It’s too bad that Tony Blair’s legacy likely will be dominated by Iraq. The British prime minister, who announced today his plans to step down on June 27, has had a remarkable 10 years in office.
His most recent and likely greatest achievement was the formation of a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales also elected their own parliaments during his tenure. Blair’s tax and trade policy transformed both the British economy and his Labour Party. And Blair championed combating AIDS in Africa and curbing global warming, as well as other social causes.
But much of the British public thought that Blair was too close with President Bush. Rather than just backing Bush’s push to invade Iraq, Blair was an outspoken supporter. In fact, Blair was much better at making the case for war than Bush or any other U.S. official.
Blair asked forgiveness today for his mistakes, and he acknowledged that some might judge Iraq to be one of them. "But believe one thing if nothing else," he said, "I did what I thought was right for the country."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
32 Comments
he is the worst Prime Minister ever, he used false inteligence to get The UK into Iraq..
BG–
You are correct.
His name will live forever in infamy just like George Worst-President-Ever Bush.
Look for the Brits to high-tail it for home as soon as the new PM takes office.
Labour has until next election to respond to the overwhelming will of the majority or they’ll end up like Republicans here . . .
Godspeed Mr. Blair. You were a great friend to the U.S.
They call him George Bush’s “poodle” in England.
Adios, dog breath.
While Blair, like Nixon or Johnson, might have had many great accomplishments he will be forever known for the war. I just hope that the third party in Great Britain can pick up the pieces as labor collapses due to Blair’s failed legacy.
Calling Tony Blair “Georgie’s Poodle” is a grave insult to poodles everywhere.
Bye, bye Tony, you hitched your wagon to the wrong horse.
Yup, ride with horse thieves–die with horse thieves.
Tonly Blair might have done some great things in his career, but he not only supported George W. Bush, he was an outspoken mascot for our King George.
Iraq War was and is still a colossal mistake. Anyone who continues to support and defend the Iraq War, such as Tony Blair has, will and should suffer the consequences of their choice. If that means resignation, then so be it.
I just wish that we could get King George to resign. But that would not fix the problem. That would only leave Dick (give me that body armor before I go to Baghdad) Cheney.
The Brits have every right to their opinions of Tony Blair and we, as a country, should not interfere in their domestic politics.
I will not fault Blair in his support for the Iraq war, if you do and were in the majority of Americans who also believed in and support our country’s actions and the President of the United States in 2003. You are far to free in seeing the same faults in others that you are just as guilt of! To blair’s credit he does admit mistakes, perhaps it is time to switch roles and our President to admit his.
Blair started out with promise and ended up as Bush’s little lap dog. Good riddance.
Blair down…Bush to follow.
Blair didn’t hitch his wagon to the wrong horse. Unfortunately he hitched it to an ass.
Good one, Mark!
So what if Britain pulls out of the coalition of the willing, we’ll still have all those other countries with us!
Writerdog – the problem with your theory is that Bush knowingly used faulty intelligence to further his drumbeat during the run-up to the war. Now that the truth has been told, the American people (the majority 70%) have come to the correct conclusion that Bush cannot be trusted. So, let’s not give Tony Blair too much of the credit for being Bush’s lap dog.
These statements, of course, come from a strictly American perspective. I believe that UK history itself will be far kinder to him.
Cat as one of those that supported the invasion at first, it took me about a year to finally find out what was going on. And even then almost two years after that to come to a more informed conclusion. I will grant both Bush and Blair this much, to admit that they took both our countries to an illegal invasion and it having been a matter of gross incompetence. It means that forever more in the annals of history you will be ranked as one of the greatest betrayers of trust in the world. As such even a sorry is dancing on the head of that pin!They are damn if they do and damn if they do not, their sin is so great that it may end up as only God can forgive them for at least three generations to come. Once the world and the people of both nations become fully aware of the level of betrayal of trust. There were a lot of people banked on the prestige of the President of the United States. Blair may have failed to do his own leg work in making sure that what he was told was in fact the truth. But when the President of the greatest nation in the world tells you he is right in this with all the power and abilities this nation has. Who has enough of either to question him?
One more point cat, I have read enough to come to the conclusion that Bush did not knowingly use faulty intelligence. He did actually believe he was being truthful, they all did! You and I may have the benefit of being willing to look beyond what was face value. Once I did the reality was in plain sight or at least enough to conclude that what was being said may not have been accurate. Now as to today, Bush is delusional as is Cheney. President Bush told Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabian that he was called by God to do this.
Now I have to admit, at first I believed that Bush&Co. had willingly, knowingly lied to try and fulfill a plan to make America a imperial power in the world and that the U.S. government had been taken over by a elitist group called the PNAC. But now I find it was simply a bunch of incompetence, who thought they were right and it was needed. But neither concept helps me sleep at night….
If Bush did not knowingly use faulty itnelligence, then why did he not follow Tenent’s and CIA’s insistence not to use the suspected faulty intelligence in his speech to the US in the run-up to the Iraq War?
That is what I am talking about. There is enough doubt now being exposed that it makes a person wonder why George W. Bush chose to deliberately ignore warnings from his own people. Was it to beat those drums louder, was it to get the Americans so fired up to go to war that then George Bush and Company could do anything they wanted?
I don’t trust Bush, but I trust Cheney even less. Both men have shown themselves to be less than honorable. Wasn’t it George W. Bush that said he wanted to restore honor and integrity to the White House?
cat…
that meant no blow jobs in the white house.
I am not impressed with the arguments of those who think they know what all went into in the decision to go to war. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. The decision itself was reasonable and supportable, as evidenced by the bipartisan support it received. But now, like rats jumping ship, politicians are trying to rewrite history to try to save their butts. Understandable, but no less dishonorable.
Blair is a good man, an articulate leader, who thought he was doing the right thing.
What was dishonorable, outlander, was trumping up a case for war with Iraq, and invading and occupying it.
Condi and Colin Powell said at a joint press conference in Feb. of 2001 that Saddam Hussein posed no threat, that the sanctions were working, and he was “in a box.”
That interview is still up at the Whitehouse.gov site.
If Saddam is a tyrant and he has to go . . . fine. Find him and drop a bomb on him.
But the idea that we have to invade and occupy a far distant country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of the previous ten years including 9-11 for our own “security” is a patent lie.
Those of us who were paying attention knew it then as clearly as we know it now.
The dishonor is all on Bush and the willing idiots who continue to support the lies.
Blair is a lying scum-bag who allowed dreams of imperial glory to over-ride his duty of representing the will of the English.
Like everyone else who aids and abets this criminal administration, he has been scourged, rebuked, and cast forever into the group of historical failures.
Congress voted to give Bush discretion based on what they were told was the situation. Those of us who were already convinced that the “intel” (sic) was bogus advocated voting NO. However, those who voted YES did NOT vote to go to war. They voted to give Bush discretion; that included applying pressure to get the inspectors back in. And they did get back in – AND FOUND NOTHING! A finding that has since been confirmed.
If Bush did not knowingly use faulty intelligence, then why has it been reported, and confirmed, that the Bush Administration was planning to invade Iraq from day one of the Bush presidency?
George W. used everything in his grasp to instill fear into the hearts of Americans so that he and his buddies could go get that oil. They thought it would be a cakewalk. Instead, a bunch of street fighting terrorists are keeping Iraq swimming in blood while the new Iraqi government continues to do nothing and now they will be taking a 2-month summer vacation.
Any way you slice this mess, it is still a big mess. But this mess was started by George W. Bush and Company.
Cat show me where it was report and confirmed!! from day one.
Ksgrm – why do you doubt what Cat wrote? There have been many reports of Bush’s desire to invade Iraq from day one. But even if there was a videotape clearly showing Bush and the rest of his administration planning the invasion, you loyal lapdogs of Republicans would still not believe it.
Keep on drinking that koolaid.
Eagle, how about some mention of the fact that FRANCE just elected a pro- United States CONSERVATIVE!
Cat
First, Tenent is not being honest in telling his side of the story.
Tenent did say “slam dunk!”
Also, the fact is, Bush never said anything, in speaking to the American people about going to war with Iraq, that was not true.
writer
The Iraq war is NOT illegal.
Disagree with it all you want, but Congress authorized the Irag war. In FACT, Bush thought he already had the authority to invade Iraq. Congress INSISTED on having another vote on the matter!
Furthermore, the United Nations actually authorized the war, by passing 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam obey the cease-fire agreement. The CHARTER of the United Nations clearly allows any member nation to take independent action to enforce national interests or UN mandates.
The UN Resolutions against Iraq clearly allowed for force by member nations.
Iraq was NOT a “sovereign” country, while Saddam was still in power.
Saddam was bound by the terms of a cease fire agreement, a truce.
Peace is IMPOSSIBLE if we are not allowed to FORCE countries to abide by treaties and cease-fire agreements.
We will have other wars.
Liberals will urge us to accept peace proposals, to “end” those wars.
Those peace proposals would be more-easily broken if the US had a history of not enforcing peace treaties!
“Also, the fact is, Bush never said anything, in speaking to the American people about going to war with Iraq, that was not true.”
Do you mean things like the al Qaeda – Saddam connection that even the Pentagon has now said was false?
You must be one of three people in the US that believes your statement.
Bush and Laura are the other two.
Even Cheney knows that the war was built on lies and half-truths.
Econ, in this case illegal is a call factor, the charter may very well allow a independent member to take action. But it is still the body of the U.N. that is wronged not the member by the violation of the sanction.In a body of laws, a vigilant actions may be right, but it can not be sanctioned by that body of laws. Under a charter, it may allow such independent actions and need not active participate in that action in full. But it is still the body that called for the action not the independent member. The body of the U.N. did not call for the invasion, to take a punitive actions yes. But a military invasion was not sectioned by the body of the U.N.
Least we forget, the invasion was also a violation of the long standing principals of the United States of America. We would be right and just in an action against someone who has attacked us. BUT not against someone that merely does not like us.
I beg the pardon of our group that are members of the bar here… But the use of the violations of the sanctions as a justification for the invasion is nothing more then playing “lawyer ball”. In this case is it like saying : Kansas has the death penalty for capital murder, if Joe takes a gun and kills GS he would be sentenced to death. So you would be justified in walking up to Joe and stabbing him. If your actions are questioned then you would say, “Well the penalty for capital murder is death! As such as a citizen of the state of Kansas, I am acting under the laws of the state Kansas in killing Joe”.