Is Tony Blair a candidate for a body bag?


On the day of the vote in the UK Parliament which was to endorse Tony Blair decision for the British military to take part in the USA led invasion of Iraq, I told my local MP who had telephoned me to explain why he was voting in favor of this illegal and obscene act, that Tony Blair was either the biggest charlatan to have ever held the office of British Prime Minister [PM] or the stupidest man ever to do so. Since that fateful day which brought untold misery on to the heads of the Iraqi people and not a little to the doors of the families of the dead and wounded UK service personnel. I have reconsidered my assessment of Mr Blair and concluded that far from being a either charlatan or fool, he is in human form an amalgam of these two sorry human traits.

That the MP in question claimed to believe Blair’s nonsense that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could strike at the UK or its interests within forty five minutes is for him and his conscience. I for one amongst millions of my fellow citizens new this to be a lie, not least because if Saddam had such a capability President Bush would not have considered going to war with him in the first place. For if Saddam could strike at the UK he could do the same to the USA and even the Thief in Chief in the White House would have been overruled by saner heads, or so I believed/hoped at the time.

One only had to look at the war’s the USA and it’s underling the UK have been involved in post WW2, to understand that they rarely if ever pick on someone of there own size. All the hype about Saddam and WMD’s were yet another example of the beating of the war mongers drum. The Nazi Herman Goering summed up this disgusting behavior on the part of reckless and opportunist politicians perfectly when he said,
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a fascist dictatorship, a parliamentary democracy, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

So what made me change my mind about Tony Blair being either charlatan or fool, It was when on leaving office he accepted the job of Middle East envoy with special responsibility for Palestine, working on behalf of the USA, Russia, the UN and the EU. Apparently the US President George W Bush had lobbied the EU nations and the UN hard to attain this post for Blair, but more of this later.

It is difficult to come up with a more unsuitable person for this post than Tony Blair, he is hated by the Arab street and treated with contempt by the regions politicos, including the Israelis who understandably prefer to deal with the organ grinder rather than his monkey. As many leading EU politicians have commented since Blair’s appointment, he did nothing to help the Palestinians when as UK PM he possessed real power, thus he is unlikely to achieve anything without such power.

Thus only a very stupid and vain man would have taken this post, someone who truly believes the hype his subordinates placed in the worlds media about his great abilities and charisma. One only has to view the latest TV pictures of Blair floating helplessly around the middle east looking like a grubby women’s underwear traveling salesman to understand the game of playing ‘World Statesman’ is up as far as Blair is concerned. Whereas former leaders like Bill Clinton Nelson Mandela and to a lesser extent that mad old bat Thatcher retained their charisma despite no longer holding office. Blair is stripped bare with out the trappings of Office and revealed in all his nakedness as the flim-flam-man he in reality is.

None of this would have been ignored when the Bush White House decided to lobby on behalf of Blair for the middle east envoy post, for they had used this straw man to front their 21st century military crusade to the middle east, although admittedly with out much success within Europe. He was however party to the Bush White Houses decision making process in the run in to the invasion of Iraq. Did the fact that he was an outsider and not one of the tight clique that micro manages the Bush administration begin to worry them when it first emerged that Blair would be leaving Office as UK PM. After all unlike the majority of the Bush administration’s inner circle, Blair had never run naked in the Californian woods along side Dick Cheney, or pissed on their fellows when they were enrolling in the Skull and Bones fraternity.*

Could Blair’s Palestinian job have been the ultimate poisoned chalice from his right wing pals in the USA, if so he has supped on it greedily, as fools and charlatan’s are apt to do; and when he returns from one of his futile trips to the region in the same type of body bag he sent so many young British squadies to Iraq and Afghanistan to fill, and on a wicked lie at that, few will complain as it will be the justice this man is due.

* An elite Yale University society.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under body bag, envoy, G W Bush, middle east, neo-conservatives, neo-imperialism, Palestine, Tony Blair, UK, USA, White

6 responses to “Is Tony Blair a candidate for a body bag?

  1. Anonymous

    Mr Jones,

    Ref: Blair in a body bag

    I do wish people would not post this type of inciting stuff on the internet. We have enough trouble dealing with actual murderous imbeciles in this country and throughout the world, without having to watch out for plain common-or-garden internet imbeciles.

    I have a YouTube video which will show that Tony Blair understands only too well the danger he is putting himself in.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Px5Vf3fQ_DA

    Oh, and btw, ALL organisations including the UN believed the WMD information, whether or not they should have.

    We can see from recent happenings following the Glasgow arrests within the medical profession, that 45 minutes is just about as long as it might take to poison the water. WMDs come in many forms; they are not all nuclear.

    So, if it was Blair’s “lie” in your facile description, it also had multiple ownership.

    If he (and all the others who initially accepted the dossier) suspected the WMD existence at the time, and had said nothing, can you imagine the furore if an atrocity HAD taken place!?

    I DO share the concern you mention, though your type seems to look forward to such an eventuality rather than be concerned. It always interests me how so many ‘peace-loving anti-war’ people think in these terms.

    http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/blair-iraq-peacemaker-no-no-no-no-no-yes-yes/

  2. Mick Hall

    It is difficult to be angry with someone who wishes to appear as naive as you. Your comment about the UN believing Gen Powell’s ridiculous charade at the UN Assembly, when he prattled on about Saddam’s WMD’s is nonsensical, for when it became clear that the majority of nations within the United Nations did not believe the General, Bush refused to go before the UN to ask for a resolution to invade Iraq.

    Your attempt to link what occurred at Glasgow airport with WMD’s, just shows you fail to understand the general usage of the term. What occurred at the Glasgow city airport was a pair of lunatic’s came armed with a motor car and can’s of petrol, deadly in the wrong hands true, but not WMD’s.

    Of course as you well know Tony Blair did not tell the British nation he suspected Iraq of having WMD’s, he lied through his teeth by telling all who were daft enough to listen, that Saddam possessed WMD’s which could be launched via missiles, arriving at British interests [UK air-base on Cyprus] within 45 minutes.

    Now you may feel it is just fine to send on a lie young men and women to war, to kill and be killed. I happen to believe it is about the most wicked thing any politician can do.

    Finally instead of talking about ‘people like I’, who you know nothing about, I would have been more interested in your view of people like GW Bush and co, who arranged for Blair to have a job in which the odds on him being killed must be pretty high.

    I would not normally use such a harsh tone when replying to comments, but you cannot expect to come on O/R in such an uncivilized manner and not be repaid in kind.

  3. WorldbyStom

    Well, it’s a bit of both, isn’t it? Most international intelligence agencies thought Saddam had some WMD capability. But they thought it was very very limited indeed after years of sanctions. And that’s the point. As you say Mick, the General was on a very very sticky wicket in the UN. The puffery of that performance is to his shame, and worse for his sponsors. I’m reading Cockburns book on Occupation and Resistance in Iraq and it is a brilliant and evenhanded and depressing analysis of the appalling and predictable mess that was the Iraq war – and I write as someone who was very much in favour at the time of the overthrow of Saddam.

    As for Blair now, well, a talented man who for no good clear reason hitched himself onto a US administration of breathtaking incompetence.

  4. Anonymous

    Oh dear, Dear Mick,

    Dummy out of pram, eh!?!

    You call ME naive?

    But according to you, we are now to believe that Bush has set Blair up to be killed in the Middle East? In order, presumably, that Bush can start off WW3 with a good excuse, eh? Yes, I know that most envoys and peace leaders who meet this fate are assassinated by their own, so I’ve already rehearsed that argument at my blog.

    If anything like this DID happen or was attempted, I know “people like you” will be screaming this stuff. I might even be tempted to join you if this were to happen, but only in anguish not bloodlust for Bush.

    Apologies, of a sort, if you are annoyed about the strength of feeling behind my comment. I am equally irritated by your arrogant dismissal of a man I consider a great leader and statesman.

    Still, taken in the context of some of the abuse towards Blair by know-it-all ‘peace lovers’ on the web my words hardly compare. I certainly don’t talk about death, courts, or any other nonsense to someone trying to protect the free world.

    And it’s true, I don’t know much about you, but I do think people who constantly scream blue murder at OUR democratically elected governments and leaders should seriously consider moving. You’ll NEVER be happy in this green and pleasant land … where democracy rules. OK.

    Btw, it was NOT sending anyone to war on a lie. Even the recent TV two-part broadcast writer said he believed that both Blair and Bush believed the WMD business.

    As for Glasgow airport – er – yes – I KNOW about the lunatics – I flew in there two days later. ‘Homegrown terrorists’ that Salmond said didn’t exist in Scotland just a few weeks earlier.

    What I was referring to was the arrests following, of the medics linked to Glasgow, two from Victoria Infirmary, with which I am familiar. Also linked to the London bombing attempts a few days before the Glasgow one.

    Enough. I’m not wasting time on those who have NO belief in others and in particular no trust in their OWN politicians.

    It seems to be an intrinsic part of some people to distrust ANYONE in authority, and to completely dismiss their motives. I expect you think Blair is an American spy, too.

    Have fun.

    http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com

  5. Mick Hall

    Anon/KTBPM

    A nice post so I apologize to you to for my gruff reply to your last comment.

    In reply to some of your points, it is true I am one of those who distrust most politicians, whether they are on the left or right matters not a jot to me. Not because I believe all politicians are crooks and shysters, but because power corrupts and society needs some of its members to keep an eye on our politicos, is this not one of the major advantages of a democracy over all else that is on offer.

    In my experience most politicians work hard and are as honest as the next man in the street, but ambition which all political leaders must have in spades to get to the top of the greasy pole, can be a very blinding thing. There is also the question of longevity in office, the USA has it about right, more than eight years in the highest office and a host of factors come into play not least the isolation from us ordinary mortals of the individual in power.

    As to my disliking Mr Blair, it is true, and I would admit it originated in a bitter disappointment with the government he led. It came to office on a burst of public good will. Thus it could have done so much, Admittedly Blair made changes that benefited the nation as a whole and this country is undoubtedly a better place than before 1997. Not least because the north of ireland is no longer the running sore it once was, I could add in the improvements within the NHS and stuff like that.

    However in my opinion Blair’s continuos attempts to solve social problems by using the legal system, and his refusal to get to grips with the ever increasing gap between the economically rich and poor undermined all of the progressive changes his government implemented.

    Of course sadly it is not possible to look at Mr Blair without analyzing his link with GW Bush and Iraq. You say Blair and Bush believed sincerely in Iraq’s possession of WMD’s I too was told this in 2003 by my friend the MP. It was the reason I said to him that Blair was either a charlatan or the biggest nincompoop to hold the PM post.

    But the information that has subsequently come into the public domain points to both men being 95 percent certain that there were no WMDs in Iraq and no connection between Saddam and bin Laden; and it was their own people who used the intelligence service reports on these issues to frighten their peoples into supporting the war.

    If you had asked me ten years ago whether a US president would sacrifice the life of a close ally to justify war with Iran, I would have said no as I am not great on conspiracy theories, but the way members of this US administration have behaved in the middle east nothing would surprise me.

    Thus my watch words have become who gains and question every thing to doubt.

    All the best.

  6. darcally

    Blair in a body bag? What a great Xmas present!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s