Dalyell: Blair's by far the worst PM

[emad]

Scotsman


BRITAIN’S longest serving MP, Tam Dalyell, has branded Tony Blair "by far the worst" of the eight Prime Ministers he has known.

Linlithgow MP Mr Dalyell, who is also Father of the House, blamed Mr Blair’s presidential style for his verdict.

The Labour politician took his Commons seat 43 years ago when Winston Churchill was still an MP.

But the 72-year-old loathes the manner in which Mr Blair governs the country - attributing it to an over-large majority - the Prime Minister’s character and the PM’s lack of contact with Parliament.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=333102005

[Art_from_Ark]

1. Surely Tony's no worse than the Iron Lady

[emad]

2. Chip off the old block....

or maybe Reagan/Bush1 dream ticket plant...

[Spazito]

3. In some ways he is, imo

One thing about Margaret Thatcher, you always knew what she was and what she was going to do, she did not hide behind a facade.

Blair, on the other hand, portrayed himself as something other than what he was and is still trying to do so with this upcoming election.

[Minstrel Boy]

5. Blair did what Thatcher failed to do: destroy the Labour Party.

Neoliberalism is the old imperialism, and the "third way" is its Big Lie.

[Spazito]

8. Very true, he has managed to do that

very efficiently.

[emad]

6. her predictability all part of spin machine that makes Blair's seem

like an amatuer production of Fibbers Anonymous.

Thatcher was joined at the hip to Robert Maxwell RIP. See review of Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon book "Robert Maxwell was a Mossad Spy":
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12419168&method=full&siteid=50143

He was also a serial paedophile whose horrific career of abuse and torture was systematically covered up by UK Prime Ministers since the days of Harold MacMillan.

With Thatcher it was a personal effort to whitewash over her own treasonous career defending the indefensible while Reagan/Bush1 were in office.

[Spazito]

7. Blair is attached at the hip to GW which is equal to the

'evil' of Robert Maxwell, imo. Blair is a poseur of the worst kind. He is a zealot trying to hide behind a facade of being a middle-man negotiator between Europe and the US when the reality is he is a lapdog for the bushes.

I despise Thatcher and Blair equally.

[Henny Penny]

4. Maggie was bad...

but at least with her cabinets you felt there was some discussion of the issues, if only to appease the pro-european group.

With Blair's govt there seems to be no discussion, just a bunch of spineless yes men and woman. I think even Brown is motivated only by the thought of taking the job of PM, despite the spin he likes to put out about being an old style socialist.

I mean it was obvious right from the off that the justification for going to war was was a pile of c**p but those jelly fish went along with it. Now tens of thousands of innocent people are dead and many more injured, orphaned and homeless.

It makes me absolutely furious.

[Wat_Tyler]

21. No-one is worse than Thatcher

but she never pretended to be anything other than what she was.

[emad]

24. That's because she was a class act orchestrated by Ronnie Raygun.

And the spin machine that protected her was in full swing protecting the goddawful House of Windsor fiasco. Just to make sure there were no loose ends.

[emad]

9. Blair? Once a lawyer, always a lawyer...

Telegraph
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 29/03/2005)

Every couple of months I pick up a paper and read something about Lord Goldsmith's view on the likely illegality of the Iraq war. And I think, "Hang on, didn't I read this story back in January?" - or October, or June, or whenever this indestructible "controversy" last reared its head. And I get to the bit about Baroness Kennedy calling for an investigation into what Clare Short has revealed - or possibly vice versa - and my eyes glaze over and round about paragraph four I flip to the books page and Barry Norman's review of Halliwell's Illustrated Guide to Great Lesbian Movie Scenes.

My take on "international law" was summed up by John Bolton, America's new ambassador to the UN: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law."

Just so. Sadly, that sort of talk is a tad too strong for the multilateral cocktail circuit, which takes this "international law" business awfully seriously. A year or so back, you'll recall, the Pentagon declared the axis of weasels - France, Germany, Russia - ineligible for Iraqi reconstruction contracts, and an outraged Gerhard Schröder protested that this act was illegal under international law. President Bush took it in his stride. "International law?" he giggled. "I better call my lawyer. He didn't bring that up to me."

Great line. The difference between George W Bush and Tony Blair is that when Blair says, "International law? I better call my lawyer", he's not joking. Hence his ongoing difficulties.
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/29/do2902.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/03/29/ixopinion.html

[Spazito]

10. Geez, what a vitriolic man the columnist is

"My take on "international law" was summed up by John Bolton, America's new ambassador to the UN: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law."


I take it the 'opinionist' is on the far right of the right in Britian?

Or is this column an attempt at satire?

[emad]

13. Posted as tongue in cheek counterbalance. The Telegraph is

UK's No1 right wing rag. Steyn has maybe 10% sense of humor, rest mainly vitriol.

[Spazito]

18. Ahhh, thanks

At least now I know why I couldn't figure out whether it was satire or not, lol.

[Henny Penny]

11. Blair is a lawyer...

and his training has helped him present his case. He continually lies by omission, but I guess thats what lawyers do when representing their clients.

Bush is clearly representing Bush in the UK court of public opinion, but why is he doing it??? Surely it cannot be in the UK interest to go along with Bush in this way.

[Jack Rabbit]

16. Welcome to DU, Henny Penny

Blair did more than lie by omission. There is no way that either he or Bush couldn't have known that Saddam was a paper tiger. Both of them told deliberate lies.

[Henny Penny]

20. Thanx Jack

There's lot to read on these boards and I like the way you don't resort to name calling when you disagree- it made lurking a pleasure! :-)

As to Blair and Bush lying you are right. I just think Blair (perhaps because he's smarter) does tend to cover himself better in terms of omitting stuff that is critical.

Perhaps he thinks he'll end up in the Hague.

Did you see Panorama on the BBC recently? They did a program on Goldsmith's legal opinion and it suggested that the govt. knew that the war was not legal and that the Hague is not out of the question.

[Spazito]

22. Seeing as the UK signed on to the ICC

the Hague is certainly a possibility in Blair's future, imo. I certainly hope so, he must be made to answer for the crimes committed in Iraq.

I, too, would like to welcome you to DU, Henny Penny!

[Jack Rabbit]

30. The Hague is also a possibility in Bush's future

Although the US is not party to the Rome Statute, there are ways of bringing charges against an individual from a non-member state. See Articles 11 through 15.

[Spazito]

31. I agree but, like Kissinger, he will be limited to his travel

as opposed to actually being made to pay for his crimes I suspect. I don't see the US handing bush over to the Hague for a trial, sadly.

[Jack Rabbit]

33. My preference would be to see him stand trial in federal court

He could be charged under the war crimes act of 1996.

The whole point of the ICC is to be able to take over when national courts break down, as they usually do when the leader is somebody like Slobo or Saddam. However, even as recently as 1999, I would never have believed that the United States would have sitting in the White House a man who prosecutes unprovoked wars of aggression predicated on lies and systematic torture and that the voters would appear give him a pass in spite of it. It is quite possible that, as a result of Bush's undermining of American democratic institutions, it will be necessary to convene an international tribunal in order to hold Bush and his aides accountable for their misdeeds.

[Spazito]

34. Totally agree

The responsible thing to do, for the US, would be to act upon the law as written in the US Code, Title 18, Section 2441:

a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

Link to the Code for those who may be interested:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html


The code is very clear as is the fact that bush and his cabal have violated it.

[leveymg]

14. Int'l Law - If You Can't Obey It, Openly Disdain It

In four or five years, the Court is going to hit these guys hard with the book for this sort of open disdain for the rule of law.

The Bush and Blair Gang aren't even smart enough to plausibly deny their crimes, like their predecessors usually did.

For being extraordinarily stupid, they deserve the max.

:spank: :cry:

[robcon]

12. John Major was the worst.

Bad politician - couldn't get others to follow him.

Bad policies - Thatcher without the 'statesmanship.'

[emad]

15. He was another Reagan/Bush1 plant. Some redeeming features

although I can't exactly remember what - maybe inviting Bill Clinton to the 50th Anniversary of peace in europe celebrations in the UK in 1995.

But her studiously covered up all UK security/intelligence files on Robert Maxwell and was instrumental in blocking full investigation into his drowning in the Med.

Nor surprising really.....

[Henny Penny]

17. Major

Major is the kind of guy that would have risen to high office under Blair. The fact that he got to be PM shows just how desperate the Tories were to lose Maggie.

[emad]

19. Lose Maggie: yes - because of the Robert Maxwell biz. Major

slimed his way into office as the natural-born successor of Thatcherism.

But, to quote Commander Hugh Orde, Head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, replying to Lord Saville in the Bloody Sunday inquiry:

"Every UK Prime Minister since Harold MacMillan has hired personal hit squads to ease their way into high public office."

Major's first role was to deconstruct all reference to Tory party involvement with Provos. He did this by deleting all security/intelligence files into the alleged 1986 "disappearance" of London estate agent Suzy Lamplugh.

Secondly he attempted to erase all reference to Thatcher PERSONALLY instructing MI5 and MI6 to carry out assasinations, launder vast sums of money to her old pal General Pinochet and ensure joint UK/USA policy of whitewashing over and stonewalling on all references to child sex abuse crimes committed by Catholic Priests, Bishops and Archbishops since the late 1950s worldwide. IE the public exoneration of the P2 Lodge.

The fiasco that ensued resulted in the eventual 1998 farcial "Good Friday Agreement" allegedly masterminded by Peter Mandelson but in reality copied chapter and verse from George Bush Senior's personal instructions on whitewash, spin and downright deception.

However bad this has been, nothing compares now to the prospect of these cold war secrets coming out in public court: the Rome murder trial of "God's Banker" Roberto Calvi is intrinsically linked to the UK High Court class action of former BCCI creditors suing the Bank of England for "misfeasance" - ie gross negligence.

[Wat_Tyler]

23. I'd disagree.

Major inherited a party at war with itself, and desperately fought to subdue what he called 'the bastards' - the Eurosceptic right. I certainly would never vote for the man, but it was clear he was a decent, honourable man who believed in what he stood for, however misguided that may be.
If I had to be locked in a room with either Tony Blair or John Major, I'd much rather take Major.

[emad]

25. Having personally endured that questionable pleasure I would

say that Major certainly drinks less alcohol and is at least open to criticism.
Blair's personal criminal past is so deeply offensive and corrupt that my skin always crawled anytime he came within 6 feet. And that goes for most of my former professional colleagues who had to endure the same.

[Henny Penny]

26. I'd chose Blair...

because I'd really like to ask him "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU????"

I think there are times when Blair's nerve seems to be about to go and if the right person got to him he might be persuaded to call an end to the whole thing.

I think he should take a leaf out of Chavez's book and if people are blackmailing him personally, or the country as a whole he should grasp the nettle and go public.

[emad]

27. Only one place for him if he goes public: Bellmarsh Jail.

He and his goddawful gargoyle wife are so deeply entrenched with terrorism and organised crime that all they can do is cling on to the mass circulation deception machine that spins so out of control but keeps him viable in office.

[Henny Penny]

28. so be it...

If what you imply about Blair is true, would it not be in the public interest to cut a deal? You cannot have a pm being compromised to the extent that Blair must be if you are correct.

My concern that it is not Blair that is being blackmailed, but the country as whole... eg do what we say or we will wreck your economy, or perhaps just a threat like.. your family will be killed ....

Either way the potency is lessened by going public.

I think myself, that if Blair did have these crimes in his past, the information would have been leaked to the press by the establishment long ago.

[emad]

29. The chain of compromised PMs extends all the way to Harold

MacMillan and is is steeped in personal corruption that this Blair pinnacle of deception is merely the icing on the cold war cake.

When it goes public it will be all too late.

Expect a rresurgence of primary activity at the Tower of London - Britain's foremost military garrison and place of executions.

[Henny Penny]

32. " When it goes public it will be all too late."?

Why do you say this? Too late for what?

I think, stop the rot now.