30
Oct
09

On air: Do you want Tony Blair back in a major political role?

blairOne of the quirks of WHYS is that your interest in a story, and particular elements of it, is often out of synch with the mainstream media and politicians.

And today is a case in point.

The likelihood of Tony Blair becoming the first president of the European Council has declined significantly in the past 24 hours, but the amount of comment on the issue is on the increase.

And while the EU’s leading politicians may be worrying about if Britain’s absence from the euro and the border-free Schengen Agreement should affect its chance of providing the new President, online discussion is all about Iraq. And we’re going to hear why today…

It’s fair to say the majority of online comment is against Tony Blair becoming the first President of the EU (see Nile Gardiner, Charles Clarke, this blog and this one too).

The journalist George Monbiot takes a surprising position – he wants Tony Blair to get the post so that there’s more chance of him being prosecuted for war crimes.

The question running through the vast majority of online debate is this: Should his involvement in the Iraq war have ended all of his political aspirations? Or, as British Foreign Secretary David Milliband has argued, is he one of the few politicians with the standing, determination and vision to make the most of this Presidential role?

And we know you also want to talk about his on-going job in the Middle East, and whether he should be charged with war crimes. We’ll pick up those issues as well.

I remember co-presenting the BBC’s coverage of Tony Blair’s resignation as PM. The majority of our listeners felt a political force for good had left the arena. If you were one of them, now there’s a chance, would you like to see him back?


147 Responses to “On air: Do you want Tony Blair back in a major political role?”


  1. 1 Dennis Junior
    October 29, 2009 at 13:45

    <<If you were at the table, would you argue for him getting the job? <<

    Yes, I would argue strongly for Blair to get the job…if it was offered to him…

    =Dennis Junior=

    • November 1, 2009 at 10:11

      The sooner Blair is the President of the EU the sooner the world will end, so, absolutely I would argue strongly he should get the job asap…..

  2. 3 gary
    October 29, 2009 at 14:03

    I live in the US (southern Indiana) so my response probably doesn’t mean too much; but if an organization is seeking a spokesperson, wouldn’t it be wise to select a person with an excellent track record of influencing folks by virtue of his or her skills at public speaking and personal persuasion? I think Mr. Blair seems a quite personable fellow, and the fact that he convinced so many to support an unpopular war militates rather for his selection than against it.
    g

    • 4 Halima
      October 30, 2009 at 19:15

      who did he convince who weren’t previously convinced? As I remember, some 78% of the population was opposed. Of course those who opposed the war were not listened to.

  3. 5 Nigel
    October 29, 2009 at 14:55

    I am not a European so it really does not matter save and except for the possibility that it might further serve to subordinate Europe to the US and so negatively affect the world outside where I live.

  4. October 29, 2009 at 15:31

    How on Earth can Blair be even considered for the job of European President! Look at his track record for God’s sake. He has destroyed the UK economy by unleashing credit to give the illusion of prosperity whilst completely deconstructing the UK’s manufacturing industry, taken the UK to an illegal war in which thousands of innocent people have died or been seriously injured and generally made a mockery of ‘democracy’ in the UK. He is a good speaker, no doubt but his words are meaningless in content. He is a proven liar and a meglamaniac. Maybe these are qualities appropriate for the job? If he succeeds then God (if there is one) save us all!

    • 7 Barry Ecott
      October 30, 2009 at 20:41

      I couldn’t agree more. This whole episode is a nicely concerted effort by Blair, through his cronies, to judge public reaction BEFORE he tosses his hat in the ring

    • 8 uncletom
      October 31, 2009 at 21:21

      You forgot to remind us that he is a QC. Have QC’s got the broad entrepreneural aspirations and training to guide such a complicated and ungainly mass of mercurial blubber that is Europe? Can Blair understand the need to anticipate,plan,resourse and provide the stimulous to all the drives that are needed to make Europe function as an intergrated mechanism to satisfy the needs of the citizens of Europe? If the answer is yes then we have found our man but why is it that having experienced Blairs promises in the “confines” of Britain to bring about transparency,openess,the codification of the law and a raft of other civil rights that i see none of those thing have been put into practice and have more doubts about his inner agenda,sincerity and honesty.

  5. October 29, 2009 at 16:13

    Blair lacks statesmanship and he is ,if I may say so,a lackey of US.In the post cold war era,US sees its postion is weakening in Europe and it would like its major domo,Blair to be at the helm.

  6. 10 Gary Paudler
    October 29, 2009 at 16:39

    George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian and here: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/10/26/arresting-blair/
    Has an excellent reason in favor of Blair’s election to the presidency of the EU –
    Apparently less afraid, than some, of the UK’s libel laws Monbiot writes: “He is ruthless, mendacious, slippery and shameless. But never mind all that. I’m backing Blair” essentially saying that it will make him more available for arrest on charges of
    crimes of aggression for his shared role in invading Iraq in violation of international law. I’d like to see that happen, but I’m afraid that Blair has exhausted his share of The Peter Principle having already risen to his ultimate level of incompetence.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

  7. 11 Elias
    October 29, 2009 at 16:47

    Mr. Blair is an astute and a very experienced politician known internationally, however he did make the mistake in taking Britain into the war in Iraq, intentionally or unintentionally the facts are still unknown. However, he is well capable to be President of EU. Better the devil you know than the devil you dont know.

  8. 12 Peter Gizzi UK
    October 29, 2009 at 16:59

    I totally agree with both Oscar Turner and Ramanan50. Having said that as The European Union is an undemocratic and less than honest organisation I suppose it has to be said he is perfect for the joband will be welcomed by the unelected leaders.

  9. 13 Jenni from NW
    October 29, 2009 at 17:08

    I am from the UK.

    No thank you Mr. Blair. I can’t believe he is well respected abroad.

    • 14 Adrian
      November 1, 2009 at 10:26

      We didn’t need the role of EU President and all that that means imposed upon us, and we certainly don’t need Blair!

  10. 15 Tom K in Mpls
    October 29, 2009 at 17:15

    I am wondering how the hearings on the illegal invasion of Iraq went. Why would the world want Bush Jr’s lap dog as a leader? Like Bush Jr, you must believe he was either a savior or a criminal. Given the approval ratings of both at the end of their terms, the verdict is in.

    • 16 Maxine
      November 1, 2009 at 06:19

      Crimes against humanity were committed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s Regime. Britain and other countries such as Australia, Canada etc are a signatory to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. .How many mass graves make a Genocide? How many have been uncovered in Iraq? For instance 8,000 members of the Barzani Tribe were executed. Chemical weapons were used by this monster’s regime. The scale of the mass murder and torture should be reflected upon before you talk about “illegal invasion”. They are the bad guy’s – not us!

  11. 18 Tara Ballance, Montreal Canada
    October 29, 2009 at 17:18

    I think Tony Blair would be a disasterous choice for President of the EU.

    Simply put, he is too much of a publicity hound (why else would he make sure the public knew about the circumstances of his son Leo’s conception?) and too polarizing a figure (he was the only major European leader to rush to join the American invasion of Iraq) to be effective in the role.

  12. 19 Ibrahim in UK
    October 29, 2009 at 17:31

    He has a poor track record of sacrificing British interests, security and lives to serve foreign interests. If he was not prepared to represent the views of his own people, what makes Europeans think he will represent theirs? Anyway, shouldn’t he be busy doing his Middle East quartet envoy thing?

  13. 20 Robert Evans
    October 29, 2009 at 17:36

    I personally urge the European Union leaders to not support Tony Blair he was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for 10 years and has left Gordon Brown to ruin the United Kingdoms once good economy and please remember that the UK is still in recession.

    • 21 Jenni from NW
      October 29, 2009 at 20:52

      Gordon Brown is the best person we have (in government or opposition) to lead us out of recession. I am grateful he is in charge right now! Don’t forget the spend, spend, spend mantra in the boom years arose from Teflon Tony’s manifesto.

      The GLOBAL recession was unforeseen (even by the financial analysts and institutions who are paid and employed specifically for this purpose), so how could a chancellor object to his party’s proposal to invest in public services, for the good of the nation, at a time when economic prospects are sound. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

      Somehow, Tony Blair always manages to escape at the right time to avoid crticism. Poor old Gordon Brown was just the fall guy.. left to pick up the pieces.

      If Tony Blair does become president, I wonder who he has lined up to take the blame when it all goes wrong…again.

  14. 22 Tom D Ford
    October 29, 2009 at 17:40

    Blair deserves a seat in the docket at the ICC as a prisoner charged with War Crimes against the people of Iraq, so he is hardly the kind of choice fro the leader of the E U.

  15. 23 Jim Newman
    October 29, 2009 at 18:29

    Hello again
    No! He is too dishonest even for a politician. We need a european for president not a half-baked yank.
    Jim

  16. 24 ARTHUR NJUGUNA
    October 29, 2009 at 18:44

    What was good for him is when we started forgeting that he ever existed. What is bad for him now is that someone wants to rekindle those pot shots of ricules against him and British politics.
    You cannot honestly consider to revive Blair without having a dirty agenda. This is one man who came when he was needed but unfortunately he finished badly against all advice at home and abroad. He is hard to sell even to labour organizations at home unless you are blind. Is it a negative political prank aimed at Britain as the elections approach?
    If he still has some shred of decency left in him, he should decline the offer and say ‘no thank you’. Its the only option left for him in order to salvage a sinking happy retirement.

  17. October 29, 2009 at 19:42

    Tony Blair is a statesman with tremendous international experience. As an astute lawyer and high-profile politician, he is the perfect candidate with rich European experience. Europe needs a leader like Tony at the helm. He is so well qualified for the post that he would beat the other possible contenders hands down. He has the brains, the guts and charisma. Europe needs a statesman of such depth.

    • October 30, 2009 at 10:40

      No Pancha. This man should be dragged kicking and screaming to the ICC and charged with war crimes. As Gore Vidal told BBC-1, Tony Blair colluded with a mad man to invade Iraq, which is an illegal and immoral war. He ceded to EU a number of Britain’s legislative powers eroding the British sovereignty. In the meantime, he was emulating American presidential style of governing Britian honing his skills to become the Preseident of Europe one day. He sold out British Sovereignty and democracy for personal gains. Where is the statesmanship?

    • 27 ABDELKADER EL HAMDAOUI
      October 31, 2009 at 13:17

      Brilliant Pancha, you are one of the very few who reason more logically and less emotionally. Unfortunately there are many moral self indulging people around infused with hatred and a lynch-mob mentality of the finger pointing inquisitional kind.

  18. 28 Robert
    October 29, 2009 at 19:51

    No, but because of Tony Blair. I don’t like this role of the president of Europe. Its poorly defined as to its roles. Does it veto the national leaders? If he is a president why isn’t he elected.

  19. 29 Iain
    October 30, 2009 at 02:15

    What about Chirac, Schroder, or any other European politician who has been kicked out of office ??

    • 30 fmog
      October 30, 2009 at 10:38

      If the cap fits. Blair has shown himself to be without integrity. His hubris and self-aggrandisement make him the worst possible choice for a position on which the fate of the EU rests.

  20. October 30, 2009 at 09:49

    If Europe has any moral compass at all, the answer should be a resounding no.
    As Oscar Turner has already put it so succinctly, and others here have echoed similar sentiment.
    How soon we forget. “Education,Education, Education.” We have the most poorly educated children in all Western Europe, the most socially maladjusted young people, who have been grossly failed by our current educational system, with the inevitable knock on effect that this produces, is sufficient enough reason to never allow Blair to take hold of the reins of political power ever again.

    Never mind the vast societal problems: highest teenage pregnancy rate and number one binge drinking nation in Europe, statistically the most violent youth crime and peer group level of violence in Europe, now having the most obese person on the planet to our credit as well. The NHS in crisis and its very existence in the balance etc, etc, under a socialist government! The list just goes on and on. 12 years under New Labour has brought us monumental problems we never could’ve imagined before. Plus the abomination that is the Iraq War, and a man who wouldn’t shake the hand of Tony Blair at a Remembrance Service to honour dead servicemen because “it’s got blood on it” speaks volumes.

  21. October 30, 2009 at 12:41

    In’ England our England’, a book by Vernon Coleman, last published in 2004, page 56, he wrote “Tony Blair is the greatest threat to England there has ever been. He will sell England to the EU in order to reserve for himself a place at the EU trough”

  22. 33 Paul Schrum
    October 30, 2009 at 14:33

    On air about 9:29 EDT (30 Oct) you read a scathing comment from someone who wanted to remain anonymous. Please discontinue this practice. Her comment was mean-spirited, and all-too-easy when protected by anonymity. Requiring someone at least to claim a name, even if they lie about it, is better than aiding camoflouged sniping with no responsibility attached to it.

  23. 34 Dennis Junior
    October 30, 2009 at 14:33

    Ros,

    **If you were one of them, now there’s a chance, would you like to see him back?**

    In a heartbeat!!!!

    =Dennis Junior=

  24. 35 Peter Gizzi UK
    October 30, 2009 at 14:38

    This time I agree with Terry Stevens. Add to that The Lisbon Treaty means any country wishing to leave cannot decide for itself. The EU Commission makes the final decision and could insist on a country staying. surely that is dictatoship? Just what dictator Blair wants!

  25. October 30, 2009 at 14:53

    Definitely not in UK or in Europe.Probably he can be accommadated in US in some capacity,wait-Obama will not need him- as Advisor to DicK Cheney and Bush (Sr and junior) to explain their past policies;it would provide comic relief to a tense world.

  26. 37 Colin Sundaram
    October 30, 2009 at 14:55

    30. 10. 09

    Yes indeed. Though Tony had a murky past when he was in cahoots with Bush to camouflage the real reasons for waging war against Saddam Hussein he is charismatic politician capable of carrying out the tasks entrusted to him. He and Bill Clinton can convince people what they believe is right and get the job done. Let him enjoy a few more years in power and probably one more child with Cherry.

  27. 38 Alan Meadows
    October 30, 2009 at 15:06

    Considering that a current major world problem is the Middle East and the fundamentalists of the region, Tony Blair cannot be an “honest broker” in this issue because of his involvement in the “war on terror”.

    Europe can contribute to peace initiatives in the region, but not with Blair at its head.

  28. 39 C Clarke-Williams
    October 30, 2009 at 15:08

    Tony Blair did not suddenly become dishonest or incompetant at the start of the Iraq war, he always was. His dishonesty and shortcomings were just masked by the golden legacy left him by John Major and Kenneth Clarke. This man is one of a number of politicians who could not possibly survive in a real job and he certainly would be a bad choice for Europe.

  29. October 30, 2009 at 15:17

    Yep, I’m one of those Tony idolize-ers across the pond who wished out loud that we had Blair instead of Bush. Tony’s words out-shown George’s (not so much of an accomplishment, I guess), but slowly-slowly his excellent debate rhetoric revealed a follower rather than a leader, a rationalizer rather than a truth-sayer, and a man with himself as the agenda rather than those he serves. In the end, I am disappointed more by Blair than by Bush, because Tony fell so much farther in my esteem.

    As for Blair being selected as the first President of the EU? If Tony were selected, the EU’s values, intelligence, and influence (both as a body and world leader) would be compromised since the EU could see that the emperor has no clothes.

  30. October 30, 2009 at 15:22

    oops… so much for proof-reading. My last sentence should read, “If Tony were selected (President of the EU) the EU’s values, intelligence, and influence would be compromised (both as a body and world leader), because the EU can NOT see that the emperor has no clothes.”

  31. 42 Steve
    October 30, 2009 at 15:37

    Quite Simply NO

  32. 43 STEPHEN /PORTLAND
    October 30, 2009 at 15:37

    I moved to the states just before his popularity tanked and did not have to live with his decisions and policies, so I cant say too much about the former Prime Ministers contribution to the country. It’s traditional for ex political figures to get some kind of Easy well paying job.

    I would rather have a Brit of any kind with some major role in the massive Burokracy that is Brussels and the European councils.

    But Hey if he needs work, maybe he could meet up with Bush at his ranch in Crawford and they work the land together and go camping. (I wish I could quite you!)

  33. 45 Robert
    October 30, 2009 at 15:40

    I don’t mind whether he is or he isn’t in a major political role again. I am undecided on it. What I do mind is that his return is democratic.

    The role of European President isn’t a democratic one. The result is decided by handfuls of senior politicians and not the general public of the EU. That is why I would be opposed to him taking the presidency. Not the man, but the office.

  34. 46 Michel Norman
    October 30, 2009 at 15:52

    Alan Meadows raises an interesting point – presumably in Mr. Meadow’s book a sponsor of terror would be a better choice – Gaddafi?? – I would suggest to him that the main reason that the West Bank is looking increasingly like a state is that the PA looks like it wants to operate as a state and not a bunch of terrorists. Anyway, I thought that Tony Blair already had a job -over here – and judging by the impact that he has had, I would not be to worried about him doing anything in Europe.

  35. 47 Anthony
    October 30, 2009 at 16:01

    I don’t know much about Mr. Blair (being from the states and all), but from when I saw him, he seemed pretty good to me, so I can understand people around the world liking him.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  36. October 30, 2009 at 16:02

    This is a statesman with real talents. He has guts, brains and charisma. He would lead rather than follow others meekly. Choosing him would most certainly raise Europe’s stature in the world. Choosing a lack-lustre figure would be the biggest mistake!

    • November 1, 2009 at 16:44

      Where have you been Pancha? Blair has always been George W Bush’s lap poodle thorught Bush’s term, incapable of any form of leadership in that relationship. He sold out British interests in favour of America’s dream to dominate the world and in the process he advanced his personal interests. Today Blair is very rich man.

  37. 50 Uzondu Esionye
    October 30, 2009 at 16:05

    yes he was quite good and would be welcomed at this level. I support him yes.

  38. 51 Ronald Almeida
    October 30, 2009 at 16:18

    I don’t think he should have any thing to do with foreign relations, lest he turn into a lap dog once more.

  39. 52 paul8222
    October 30, 2009 at 16:37

    Iraq was perhaps, a necessary war to get rid of Saddam Hussein; [why didn’t Bush (Snr) have the bottle to finish it in 1991?]

    However Bush(Jnr) & Blair’s contrived WMD justification turned out to a fraud.
    One suspects that at that point he lost most of the trust & respect remaining for him.

    I would not trust him as European President ; Gonzalez or Bruton have as much in the way of statesmanlike qualities & vastly more integrity.

  40. 53 patti in cape coral
    October 30, 2009 at 16:40

    I ashamedly reserve comment due to ignorance, but I’m learning a lot through the blog and the links.

  41. 54 trampled
    October 30, 2009 at 16:58

    Blair is a war criminal. Plain and simple. Someday, he will be recognised as such, along with Bush and Cheney. Period. He deserves no job at all.

  42. October 30, 2009 at 16:59

    Who Else!
    Charisma , US support, he’s got it all. Britain should stand 100% behind him – including Conservatives – Blair is the ultra-liberal.
    We supported the Iraqi war, Jordan, Turkey and Syria went along with the “liberation.”
    After the Second Gulf War Saudis wouldn’t have it otherwise, same with Kuwaitis – that’s about 8.5 million barrels of oil per day.

  43. 56 Robert Macala
    October 30, 2009 at 17:14

    No way. He’s a puppet controlled by dark forces in the world.
    You Brits should never have backed us (the U.S). We might
    have never gone into the hell hole without Tony’s support.
    Please, not Millibank either…he’s a puppet too for these
    same forces….

  44. 57 Tom K in Mpls
    October 30, 2009 at 17:19

    Regarding the question of attracting attention to Blair to get opponents moving on prosecution, it’s a valid point, but IMO it’s not worth the potential risks to the EU. It is like the Africa starvation question, which is worse, more famine now for a better future or keep more alive in the ongoing scenario?

  45. 58 BILLY WACHAKANA
    October 30, 2009 at 17:27

    tony blair is an experienced leader and politician, he deserves a chance as the president of the EU commission,

  46. October 30, 2009 at 17:44

    Greetings,

    Thanks for WHYS. I am a regular listener and I have been telephoned by your program a couple of times. Your worldwide forum is very beneficial and reminds all us that we are a global family.

    Yes, I would vote for Tony Blair. He won my respect during the Bush administration and 911. Though I would not agree with Blair on all points of his politics, I respect him because he is a man with “backbone”, courage, and loyality. He can make right decisions and hard decisions. I believe he has a grasp of the moral and even spiritual nature of our global issues.

    Many, if not most, politicians are consumed by thier own self interests and self promotion. I truly believe Tony Blair has his country and his world at heart….first and foremost!!

    Again, thanks for providing this forum.

    Dr. Roger Willmore

  47. 60 archibald
    October 30, 2009 at 17:47

    We need new ideas and approaches, not the old sympathies and ideologies which eventually got Blair ousted from Parliment. Anyone who would so strongly ally themselves with George Bush would be a dangerous force in the EU.

  48. 61 Methusalem
    October 30, 2009 at 17:59

    Well, if he repents for the role he played during the Iraq war, why not!

  49. 62 nora
    October 30, 2009 at 18:27

    Tony Blair is viewed by too many Europeans as a US lapdog. Vaclav Havel is the kind of philosopher Europe needs to raise the level of the conversation.

  50. 63 Jeremiah
    October 30, 2009 at 18:32

    I live in the United States, so my opinion most likely won’t matter, but I don’t have anything negative to say about Mr. Blair. However the European Union seems to focus on particular members {UK, France, Germany} and having someone from elsewhere (yet still qualified) would be more fair.

  51. 64 Melanie
    October 30, 2009 at 18:34

    I don’t believe Tony Blair allied himself with George Bush specifically, but with America. We were all in that war, whether we liked it or not, and it meant a lot to have our long-time friends in the UK standing alongside us.

  52. 65 Tom D Ford
    October 30, 2009 at 18:37

    So I wonder who else is being considered? If Blair is the best name put forward what does that say about all the others?

    How about someone who looks politically like the great woman Gro Harlem Brundtland?

    I understand that Finland also has some very good women leaders, how about women from the EU nations?

    • 66 Josimar Scott (Jamaica)
      October 30, 2009 at 19:11

      The fact that Mr. Blair has admitted that mistakes have been made in the pursuit of the Iraq War makes any claim on this premise for his election to President of the EU baseless.

      His resignation from the office of Prime Minister of England is clear indication of his resignation from political life as a whole. Sure he’s quite the statesman, so maybe his skills could be better used in international diplomacy.

  53. 67 STEPHEN /PORTLAND
    October 30, 2009 at 18:43

    He is right its very Sardonic.

    P.s What does that mean!

  54. 68 Kat in Vancouver
    October 30, 2009 at 18:47

    Mr. Blair in his role as PM was a wolf in dove’s clothes. I can’t imagine him as the leader of the EU bringing citizen’s together. The European Union needs someone who is apolitical and can build consensus. Judging his record as Prime Minister he does not meed those two requirements.

  55. 69 Bobby
    October 30, 2009 at 18:49

    I think its amazing how leaders can blatantly lie thier way into a war and get away with it the way Blair and Bush have. Blair has no business becoming president of the EU. US President Clinton got impeached for playing with a cigar…..no one died. What charges have been brought against Blair, Bush or Cheney, how many deaths are they responsible for?

  56. 70 Tom D Ford
    October 30, 2009 at 18:50

    I agree with Monbiot about a reward for the arrest of Blair and his fellow war Criminals.

    How about a website or something resembling the Elie Wiesenthal center but where people could email, twitter, etc, every time they see Blair or hear about his plans so that the decent people of the world could hound him down and eventually bring him to justice like Elie Wiesenthal did to the WW2 Nazis.

    Extraordinary renditions were brought to light through such methods, why not use those techniques with Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Kristol, Rumsfeld, et al?

  57. October 30, 2009 at 18:53

    As a Middle East envoy, Tony Blair seems to have effected no progress. The rein of discussion is in the hands of the US administration which has increased its shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East.

    Tony Blair was a new blood in British politics who under his leadership UK economy was invigorated. Maybe he is still needed in other European political spheres to bring new blood to thel as long as once he’s elected he doesn’t fade away.

  58. 72 Gregg Greene
    October 30, 2009 at 18:58

    I’m from the USA, and I do not think Mr. Blair should get the job. Mr. Blair is, in my opinion, more culpable than Mr. Bush for invading Iraq. The reason I say this is because Mr. Bush was obviously over his head and received horrible advice from his advisors. Mr. Blair is obviously a very intelligent person, and should have known better. He could have used his intelligence and influence to counter the arguments of the neo-conservatives, instead he affirmed the misguided arguments. He should not be rewarded with any kind of public position after what he failed to do.

    • 73 Jenni from NW
      October 30, 2009 at 23:43

      Well said Gregge,

      I distinctly remember Tony Blair was actually being pressured, in the UK, to try to use his influence in persuading Bush not to go to war. He ignored this along with British public opinion.

      Instead, he felt the hand of history on his shoulder and (if I can be cynical here) visualized his own name in history books (next to Winston Churchill’s).

      His argument for war wasn’t all that convincing, he told us:
      “I know things that you don’t. History will show you that this is the right decision”.

      Hmmmm..

      Tony Blair was and always will be a career politician, serving only his own interests.

      The global WHYS audience, may or may not be aware of the expenses scandal that hit Britain… apparently Blair’s expenses were “accidentally” shredded !! It amazes me how he gets away with it.

    • 74 Jake Canada
      November 2, 2009 at 00:09

      Well said Sir! Those are exactly my sentiments

  59. 75 Walter Johnson
    October 30, 2009 at 19:01

    The USA is today because a prominent person, George Washington, accepted the job of President. The EU is nothing if it can’t have prominent leaders like Tony Blair. Consider that George Washington could have been tried as a terrorist before rejecting Tony Blair.

  60. 76 STEPHEN /PORTLAND
    October 30, 2009 at 19:02

    We keep saying Tony Blair is responsible for a peace process in Northern Island.

    The Irish political process came about because the Provisional IRA funding was cut off by the fact that people in New York and Boston became more aware of terrorism and stopped filling the IRA tip jars, at the same time they where not getting the training or weapons from Libya and Jordan etc and therefore these IRA thugs where forced to make a kind of peace and convert there dealings into organized crime instead.

    They’re still there and dealing in Heroine from Afghanistan.

    Blair was just there at the right time.

  61. 77 Chop Suey
    October 30, 2009 at 19:08

    To say that a majority of Americans were sad to see Tony Blair leave office, is completely ridiculous. If i remember correctly a majority of Americans opposed the election of George Bush as president but thanks to electoral college we did not get our way. So how could we all be suddenly up in arms supporting a man whose political views coincide much with those of George Bush? Also the fact that the invasion of Iraq was really just a big “accident” does not at all make the whole thing OK, someone should be held accountable so why not George Bush and Tony Blair?

  62. October 30, 2009 at 19:11

    Do you want Tony Blair back in a major political role?
    As a Meeter,greeter to give pats on the back and pats on the head why not?
    His exit strategy of joining the Catholic Church ensures support from across Europe.
    He would take some pressure off Gordon Brown or David Cameron after the next General Election by giving the media another focus of attention (whipping boy).
    If Tony Toni Tone Blair does get the job how much power would he expect to wield,would he define the role?

  63. 79 Crispo, Uganda
    October 30, 2009 at 19:22

    I’ve read a lot of contempt from different bloggers, but the bottom line is: look around Europe and point out all possible candidates whom we think deserve that position better than Blair. Shroeder, Chirac? Who exactly?

    Incriminating Blair with the only evidence being emotionally charged verbal tirade, doesn’t solve a thing. Blair resigned when he realised that he had erred. That’s noble of him. So he’s no liar. I’d also like to believe that, fair judgement eludes us whenever we are emotionally charged.

    Some of us do not appreciate the fact that leadership is a role and not a job. Its years of training and enhancing of naurual leadership skills that makes one a leader. Those who think that Blair is a yank had better stop being offensive to him. If I ask: would you be better than him at the same role? What would you have done in the fact that Iraq and Saddam, a self proclaimed enemy of the west, declares that he’s got some weapons deemed dangerous? Blair simply employed that tactic of; ‘don’t let your enemy attack first, if you are not sure what weapon he’s got and of his strength’. That to me is prudence, costly and later fatal as it turned out to be. My respect to the families of the bereaved.

    On the issue of global recession, I see no reason as to why Blair was to be blamed. Was he an expert in world economy, what of the ‘seasoned’ economists Britain has got! What happened to their knowledge, their intellect? Did they also love Britain to sink? Was it Blair who also caused recession world over? Lets exonerate Blair on issues that have no connection with him. One of the comments by a fellow blogger wondering whom he’ll leave to carry his cross after he messes the union amuses me. To me its a show of outright ignorance resulting from being too sentimental.

    So, i read about democracy, if I’m right. I’ve always argued that in a social setting there can never be democracy. This is an ideological principle that is only practical in an ideal world, not a real world. Going by that, Blair tried and deserves the presidency of the European Union (unfortunately I can’t vote for him since am no Brit or European).

  64. October 30, 2009 at 19:24

    War crimes: The cry of the victorious;the cry of the vanquished;the cry of the pacifist;the cry of the vindictive but very rarely the cry of the just,unless disguised by one of the former.

  65. 81 Elina, Finland
    October 30, 2009 at 19:25

    I’m a European, but I have to admit I haven’t really thought about this topic that much. I feel I’m here to learn again, it’s a great debate going on! I just can’t help thinking about how many of us “ordinary” Europeans really care about who would be the president of the EU. After all, it seems the EU has remained to us ’EU citizens’ quite distant and vague. There is the general lack of sense of community with regard to the EU. The idea of a ‘common Europe’ and a common Union is great, basically, but one of the Union’s deficiencies is that its citizens lack the necessary identity to support it. Perhaps it shows also in regard to the questions and discussions about the EU presidency.

  66. October 30, 2009 at 19:31

    the problem we have is that we always judge people not by the virtue of their good deeds but of their wrong. its true Blair made mistakes but why not judge him on the credentials of his achievement.lets face the reality of the two sides of the coin and judge Tony on them rather than only focusing on his negative aspect.hail Blair i wish was in Europe u could just get my unanimous backing

  67. 83 Alan in Arizona
    October 30, 2009 at 19:36

    Take him while you can. Don’t give Bush a chance to think about moving to Brussels and changing his citizenship in hopes of doing more good for the world.

  68. 84 Philippa
    October 30, 2009 at 19:41

    Under international law Tony Blair is a major risk. He followed the US and led the EU in a war that has left close to 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq. A war in the name of weapons of mass destruction which were never found, also a war which has been declared illegal, more or less, by the former secretary-general of the United Nations.

    I suspect that Tony Blair is a war criminal and there is enough evidence to take the case to court. Let the international courts decide.

    In the meantime, associate with him at your own risk!

  69. 85 Tom K in Mpls
    October 30, 2009 at 19:43

    I am anti-Blair. The on air anti-Blair speaker has an exceptional ability to undermine his stance. He undermined us all.

  70. 86 Josimar Scott (Jamaica)
    October 30, 2009 at 19:45

    If Tony Blair is supposed to be elected to EU President based on the Iraq War, then you need to get the advice of Salaam Pax (Iraqi Journalist).

  71. October 30, 2009 at 19:49

    Heavens, no! a spin master, a story sexer-up, a confirmed anti-European, pro-American side taker, a war mongerer, an envoy who has not moved a jot in solving the middle east problem, and so on and on. need i say more? and thank God, the Eu countries are none too keen on him nor do the British really want him to preside over the EU. So hopefully, it is all much a do about nothing.

  72. 88 John LaGrua/New York
    October 30, 2009 at 19:56

    I strongly support sending Blair to Europe ,not to Brussels but to the Haque under indictment for war crimes along with his co-defendent Bush to stand trial before the International Court of Justice.Some 650,000 dead iraqi and thousands more maimed by their wanton actions cry out for justice.If the Nazi war criminals went to the gallows for the misery they caused ,why should Blair and Bush escape punishment ? The moral credibility of the West has been badly damaged .A Goldstone type inquiry should be conducted and if probable cause is established ,prosecution should follow.No moral or legal case can be made for automatic immunity which should be abhorrent to any civilized nation.

  73. 89 Jim L.
    October 30, 2009 at 19:57

    The only place in Europe I´d like to see Blair is on trial at the ICC.

    Besides the lies and deceit over the war in Iraq, just look at what he did in the UK during his time as PM. A total disaster. In fact, the invasion of Iraq sums up his heritage perfectly.

    Tom D Ford – well said, I agree completely.

  74. 91 Alan in Arizona
    October 30, 2009 at 20:01

    Seriously! Anyone that can handle the those unique individuals in the House of Commons, that we have seen on CSPAN here in the USA is extremely impressive. Few politicians have had as much positive impact on the world as a whole.
    As for deserving the post? I think it would be better to leave the decision to the elected leaders of each country involved in the EU. I think someone with fewer past issues maybe be someone that could get more done without as much opposition. It’s not a matter of Deserving, but who would be better at Serving the EU as President.

  75. October 30, 2009 at 20:01

    Tony Blair is a manipulator, that is how he has climbed that crazy ladder that is democracy……He is clever there is no doubt but his motives are totally narcisistic . every thing he has touched has fallen apart from the British economy to Iraq…shame on him.

  76. 93 Bouyer
    October 30, 2009 at 22:31

    The idea that Tony Blair may be one day the President of Europe is really an insult to all the Europeans considering his permanent stand beside Bush.For me, it’s a provocation. If that turned out to be true, Europe would be discredited forevermor in the eyes of the international community.

  77. 94 Bouyer andré France
    October 30, 2009 at 22:42

    The idea that Tony Blair might be the president of Europe is for me a provocation.Considering his permanent stand beside Bush, Europe would be discredited forevermore in the eyes of the International Community.

  78. 95 Bouyer andré France
    October 30, 2009 at 22:44

    Blair would be a excellent President

  79. 96 Gerry
    October 31, 2009 at 02:11

    The last time I checked was that Tony Blair has a good job. He was hire by Paul Kagame of Rwanda as his adviser. This is where he needs to be, an advisor for dictators and warmongers like Kagame. I am from Rwanda and I think Tony Blair has done a lot of damage to Africa than any UK leader. With his military, financial support Kagame has killed 6millions people in Africa!! I mean 6Millions!! So, for me Tony Blair to be European President would mean as Kagame advisor. Think about that!! No no no to TONY BLAIR. SORRY! Hey, let him be UK ambassador to IRAK, this is a cool job he fits in!!

  80. October 31, 2009 at 02:59

    No, never!
    He is empty head who doesn’t work for this important position. He is not only the enemy of the people of Iraq but also many poor European counties. He is good political guy but extremely exaggerated in his speech by using very sweet and betraying words. He did not worked even for U.K economy and education system for their youth in his power. He is not really a good choice for this very European position. Isn’t there any other person in great Europe? Isn there deficiency of personality in Europe. For God sake do not do that, think twice before take a decision, please.
    Thank you very much.

    • October 31, 2009 at 05:35

      I think he is not a suitable person for this important position. He is not friend of the people of Iraq but also not well fit for poor people of European countries. He is a good political man but extremely exaggerate in his speech by using very sweet and betraying words. He did not work even for youth and young students of U.K in the scope of education, economy and many others need in his time of power. Isn’t their any other politest in Europe? Is there deficiency of personality in Europe. I don’t think so. Oh, for God sake do not do that, think twice before do it, please.
      Thank you very much.

  81. 99 Alfred
    October 31, 2009 at 03:42

    Blair has effectively made the UK the 51st State of the US.
    Don’t let him make the EU the 52nd!

    Indictment for war crimes against the Iraqi peoples would be more fitting.

  82. 100 No Thanks
    October 31, 2009 at 04:30

    As a citizen of the UK, I would be appalled at the prospect of this self-righteous narcissist being in a position of power, authority or even just influence. If the post of EU president was purely ceremonial and Mr. Blair was limited to opening shopping malls, I wouldn’t care but if the post carried any more power than that – not even at the point of a gun.

  83. 101 Robert Fitzsimons
    October 31, 2009 at 05:43

    I listened to Mr Blair’s apologist today on the BBC world service and was
    incensed by the nonsense coming out of his mouth. The issue regarding
    whether or not Blair and Bush should be indicted for war crimes, atrocities
    and crimes against humanity by the ICC and the Canadian Foreign Affairs
    crimes against humanity office is far from resolved. I was alarmed at how
    the program downplayed the enormous numbers of Iraqi civilians who
    suffered by this illegitimate invasion and brutally overwrought offensive
    not to mention the three million refugees who cannot go home even yet.
    Moreover, the justification of Blair as a man of action by mentioning Kosovo
    is outrageous since that invasion was also premature and unjustified as
    the facts afterward have born out. The rationale for an offensive against
    Serbia was based on very questionable evidence provided by William
    Walker. Some of that evidence has since been proven to have been falsely
    staged and investigated. I certainly would not think of excusing the atrocities
    of Hussein or Serbia or cowardly Muslim terrorists but I have the feeling still
    that the world went crazy around the time of the problems in Yugoslavia and
    formerly trusted leaders should be brought to task for the evil they have wrought.

  84. 102 K.Anaga
    October 31, 2009 at 06:09

    Never again. Politicians do tell lies, but Blair is an embodiment of lies.
    he cannot think on his own. He is only good to be somebody’s LAP DOG . He can never be pardoned for what he did in Iraq. Best thing for him is to go round the world in general and Iraq in particular ask for forgiveness.

  85. 103 ben aloy
    October 31, 2009 at 07:09

    These were said of Tony Blair, here:

    ”He is a good speaker, no doubt but his words are meaningless in content. He is a proven liar and a meglamaniac. Maybe these are qualities appropriate for the job?”

    ”He is clever there is no doubt but his motives are totally narcisistic . every thing he has touched has fallen apart from the British economy to Iraq…shame on him.”

    I agree totally with those comments. Nonetheless, please consider this suggestion:

    ”The journalist George Monbiot takes a surprising position – he wants Tony Blair to get the post so that there’s more chance of him being prosecuted for war crimes.”

    If this is feasible – – – if the man can be dragged to justice as a war criminal and made to answer for the life of Dr David Kelly, the Weapons Inspector who vehemently said ”there was no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq”, we may support the idea of European Presidency to Tony Blair.

  86. 104 Jose Diaz from Spain.
    October 31, 2009 at 09:00

    I want him to be put at the disposal of the International Criminal Court at the Hage in Netherlands along with other notorius inmates (Karadzic, Charles Taylor,ect) that is the place he deserves, It is out of question that he will be our first president and it seems he won.t be it.

    • 105 ABDELKADER EL HAMDAOUI
      October 31, 2009 at 12:37

      Tony Blair has the drive, vision and pragmatic sense of mission to shock Europe out of its ideological slumber. Can’t think of anyone anywhere near suitable or enthusiastic enough to take on the task with new ideas and not stifling the Union with idealistic hang-ups. People in Britain who are so out of touch with Bruxelles are not qualified, in view of their Anglo-Celtic mindset, to make judgement on the kind of leadership most needed to strengthen and make Europe a superpower to be reckon with.

    • 106 uncletom
      October 31, 2009 at 21:42

      Well spoken Steve.Short and sweet.

    • 107 Angelo Chardley
      November 1, 2009 at 15:19

      You know the problem with people like you,you think peolpe must not have skeletons in their closet.
      Mr.Blair made the right decision at the time basing on the intelligence that was available.Now did he make a mistake by going to war with Mr.Bush,the answer is relative depending on whether or not you hold beef for Tony.I think Tony is one charismatuc leader the EU needs today.He has the most wonderful diplomatic skills second to none.I believe that he can still use the skills that enabled him to convince the british parliament to support the war that finally got Saddam out of power.
      Angeleo chardley(Uganda-Kampala)

  87. 108 Mr. Abdiweli
    October 31, 2009 at 12:24

    To my assessment about Mr. Blair, He is not a rightman to this position, which represents whole europe , I am not saying he is not qualified but what I am saying is , he is not independent, He likes to do what American president does, he doesn’t beleive that europe is huge place and it’s policy should be independent.
    So please you europeans don’t shoose this man — he is so much hungry to blood and chaos, and will spoil the record and reputation of europians.

  88. 109 ABDELKADER EL HAMDAOUI
    October 31, 2009 at 12:35

    There isn’t a single person in the E.U. who can hold a candle to Tony Blair as far as experience is concerned, he is the most qualified to tackle the job and the problems associated with it. He has done more for Britain than any previous Prime Ministers except Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill. No one stood out, he did and will with brilliant imagination get Europeans out of their bureaucratic doldrums.

  89. October 31, 2009 at 13:53

    He sold his party down the river, then he sold his country down the river and then he helped Basher Bush sell Iraq down the river, along with any vestige of morality western politics may still have been clinging too. Show him your stamp collection and he’ll covet it.

  90. 111 Wahid
    October 31, 2009 at 14:16

    NO NO NO MR Blair , you don’t deserve the job based on your record , he has got us into wars and made us less safe created mistrust with the Muslim World and done nothing since becoming middle east envoy , after reading some comments I see American like him well then please have him as a leader of one of your secret society which is as undemocratic as the EU . If he is elected then shall never vote on any of the European elections that is the least as a British Citizen I can do .

  91. 112 Bare Osman
    October 31, 2009 at 14:23

    I agree with the view that the former British Premier to be elected as the present of the EU at this time because of his outstanding experience in the European politics and his outspokennes in the inetrnational arenas.

    I will therefore say let Tony Blair be given a chance to lead the EU and will see his contributions thereof and he’ll bring his long term experience to the EU hence foster prosperity in the EU blocs.

    Tony Blair is the best man for this smart job.

    Bare Osman
    Kenya.

  92. 113 Ronald Almeida
    October 31, 2009 at 14:52

    Let the west not do anything to turn continental Europe, the last bastion of diversity into just another monolingual characterless melting pot of mediocrity. Art and culture except for literature is bound to suffer tremendously.

  93. October 31, 2009 at 15:23

    I would not want Tex Blair back in charge of a chippie less the EU.

  94. 115 Mike Waller
    October 31, 2009 at 16:37

    Having come so close to defeat in WW1, no serious British prime minister would dare take the risk of the US retreating into isolationism. Without US support we would have lost WW2, the Cold War and even the Falklands War. Leaving them to go it alone in Iraqi and Afganistan would having carried a major risk that they would cease to fund our freedom. Wilson got away with it regarding Vietnam, but he had the recent example of Suez – where the US had abandonned the UK – to fall back on. Those who give Blair a hard time over this either have no sense of history, a pathological hatred of the US or both. The problem with WMDs was that Sadam was hung by his own petard. Too proud to admit he had got rid of them and making too much money out of the sanctions, he continued to behave as if they were still there. The US and UK acted on the time honoured principle “Absence of proof is not proof of absence”. Once war was declared, Blair was badly let down by US shortsightedness and unwillingness to listen to others. Like it or not, during a very difficult period Blair kept the link with the US alive whilst so many of his european colleagues were focussing on their personal standing in opinion poles. It is one of the ironies of getting old that you see left wingers and liberals totally reverse their stances on fundemental issues. The cry in the 60s was that if only Hitler had been stood up to in the early stages he could have been got rid off cheaply. Forty years later getting rid of Saddam – a man who unquestionably inflicted hitlerian suffering on his people – is seen as a crime against humanity!!!! It’s a funny old world!

  95. 116 Roger Willmore
    October 31, 2009 at 17:48

    The negative responses to WHYS question regarding Tony Blair are quite fascinating, if not alarming. And since many of the responses linked Blair to his friendship with George W. Bush, both Blair and Bush have been vilified in the WHYS forum over the past 24 hours.

    What has the world come to? Why do we crucify the very people who make the hard decisions to stand against evil and wrong in the world?

    Have my friends in England forgotten Churchill….and Thatcher? Have my friends in America forgotten Reagan? Have we forgotten that Bush and Blair led us through some of the darkest hours of recent history? Their objective was to thwart global tyranny. Freedom has a price.

    It is a sad day when we call good people bad, and we call bad people good.

    Those of us who have the freedom to express our varied opinions in this forum need to remember that this freedom came at a cost. Freedom is not free.

    • 117 Ronald Almeida
      November 2, 2009 at 16:58

      Simple! Truth, lies, bad and good are relative as the theory of relativity to a point of view and not absolute in any sense of the word.

  96. 118 Serguei
    October 31, 2009 at 21:40

    As a Frenchman and a socialist I voted against the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE). In my country we were a clear majority. But we were fooled by some ladies au guys. As you were by a Tony Blair unrespectful of his own promise to hod a referendum.

    So how could such a type being chosen to hold such a responsabilty ?

  97. 119 uncletom
    October 31, 2009 at 21:50

    Having read all these opinions from both sides of the “pond” I have decided to nominate O’Leary of Ryan Air for the post of E.U. president. He has all of Blairs attributes and the necessary entrepreneural drive. It also seems that our friends accross the water are soon to learn of his talents.But don’t let him charge you for doing a pee.

  98. 120 Ex Brit Squaddie 23 years, before BLAIR thank GOD
    October 31, 2009 at 22:44

    Tony Blair, priority Tony Blair, !!

  99. 121 Ex Brit Squaddie 23 years, before BLAIR thank GOD
    October 31, 2009 at 22:48

    Tony Blair’s priority, TONY BLAIR, got himself into a nice little earner after political career by backing the war, now has a nice little gig in the US

    • 122 Tom K in Mpls
      November 2, 2009 at 17:20

      In the US, the successful big bribes are not cash up front, but cushy jobs after the fact. They can’t be proven for prosecution. Government officials that take cash are stupid amateurs.

  100. November 1, 2009 at 00:19

    Blair is a snake oil salesman. No more and no less. Having used the slimey talents of the loathsome duo of Mandelson and Campbell to evade being finally caught out in the UK it is totally appropriate that he heads the EU where he will find equally mendacious folks to do his bidding. Isn’t this the gang that can’t get the auditors to sign off the accounts, where whistle blowers are grossly penalised and the last Labour no-hoper, Kinnock, and his missus, hopped on the gravy train a bit sharpish? Blair has to be the man for the job. And I’m sure his missus will find a bit of duty free shopping a rather atractive proposition. Top man. Top organisation. Blow democracy. It’ll never catch on.

  101. November 1, 2009 at 02:33

    I am a USA citizen born in the EU , would I want Tony Blair as President is like asking would I want George Bush as President . They are both of the same cloth and the world dislike of President Bush should answer the question about Tony Blair becoming President of the EU . It would be very negatif from a world’s point of view. My wish is for Mr Blair to enjoy is retirement and spare the world ,

  102. 125 sidy toure
    November 1, 2009 at 02:52

    It s quite early to talk about an UE president, European leaders are always pleased to copy the US. In my view this is not a good thing, they had better create or find new ways to adress their issues or create new things.

  103. 126 Jahangir
    November 1, 2009 at 03:06

    Blair took us to an un-necessory war in which hundreds of thousand people died and are still dying many of them totally innocent. He took British soldiers like lamb to the slaughter. This guy not only lied to us British people but also to the whole World about Saddam WMD which him and his best buddy Bush (even bigger lier) knew were never there. There was no sign of Al Qaida in Iraq during Saddam’s regime but after Bush/Blair lies they came in Iraq in their truck loads. He has blood on his hands and want to save himself from being tried in the Europeon court for mass murder. Europe need a president who has a good past, with a good charactor and can put its case to the World in an honest manner without any guilt. Blair deffinelty does not fit in to this catagory.

  104. 127 ben aloy
    November 1, 2009 at 06:04

    Jose Diaz from Spain said.
    :
    ” I want him to be put at the disposal of the International Criminal Court at the Hage in Netherlands along with other notorius inmates (Karadzic, Charles Taylor,ect) that is the place he deserves, It is out of question that he will be our first president and it seems he won.t be it ”

    I agree and congratulate him..

  105. 128 Maxine
    November 1, 2009 at 06:40

    The consensus of the state of Britain amongst my British contacts is that it is in one great big mess. The “compassionate” and “inclusiveness” of Tony’s rhetoric gave everyone a feel-good fuzzy feeling, but it now seems to have many flaws. Like the famous Pied Piper of the fairy stories we followed his silver words. No thanks -he’s had his run. No EU Presidency for him, or we shall all end up like Lamings – to the edge of the cliff and over.

  106. 129 michael1950
    November 1, 2009 at 09:10

    I liked his new style and his ideas as concerns economic and social poilitics. But I was deeply disappointed for his role in the absurd war against Irak.
    Saddam Hussein was not a democratic leader, everyone knows, and was to be seriously reprimanded for his tyrannical rule (perhaps prosecuted by an international tribunal for his crimes) and in any case invited to adopt moderate internal policies. The war, anyway, was a disaster, whose consequences will be suffered for a long time, unfortunately.
    Tony Blair, like his American associate, made an unforgivable blunder (and they never really repented). In other words they destroyed a country and undermined international security in the area and elsewhere.
    So, I think that he cannot assume the role of President of EU, or any other international role. Let him think about what he did!

  107. 130 william
    November 1, 2009 at 10:29

    blair is very good at convincing people so im led to believe is the devil. he is vain big headed and if you look at his record has got nothing right, the iraq inquery was delayed to give him a chance at eu job, bring inquiry forward and hide nothing i say, he can squirm he can lie but the truth will out, and if it does i hope next time i see or hear about blair will be in the hague, innocents need revenge

  108. 131 Simon in Rio
    November 1, 2009 at 14:31

    How can anyone who was gullible enough to be convinced by clearly fake “evidence” from the USA that there was an ongoing WMD programme in Iraq be head of the EU? I am still upset that no-one at the BBC asked him whether he would be resigning of no WMD were found to have existed. This was the single worst failure in the recent history of what is still the best news organisation in the world.

    • 132 Mike Waller
      November 2, 2009 at 11:12

      In my view, the BBC’s big failure in the run up to the Iraq war was to so heavily favour left wing/ liberal opinion. I repeatedly e-mailed the Today programme asking that they give at least some consideration to the following:

      (1) the huge strategic dangers of leaving the US to go it alone given how critical keeping the US out of isolationsism had been in the past century of British history. Had the US not intervened in WWs 1&2 and carried by far the greatest load during the Cold War this blog would almost certainly not exist or, at very best, would be being conducted in German or Russian.

      (2) Pressing those favouring keeping out of Iraqi on what I termed “the Ann Clywd question”. Clwyd, a left wing Welsh MP, spoke of a pregnant female Iraqi academic locked up by Saddam and starved to the extent that her child was still-born. After three days, to stop her incessant crying as she clutched the dead child, she was shot.

      The BBC, in its infinite wisdom, gave scant consideration to the former and simply refused use the label “the Ann Clwyd question” as a useful shorthand for a fundemental issue i.e. if we have the power to depose an unspeakably wicked regime, should we not use it?

      I believe the BBC’s failure in this regard should be considered by the forthcoming Iraq Inquiry. As in the case of the Diana debacle, it failed in its duty to inform and educated, preferring instead to play to the crowd.

  109. 133 NSC London
    November 1, 2009 at 14:57

    Dear god, not more Blair. He’s a slimy, pandering dhimmi politico. At the very least we shouldn’t be subjected to his marmot-faced wife’s tragic dress sense and multicultural blitherings.

  110. 135 Peter Smets The Netherlands
    November 1, 2009 at 16:58

    It is a pity that the new president of the EU is not elected directly by the voters of Europe. It would make Europe more democratic. Now the politicians tend to choose a politician which is not a danger to the leaders of the bigger European countries. I would be interested in the outcome of a direct election for the EU presidency where Blair took part in.

  111. 136 GTR5
    November 1, 2009 at 18:50

    Absolutely not! He is a terrible choice. Forget him.

  112. 137 Isaac Kiplagat
    November 1, 2009 at 19:52

    First of all,i do not like this monster called EU…it is a superstate which may seek to be a superpower, and instead of dismantling military and oppressive economic power,it is seeking to promote.So, why should i like Blair, an invader of Iraq to lead a monster?

  113. 138 leo
    November 1, 2009 at 20:49

    have him stand trial for war crimes

  114. 139 Joseph Fisher
    November 1, 2009 at 21:33

    The post of the EU President – a great platform for this self-promoting, self-serving politician.

  115. 140 andré bouyer
    November 1, 2009 at 22:10

    The idea that Blair might be President of EU is for me a provocation.Considering his permanent stance beside Bush, if that one day turned out to be true Europe would be discredited forevermore in the eyes of the international community.

  116. 141 Bil Olano
    November 2, 2009 at 02:04

    I won’t be surprised if Mr. Blair, with all his qualifications and endorsements – wont be president of the EU all indications shows that EU is regulating britain particularly the banks so thay cant afford to have anyone from their taking on the helm.

  117. 142 KC
    November 2, 2009 at 13:15

    Tony Blair could have been agreat prime minister. However he lost all credibility with his admiration for Thatcher. It was a small step for him to endorse Bush thereafter. Maybe he should preach his lightweight christian nonsense in the US where he may find some support. Most Europeans are against right wing capitalistic war mongering

  118. 143 Geremy
    November 2, 2009 at 17:18

    Tony Blair does not conform to the description of a respected and honorable gentleman and as such should not be considered for any influential role anywhere. His motivation in life seems to be greed and self interest and as a representative of many millions would not be trusted. Just check his record.

  119. November 2, 2009 at 17:43

    Tony Blair I hope you are reading these blogs. They contain interesting facts that you do not seem to hear. These are words from real people with real lives that care about other lives. I challenge you to walk into the public domain, face the truth, answer our questions and then maybe you will find a chance to explain yourself.
    Instead you choose isolate yourself on the diplomatic carousel ducking and diving, well out of reach of reality. Shame on you!

  120. 145 Elias
    November 2, 2009 at 17:44

    Yes, he is an astute politician, even though he has made some mistakes in the past, the United Kingdom would be best served if he could be Prime Minister again.

  121. 146 benza
    November 3, 2009 at 22:20

    [[[ Author: Mike Waller
    Comment:
    (2) Pressing those favouring keeping out of Iraqi on what I termed “the Ann Clywd question”. Clwyd, a left wing Welsh MP, spoke of a pregnant female Iraqi academic locked up by Saddam and starved to the extent that her child was still-born. After three days, to stop her incessant crying as she clutched the dead child, she was shot.]]]

    By this above para, we think you advocate the correctness of going to war with Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power and life.

    Why not do the same in other rouge nations, namely, Zimbabwe, Congo, North Korea, and as a matter of fact Iran too ?

  122. 147 Mike Waller
    November 6, 2009 at 18:04

    We can deal with each of the above, case by case viz: Btitain is uniquely disqualified from doing anything militarily about Zimbawe. For years RB has propped up his tyranny by claiming the former imperial power is trying to reclaim what was Southern Rhodesia. Much of Africa seems daft enough as to believe this and to give RB support. Use of British troops would be widely taken as proving he was right all along.The only hope for Zimbabwe lies in an African solution and it is to the everlasting shame of the OAU that they have not provided one.

    The problems of the Congo are on a scale we are incapable of tackling. Iraq and Afganistan have turned into quagmires, the Congo would be a bottomless pit. Again the only possible solutions would have to come from Africa ( see remark above).

    North Korea. Would you actually want to start a nuclear war? As with the first Korean war, China would not tolerate a Western intervention on itsa own borders.

    To most muslims, Saddam was an apostate, not a co-religionist. Attacking him was one thing, Attacking Iran would be quite another. This would be seen as an attempt to decapitate a mustim state which is widely admired for standing up to the West and Israel.

    The essense of my position can be summarised hypothetically on the basis that having a neighbour who is an untouchable member of a major crime syndicate does not absolve you from reporting another neighbour who is abusing children. For a variety of reasons, good and bad, it became possible to remove Saddam. That he was an evil bastard should have weighed in favour of doing so. This was an argument the BBC chose to ignore whereas Ann Clwyd did not.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: