Comments on: “I Did What I Thought Was Right”

By: Chad Loser

Chad Loser — Sat, 12 May 2007 16:40:42 +0000

This article is very funny, with a great advertisement at the top: the “sands of time” indeed! Are those objects at the bottom buried bodies? Certainly no trace of blood or oil.

I don’t know which is worst; The ad, the assertion in favour of war, or the comparison of Blair with Churchill.

By: Julian Williams

Julian Williams — Sat, 12 May 2007 11:46:12 +0000

Bagua, you miss my point. I am not debating whether it was the right decision (I am not debating about whether he was wrong on WMD and probably wrong about getting democracy started in Iraq, and conditions are probably no better for the average Iraqi citizen, especially women who are being repressed by religious zealots). The point I am making is that a prime minister who is caught lying, especially on a matter of whether or not we should go to war with another nation, must resign to retain the dignity of the State. You cannot trust a leader who lies to his own side on such issues

By: Bagua

Bagua — Sat, 12 May 2007 07:14:45 +0000

Julian, my point remains, regardless of his faults, when Tony Blair found himself at the nexus of history, he did the right thing, bringing freedom to millions and ending one of the most horrific and brutal regimes in modern history. If he did only one right thing, it was the important one that counted. How he did it is matter of debate, but only a sideshow to the deed itself.

You seem to say that the Iraqis only option is to live subdued by a murderous tyranny. The Kurds were already enjoying some autonomy from their oppressor. The Shiite too had a right to live without the threat of mass graves and oppression. The current problems in Iraq are to the credit of the Iranians, the Syrians and the global jihad to destroy the West. They are the culprits, not the liberators.

Iraq has evolved to become the major front in the battle against those who would engulf the free world in medieval darkness. Should we tire of fighting this evil there, it will surely follow us home. How historians regard and judge Blair will likely also depend on who survives to write that history. Should the side Tony Blair championed be the victor, you will remain free to criticize him.

By: David Parker

David Parker — Sat, 12 May 2007 00:18:37 +0000

Richard North is right in saying that only historians will judge whether Blair was “right or wrong” over Iraq, however, it is certainly possible for us to comment now about his motivation for joining that war. That can be summed up in his own words, “I did what I thought was right” Not what “my cabinet” thought was right. This, I believe is the key to Blair’s character. He was a man of immense ambition, but an even greater ego, which was his ultimate downfall, for he consistently disdained all opposition to his ideas, however well reasoned or expressed. Consequently he surrounded himself with ego flatterers or ‘yes wo/men’and convinced himself that he always knew best what was good for us mere mortals.

Christina is right in saying that he debased the authority of Parliament, but is that not a condemnation of the calibre of our MPs themselves, on both sides of the House?

Had they been more concerned with their Parliamentary rights than with their personal careers and pensions Britain might now be a better place to live, having been freed much earlier from the cult of big brother Blair.

By: Julian Williams

Julian Williams — Fri, 11 May 2007 23:12:27 +0000

Blair used the 45 minute story to illustrate his point about why we should enter a war with Saddam, then afterwards told the media he was not interested enough to find out what the 45 minute story referred to (an unreliable story about chemical shells). That he was not interested enough to inform himself about the nature of the intelligence he was using to persuade us of the rightness of his cause is impossible to believe, it is just not creditable. A leader who lies to his own side and gets found out should go.

Besides the man has a history of lying, this is just one instance in a long line of instances.

Iraq is a mess, 2 million have fled the country. The idea that the Sunni, Shia and Kurds can live in a single democracy is as dotty as the idea that the EU is a democracy. Blair believes in both because he does not, and never has understood the meaning of accountability to an electorate.

By: Bagua

Bagua — Fri, 11 May 2007 21:46:56 +0000

Julian, yours is the narrative of Main Stream Media, at the very worst, one could make a case that Blair’s case for Iraq was exaggerated, and even that is strongly debatable. (There is much to suggest the WMD’s were moved to Syria, and Saddam was proven to be concealing and maintaining an active WMD potential.) This Blair/Bush lied nonsense is an invention by those with an anti Blair/Bush agenda. Removing Saddam was the correct thing to do on many levels, including the threat of WMD’s.

As far as the Muslims? You mean it was a disaster for the Islamists Supremacist, not the people of Iraq who were freed from tyranny and now have an historic opportunity to live in freedom and democracy. That the destruction of Saddam’s war machine was achieved with fewer than 2% casualties is nothing short of a miraculous triumph., that the Leftists and their media allies are determined to change the narrative to one of failure and disaster, proves them to be also the enemy. What is going on in Iraq now is an entirely new conflict, fueled and controlled by Iran and Syria.

Yes Blair’s domestic policies were quite a separate issue, I find little to support there, but as an international leader who did a good thing for the free world and a great thing for humanity, there are few in history that can equal Blair.

By: Julian Williams

Julian Williams — Fri, 11 May 2007 20:54:25 +0000

Bagua, maybe it was the right decision to stand by America, especially in circumstances where France was playing the anti-American card (That was how I felt at the time). But he lied to get his decision through Parliament, and the lies were found out to be erroneous and misleading. So he had to resign in order to maintain the honour of both the US and UK position of intervening in the affairs of another country (which was innocent by the criteria set out as the reason for the war by Blair and Bush). By failing to be honourable he showed that he was never removing a dictator, he was playing politics with the lives of thousands of Muslim and hundreds of western lives.

There is nothing great about Blair, he is a disaster for Britain and a disaster for America and a disaster for British American relations and a disaster for Muslim West relations. He is a nasty selfcentred career politician who has held on to power for the sake of his own ego.

By: Bagua

Bagua — Fri, 11 May 2007 20:03:20 +0000

Christina,

Your comments would be more honest and less fatuous if you revealed the entire bee hive in your bonnet regarding the Labour party. As a political partisan blinded by hatred of those you oppose, you are not suited to comment on the Prime Minister’s legacy nor the accuracy of this article; were Blair to cure cancer, end poverty and change water to wine you would still find cause to rant and rail against him.

By: Bagua

Bagua — Fri, 11 May 2007 19:31:26 +0000

Tony Blair did indeed do the right thing and should be remembered as one of the greatest leaders in the history of the free world. (Domestic politics aside.) He had the courage and fortitude to remove a sadistic tyrant from power and end his reign of terror. In so doing he made the world a safer place and set an example and challenge for future leaders.

Standing shoulder to shoulder with America Tony Blair demonstrated that the United Kingdom could be relied on, a true ally, a true friend in need. He will be sorely missed on the international front.

By: christina

christina — Fri, 11 May 2007 14:52:56 +0000

This article seriously gets Blair wrong. He still is OUR Prime minister and what he did to our country is unforgiveable.

Iraq is merely an example and Richard North has a bee-in-his bonnet over this. There was an arguable case for toppling Saddam Hussein but NONE for lying to our parliament to get authorisation to do so. But that is the man – he’s a compulsive liar and THAT is his legacy. He dreams and is a good actor but as an executive he is a non-starter.The thing that matters about Blair is that he is a man without substance. He’s incapable of actually doing anything. He’s attitudinal and aspirational but is executively incompetent.

The politicisation of the civil service, the weakening of the Union, the corrupt practices and above all the LIES. The lies that took us into Iraq are what are so dreadful – the target was arguably justified but as Blair is incapable of either telling the truth or executing any plan properly the results are chaotic.

The Iraq war is not central to Blair’s legacy = his failed character is.

Blair is a nasty unprincipled piece of work and I am shocked when I see people defending him

More than anything he has devalued the moral position of our nation. He has made corruption, venality and lies seem normal.

That is utterly unforgiveable. Iraq is a media frenzy side-issue to the flawed character of a nasty man