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.


Blair under heavy fire

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 04:50 PM
Britain's labor MP's that backed the war say they were "duped" into voting for Blair.

The bbc seems to be mute on that topic

[Edited on 19-4-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 09:55 PM
He took a chance siding with the U.S. Ley's see how it turns out

posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 12:12 PM
Blair opposes an inquiry on the subject. To oppose the parliament is generally one of the last things a PM does ...

posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 12:15 PM
Correct me if i'm wrong but this is my thinking:

When the elections are coming, i think that Blair and Bush will be made to stay in office.

I don't think anyone else would want to clear up they're mess of the war!

Thats me though...i just don't understand politics!

posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 07:36 PM
LOL Ravenstar that is probably true unless, in the case of the USA Collin Powell elects to run for office himself.

Some factions are trying to push the issue of locating these weapons, at a time when we are still dealing with the aftermath of the war. The issues at present are securing the country and retuning things back to normal with exception of what behaviors have been at present clearly been identified as atrocities.

Once that is done am certain that troops and specialist can then concentrate on finding those weapons. Given the extent of atrocities found to date that Saddam Hussein did not have such weapons, for use if all else failed to control his people is unrealistic.

posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 07:40 PM
He probly won't run 'cause he asked his wife what she thought and it was, like, "NO". She wanted him to spend time with the family (doesn't seem like he is, huh?)

And the KKK would probly assassinate him, or the neo-nazis

posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 07:50 PM
A lot of people in this country respect him very much.

Yes, its very possible his life would be threatened and his wife does not like the idea of him running at all.

The KKK is not as capable as its reputation assesses it to be although any nutcase with a gun can pose a threat.

To be realistic I do not expect him to run but if he ran I would probably vote for him.

posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 07:51 PM
well it depends on his beliefs if I would vote for him (haven't researched his platforms). But he is indeed a very intelligent man.

posted on Apr, 21 2003 @ 12:02 AM
"Blair opposes an inquiry on the subject. To oppose the parliament is generally one of the last things a PM does ... "

Well, Blair is illuminati. So he may resign, as they typically do. Of course they may sweep it under the rug. We have more war to get through, would provide a great distraction.

posted on Apr, 21 2003 @ 12:20 PM
Toltec.....Colin Powell would make a great president!

It should be up to the people to decide but during war or post-war...maybe some military background would be helpful!

posted on Apr, 21 2003 @ 02:53 PM
I believe that this war will cost Blair the Pm. I also believe it will also cost Bush the election in 2004.
The public reaction generated by both of the 'leaders' has to be slowed and quelled in the short term. Revolution is not in the financial interests for either ruling party right now. My feeling is that a leftist-moderate democrat will be used in 2004 to channel and divert the growing anti-bush energy in this country. This 'new leader' will need to campaign on issues such the Patriot Act (especially the privacy conflicts), corporate responsibility, foreign policy and the environment in such a way as to trick the 'mob at the gates' that he intends to move away from the authoritarianism of bush inc.
I suspect that he will create or support 'progressive' legislation for the first 20 months. This should win him support of moderate Republicans, leftist Democrats, the editorial section of most major newspapers, and some of the 150 million citizens who do not vote...much the way Clinton did in 92. This should give rise to the stock market, bring back consumer confidence and keep the masses going back to work and paying their taxes.
This good time will last only until the voters come to claim action on the tough campaign promises. That resistance becomes threatening if someone is able to mobilize it into a left/right, black/white movement similar to JFK or MLK would have been able to do.
If that happens you can expect the next terrorist incident to take place. It will need to be a media-covered event, like the 2nd plane crash was. To have the needed effect on the American public, it will have to include some sort of radiological or chemical damage images. Sick and dying babies, skin peeling away...etc. These images will need to be displayed by the corporate owned media 24/7.
The public outcry (real or manufactured) will leave our 'progressive' leader no choice but to enact and push through the most authoritarian parts of Patriot and Patriot 2 that he campaigned against. This will be portrayed as common sense by the media. Loyalty and dissention will again become a common theme for distracting and dividing the masses.
Behind the scenes business as usual will continue.

I believe that England's future is either a step ahead or behind in this theatrical event. Probably behind since they haven't had their 9/11 yet, but I'm not sure....

Did you know that Bush Jr's nickname in the skull and bones society is "Temporary"??? What a strange nickname...
I have never heard what his daddy's is.

posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 12:34 AM
I agree Ravenstar also note how American suport for the war went up as soon as he started talking more about it.


posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 04:34 AM
It's interesting, I'd been starting to think that Blair was just going to get away with this. He's already had an interview in "The Scum", where he talked about how he'd considered resigning before the war started, etc. etc. So I assumed he'd managed to get away with it.

But... the other day I heard the SNP leader telling Blair that it wasn't too late to resign. The Labour backbench MP's seem to be pretty pissed off about no WMD's. And a lot of the press have been getting more critical recently (they've stopped hailing him as the new king of the world at least).

Conclusion... it's all going to rest on WMD's. A substantial find would make Blair safe, a moderate find (10's of shells etc.) might still open him up to pressure to go. No find could be the end of his political career.

I think it's probably right that people should already be calling for an enquiry. Many MP's were told that there was 100% proof that Iraq had WMD's. And at that level of certainty you'd hope that they'd know exactly where to look, and weren't giving the location over to Blix for fear of losing an informant. How can you be 100% certain if you don't know where the WMD's are? There's always a 1% chance that they've been destroyed, transported to another country, etc..

top topics


log in