Should Tony Blair Resign After THIS?

[Rob Lister]

Evidence?

I know you would like to think so, but do you have anything more than wishful thinking to bring to the table?

Will, ignoring that I have about 20 years experience dealing with top-level military brass, you can always refer to post 26 of this thread.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Why do assume those are his personal views?

Because he said them?

What am I missing here?

No idea. Maybe you suspect a conspiracy? He's an alien or a robot?

 

[FreeChile]

It was a 30 second clip that I saw. And I don't think your questions have any relevance to whether he should be fired immediately or not.

Although I did not intend the questions to address the issue of firing him, they can be related to that issue. If the general is now correcting any misconceptions from his initial interview with the Daily Mail, and there is indeed agreement between him and Blair, then there is less of a reason to fire him even if he is spinning as instructed. Why would they need to fire a guy who's following instructions now and staying away from politics? However, if the general is simply being political and covering his but, then his motives are questionable.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Will, ignoring that I have about 20 years experience dealing with top-level military brass, you can always refer to post 26 of this thread.

The post where Darat states stuff not in line with what I myself heard the general say?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Although I did not intend the questions to address the issue of firing him, they can be related to that issue. If the general is now correcting any misconceptions from his initial interview with the Daily Mail, and there is indeed agreement between him and Blair, then there is less of a reason to fire him even if he is spinning as instructed. Why would they need to fire a guy who's following instructions now and staying away from politics? However, if the general is simply being political and covering his but, then his motives are questionable.

Agreed. And any possible thoughts of "sanctioning" of his comments by Blair seem to be ....conspiracy.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Because he said them?

DD, generals speaking to the press, particularly in positions of command or as chiefs of the defense staff, tend to be speaking ex cathedra. Generals in real life are not like generals in movies, or on TV. Their interactions with the press are rarely impromptu, and normally prepared for.

Thus, I ask you what in the article pointed to his remarks being his personal opinion, the interview being an impromptu dialogue, or an open statement of an unofficial position.

I've prepared talking points and elements of press briefings on a number of occasions, and on a few for a press interaction by my reporting senior officer.

I don't find anything 'personal' in the remarks I read, but perhaps there was more material that I have not read?

DR

 

[Rob Lister]

The post where Darat states stuff not in line with what I myself heard the general say?

Evidence?

Turn about is fair play.

 

[DanishDynamite]

DD, generals speaking to the press, particularly in positions of command or as chiefs of the defense staff, tend to be speaking ex cathedra. Generals in real life are not like generals in movies, or on TV. Their interactions with the press are rarely impromptu, and normally prepared for.

Thus, I ask you what in the article pointed to his remarks being his personal opinion, the interview being an impromptu dialogue, or an open statement of an unofficial position.

I've prepared talking points and elements of press briefings on a number of occasions, and on a few for a press interaction by my reporting senior officer.

I don't find anything 'personal' in the remarks I read, but perhaps there was more material that I have not read?

DR

Your background material on why you suspect something more might be going on is certainly entertaining.

I'm afraid the only thing I have left to hold on to is what he actually said. Facts, you know. Maybe you've heard of them?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Evidence?

Turn about is fair play.

1. You are dealing with a civilian.
2. You are dealing with a literalist
3. I suspect from other remarks that the poster is an anti-militarist.
"Fire him, he is not being a sock puppet for Blair!" Freshman year civics understanding of civil/military interface.

I am not sure this discussion is going to bear any fruit, not with the blinders on. Here's hoping to be pleasantly surprised, and wrong, in that assessment.

DR

 

[DanishDynamite]

Evidence?

Turn about is fair play.

Evidence of what, my friend? What I heard the general say in a 30 second clip?

Sorry, can't provide it.

If only I needed this evidence to make my case, that would be a slight setback. Luckily, what he said to the Daily Mail is sufficient evidence.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Your background material on why you suspect something more might be going on is certainly entertaining.

I'm afraid the only thing I have left to hold on to is what he actually said. Facts, you know. Maybe you've heard of them?

You and I look at the same facts. We have drawn a different conclusion.

I, because of my close familiarity with how generals behave, having worked for and prepared staff work for them, and admirals.

You, in apparent ignorance of the same.

I, with formal education and training on how to interact as a military officer with the press.

You, with apparent ignorance of the same.

I have facts, and context provided with experience. You have your bias. I admit that my experience has to form a bias of my own, one which in this case is more valid that yours due to the specifics of the topic at hand.

We both have a press event that is of considerable interest to those who care about Iraq, and the UK involvement.

Given the other press release linked to quoting Mr Blair's concurrence with the General's assessment, I find your conclusions to be based on bias, not fact.

I saw an interview of him today on Danish news. I have to say that I found his retraction totally unconvincing.

Right, even though he said the words. "That he said the words" was of course your evidence for your other opinion.

Your bias shows again.

Warmest regards

DR

 

[DanishDynamite]

You and I look at the same facts. We have drawn a different conclusion.

I, because of my close familiarity with how generals behave, having worked for and prepared staff work for them, and admirals.

You, in apparent ignorance of the same.

I, with formal education and training on how to interact as a military officer with the press.

You, with apparent ignorance of the same.

I have facts, and context provided with experience. You have your bias. I admit that my experience has to form a bias of my own, one which in this case is more valid that yours due to the specifics of the topic at hand.

We both have a press event that is of considerable interest to those who care about Iraq, and the UK involvement.

Given the other press release linked to quoting Mr Blair's concurrence with the General's assessment, I find your conclusions to be based on bias, not fact.

Sorry, I was agreeing with you until you hit this block. What other statement? Did you have a look at the link Darat provided as supposed evidence against me? It says more than enough to show the general's got to go.

Right, even though he said the words. "That he said the words" was of course your evidence for your other opinion.

Your bias shows again.

Warmest regards

DR

Sorry, I'm afraid I'm too dense to follow your reasoning. As I said, all I have are facts, such as Darat's link.

 

[FreeChile]

Evidence of what, my friend? What I heard the general say in a 30 second clip?

Sorry, can't provide it.

If only I needed this evidence to make my case, that would be a slight setback. Luckily, what he said to the Daily Mail is sufficient evidence.

Sorry to say that although I presented that report in the OP, I also found it to be one of the most selectively bias pieces I've seen. Don't tell me you didn't get that from the report!

 

[DanishDynamite]

Sorry to say that although I presented that report in the OP, I also found it to be one of the most selectively bias pieces I've seen. Don't tell me you didn't get that from the report!

Certainly not. The main thing I got from that report was that the top general was stating which policy he would want.

Something which is none of his business.

 

[Rob Lister]

Certainly not. The main thing I got from that report was that the top general was stating which policy he would want.

Something which is none of his business.

*heavy sigh*

 

[DanishDynamite]

*heavy sigh*

Mega heavy sigh.

 

[Crowbot]

Yes, removing troops from hostile areas but leaving them in unhostile areas of iraq sounds like a brilliant plan and is sure to succeed in the rebuilding of Iraq as a country.

I mean, the worst thing we can do to the bad guys with guns(tm) is leave them alone and give them their own areas in the country right?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Yes, removing troops from hostile areas but leaving them in unhostile areas of iraq sounds like a brilliant plan and is sure to succeed in the rebuilding of Iraq as a country.

I mean, the worst thing we can do to the bad guys with guns(tm) is leave them alone and give them their own areas in the country right?

It is certainly a difficult question as to what the best thing to do at the moment is.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Sorry, I was agreeing with you until you hit this block. What other statement? Did you have a look at the link Darat provided as supposed evidence against me? It says more than enough to show the general's got to go.

Sorry, I'm afraid I'm too dense to follow your reasoning. As I said, all I have are facts, such as Darat's link.

"The general has got to go." Based on what? That you personally didn't like his comments? The reasons you gave previously in the earlier posts are simplistic, and completely ignore the interative process and dialogue/consultation between heads of government and their generals.

The General is Tony Blair's general to hire or fire, not yours nor mine. We have enough American generals (some of whom like to make headlines), no need for me to worry about Mr Blair's public affairs problems.

Yes I did read darat's complete link. Nothing in there to fire the General over.

I do, however, need to concur with part of your assessment. I see where you found his personal observations mixed in with the talking points on the UK position. I think I misunderstood part of your earlier comment on personal opinions, etc. His remarks about his own son in particular can be seen as a personal observation.

DR

 

[FreeChile]

Certainly not. The main thing I got from that report was that the top general was stating which policy he would want.

Something which is none of his business.

Then it's very possible that you are allowing The Daily Mail to play you. Here are some of the things I saw in it. They should be enough to alert you and raise your skeptical antenna.

1. Makes no efforts to put things in context therefore blending it’s and the general’s opinions and giving the impression that they are the general’s.
2. Users short selective quotations.
3. Very poorly organized.
4. Too many typos.
5. Too many hyperboles: Blistering, reeling, flatly, unprecedented, aghast, exclusive interview, shockwaves, total repudiation, lambasts, one of the most outspoken interviews ever given by a serving soldier, reports of injured soldiers, a dressing down, enrage, says clearly, warns, pitching British troops into a lethal battle, repeatedly insisted, a forlorn hope, condemned, confronted, and on and on.
6. Why should we care what Michael Moore or Nick Harvey have to say about the General’s assessment?
7. Probably 2 in 70 comments listed are critical of the General and they all pretty much say the same thing: kudos Mr. General, kudos.

The only open question I have is why was the General talking to Daily Mail or any reporters? Is it his function to do that? What is the process for doing that? Do people just call him and ask for interviews.