Blair To 'Tough it Out' On Iraq

[jstars2]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41488000/jpg/_41488516_protester203getty.jpg

Blair to 'tough it out' on Iraq

BBC News 27 March 2006. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has defended his Iraq policy in a speech to the Australian Parliament in Canberra.

"If the going gets tough, we tough it out," he said, as he stressed the need for a global alliance to fight terror.

This had to include the US, he said, despite the "madness" of anti-American feelings in Europe, Mr Blair said.

Starting his three-nation tour, he said an "interconnected world" meant it was vital to engage in problems like climate change and the Middle East.
In the address - the first to the Australian Parliament by a British prime minister - Mr Blair said the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan needed "toughing out" but this was no time for hesitation.

"This is not a time to walk away but to have the courage to see it through," he said.

He denied democracy had been foisted on Islamic countries but said the way the people had embraced the elections was a symbol of hope and an endorsement for these values.

These are not western ethics but universal ones which should be the right of the "global citizen", said Mr Blair.

[Norwester]

Great post, wicked IT skills... but I could have just as easily read this on the BBC news website myself, thanks.

This isn't news. Its a journo piece of rubbish to tide over a slow news day.

What is your point? I couldn't see a point for discussion here?

[Anotherpost75]

Norwester

Could be that the point for discussion here is that very recently the UK government announced the withdrawal of 800 troops from Iraq, which force reduction may have a marked effect on the Dear Leader’s ability to “tough it out” in that country, particularly as the withdrawal phraseology at the time strongly implied that this was the start of a much awaited pull-out from the Iraq mire.

Perhaps on the day of announcement, either you failed to read about it, as you apparently failed to read the BBC news copied in the original post, or your perception was one of a “slow news day” when any news was merely a “journo piece of rubbish to tide over”?

Finally, I notice that your Pprune join month is March 2006. May I draw your attention to what is generally accepted as the site’s ethos of encouraging debate rather than stifling it?

[7gcbc]

Bush lied , so did Blair and little "Honest" Jonny, alot of People died and continue to do so, they are accountable and they must be made responsible, I'm sick to death of this stifling of any questions or debate.

These men and their administrations do a great dis-service to both the public and Military of the US and UK, its' high time they went. (sans pensions, sans retirement and most of all , sans any shred of credibility).

:mad:

[jstars2]

The Dear Leader is once again trimming his message to his audience – in this case both John Howard, who has nailed his colours firmly to the Iraq mast (and luckily sustained no Australian causalities in-country, to date (http://www.obleek.com/iraq/index.html) ) and, of course, George Dubya, who will be carefully watching his poodle’s performance from afar to make sure there is no hint of him peeing on the carpet.

Contrast the bellicose style of "if the going gets tough, we tough it out" so beloved of the Texan Tyro, with this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4803334.stm) in respect of “drawing down” (a somewhat more temperate expression and not one used by Dubya – but then he doesn’t address the UK voters!). BBC, 13 March 2006 (Northwest can safely ignore as it was only “a journo piece of rubbish to tide over a slow news day”).

“But there are compelling strategic reasons why Britain wants to start "drawing down" (ie reducing) its military presence in Iraq.

The relatively small British Army is now heavily stretched by its commitments in the Middle East, the Balkans and now Afghanistan, where up to 5,700 troops will be deployed for the next three years.

There is also the question of Britain's global reputation, especially in the Arab and Muslim world where the US-led occupation of Iraq is deeply unpopular.

Despite the fact that Iraq's political leaders have yet to ask Western forces to leave, there is a widespread perception in the Middle East that Britain and the US want to remain in Iraq as "neo-colonial occupiers" intent on taking its oil.

Reducing British troop numbers, and in due course handing over security of the southern provinces to Iraqi forces, will go some way towards redressing that perception.”

Surely “toughing it out” shoulder to shoulder with John and Dubya is at odds with both the present day geo-political realities in evidence and the even more pressing realities of limited force capability, imposed by our own dear Chancellor?

[eagle 86]

I suppose this is why "Little" Honest JoHnny is the second longest serving and one of the most popular PM's Oz has had.
Get a grip, you might think you care but the great unwashed don't give a rat's about Iraq, AWB, children overboard et al.
You Brits amaze me - you couldn't wait to kick the conservatives out - Tones was going to be the great white hope but when he actually takes a stand on something - oh my god I don't agree with that kick him out.
The year is 2006 not the 1960's!
GAGS E86

[JessTheDog]

Of course it isn't Bliar who is "toughing it out" - that duty falls to those paying the "blood price" for his deceit and incompetence.

Hanging is too good for him...

[jstars2]

eagle 86

I found your post a tad incoherent but I gather the gist is that we should stick with Dear Leader, Tony, because he “has taken a stand”.

Has it never occurred to you that the information which he presented to the UK’s “great un-washed” as the basis for his “taking a stand” turned out to be false and that, therefore, “the great un-washed”, certainly of UK (who, on the contrary, do care about Iraq, WMD, etc) are therefore perfectly entitled to wish the demise, after almost 10 years weary incumbency, of a mendacious incompetent, masquerading as a national leader?

[A2QFI]

Blair is not tough. He is using this country to try to improve his image as a 'World Leader' and then move on to pastures new, probably somewhere in the EU, on another 6 figure salary and another huge pension. We deserve much better than him to lead us but, that said, I don't see anybody I would care to follow! Honesty and integrity would be useful qualities in a leader!

[Anotherpost75]

http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/ap_photo/20060327/all/l1838908.jpg
"So what did your husband do in Dubya's War Mrs Blair?"

[FJJP]

'Oh, do you mean apart from defending the human rights of terrorists and suicide bombers?'

[Dogfish]

I wish B liar's dad had 'pulled out' would have saved us from the world of dung we now find ourselves in. Just waiting for our Tone to star in a Horlicks ad...........'How does he sleep at night':mad: :mad: :mad:

[nutcracker43]

JS2

Has it never occurred to you that the information which he presented to the UK’s “great un-washed” as the basis for his “taking a stand” turned out to be false and that, therefore, “the great un-washed”, certainly of UK (who, on the contrary, do care about Iraq, WMD, etc) are therefore perfectly entitled to wish the demise, after almost 10 years weary incumbency, of a mendacious incompetent, masquerading as a national leader?

When I made any decision it was made on the basis of information available to me at the time...certainly the slant has changed and the decisions taken have been interpreted differently because of different information being received. This will continue as and when more information is received...your post would suggest that you do otherwise...

I notice that you are one of the few who have refrained from calling either the PM or the Pres of the US a liar. Many on this thread have done so without any supporting evidence....amazing how brave and mouthy so many are when hidden behind a screen of anonymity.

Dogfish, your post is unworthy of you, not clever, not smart!

Thank you.

NC43

[JessTheDog]

I notice that you are one of the few who have refrained from calling either the PM or the Pres of the US a liar. Many on this thread have done so without any supporting evidence....amazing how brave and mouthy so many are when hidden behind a screen of anonymity.


Ooh, Sebastian!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/images/396x222/sebastian_michael.jpg

I have frequently referred to Bliar as a liar in public, both to friends and colleagues, and even in print (in a newspaper) over Iraq. I am more than happy to air my views in public, and there is a lot of evidence to point to from the banal (Bliar claims to have attempted to sneak on a flight to the Caribbean) to the unimaginably grave (pick nearly anything he has said about Iraq including WMDs and the death of Dr Kelly).

Strangely I have never been troubled by a lawsuit for either slander or libel. I concede that I would incur the wrath of the boys in blue (or is that black with jackboots?) if I decided to pitch up in Parliament Square in a "Bliar Out" t-shirt or heckle anyone at a Labour party rally...so much for freedom of speech and an apolitical police force!

Bliar is a LIAR and his combination of arrogance, deceit and abuse of power make him the greatest internal threat to the constitutional safety of this country since the Bill of Rights. The more of us who speak the truth about his lies in public the better - ask any random person if they doubt his veracity and the answer will undoutedly be "yes" perhaps embellished with metaphors about ursine defecation or papal religion.

Bliar is a Liar! :E

[nutcracker43]

JtD

You are clearly a very brave fellow spouting off to your chums in the mess and in the pub. I suggest you write directly to the prime minister with all your allegations and then attach a distribution list to the various organs of government and newspapers you claim to have written to I suggest the Telegraph, Times and Guardian...then sit back and see what happens...no point in bravely telling your chums in the mess what a liar he is (they probably all agree anyway).

I'm personally not certain whether he has told the truth, or not. I cannot prove it and I suspect neither can you. Therefore, I remain silent on the matter. You can prove he is a liar, can you?

Thank you.

NC43

[Radar Muppet]

NC43

I mainly read this forum and when I do contribute, I try to be objective and informative. So....after objectively reading many of your posts on this and other threads recently, I can only conclude that you are an utter fool.

No, no, thank you.

[nutcracker43]

Radar Muppet,

Don't usually reply to such 'reasoned' statements but thanks for that, anyway...the basis for your charitable conclusion seems to be based on...nothing, simply an agressive satement...suggests flabby reasoning somewhere.

Perhaps you are aptly named ..a muppet. (a ventriloquist's dummy)

And thank you once again.

NC43

[eagle 86]

NC 43
You are dealing with a bunch of priceless prigs - they swing with what ever bandwagon passes by - if RM/JTD/JS2 et al were actually adults when Blair was elected they would have applauded his election as having broken the tedious bondage of the conservatives.
As I stated before - in Oz (as I am sure it is in the UK) the GUW do not care about Iraq/AWB/WMD/poverty in TWC/AIDS - the RU/RL/AFL seasons are upon us - we're in the World Cup of Football - we'll cream the Poms in the next Ashes bout - Johnny rules - life is good!
If you limp dicks are serious climb out of your Ivory Towers become a politician and see how difficult it is to change the world. In the meantime STFU.
GAGS E86

[SASless]

NC43,

You should know better than to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed! That really does allow one to take every tactical and strategic advantage of the foe.

Utter Fool

I would suggest NC43 is anything but that.

[jstars2]

nutcracker43

I’d like to reply to you properly but your words of 30 March are a little bit impenetrable for me:

When I made any decision it was made on the basis of information available to me at the time...certainly the slant has changed and the decisions taken have been interpreted differently because of different information being received. This will continue as and when more information is received...your post would suggest that you do otherwise...

Can you perhaps elucidate?

[eagle 86]

Don't worry NC43, JS2 passed a similar comment to me a couple of posts ago - I think the poor chap suffers from dyslexia!
GAGS
E86

[JessTheDog]

You are clearly a very brave fellow spouting off to your chums in the mess and in the pub. I suggest you write directly to the prime minister with all your allegations and then attach a distribution list to the various organs of government and newspapers you claim to have written to I suggest the Telegraph, Times and Guardian...then sit back and see what happens...no point in bravely telling your chums in the mess what a liar he is (they probably all agree anyway).

I'm personally not certain whether he has told the truth, or not. I cannot prove it and I suspect neither can you. Therefore, I remain silent on the matter. You can prove he is a liar, can you?


I have the standard bit of paper from Downing Street (1 line of text on reasurringly expensive A5 notepaper)to prove that my views on the issue of Iraq (I believe the words "deceit" and "mendacity" were used) submitted in late 2004 have been "considered". Not much happens, likewise when one's views are published in the press (incuding name and address). Somehow I can't see Bliar rushing to devend his reputation in the courts...he wouldn't be able to appoint a tame judge for a start.

Bliar = liar :E

[Biggus]

Various ministers (I am not specifically including the PM in this case) in the Labour Governments of the past 10 years (and no doubt the Tory ones before it) have been 'proven' (usually as the result of newspaper investigations/leaks by their staff, etc) to have 'misled parliament' - for which read been caught LYING!! They usually get a slapped wrist, say it wasn't intentional, and carry on as normal.

It is my opinion that the general public's 'perception' (and I choose that word deliberately) is that politicians are like submariners! (How do you tell when a submariner is lying? His lips are moving!!!) Episodes like the Mandelson, Blunkett, Jowell affairs (Cherie Blairs flat 'deal' in Bristol), cash for peerages,Tory sleaze pre 1997 (Archer, etc), all add to this 'perception' and erode the public's respect for the political process, decrease turnout at elections, etc.

While Tony Blair may or may not have lied, and I am not commenting either way, I am sure many of the public today believe (rightly or wrongly) he is as capable of doing so as any other politician!

[nutcracker43]

Jetstars 2

nutcracker43
I’d like to reply to you properly but your words of 30 March are a little bit impenetrable for me: ''When I made any decision it was made on the basis of information available to me at the time...certainly the slant has changed and the decisions taken have been interpreted differently because of different information being received. This will continue as and when more information is received...your post would suggest that you do otherwise''.
Can you perhaps elucidate?

I am not about to embark on some philosophical discussion with you but I will try and explain as simply as I can. When I said:''When I made any decision it was made on the basis of the best information available to me at the time''. I suggest that you and every normal person would do the same as well, wouldn't you? That, therefore is a 'truth' as you see it...and you act on it. Our world's civilisations have developed this way and different viewpoints have had to change as new facts have become known...it’s called evolution…the same is true in world events. The slant which I mentioned is the new slant taken by some so-called neocons in Washington, and elsewhere. The 'truths' as they beheld them have changed, therefore their perceptions have changed. Your initial post talks about the information turning out to be false…that, as I have said is perfectly possible...it could change the other way as well, but I am certainly not prepared to call anyone a liar based on incomplete facts…it seems perfectly logical to me…I am ever sceptical about any politician, of whatever hue, however.

Is that clear enogh for you?

Eagle 86 Thanks for that…agree with your comments about the young ones…that was a spelling mistake in your first sentence (#18), right?

SASless Thanks for that, too. I always admire ambition in a person, even amongst the ‘challenged’.

Thanks once again.

NC43

[southside]

Just as a matter of interest and in order to win a battle in the crewroom. Has anyone got a cast iron example of a lie that the PM has spun. Any real evidence that he has told a lie? Im looking to win a barny in the Crewroom against this guy who reckons the PM is clean.

[Archimedes]

http://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/

Demonstrates the way in which facts can be stretched, spun, mis-, re- or creatively interpreted without ever quite verging on a lie being told...

[JessTheDog]

1a. Bliar lie to Parliament, 4 June 2003:
The allegation that the 45 minute claim provoked disquiet among the intelligence community, which disagreed with its inclusion in the dossier - I have discussed it, as I said, with the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee - is also completely and totally untrue.

1b. Dr Brian Jones of DIS, in a minute dated 19 September 2002:
We have a number of questions in our minds relating to the intelligence on the military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, particularly about the times mentioned and the failure to differentiate between the two types of weapon.

2a. Bliar lie: PM's official spokesman, 22 July 2003:
(the case of Dr Kelly was) ...handled in accordance with MoD procedures and had been overseen by those at the top of the MoD in view of the fact that it had been the lead department.

2b. Bliar giving evidence to Hutton:
(in answer to a question whether procedures existed for such cases): No. Obviously, you know, this was, as I say, a very unusual set of circumstances. (note: Downing Street took the key decision with regard to the Dr Kelly affair)

3a. Bliar lie: to Parliament in response to Abu Ghraib, 12 May 2004:
It is not correct that ministers or I were aware of these allegations in respect of American Troops. The ICRC report was not passed to us.

3b. Parliamentary answer by Jack Straw, 16 June 2004:
The President of the ICRC, Dr Kellenberger, did mention briefly to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in their meeting of 18 March that the February ICRC report contained allegations concerning treatment of detainees by forces other than UK forces.

4. Bliar's CV submitted in his bid to become Labour candidate for Sedgefield in 1983 claimed that he had "written for" the Guardian. His biographer John Rentoul states that "no published article can be found".

5a. Bliar, claiming to have stowed away on a flight to Barbados as a youth, to Des O'Connor in 1998:
(I) ..snuck on to the plane, and we were literally about to take off when the stewardess came up to me and said: "I don't think I actually saw your boarding pass".

5b. Bliar's father Leo:
The Bahamas? Who said that? Tony? Never. It's news to me.

5c. Newcastle Airport spokeswoman:
In our 61 year history we never had any flights to the Bahamas from here.

6a. Bliar lie: Appearing on Question Time speaking about the fox-hunting ban in 1999:
We had one try at it last season - people like myself voted in favour of banning fox-hunting. I voted for it.

6b. Bliar did not participate in this vote.

7a. Bliar lie: Paxman, asking about Labour accepting money from pornographer Richard Desmond, 16 May 2002:
They also own Horny Housewives, Mega Boobs, Posh Wives, Skinny & Wriggly. Do you know what these magazines are like?

7b. Bliar lying to Paxman:
No, I don't.

7c. Columnist for the Times Anthony Howard describes how the late Tony Bevins, political editor of the Daily Express, had a coincidental encounter with Bliar shortly after resigning from the paper in protest at Desmond's purchase:
Blair asked him why he was going. Bevins told me that, by way of reply, he simply took out from his briefcase some of the more lurid of the Desmond titles and threw them down in front of the Prime Minister - who, to be fair, shuddered and averted his gaze.