It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


OP/ED: Why I Believe Blair Should Resign.

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:18 AM
On Febuary 10th 2003, just 5 weeks before the Iraq invasion began,Tony Blair received an Intelligence assessment from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). The highly classified assessment was entitled International Terrorism: War with Iraq.

We have some details about this report which was released due to the Hutton Report by a British parliamentary committee in the summer of 2003. The report states;

"The JIC assessed that al-Qaeda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq,"

This is, by all accounts, a clear warning and yet it was ignored at the time and, as might be expected, no mention of it was given to Parliament on the eve of war because it would undermine one of the central pillars of Tony Blair's case for war at the time, that it would make Britain and the Middle East region a safer place.

Speaking in the House of Commons debate which voted for war, former Conservative Home Secretary and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke, said without any access to these secret communiques:

"The next time a large bomb explodes in a Western city, or an Arab or Muslim regime topples and is replaced by extremists, the Government must consider the extent to which the policy (attacking Iraq) contributed to it."

He was not alone in Parliament on that day in raising such concerns.

Two years later, a large bomb exploding in a Western city is no longer an unrealised fear.

In recent polls 85% of UK citizens accept that the Iraq War was a major factor in the recent terrorist attacks in London.

And is that so hard to believe when you consider that if 2 million people were motivated to march on the streets of London in 2003 in anger and protest at the illegal war that a small minority might consider making their protest violently ?

When a well organised, popular, and peaceful protest is shown to be ineffective and is ignored and countered with lies and propaganda doesn't it seem natural that a minority of British Muslims will come to the conclusion that peaceful protest simply does not work ?

Yet the British Government, still headed by Tony Blair, steadfastly sticks to it's position that there is no link between the attacks on London and British participation in the Iraq War despite 85% of Britons accepting otherwise.

Why can't Blair accept this ?

Because to do so would not only remind everyone that every excuse for going to war that Blair gave before the war were a) fraudulent and b) plain wrong but it would also remind people that the Prime Minister's foreign policy has, far from making Britain safer, made it a more dangerous place despite high level warnings that this would be the case.

These British suicide bombers were almost certainly converted to Islamic terrorism because and not despite of the Iraq War.

Tony Blair is now in a similar position to the one Neville Chamberlain found himself in in 1940. Having found himself the steward of the UK and, to some degree, the architect of it's descent into war he can no longer command the support of the British people.

Having got us into this he is not the man to take us through it. He is like the man who having ignored his crew and passengers discards his paddle and steers the boat down sh!t creak only to find himself a mile down stream at the mercy of the tides, elements, and with a leaky boat. This prodigal captain then asks us to ignore the circumstances of how we arrived here while imploring us all to take up a bucket each and bail the sewage from our sinking boat.

It's time for a new captain. One we can trust and who is not tainted by the Iraq debacle, one that all Britons can get behind.

I'll leave you with the words of Leo Amery MP from the 7th May 1940 that precipitated the resignation of Chamberlain and the elevation of Churchill to PM, the words first used by Cromwell which ended the long Parliament, they are apt for Tony Blair now too:

" You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go ! "

[edit on 1-8-2005 by John bull 1]

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:20 AM
Why is this a news article?

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:21 AM
its not a news article its an OP/ED

its an opinion based article for ATSNN

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:25 AM
Interesting perspective and I would agree with one point. I do think that the attacks are related to the involvement in Iraq. I would suspect that any country that stood/stands by the US in this matter is and can be the next target.

However, the continuing statements that political leaders have clear warnings in which to do something is not realistic. Countries are threatened daily. I am not aware (please correct me if I am wrong) that any political leader has received the day, time and exact location of a bomb or terrorist act to occur prior to. Threats/warnings are just that. Just how many time do you sound the alarms and send law enforcement/emergency into an area thinking that is the place the bad guys will be?

We have all known of the threat from terrorist as the West in general is not well liked by many in the world. We seem to act surprised that someone wants to attack our countries but that knowledge as always been there. I think we just thought it would never happen to us in reality. I would pose to those that care to place sole blame on their leaders to explain what they would do if they ran a country that received regular threats of terrorism. Would you alarm the masses daily thus instilling fear? Would you stop and search every bus, train, plane every moment of the day?

I understand the need for humans to point and blame when bad things occur. The political powers of the west do not really have that much power to stop a trend in this world that is growing. This is not a conventional war and the enemy is not as easy to spot as one would think.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:21 AM
anniejhops you miss the point.

Britain has 1.6 million Muslims the political dynamics of such a multi-cultural society needs careful management and Blair has failed.

Blair was warned by JIC before the Iraq War of the consequences of the attack. He was told that there would be a greater threat to the UK yet he lied and told the British people that the UK would be safer.

That is an unforgivable distortion of the truth.

Blair and the decision to go to war against Iraq was a recruiting seargent for the terrorists the killed 54 people on 7/7.

Their path to violence started when Blair misused the intelligence, lied to the British people and Parliament, and ignored overwhelming public sentiment.

Remember 70% of the UK, according to polls, were against war without a second UN resolution.

The situation the UK finds itself in today can be clearly laid at Tony Blair's door.

Just as Neville Chamberlain had to resign after his policy of appeasement partly caused WW2 and he no longer could count on the support of the British people, so too must Blair resign.

The UK needs a leader all Britons can trust to lead us.

Al Qaeda was always the main threat.

Iraq was a diversion that disenchanted great swathes of the British public including those that are now given to violence.

Britain always tries to unite behind it's leader at times of trouble but I can't get behind a man who I hold as responsible as the bombers themselves.


posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:35 AM
I wholeheartedly agree. Tony Blair is a liar and does not deserve the trust of the British people.

He should be sacked! So what if he's been good for the economy? He is the reason we have suicide bombers in this country!

I say let Charlie Kennedy have a crack at running the country. The last time the liberal democrats came into power they gave us all pensions and national health care. Not a bad track record.

Move over Blair, you've blown it.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:42 AM
Blair will not resign and the Queen won't expell him either.

Looks like we are stuck with him boys *sighs*

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:02 PM
"The Liberal Democrats, often shortened to Lib Dems, are a social liberal political party based in the United Kingdom. The party was formed in 1988 by the merger of the Liberal Party and the short lived Social Democratic Party (the two parties had already been in an alliance for some years)."

The Liberal Democrats have never been in power.
They are different to the "Liberal Party" as most early members of the "Liberal Party" were outspoken Socialists.


In honesty, Blair is the best of a bad bunch. Not who I would like to have in power, but he does the job better then I think a lot of others would.

[edit on 1/8/2005 by Odium]

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:08 PM
Play semantics Odium. The liberal democrats are virtually identical to the last liberal party.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by subz
Play semantics Odium. The liberal democrats are virtually identical to the last liberal party.

No they are not.

The Modern Liberal Democrats hold very little alliance to the Trade Unions.
They are not an out-spoken Socialist party.
They make claims which won't hold true. The best one being ID cards and Police. Sorry but I've interviewed three Lib Dem MPs, they are not like the older party or they would have my support.

They are nothing more than a spare wheel on the existing cart.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:26 PM

In honesty, Blair is the best of a bad bunch.

That is no recommendation. If it's the case the we need to look outside the "bunch".

Only a Labour MP can be Prime Minister and the only high ranking Labour MP who has consistantly argued against the Iraq War and even resigned and gave up ministerial position as an act of conscience is Robin Cook.

Like Churchill he has spent years in the political wilderness for saying what Blair didn't want to hear. He has been proven correct at every turn and it's time he had his chance.

It's natural that our first reaction is to unite behind the sitting leader but it's foolhardy to continue to follow a man who has got us in this mess.

The whole country needs to be behind the leader at this time of war but it won't happen as long as Blair is PM.

Blair is only propped up by polls. When they start to turn against him, as they will soon, he will have to step down.

I'd say the conference season at the latest.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:42 PM

The old Liberal Party were not outspoken socialists. The last Liberal Government was in the 1920's when Lloyd George was PM. They were socially progressive when the natural party of Government, the Conservatives, were the only other party.

When the Labour Party was formed by the Unions the politics of the UK had changed it's axis (as it had done across Europe) from an Authoritarian/Liberal divide into a Left/Right divide.

The old Liberal Party had few links with Unions, after all the Labour Party was formed and paid for by Unions. Contrary to what you write there is more Liberal/Union co-operation today than anytime since the Labour Party was formed.

And no political party that represents the views of 25% of the UK population should ever be decribed by anyone in a democracy as "nothing more than a spare wheel on the existing cart."

The political axis is shifting once again. Left/Right politics is no longer the battleground. In general there is economic consensus. Libertarian/Authoritarian issues are once again taking centre stage, hence the rise in popularity of the Lib Dems which are approaching the number of MPs they last had in 1929.

Remember Winston Churchill was a Liberal Home Secretary, a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a Liberal First Lord of the Admiralty.

He would be very insulted to hear himself described by you as an outspoken socialist.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by John bull 1]

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:19 PM
I suggest getting the book titled;
"Liberal Party Politics in Britain" by Robert Cyr.

The reason they declined to the Labour Party, was due to the fact they didn't switch/enforce, their full Socialist Ideology which they had slowly been putting into place with the early Welfare System.

The Downfall of the Liberal Party, 1914–1935 (1966); R. I. Douglas.

The Liberal Party also endorsed several members of the Trade Unions to run for office, however due to their inability or reluctance to back a majority of them this support then shifted to the Labour Party along with the early Socialist Supper and Socialist Support.

My Early Life : 1874-1904 by Winston Churchill
In the 1899 by election, he ran for power with a Socialist candidate and had agreed with him on many points. (James Mawdsley) Which if I remember correctly, they lost. However, the Liberal Party had tried to get many Socialist candidates into power over the years prior to Labour's existance.

You just seem to be misunderstanding the major differences between 18th century Socialism and modern Socialism.


Also Lloyd George was in charge of a Coalition Government (1916 to 21/22?), the last real Liberal Leader was technically speaking Herbert Henry Asquith. Especially after Lloyd George's relation to the Conservative Party. (Resulting in his down-fall in the 1918 election.)

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:41 PM
In the 1899 Winston Churchill stood for Parliament as a conservative in the Oldham double by-election. Yes, his junior partner was a socialist. An example of real politik.

You can't be suggesting that this indicates that Churchill was himself a socialist ?

You'll know that another name often used to describe Liberals was Reformists and Liberals are still social reformists today. The reforms instituted by the Liberals were necessary.

If there is confusion over me " misunderstanding the major differences between 18th century Socialism and modern Socialism " then it is you that have failed to clarify what you meant exactly by " The Liberal Democrats ........... are different to the "Liberal Party" as most early members of the "Liberal Party" were outspoken Socialists."

It is only natural that I should think you were refering to the ideological socialism that spread amongst the working classes of Europe after the Russian Revolution and which saw the birth of the modern Labour Party.

The progressive social and political reform which you call "18th century socialism" is still very much at the centre of the Liberal Democrats of today (Reform of the electoral system, reform of the House of Lords). All parties evolve. No party is like it was 100 years ago but the Liberal Democrats are the natural inheritors of the heritage and history of the Liberal Party (though a Liberal Party still existstoday)

Anyway this is by the by. Charles Kennedy could not possibly become PM without an election so there is no point in contemplating it.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:25 PM
Odium you should check your own source.

The Liberal Party was one of the two major British political parties from the early 19th century until the 1920s, and a third party of varying strength and importance up to 1988, when it merged with the Social Democratic Party to form a new party which would become known as the Liberal Democrats.

(Some members of the Liberal Party disagreed with the merger, and formed the current Liberal Party, a minor party which claims to be a continuation of the old Liberal Party.)

Wiki on Liberal Party

In 1981 defectors from the moderate wing of the Labour Party, led by former Cabinet ministers Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams, founded the Social Democratic Party. The two parties fought the 1983 and 1987 general elections jointly as the SDP-Liberal Alliance. During 1982 and 1983, at the depths of Labour's fortunes under Michael Foot, there was much talk of the Alliance becoming the dominant party of the left and even of Jenkins becoming Prime Minister. In fact, while the Alliance won over 20% of the vote each time, it never made the hoped-for breakthrough in terms of parliamentary seats.

In 1988 the two parties merged to create (after a number of name changes) the Liberal Democrats. Over two-thirds of the members, and all the serving MPs, of the Liberal Party joined this party, led first by Steel and later by Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy.

Wiki on Liberal Party

A group of Liberal opponents of the merger, including Michael Meadowcroft formerly Liberal MP for Leeds South West and Dr Paul Wiggin who served on Peterborough City Council as a Liberal, continued under the old name of "the Liberal Party"; this was legally a new organisation (the headquarters, records, assets and debts of the old party were inherited by the Liberal Democrats)

Wiki on Liberal Party

Just exactly how are they not basically the same party? Because they merged with the Social Democratic Party? I suppose New Labour is a completely different party than that of the Labour party. Right?

Im not saying they are the very same party that held government back in the early 20th century. Im saying that they are basically the same party. You are being semantic, there is no need to be, we all know how intelligent you are.

[edit on 1/8/05 by subz]

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:22 PM
I'm not trying to say he was (W.C.), but that the Liberal Party were nearer to a Socialist Party and upheld more Socialist ideas prior to the 1920's then the Liberal Democrats do now. (They were also a lot nearer to a Socialist Party then any other "form" of Political Party.)

Also, the Большеви́к (Bolshevik) movement was not a Socialist Movement, but a Marxist political party - while under Lenin and was nothing more then people playing off of the ignorance of the Working Class to grab power (Stalin).

A good way to look at it, is their views on the Union's, they've already made it clear they wish to remove Fire Fighters, Police Officers, et al's rights to strike. They have spoken out abotu criminals having to "pay" in some way for their crimes, primarily through working for an Arm of the State while being educated.

At best, they are a Left of Centre Party, with little ambition and a manifesto which won't solve anything. Their views on crime are the best example of this and their new top level tax again is a great example of this.

Subz on your point; "I suppose New Labour is a completely different party than that of the Labour party. Right?".

To quote Tony Benn; "Yes".

...and Tony Benn would know more on that topic then either of us.

Also last I checked, after 1951 they had no more then 6 MPs at anyone time. They also had a very small party, because there had already been two if not three splits in the Liberal Party prior to them joining with the Social Democratic Party where the more Socialist members had been marginalised.

Which is why we are at this stage now, when there is no real alternative Party because they all reprosent the same people (I.E. the Rich). However, people have been tricked into thinking they do not. (Funny how they are all funded by the same people, just different companies each person owns.)

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Odium
Which is why we are at this stage now, when there is no real alternative Party because they all reprosent the same people (I.E. the Rich).

How does raising the top tax rate benefit the rich? Also I'd like further explanation of how the current Liberal Democrats lack ambition and how their manifesto wont solve anything. Such sweeping generalisations...

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:43 PM

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by Odium
Which is why we are at this stage now, when there is no real alternative Party because they all reprosent the same people (I.E. the Rich).

How does raising the top tax rate benefit the rich? Also I'd like further explanation of how the current Liberal Democrats lack ambition and how their manifesto wont solve anything. Such sweeping generalisations...

The top tax is a funny thing. Firstly, they would have to get it through the House of Commons and then the Lords - both not an easy task, because they'd not like to loose out on their lovely income and pay an extra 10% of tax.

The second major problem is this; I can earn 100,000 and pay 50% tax or earn 99,000 and pay 40%.

This would result in a massive loss of income from their new taxation system one which they didn't take into account and even denied people would do - going against several BBC reports where people said they would have done that.

It also doesn't do that much harm to the "rich" who are the people on 500,000+ and a 10% extre loss of income isn't really they much or the really rich who are on several million a year and it's still no large loss of income for them.


A better idea would be to get rid of tax returns on things like travel expenses for business men, etc. Which their company should pay for or they should - especially when they are earning such a large proportion more then the average person - who still has to travel and yet won't get money back.

Last I bothered to check, I can get nearly half of my travel expenses back on tax once I become a Barrister and be on an easy £300 a day after tax.

I don't need money back, nobody on that much "PER DAY" needs money back from the state.


I've not bothered to look at the Manifesto since I interviewed Zoe Patrick in the run up to the election but I will do tonight and find the other problems with it.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:40 PM
Yes, you are correct, get rid of Blair and take the path of Neville Chamberlain and appease the terrorist. God forbid we upset them in their peaceful surroundings.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:05 PM
The trouble with Blair is he is a sycophant .He is not a stong leader like Maggie Thatcher was and is seen as a George Bush Poodle by Americans. In Britain hes failed with most everything , crime, the National Health Service, immigration etc. This has got to be his final term , i hope.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in