British Public Have Lost Faith in Tony Blair

[Czar]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13175114_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-BRITISH%2DPUBLIC%2DHAVE%2DLOST%2DFAITH%2DIN%2DTONY%2DBLAIR-name_page.html

TONY Blair has lost the trust of the British people over war on Iraq, an exclusive Mirror poll reveals today.

Two thirds of voters believe the Premier fed them false information in the months-long run-up to conflict.

Their damning verdict follows the failure to find Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, suspect claims that the tyrant could deploy WMD in 45 minutes and allegations that intelligence dossiers were "sexed up" to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

More than one in three voters - 35 per cent - say their confidence in Mr Blair has lessened because of the war. Even 11 per cent of Labour voters have lost faith, enough to wipe out the party's majority at a general election.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Goodbye Tony.

Sad, he was the one most calm and reliable through the build up.
Looks like he's been had by Bush's Cabal too.

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

Whilst I do not doubt that the majority of public opinion is not convinced by his "trust me" and "wait and see" approach, especially in light of the way the evidence was misleadingly spun to the public - the mirror is a notorious tabloid who's "facts" should be taken with an even larger pinch of salt than is usually granted to the media. They were and have remained staunchly anti-war.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

Whilst I do not doubt that the majority of public opinion is not convinced by his "trust me" and "wait and see" approach, especially in light of the way the evidence was misleadingly spun to the public - the mirror is a notorious tabloid who's "facts" should be taken with an even larger pinch of salt than is usually granted to the media. They were and have remained staunchly anti-war.

the premises are all wrong, boneheaded, and worse. tony blair (or george tenet) could not have overblown any threat
saddam posed because saddam is . . . uh .. . mad ! if you look at the root premises upon which these intelligence probablities
and estimates are based, namely saddam's own inglorious history of wanton murder and destruction, then how can you mislead
anyone ?

this does not provide carte blanche to concoct any threat against saddam but the charges themseles deal with saddam's
known predilections to build, gather, deploy and use wmd. saddam, at most, for sheer tactical reason, would have
suspended production so as not to play into u.n./u.s./e.u. hands. very cut and dry.

 

[CaptnKirk]

So you obviously buy the Bush Agenda - Hook, Line, and Sinker.

Yep, Saddam gassed the Kurds, his own people, during an uprising
using chemical weapons supplied by the Reagan Administration.
Isn't this the nucleus of the Bush Administration back to haunt us.
(With lessons learned from Nixon's Dirty Tricks personel)

 

[syzygy]

So you obviously buy the Bush Agenda - Hook, Line, and Sinker.

given the alternative . . . yummy 🙂

Yep, Saddam gassed the Kurds, his own people, during an uprising using chemical weapons
supplied by the Reagan Administration. Isn't this the nucleus of the Bush Administration back to
haunt us. (With lessons learned from Nixon's Dirty Tricks personel)

and what about germany, france, china ? didn't they put a few nice toys into saddam's pockets
too ? wasn't france building him a nuclear reactor (!) when his record of gross human rights abuse
was public knowledge ? i mean, you are being fair with your criticism, riiight ?

lets us know how
nixon got around to your bunkmates.

as for the reagan administration, and rummy's part in that embarrassment, you can't excuse those
mistakes, but you cannot use those mistakes to prevent their correction. if we were to extend your
thinking a little further, then why would anyone do anything against saddam if we all contributed to
his military build-up ? let him run over kuwait, saudi arabia, iran, and egypt, let him kill as many
thousands as he wishes . . . . and we'll do nothing. why ? well, according to your sterling moral
reasoning, because there is no hope for redemption. once a mistake made, fvck it.

i think jerry falwell and the most pig-headed ayatollahs in iran are capable of more forgivance
than certain leftists.

 

[phillyTIM]

i hate saying this, because i have (especially before this iraq sham) lots of respect for tony; but i do hope tony blair falls; his fall will be the death knell for bush & his loose-cannon crownies.

the bush junta couldn't help its strongest ally convince his people that this sham of an invasion was needed

americans will then look at bush, with a doubting eye, and election '04 will be sealed

this charade will finally end

 

[DealMonkey]

Well, at least the Brits have a brain in their head, meanwhile on the other side of the pond ...

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

Whilst I do not doubt that the majority of public opinion is not convinced by his "trust me" and "wait and see" approach, especially in light of the way the evidence was misleadingly spun to the public - the mirror is a notorious tabloid who's "facts" should be taken with an even larger pinch of salt than is usually granted to the media. They were and have remained staunchly anti-war.

the premises are all wrong, boneheaded, and worse. tony blair (or george tenet) could not have overblown any threat
saddam posed because saddam is . . . uh .. . mad ! if you look at the root premises upon which these intelligence probablities
and estimates are based, namely saddam's own inglorious history of wanton murder and destruction, then how can you mislead
anyone ?

this does not provide carte blanche to concoct any threat against saddam but the charges themseles deal with saddam's
known predilections to build, gather, deploy and use wmd. saddam, at most, for sheer tactical reason, would have
suspended production so as not to play into u.n./u.s./e.u. hands. very cut and dry.

More of the Bush/Blair fantasy. Suspend production? I don't think so. The statements made prior to the invasion of Iraq referred to existing WMD in Iraq. Thousands of tons of WMD. Where are they?

How can you people be so gullible? Will you believe ANYTHING Bush and Co. tell you? Will you distort the facts before AND after the fact? Do you believe our memories are that short?

Read Bush's statements prior to the invasion. They are unambiguous. They are now obviously lies.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy

So you obviously buy the Bush Agenda - Hook, Line, and Sinker.

given the alternative . . . yummy 🙂

Yep, Saddam gassed the Kurds, his own people, during an uprising using chemical weapons
supplied by the Reagan Administration. Isn't this the nucleus of the Bush Administration back to
haunt us. (With lessons learned from Nixon's Dirty Tricks personel)

and what about germany, france, china ? didn't they put a few nice toys into saddam's pockets
too ? wasn't france building him a nuclear reactor (!) when his record of gross human rights abuse
was public knowledge ? i mean, you are being fair with your criticism, riiight ?

lets us know how
nixon got around to your bunkmates.

as for the reagan administration, and rummy's part in that embarrassment, you can't excuse those
mistakes, but you cannot use those mistakes to prevent their correction. if we were to extend your
thinking a little further, then why would anyone do anything against saddam if we all contributed to
his military build-up ? let him run over kuwait, saudi arabia, iran, and egypt, let him kill as many
thousands as he wishes . . . . and we'll do nothing. why ? well, according to your sterling moral
reasoning, because there is no hope for redemption. once a mistake made, fvck it.

i think jerry falwell and the most pig-headed ayatollahs in iran are capable of more forgivance
than certain leftists.

Does the same hold true for the thousands killed in China? What about North Korea? There are despots in power all over the world (and here at home too!). Should we oust them all? When will we get started? Aren't we morally bankrupt if we allow any of them to exist now that the Bush administration has claimed the title of the world's moral enforcer?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: syzygy

So you obviously buy the Bush Agenda - Hook, Line, and Sinker.

given the alternative . . . yummy 🙂

Yep, Saddam gassed the Kurds, his own people, during an uprising using chemical weapons
supplied by the Reagan Administration. Isn't this the nucleus of the Bush Administration back to
haunt us. (With lessons learned from Nixon's Dirty Tricks personel)

and what about germany, france, china ? didn't they put a few nice toys into saddam's pockets
too ? wasn't france building him a nuclear reactor (!) when his record of gross human rights abuse
was public knowledge ? i mean, you are being fair with your criticism, riiight ?

lets us know how
nixon got around to your bunkmates.

as for the reagan administration, and rummy's part in that embarrassment, you can't excuse those
mistakes, but you cannot use those mistakes to prevent their correction. if we were to extend your
thinking a little further, then why would anyone do anything against saddam if we all contributed to
his military build-up ? let him run over kuwait, saudi arabia, iran, and egypt, let him kill as many
thousands as he wishes . . . . and we'll do nothing. why ? well, according to your sterling moral
reasoning, because there is no hope for redemption. once a mistake made, fvck it.

i think jerry falwell and the most pig-headed ayatollahs in iran are capable of more forgivance
than certain leftists.

You don't forgive people who have not confessed and asked for redemption. Can you show me where the guilty here have confessed, or was it a matter of the means justifies the ends? It was, I hear, an unpleasant necessity of the time, just like lying to the world about WMD to start an illegal but PNAC justified war.

 

[dawks]

I feel kind of bad for Blair. Poor guy was made Bush's bitch, and now hes paying for it.

How long before Bush is ejected from power? From the his actions over the last few months, its become clear, he is definatly more of a threat to the safety of the world then Saddam ever was.

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: DaZ
I feel kind of bad for Blair. Poor guy was made Bush's bitch, and now hes paying for it.

How long before Bush is ejected from power? From the his actions over the last few months, its become clear, he is definatly more of a threat to the safety of the world then Saddam ever was.

While Bush is,needless to say, a moron, the people who really need to be ejected are Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and especially Paul Wolfowitz (sp).

 

[phillyTIM]

can't wait for the posts after blair receives bush's "seal of approval" (congressional medal)....

sit, tony, sit; good dog 🙂

 

[phillyTIM]

now--roll over, c'mon tony, roll over boy!

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, at least the Brits have a brain in their head, meanwhile on the other side of the pond ...

Dont worry will find you one soon too!

🙂

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: syzygy
You don't forgive people who have not confessed and asked for redemption. Can you show me where the
guilty here have confessed, or was it a matter of the means justifies the ends? It was, I hear, an unpleasant
necessity of the time, just like lying to the world about WMD to start an illegal but PNAC justified war.

no, they haven't confessed. as much as i would like them to, the decisions they made at the time to provide
assistance to iraq were difficult ones. they were weighing their geopolitical options against the more agrresive
threat posed by khoemini's regime.

i can no more show you the united states apology than you can show me the ones proferred by the foreign
states you so love. in fact, germany, france, russia, and china - all paragons of moral virtue no doubt - continued
shilling for saddam throughout the mid-1990s when they worked overtime to water down the u.n. sanction regimes.

the malignant iranian tide had to be rolled back. iraq was willing to serve as a proxy client and we needed to stake
our interests. oh wait, you ofcourse would've suggested the u.s. do nothing !?? maybe a little thumb twiddling would've
looked highly militaristic to you and could've scared saddam ? or better yet we could have cajoled the u.n. into paratrooping
their superhuman commandoes into the area and have them annihilate both threats. so which of these otpions did you
like the most ?

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: syzygy
[Does the same hold true for the thousands killed in China? What about North Korea? There are despots in
power all over the world (and here at home too!). Should we oust them all? When will we get started? Aren't
we morally bankrupt if we allow any of them to exist now that the Bush administration has claimed the title of
the world's moral enforcer?

we, and the world community, have a unique history with iraq. unlike north korea, for example, which has shown
a good fatih willingness to roll back their nuclear programs, iraq has decided to play a protracted shell game with the
u.n., and not just with the u.s., but with your beloved, can-do-no-wrong u.n. this international body had lost all credibility.
they were rendered not only useless, but began to be employed as a tool by saddam to evade his responsibilites ! ! !
did you count the number of disarmament resolutions saddam used as his toilet paper ?

the u.s. only took over after the u.n. had failed for the upteenth time to enforce their own resolutions. remember in
october when the world cheered that another resolution, supposedly so much tougher and meaner than all those
miserable prior failures, would at last force saddam to confess all ? did he ? this mass murderer took you masochistic
suckers for another joy ride and you thanked him for it ! in the absence of any moral authority, when the only
international representative body cannot reform critical flaws in their system, then who is left to fill in the gross
leadership vacuum ?