Blair's Military Delusions.
Which cretinous spin doctor decided that Tony Blair deliver his defence lecture from on board a naval vessel? This obvious stunt just served to remind everyone of George Bush's famous speech from the deck of an American carrier after the first stage of the war in Iraq when he declared the war was over and the US had won. Over 2000 more US and British service people and countless thousands of Iraqis have died since that supposed victory celebration.
Blair's speech was equally delusional, littered with statements of the blindingly obvious, further desperate attempts to rewrite history to justify his disastrous invasion of Iraq and more irresponsible slurs on the Muslim community, which will innevitably contribute to the stoking of the flames of Islamophobia.
In the speech the Prime Minister remained in a state of denial over the role his support for Bush's foreign policies, particularly the invasion of Iraq, has played in recruiting terrorists. He sought to portray himself as the leader of a warrior nation taking the decisions to exercise "hard power", i.e. to wage war, which other feckless politicians and countries have shirked.
Tony Blair has used the British army to enable him to strut the world stage, making the most catastrophic foreign policy mistakes in the history of this country since Suez, which many believe have been paid for with the suffering and lost lives of both British military and Iraqi civilian families.
He tried to argue in his speech that the choice for our country was between a country that could use both humanitarian and miltary means to secure peace and progress in the world or a country that took the easy way out by avoiding conflict and just concentrating on the much lees risky role of conflict prevention and peacekeeping.
This is the classic New Labour rhetorical device of setting out unreal options. Blairite sophistry at its worst.
The choice is not between some cowardly avoidance of one's duty and the brave commitment to war and blood sacrifice.
It is the choice between a Prime Minister who seeks to promote and secure peace and one that engages in the bloody invasion of a country in support of a Bush regime whose motives were to secure the control Iraqi oil and a dominant strategic military presence in the Middle East.
Blair's speech was equally delusional, littered with statements of the blindingly obvious, further desperate attempts to rewrite history to justify his disastrous invasion of Iraq and more irresponsible slurs on the Muslim community, which will innevitably contribute to the stoking of the flames of Islamophobia.
In the speech the Prime Minister remained in a state of denial over the role his support for Bush's foreign policies, particularly the invasion of Iraq, has played in recruiting terrorists. He sought to portray himself as the leader of a warrior nation taking the decisions to exercise "hard power", i.e. to wage war, which other feckless politicians and countries have shirked.
Tony Blair has used the British army to enable him to strut the world stage, making the most catastrophic foreign policy mistakes in the history of this country since Suez, which many believe have been paid for with the suffering and lost lives of both British military and Iraqi civilian families.
He tried to argue in his speech that the choice for our country was between a country that could use both humanitarian and miltary means to secure peace and progress in the world or a country that took the easy way out by avoiding conflict and just concentrating on the much lees risky role of conflict prevention and peacekeeping.
This is the classic New Labour rhetorical device of setting out unreal options. Blairite sophistry at its worst.
The choice is not between some cowardly avoidance of one's duty and the brave commitment to war and blood sacrifice.
It is the choice between a Prime Minister who seeks to promote and secure peace and one that engages in the bloody invasion of a country in support of a Bush regime whose motives were to secure the control Iraqi oil and a dominant strategic military presence in the Middle East.
posted by John at 7:30 PM
27 Comments:
"Unreal options"
Yes, you are right, Blair's taken a very childish stance of presenting the extremes of the case, instead of considering the full spectrum of options.
It's like that other statement Bush gave - you are either with us or against us.
... like children in a playground
err delivering a DEFENCE lecture on a Naval vessel is not exactly unusual or innapropriate.
Where should he have held a defence lecture? In a cheese factory?
Spot on anon!
Which cretinous spin doctor decided that Tony Blair deliver his defence lecture from on board a naval vessel?
Glad to see that you've finally cracked! And coupled with your pathetic performance at the Fabian Society conference maybe now you'll realise you ain't gonna be the next Prime Minister!! Ha ha ha!!!
Well thats funny Sham, I saw John at the Socialist Youth Network Conference yesterday and he seemed on top form.
I suppose it tells us something about your credentials to judge a potential Prime Minister...
I suppose it tells us something about your credentials to judge a potential Prime Minister...
You're right! Ignore the views of myself, the party and the country. Let's leave the decision to someone with impeccable credentials - the "Equalities officer" of Kent Labour Students! ;)
it would be good to have someone with a "fresh" take on things yet plenty of governmental experience as PM and John fits the bill here. Sometimes more of the same is not the answer and new or fresh ideas are needed i.e. his ideas are not new to me but would be new to quite a lot of people in teh country. They should provide the shake up we need and make the Labour party truly fulfill it's goals of equality, opportunity etc which are blatantly not being fulfilled at the moment are they?
Sham its you and Blair that are ignoring the views of the party and the country.
Blair ignores party policy to do what he wants. And regarding the wishes of the majority of the public - how many people turned out on the biggest rally in recent history? And what was the purpose of the rally??? Oh yes that's right stop the war - Blair ignores them as well - your delusional if you think the party and public are still backing Blair.
As for John McDonnell if he was half as good at the fabian conference as he was at the SYN conference on the same day - then he would have far and away outshone any other speakers that you had on the platform!
I'm with jon m its your judgement that's flawed!
Sorry Sham, I have to disagree with you about JM performing bad at the Fabian conference. I went along and I have to say he was pretty good - except, and here's the downside, when McDonnell agreed with someone on a comment about Britain would be just as good under a lib dem or tory government - can't exactly remember what he said but anyway, John Denham smacked him down.
Anyway that aside, JM was on top form, I clapped for quite a few of his comments. McDonnell, was probably the best speaker in the room.
Btw, I'm going to be blogging about JM soon, just as soon as I can be bothered to type something. Don't worry, it's all positive, it's about how I believe McDonnell should get on the ballot paper despite me deciding not to back him. I think it's REALLY important that he gets the 44 MPs because with membership falling to an all time low, and quite rapidly now, the left generally need an incentive to come back to Labour and to have a debate generally.
Plus, we all know who's going to win the leadership election and even though I do not support the man Brown he is going to win but it cannot just be a coronation. Brown will already lose credibility as a leader without having a vote from the public, therefore to salvage any credibility Brown must take part in a leadership election and with McDonnell on the ballot paper we can have a debate. Dare I say it, even though I hate the man and would leave the party if he became leader, I would hope John Reid would stand, so we can have the ultimate debate between McDonnell, Brown and Reid.
Anyway, I still don't think you have the 44 MPs but for the sake of the party prove me wrong.
Btw, you can accuse me of flip flopping or whatever the ultra left want but its not flip flopping because I'm not declaring support, I'm just saying get JM on the ballot paper, which at the moment I think is failing.
Sham
re:Blair's announcement on an aircraft carrier: I think you didn't get the conotations of this that John has pointed out above.
The US President is also Commander in Chief of his country's armed forces. The British Prime Minister isn't as we believe over here that that would concentrate too much power into the hands of one person.
Unfortunately the present PM would obviously LIKE to be Commander in Chief like his mate in the US; hence his choice of photo location.(These things are always planned by media advisers etc when it counts; it won't just be conincidental.) The backdrop used sadly just underlined Blair's warmongering arrogance and shows how unsubtle he really is expecting us to buy it. As a member of the anti-war movement here it disgusted me that he could be so tactless and if I had any family in the forces I would particularly wonder how many more young lives he is going to squander in order to fulfill his dangerously imperial ambitions.
On John's contribution at the Fabian Conference see my 24 January "Dare We Speak Its Name". He was better than Gordon Brown.
Harry,
In that case, maybe you should stop being a maverick and back him. Or you could continue your cringemakingly naive support for Peter Hain - a man who's backed every New Labour policy, whether that be the invasion of Iraq, Foundation Hospitals, top-up fees, Trust schools, attacks on civil liberties, privatisation...
When exactly was Peter Hain on the left, Harry? What's that you say? Quarter of a century ago?
Nobody has commented on my comment yet or shouted abuse at me yet. Come on guys wake up, it's me, I'm posting something about JM, the ultra left HAVE to shout at me, its the rule of law.
I hope there is a growing consensus now that we have to have a contest. Across the Party, right and left.Why not a Reid/Brown/McDonnell choice? Or more .In 1976 six Mps stood for the leadership.It's only the control freakery of the Blair years ( and self-interest) that is making far too many MPs ridiculously supine.Never mind the Fabians, let's have a TV debate watched by millions.I'm sure John would be up for that. I think even Brownites now recognise there should be some sort of CHOICE.What kind of "victory" is it if there isn't one ie a contest. So come on MPs, it's (unfortunately) largely down to you whether this leadership contest gets off the ground.Once the names are on the ballot paper, then thousands of ordinary members and trade unionists can make a real difference to the future direction of Labour.BTW did anyone see The Trial Of Tony Blair ? Brilliant satire.
I really hope there will be an opportunity for a big televised debate - I hope John McD is really pushing for this, I can't see GB deigning to appear & take the risk of looking as though he takes John even a little bit seriously - would be great if it happened though.
Last night's satire certainly gives us food for thought. I drew from it the impression that Blair was pretty ineffective in most reaches of government, with Brown taking care of "it's the economy stupid" TB was completely impotent with the NHS problems. Thus he turned to the USA to gain in his mind some integrity in actually making something happen - for good or ill. Blair was drawn as a man who had no substantial thought processes in any part of his decision making, just flapping around hoping to attach his name to something.
What else, apart from Iraq, do we think is his legacy?
What else, apart from Iraq, do we think is his legacy?
Peace in Ulster, perhaps, and what about Kosovo? Remember Kosovo, the campaign the nuts on the left opposed! Tell me, do you discuss about Kosovo when you're talking to Muslim voters ...
Peter Hain - a man who's backed every New Labour policy, whether that be the invasion of Iraq, Foundation Hospitals, top-up fees, Trust schools, attacks on civil liberties, privatisation...
And???
A TV debate what a brilliant idea. Let's do it! Sham get the camera!
Great idea! Let's stick 'em all in a house - all the candidates for leader and deputy - and monitor them. Reckon McDonnell will do a Galloway? ;)
LMAO, that would be the best show on television since like forever, and it would be so much better than the ordinary big brother because people will actually have intellectual conversations. Although I fear some candidates may turn violent.
DAY 46: John Reid comes to the diary room
Big Brother: So John, what's the matter?
John Reid: I just can't take it any more John McDonnell just keeps picking on me. Keeps teasing me about foreign prisoners... (John Reid cries) - sniffle - I was just talking about that time when Tony and I well... er... anyway and McDonnell was like 'you let out all the prisoners' and then Peter Hain was like 'yeah but no but yeah but no but'. Then Michael Meacher tried to calm us down with some herbal tea but Alan Johnson just grabbed him and head butted him onto the kitchen floor. It's all chaos... CHAOS! In fact I have no confidence in this administration, I'm going to stand to become BIG BROTHER, oh wait I guess I kind of already do that!
then GB himself is introduced to the house, says hello to them all politely but then legs it over the roof citing unfair technical practices with the microphones before he actually has to engage with the other candidates!
somewhere on this website I spelt the name of the French Socialist candidate completely wrongly but I can't find where it was to correct it now. Good luck to her anyway; she has four children as well so it's good as a feminst issue that she's standing. I think she'll win the Presidency and in particular this may be helped by the fact there's a lot wrong with her opponent and he'll be blamed for the riots etc. I remember studying Chirac and Newt Gingrich in the US and similar right wingers years ago when they were just coming to prominnece and I never thought that they and their supporters would take office as they were seen as extremely right wing then. It shows how far things have moved to the right generally; well overdue to counteract this!!
h,
Are you aware of the fact that the, by her Party recently elected, French Socialist Presidential Candidate, Segolene Royal (spelling is correct), often - and very affectionately so - refers to Tony Blair as her "role model"?
I think it is important for socialsit to understand that what truly matters are the candidate's/leader's policies, not it's gender. I mean, after all,last time I bothered to check, Thatcher was a woman, wasn't she?
Harriet Harman, Tessa Jowell, Patricia Hewitt, Hazel Blears. All great arguments for all-women shortlists - NOT. Yes,it's time we abandoned the gender obsession.Most of the Blair Babes elected in 1997 just became stooges for the Govt -with honourable exceptions.
Checked Sham's web site. It's got to be a spoof, surely? We read:
" "Peace" isn't merely the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice; only war can bring global justice"
Sham says people should be 'given' democracy. Nobody has ever been given it. You have to fight for it.
Sham wants Blair and Bush to help to 'set the world free'. Does that include Saudi Arabia? Blair's 'ethics' involve covering up the corruption in relation to BAe orders. He supports the oppressive regime in Saudi and couldn't give a toss about the democratic rights of the Saudi population.
Nope, not a spoof!
Nobody has ever been given it [democracy]. You have to fight for it.
Martin, does this mean that you agree with the spirit of my headline?
As for Saudi Arabia, Bush and Blair will take no lessons in democracy from those who supported Saddam.
Good night!
I see Peter Hain has come out of the closet against the neo-cons now he's standing for Deputy - why didn't he say this when it mattered.......expect more Ministers to denounce Bush/Blair foreign policy as Blair's leadership slides further and further into the mire.We're not impressed, Peter.
Susan, for once I agree with you! It's possible to respect those who were always against the war, but those who've flip-flopped I find risible.
Post a Comment
<< Home