Blair's fatal attraction

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Outgoing British PM was on a roll until he fell for George Bush's war policies

By ERIC MARGOLIS

"All political careers end in failure," noted British parliamentarian, Enoch Powell, famously observed.
Never has his grim maxim been more poignantly demonstrated than in Tony Blair's announcement that he will resign next month as prime minister of Great Britain.
Blair's decade in office was a long run of successes and brilliant political stewardship that ended in near disgrace. The youthful, silver-tongued Blair transformed the demoralized, Marxist dominated Labour movement into a forward-thinking, centrist, business-friendly party.
NEW LABOUR
Blair's "New Labour" inherited a powerful economic upsurge created by free market Conservative Thatcherites. Blair took advantage of this windfall, transforming Britain into one of Europe's most dynamic, envied economies. Equally important, Blair deserves credit, as he put it, for making Britain "at ease with globalization" and "comfortable in the 21st century."
In the process, Blair raised Britain's living standards and employment, making it a magnet for massive foreign investment and entrepreneurial Europeans and an outrageously expensive place to live. Blair's government helped rescue Sierra Leone from anarchy, Albanians of Kosovo from ethnic cleansing, and even seemingly resolved Northern Ireland's troubles.
Many admiring North Americans wished their own inarticulate leaders possessed even a dash of Blair's charisma, earnestness, and eloquence.
In Europe, the youthful Blair was feted as a modern leader who was showing the humane "middle way" to national prosperity while maintaining social safeguards.
Had Tony Blair quit office on Sept. 10, 2001, he would have been remembered as one of Britain's finest prime ministers. But then came Blair's undoing, his fatal attraction to U.S. President George Bush's war policies. Call it Saddam's curse.
Historians will endlessly debate what impelled the sensible, intelligent Blair to enlist as first mate on Bush's political Titanic. Blair had none of the arrogance and ignorance that led Bush and his Conservative Republicans into war. Unlike Americans, who were gravely misled about the Mideast by their media and special interest groups, the worldly, cynical British knew precisely what was going on.
Yet Blair ended up as a shill for the Bush Administration's grotesque lies about Iraq. He facilitated the Bush/Cheney war by providing Washington with credibility, diplomatic cover, and the pretence of a "coalition."
Britain, as America's premier historic ally, naturally felt pressure to join the war. But a true friend warns when you are about to drive over a cliff. Blair did not. Instead, he encouraged Bush and Cheney's worst crusading instincts, validated their misconceptions and prejudices, and threw British troops into failed neo-colonial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By joining these wars, Blair enflamed the Muslim World against Britain and aroused violent reactions among a tiny minority of Britain's 1.6 million Muslim citizens. In response, Blair curtailed sacrosanct British civil liberties and brought its esteemed legal system into question.
In the end, Blair had almost no influence over the Bush administration. He was derided everywhere as America's "poodle" and a sort of Jeeves the British butler in the imperial White House. Blair's formerly brilliant reputation was destroyed by Iraq.
A majority of Britons hated the war and resented being seen as dutiful spear-carriers for America's nuclear knights. As Labour's popularity plummeted, a party rebellion forced Blair to announce he would resign and make way for long-time rival, Gordon Brown.
IRAQ DEBACLE
The Iraq debacle, and, to a lesser degree, Afghanistan, became a curse for all politicians involved. Iraq is destroying Bush, Cheney and the Republican Party. It has ruined Blair, and may undo another Bush protege, Australia's increasingly unpopular PM John Howard.
Afghanistan may also ruin Canada's PM Stephen Harper, who has eagerly sought to win conservative merit badges from the Bush administration, but whose warlike undertakings go almost unnoticed in Washington.
Instead of backing away from the Iraq debacle, Blair kept insisting that his ruinous, faith-based policies were still right.
It's tragic watching a brilliant political leader destroyed by a totally unnecessary, dishonest war. Tony Blair met his Waterloo in Iraq. Others will soon follow.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2007/05/13/4176520-sun.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: gopher

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,391
1,666
113
A recent poll found that 61% of the British people though Blair to have been a good Prime Minister.

I think it's a travesty that Canada was AGAINST the war.

What kind of nation must Canada be to oppose the overthrow of an evil, despotic dictator?

Remember: at the beginning of 2004, a year after the invasion of Iraq, the majority of the British people were FOR the Iraq War.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
What a shame, such a fine man, such a good prime minister, BUT I'm afraid he was sucked in, although I imagine he truley believed what he was doing re: Iraq war.

I sure wish the U.S. would force Bush to resign, as he has shamed his country.

What a giant step backward for both countries, as a result of their leaders.

Between the right wing evangelistic christians and the Iraq war, the u.s. has taken on
a very closed religious-like posture,( not unlike the islamic countries,) with Bush as the head, and I'm sure behind closed
doors he probably isn't any more religious than I am, 'all for politics', just as most of islamic fundamentalists aren't really religious either, just blood thirsty and archaic.

Good bye to Tony Blair, perhaps he will surface again in the future, he is a classy guy, and he
can speak so eloquently, totally opposite of Bush, who struggles with the English language every day.
 

Logic 7

Council Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,382
9
38
What a shame, such a fine man, such a good prime minister, BUT I'm afraid he was sucked in, although I imagine he truley believed what he was doing re: Iraq war.

I sure wish the U.S. would force Bush to resign, as he has shamed his country.

What a giant step backward for both countries, as a result of their leaders.

Between the right wing evangelistic christians and the Iraq war, the u.s. has taken on
a very closed religious-like posture,( not unlike the islamic countries,) with Bush as the head, and I'm sure behind closed
doors he probably isn't any more religious than I am, 'all for politics', just as most of islamic fundamentalists aren't really religious either, just blood thirsty and archaic.

Good bye to Tony Blair, perhaps he will surface again in the future, he is a classy guy, and he
can speak so eloquently, totally opposite of Bush, who struggles with the English language every day.




Tony Blair might speak better than bush, but he is still at the same level of stupidity , ignorance and arrogance as bush.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Tony Blair might speak better than bush, but he is still at the same level of stupidity , ignorance and arrogance as bush.

I couldn't think of Blair on that level, it would be an insult, but I do agree that he made a huge
mistake when he sided with Bush re: Iraq war, and it was from that point that he began his slide
down the ladder. But aside from the Iraq thing, I don''t think Blair is stupid or ignorant at all,
quite the opposite.
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
What kind of nation must Canada be to oppose the overthrow of an evil, despotic dictator?

I don't think Canada opposed the overthrow of an evil dictator...I think they opposed the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the process.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
What kind of nation must Canada be to oppose the overthrow of an evil, despotic dictator?

You British could have set a better example and done the world a favor by doing the same to Suharto.
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
Depends on whose count you believe.

Well, I'd trust John Hopkins University over George Bush...but it really doesn't matter. Even Bush acknowledges that at least 30,000 have died (and that's almost certainly an underestimate)...so Canada opposes the death of 30,000 Iraqis and a few thousand Americans.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,391
1,666
113
What a giant step backward for both countries, as a result of their leaders.

.

Yeah. What a giant step backward ridding the world of an evil dictator is.

It's lucky the Canadian people and its leadership weren't so soft during World War II.

If Canada was the world's only superpower, Saddam would still be in power today.

Remember, though, that Brown - who will become Britain's Prime Minister on June 27th - is also very much in favour of the Iraq War.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,391
1,666
113
I don't think Canada opposed the overthrow of an evil dictator...I think they opposed the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the process.

By that reckoning Canada would also have opposed Britain and America fighting Nazi Germany if it wasn't for the fact that you fought as part of the British Empire. Think of all the lives lost during WWII.

Canada expects countries to fight wars but for no-one to lose their lives.

Just admit that Canada opposed the overthrow of evil Saddam.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,391
1,666
113
What kind of nation must Canada be to oppose the overthrow of an evil, despotic dictator?

You British could have set a better example and done the world a favor by doing the same to Suharto.

I can't see why you Americans are getting on the high horse.

In the last 100 years you have created a large amount of the world's dictators.

Also, what did America do to get rid of this guy Suharto? Nothing by the looks of things. Although you probably would have done if the British decided to do something about him.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,391
1,666
113
Well, I'd trust John Hopkins University over George Bush...but it really doesn't matter. Even Bush acknowledges that at least 30,000 have died (and that's almost certainly an underestimate)...so Canada opposes the death of 30,000 Iraqis and a few thousand Americans.

36 MILLION people died during World War II. The current Iraq War is TINY by comparison in terms of civilian deaths.

So, by your reckoning, WWII was WRONG!

So if Canada was as pusillanimous in those days as it is today it would have not sent troops abroad to fight Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy just because millions of civilians were being killed in that war.

And Canada doesn't REALLY care about the deaths of innocent civilians as it opposed the overthrow of a tyrant that killed thousands of innocent civilians.

And if every country in those days followed the example of Canada today then the whole of Europe today would be under the rule of Nazi Germany.

I think the British and the Americans and the Australians, 17 of the current 27 EU nations and several other nations did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam.
 
Last edited:

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
I don't think Canada opposed the overthrow of an evil dictator...I think they opposed the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the process.

Actually Canada was oposed to lies and non truths plus at least Saddam had the country under control.

Thousands have died for nothing.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Yeah. What a giant step backward ridding the world of an evil dictator is.

It's lucky the Canadian people and its leadership weren't so soft during World War II.

If Canada was the world's only superpower, Saddam would still be in power today.

Remember, though, that Brown - who will become Britain's Prime Minister on June 27th - is also very much in favour of the Iraq War.

Hitler was a actual threat, Saddam wasn't.

If Saddam were in power today Iraq would be under control.

You have to be in favor of the war now if you commited because if you created the mess you had better clean it up.

Amazing how low cons have sunk to support this disaster of a conflict when all the reasons for it have dried up.

Pathetic.:roll:
 
Last edited:

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
36 MILLION people died during World War II. The current Iraq War is TINY by comparison in terms of civilian deaths.

So, by your reckoning, WWII was WRONG!

So if Canada was as pusillanimous in those days as it is today it would have not sent troops abroad to fight Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy just because millions of civilians were being killed in that war.

And Canada doesn't REALLY care about the deaths of innocent civilians as it opposed the overthrow of a tyrant that killed thousands of innocent civilians.

And if every country in those days followed the example of Canada today then the whole of Europe today would be under the rule of Nazi Germany.

I think the British and the Americans and the Australians, 17 of the current 27 EU nations and several other nations did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam.

Again, there was a reason to fight Hitler, none to fight Saddam.
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
36 MILLION people died during World War II. The current Iraq War is TINY by comparison in terms of civilian deaths.

So, by your reckoning, WWII was WRONG!

No, not at all. I believe WWII was RIGHT. If hitler had not been stopped, MORE people would have died. If he hadn't been stopped, he would have wiped out every jew (etc.) on the planet, leading to MORE deaths than WWII. There is no reason to suspect that saddam would have murdered more people than those who were lost in the Iraq war (unlike hitler).

And if every country in those days followed the example of Canada today then the whole of Europe today would be under the rule of Nazi Germany.

Exactly! And that's exactly why WWII was justified. However, if saddam was not stopped, there is no reason to worry that Canada or Europe would be under the rule of saddam.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Blackleaf; said:
I can't see why you Americans are getting on the high horse.

In the last 100 years you have created a large amount of the world's dictators.

Also, what did America do to get rid of this guy Suharto? Nothing by the looks of things. Although you probably would have done if the British decided to do something about him.

Tony Blair being the butt wiping poodle that he is followed Bush and is now paying the price. It's a good bet that if the Repukebicans had gone after Suharto, Blair or some other butt wiper at # 10 would have followed his tail as well.