Who here thinks Tony Blair should resign?

[T_i_B]

Just a wee question I have,

Should Tony Blair resign as British prime minister?

If you want to know why he might need to go, here is Terry Jones of Monty Python fame to explain.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1032756,00.html

You might consider resigning because you lied about your part in outing Dr Kelly. I don't suppose you remember, but on the plane from Shanghai to Hong Kong, 21 July 2003, you told reporters that you "emphatically" did not authorise the leak. Hard to know quite how you "don't do something" emphatically but that's what you said. To the Hutton inquiry, however, you admitted overall "responsibility" for the decision to announce that a government official had admitted talking to the BBC's Andrew Gilligan. Now you might say that was not "authorising the leak" - but then from what I understand Hitler never gave orders to build the extermination camps - it's just his subordinates knew it was what he'd want. Same with Henry II and the murder of Thomas Becket I suppose.

You could also resign on the grounds of incapability. After all, anybody who actually thought that Iraq was an imminent threat to the UK obviously hasn't got much grasp on reality. Was Iraq about to bomb London? Did Saddam Hussein have designs on occupying Gibraltar, or perhaps East Cheam? Wasn't he rather preoccupied with keeping himself in power in his own country? But then I suppose you've got more sympathy for the Iraqi dictator's position nowadays.

Or why not resign on the grounds of mismanagement? I mean, you have tolerated unbelievable incompetence in your Intelligence Agencies. Sir John Scarlett told the Hutton inquiry that he knew of not a single intelligence officer who had any doubts about the September dossier. Well, we now know that at least one of his officers, Dr. Kelly, had such grave doubts that he told the press about them. If Sir John Scarlett doesn't know what's going on in his own department he can't be much of a spymaster can he?

Or you could resign because of unsuitability for the post. I mean at any moment you could be charged as a war criminal - certainly by any definition that the UN has to offer. You personally authorized the dropping of bombs on another country when your own nation was under no threat of attack from that country. You've also been responsible for the killing of somewhere in the region of 40,000 Iraqi civilians and soldiers (mostly wretched conscripts). Personally I don't like being governed by a man with blood on his hands or who may one day have to go and answer questions in the Hague.

[el_gato]

1. He should resign

but from your perspective, in Britain, do you think there is enough
pressure to make him resign?

[T_i_B]

3. Hmmmmm

Well with Blair's parliamentary majority being as big as it is and "new" labour being little more than a Tony Blair fan club there is little that can be done to remove him, even if the number of people convinced he should go is growing by the day.

All in all not a very good situation at all. Blair's landslide majority has made him quite remarkably unaccountable for his actions. :grr:

The only option is for those of us who do want him out to keep piling on the pressure.

[Girlfriday]

2. Jones makes a good case

He should resign

[T_i_B]

4. Here's another one!

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-08-30&id=3448

Tony Blair should relinquish his premiership. It is not simply that he has lost the trust of the voters, his own party activists and increasingly large sections of the parliamentary Labour party, and is regarded with luminous contempt by such dispossessed ministers as Robin Cook, Clare Short, Peter Kilfoyle and Glenda Jackson. It is that he can no longer do his job properly, and that the protective cabal around him has shrunk with such rapidity that he has nowhere to turn for succour and support.

And the things which have brought about this situation — culminating the Hutton inquiry — were not rare examples of a lapse in judgment, which we might be inclined to forgive, if not forget, but are instead emblematic of the long-term traits of this regime: lying, dissembling, and the orchestrated smearing and vilifying of people who have objected to the lying and dissembling.

And that ludicrous 45-minute claim: it was plucked from the main body of the dossier (where it shouldn’t have been, anyway) and included in Tony Blair’s frontispiece. Its position there must have been a deliberate attempt to mislead. The decision to defame Dr Kelly after his death came from No. 10. Do you believe for a second that the duty press spokesman, Tom Kelly, made up, himself, the suggestion that Dr Kelly was a Walter Mitty figure? Portraying the scientist thus was part of a quite deliberate strategy to place in the public mind the idea that Dr Kelly was a borderline nutter who had misled Gilligan and everybody else. Where do you suppose that came from? And do you think for a moment that the Prime Minister — who, as the Hutton inquiry has learnt, took an intense, consuming interest in the row — didn’t know that such a strategy had been adopted?

Mr Blair memorably announced, on the eve of the Good Friday Agreement, that he could feel the hand of history upon his shoulder. Yeah, well, the hand’s come back again, Tone. And this time it’s pointing out of the door.

[truebrit71]

5. Absolutely he should. He has zero credibility.

Fire him. Send him to his new employer Carlyle a little earlier than either expected..Gutless schill...I had such high hopes when he charged into office, but he has been a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge let-down...

He has become a total laughing stock, and if Labour is to stand a chance of not being thrashed at the next GE he has to go...

TB

[KoKo]

6. I thought his absence from the UN yesterday was very telling.....in that

GB is in all effect our only big coalition partner and Bush/Blair/Aznar were thick as thieves getting us into Iraq. So Blair being a good politician figures it would be a disaster with all his troubles (Hutton report) to show up there giving any speeches or be seen anywhere near Shrubbie.

Maybe you have a different take on it......but......says to me Blair is "fighting for his life." But, DU Brits have said that most people would be too afraid of getting the Tories back in......to ask Blair to step down......so who know where that will go.

What about Jack Straw? Read in an article that he's popular and has distanced himself from the "Dodgy Dossier" enough that he might be a good replacement for Blair.

[T_i_B]

22. Jack Straw?

He appears to be trying to pull himself out of this shit at the moment by trying to claim tat he advised Blair against war right on the eve of the Azores summit where war was declared, but IMHo that is leaving it very late to put it mildly. When you consider that straw was pressing the case for war for months before that it does seem a little opportunistic.

The best option still seems to be the chancellor, Gordon Brown. However, I can't see Blair relinquishing power for Brown, or anyone else for that matter. It all seems to be getting very selfish with Blair at the moment. In a choice between Blair doing what is best for Blair and Blair doing what is best for the people of Britain Blair just seems to go all out to further his own power ever time, and at any cost to boot.

[realFedUp]

7. Yeah, about 6 months ago....

I hate it when someone stays too long at their own funeral.

[Cappurr]

8. I have a different take on Blair...

perhaps its naieve, but I really think Blair believed what he said about Iraq. I think he thought Sadaam was a danger to Europe. I think he was wrong....but I think he believed it. He staked his whole political career on it. Also, we have absolutely no idea what kind of pressure and bullshit went on between the Bushies and Blair. They may well have made threats that he wasn't willing to test. I always thought the alliance between Bush and Blair was strange....they are nothing alike.

[AP]

14. Although I believe that Clinton and Blair saw SH as a threat

I doubt that Blair saw that invasion was the best thing to do. I do believe that he played out the direction all alternatives would lead, and realized (like any sensible person) that the worst thing to do would be to let America go in alone, be considered an isolationist at home who is diminishing Britains place in the world, allow the US to control the spigot of European economic development, and let the US run Iraq in a way that entrenches American imperialism. I'm sure he thought the best thing to do was not to be marginalized and economically destroyed, and that someone from Europe had to participate so to have a voice in the direction things would lead.

I think he knew that the ways in which it's good that Britain participated would be overshadowed by the ways the RW would sabotage him for going in, but he had the courage to do what's best for Britain and Europe.

[pretzel4gore]

18. race? class?

maybe that's it? In any logical scenerio Blair would have led the opposition to bushinc...but no! In 'Babbitt' there's a scene where Babbitt's in his office after weeks of expressing doubts etc, and teasing the 'freepers' who were formerly his pals ... and Babbitt feels terror, though he cannot put finger on what it is scares him (he'd kick ass if he could figure it out)...anyway, three of the 'strongmen' in the city barge into his office and tell Babbitt right out: he'll join a newly formed anti socialist/labour union (Babbit can't see why workers aren't paid a decent wage) association or he'll be a pariah.....Babbitt hems/haws but you can see him backing away.....I picture something similar happening to Blair, though Blair will never fess up to it.
'Babbit' was/is the clearest depiction of the kind of men who enable the fascist bullies/bush's etc...from way back in 1920! Unfortunately, freeper types won't read such 'hippie' stuff! (Babbitt was basically a good and honest guy)

[Punkingal]

9. I do, I do, I do.......

:crazy: he went over to the dark side when he met Bush.

[Tyler Durden]

10. No, I pefer HANGING.

The man passes himself off as the head of a Labor/Liberal government, and then plays lap dog for GEORGE BUSH? He doesn't even have the excuse of being an idiot.

Hang him. SLOWLY.

[AP]

11. Generally speaking, if it's something Bush and the CIA wants,

I'm against it.

[el_gato]

13. but you have no proof

can you say anything to back up your claims?


Other than it would put the Tories in power.

[AP]

16. Democracy Now had an interview with two ex CIA agents last week

They talked about how a CIA agent had resigned over Bush putting the 45 minute claim in the SOTU. This was the agent who could have nixed the inclusion. His superior at the CIA told him, don't worry, we're going to blame the British for this.

Although the implications of this weren't made clear in the interview. To me, it's obvious that the strategy all along, from the minute the US considered the British might go it, was to use it to sabotage Blair by driving a wedge into the labour party.

I just want to emphasize that the CIA had a plan to blame Blair. It looks like what is happening was the plan the CIA had.

[el_gato]

19. So Blair should come clean now then

He could bring those agents in to testify before
members of parliament.

I just don't dig the way blair went along with this.

[AP]

23. Oh, yes. That will happen. The CIA agents plotting to undermine Blair...

...will travel to the UK and admit the plot.

[AP]

12. Is the BBC going to reward Jones with a series now that he has done this?

[T_i_B]

21. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Sour grapes AP?

Actually the last time I saw Jones on the Beeb was on Newsnight reviewor something in a sketch where he read out this article whilst doing the washing up.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,882459,00.html

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!
For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.

They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

[T_i_B]

26. Here's a few more Terry Jones articles

BTW, did I mention that John Cleese has been known to support the Liberal Democrats in the past?

BRENT EAST! :evilgrin:

http://search.guardian.co.uk/search97cgi/s97observerr_cgi?ResultTemplate=Observer.hts&Collection=Observer&Action=Search&QueryText=Terry+Jones&SearchPage=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.observer.co.uk%2F&SortSpec=VdkPublicationDate+DeSC

[AP]

28. Here's some stuff Jones is working on. Maybe he'll ge that commission now.

http://www.geocities.com/bum_its_terry_jones/OldNews.htm

You missed The Hidden History of Rome on BBC2?

[T_i_B]

29. Hmm, looks like somebody is trying to avoid debating properly here

I could just as easily point up and down at Andrew marr being the BBC's top political guy as the daily Mail do to point out how slanted the BBC is towards the government, but I will not, rather I will point out how your evasions are yet more of a reason why Blair should go using an article I have already posted before.

I do find it interesting how you advoid debating the article on threads like this.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-08-30&id=3448

And the things which have brought about this situation — culminating the Hutton inquiry — were not rare examples of a lapse in judgment, which we might be inclined to forgive, if not forget, but are instead emblematic of the long-term traits of this regime: lying, dissembling, and the orchestrated smearing and vilifying of people who have objected to the lying and dissembling.

Andrew Gilligan and David Kelly were not the first members of the public to suffer systematic hounding and character assassination after having crossed swords with No. 10 Downing Street. Rose Addis, the pensioner who wished only for an operation, got it with both barrels, if you recall. It was put about that she was a ‘racist’, to the incandescent fury of her family. The people who ran the support group for victims of the Paddington train crash were also defamed (to an even worse degree than Ms Addis — they were labelled ‘Tories’). The former drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell, and the former parliamentary ombudsman, Elizabeth Filkin, found themselves attacked and, in the end, forced out of office. Even outgoing ministers haven’t been spared — ask Mo Mowlam and David Clark, for example. And, indeed, existing ministers, or at least existing ministers who pose a possible political threat to the Prime Minister, such as the Chancellor. Gordon Brown, you will remember, is psychologically disturbed, according to Alastair Campbell.

[AP]

30. Your witnesses potential bias is totally relevant.

As for addressing the Hutton Inquiry, I do that consistently in other threads. You know my general argument about that: it's all spin. Exculpatory evidence is ignored. Inculpatory evidence is spun to say more than it does.

[T_i_B]

31. No

We are not addressing Hutton here but whether or not Blair should go. There is more than the remit of Hutton to consider here. There is the behavour of Blair on matters which Hutton does not touch such as Niger Uranium, public trust in Blair (which I can tell you is about zero) and even the thrashing your party recived in Brent East last wek at the hands of the Liberal Democrats. Maybe you should try to read the articles posted rather than just blindly smearing without any reference to the facts.

The more you blather, the greater the case for Blair getting the hell out really. Maybe he could take over from David Blaine in the glass box? :evilgrin:

[Capt_Nemo]

15. Yes!

He launched a war of aggression, therefore he is a war criminal.
He already earned his place in the Hague, which is a thing that
I can not say of even the most reactionary tories.

[lebkuchen]

17. Blair and Powell have proven

that no bloke in power is altruistic. They are after even more power, and they don't give a damn about whose welfare is under their watch, whether civilian or military.

Blair and Powell are living proof that power corrupts.

[FlemingsGhost]

20. Tony Blair should repent.

"I am prepared to answer to God for my actions regarding the war in Iraq."

Ahhhh... Tony? I wouldn't pack a sweater when you journey to meet your maker. You ain't gonna need one, where you are going...

[dudeness]

24. yes

blair has served his corporate masters well..greater rewards await him outside of politics..

[emad]

25. Resignation ain't good enough for the slimy toe rag!

It's off to the Tower and Off With His Head!

[Mairead]

27. He should already have resigned. It boggles the mind that he apparently

has no sense of shame at all. A Japanese PM would probably have committed seppuku.