Blair's warning

TGF UKIP

Loath Blair, as I do, on Iraq and on "standing shoulder to shoulder" he was absolutely right and at considerable cost to himself. However, it is altogether more typical of the Blair we know, to be expressing the need for long term will and determination when it was himself under pressure from his own Party and the polls who pressed the button for the start of the British flight from Basra and its handover to an explosive mixture of the Mahdi Army and the Iranians. As for the US it is staying and inexorably gaining considerable ground militarily and politically because of the staying power and political determination and courage of George W in fighting off the opinion polls and the Democratic Congress and their wish to surrender. Should, God forbid, that pillock Boris Johnson get his wish and we see another of his beloved Clintons in the White House, then the US will fold in Iraq just as quickly the focus groups tell her to.

Craig Strachan

"...our stomach for THIS fight is limited." Indeed it is. But Iraq is a fight we didn't need to get into. The "war on terror" could have been more effectively prosecuted elsewhere and by other means.

David Davis

Poor Dr Kelly, the BBC and "sexing up reports" apart, the only honest thing that Blair did in his time as PM was to take us to war on 9/11 and beyond. I would never have voted for the man if you paid me, for all the damage he and his wicked sidekicks have done to the Union, our culture and the body-politic - but this thing he did right. History, if the West survives to have any, will be kinder to him on this one. God help the man, I would not be in his shoes now.

BlairSupporter

Absolutely right. Short-termism is the curse of politics. It was ever thus, but usually it didn't matter that much if a policy was dropped by an incoming government/party - it could always be resurrected if necessary, and frquently was. But this time, it is different. One of the problems is that some elements in our media have a clear political agenda. They're supposed to REPORT the news but they have evolved so that they often MAKE it. They are as much the propaganda perpetrators as AQ and are being used as such by al Qaeda. Blair was right when he called our press "Viewspapers", but they are more than that. I have otherwise intelligent friends who really believe everything The Mail or The Independent says against Blair and Iraq. They choose to worry about a perceived "lie" on WMDs more than they worry about proven terrorism. The lies exist, they purport - it said so in The Mail. Terrorists? Ah, they're just a few silly lads. There IS a war on terror and we shouldn't be afraid to use the language. Of course it'll take more than fighting to rid ourselves of these extremists. And it'll take more than a few prime ministers or a few generations. I have a link at my blog which shows Baghdad Muslims at a catholic church service. WHY did I see none of this reported in the British press? http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com D'Ancona's article is right on the ball, by the way. I haven't read it before. Good to know that not all of the press are ferals.

carol42

I have never trusted Tony Blair, even in 1997 I thought he was a phoney although I did admire his political talent, in the same way I admired Clinton though I would never have voted for either. However on the war on terror he was and is right. Certainly he misused information and the black mark of Dr. Kelly,s death will never leave him but fundamentally he saw the big picture. That speech on 9/11 was the one and only time I admired him, it took a lot of courage and compared to his successor he was a giant. I could never quite have hated Blair but I loathe Brown and just hope we can survive the next few years until we can get rid of him, if he doesn't have a breakdown first. If only Blair had shown the same courage and sacked Brown he would have been a far better, and more successful, PM.

Fred

Blair is full of nonsense, again. Of course the terrorists are winning because he and Brown and their ilk are destroying our society while claiming to save it. We should thumb our noses at these criminals and remorsely persecute them if they committ crimes. Meanwhile, we will live in freedom. Yes, we might have a few incidents, just like we did with the Christian Terrorists financed by the USA (ie the IRA).

KIRSTY, MERSEYSIDE

TOTALLY AGREE WITH carol42, THIS COUNTRY WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER PLACE IF BLAIR HAD HAD THE COURAGE OF HIS CONVICTIONS AND SACKED BROWN EARLY ON. HE WOULD HAVE THEN BEEN FREE TO MAKE IMPORTANT REFORMS IN EVERY AREA OF GOVERNMENT/POLICY (IE NHS, EDUCATION, WELFARE ETC ETC). INSTEAD BROWN WAS RUNNING A RIVAL GOVERNMENT RUNNING THE DOMESTIC AGENDA AND BLAIR ONLY HAD FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND EVEN THEN IT WAS BROWN CONTROLING THE ALL IMPORTANT PURSE.

David Davis

Good point by KIRSTY! Blair although a twister and a dissembler (he would have been grand on the stage, probably as tragic Shakespearean characters) ought ot have been ruthless enough to sack Brown within a year of 1997. Some goodish ideas would have been allowedf to come to some fruition in the late 1990s and beyond. Instead, we are damned.

Cogito Ergosum

The real persistence in fighting the War on Terror will come if we ditch our current leaders with their religious scruples and vote in a hard headed atheist leader.