Blair Discussion Thread

Great Debates
1

Most liberals take Bush as puppet in command… most conservatives see him as the Warrior in Chief. So not much interesting discussion/debate there.

Now Blair is enigmatic in comparison. He certainly is no fool and he faced a real media and some real popular opposition… and he still went ahead. Does he really beleive in the cause ? Is he ass kissing instead ? Or is he the last line the US has to the International community ?

Can he face political death to stand firmly on what he defended ? Will he turn his back on Bush to save his career ? Or will Bush make Rummy shut up to help Blair out ?

After this all, many including myself, admire Blair. He is a very gifted politician and speaker. He comes across as much more determined and thoughtful too. Teflon Tony always.

To START this thread I ask:

If Tony Blair removes his support for the Iraqi Occupation or turns his back on Bush. What will the effects be ?

I suppose many americans see Blair as their first ally. Will it totally kill the Bush reelection ? Will it make regular joe americans think again about Bush ? Does Blair have all this “power” or effect ? Will this change isolate the US completely or will it shake them into cooperating again ? Could Blair lead a new anti Bush policy coalition ?

2

I know it doesn’t answer your question directly, but Blair couldn’t change his support for Bush’s actions. It would destroy any political credibility he had in the UK.

3

I think that Blair really believed, and continues to believe, that the US/UK did the right thing in Iraq (and Afghanistan).

The difference between his position and GWB’s is that his beliefs are not the same as the majority of the population, at least not the overwhelming majority.

This is made worse by the fact that those most vehemently opposed to Iraq are by and large his natural support and members of his own party.

TB has gone from looking bullet proof politically to loking quite vulnerable (and indeed some polls have put the Tories in the lead for the first time in years).

My WAG is that he’ll call it a day sometime soon and hand on the baton to Gordon Brown.

4

If you’re asking about the man’s character, he certainly is a man ‘of conviction’, as the saying goes and imho. The two key things, however, to remember about the Blair and Iraq are;
First: He didn’t expect to go to war – he even had the belt and braces to prevent that happening (hoping/believing Saddam would back down and, failing that, that Bush would give way to the UN who would gladly intervene. No one, including Blair saw the final French position coming until that last 24 hours, and Blair, I imagine, didn’t think Bush would go it alone).

Second: From 9/11 he was caught between a rock and a hard place: a personal distrust-cum-dislike of Bush and a strong dislike of his agenda (his isolationism combined with corporate influences) yet - in pursuit of the 40-years-standing central plank of UK foreign policy e.g. * in the long term and strategic interests of the UK* - he went to Washington and played monkey to Bush’s organ grinder from the 2002 State of the Union onwards . . .

He had no idea how it was going to turn out, no one did including Bush, Saddam, Annan or Chirac. Instead, he covered his ears and just followed almost all of his predecessors (in that period) by adhering to doctrine. He obviously thought it the best option, not for him (although he must have initially though he could manage the consequences), but for the country. Imho - your mileage may vary.

On the main question, the UK cannot leave Iraq. From the end of the invasion stage (and unlike the US military), it began to shift perspectives, trying to present itself as a de facto UN presence. It’s succeeded but it’s ability to sustain this image makeover is restricted by both the US and the logistical problems of getting the country up and running again.

But, no, the UK cannot leave unless relieved by others. It would overstretch the US, invite comparisons with Afghanistan circa 1980 and just be seen by the UK public as very, very bad form – unacceptable to the UK public/national character to walk away. Blair would be lose any remaining credibility.

Fwiw, the Turks pretty much relived the UK in Afghanistan, here I don’t know . . . Hopefully, the UN. In time. I just hope the UK forces keep the lid on Iraqi concerns until the (UN) cavalry arrives . . .

5

Make that Afghanistan circa 1990.

6

I do have a question about Bliar himself. Actually, secretary Rumsfield does the same thing. Why do these two always smile like they do when they are talking about something totally serious? I could never understand that.

7

They are lying outright ? :smiley:

Blair miscalculated the fact that the neo cons had been planning this invasion since Sept 12th 2001. The US was sending too many troops and with too little emphasis in diplomacy for it to be part of a Bluff or just to put pressure on Iraq. Bush was going to War no matter what.

I think Blair can still get out of the Bush War party and look good. For one thing… Bush would have a much greater chance of losing the election. Losing your only major ally would make Bush lose credibility even in the US. Which means that any eventual winner of the election would be “grateful” to Blair (?). This change could be done closer to the 2004 election to guarantee Bush wouldnt have time for damage control. Blair just would openly announce his support for X candidate.

Blair has been time and time again stepped on by Rummy and by the rigid Bush stance on UN participation. He can say they did the right thing… but they did it the wrong way and continue to do so. His stepping out wouldnt mean troop withdrawl (which I agree would look bad in and out of the UK)… but certainly of political support for US muscle flexing. Blair can say that without UN tacit support that he will not continue with Bush. Bush would be isolated and would have to comply to UN (kudos for Blair) or continue on his own and lose the election (kudos for Blair at least for the British/European electorate).

8

Wanna have another crack? :wink:

9

My bad.
I thought this was about Blair Horenstine.
Wonder when she will file against Harvard for booting her?
But I guess that is ever so slightly off topic.
Carry on.

10

No he didn’t.

Obviously. What’s that got to do with all party’s preferring to it within a UN mandate, as was clearly the case. ? The way it happened wasn’t anyone’s preferred option, including Bush. So, errr, what “bluff” ?

So UN support matters more now than it did for the invasion ?

I don’t think you read what I wrote, British Prime Ministers are not in the business of engineering the demise of US presidents. Indeed, the national interest is perceived by those who matter as being in the diametrically opposite direction. Rocket science this is not.

You might like to think the reality is otherwise, but there you go . . .

11

I didnt say he was out to get Bush… just that by getting Bush he might possibly get another term in office. Conjecturing that…

By Bluff I meant the sending of troops in order to scare Saddam into compliance/exile without actually going to war. That was not their intention ever…

How do you see Blair surviving and prospering in the next election while still strongly supporting Bush ?

12

Blair supports Bush ? Hold the Front Page.

The official line is, and will remain, that the UK acted against Iraq because there was a threat to our security. That line is nonsense but it can be defended. And even if the current Inquiry does see that particular defence overrun, no one expects to get Blair because he and his closest advisor are too damn shrewd to let <tabloid> the trail of deceit </tabloid>lead to him.

Blair can and will stick to the established line and, in doing so, not be impugned by what’s falling out of everyone’s trousers around Westminster at the moment. In other words, he’s pretty well immune unless they’ve made a dreadful balls up somewhere we’re not yet aware of.
Next election:

A) He has the largest majority in history

B) He’s not stupid

C) The opposition is

D) And so are the general public

As they say, it’s his to lose, not theirs to win.