Another U-turn.

[tovarich]

For goodness knows how long now "Global" Gordon has kept his family life private, not for him the B liar way of doing things with his children in photos outside No 10.

But now, with an election round the corner, we have "Global" Gordon playing the sympathy card. Tut,Tut. We must all sympathise with anyone who loses a child but why talk about it now Gordon? Is it considered to be a vote winner?

I think not.

[Win2Win]

Well I doubt Sarah went for 'looks' so he must have some redeeming qualities, and after him 'opening up' I'm still none the wiser :splapme

[scoobydoo]

Piers Morgan just proved what a he is even more. I really don't know why Gordon did that interview.

[tovarich]

His problem is that every time he opens his mouth he puts his foot in it. :D

[tophatter]

You dont really think he is going to do a personal interview and not talk about the death of his first born do you? It was, what, 10 minutes of the interview?

Its would be perverse in my opinion to do a personal interview covering the whole of your life and not talk about that.

There is an election this year and we have a leader of the opposition whose main tatic in the absence of any policy is to attack Brown on a personal level and present himself as a regular kind of guy. It would be madness not to try and counter that when personality is probably going to be brought into the arena of a close bitterly fought election.

I think its the height of cynicism to even suggest that Gordon Brown or any politician of any persuasion would use the death of a first born to help win votes. It dont surprise me though if it gets whispered though - this is going to be a bitter election becuase it is going to be closer than it should be with a government going for a fourth term and barely emerging from recession.

[tovarich]

[QUOTE=tophatter;524265]You dont really think he is going to do a personal interview and not talk about the death of his first born do you? It was, what, 10 minutes of the interview?

Just one word from "Global" Gordon or his advisers and the subject would never have been mentioned. When politicians are being interviewed they ALWAYS know in advance what questions are going to be asked, it gives them time to prepare their answers so he gave permission to Piers Morgan to bring up the subject. He may fool some people, TH but he sure don't fool me.

His whole demeanour is so pedantic you can read his every move. He is after the women's vote, but since they do most of the shopping and bill paying I'm not sure he'll get many votes there.

Still, desperate situations call for desperate measures.

[tophatter]

You completley missed my point Tov.

I said it would be perverse to agree to do an interview covering your whole personal life and then say NO you can not talk about the most important things that have happened in it.

If he had done the interview only on the condition that NO questions on that subject could be asked then I would think it perverse and agree with you.

You can not do a personal interview and not talk about things as important as that. The same as he had to agree to talk about things that im sure he thinks are trivial like his student life.

Before he was Prime Minister he did not have to worry about this personal stuff. Now he is Prime Minister it is part of the game. He should have done it long before now but he clearly does not enjoy it. Its part of the game as its his opponents stongest suit.

As for desperate times and desperate situations I would suggest that if the Tories are mad enough to even to try and infer that he used the death of his own child as a vote winner, then they are even more nervous than they appear to be at present. I doubt they will, but it will be a bitter election campaign because they are nowhere near as far ahead as they should be considering the hand they have been dealt.

[tovarich]

Some people say the Tories have no policies.

Can anyone remember when David Cameron first took over as Leader of the Opposition? He laid out his plans for the Tories and what they would do when they got back into government!!!!

Big mistake, within three weeks they became Tony B liar's policies. Now, hopefully he'll keep his mouth shut till we get an election then he can tell us his policies and then people can judge for themselves

[tophatter]

What Policies were they?

And more importantly if Tony Blair stole all Daves policies then they plainly have not been as effective as you would have hoped if everything is in such as mess :)

Im looking forward to the election. I hope David Cameron does have some good policies as he will more likely than not be our next Prime Minister. Then we can see him walk the walk. The worst possible result would be him been so empty we end up with him becoming Prime Minister just because he is not Gordon Brown. If he and Osbourne put forward credible policies then they should be aiming for a similar majority as Blair and Brown of 120+ seats when they beat Major and Clarke. Just hope he dont keep mum and settle for a majority of 20 or 30 just to play safe and become Prime Minister for the sake of it. That would be a disaster.

[mathare]

Are you Tory supporters not bored of the old Blair/Bliar 'joke' yet? It gets more tedious every time I see it. Ooh, a politician didn't tell the truth. Yeah. And. So. What? Like he's the only politician to have ever lied.

[tovarich]

It's no joke, Mat. People call him B liar because that is what he is, a born liar. Which in itself can be believed or dismissed as you prefer, I'll bet you don't have the guts to tell that to the widows and children of those who died fighting an illegal war!!!!!! on the whim of an ambitious megalomaniac.

[mathare]

It's no joke, Mat. People call him B liar because that is what he is, a born liar. Which in itself can be believed or dismissed as you prefer, I'll bet you don't have the guts to tell that to the widows and children of those who died fighting an illegal war!!!!!! on the whim of an ambitious megalomaniac.

So it's in his DNA is it? He is not a born liar. He's a politician. They all lie to some degree, it's part of the 'game'. And last time I looked we haven't been fighting an illegal war.

And as for calling him an "ambitious megalomaniac", find me an MP who isn't ambitious. If they weren't ambitious surely they would be happy in local politics, serving on the local council rather than seeking the party nomination for their constituency and fighting for a seat in parliament. Megalomaniac? Really? It was Bush calling the shots for a lot of the international decisions Labour have made so how is that gaining Tony Blair more power?

If you don't like the bloke then that's fair enough. If you're just attacking him because he's on the other side to you then at least have some substance to your arguments, preferably fact-based.

[tovarich]

Look again Mat, the invasian of Iraq, an innocent country with nothing to do with us, was totally illegal. If he was carrying out an attack on behalf of the UN that would have been legal, yes? But he wasn't, he was going against the UN resolutions which makes it illegal.
He must still be hoping that somebody will find WMD in Iraq then he can say "THERE, I TOLD YOU"

The argument that Saddam Hussein killed 5000 kurds doesn't hold up when US and UK troops are said to have killed 700,000 Iraqis.

[mick56]

For several elections now i have felt unable to use my right to vote(the reasons for which i tried to explain on another thread on this forum)but despite often appearing otherwise my view is that Brown is basically a decent bloke and i am loath to belive that he would even contemplate using the death of his child to earn votes.

[mathare]

Look again Mat, the invasian of Iraq, an innocent country with nothing to do with us, was totally illegal.

I must have missed the ruling on this one. The Chilcott inquiry is over is it? And it's declared the war was illegal? And Tony Blair has been arrested and will be tried for war crimes? Or are we jumping the gun a little and putting across our opinion as fact?

The argument that Saddam Hussein killed 5000 kurds doesn't hold up when US and UK troops are said to have killed 700,000 Iraqis.

I love it when an argument involves the phrase "are said to", it's right up there with "apparently" and "according to Wikipedia" :wink

[scoobydoo]

.... my view is that Brown is basically a decent bloke and i am loath to belive that he would even contemplate using the death of his child to earn votes.

I agree Mick. I can't stick Cameron but should he talk about the death of his child in next 2 months, I would never for a moment think he was using it to get elected. I dont think he or Brown are that low thank god.

[mathare]

Incidentally, I doubt I will use my vote this year as I still feel the election system we have is flawed. Do I vote for the MP I think will make the most difference on a local basis or the MP representing the party I would like to form the government? And even if the party I prefer does get into power, why can't I have a say in who is prime minister?

I understand that being able to vote for PM as well as an MP could lead to situations such as a Labour PM being voted in while the Tories hold a majority but the current system is flawed, in my opinion and because of that I think I have only voted once (in any election) in the 15 years I have been eligible to vote.

I think the current system also leads people to vote for the wrong reason. Party loyalty causes some voters to back their local party candidate regardless of who they are and what they could do for the area. A party could nominate a total imbecile to stand in some consitituencies and they will still get votes from those who are backing the party, probably because they want that party to have a majority and want the leader to be prime minister, even though the candidate is a blithering idiot with no chance of being elected. Maybe the idea of ranking candidates rather than the first past the post idea will improve things. Even better would be to have "None of the above" on the ballot paper and for that option to be counted as a proper vote; then we'd hear what the masses truly thought.

[Win2Win]

I can feel the LUV in this thread

[mick56]

Maybe the idea of ranking candidates rather than the first past the post idea will improve things.

Perhaps we should start a handicap now that would be interesting.

[tovarich]

Mat, when you say it was Bush calling the shots is this the scenario you had in mind?

Dubya:- Tony babe, my old Pa messed up a bit when he was doing this job and I want to do something to catch the eye of the American people so I want to get into Iraq and get rid of Sadaam and I need your help, can I count on you Tony?

B liar:- Well, gee Mr President, I don't know, Hans Blix and Dr Kelly both say there are no WMD and the UN won't give us a mandate for open attack. EVen MI6 say there is nothing there and Lord Goldsmith has said it would be illegal so I don't see what I can do.

Dubya:- Never mind the UN Tony, they're just poodles. And you tell your MI6 and Lord Goldthingy to go away and think again and come back with the right answers. Remember, Tony, after this is over there will be millions of dollars to be made on the lecture circuit, I guarantee.

T B liar:- Oh, - er,- um, - well- I'm a regular kinda guy so let me get back to you on that one Mr President.


Why was it that when B liar was within touching distance of achieving his greatest ambition - namely to be Prime Minister longer than Margaret Thatcher (and he probably could have) he resigned. No! He saw everything was going to hit the fan so he gets out and dashes off to the US to make his millions.

That's not what you had in mind, was it Mat?:D

[mathare]

That's not what you had in mind, was it Mat?:D

No, my version had more blanks in as I hadn't filled them in with conjecture and hearsay and was waiting instead for facts.

IF the war was illegal (and note the first word of that sentence, please) then it surely makes no difference whether Tony BLAIR (note also the correct spelling of his surname) whether is still prime minister or not, all that matters is his position at the time of the war. So him recognising that trouble was coming and resigning is irrelevant as he doesn't dodge anything by stepping aside.

As we are both coming at this from completely different angles and you're determined not to let the lack of hard facts get in the way I suggest we put this argument on hold until after the Chilcott inquiry, eh? :)

[tovarich]

I must have missed the ruling on this one. The Chilcott inquiry is over is it? And it's declared the war was illegal? And Tony Blair has been arrested and will be tried for war crimes? Or are we jumping the gun a little and putting across our opinion as fact?

I love it when an argument involves the phrase "are said to", it's right up there with "apparently" and "according to Wikipedia" :wink

Unfortunately the Chilcot enquiy has no powers of arrest or finding anyone guilty or sentencing anybody to death for murder. No one was under oath, (lucky for Straw and B liar) and Lord Chilcot was only there to ask questions and as TH says nothing will come of it. Like the Hutton enquiry who wanted the results to be kept secret for - SEVENTY BLOODY YEARS. That would get Tone off the hook. :D

Too old and feeble to be jumping anything, Mat. "ARE SAID TO " depends who you believe. Daily Mail says 700,000. Telegraph says 900,000. BBC says over a million. Being a bit conservative in my attitude I went for the smaller figure. :D

[tovarich]

What Policies were they?

And more importantly if Tony Blair stole all Daves policies then they plainly have not been as effective as you would have hoped if everything is in such as mess :)

Im looking forward to the election. I hope David Cameron does have some good policies as he will more likely than not be our next Prime Minister. Then we can see him walk the walk. The worst possible result would be him been so empty we end up with him becoming Prime Minister just because he is not Gordon Brown. If he and Osbourne put forward credible policies then they should be aiming for a similar majority as Blair and Brown of 120+ seats when they beat Major and Clarke. Just hope he dont keep mum and settle for a majority of 20 or 30 just to play safe and become Prime Minister for the sake of it. That would be a disaster.

I thought they would stand out as the only successful policies ths government has had:D

[tovarich]

No, my version had more blanks in as I hadn't filled them in with conjecture and hearsay and was waiting instead for facts.

IF the war was illegal (and note the first word of that sentence, please) then it surely makes no difference whether Tony BLAIR (note also the correct spelling of his surname) whether is still prime minister or not, all that matters is his position at the time of the war. So him recognising that trouble was coming and resigning is irrelevant as he doesn't dodge anything by stepping aside.

As we are both coming at this from completely different angles and you're determined not to let the lack of hard facts get in the way I suggest we put this argument on hold until after the Chilcott inquiry, eh? :)

No IF's or BUT's about the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, Mat. Unless I'm missing something that made the invasion of an innocent sovereign country "LEGAL". Let us know then I'll go away an eat worms.

(Don't think Mat that I don't know the proper spelling of the B liars name)

I am not a liar, Mat so please don't call me one. Apart from the "Suggested" scenario between dubya and B liar all my comments are my take on the "HARD FACTS" as gathered from varios media comments. As said before, it depends where you look to keep up to date, I try to take an overall view.

So,Mat, let's hear the "LEGAL" argument for Britain's invasion of Iraq.

[tophatter]

IWhat I dont understand is why this is even a issue now. We had an election in 2005 long after the iraq invasion and Tony Blair was returned with a majority of over 60.

We had the same old arguments back then and it was proved that people just dont vote on that issue in any great numbers.

I understand why some Tories loathe Blair - He won three elections as Leader of the Labour party and I also understand why many other Tories admire him. I could not stand Thatcher for much the same reasons. Don't forget when David Cameron was elected Tory leader he dubbed himself "the heir to Blair"

Most of the opposition to the Iraq war came from the Labour backbenches and the Liberal Democrats. Of the three parties the Tories were probably the most united in their support for the war.

It just wont be an issue at this election. Its been flogged to death and if the Tories fall into your trap Tov of just fighting on negative stuff like that and not putting forward any policies for the future then they will not win a working majority and he himself will be having to call an election sooner than you think.

I suspect he understands that but his party and supporters just cant help themselves and it will work against them if he aint careful. I hope they sling as much mud as possible, it will end up flying back into their leaders face.

[tovarich]

I don't suppose anybody on this forum is going to believe me, but 20 mins ago I decided to tidy up my "office". Picked up a couple of newspapers to throw away, checked to make sure I'd done the crosswords, found one crossword that wasn't finished so put it to one side to finish later but it fell off the edge of the table onto the floor. As I bent to pick it up it had opened at the middle pages and I couldn't help but see the headlines.


[B]WHY I BELIEVE BLAIR SHOULD STAND TRIAL - AND EVEN FACE CHARGES FOR WAR CRIMES.

An extraordinary denunciation from one of Britain's most distinguished generals.

by General Sir Michael Rose.

I kid you not.

This is from THE DAILY MAIL dated Saturday 28th November 2009

And what does the good general have to say?

The enquiry into the Iraq War is not a court and no one is on trial. So said Sir John Chilcot, chairman of the enquiry, in his opening statement. He added that he was not there to determine the guilt or innonce of those responsible for the invasion of Iraq.

The object of the enquiry is simply to identify the lessons that should be learned from Iraq in orser to help future UK Governments who may face similar situations.

No doubt, Sir John's enquiry will be both frank and impartial. No doubt, where appropriate, some criticism will be made of politicians and officials alike.

But although these are worthy objectives, they fall scandalously short of the crucial issue which millions of people in this country -- myself included --- believe this enquiry should be about.

With respect to Sir John, there is really no point in holding a further enquiry unless it DOES apportion blame,unless it DOES hold to account those who led us into this unnecessary, unwinnable and costly war in Iraq.

The enquiry should be the first step in a judicial process that brings those responsible for the disasters of the Iraq War before the courts --- and could, as I shall explain, ultimately result in Tony Blair being indicted for war crimes.

Already, the enquiry has provided us with devastating details of events in the run up to Iraq.

Sir William Ehrmann, former Director of Defence and Intelligence at the Foreign Office, told it last week that British spies reported ten days before the invasion that Iraq had 'disassemblied' what chemical weapons it had. Yet Tony Blair neverthe less pressed ahead with the war.

Then came former Washington Ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer's claim that Tony Blair and George W. Bush had signed a secret deal 'in blood' to topple Sadaam Hussein almost a year before Iraq was invaded, and that officials found themselves scrabbling to find 'a smoking gun'to justify going to war.

But, despite these compelling accounts of what happened, the truth is that we already know the main lessons of Iraq : Britain was taken unprepared into war on false grounds, and the inevitable result was the destruction of Iraq, enormous loss of life and continuing political turmoil in the Middle East. Worse, the war has radicalised Muslim opinion against the West throughout the world, even spawning terrorism on the streets of London.
Although it may be too early to assess the final cost of the war in human, political or economic terms, already the figures that have emerged are truly horrifying. over 100,000 Iraqi civillians and more than 4,500 soldiers from coalition forces have been killed during almost seven years of the occupation --- and probably ten times that number have been injured. Two million Iraqis have fled their country and another two million have been internally displaced.



Up to $3 trillion has been spent on the war by America --- a staggering sum that is likely to have played a significant part in the collapse of the American banking system and helped create the present difficulties.facing the world economy.

Today, so many destabilising political, economic and social issues remain in Iraq that despite victory having been declares, there is serious danger the country will collapse into civil war when the American troops finally depart next year.

Added to all this is the effect on the war in Afghanistan. War can never be an isolated act , and the West's efforts in Afghanistan have been almost fatally damaged by the decision to concentrate on Iraq --- with the resulting diversion of vital strategic resources.

If only a fraction of the military and economic resources that have been expended in Iraq over the past six years had been committed to Afghanistan in 2001, the situation would certainly look very different today from the deeply worrying one that currentlt exists in that war torn country.

Crucially, it would not have been possible for the Taliban to return to Afghanistan or mobilise the support of the Afghani people against the coalition forces by claiming that the West had failed to deliver its promise to rebuild the country.

As it is, the Taliban has been able to exploit the vacuum that was left when the West turned away --- and we now have a situation which, at its worst, could spill over into Pakistan raising the spectre of Al Quaeda gaining access to nuclear weapons

Any military strategist will tell you it is never sensible top open a second front, as we did in Iraq, before completely defeating the enemy on the first front.

As Blair walks off into our history books, without seemingly a scintilla of blame being attributed to him for his part in the Iraq War, no wonder there is such extreme fury and frustration with a political system that refuses to make him answer for his actions.

Recently, I heard an Oxford academic describe the Iraq war as stale cabbage, adding that the British people were no longer interested in how the Iraq War had come about.

Indeed, it is likely that much of the current anger over the issue of MP's expenses is actually an expression of deep disillusionment with the entire democratic process, which has been brought on by Blairs decision to go to war against the clear will of the majority of the people.

Sadly, it was also a decision in which the majority of MP's, with a few honourable exceptions such as the late Robin Cook, were complicit.

For it is not just Blair who should be held to account. In the run up to the Iraq war, it is clear that MP's failed sufficiently to question the validity of the intelligence used by Blair to justify the war --- choosing to believe what they were told and supinely accepting the conclusions of the infamous 'dodgy dossier' which warned that Sadaam could launch an attack on the West within 45 Minutes.

During the debate on the dossier on September 24th 2002, they failed to challenge the Prime Minister even though it would have been a simple matter to determine whether th missiles that Sadaam supposedly possessed were tactical or strategic weapons.

Tactical battlefield missiles --- which is what they turned out to be --- could only just reach the British sovereign base at Dhekelia i Cyprus, and they certainly did not costitute a strategic threat to the West as Blair claimed.

If any of my military students at the British Army Command and Staff College had produced such a sloppy and weak case for war as did Tony Blair before Parliament, I would hav sacked him -- for he would have revealed himself to be entirely without the strategic grasp or ruthless analytic quality that is necessary in any military leader, especially one in time of war.



Yet Blair's misuse of intelligence in the run up to war is but one of at least two vital issues where the Iraq enquiry should be seeking to determine whether he is guilty of deception

First, the then Prime minister clearly stated before the invasion that regime change would never be the reason for going to war --- yet it is already beginning to emerge from the Iraq Enquiry that this was almost certainly the real reason for invading Iraq.

[tophatter]

I got as far as " This is from the Daily Mai"

[tovarich]

IWhat I dont understand is why this is even a issue now. We had an election in 2005 long after the iraq invasion and Tony Blair was returned with a majority of over 60.

We had the same old arguments back then and it was proved that people just dont vote on that issue in any great numbers.

I understand why some Tories loathe Blair - He won three elections as Leader of the Labour party and I also understand why many other Tories admire him. I could not stand Thatcher for much the same reasons. Don't forget when David Cameron was elected Tory leader he dubbed himself "the heir to Blair"

Most of the opposition to the Iraq war came from the Labour backbenches and the Liberal Democrats. Of the three parties the Tories were probably the most united in their support for the war.

It just wont be an issue at this election. Its been flogged to death and if the Tories fall into your trap Tov of just fighting on negative stuff like that and not putting forward any policies for the future then they will not win a working majority and he himself will be having to call an election sooner than you think.

I suspect he understands that but his party and supporters just cant help themselves and it will work against them if he aint careful. I hope they sling as much mud as possible, it will end up flying back into their leaders face.

Of course it shouldn't be an issue now after all this time, what is it six years now? the fact that people are still dying is immaterial, forget it,sweep it under the carpet, draw that well known line under it!!!!!!!

You think some Tories hate the B liar because he won three elections? How childish is that then? Still playing games TH ? Be honest TH do you know anyone who has lost a loved one husband/son whatever due to the B Liar and what did you say to them ? Did you say to them that it was ok because it was a legal war? Did you tell them it must be alright because Labour won three elections. Aye Tophatter, as we say in Scotland --- yer jist a wee man wi' no very much to say.

[tovarich]

I got as far as " This is from the Daily Mai"

Would that be because General Sir Michael Rose, Sir William Ehrmann and Sir Christopher Meyer are liars --- or is it because The Daily Mail tells the truth ?
(which TH hates)
No, TH not the Guardian's truth and not your version of the truth I mean the real truth.

Read through what Sir Michael Rose has to say and then we can discuss where he is wrong.

Read what Sir William Ehrmann has to say and then you can tell me if he is lying when he said that B Liar knew ten days before the invasion that the weapons had been disassembled

What do you think of Sir Christopher Meyer when he says that B liar and Bush had signed a pact?

Is everbody lying then (except of course Anthony Charles Lycett Blair -- and TH)

No wonder this once Great Britain is in such a mess.

[mathare]

or is it because The Daily Mail tells the truth ?

Like it did when it came out in support of Hitler and Oswald Mosley's facists? Truths like how great Germany is (at the time they printed, in 1933) under Hitler and the Nazis and how the Blackshirts should be embraced in Britain?