This entry was posted on
Thursday, June 10th, 2004 at
10:46 am and is filed
under Tony ‘King Blair.
[NEW – ImpeachBlair.org]
Let’s see if I can get through this without mentioning the war….
1. Tony Blair has lost the trust of the people. Support from his own party is also in short supply. How can a man in this position expect to run his own party, never mind the country? He simply does not have the currency required to run the government. It’s as simple as that. But here are ten more reasons for you to chew on…
2. Tony Blair has said that he would resign if he became an electoral liability to his party. In the run-up to the 2004 European and local elections, all references to him were kept out of Labour’s TV broadcasts and campaign leaflets. Is he actually going to argue that this doesn’t make him a liability, merely a non-asset?3. With media support and a team of savage whips, Blair may very well be able to hang on to power for a few more months, and perhaps even set a domestic policy or two without yet another protest vote, but the moment George W. Bush feels himself under threat he will leave Blair high and dry in a heartbeat. If Bush is ousted during/before the November election, his control of the media will cease to be as effective and the truth will out. Trust me on this; we’ll have belated whistleblowers coming out of our ears. Blair doesn’t even have to be directly implicated in one scandal or another for this to end his career. He aligned himself with Bush, he will go down with Bush.4. A strong government requires a capable cabinet with the trust of the people. If Blair hangs on too long and is forced out suddenly by One Too Many Facts, what guarantee do we have that in the ensuing melee a capable cabinet will result? What happens if this takes place too late for the new cabinet to establish themselves and actually achieve a thing or two ahead of the next general election?5. We all remember Blair rolling tanks into Heathrow in the days before a million-strong march in London. Those who were paying attention at the time may also remember that when Bush came to visit, we went on ‘severe general’ alert because of yet another ‘unspecified’ threat. Admittedly, thousands of people gathering in the city does make combating terrorism that little bit harder, but just a few weeks later there were an equal number of people cramming the streets to celebrate England’s Rugby World Cup win and there was no terror alert and no warning to the public to exercise caution. These are just two examples, but the question you have to ask yourself is this: Is Blair playing the terrorist threat, or is he being manipulated into making rash and ‘obvious’ moves? Neither answer is a happy one.6. Damn. Now I have to mention the war. the war on terror was carefully woven into Blair’s argument for action in Iraq, even though there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq until after the illegal invasion.7. We didn’t find any WMDs, either, did we? Blair thinks (or perhaps hopes) we may still find them. Even the man who led the Iraq Survey Group after the invasion thinks otherwise. Oh, and were these long-range WMDs or short-range WMDs we were talking about?8. OK, so it wasn’t about WMDs (even though Blair said it was). It was about regime change on humanitarian grounds. Saddam bad. Saddam gone. This good. Easy to understand. To say war was wrong is to say things be better if Saddam back, yes? Well, no. Iraqis and coalition troops are dying right now because of groups that are enabled and emboldened by Bush & Blair going in without UN support. I wouldn’t be very happy having drug dealers on my streets, but I’d be far more worried if a bunch of vigilantes had taken control instead.9. Sorry, back to WMDs again. A Parliamentary committee stated that Tony Blair inadvertently misled parliament.. Stay with me, because this is rather complicated… Beverly Hughes resigned after inadvertently misleading parliament, so why didn’t Blair resign? The answer is quite simple; because “there was no misleading involved on the question of Iraq”. Plenty on the reports and statements, but none on the overall question itself. See? I told you it was complicated.9a. What… again?10. Time and again Blair has said that we the people would decide if he was right on Iraq at the ballot box. Ignore the ridiculous suggestion that acting contrary to international law is OK if he can sell the idea at the next election and ask yourself why he’s suddenly asking people to put the issue of Iraq to one side when they vote.11. The only way forward for Britain – and for Iraq – is for justice to be seen to de done. Not dodged, and not spun. And if we do the right (and quite necessary) thing, there’s a very good chance that America and Australia will follow. The alternative is to allow democracy to take its ‘natural’ course. With major elections due in Britain, America and Australia. And a determined terrorist group that knows it can subvert democracy, but only when so-called leaders do the bulk of the work for them.