The Tragedy of Tony Blair

[NormMessinger]

A preview of one of the article that will be in the up coming Atlantic Monthly. There are others, of course, that suggest this will be an unusually interesting issue.


The Tragedy of Tony Blair
by Geoffrey Wheatcroft

Tony Blair was the one man on earth, writes the veteran British correspondent Geoffrey Wheatcroft, who could possibly have stopped the war in Iraq. But Blair led his people into war against their will, for reasons that were not true?and now his mystique and his promise, almost JFK-like when he came into office, are shattered. "The man who not so long ago seemed a new ideal in himself," Wheatcroft concludes, "now stands alone, truly a great tragic figure."

[High C]

Norm, I thought you longed for "the good old days" before people posted partisan political garbage?

[Meerkat]

I think the partisan political garbage came after what Norm posted. tongue.gif

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

That's not "partisan political garbage"; that's a calm statement of the facts.

"Partisan" is what I might write - that a man who has not an honest bone in his body, who has lied and decieved his way into power, and lied and deceived to keep it, happy to destroy any and all institutions, to pack the House of Lords with his cronies, to tamper with the independence of the legal system, to vulgarise the entire poltitical process, to embarrass and humiliate the Queen, who cannot fight back, to despatch the British army, a small but admirable force, to do his dirty work regardless of their wise advice, to create a phoney "settlement" in Northern Ireland which sold the loyalists down the river whilst allowing the nationalist thugs to remain organised, armed and in effective control of communities, whose wife...well the less said on that score, the better...whose son was picked up drunk on a London street (under age for drinking) who has debauched the British civil service by packing it with his paid cronies...a soidisant socialist who has presided over the destruction of the property owning democracy built by left wing Conservatives and who has encouraged the return of the private rented sector and the private landlord, who has encouraged the corruption of the public sector through so-called "public private partnerships"...who has, in short, done more damage to Britain, some of it perhaps irreparable, in seven short years than was done in the previous hundred, and whose prosecution of a bloody war on the basis of lies and deceit has destroyed the British people's faith in their political institutions like none before him.

And that's the half of it. :mad: :eek:

[Alan D. Hyde]

In other words, Andrew, almost an identical twin brother to Bill Clinton, so far as personal qualities are concerned...

:D :D :D

Alan

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Well, Alan, it's a matter of record that they are very close friends, and that Blair did indeed model his style, and in particular his use of "spin doctors" and so on, on the Clinton campaigns for, and occupation of, the White House.

But I don't think Clinton destroyed the aspiration of ordinary couples to own their own house, in the way that Blair has, nor did he lead you into a bloody and unlawful invasion under cover of a tissue of lies.

[NormMessinger]

No, HighC, I was yearning for the days when quite opposite views on the political or economic scene were well articulated by gentlemen. The issues were attacked, not each other.

I've always been a bit bewildered that Blair seems to be in lock step with Bush. Andrew presents a side of the man we do not see in this country so I hope others here will look forward to seeing the article in Atlantic Monthly as much as I do.

[Harry Miller]

his mystique and his promise, almost JFK-like when he came into office, are shattered Andrew, many of us on this side of the Atlantic shared the above thoughts. Was your opinion of him as poor then as it is now?

[Donn]

"so I hope others here will look forward to seeing the article in Atlantic Monthly as much as I do." I can barely contain myself. :rolleyes:

[NormMessinger]

Originally posted by Donn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"so I hope others here will look forward to seeing the article in Atlantic Monthly as much as I do." I can barely contain myself. :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]That does sound a little pretentious, perhaps jouvinal. Perhaps you wouldn't mind if I and a few others here submit our contributions to you for review prior to posting. I would appreciate it. Thenks, Donn.

[Donn]

No, go right ahead and post whatever you please. I'll critique it after you've entered it.

[Victor]

Is this the same Churchillian statesman who had the courage to defy the will of his people in order to do the right thing? (paraphrase) Oh sorry, that was a week after the fall of Baghdad.

[High C]

Originally posted by NormMessinger:
No, HighC, I was yearning for the days when quite opposite views on the political or economic scene were well articulated by gentlemen. That musta been before I got here. :eek:

About Blair, though, I don't pretend to know much about the man, and certainly not of his domestic politics, but I wonder if some of the discontent amongst his countrymen might be because he turned so totally in his support of Bush. I remember when Clinton was the Pres, Blair and he were very close. Then he also became quite close to Bush. I suspect that may be part of his unpopularity at home. Some might see that as being opportunist, or two faced, maybe they have a point, maybe they don't.

[ 04-28-2004, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Harry, when Blair won the '97 general election, the British people had been governed by the Conservative Party since 1979, first under Thatcher, then when she proved an electoral liability (about when she stopped listening to anyone who did not agree with her, thinking she could do whatever she liked) and was dumped, under the likeable, cricket playing, beer drinking, John Major. Major's government self-destructed, mainly on the issue of the European Union, but also in part due to allegations of "sleazy" conduct by a few of its members.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party had been captured by its activists, so it spent some years under the delusion that, in order to be elected, it should be more left wing. It elected Michael Foot, rather than Dennis Healey, and followed him with Neil Kinnock. John Smith took over from him and started to swing the party back to the centre; he died unexpectedly and Blair and Brown took over and invented "New Labour".

So, when they came to power, the great majority of the nation either supported them or gave Blair "the benefit of the doubt", to use a commonplace cricketing expression.

The scorecard for the administration must show that economically it has done well, certainly in the first term, though there are some bubble type symptoms showing now, particularly in the housing market. There is some evidence (always arguable!) of improvement in health and in education, though there are signs that the education policy is muddled so far as higher education goes, with a curious attempt to shove ever more people through a debased University system whilst charging them for it.

The Government has suceeded , for what little it was worth, with Scottish and Welsh devolution, but like the Tory government that preceded it, it is divided on Europe.

That's the case for Blair's leadership of the New Labour administration; the case against is the one that I set out earlier, which can be summed up as having convinced the British public that they cannot trust anything their Government says, having prostituted the Constitution, and having (and this is personal to Blair) fallen into the delusion of the "special relationship", whereby he thinks he can influence Bush. In fact, as can be seen, he has had no effect whatever on Bush, but has dragged our nation into supporting Bush's wicked invasion of Iraq and countenancing Sharon's wicked misconduct of Israeli policy.

[stan v]

A Confused Brit: 'Blair' has dragged our nation into supporting Bush's wicked invasion of Iraq and countenancing Sharon's wicked misconduct of Israeli policy.

Wicked? No mention of terrorists (except W and Jews :rolleyes: ).

Dragged? Yes, well who wants to fight and die? No one. Who wants to continue to live free? Everyone. So, what do we do? Do nothing in defense and stop watch how long it takes to lose our freedom? How many bombings would it take in London before the backbone stiffens of the average Brit? :rolleyes: Why must we drag?

Do you really want a fun loving, cricket playing, beer drinking PM at the helm when the chips are down? Hand wringers are a drag.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Well, now, Stan, we have to make allowances for you, I suppose. Two nations divided by a common language and all that.

London has seen a few bombs in its time. Quite a few more than the whole of Texas, actually.

To speak of "defence" whilst invading a country that has not attacked yours is what is known as Doublespeak. You may find it helpful to read a book called "1984" by a Colonial Service policeman called Eric Blair (no relation!)

I would hesitate to call John Major "fun loving"; his idea of a good day out was a game of cricket with a friend of his, a refugee by the name of John P Getty. But nobody has ever suggested that he is a hand wringer or lacking in backbone.

No, we say that Tony Blair lacks backbone, for failing to stand up to GW Bush and do the decent thing.

[Osborne Russel]

a phoney "settlement" in Northern Ireland which sold the loyalists down the river whilst allowing the nationalist thugs to remain organised, armed and in effective control of communities I still wonder why this hasn't worked -- is Blair to blame?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

In the immortal words of Sellars and Yeatman, in "1066 and All That", "You cannot solve the Irish Question, because whenever you get near The Answer, the Irish change the Question."

[Boomkin Joe]

Why should there be an Irish question in Ireland, btw? That's a questionable question.

[Art Read]

"In the immortal words of Sellars and Yeatman, in "1066 and All That", "You cannot solve the Irish Question, because whenever you get near The Answer, the Irish change the Question."

Is it just me, or does that sound awfully similar to the Israeli position on the Palistinians?

[Paul Denison]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
Well, now, Stan, we have to make allowances for you, I suppose. Two nations divided by a common language and all that.

London has seen a few bombs in its time. Quite a few more than the whole of Texas, actually.

To speak of "defence" whilst invading a country that has not attacked yours is what is known as Doublespeak. You may find it helpful to read a book called "1984" by a Colonial Service policeman called Eric Blair (no relation!)

I would hesitate to call John Major "fun loving"; his idea of a good day out was a game of cricket with a friend of his, a refugee by the name of John P Getty. But nobody has ever suggested that he is a hand wringer or lacking in backbone.

No, we say that Tony Blair lacks backbone, for failing to stand up to GW Bush and do the decent thing.Andrew, reading your thoughts on Blair reminds me of listening to our Ted Kennedy speaking about President Bush. Hardly objective.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
In other words, Andrew, almost an identical twin brother to Bill Clinton, so far as personal qualities are concerned...

:D :D :D

AlanSounds rather a lot more like Saint George of Crawford olde chappie. tongue.gif

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
In the immortal words of Sellars and Yeatman, in "1066 and All That", "You cannot solve the Irish Question, because whenever you get near The Answer, the Irish change the Question."What is the Irish question? Simple -- separation of church and state, or endless war, pick one. If both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland had secular government, what would justify two nations on one island? Economics? Language? External security? Etiquette?

As I understand it, the Good Friday Agreement set up committees or commissions or whatever, and they were to draft the equivalent of a constitution for Northern Ireland. The committee urged the adoption of the European Human Rights Commission's "Bill of Rights", which does not provide for separation of church and state.

But it will someday. It only remains to be seen how much suffering it will take to make clear the wisdom of a principle that was clear to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison more than two hundred years ago.

The Irish like most of the world like to think that their "culture" is has too much inertia to permit such a radical change, even if they wanted it, which they don't. They prefer to go on, basing their identity on their membership in a religious faction (dressed up in political costume), struggling to make that faction dominant, as a prelude to eliminating their competitors altogether. This has now been going on long enough that even stupid people know that it's stupid, so now they need to rationalize the status quo as "culture" rather than "religion". But the victims of their terrorism are just as dead either way.

[Wild Wassa]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
"... a soidisant socialist who has ..."

Soidisant is a cool word, but please don't ever give Tony B Liar the honour, of using the word socialist in any reference to his low life.

Warren.

ps, Did you know Tony B Liar went to school in OZ? ... that's where he learnt all his dirty tricks, at an Aussie private school.

[ 05-02-2004, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[NormMessinger]

An interview with the Author of The Atlantic Monthly article about Blair is on line: http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int20 04-05-06.htm (http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2004-05-06.htm)

[ 05-06-2004, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: NormMessinger ]

[Mrleft8]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
In the immortal words of Sellars and Yeatman, in "1066 and All That", "You cannot solve the Irish Question, because whenever you get near The Answer, the Irish change the Question."I thought it was that the Irish couldn't quite remember the original question, so they reframed the question to contradict the answer...