Honestly, what do you think of Tony Blair?

[UK Skins Fan]

OK, prompted by the interminable debates about George Bush, I'd like those of you who care to indulge me by sharing your opinion on Tony Blair.

I'll save my opinion for later - I'm more interested to hear what the people across the water think for now.

[JPFair]

Tony Blair is one of the greatest PM's that the UK ever had. Without knowing too much about his domestic policies, but I can say his foreign policy decisions, while largely unpopular, have been the right decisions to make, even if they were unpopular. Blair seems to be the only World Leader that looks back at World War II and realizes that friends are friends, and friends stick together.

Having said that, many people think that it was Blair that duped Bush into going into Iraq. Whatever the case may be, I think Blair needs to somehow diplomatically distance himself from Bush, while still maintaining that "special bond" that Regan/Thatcher created.

[tcwest10]

I thought Tony Blair was okay, but Jack Klugman was really the guy that carried that show.

[Deadskins]

I voted Bush's poodle. I do admire Britain's loyalty to America, but had Blair been a true statesman, he could have saved both of our countries. And JPF, while it was Thatcher who got George H.W. Bush to attack Iraq in the first Gulf war. It was the other way around this time.

[Redskin in Canada]

I will abstain from expressing an opinion due to a number of reasons but I will simply point out the obvious:

Once upon a time, long, long time ago, in an island far, far away:

It used to mean something to be a Labour MP.

The ideological divide between Tories and Labour -was- meaningful. Ideology and eloquence -something long lost in US politics as well-used to inspire, anger, and disappoint generations of citizens. Strong and long loyalties and partisan beliefs stood for something.

Sadly, the electorate in England has little left but an amorphous generation of politicians smelling the most recent surveys and opinion polls to change their positions for the day. Sad.

Our US colleagues are seldom familiar with the term "question period" in Parliament. The ability to debate face-to-face and even heckle an unpopular MP used to be an attractive and interesting activity. Sadly, that is seldom the case anymore.

Sorry about the text above. I am typing on a very defective keyboard.

[1niksder]

The ideological divide between Tories and Labour -was- meaningful. Ideology and eloquence -something long lost in US politics as well-used to inspire, anger, and disappoint generations of citizens. Strong and long loyalties and partisan beliefs stood for something.

Look deep enough into American politics and you see it trending that way (Conservative Dems and Liberal Rep ??? what's that ?)

Sadly, the electorate in England has little left but an amorphous generation of politicians smelling the most recent surveys and opinion polls to change their positions for the day. Sad.

Again same thing some times voters vote for the guy that they don't like the least, just to say they voted. I know you know that polls are taking over policy making thoughout the free world

Our US colleagues are seldom familiar with the term "question period" in Parliament. The ability to debate face-to-face and even heckle an unpopular MP used to be an attractive and interesting activity. Sadly, that is seldom the case anymore.

We don't have a Parliament here in the U.S. We have a Congress.

If Progress means to move forward what is congress ?

As far as Tony Blair goes first off I disagree with TC - Jack put ketchup on his Hot Dogs.

Other than that Blair has don what he has had to do to keep his party in power and remain the ally that has been mentioned by JP and for some it give weight to those that feel like JSP. Personally i don't see how he's changed since Bubba was in the WH

I think he is a strong leader and passonate speaker (my wife loves to hear him speak... so I hear a lot of what he has to say - in one ear or the other). I don't know much about what he does in the UK but he seems to have a good grip on how he want his counrty and himself protrait around the world ( considering politians have litte control over public image).

Of the choices presented... I'll have to say neither like or dislike

[UK Skins Fan]

I voted Bush's poodle. I do admire Britain's loyalty to America, but had Blair been a true statesman, he could have saved both of our countries. And JPF, while it was Thatcher who got George H.W. Bush to attack Iraq in the first Gulf war. It was the other way around this time.

The poodle accusation was a commonly heard one over here. It's a little unfair to my mind - does anybody seriously think that Blair ever had a chance of convincing Bush not to go into Iraq? We in the UK can convince ourselves that we have a "special relationship" with the US, but if the US president wants to go to war, is any amount of counsel from the UK going to stop him? So, he went the route of trying to secure a UN resolution that would maintain a degree of international unity, but that was never going to work.

My honest belief is that Blair was left with a stark choice here - to take a position next to the US, or to take the French view of the way ahead. Not a difficult choice to make, but a horrible one to be forced to make.

Personally, I'd be interested to see a day when a UK Prime Minister stands up and says "The US government's position on (insert issue of your choice here) is wrong."

[UK Skins Fan]

I will abstain from expressing an opinion due to a number of reasons but I will simply point out the obvious:

Once upon a time, long, long time ago, in an island far, far away:

It used to mean something to be a Labour MP.

The ideological divide between Tories and Labour -was- meaningful. Ideology and eloquence -something long lost in US politics as well-used to inspire, anger, and disappoint generations of citizens. Strong and long loyalties and partisan beliefs stood for something.

Sadly, the electorate in England has little left but an amorphous generation of politicians smelling the most recent surveys and opinion polls to change their positions for the day. Sad.

Our US colleagues are seldom familiar with the term "question period" in Parliament. The ability to debate face-to-face and even heckle an unpopular MP used to be an attractive and interesting activity. Sadly, that is seldom the case anymore.

Sorry about the text above. I am typing on a very defective keyboard.

I presume that you don't think any of this is Blair's fault, do you? I'm interested that you refer to the US and the UK in this regard - do I take it that the level of political debate remains commendably high in Canada?

The fact is that Blair was the kind of politician that Labour needed in order to get itself elected. It may have held a more distinct set of principles 15 years ago, but it was utterly unelectable, and would simply have faded away to be a pressure group rather than a political party.

I too am dismayed by the quality of debate these days, but that is not the fault of Tony Blair - it's our fault.

[Deadskins]

I voted Bush's poodle. I do admire Britain's loyalty to America, but had Blair been a true statesman, he could have saved both of our countries. And JPF, while it was Thatcher who got George H.W. Bush to attack Iraq in the first Gulf war. It was the other way around this time.

The poodle accusation was a commonly heard one over here. It's a little unfair to my mind - does anybody seriously think that Blair ever had a chance of convincing Bush not to go into Iraq? We in the UK can convince ourselves that we have a "special relationship" with the UK, but if the US president wants to go to war, is any amount of counsel from the UK going to stop him? So, he went the route of trying to secure a UN resolution that would maintain a degree of international unity, but that was never going to work.

My honest belief is that Blair was left with a stark choice here - to take a position next to the US, or to take the French view of the way ahead. Not a difficult choice to make, but a horrible one to be forced to make.

Personally, I'd be interested to see a day when a UK Prime Minister stands up and says "The US government's position on (insert issue of your choice here) is wrong."

I agree that any kind of private council against the war was doomed to failure. But, had he publicly announced that the UK's intelligence did not jibe with what the Bush administration was claiming, Bush would have had a much rougher time of it.

[Redskin in Canada]

I presume that you don't think any of this is Blair's fault, do you?

I too am dismayed by the quality of debate these days, but that is not the fault of Tony Blair - it's our fault.

First, I was not expressing an opinion on Blair himself. That, I hope, was quite clear. I am talking about the quality of the political debate in Britain (and indirectly the US). But to be sure, I, and many others in the UK, assign -some- level of responsibility to each and every leader of a major political Party there.

Do you wish to be reminded about the quality of the debate among the two brilliant Tory candidates to become leaders of their Party? No? I did not think so. The cartoon artists had a field season on them.

You ask about Canada. Well, yes. It is indeed different. Canada did not support the invasion. Like some European States and Mexico, it has paid dearly for it. The quality of the debate in France, Germany, Canada and Mexico was -far- superior to that in Britain this time. One or two suicides after the fact, I hope there is no debate about this point.

Tough choices you say? Yes, the kind of tough choices that make the difference between Statesmen in the history of nations and electable and elected representatives for a longer period.

Would Winston Churchill have made the same choices?

[UK Skins Fan]

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Would Winston Churchill have made the same choices?

Who knows? Blair is no Churchill, but there is one thing that they have in common in this regard - they were both rowing against the tide of public and parliamentary opinion, to an extent, when they made their choices.

To those of us who voted for Blair back in 1997, the curious thing about Iraq is; why this issue? On every other issue, Blair has sought the "The Third Way" - the compromise, or the middle ground. On this one, he stood aside from his own party, and chose to try to move opinion in his direction. It might be fifty years before we find out why (if the papers are ever released).

[UK Skins Fan]

Redskin in Canada wrote:

The quality of the debate in France, Germany, Canada and Mexico was -far- superior to that in Britain this time. One or two suicides after the fact, I hope there is no debate about this point.

Well, yes there is. There was enormous debate in this country before the war. That debate continues today, and the public reaction to Blair's decision has largely contributed to his becoming a lame duck of a Prime Minister. He is paying for his actions, in a way that George Bush never will.

[UK Skins Fan]

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Do you wish to be reminded about the quality of the debate among the two brilliant Tory candidates to become leaders of their Party? No? I did not think so. The cartoon artists had a field season on them.

The Conservative Party is a joke. In their desire to get elected, they have been frantically searching for their own Tony Blair. The next election promises to be the "Which Blair Project". Except that Blair has already committed himself to retirement before the next election.

[Redskin in Canada]

The Conservative Party is a joke. In their desire to get elected, they have been frantically searching for their own Tony Blair.

I rest my case on both fronts (Tories and Blair, in case I ever made one, which I did not ).

Except for one perhaps small but very significant point:

An intense and emotional debate is not synonymous with a -good- and -rational- debate. The absence of -proof-, the absence of -evidence- led France, Germany, the two US mainland neighbours Canada and Mexico, and eventually the UN General Assembly to adopt policies based on international law.

The quality of the debate and its eventual outcome in the UK was based mostly on the credibility of its Prime Minister (and the collateral benefit and greed associated with being on that side, a cynic might add). You know how that one went. A lame duck? Who cares? We all have a much bigger problem now from geographical, political and security perspectives than the lost "credibility" of any two national political leaders can place a bet on: a tragic, lasting legacy to be sorted out by their successors.

Pay back in ways GW will never know? Sure! But this is next to nothing compared with the price -we-, many citizens of the world not only Her Majesty's British subjects, have paid and will have to pay to achieve some kind of stability (let alone peace) once again.

[Redskin in Canada]

It might be fifty years before we find out why (if the papers are ever released).

Let me try to save you some time.

What if?

1. What if he was deceived with "almost-proof" about WMD?

2. What if a few, very few key people in his own government misrepresented this "almost-proof" as certain and removed some elements of doubt from it?

3. What if, whatever the small uncertainty left, the odds were overwhelmingly in favour of finding "something" associated with WMD (if not nuclear at least chemical or biological)?

4. What if History (with capital H) records this war as the first successful attack in favour of a new proactive defence policy approach advocated from the US DOD to prevent the spread of WMD?

The gamble would have been huge. The payback enormous. He may have gambled. He may have lost. He may not be the sole person to blame in your government. But to be fair, some people in your government (other than the military) may have paid back with their lives. That is another difference vis-à-vis the US government. Nobody would commit suicide for this reason in Washington and nobody ever might. (There have been other suicides for other reasons in DC though).

But this is mere speculation and likely the result of several rich imaginations in the internet. So, I do not feel anybody can really save you the time to learn the "truth".

[Deadskins]

It might be fifty years before we find out why (if the papers are ever released).

Let me try to save you some time.

What if?

1. What if he was deceived with "almost-proof" about WMD?

The Downing Street Memos tell a different story. (Some of the papers have already been released, UK )

[Redskin in Canada]

It might be fifty years before we find out why (if the papers are ever released).

Let me try to save you some time.

What if?

1. What if he was deceived with "almost-proof" about WMD?

The Downing Street Memos tell a different story. (Some of the papers have already been released, UK )

I typed "almost".

[Deadskins]

It might be fifty years before we find out why (if the papers are ever released).

Let me try to save you some time.

What if?

1. What if he was deceived with "almost-proof" about WMD?

The Downing Street Memos tell a different story. (Some of the papers have already been released, UK )

I typed "almost".

You also typed "deceived."

[Redskin in Canada]

]You also typed "deceived."

Yes. And on the topic of this thread perhaps this is the most important point.

To what extent is a person willingly "deceived" based on the fact that the information is not 100% certain but there are very good leads to make it possible to place a bet of these proportions?

Let us clarify the premise of my analysis here:

Q: Do I feel that T. Blair went into this adventure knowing full well that there were absolutely no elements whatsoever that would justify his actions before the international community under international law?

A: Absolutely not. The gamble was not about nuclear weapons. He knew there were none. The gamble was about other chemical or biological labs and/or weapons which could be classified under WMD.

Policy is always formulated in the absence of 100% certainty on most issues. I am not apologising for him. I simply formulate the question and answer above based on my very limited information and personal knowledge.

[Deadskins]

]You also typed "deceived."

Yes. And on the topic of this thread perhaps this is the most important point.

To what extent is a person willingly "deceived" based on the fact that the information is not 100% certain but there are very good leads to make it possible to place a bet of these proportions?

Let us clarify the premise of my analysis here:

Q: Do I feel that T. Blair went into this adventure knowing full well that there were absolutely no elements whatsoever that would justify his actions before the international community under international law?

A: Absolutely not. The gamble was not about nuclear weapons. He knew there were none. The gamble was about other chemical or biological labs and/or weapons which could be classified under the class of WMD.

Policy is always formulated in the absence of 100% certainty on most issues. I am not apologising for him. I simply formulate the question and answer above on my very limited information and personal knowledge.

I think we told him, "This war is going to happen. Are you with us, or against us?" He was well informed that the "evidence was being fixed around the policy." Now, I'm not saying that going against the US is an easy task for a British PM, but a statesman can find a way to do what is best for his country with tact and grace.

[Redskin in Canada]

I think we told him, "This war is going to happen. Are you with us, or against us?" He was well informed that the "evidence was being fixed around the policy."

I disagree quite strongly. Anything close to resembling any such position would and should have been rejected by him and his government, even if the policy was being presented as a statement of fact.

The above argument unfairly over-simplifies the analysis of his policy dilemma. It was a dilemma.

Now, I'm not saying that going against the US is an easy task for a British PM, but a statesman can find a way to do what is best for his country with tact and grace.

"Easy" is a word seldom used in these types of decisions regardless of the choices made. The question is: Is it possible and justified? Of course! It would have even been regarded as a very popular act of courage by a large majority of the British people.

You can make the argument both ways:

a) Would -some- elements in the US military have regarded the lack of UK participation as an act of disloyalty among allies? Very possibly.

b) Would -some- elements in the US military have regarded the lack of UK participation as an act of sober thought to balance some radical views in the US? Very possibly too.

This is a debate with two sides around every corner. It was a dilemma in the purest definition of the term.

[Redskin in Canada]

We don't have a Parliament here in the U.S. We have a Congress.

That is the point. Some forms of government do not require their heads of State to answer direct face-to-face questions from the opposition. That job is left in a Republic to the media (the White House press gallery in this case).

Those of you who followed the John Bolton nomination process before the Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate know what I am talking about.

[Deadskins]

I think we told him, "This war is going to happen. Are you with us, or against us?" He was well informed that the "evidence was being fixed around the policy."

I disagree quite strongly. Anything close to resembling any such position would and should have been rejected by him and his government, even if the policy was being presented as a statement of fact.

The above argument unfairly over-simplifies the analysis of his policy dilemma. It was a dilemma.

Now, I'm not saying that going against the US is an easy task for a British PM, but a statesman can find a way to do what is best for his country with tact and grace.

"Easy" is a word seldom used in these types of decisions regardless of the choices made. The question is: Is it possible and justified? Of course! It would have even been regarded as a very popular act of courage by a large majority of the British people.

You can make the argument both ways:

a) Would -some- elements in the US military have regarded the lack of UK participation as an act of disloyalty among allies? Very possibly.

b) Would -some- elements in the US military have regarded the lack of UK participation as an act of sober thought to balance some radical views in the US? Very possibly too.

This is a debate with two sides around every corner. It was a dilemma in the purest definition of the term.

I am fully aware of the definition of "dilemma." I had this history teacher in HS... Let's just say, I think that it is possibly the most misused word in the English language. Anyway, finding that third option, which no one else had even considered is what makes a politician into a statesman.

[UK Skins Fan]

Again, I repeat that Tony Blair's early years were dominated by the desire to find the "third way". He failed on this occasion - whether that was by design is a puzzle.

Whether the US portrayed the decision as being one of "with us or against us", I don't know. But I do think that was what Blair felt he was left with. On reflection, I don't think that the decision to send UK forces into Iraq was made on the merits of the case, but was strongly influenced by the desire to maintain the transatlantic alliance. How that desire persuaded Blair to go to war remains a mystery to me. However, when one makes statements about standing "shoulder to shoulder" with your friends, you can find yourself left with the choice of following them somewhere that you don't want to go, or to wave them goodbye as the train leaves the station.

There are very few statesmen left in this world. I believed that Blair was one of them, but he has spent all of his political capital on this venture, and is now a busted flush.

[UK Skins Fan]

We don't have a Parliament here in the U.S. We have a Congress.

That is the point. Some forms of government do not require their heads of State to answer direct face-to-face questions from the opposition. That job is left in a Republic to the media (the White House press gallery in this case).

Those of you who followed the John Bolton nomination process before the Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate know what I am talking about.

Unfortunately, the very concept of Prime Minister's questions has been castrated by Blair. These days, it is a collection of soundbite answers, with little regard for the questions that have been asked. Against that, we have opposition leadership and backbenchers who have little ability to call the PM to account. The only man that has done that in recent years is the late Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook - a huge loss to parliamentary democracy in this country.