Blair has to 'please explain'

[tuvor]

London - British Prime Minister Tony Blair has come under fresh attack over the legality of the Iraq war just a week before elections, after advice given by the attorney general on the issue was leaked to the media.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was dispatched within hours of the revelations late on Wednesday to do a round of television interviews, in a bid to control political damage to Blair's Labour Party, which is seeking a third consecutive term.

The extract of a confidential note sent to Blair by Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith in March 2003, leaked to British media, expressed some doubt as to whether a further United Nations resolution was needed to approve an invasion of Iraq.

The note was sent on March 7, two weeks before the British-United States assault and months after the UN Security Council had passed resolution 1441 warning of "serious consequences" for Saddam Hussein's regime if it remained in "material breach" of UN demands concerning his alleged weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1696717,00.html

[TreasonousBastard]

1. They can attack him all they want, but..

from here it looks like the Tories just can't get any traction, so Blair's still in with or without the war.

So maybe Blair's a shit, but does anyone really want the Thatcherites back? Thatcherites who were even hotter for war in Iraq than Blair was?

Does it look any different over there?

[aneerkoinos]

3. Back?

Blair is an ultra-Thatcherite, so they never gor rid of them the first place.

Vote LibDems, Greens or Respcet in England, in Scotland and Wales there's even more anti-war choise. Some anti-war Labour candidates too.

[non sociopath skin]

4. To do so will let in the very people who TB was talking about ...

... and don't rule out a Tory-Lib Dem coalition. The Lib Dems specialise in being all things to all men and have worked happily with the Tories in Local Government for many years.

We Brits have the same alternative as the French had in the final round of their last Presidential - vote for a conservative (Blair) or a far-right racist bigot (Howard).

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Of course we can rule out a Tory-Lib Dem coalition

Kennedy has already explicitly ruled it out. He's also explicitly ruled out a coalition with Labour, for that matter.

No, that is not our choice - as aneerkoinos said, you've got Lib Dems, Respect, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, or anti-war Labour MPs. Everyone in Britain has at least one of those to vote for. Voting for MPs who do not support Blair is the only way to get rid of him. It is not the same as the French presidential elections - then, you literally had no choice other than those two. This way, Blair can be sacked (impeached, perhaps?) and someone else got in. Brown may have gone along with the war criminal, but he wasn't up to his elbows in sexing up documents, suppressing information from the cabinet, and agreeing with Bush to go to war a year before it happened, in secret.

As Brown himself said, we'll never be able to trust a thing Blair sayd again. Blair has to go, for the good of the country.

[non sociopath skin]

6. Kennedy has "ruled out" a coalition with the Tories? Oh, that's OK then.

I guess we'd better believe that, if faced with an offer from Howard, he'd say "Oh no," unlike every other LibDem who has ever had the choice of working with the Tories. Here in Northumberland, they can't wait to re-form their "anti-socialist coalition."

Yes, there's a choice of other parties. No, there's no choice of other governments.

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Well, I'm used to believing the leader of the party I support

I realise that has become extremely difficult for you recently, skin, but I'm sure you can remember the days when it was possible for you to do so ... ;-)

[non sociopath skin]

13. Ouch!

That made a direct connect with my solar plexus, young Muriel! Almost lost last night's curry! :spank:

However, I don't believe for one minute that a clever cove like you is naive enough to take your own lot at 100% veracity. I hope not, anyway.

BTW I didn't see Question Time last night but I'm told that Bonnie Prince Charlie ruled out a coalition with Labour. Bearing in mind his already-stated determination not to go into coalition with the Party of the Night and his sea-green incorruptibility, where would that take the LibDems in a hung parliament?

The Skin

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. "Blair is an ultra-Thatcherite"

I disagree. Blair is not a monetarist. He's being raising taxes since 1997 to pay for increased public spending on health care and education, which isn't very Thatcherite.

If anything, Blair is a centre-right liberal in the image of Bill Clinton. The Labour Party (minus Blair) as a whole is broadly Social Democratic and it's handling of the economy reflects this.

Non-Brits understandably judge Blair solely on his foreign policy, but British voters have to judge politicians on domestic matters too.

Those who wish to punish Blair must be careful, to be able to vote with their conscience but still avoid letting the Conservatives back into power (who are ideological brothers of the GOP).

It's a huge mistake to claim that Labour and Conservative are "the same", there is a huge difference in philosophy. Back in 2000 many well-meaning people on the American Left said that "both Gore and Bush are the same, let's vote for Nader" and we know how that turned-out.

[aneerkoinos]

11. Domestic

OK let's talk UK domestic.

Blair has said he will not tax the rich more. LibDems would be more ready to do so.

Blair's (and Brown's) policies have led to increasing inequality and poorer social movement. Long live the class-society!

With health-care and universities Blair and his New Labour have pulled of things that Thatcher could not even imagine succeeding in doing.

Blair is bad for democracy, not only an authoritarian usurper but now against all attempts to make the UK system more democratic, never mention making Labour more democratic, and now pro stealing elections with abominal system of postal voting. With LibDems you get at least PR.

In EU and elsewhere, he's one of the most fervent neoliberal neoimperialists anti everyting social, more so than most continental right-wing leaders.


Why settle for Blair III, when there's good chanses of getting hung parliament and if things go well, PR in next elections, and then get a chance to vote real left parties and have your vote mean something?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. "New Labour have pulled of things that Thatcher could not even imagine"

I disagree. New Labour continued the 1990s Conservative policy of implementing "market mechanisms" within the NHS. I don't see how this can be something so extravagently neo-liberal that Thatcher wouldn't have gone that far.

Despite the fact of this continuation of neo-liberal policy, differences remain between Labour and the Tories.

Labour's market mechanism schemes don't go far enough in the eyes of the Tories. Also Labour are spending a lot more money on the NHS and have raised indirect taxes and National Insurance to do this. The Conservatives plan of increasing the NHS budget a smaller amount, whilst undermining it with incentives to go private.

Browns' redistributionist tax credits system has improved standards of living for the poorest with children. The wealthy have got wealthier due to lack of will of the government to tax the rich for fear of the Daily Mail/The Times' wrath.

In Britain the majority of voters still vote for the party rather than the person. Michael Howard for example has very low ratings amongst Tories yet they're still going to vote for him. Many Labour voters are still going to vote Labour despite hating the war and Tony Blair.

"now pro stealing elections with abominal system of postal voting."

Tony Blair's not involved in any election fraud as far as anyone knows. There were instances of fraud amongst local council members in the local government elections last year, I don't see what that has to do with Tony Blair. This election is going to decided by paper ballots.

"...anti everyting social"

They did equalise the age of sexual consent of homosexuals to correspond with heterosexual. They also banned possession of all handguns. They also propose civil unions for gay people (this still doesn't go far enough in my opinion). Labour have anti-social policies but it's an exaggeration to say they're anti everything social.

"Why settle for Blair III, when there's good chanses of getting hung parliament.."

In the Australian General Election of 1996, the Australian Liberals (Neo-liberals rather than social liberals) appealed to the Australian electorate to vote to "cut Labor's majority" because Liberal leader John Howard called another Labor government with a large majority "as bad for democracy". Subsequently the Australian Labor Party lost the 1996 election that it was expected to win easily and the Right under PM John Howard has been in power ever since.

"PR in next elections..."

There is an argument for PR, but I doubt we'd see PR. Labour don't want it and neither do the Tories. The Lib Dems might push for PR in exchange for supporting a minority Labour government, but Labour is unlikely to give PR in return. If the Lib Dems push for a vote of no-confidence, the possible eventuality would be a returning Labour government with a workeable majority if another election was called.

- - - - - - - - - -

What my argument is - is that it is preferable to vote Lib Dems in Labour/Lib Dem marginals and Tory/Lib Dem marginals. In Tory/Labour marginals, can people afford to vote for another party? Sure you might have voted with your conscience but with a xenophobic, hanging/flogging, homophobic, misogynistic, racist local Tory MP to show for it.

If Blair lost the election there would be a day of yahoos followed by moaning about Howard who would be far worse. I remember that Clinton was vehemently disliked by the American Left when he was in power, but is held in higher regard now (probably because Bush* is so awful in contrast)

Myself, I support the Green Party. However they are not standing in my constituency. There's a lot to be said for the Lib Dems and I would vote for them if I lived in a marginal where they had a chance. I live in a constituency that is between Labour and Conservatives and I will take a Labour government over any Tory government any day.

[LynnTheDem]

2. It's a total JOKE that ANY lawyer, let alone a QC, could EVER think ANY

past UN resolutions allowed for the UK and USA to determine for themselves what punishment should be taken for violation of UN resolutions.

1. It's up to the UN to decide the consequences on the UN'S OWN RESOLUTIONS.

DUHHH what a f*cking concept!

2. The 1991 cease fire pertained ONLY ONLY ONLY to Iraq and KUWAIT. PERIOD.

3. "Serious consequences" DOES NOT mean "by all force necessary".

4. It is NOT up to the US & the UK to decide what "serious consequences" means, AGAINST THE MAJORITY of the UN.

5. "UN to remain siezed of the matter" is legalese for "the UN will remain IN CHARGE as to decisions that may be taken".

6. Before the US-written Resolution 1441 was passed, the UN SPECIFICALLY ASKED if there were "any hidden triggers for war" in the resolution; BUSH SAID NO, there were NO TRIGGERS FOR WAR.

Yet NOW bush & bLiar claim there was indeed a trigger for war.

7. One last time; IT IS NOT UP TO THE UK AND USA TO DETERMINE HOW UN RESOLUTIONS WILL BE SETTLED.

8. UN resolution 1441 said "serious consequences IF IRAQ WAS IN MATERIAL BREACH, and that the UN WOULD DECIDE if there were a breech...and then BUSH KICKED THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS OUT OF IRAQ before any such breach could be determined.

BUSH VIOLATED HIS OWN UN RESOLUTION and he VIOLATED THE UN CHARTER AND US CONSTITUTION.

BLIAR VIOLATED THE UN CHARTER.

No UN resolutions authorized war against Iraq; in FACT, the MAJORITY of the UN OPPOSED war against Iraq.

And them's the FACTS and the vast majority of the world's international lawyers agree; invading Iraq was ILLEGAL. Period.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. BUSH KICKED THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS OUT OF IRAQ

So they couldn't prove what many people already suspected.... there were no weapons, there were no weapons, there were no weapons...

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21631/
Scott Ritter: Neocons as Parasites

By Larisa Alexandrovna, Raw Story. Posted March 30, 2005.

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter says neocons are parasites "that latch onto democracy until it is no longer convenient."

[Henny Penny]

7. Do not lose heart justice seekers...

Peter Snow was quoting a MORI poll yesterday that showed that 80% of Tories will definitely vote, 72% of libs and only 64% of lab.
:popcorn:

[non sociopath skin]

14. However, Labour supporters are less happy with their party right now ...

... so they would feel less good about voting than the other two lots. On the day, I suspect that I won't be the only one gritting my teeth and voting for the Please-Let-It-Be-Gordon-Soon Party.

The Skin