PDA

View Full Version : Blair to get US Medal of Freedom


22 Degree Halo
5th Jan 2009, 19:59
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair will be awarded the highest civilian award in the US - the Presidential Medal of Freedom - next week.

Bronx
6th Jan 2009, 01:11
WASHINGTON — Outgoing President George W. Bush is to award the highest US civilian order to former British prime minister Tony Blair, the White House said Monday.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/BronxNYC/blair-up-bush-butt.jpg


Blair will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom (sic) at a White House ceremony on January 13, a week before Bush leaves office.

http://oatsupply.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/blair_bush.jpg

B.

Bronx
6th Jan 2009, 01:28
LONDON - According to the London Times Blair will not be picking up the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor which was awarded to him in July 2003.
This delay of 1,972 days — the longest for more than 20 years — has long since been the source of puzzlement and intrigue.

According to Sir David Manning, the former British Ambassador to Washington and a Downing Street adviser, Mr Blair felt unable to pick up the Congressional Gold Medal while still in office because the ceremony would reinforce the belief that he was “some sort of poodle”.
He told The Times in 2007: “You reach the point where if he had collected the medal, people would say that proves their point.”

The timing of the award was embarrassing for Blair. Within hours of receiving a huge ovation for his speech to both Houses of Congress news broke that David Kelly, the British government scientist who revealed information about so called 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq that damaged Blair's credibility, had killed himself.

Sir David said that the Prime Minister “always had inhibitions” about being handed a medal that was awarded shortly after the invasion of Iraq.

He also acknowledged that the relationship between Britain and America had appeared “more unequal” in recent years.

AMF
6th Jan 2009, 08:41
Bronx LONDON - According to the London Times Blair will not be picking up the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor which was awarded to him in July 2003.

The Congressional...what????

Great reporting....:rolleyes:

Blacksheep
6th Jan 2009, 08:49
... Good! Now the poodle can piss off to the USA and stay there.

Isn't it odd how the Middle East Peace Negotiator was so highly invisible during the run-up to the current situation, only appearing in Tel Aviv once the troops had crossed the border? Perhaps GWB wouldn't let him off the leash?

And how about a green card for Gormless Gordon while they're at it?

tony draper
6th Jan 2009, 08:51
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a194/Deaddogbay/AmericanFreedom.jpg
:E

747 jock
6th Jan 2009, 08:56
The Congressional...what????

Great reporting....

Looks fine to me.

Congressional Gold Medal of Honor

The first award is the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor - more commonly known as the Congressional Gold Medal - the nation's highest and most distinguished civilian award. First awarded in 1776 to General George Washington,


Welcome to CongressionalGoldMedal.com: Exclusive information on the congressional medal, medal histories, biographies, and more. (http://www.congressionalgoldmedal.com/)

AMF
6th Jan 2009, 09:19
747 jock Quote:

Looks fine to me.

So is Blair getting the Prez Medal of Freedom or the Congressional Gold Medal? Not that it matters. When politicians bestow suck-up "medals" to one another it's not unlike actors patting each other and themselves on the back at the Acadamy Awards while expecting us all to tune-in and care. I can't even believe these things make the news anywhere.

747 jock
6th Jan 2009, 09:31
So is Blair getting the Prez Medal of Freedom or the Congressional Gold Medal?

He is being awarded the Presidential medal. He was awarded the Congressional medal in 2003, but hasn't actually picked it up.

When I said that it looked fine to me, I was refering to your comment about "The Congressional...what????

I agree that these medals are in most cases, a total farce.
It's no different in the UK with the honours system with knighthoods, MBE's, OBE's and suchlike handed out to actors, musicians etc

sitigeltfel
6th Jan 2009, 09:32
A man who was instrumental in bringing in oppressive and restrictive laws, curbing the ancient rights of citizens in his home country, is awarded a medal with the word "freedom" in its title, by a foreign country.

You have to laugh!

Nigd3
6th Jan 2009, 11:39
Medal of Freedom award or Meddle with Freedom award.

ShyTorque
6th Jan 2009, 11:47
Whose freedom- his or ours?

I simply cannot bear to listen to his voice these days - he began to spout something about Israel yesterday but I quickly slammed the radio off button. :mad:

Buster Hyman
6th Jan 2009, 11:54
Let's not forget, our very own "man of steel" is getting one too! I'd love to stick around, but I have to book my tickets to DC!!!

:ugh:

Scumbag O'Riley
6th Jan 2009, 15:38
http://www.economist.com/images/20030607/20030607issuecovUK400.jpg

Storminnorm
6th Jan 2009, 15:42
I think WE all deserve SOME sort of medal for just being here!:sad:

Avitor
6th Jan 2009, 16:05
I can't fathom out how Blair constantly talks himself into baubles and riches, beats me all ends up.

West Coast
6th Jan 2009, 17:40
I'll restate my long standing offer, we'll take Blair if you take Hillary.

Lancelot37
6th Jan 2009, 17:59
I know where I'd like to stick the medal.

Paradise Lost
6th Jan 2009, 18:15
Quote:"I'll restate my long standing offer, we'll take Blair if you take Hillary".

You can have him, and if I must, I'll have her!

RatherBeFlying
6th Jan 2009, 18:41
Blair was the last one standing who could have stood up to Bush and -- told him invading Iraq was barking mad.

Am I mistaken to credit the man with a decent education and some acquaintaince with UK's problematic history in Iraq?

The military and civil service fully knew what they were getting into -- or is the man stone deaf to well founded advice?

It must be a Chinese plot for financial world domination -- the facts fit so well:}

airship
6th Jan 2009, 19:24
This latest award by GWB of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, following the earlier award by a Republican-dominated congress of the Congressional Gold Medal to Tony Blair, merely demonstrates the depths this administration has descended to. It's not simply a question of cronyism, but by their actions, they've wholly debased the meaning and value of possessing these awards.

With all that is going on in Israel today, Tony Blair, the official representative of the quartet comprising the United Nations, European Union, Russian Federation and United States, must be reflecting on whether or not he's been of much utility in that position. Before perhaps wondering just how good a UK PM he really was...

He does have a redeeming point however. Unlike all those other US presidents on both sides, he won't have an official 'presidential library', often financed by dubious contributions from foreign states. But there's always the official speeches circuit I guess...?!

goudie
6th Jan 2009, 19:32
If the 'big boys' want to give each other presents then let them. Most people, I suspect, are really past caring about the two B's anymore.

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
7th Jan 2009, 02:16
Saw an interesting interview with Blair today. He wouldn't be drawn on the conflict, but you got an impression from his lack of a response that he was disgusted by what was happening.

Of course Blair was complicit in the US led Iraq disaster and for that reason, asides his involvement in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon debacle he is hardly a credible Middle East peace envoy.

galaxy flyer
7th Jan 2009, 03:14
LAJ

Would you have considered Roosevelt and Churchill European "peace envoys" in 1943? They were liberators and peace envoys in May 1945 :ok:

GF

BarbiesBoyfriend
7th Jan 2009, 10:43
I know how Mr Blair could avoid the embarrasment associated with picking up his gong.


















Kill himself.

bnt
7th Jan 2009, 14:11
Blair was the last one standing who could have stood up to Bush and -- told him invading Iraq was barking mad.

Am I mistaken to credit the man with a decent education and some acquaintaince with UK's problematic history in Iraq?
Religion had a lot to do with it. Blair hid his religiosity from us for many years, and it only became clear just how much of a role religion played in his decision-making as he was preparing to leave office. In his own words (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4772142.stm):
In the end, there is a judgement that, I think if you have faith about these things, you realise that judgement is made by other people... and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well.

Religion: where it becomes a virtue to hold beliefs, and make decisions, that are not supported by the available evidence. Blair had "faith", so that makes it all right, does it?

Blacksheep
7th Jan 2009, 14:33
He wasn't elected to represent God, he was elected to represent the people of the United Kingdom. If he wished to represent God he ought to have stood for election to the Holy See.

As it was, he ignored the wishes of the people he was supposed to represent and did what he personally considered the "right thing". Unfortunately, it was the people he ignored who turned out to be right. :ugh:

That Mr. Bargouti was being interviewed on TV and he made the point that the Middle East Peace Envoy was noticeably missing in action. He also made the point that it was Israel that broke the cease fire by closing the borders and restricting essential supplies. Now, I don't know who is the pot and who is the kettle but it seems to me that both sides have black arses and it needs a suitable unbiased intermediary to sort them out. With his American medals is Tony Bliar a truly credible unbiased intermediary for Middle East affairs?

CATIII-NDB
8th Jan 2009, 18:12
To borrow a phrase from Handel's Missiah -He was despised, rejected a man of sorrows aquainted with grief- In Blair's case of his own making.

A sad Medal to a risible little Man.

Satire is Dead.

CAT III

birrddog
8th Jan 2009, 18:55
He wasn't elected to represent God, he was elected to represent the people of the United Kingdom. If he wished to represent God he ought to have stood for election to the Holy See. (Referring to Blair)


I have to disagree.

From Wikipedia (although you can find other references if you don't trust this one)
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a title held by the British monarchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Monarch) which signifies their titular leadership over the Church of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Governor_of_the_Church_of_England#cite_note-monarchtoday-0) Even though the monarch's authority over the Church of England is not strong, the position is still very relevant to the church and is mostly observed in a symbolic capacity. The Supreme Governor formally appoints high-ranking members of the church on the advice of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom), who is in turn advised by church leaders.

The church of England is sanctioned by the government, the Queen is the head of the Church, she is also the head of the government, and the prime minister is to head the government on behalf of the queen.

Although you could argue he was not elected on his stance/credentials to represent the Christian God, I would argue it is definitely part of the job description (although these days probably not a priority).

Howard Hughes
9th Jan 2009, 01:05
Can't believe that nobody has noticed that our very own Johnnie (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24878549-12377,00.html) is also up for a gong!:eek:

Dushan
9th Jan 2009, 01:13
Can't believe that nobody has noticed that our very own Johnnie (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24878549-12377,00.html) is also up for a gong!:eek:

Yes, and that is why Obama (PBUH) cannot move into Blair House earlier than customary. Normally the President Elect moves to Blair House a week before the Inauguration. Obama (PBUH), wanted to come on Jan 5th two weeks before The Immaculate Inauguration, citing his daughters' need to go to school. It was, sadly:E, denied because of John Howard's visit.

Howard Hughes
9th Jan 2009, 01:17
Johnnie could have slept in the dog kennel!;)

Buster Hyman
9th Jan 2009, 14:44
Can't believe that nobody has noticed that our very own Johnnie (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24878549-12377,00.html) is also up for a gong!
You need to read the thread properly Howard!:rolleyes:

bnt
12th Jan 2009, 12:36
Courtesy of The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/unveiled-at-last-tony-blair-medallion-man-1299666.html), the design for the Congressional Medal that Blair was awarded in 2003, but which has only just been finalised:

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00111/10115961_111538a.jpg

I wonder: will they fix Blair's grammar before minting it? :8

Avitor
12th Jan 2009, 12:42
This crazy award makes me feel sick. :ugh:

I have a gut feeling, it will be used by Blair to enhance his chances of becoming the first permanent President of the EU. (He proposed the position)

He will emphasise his closeness to America and with it the benefits to the EU.

frostbite
12th Jan 2009, 12:48
Nauseating and tacky.

(the medal and the person on it)

forget
12th Jan 2009, 12:54
I wonder: will they fix Blair's grammar before minting it?

And the spelling. :bored:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/blair.jpg

Blacksheep
12th Jan 2009, 14:11
The church of England is sanctioned by the government, the Queen is the head of the Church, she is also the head of the government, and the prime minister is to head the government on behalf of the queen.
The Queen isn't the head of the Church of England, that honour goes to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Queen is Defender of the Faith and she acts on the advice of ministers who are chosen through, but not by, an electoral process. (Besides, Blair is and probably always was a Roman Catholic and thus not within the writ of the Church of England. Another of his deceptions.)

Nor is she the Head of Government, she is Head of State and as such Sovereign - the third component of Parliament and a subtle but significant difference. To illustrate, formerly, the demise of the Sovereign automatically brought a Parliament to an end, the Crown being seen as the caput, principium, et finis (beginning, basis and end) of the body, but this is no longer the case. She isn't the head but a constituent part of Parliament and it is Parliament in the wider sense that holds supreme sovereignty.

The Prime Minister is that person who can command a majority in the House of Commons, with members elected to represent each of the "commons" (or "communes") - the districts of the country and thus the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the majority of whom are not members of the Church of England. The Queen can theoretically use her prerogative to dismiss a government without advice from the Prime Minister but there must be a General Election to elect a new Parliament within 17 days of the dissolution.

So, Tony was acting on his own beliefs and convictions despite opposition from a significant number of the electorate. He ought to have put the matter to a Parliamentary vote and he may then, of course, have won the vote; but he chose not to. Britain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq was his own decision and he cannot invoke his God to excuse the error.

Captain Stable
12th Jan 2009, 15:36
Sorry, Blacksheep, but the monarch is the Head of the Church of England.

Church of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england#Structure)
The British monarch, at present Queen Elizabeth II, has the constitutional title of "Supreme Governor of the Church of England". The Canons of the Church of England state, "We acknowledge that the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil." In practice this power is often exercised through Parliament and the Prime Minister.

Blacksheep
13th Jan 2009, 08:47
So Wikipaedia is now the leading authority on the British Constitution?
I suppose I'll have to send all my Constitutional Law text books to the charity shop now... :rolleyes:

I refer you to the words "constitutional title" in the opening sentence of your quotation. Now look up the meaning of the expression. Wikipaedia may be able to help. As an example, the constitutional head of most universities is the Chancellor, but let any Chancellor interfere in the work of the Vice-Chancellor who actually holds executive authority, and he'll soon be Chancellor no more. Parliament has removed the reigning sovereign before and can easily do so again, without resorting to another civil war, simply by having a vote on the matter. How much executive authority does that really leave Her "Majesty"? Or the Church of England? Or God?

Captain Stable
13th Jan 2009, 08:50
No, Wikipedia is not any sort of authority. On this occasion it happens to be 100% correct. The ruling monarch has been head of the Church of England ever since the time of Henry VIII.

The monarch appoints leading bishops (York and Canterbury) on the advice of the Prime Minister.

lowerlobe
14th Jan 2009, 00:32
Just watched the ceremony of our esteemed ex PM John Howard receiving his award along with Tony Blair....

Apart from the irony of receiving a peace award for attacking another country it was what President GWB said that made me really laugh...

GWB describing Howard said something like this..."Here is a man who witnessed the burning Pentagon and who ....confron.....confronted....comforted the survivors of the Bali terrorists attacks..."

I am going to sorely miss GWB's speeches....

lowerlobe
14th Jan 2009, 00:59
To put into perspective this award go to this link and read some of BWB's speeches...
Bushisms - Funny George Bush Quotes Updated Frequently (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm)

Here are just 2...."Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." --George W. Bush, in parting words to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at his final G-8 Summit, punching the air and grinning widely as the two leaders looked on in shock, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008

"Amigo! Amigo!" --George W. Bush, calling out to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Spanish at the G-8 Summit, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008
I really hope someone in the next government is as entertaining