Oh Blair, Blair!!

[Reginald]

Why does this guy keep on taking audiences completely made up of people who are already mind-set against military action.

He's shooting himself in the foot, we have on TV this morning (repeated continuously) the last 5 seconds of last nights "Blair meets the anti-war ladies" where 3 of the women slow hand clap him.

No one has pointed out that the audience were selected because of their views, they have used phrases such as "Blair faced another hostile audience last night". Not making it at all clear that the audience were chosen to be hostile before he turned up.

What happened to ballance? I admit that in truth if you wanted a representative audience you would only have 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 pro war people in there, but this kind of thing, to me is just as ridiculous as preaching to the converted.

I'm frankly not at all supprised that support is still on the decline.

 

[corplinx]

Unless Saddam starts killing white people, I don't see things changing.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

John Howard, Ass Licker extraordinair

Our resident "ass licker" in Oz the Prime Minister Jonny Howard is now just waiting for his phone call from his old pal GWB.
Little Jonny was in Washington at the time of the of the whole 9-11 episode and has been extremely carried away ever since and ever since he has complied uncritically to GWB to the extent of committing our troops over there before a vote went to parliament.

He claims it is possible to pull the troops out if it does not get a mandate from the UN, but he has already give he word to GWB as one of the alliance of the willing. So now he is just waiting for that phone call from the White House.
And when GWB tells him to jump Jonny will simply reply "how high???"

 

[Reginald]

I dont see Blair as an ars* licker at all. I see him as a man who is supporting an alliance that has stood for a long time.

The UK didn't stand there with it's hand out waiting to see what we could get out of this alliance financially, we were there at the offset. I take pride in that fact.

However I think he has lost the debate on the issue.

That, in MHO is a shame, because the poeple of Iraq (The reason I see for any action) are still going to be suffering.

 

[Q-Source]

However I think he has lost the debate on the issue.

I must recognise that Blair has a lot of courage to face the anti-war audience and their criticism.

Without the resolution, he is politically dead and he knows that. So, why does he continue supporting the war?

 

[Reginald]

Having said that he has still managed to get the percentage of the populus willing to go without a second (that should actually be 18th!!!) resolution up from 11% to 19%, however I feel that could have been a lot more had the case been put correctly.

 

[Lothian]

Reg,

To clarify your original statement.

Blair asked ITV for a hostile audience as opposed to ITV providing one. He clearly wants to be seen winning over the doubters.

His problem is that people see him driven by Bush and his opinion rather than by any threat to the UK.

Bush made clear that he doesn’t give a damn about UN opinion and will act to ‘save’ America.

Blair has therefore got to convince the public that not only are we under direct threat from Saddam but that we are also better dumping on the rest of the world for the sake of our ‘special relationship” with America.

He is losing that battle not only with the public but within his own party, where according to reports (radio 5 live) this morning a leadership coup is planned.

 

[Guest]

I dont see Blair as an ars* licker at all. I see him as a man who is supporting an alliance that has stood for a long time.

The UK didn't stand there with it's hand out waiting to see what we could get out of this alliance financially, we were there at the offset. I take pride in that fact.

So Turkey gets paid 20 billion dollars and Britain pays its own way. That just makes us stupid, doesn't it?

However I think he has lost the debate on the issue.

Hopelessly. The man is drowning, not waving. Blair is finished. Clare Short has made him look really stupid. He can't sack her. He now has a cabinet minister who goes on the radio and openly accuses him of being reckless with the future of Britain, and he can't sack her because 80% if the population think she is right and he is wrong. Blairs problems are only just starting. He always used to fall back on the emotional appeal - the 'trust me, I'm genuine' appeal. Now people see it and they see a cynical spin doctor. Sadly, he appears to be spinning for the White House rather than his own country. The man is a traitor.

 

[Tony]

Clare Short has made him look really stupid.

Clare Short has proven herself to be a hypocrit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/350684.stm

 

[mstricky]

UCE
A large percentage of the billions to Turkey is on loan.....stupid Turks

 

[Reginald]

posted by UCE

So Turkey gets paid 20 billion dollars and Britain pays its own way. That just makes us stupid, doesn't it?

No not at all. Do you pay your friends to help you with anything? and do you then think how smart they were to take that stand?

Hopelessly. The man is drowning, not waving. Blair is finished. Clare Short has made him look really stupid. He can't sack her. He now has a cabinet minister who goes on the radio and openly accuses him of being reckless with the future of Britain, and he can't sack her because 80% if the population think she is right and he is wrong. Blairs problems are only just starting. He always used to fall back on the emotional appeal - the 'trust me, I'm genuine' appeal. Now people see it and they see a cynical spin doctor. Sadly, he appears to be spinning for the White House rather than his own country. The man is a traitor.

I said he has put the case badly, I dont think he is finished.
And as for him being a traitor.........

 

[richardm]

The man is a traitor.

A) He hasn't done anything yet
B) He's said that he'd prefer to get a further resolution before doing anything else.

What is wrong with this? So far, you've got what you want - we're persisting with the UN route.

 

[LeFevre]

lol UCE maybe you should back off the rhetoric a bit. You took back your statement about cheering when the WTC towers came down, do you really think that Blair is a T-R-A-I-T-O-R?

If you really do, would you mind answering why?

 

[Guest]

A) He hasn't done anything yet
B) He's said that he'd prefer to get a further resolution before doing anything else.

What is wrong with this? So far, you've got what you want - we're persisting with the UN route.

As a rubber stamp! The US position has turned the UN into something as ludicrously pointless as Saddams parliament.

 

[richardm]

.. Have I misunderstood your position, UCE? Do you think that there should be no military action in Iraq even in the (highly unlikely) event that all members of the Security Council agreed to it?

 

[Reginald]

As a rubber stamp! The US position has turned the UN into something as ludicrously pointless as Saddams parliament.

What exactly did France et al think they were signing when they signed 1441???

Harsh language?

I argue that it is France et al who have turned the UN into something ludicrous and pointless, they have a chance at resolution number 18, maybe they are thinking ahead to resolution 126?

I think Blair has gone too far trying to meet them in the middle. You can't equate what he has tried to do with being a traitor.

As the Americans might say "I feel in the mood to kick Ars* and eat gum.....and I'm all out of gum"

We might say "I'm in the mood to tell someone off and drink tea.....and I'm all out of tea!"

 

[Mike B.]

I think Blair does what he does out of conviction on Iraq, whether you agree or not.

I know the Tories and others accuse him of being intrested in spin and no substance.

However, if Blair was the empty suit some see him, he could simply follow the polls and back off.

He must feel strongly enough about it to go this route.

 

[Guest]

Richard:

Have I misunderstood your position, UCE? Do you think that there should be no military action in Iraq even in the (highly unlikely) event that all members of the Security Council agreed to it?

If the UN actually authorises war then I have no political objection to it. I may have personal moral issues, but the war would not be illegal. Unlike GWB and Blair I recognise the authority of the UN.

Mike :

He must feel strongly enough about it to go this route.

I think he is worried about living in a world where the US acts unilaterally and ignores the UN. But he ended up trying to get the UN to rubberstamp US policy rather than getting the US to accept the authority of the UN. Now he has gone too far down his chosen path and cannot back out.

 

[Tony]

Richard:



Unlike GWB and Blair I recognise the authority of the UN.

Since when does the UN have authority?

 

[iain]

The big issue now, which I hear from Blair and from the pro-war people in this forum, is protecting the people of Iraq.

The human rights argument is a valid one. But the question is not "Do we want to do what is best for the Iraqi people?" (the answer to this is yes); it is "What is best for the Iraqi people?".

People have to make up their minds as to which will do the most good for the people in Iraq - war or peace. This is a judgement call; my judgement is that peace is better but I could turn out to be wrong. Since I have limited access to the relevant information I think the best way forward is to let the nations of the UN decide, in accordance with international law.

What is counterproductive are attempts by pro-war people to portray anyone who is anti-war as being anti-human rights, or the rights of the Iraqi people. This is just silly and turns anti-war people even more against the cause. There is a big split here : within countries, political parties, even between the various Iraqi dissident groups there is no agreement.