against Sarkozy). A replacement from emerging economies? From the Middle East rather than Europe? Too far-fetched?

Are you thinking that is a touch too conspiratorial?

Yes, you’re absolutely right.  Forget I mentioned it. But read this if you can’t forget. Or perhaps this – “LEAKED? French Blog Publishes Detailed Cables Concerning Strauss-Kahn Allegations”

There will be a Grand Jury hearing in four days time, Friday 20th May. Only if that hearing agrees he has a case to answer will the case go to full trial.

There WILL be international political fallout from all of this.  Of that there can be no doubt.

____________________

RELATED

Seven serious sexual charges were laid against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, listed here.  If found guilty he could be imprisoned for up to 45 years, if the prosecutor’s words in court are accurate.

  • SkyNews report with pictures
  • SkyNews – Strauss-Kahn to undergo DNA tests in NY city over sexual charges

Questions are already being asked as to the effect DSK’s present situation – whether found innocent or guilty – might have on the euro zone.  Meanwhile today, co-incidentally, the USA has reached its present legal borrowing limit. Its debt levels have reached its $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

__________

Andrew Neil has tweeted on DSK and the court decision today -

Andrew Neil
afneil
Andrew Neil
No of things about #DSK sex attack don’t make sense eg if fleeing crime scene why take daughter to lunch then tell hotel you’re at JFK?
__________
Andrew Neil is the Presenter of BBC1′s This Week; Presenter BBC2 Daily Politics; Chairman Spectator Magazines; Chairman ITP Magazines (Dubai); Chairman World Media Rights (London). http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.
____________________

P.A./Hamas to get ‘tax funds’ from Israel. Time to thank ‘the Constant’ Tony Blair

May 16, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

16th May 2011

Yesterday, after some quiet diplomatic work in the light of fast-moving circumstances in the region, the Israelis agreed to pass tax moneys to the Palestinians – [Cash transferred]

A later article at The Jerusalem Post contains this proviso:  ‘Steinitz [Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz] describes two-week freeze of cash transfer as “yellow card,” warns transfers will be stopped if unity government formed with Hamas; says he “received suitable clarifications” funds won’t reach Hamas.’

Also yesterday there was violence on Israel’s border.  It comes as Palestinians marked the ‘Nakba’ or catastrophe of Israel’s founding in 1948.  Sky News (video) reports that  – “At least 16 people have reportedly been killed after Israeli troops opened fire on protesters on the country’s borders with Lebanon, Syria and Gaza”.

Some might suggest that deaths on such a day, in such a region, at such a time as this were inevitable when confrontation is added to the heady mix.  Palestinians might have known that the Israelis were never likely to stand by and watch in silence while their borders were rushed and breached, and not only from one direction.

But, back to the good news.

The PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad with Tony Blair recently. Mr Blair has formed close relationships with both PA and Israeli leaders.

At the Jerusalem Post another report says that ‘An official in Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s office said they had been informed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Quartet envoy Tony Blair that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had approved the transfer.’

Again this may well  have been inevitable, given the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas, the recognition of Hamas as legitimate by some states and thus no longer a terror organisation, and given the strong likelihood that by September a Palestinian unified state may well be recognised by many countries regardless of any Israeli/Palestinian agreement.

You may recall that less than two weeks ago Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Quartet’s representative on Israeli/Palestinian issues Tony Blair were said to be “pressuring” Israel to release the tax money. The reason for initially withholding it? Fear that if Hamas could touch the money it would use it for nefarious purposes, against Israel.

In this complicated political landscape it is far from easy to work out the niceties and exactitudes of the positions taken by all those concerned. But according to this site, “apparently” the Israeli Finance Minister, Yuval Steinitz, decided to withhold the money that Israel collects on behalf of Palestine on his own accord. [...]  Steinitz reportedly has backing from Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, but both the Defense Minister and Foreign Ministry are reportedly outraged that Steinitz did not consult them on the diplomatic and security aspects.”

Earlier this month Israel had blocked the routine handover of about 300 million shekels ($88 million) in customs and other levies it collects on behalf of the Palestinians after PA President Mahmoud Abbas struck a unity deal with Hamas.

This followed much pressure on the Israelis, but also much hand-wringing in the USA -

Top US senators call on Obama to halt funding for PA
Ban Ki-moon to PM: Release Palestinian tax revenue

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said at that time he would only allow the transfer after receiving guarantees the money would not reach Hamas.

As the Middle East peace sticks then stalls, as Palestinians demonstrate with forseeable consequences on the borders of Israel and Lebanon, as George Mitchell – the US Middle East envoy, on whom so many American hopes were pinned – resigns, has anyone noticed a constant?

The constant is Tony Blair.

After almost four years in the job the former British Prime Minister is still the Quartet’s representative for Israel/Palestinian issues.  In fact he is now the ONLY diplomat of international standing working in the region on these issues.

I thought I’d just mention it in the passing,  just in case our mainstreamers forget to point it out.

This MSNBC report too seems to forget about Mr Blair. In its rush to explain that envoys mean and matter little it somehow forgets that Blair was more important than Mitchell in Ireland and ultimately in the Balkans. In its desire to suggest that envoys mean little, its report, focussing on former US envoys has this:

‘It may also have had to do with Mitchell’s failure to truly get his groove with these rough-and-tumble protagonists: He was an envoy of the type who listens and facilitates — not the kind who takes a position and twists arms.

But some say that Mitchell — skilled and experienced, with a Northern Ireland peace deal to his credit — was simply impeded by the fact that the current crop of Israeli and Palestinian leaders simply wasn’t ready.

The idea, in a wider sense, is that middlemen cannot do magic: for a deal to be possible, the stars must first align.

“Without the political will (by the parties), no mediator could manage to bridge the gaps,” said Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. negotiator and public policy scholar at the Wilson Center, a Washington-based think tank. “You could have invited Moses, Muhammad and Jesus and they would not have been able to do it right now.”‘

My response to this? If the political will of the parties are not there right now, it will never be.  if they are not “ready” now, they will never ever be.

Daniel Antal highlights Blair’s position:

Tony Blair, Fayyad, Ashton, Ben, Abbas. 13th April 2011

‘When Sen. Mitchell, the Middle East envoy of the Obama administration resigned on Friday, I immediately asked ‘what is Tony Blair doing’? In the time-frame of a single weekend, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has regained its importance in the Middle Eastern region. If the EU countries want it or not, they will have to play their part in the most complex international terrain and in the absence of Sen Mitchell they may have to rely on the services of the former British prime minister.’

And not only is Blair the only influential international statesman still working there, he has made steady but under-reported progress in the almost four years he has been in the job.

If he hadn’t been making progress satisfactory to all sides, do you think he’d still be there? Do you think President Abbas, PM Fayyad,  Israeli PM Netanyahu would have hesitated to offer to drive him back to the airport?  All of them? Or even one of them?

RELATED

1. This article,  “Why George Mitchell failed”, by TAWFIK HAMID is well worth a read. Described as an Islamic thinker and reformer, and a one-time Islamic extremist from Egypt, he was a member of the terrorist organization JI with Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, who later became the second-in-command of al-Qaida. He is currently a senior fellow and chairman of the study of Islamic radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. www.tawfikhamid.com

Excerpt: [Remember this writer is NOT an Israeli] Wikipedia

“Obviously, it’s impossible to solve a problem without addressing and treating its true cause. Approaching the Arab-Israeli conflict from the perspective that it is about land, so that giving more land to the Palestinians will solve the problem, is a failed endeavor.

Israel has already given Egypt the whole of the Sinai, and got nothing in return except a cold peace and rising anti-Semitism in the country. Similarly the disengagement from Gaza did not magically lead to a decline in the wave of anti-Semitism in the Muslim world.”

2. On 5th May Tony Blair visited the holocaust memorial at Yad Vashem

3. Tony Blair has recently participated in a TV advertisement with Benjamin Netanyahu, reminding us, and the new Arab democracy applauders that Israel is a democracy for all.

4. Beirut Spring – “Today’s deaths were not about the Nakba”

Upcoming post: ‘Any Questions? Is Tony Blair a “very, very bad man”. QTWTAIN’

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

Iraq Inquiry. Tony Blair’s missing WMD “may have been” on WMD

May 12, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

12th May 2011,

Tony Blair’s “may have been” on WMD was missed by the press

Today the Iraq Inquiry has released further documents so exciting the over-excitable. Sir John Chilcot makes clear that we will need to wait until the autumn before we read their full report, something that will not so excite the above-mentioned.

Blair’s Weapon of Media Destruction was not noticed. Why not?

In the previous post – Chris Ames’s Iraq Inquiry Digest (so-called). Spinning by triangulated omission? – I took Chris Ames to task on his so-called Iraq Inquiry Digest doggedly spinning out of balance, if it were ever balanced in the first place. His blog’s name makes it sound neutral. It is nothing of the sort. It is as neutral as my blog is on Tony Blair. The difference being that I have never pretended to be neutral.

THE MISSING ARGUMENT

In his recent post targeting Blair for so-called spin on intelligence, so-called lies, so-called exaggeration and so-called mistrust by some other opiners,  Chris Ames chose NOT to mention Tony Blair’s more recent encounter with that same panel member Sir Lawrence Freedman at the Iraq Inquiry in January this year, 2011.  Ames fails to allude to this, distracted as he was by rummaging through year-old evidence sessions for any tasty scraps he may have inadvertently overlooked.

A pensive Tony Blair arrives at the QEII Centre to give evidence for a second time, early on 21st January 2011

DECIDER c/w OPINER

Yet it was during THIS January’s so-called grilling of Blair that Ames, were his mind sufficiently open, might have spotted the difference between a political decider and a political opiner.

I know Mr Ames has pored over all of Blair’s evidence in both Januarys, 2011 and 2010, and I am sure he has watched the videos umpteen times. Chris Ames’s position is that there is a smoking gun here – SOMEwhere. Mr Ames knows, as WE ALL KNOWERS all know, that if and when he finds that gun he can pin Blair to the wall and get Brownie points for shooting the golden bullet at the former PM.  It’s a messy job, Chris, but somebody’s got to do it! Hmmm?

Tony Blair gives evidence to the Iraq Inquiry, 21st Jan 2011. Sir Lawrence Freedman is second from the right

Ames’s selective quoting is all the more remiss for this reason: it was in an interchange with Sir Lawrence Freedman that Mr Blair said something which virtually ALL the mainstream press and British bloggers seem to have failed to notice, or more likely decided to skip lightly over.

Most of our glorious press also leapt blithely over the fact that there were very few who turned out to protest in January. I was there on both occasions, 2010 & 2011, and I took a few pictures. Believe me, this year the protesters were outnumbered by the police. Last year the placard-wavers were at least double in number, though still outnumbered by the police.

The "hordes"of protesters outside the QEII Centre, January 21st 2011. I estimated no more than 50 people turned out for the placard waving event

Ames is not alone in selective spinning by omission.

I’ve looked, I’ve googled, I’ve searched. I’ve found almost nothing by the British press or even the American mainstream press on this Blair/Freedman exchange. Andrew Sparrow mentioned it briefly in his live report from Blair’s second appearance at the Iraq Inquiry, but still didn’t give it sufficient coverage to raise other press antennae. (jump below, then click to jump back)

After all the inquisitorial nit-picking that Blair and others have been subjected to by the latest series of the Iraq Inquiry Unlimited, somehow they ALL missed the significance of this:

Blair to Freedman: “May have been is my justification for this”

At a 'comfort break' in the proceedings Tony Blair is in no rush. Sir Lawrence Freedman is on the right of my picture taken of the screen

So why do I believe that the words “MAY HAVE BEEN” mean so much?

In response to a line pursued by Sir Lawrence Freedman on Saddam’s compliance or lack of regarding resolution 1441 there was this (end of page 90 of Blair’s written transcript):

18 SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: It may or may not. We will come
19 back to the problem –
20 THE RT. HON. TONY BLAIR: Sir Lawrence, it is really
21 important. May have been is my justification for this.
22 I was not prepared to run this –
23 SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: You had set in motion a process
24 which was rather abruptly discontinued.

Before you read the surrounding context of this interchange below, which is also really important, let me repeat this response by Tony Blair:

“Sir Lawrence, it is really important. May have been is my justification for this. I was not prepared to run this –”

Note how, in the original numbered lines, Mr Blair was, as it were, “rather abruptly” interrupted by Sir Lawrence. We can safely conclude that Tony Blair’s next word would have been “risk”.

In context Blair had been saying that he thought that since Saddam had not complied with 1441 and showed no signs of complying, the conclusion that he took was that he never intended to comply. The “may have been” was in reference to the notion put by Blair that Saddam may have had ambitions to develop his WMD programme in competition with Iran.

__________

PROVISOS – Only for the open-minded

  • I realise that all of this has to be seen with the acceptance that Iran IS developing WMD, or intends to.
  • And I realise that to the antis ‘innocent until proven guilty’ applies the other way round on Tony Blair on Iraq as on much else.
  • And I realise that if you think Blair lied from the off, nothing will ever change your mind.
  • And I realise that if you are of the opinion that all of this from Blair is only in order to rewrite history in his own favour, it is going to mean zilch.
  • I also realise that if you think a leader should only lead with your personal permission on every policy, especially foreign policy, my provisos are all non-sequiturs.

DECISION-MAKING – “A 55-45 SITUATION” (Obama)

But we should all realise that this “may have been” from Blair is, as they say, crucial. It is also the same argument that President Obama used to justify taking out Osama bin Laden.

The Washington Post -

President Obama faced sharply divided counsel and, to his mind, barely better-than-even odds of success when he ordered the commando raid last week that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the president said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

Obama acknowledged having only circumstantial evidence placing bin Laden at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. There was not a single photograph or confirmed sighting of the man, he said, and he worried that the Navy SEALs would find only a “prince from Dubai” instead of the terrorist leader responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“At the end of the day, this was still a 55-45 situation,” Obama told CBS’s “60 Minutes” in his first broadcast interview since bin Laden’s death early last Monday. “I mean, we could not say definitively that bin Laden was there. Had he not been there, then there would have been some significant consequences.”

The difference between Obama’s decision-making on something he could not be sure of, and Blair’s? Arguably, not much. They both helped rid the world of a tyrant. But the blowback on Blair has been enormous, while the plaudits for Obama have been widespread.

The blowback against Blair & Bush purportedly centres around the body count in Iraq. To those against the invasion this is a reason NOT to have gone in in the first place. Or so they tell us. To those in agreement with the invasion the body count – mainly Iraqis (& others) on Iraqis – only serves to amplify the view that Saddam’s Iraq and the various insurgency groupings there needed to be tackled. Tackled and defeated.

The fact that Saddam was tried in an Iraqi court before being hanged, compared with the fact that none of the public has seen any evidence of bin Laden’s death OR body seems to be of little consequence.

Apart from a few diehards of moral relativism such as Chomsky most on the British left believe Obama deserves re-election, whereas Blair deserves locking-up or better still the same fate as Saddam or even Bin Laden.

The logic behind this sort of conclusion is that in Tony Blair we had a leader as evil as both of these murderous men.

Despair?

Frequently.

__________

Here’s the full discussion between Tony Blair and Sir Lawrence, in context. Context IS important. The crux, even:

P88 – 91 text, January 2011 transcript:

(The section in question is on page 90 of the 177 page evidence transcript)

SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: The difficulty was that you set in motion a process — you got the international community to agree under Resolution 1441. You had been demanding the inspectors to return. The inspectors had returned. The initial cooperation had not been good. Now the initial cooperation was much better. Hans Blix was
saying this progressively. It wasn’t just military force as you mentioned in your statement. Getting sanctions lifted was obviously a major incentive for him as well. The problem with the argument you have just put is why bother with the inspections process at all, because the cooperation was coming. There was more of it. If you still didn’t think this was going to do the job, why set the process in motion at all?

THE RT. HON. TONY BLAIR: Because here is the situation. You declare 1441. You have given him a final chance for full, immediate and unconditional cooperation. Now at that point he can make a big decision, which is to say, “I am going to put aside my concealment, my lack of cooperation, all the things I have done in the past and I am going to cooperate fully”. He doesn’t. So he is in breach of 1441. The part of the problem in this is frankly that those who supported 1441, which was not on the American side of the argument, got buyer’s remorse in the end. They agreed they could be given a final opportunity. Then they wanted another opportunity. The point about his change of heart and the important point about the Iraq Survey Group and the rest of the evidence is that if he had not taken that decision really to put the past behind him and turn over a new leaf, yes, it’s true whilst that military pressure was there he might cooperate, but when it wasn’t there he was going to be back and he was going to be back with far more money with, the international community having built up this great consensus, it would then have disintegrated. That’s why I think when you look at this today and you ask. Okay. Supposing we had all backed off in March 2003 and left Saddam there, what do we actually think would be happening today? Personally I think it is at least as arguable — I am not going to say it is certain because nobody knows — it is at least as arguable that he would have been developing in competition with Iran.

SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: It may or may not. We will come back to the problem –

THE RT. HON. TONY BLAIR: Sir Lawrence, it is really important. May have been is my justification for this. I was not prepared to run this –

SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN: You had set in motion a process which was rather abruptly discontinued. Can I just ask you about this “clusters” proposals you are putting forward and why it had difficulty. According to Jonathan Powell you did try to extend the timetable. You had asked the Americans for nine more weeks. President Bush he said that he wouldn’t have agreed to it. He might have agreed to a little time but not nine more weeks. Do you recall that?

THE RT. HON. TONY BLAIR: Yes. We were asking — I don’t know exactly what the timeline was, but yes, we were asking for more time. The Americans I think — I am not sure about this, but I think our own military would have been also anxious about a time that long — but, you know, we could have probably come to a compromise somewhere on it I guess. That’s not the problem we got into in the end. The problem was, and this is where this whole business to do with the Second Resolution and the attitude of France which would I like to deal with in light of things that have been said to you, the problem was that there was no consent for an ultimatum, and whether it was nine weeks or one week, without an ultimatum it would be pointless.

Read more of this exchange (Pgs 88 – 91) text, January 2011 transcript

_____

SPARROW. THE ONLY PRESS REPORT I SAW ON “MAY HAVE BEEN”

The Guardian’s Andrew Sparrow, one of the fairer and more balanced of British journalists – he reports more than he opines – had this clip in his live report of Blair’s evidence on January 21st this year. It is reported in a very limited fashion, but at least it is mentioned. Odd how no other journalists thought this exchange was worth expanding on.

January 21st 2011, Sparrow’s live report:

11.51am: Blair says that the countries that supported UN security council resolution 1441 but did not support America got “buyer’s remorse” in the end. They voted for Saddam (left) to be given a final opportunity. Then they wanted him to be given another final opportunity.

Blair says that if Saddam had been left alone, he “may have been” now in competition with Iran in developing WMD. That “may have been” his justification for the war, Blair says.

Jump back to where you jumped from

____

_____

RELATED

ETCETERA

Normblog: ‘Law, justice and the death of Bin Laden’

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,234 other followers