Hah!

True, because they never had the threat of shutting down their economies with 80% cuts in CO2 emissions, compulsory ID card checks, imprisonment without trial, the banning of hunting animals and the rest of your other toxic fascist policies foisted upon them!
....................................................................................................................

Tony Blair: It's only in Britain that people don't like me

By Daily Mail Reporter
20th December 2009

Tony Blair has claimed it is only in the UK that he is disliked and that he is much more popular abroad.

The former Prime Minister has blamed the British press for his image at home and has defended his lucrative second career that has netted him millions since he quit politics.

In an interview in today's Sunday Times Mr Blair said: 'It’s not true that nobody likes me. Reading the papers in Britain, you’d end up thinking I’d lost three elections rather than won them.

'There is a completely different atmosphere around me outside the country. People accept the work that you are doing, as it is.

'They don’t see anything wrong with being successful financially and also doing good work.'

'If I did what these people who criticise me here wanted, I'd end up sitting in a corner, but that is never going to be me.'

Mr Blair also defended his globe-trotting work and money-making activities, describing himself as a 'social entrepreneur'....

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

...the son of Nigel Lawson (Thatcher's former finance minister) makes the same link in the Sunday Times...

"Tony Blair, turned up in Copenhagen to give his take on the leaked emails. The former prime minister declared that they did not lessen by one jot what he called “the need for action” and added: “It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be.” Blair is clearly not troubled by irony, since this approach is exactly the one that got us into such a mess over Saddam Hussein’s suppositious biological threat. The actual evidence was tenuous at the time — but to persuade the public of the need for action, Blair was prepared to say that it was watertight. For weapons of mass destruction, read weather of mass destruction.

Blair now argues that even if the science is less clear than is claimed by the climate catastrophists, we have to act because of the risks to humanity if their worst fears turn out to be well founded. This would make perfect sense if there were no risks attached to what he calls “action”, just as it would if there had been no lives put at risk by attacking Iraq. In fact, there are vast costs involved in the war against weather, which could actually cost lives. The highly respected climate economist Professor Richard Tol, a senior member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has said that the CO2 tax required to bring emissions down to the levels demanded by the IPCC would reduce global GDP by an amount that would equate — in 2100 — to $40 trillion (£25 trillion) a year. It’s pretty obvious, really: just as cheap energy has transformed the lives of millions for the better, it follows that reversing the process would have an opposite effect."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...

"Good enough for three surrogate sanctions over at RoR."

What does that mean?

Good enough for three surrogate sanctions over at RoR.

Perfidy usually relates to war...

That is a simple task, where to start...

• He increased the UK debt massively with spending on nationalized health, welfare and building projects. Today it is projected to be £175bn (12% of GDP, up from about 3%).

• Brought in detention without trial for 28 days (later wanted to increase it to 42 days, thwarted by House of Lords)

• He banned fox hunting.

• He made the smacking of children illegal (but was thwarted by House of Lords who watered it down)

• He introduced ID cards and planned on making them compulsory (thwarted by resistance of the people)

• Promised to have a referendum on the Euro (never held one)

• Promised to have a referendum on the constitutional treaty (never held one)

• Was the first PM ever to be investigated by police for selling places in the House of Lords for party donations (after a year-long £1 million investigation the courts decided not to prosecute him because they said – cough, cough – they did not have enough evidence!)

• Did a deal with Colonel Gaddafi not to pursue reparations for Lockerbie victims and to drop Syria from ‘axis of evil’ in return for trade deals (also a suspicion his Government allowed suspected Lockerbie terrorist to be pardoned).

• Introduced a nationwide ban on smoking in public

• Massively increased and introduced a range of so-called ‘stealth’ taxes so numerous I can’t go into all of them. Alcohol, cigarettes, petrol, pensions, inheritance, stamp duty...etc...

How's that for a start?

Thanks, Marcus. What I really wanted was not more detail on the WMD oversexification per se, but a few succinct criticisms of Blair on various topics that would take aback even a moderate American who did support the war, WMD's or not. For instance, you cited a British newspaper that had touted NYC Mayor David Bloomberg as an efficient moderate who might be a good presidential candidate. My bullet point response would be:

•He campaigned as a Republican heir to the budget-cutting Giuliani on not raising taxes, and his first act as mayor was to raise property taxes 30%. Nor will he now repeal the tax, he just sends out yearly "refund" checks with his signature near election time.
•He never campaigned on either issue but he raised taxes on a pack of cigarettes by $2.50, banned all indoor smoking, and outlawed trans-fats in the city because, as a man with a private chef and membership to an law-exempted cigar club, he knows what's good for the plebes. There is now a huge thriving cigarette black market.
•He's a petty micromanager who, touring his fief during his first month in office, to set an example, fired a man with a family to support for playing solitaire on his lunch hour. When it came out that the man was on lunch other "legitimate" reasons were found to fire him.
•He financed a campaign to institute a two-term limit on the mayoralty, securing the ouster of the incredibly popular two-term Rudolph Giuliani who did not himself oppose the limits. He promised to serve for only one term. He ran for a second term, (because he was opposed to the war in Iraq,) then financed a campaign that got rid of term limits, and then spent $120,000,000.00 of his own money (the lifetime earnings of sixty people) to win a third election by a five percent margin.

Can a similar pithy case be made against "Bliar" that will make Americans who see him as a principled moderate liberal see the light?

I have mentioned several things already. I don't know how you want me to dumb it down further for a US audience? Here goes...

I am not sure if it is generally known in the US that Blair repeated over and over to the British public that Saddam Hussein could launch WMD in 45 minutes? He used this argument as a central plank for convincing Parliament that the invasion was necessary.

I am not sure if it is generally known in the US either that this information came from a Government report called in the UK the 'dodgy dossier' (2003). This was a document prepared by the British Government supposedly compiling the latest intelligence information about Iraqi weapons. It was later found that a large part of the information had been plagiarized from a PhD thesis that had already been published in 2002.

At the moment the so-called 'chilcot' enquiry is underway - examining the claims of WMD that lead to the Iraq war. Fresh scandalous information comes out every day. Civil servants saying that they knew there really wasn't any 'smoking gun' for the Iraq invasion but that they were under pressure to sex-up the intelligence. During this enquiry it has been found that the 45 minute claim came from one source, a Taxi-driver in Baghdad.

From the Guardian:

"Holloway, a former Grenadier Guardsman and television journalist who is now a member of the Commons defence committee, made his comments in a report he has written claiming that MI6 always had reservations about some of the information in the dossier but that these reservations were brushed aside when Downing Street was preparing it for publication.

In the report he wrote: "Under pressure from Downing Street to find anything to back up the WMD case, British intelligence was squeezing their agents in Iraq for information. One agent did come up with something: the '45 minutes' or something about missiles allegedly discussed in a high level Iraqi political meeting.

"But the provenance of this information was never questioned in detail until after the Iraq invasion, when it became apparent that something was wrong. In the end it turned out that the information was not credible, it had originated from an émigré taxi driver on the Iraqi-Jordanian border, who had remembered an overheard a conversation in the back of his cab a full two years earlier.

"Indeed, in the intelligence analyst's footnote to the report, it was flagged up that part of the report probably describing some missiles that the Iraqi government allegedly possessed was demonstrably untrue. They verifiably did not exist.

"The footnote said it in black and white ink. Despite this glaring factual inaccuracy, which under normal circumstances would have caused the reliability of the intelligence to be seriously questioned, the report was treated as reliable and went on to become one of the central planks of the dodgy dossier." [And Blair's central argument to Parliament].

http://www.guardian.co.uk/poli...

Blair, like, I suppose, Gorbachev, has a much better reputation in the US. Maybe you could give a few concise clear bullet point criticisms that would be clear indications of perfidy even to American moderates who appreciated that he stood with Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan?

From the Times...

"Mr Blair said that, while the scientific evidence of man-made global warming was very strong, it was much less clear how quickly temperatures would rise.

“When you come to very precise dates, percentages and so on [. . .] then the figures are somewhat more fudgeable.

“The important thing is to give a clear direction out of this conference. Don’t fixate on the precise percentage,” he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
........................................................................................................................................

Yesterday on a BBC religious programme Blair said that his religion made him confident that his decisions were always the right ones. In other words, he throws reason out the window for mysticism. Apparently he like visiting Churches around the world too and feels at peace there. Shame he doesn't stay there.

Don't get me wrong, it's good Blair and Bush toppled Saddam.

But just like Ayn Rand, should I approve of all Libertarians and Anarchists, just because they say they are pro-Captalism?

Blair is a deluded idiot, who I wouldn't mind seeing behind bars.

If not for corruption and deception - such as the cash for peerages scandal as well as other lies causing many unecessary deaths (not supplying the army with adequate equipment or troops) - then for his general disregard for reason and individual rights.

on TV was saying pretty much that, as his serious argument. "Shouldn't we do it, just in case?" Yeah, and I'm getting ready for the rapture...

I never get this. Indeed, the science on alien mind control beams is also iffy. Is it irresponsible for us not to wear tinfoil hats just in case? And while we're busy fighting global warming, just in case, shouldn't we be fighting global cooling, just in case?

As I wrote, here is the logical conclusion of his Blair's lies....

Need to exaggerate claims of WMD in order to invade Iraq and get a hard-on at the UN...

Need to exaggerate claims of AGW in order to destroy Capitalism and get a hard-on at the UN....

Pre-emptive strike = Pre-cautionary principle...
.........................................................................................................

Daily Telegraph

Copenhagen climate summit: Tony Blair calls on world leaders to ‘get moving’

The world must take action on climate change at Copenhagen even if the science is not correct, Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister has suggested.

By Louise Gray, in Copenhagen
13 Dec 2009

Following the ‘climategate scandal’, Mr Blair said the science may not be “as certain as its proponents allege”.

But he said the world should act as a precaution against floods, droughts and mass extinction caused by climate change, in fact it would be “grossly irresponsible” not to...

But despite sceptics claiming emails stolen from the University of East Anglia question the science, he said it was urgent to act now.

“It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity,” he said.

“Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible.”...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...

Maybe Blair lied (I didn't follow what claims the British government made) but Bush was relying on (1) The same intelligence evidence that the Democrats who voted for resuming the fight did, and (2) Saddam's own stipulation in the 1991 Armistice that he had the weapons and his refusal to allow inspectors to verify what he did or didn't have. I assume you haven't forgotten the Hans Blix follies.

When a local bully shoots at passing cops, and then claims he has a hand grenade in his pocket, but refuses to show it or to let the police search him, you can hardly blame the police when they use force to arrest him.

Brant, your moral relativism is embarrassing.

My point was the 'lie' given to the intention.

Blair was supposedly advised that if he didn't make the case for Saddam having WMD, it wouldn't be legal.

Blair dragged your President kicking and screaming to the UN.

Why did they need to lie about the evidence?

It just wont do.

They should have been honest with us.

Saddam is now dead and buried, I'm happy about it.

Unfortunately lying and subterfuge have consequences!

Obama, Blair, Brown, compassionate conservatives and the western world going to the dogs is the result!

The USSR has probably violated every treaty it ever signed with the US ratified by the US Senate it could get away with.

Force?

--Brant
u have too many brains and too few facts plus the consequences of that

And?

Saddam was in violation of the terms of the 1991 Armistice.

That means a state of war existed.

I can't speak for you system, but under ours, a president swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, which declares, among other things, that treaties, such as the 1991 armistice, are the highest law of the land. That alone required Bush to use force to enforce the treaty. Bush should have been impeached had he not enforced the armistice, and it is a travesty that Clinton and Bush's father weren't impeached on that ground.

Wake me up when Blair says that he didn't care that Saddam was in violation of the 1991 Armistice, he just wanted to steal the Iraqi's oil, and convert then all to the Church of Rome.