Should Tony Blair Resign After THIS?

[DanishDynamite]

"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.

Based on his remarks on his views of where and how and perhaps why the British troops should extract themselves from Iraq.

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.

There is nothing but reasons to fire him.

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

All of his comments were made as the person he is. Almost all of them were reasons for firing his ass.

 

[DanishDynamite]

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.

Good questions. I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail any further than I could spit a rat. But I did see the interview with him, remember? And though that interview will only be available at the homepage of the TV-station in question on Monday, this makes no difference to the fact that I did see him and what he said. And I trust said TV-channel.

 

[Darth Rotor]

There is nothing but reasons to fire him.

All of his comments were made as the person he is. Almost all of them were reasons for firing his ass.

I do not understand your reason for feeling that way, other than a penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill. I saw a one minute clip as I got home. I also caution you as FreeChile does, about letting the media spin play on your emotions and instincts.

If your instinct is to be leary of official pronouncements, be they government official or general, that is a healthy attitude.

His remarks were a summarizing of the obvious. One rule of press conference is don't lie. Did he carry his analysis too far? No, given that anyone with a brain who has followed this war for the past 3 years can see that part of the problem in Iraq is the presence of foreigners, armed foreigners, that some factions use as a cause celebre for a variety of their violent acts.

The assertions made that he is countermanding UK policy also don't wash, since he notes, in print, his force planning for 2007 and 2008.

So, firing him for a less than letter perfect news conference is rubbish. Firing him for renouncing "UK policy" is also rubbish, see the Blair remarks that I quoted earlier.

Firing him for incompetence? Well, his mission has not yet failed, so no.

Thus, please, again, the specifics of what he said, by paragraph chapter and verse, that are grounds for firing.

I simply don't see it. Yes, I accept that I have a higher tolerance for imperfection than you seem to.

DR

 

[Rob Lister]

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.

Just an off-topic note to say that I shall, from this point forward, take note of your replies more carefully.

Regarding the last paragraph...because it was planned for him to do so.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I do not understand you reason for feeling that way, other than a penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill. I saw a one minute clip as I got home. I also caution you as FreeChile does, about letting the media spin play on your emotions and instincts.

If your instinct is to be leary of official pronouncements, be they government official or general, that is a healthy attitude.

His remarks were a summarizing of the obvious. One rule of press conference is don't lie. Did he carry his analysis too far? No, given that anyone with a brain who has followed this war for the past 3 years can see that part of the problem in Iraq is the presence of foreigners, armed foreigners, that some factions use as a cause celebre for a variety of their violent acts.

The assertions made that he is countermanding UK policy also don't wash, since he notes, in print, his force planning for 2007 and 2008.

Uh..no. That is the only point of interest here. He made remarks regarding his wishes and views regarding a better placement of the troops of the UK (i.e. all should go home).

A consideration which is not his to make or talk about in public. His only mission is to do as he has been ordered to do.

So, firing him for a less than letter perfect news conference is rubbish. Firing him for renouncing "UK policy" is also rubbish, see the Blair remarks that I quoted earlier.

He should have been fired hours ago.

Firing him for incompetence? Well, his mission has not yet failed, so no.

Of course he isn't incompetent to be a top general. It is clear that is incompetent at being top dog within the armed forces, though.

Thus, please, again, the specifics of what he said, by paragraph chapter and verse, that are grounds for firing.

I simply don't see it. Yes, I accept that I have a higher tolerance for imperfection than you seem to.

He gave a statemetn and later interviews in which he gave opinions on his view of where or if UK troops should be deployed in Iraq.

A clear overstepping of the line.

 

[FreeChile]

Don't get me wrong. There is some good reporting out there. I am mainly criticizing the Daily Mail report in this particular case. Look at how they reported some of the things we ourselves have been discussing here. There is some incosistency there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410345&in_page_id=1770

Blair forced to claim Dannatt's criticisms are 'absolutely right'
By JAMES CHAPMAN

Last updated at 22:09pm on 13th October 2006

Britain's top soldier was vindicated as Tony Blair was forced to claim he agreed with every word of his devastating assessment of British policy in Iraq.

 

[FreeChile]

Just an off-topic note to say that I shall, from this point forward, take note of your replies more carefully.

Regarding the last paragraph...because it was planned for him to do so.

Who planned it and for what purpose?

 

[Rob Lister]

Who planned it and for what purpose?

Just a guess but I'd say advisors planned it and the PM gave the nod. (not really "just" a guess, more of a very strong suspicion that is impossible to ever prove.)

 

[FreeChile]

Just a guess but I'd say advisors planned it and the PM gave the nod. (not really "just" a guess, more of a very strong suspicion that is impossible to ever prove.)

What's the motive?

 

[Rob Lister]

What's the motive?

Unknown at this point. Something political, no doubt. Something that is in the best overall interest of the UK, as Tony and his advisors see it.

I also keep in mind that they (the PM and the advisors) get to select those to whom they present it and know, almost to the word, how they will spin it.

 

[FreeChile]

I would also like to point out the Daily Mail's efforts to agrandize The General.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410324&in_page_id=1770

Friends say controversial Army General is honest and has 'no political agenda'
By FIONA BARTON

Last updated at 22:00pm on 13th October 2006

General Sir Richard Dannatt is a modest man. When he was just 23, fresh out of Sandhurst, the young platoon commander in the Green Howards was awarded the Military Cross for gallantry while serving in Northern Ireland.

 

[FreeChile]

Unknown at this point.

I was not trying to engage in conspiracy theory when I considered the open question. It is simply an open question.

Something political, no doubt. Something that is in the best overall interest of the UK, as Tony and his advisors see it.

It would have to be something valuable enough to warrant making Tony look like a fool. Do you think they may be positioning the General for elections?

I also keep in mind that they (the PM and the advisors) get to select those to whom they present it and know, almost to the word, how they will spin it.

Why use the Daily Mail? Why not a more reputable outlet?

 

[FreeChile]

Here are the talking points, all coming from the lips of two Iraqi citizens, whom we really don’t know, and the BBC does not tell us who they are. Yet they are experts in democracy, military affairs, government, education and have impecable grammar unlike the Daily Mail. These two guys should be in charge if you asked me.

1. Make sure to agree with everyone; Yes including The General.
2. Touch on most of the issues but don’t really address them.
3. Timetable – sure we can say that as many times as is necessary.
4. Definitely can’t leave now. Emphasize that.
5. Show who is really in control and how valuable they continue to be and how backwards the other side is.
6. Of course, cooperation, cooperation is the key.
7. And at the end, give them the punch-line and the dream: A year from now would be a good departure date. Not now. Tomorow.

It’s very simple boys and girls: create a problem and lot’s of confusion so you could provide a solution and hence clarity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6047946.stm

Views from Basra on UK troops
Two residents of Basra give their reaction to comments from the head of the British Army on the presence of British troops in Iraq.
General Sir Richard Dannatt said troops should leave "sometime soon" because they were exacerbating the security situation.

There should be a timetable for the departure of UK troops.

But I also believe that if the troops leave now, the security situation won't improve. Our policemen and our military are not ready yet to take care of security in Basra.

A year from now would be a good departure date. This will be enough time to train the Iraqi police.

We also need the British government to try to teach some of our officials in government how to deliver better services to the Iraqi people.

Democracy is something that's missing in Iraq. People don't understand what that means. If you want democracy you have to educate people - and then you can apply it.

If they work towards leaving a year from now that would be good. Otherwise they will be staying here for many years.

 

[Rob Lister]

Why use the Daily Mail? Why not a more reputable outlet?

Good question. Intriguing even. Yet that is the one the general selected.

 

[geni]

Good question. Intriguing even. Yet that is the one the general selected.

Has high sales figures and is somewhat higher quality than the sun.

 

[geni]

Unknown at this point. Something political, no doubt. Something that is in the best overall interest of the UK, as Tony and his advisors see it.

It gives him (or at least his sucessor) a politicaly posible exist stratergy.

But from what we know of how this appears to have been a suprise to rather a lot of high up people I doubt it was planned.

 

[brodski]

But from what we know of how this appears to have been a suprise to rather a lot of high up people I doubt it was planned.

Exactly, if this where planned and/ or authorized by Downing street (as would be proper under the current procedures) then the reaction would have been very very different. This interview was never on "the grid", as can be seen by No. 10's painfully obvious scramble to scramble to save face.
doe anyone actually think that if this government wanted to create a "politically defensible exit strategy" this interview would go to the Mail? If it where in the Murdoch press, I would be much less sceptical, but the Mail? Not a chance, because every Whitehall press office knows that they have the knives out for the current administration and will place Blair in the worst possible light. the Murdoch press could be relied on to be slightly more on message, and an exclusive of this kind would garner a little pre election sympathy for the party from News International.

 

[brodski]

Do you think they may be positioning the General for elections?

No, it doesn't work like that here, our party system is too strong, and we don't tend to go in for "celebrity" candidates.

 

[John de Combe]

Why use the Daily Mail? Why not a more reputable outlet?

Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
- The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
- The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
- The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
- The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
- The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
- The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
- And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?"

Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."

 

[Darth Rotor]

He gave a statemetn and later interviews in which he gave opinions on his view of where or if UK troops should be deployed in Iraq.

A clear overstepping of the line.

Perhaps you can cite a UK law that precludes a general from ever offering an opinion to the media. With that in hand, I'll agree with you. Without, we both are best left allowing for Mr Blair's judgment on deciding if, on the balance, the generals utility is of such magnitude that an occasional stepping on his own lizard is accepted as par for the course.

Your opinion (and bias) on what generals should or should not say is to be weighed against the standard that UK law holds the general to, and Mr Blair's judgment, as well as his Minister of Defence.

I am curious: what qualification do you have to vett and judge the utterances of generals? Had the general said "On my order, the troops are coming home next (fill in the month)" (which he did not say) his remarks would fulfill the case of "unlawful order issued in excess of the authority granted by position." That not being the case, your opinion on the general's utility to the UK Defence Ministry is as useless as teats on a hog.

DR