The worst Iraq spin yet

[kgi]

Re: Blair\'s lies

Actually winning a war is always good for winning an election,GWand TB are due for re-election, bush probably needs it more as his domestic policy is a shambles........would maggie have got back in without the falklands?.........hmm...maybe ....maybe not...........keith

 

[Observer]

Re: The facts are not correct but the message is!

Jimi,

Your comments contain a number of elements which I find contradictory or perplexing.

1. The future constitution of the second chamber is, I understand, more likely to be an elected majority/appointed minority - not quite Blair's "all appointed" preference. Correctly in my view, the government allowed a free vote on the matter. So Blair did not get his way and your argument <their (sic) is no constitutional check on the executive> is arguably self-defeating. As it happens, I have an intellectual leaning towards the "all appointed" proposal, subject to it being demonstrably possible to create a truly independent "appointments commission" which is appropriately mandated. However, I do not have a settled position on the matter and could be persuaded the other way.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by <<properly divorce the executive and parliament>>? Do you mean as in the US? I'm afraid I'm not a constitutional expert so unable to express a reasoned opinion on that.

3. (what happened to 2?) Not putting words in your mouth but the often heard criticism of Blair is that he is NOT a "conviction" politician so has no "guiding principles" to direct his leadership. It seems odd that you take the opposite view. Personally, I don't think Blair is a "conviction" politician compared to many others (for example Margaret Thatcher) and I don't think that's a bad thing. I prefer politicians to keep a reasonably open mind on all issues, judging them on their merits according to the particular circumstances at the time. Seems to me that a "principle" which can appear admirable in one set of circumstances can be inappropriate in another set of circumstances. So, I probably agree that "conviction" politics can be dangerous but disagree that it is an attribute of Tony Blair.

4. I'm not "happy" to be deceived by anybody but recognise that I cannot reasonably expect to have all the information which is available to the people elected to govern or those appointed to defend our security. It follows that from time to time an element of deception is inevitable. In an earlier post, you impliedly criticised my argument on another matter for being too "black and white". Isn't it a case of selective judgement if you take a purist line on this issue?

I don't believe Tony Blair because he says "Trust me" (not sure if he has used those words quite in that way but see what you're getting at). I am willing to trust his judgement (together with that of the majority of the cabinet) on this issue because:

(a) I believe Tony Blair is a well-intentioned and basically honest person whose instincts would naturally steer him towards compromise rather than confrontation. Therefore, if he steers towards confrontation then, absent any other credible explanation, I have to assume he has developed a conviction that the course he is steering is right for the country rather than any narrow self-interest. The same applies to others (not necessarily all others) in the cabinet. [IRONIC ASIDE]Do the nautical metaphors make this qualify as a "boaty" post?[/IRONIC ASIDE]

(b) Independently, I also believe it is necessary for the free world to stand against terrorism and tyranny, not just with words but backed up with action, if necessary.

It doesn't follow, of course, that I agree or will agree with his views or actions on any other matter or automatically believe what he says on any other matter.

Last, I can't remember with certainty but I would imagine that you are instinctively if not actually "anti-EU" or at least "anti-Franco/German axis of European power". Must be a bit uncomfortable to be cosying up to the "comrades" on this one?

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: Governments

> you have notably failed to provide a credible alternative strategy to ensuring Saddam's disarmament.<

Well, I'm not paid to, but if one thinks of the old adage about sticks and carrots, all I've seen the 'west' ofer in this situation is stick. Maybe 'we' should wave some carrot, in terms of welcoming Iraq back into the free world and enjoying the benefits that its oil wealth ought to be providing it with. Combine that with some sort of face-saving formula for SH (after all 'face' is paramount to the sorts of egotistical maniacs that end up running countries) like buying his WMD - if any - off of him might produce a far more stable long-term solution.

>Is it Sassoon?<
How flattering. It's just pure Twister Ken, I'm afraid.


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Twister_Ken on 11/02/2003 13:01 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Observer]

Re: Blair\'s lies

You may be right that a victorious war leader can gain political stature (although it didn't do much for Churchill so I think it's a rather unreliable correlation).

It would be quite another matter - an outrageous and wildly unjustifed assertion - to suggest that Bush and Blair are motivated to seek a war in order to secure an electoral advantage.

 

[jimi]

Re: The facts are not correct but the message is!

Can't waste time denying or arguing with all your points as I've got work to do but
Error of fact
I have been a comitted European even prior to our entry into the EEC

Point 2 you agreed with anyway

Get a book on constitutional law and you may learn something

Must go and keep the wolf from the door!

Au Revoir

 

[kgi]

Re: Blair\'s lies

Churchill was the right man for war, by the end all anyone wanted is peace, so yes they voted him out, but what is going to happen in Iraq? thousands of innocents are going to suffer and die at the hands of the coalition forces, is this what you want? its not what i want to see happen. What is wrong with giving the inspectors more time? SH isn't going anywhere, there is no reliable evidence against Iraq, this amount of evidence would be shot down in flames in court, and yet we are willing to stamp all over another country in the name of justice on the scanty evidence given..!!