I heard Tony is in again

  1. I know many here do not agree, but I am glad Mr Blair is reelected...I like him.
    •  
  2. 17 Comments

  3. by   madwife2002
    MMMM have to be the first to disagree whilst he is pleasant on the eye, he has lied to the UK and the National Health Service and education system are in crisis.
    Labour has lost a lot of the votes this time round, and if Tony had been in power until his 5 th year he might only be there by the skin of his teeth.

    I can only wait for the next 12 months and see what wonderful things he has or has not up his sleeve, he now has 5 more years to do his worst. :chuckle
  4. by   kitty29
    Quote from madwife2002
    MMMM have to be the first to disagree whilst he is pleasant on the eye, he has lied to the UK and the National Health Service and education system are in crisis.
    Labour has lost a lot of the votes this time round, and if Tony had been in power until his 5 th year he might only be there by the skin of his teeth.

    I can only wait for the next 12 months and see what wonderful things he has or has not up his sleeve, he now has 5 more years to do his worst. :chuckle

    Well it's OK I don't agree with you either!
  5. by   madwife2002
    Quote from kitty29
    Well it's OK I don't agree with you either!
    We'll agree to differ then
    You know what politics is like, everybody agreeing to differ, what makes the world go round
  6. by   kitty29
    Quote from madwife2002
    We'll agree to differ then
    You know what politics is like, everybody agreeing to differ, what makes the world go round

    Yupp after all someone has to keep the news media in business.
  7. by   VivaLasViejas
    I have to agree, it's a good thing for Blair that he was re-elected.......the surgical procedure to detach his proboscis from George Bush's posterior orifice would have been quite painful :chuckle
  8. by   letina
    Quote from mjlrn97
    I have to agree, it's a good thing for Blair that he was re-elected.......the surgical procedure to detach his proboscis from George Bush's posterior orifice would have been quite painful :chuckle
    I like it!! Couldn't have put it better myself!!
  9. by   CHATSDALE
    madwife---as a briton you might be able to answer this question..there was a blurb to the effect that labor won the election but that now blair would have to 'hang' on to his pm chair..??

    what is that about?
  10. by   letina
    Quote from CHATSDALE
    madwife---as a briton you might be able to answer this question..there was a blurb to the effect that labor won the election but that now blair would have to 'hang' on to his pm chair..??

    what is that about?
    I'll reply to this for you, my madwife friend, Kay, won't mind, I'm sure

    Even tho Labour won the election, they lost a lot of seats in Parliament. The Labour Party believe this is as a direct result of Blair's lies about Iraq. They are now expecting there will be a challenge from Gordon Brown to take over as Prime Minister. If Mr Brown succeeded, Blair would have to stand down as PM. Hence the 'hang on to his chair' blurb.
    Tina
  11. by   Spidey's mom
    I'm happy about it and don't think Tony lied and don't think Bush lied either.

    steph
  12. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from letina
    i'll reply to this for you, my madwife friend, kay, won't mind, i'm sure

    even tho labour won the election, they lost a lot of seats in parliament. the labour party believe this is as a direct result of blair's lies about iraq. they are now expecting there will be a challenge from gordon brown to take over as prime minister. if mr brown succeeded, blair would have to stand down as pm. hence the 'hang on to his chair' blurb.
    tina
    i'm not brit but have been following this closely. i'd argue that the reason that labour even retained the seats they did was thanks to brown's heroics in the treasury department.

    me? i'd pick lib dem - they're the closest thing to libertarianism you brits have over there :d

    regards from an ex-colonial :d

    ps : here's what a pal of mine had to say about the nhs:

    as someone who has spent most of his adult life propping up part of the [color=#e89512]nhs, let me tell you why the [color=#e89512]nhs is not good enough for any man, rich or poor.

    lord desai, a labour peer, summed it up nicely. middle-class people can, if push comes to shove, afford private healthcare. the only people who can't, and therefore are stuck with the [color=#e89512]nhs, are the poor. they have to rely on a stalinist, monolithic, grossly inefficient system for their healthcare. the very system that was designed to protect the poorest dooms them to a system that would shame many third world countries.

    without the - and i choose my words carefully - incredible altruism of its staff, the [color=#e89512]nhs would have died long ago. it survives because doctors, nurses, and other staff are prepared to work long hours in excess of what they are paid. when i was a hospital junior, i was contractually required to work overtime, which was paid at one third of my ordinary hourly rate. this meant that, after three years at university and three more at medical school, my average hourly rate of pay was on a par with one of the more senior cleaners. every third weekend, i went to work on friday morning, and worked through to monday evening, with no guaranteed rest periods in that time. there were no meals available to me at the times that i had enough time for them - i had to rely on a crap vending machine that served up stale, date-expired meals that i usually couldn't warm up because the canteen microwave was broken/vandalised/stolen. the hospital provided me with vermin-infested accomodation for the few hours that i could sleep. the managers were paid bonuses if they made savings out of the staff budget, with the result that if any of us were off sick, they simply didn't bother trying to find locums, but made us cover each other's work. the excuse for this brutal and cynical exploitation was, as ever, that 'this is all the [color=#e89512]nhs can afford'. despite this, we consistently provided something approaching world-class care for those who were unfortunate enough to need it. there was nothing we could do about the disgraceful waiting lists that held up anyone who needed the most trivial routine procedures, but anyone who came in as an emergency received the best possible care.

    the gratitude the state showed us for this was to treat us like serfs. one of my contemporaries quit medicine forever at the end of our first year as juniors. i left the [color=#e89512]nhs and joined the army, and when i came out five years later, i found exactly the same mess as before. now, nearer to retirement than the beginning of my career, i still see politicians playing games with healthcare, relying on the goodwill and generosity of staff instead of paying them properly, and i have patients who die on waiting lists. even for the ones who have non-life-threatening conditions, they often have to spend a significant percentage of their remaining life on a waiting list, in constant pain. meanwhile, i am now told that the government is going to fiddle with my retirement, and will probably make me work an extra five years to claim my pension. note that this is a pension to which i have an entitlement, by virtue of having contributed to it throughout my time propping up the [color=#e89512]nhs. all this in what claims to be the fourth largest economy in the world.

    take it from someone who has given his best years to the ungrateful state: the [color=#e89512]nhs is a complete crap, and is beyond redemption. the large extra funding that this government has pumped in has gone on some 18,000 new managerial/administrative posts. the lies about the increased numbers of doctors and nurses are breathtaking - i have a friend who, through his circumstances, was counted four times as a new doctor. in the meantime, our wonderful nation pillages the third world for medical and nursing staff.
    Last edit by Roy Fokker on May 6, '05
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from stevielynn
    I'm happy about it and don't think Tony lied and don't think Bush lied either.

    steph
    If they didn't lie I still cannot believe either of them. To start a WAR on BAD intelligence ignoring inspectors and whistleblowers is too single minded. Lies or incredibly bad judgement? Dead is dead.

    "Dearlove briefed Prime Minister Blair and his top national security officials on July 23, 2002, on the Bush administration's plans to make war on Iraq.

    Blair does not dispute the authenticity of the document."

    http://www.tompaine.com/20050504/ar...d_the_facts.php

    Proof Bush Fixed The Facts
    By Ray McGovern
    TomPaine.com
    Wednesday 04 May 2005

    "Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

    Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in black and white - and beneath a SECRET stamp, no less. For three years now, we in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying that the CIA and its British counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries' leaders to "fix facts" to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq. More often than not, we have been greeted with stares of incredulity.

    It has been a hard learning - that folks tend to believe what they want to believe. As long as our evidence, however abundant and persuasive,

    remained circumstantial, it could not compel belief. It simply is much easier on the psyche to assent to the White House spin machine blaming the Iraq fiasco on bad intelligence than to entertain the notion that we were sold a bill of goods.

    Well, you can forget circumstantial. Thanks to an unauthorized disclosure by a courageous whistleblower, the evidence now leaps from official documents - this time authentic, not forged. Whether prompted by the open appeal of the international Truth-Telling Coalition or not, some brave soul has made the most explosive "patriotic leak" of the war by giving London's Sunday Times the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then head of Britain's CIA equivalent, MI-6. Fresh back in London from consultations in Washington, Dearlove briefed Prime Minister Blair and his top national security officials on July 23, 2002, on the Bush administration's plans to make war on Iraq.

    Blair does not dispute the authenticity of the document, which immortalizes a discussion that is chillingly amoral. Apparently no one felt free to ask the obvious questions. Or, worse still, the obvious questions did not occur.

    Juggernaut Before The Horse
    In emotionless English, Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has decided to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." Period. What about the intelligence? Dearlove adds matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

    At this point, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw confirms that Bush has decided on war, but notes that stitching together justification would be a challenge, since "the case was thin." Straw noted that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

    In the following months, "the case" would be buttressed by a well-honed U.S.-U.K. intelligence-turned-propaganda-machine. The argument would be made "solid" enough to win endorsement from Congress and Parliament by conjuring up:

    Aluminum artillery tubes misdiagnosed as nuclear related;

    Forgeries alleging Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa;

    Tall tales from a drunken defector about mobile biological weapons laboratories;

    Bogus warnings that Iraqi forces could fire WMD-tipped missiles within 45 minutes of an order to do so;

    Dodgy dossiers fabricated in London; and

    A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate thrown in for good measure.

    All this, as Dearlove notes dryly, despite the fact that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Another nugget from Dearlove's briefing is his bloodless comment that one of the U.S. military options under discussion involved "a continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli" - the clear implication being that planners of the air campaign would also see to it that an appropriate casus belli was orchestrated.

    The discussion at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002 calls to mind the first meeting of George W. Bush's National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001, at which the president made it clear that toppling Saddam Hussein sat atop his to-do list, according to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who was there. O'Neil was taken aback that there was no discussion of why it was necessary to "take out" Saddam. Rather, after CIA Director George Tenet showed a grainy photo of a building in Iraq that he said might be involved in producing chemical or biological agents, the discussion proceeded immediately to which Iraqi targets might be best to bomb. Again, neither O'Neil nor the other participants asked the obvious questions. Another NSC meeting two days later included planning for dividing up Iraq's oil wealth.

    Obedience School
    As for the briefing of Blair, the minutes provide further grist for those who describe the U.K. prime minister as Bush's "poodle." The tone of the conversation bespeaks a foregone conclusion that Blair will wag his tail cheerfully and obey the learned commands. At one point he ventures the thought that, "If the political context were right, people would support regime change." This, after Attorney General Peter Goldsmith has already warned that the desire for regime change "was not a legal base for military action," - a point Goldsmith made again just 12 days before the attack on Iraq until he was persuaded by a phalanx of Bush administration lawyers to change his mind 10 days later.

    The meeting concludes with a directive to "work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action."

    I cannot quite fathom why I find the account of this meeting so jarring. Surely it is what one might expect, given all else we know. Yet seeing it in bloodless black and white somehow gives it more impact. And the implications are no less jarring.

    One of Dearlove's primary interlocutors in Washington was his American counterpart, CIA director George Tenet. (And there is no closer relationship between two intelligence services than the privileged one between the CIA and MI-6.) Tenet, of course, knew at least as much as Dearlove, but nonetheless played the role of accomplice in serving up to Bush the kind of "slam-dunk intelligence" that he knew would be welcome. If there is one unpardonable sin in intelligence work, it is that kind of politicization. But Tenet decided to be a "team player" and set the tone.

    Politicization: Big Time
    Actually, politicization is far too mild a word for what happened. The intelligence was not simply mistaken; it was manufactured, with the president of the United States awarding foreman George Tenet the Medal of Freedom for his role in helping supervise the deceit. The British documents make clear that this was not a mere case of "leaning forward" in analyzing the intelligence, but rather mass deception - an order of magnitude more serious. No other conclusion is now possible.

    Small wonder, then, to learn from CIA insiders like former case officer Lindsay Moran that Tenet's malleable managers told their minions, "Let's face it. The president wants us to go to war, and our job is to give him a reason to do it."
    Small wonder that, when the only U.S. analyst who met with the alcoholic Iraqi defector appropriately codenamed "Curveball" raised strong doubt about Curveball's reliability before then-Secretary of State Colin Powell used the fabrication about "mobile biological weapons trailers" before the United Nations, the analyst got this e-mail reply from his CIA supervisor:

    "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the powers that be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about."

    When Tenet's successor, Porter Goss, took over as director late last year, he immediately wrote a memo to all employees explaining the "rules of the road" - first and foremost, "We support the administration and its policies." So much for objective intelligence insulated from policy pressure.

    Tenet and Goss, creatures of the intensely politicized environment of Congress, brought with them a radically new ethos - one much more akin to that of Blair's courtiers than to that of earlier CIA directors who had the courage to speak truth to power.

    Seldom does one have documentary evidence that intelligence chiefs chose to cooperate in both fabricating and "sexing up" (as the British press puts it) intelligence to justify a prior decision for war. There is no word to describe the reaction of honest intelligence professionals to the corruption of our profession on a matter of such consequence. "Outrage" does not come close.
    Hope In Unauthorized Disclosures

    Those of us who care about unprovoked wars owe the patriot who gave this latest British government document to The Sunday Times a debt of gratitude. Unauthorized disclosures are gathering steam. They need to increase quickly on this side of the Atlantic as well - the more so, inasmuch as Congress-controlled by the president's party-cannot be counted on to discharge its constitutional prerogative for oversight.

    In its formal appeal of Sept. 9, 2004 to current U.S. government officials, the Truth-Telling Coalition said this:

    We know how misplaced loyalty to bosses, agencies, and careers can obscure the higher allegiance all government officials owe the Constitution, the sovereign public, and the young men and women put in harm's way. We urge you to act on those higher loyalties...Truth-telling is a patriotic and effective way to serve the nation. The time for speaking out is now.
    If persons with access to wrongly concealed facts and analyses bring them to light, the chances become less that a president could launch another unprovoked war - against, say, Iran.

    Ray McGovern served 27 years as a CIA analyst and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He works for Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour.
  14. by   madwife2002
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    I'm not Brit but have been following this closely. I'd argue that the reason that Labour even retained the seats they did was thanks to Brown's heroics in the Treasury department.

    Me? I'd pick Lib Dem - they're the closest thing to libertarianism you Brits have over there

    Regards from an ex-colonial

    PS : Here's what a pal of mine had to say about the NHS:
    Wow,

    Best bit of literature I have ever read about the NHS, it sums it up completley. Thank you for sharing that with us

    The only reason we still have a functioning NHS and I use the word functioning loosly is because of the dedication of the staff. We listen daily to the lies told about the NHS, and I stand on my ward and look around and wonder where the lucky wards and hospitals are that they (the government) talk about. Somedays I leave work and I wonder how I could work any harder than I do already. :uhoh21:

close