Tony Blair interview

[lyonhibs]

His first public interview since 2007. Absolutely fascinating, and quite revealing in places.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tn4fw/The_Tony_Blair_Interview_with_Andrew_Marr/

Let the debates begin - a lot of us are as big an armchair Prime Minister as we are an armchair football manager.

My tuppence worth - his domestic record, some of the reforms that were introduced were - and still are - very much needed by the country. Northern Ireland peace agreement is a real jewel in the crown, though you can't say with 100% certaintity that that region of the world will ever be permanently at peace.

Foreign policy, in particular the way the - entirely nominal and in practice ficticious - "peace" in Iraq/Afghanistan has been handled has left a lot to be desired, and persistent reports of the Armed Forces being under (or ill) equipped in that region must remain a stain on his copybook as PM.

Still, I would certainly not put myself in the group (majority?? :dunno:) of people these days who loathe the man and think he is nothing more than a bloodthirsty liar that revels in sending soldiers to their doom.

[Beefster]

While I didn't agree with his politics, I've never loathed him in the way that some people do and he was a far better PM than Brown ever was. I thought he came across well in the interview.

[Hibs Class]

The "clarification" of many matters in the book, esp. the relationship with Brown, just indicates the extent to which the public were lied to when he was running the country as opposed to just flogging a book. The same lies were also confirmed when Mandelson did likewise earlier in the Summer. It is like a car crash, though, and will be interesting to see Brown's version of events when he writes his book.

[Betty Boop]

A disgusting liar, with blood on his hands.

[khib70]

A disgusting liar, with blood on his hands.
:yawn:
Yes, fancy deposing that nice Saddam Hussein. And bringing peace to the North of Ireland. And not selling nuclear weapons to Hamas. It would have been so much better if that nice Mr Galloway had been PM, eh?

It's a pity that the OP's balanced and reasoned analysis ends up a couple of posts later with this kind of rent-a-slogan name calling.

[lyonhibs]

:yawn:
Yes, fancy deposing that nice Saddam Hussein. And bringing peace to the North of Ireland. And not selling nuclear weapons to Hamas. It would have been so much better if that nice Mr Galloway had been PM, eh?

It's a pity that the OP's balanced and reasoned analysis ends up a couple of posts later with this kind of rent-a-slogan name calling.

Entirely expected though, sadly.

Didn't realise he was quite so revered in Kosovo and Sierra Leone - that footage of hundreds, if not thousands, of Kosovans chanting "Tony, Tony" was something I hadn't seen before.

[khib70]

Entirely expected though, sadly.

Didn't realise he was quite so revered in Kosovo and Sierra Leone - that footage of hundreds, if not thousands, of Kosovans chanting "Tony, Tony" was something I hadn't seen before.
Two more excellent illustrations of the fact that Blair had the courage to intervene decisively when required, instead of wringing his hands and sympathising from a safe distance. If the "peace at any price" brigade had their way, there would be very few Kosovans left to chant anything. Inevitably history will judge him more kindly (and accurately) than most people on here.

Luckily, history is not written by "Guardian" columnists.

[Betty Boop]

Two more excellent illustrations of the fact that Blair had the courage to intervene decisively when required, instead of wringing his hands and sympathising from a safe distance. If the "peace at any price" brigade had their way, there would be very few Kosovans left to chant anything. Inevitably history will judge him more kindly (and accurately) than most people on here.

Luckily, history is not written by "Guardian" columnists.

Tony Blair, who describes George Bush as a man with genuine integrity. Pass me the sick bag! :greengrin

[bawheid]

The "clarification" of many matters in the book, esp. the relationship with Brown, just indicates the extent to which the public were lied to when he was running the country as opposed to just flogging a book. The same lies were also confirmed when Mandelson did likewise earlier in the Summer. It is like a car crash, though, and will be interesting to see Brown's version of events when he writes his book.

Politician in lies shock. :bitchy:

I would wager that every government who's ever governed had folks within it who didn't get along too well.

Blair did more right than wrong IMO.

[Phil D. Rolls]

:yawn:
Yes, fancy deposing that nice Saddam Hussein. And bringing peace to the North of Ireland. And not selling nuclear weapons to Hamas. It would have been so much better if that nice Mr Galloway had been PM, eh?

It's a pity that the OP's balanced and reasoned analysis ends up a couple of posts later with this kind of rent-a-slogan name calling.

As opposed to this?:yawn:

(By the way, I've got some bad news about Santa Claus.)

[lyonhibs]

[QUOTE=bawheid;2566438]Politician in lies shock. :bitchy:

I would wager that every government who's ever governed had folks within it who didn't get along too well.

Blair did more right than wrong IMO.[/QUOTE

:agree: :agree:

And yet for some reason did not consider it wise to - when in power - to come out and go "aye, our 2 biggest players can't stand each other". Funny that.

I just thought it was a pretty good interview - Andrew Marr (for once) wasn't too much of a self satisfied prick (though I still can't take him seriously since he effectively asked a sitting Prime Minister if he was dependent on drugs to get him through the day :bitchy:) and Tony Blair answered the questions in as non-politician a fashion as I can remember from any career politician.

He certainly oversaw a fairly momentous decade in British History. As mentioned above, I agree that, with time, history will judge Blair on that decade in its entirety, not just the foreign policy errors that occured in the last few years of that decade.

[Woody1985]

Is it true that he states in the book about lost Iraqi lives that the equivilent number would have died in poverty and malnutrition under Saddam anyway?

My personal opinion is that he's a spinster (as almost all politicians are when faced with tough opposition), over spent during his tme in charge (could perhaps be blamed on Brown) and ultimately took us to a war that wasn't required and/or ours.

[Hibs Class]

Politician in lies shock. :bitchy:

I would wager that every government who's ever governed had folks within it who didn't get along too well.

Blair did more right than wrong IMO.


Yo're right that telling of lies is widespread in politics, but that doesn't make it right. I think it is also unusual the extent to which it is now being admitted, especially as relatively little time has passed since the period in question

[jdships]

I don't loathe the man - I have never "loathed" anyone in my life.
My problem with Blair was /is he has more faces than a steeple clock and genuinely believes " the only credible opinions are mine" - which showed up in his interview

Thankfully he is now "yesterdays man " and personally am glad for him to be just that
:bye:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is it true that he states in the book about lost Iraqi lives that the equivilent number would have died in poverty and malnutrition under Saddam anyway?

My personal opinion is that he's a spinster (as almost all politicians are when faced with tough opposition), over spent during his tme in charge (could perhaps be blamed on Brown) and ultimately took us to a war that wasn't required and/or ours.

Depends who you believe, history tends to be written by the winners. My main question is why were they so bothered about the rights of Iraqui people when there are equally corrupt regimes operating elsewhere in the world?

[Woody1985]

Depends who you believe, history tends to be written by the winners. My main question is why were they so bothered about the rights of Iraqui people when there are equally corrupt regimes operating elsewhere in the world?

Sorry, you've lost me on the 'who you tend to believe'. I read that he's said this but don't know if it was in the press, in front of a camera, in his book or not at all.

I don't think you'll ever get a true answer to your question. I suspect that they weren't that interested in the Iraqi people but I will also never know.

TB is a calm and calculated person. He's admitted in his book that he never gave a full answer to a question on the Iraq enquiry because he could anticipate the newspaper headlines if he did. I've not read the book but those are the extracts I read in the press and have taken them to be accurate (rightly or wrongly).

[Beefster]

Entirely expected though, sadly.

Didn't realise he was quite so revered in Kosovo and Sierra Leone - that footage of hundreds, if not thousands, of Kosovans chanting "Tony, Tony" was something I hadn't seen before.

I read somewhere that there are a number of kids in Kosovo named "Tonibler" in his honour.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sorry, you've lost me on the 'who you tend to believe'. I read that he's said this but don't know if it was in the press, in front of a camera, in his book or not at all.

I don't think you'll ever get a true answer to your question. I suspect that they weren't that interested in the Iraqi people but I will also never know.

TB is a calm and calculated person. He's admitted in his book that he never gave a full answer to a question on the Iraq enquiry because he could anticipate the newspaper headlines if he did. I've not read the book but those are the extracts I read in the press and have taken them to be accurate (rightly or wrongly).

I suppose I'm saying that people chose which version of events to accept based on how it affects them. Blair claims that Iraquis would have starved to death, but I know that we don't get the full truth in the west.

The same thing would apply to how they portray Iran on TV at the moment.

[khib70]

I suppose I'm saying that people chose which version of events to accept based on how it affects them. Blair claims that Iraquis would have starved to death, but I know that we don't get the full truth in the west.

The same thing would apply to how they portray Iran on TV at the moment.
Oh give it a rest. So Iran is really some kind of paragon of democracy, freedom and tolerance, which is deliberately being misrepresented by the nasty capitalist western media.:violin:

Perhaps you should spend some time listening to the testimony of Iranian dissidents and exiles,or viewing the ample evidence of the brutal suppression of protest. Stonings, anyone?

And of course, the Iraqis were really having a whale of a time under good ole Saddam :rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

I revile him. A loathsome man.

I see the Labour leadership hopefuls were falling over themsleves to distance themselves from any possible patronage or endorsement from 'The Man'. Hopefully his legacy is short-lived.

[lyonhibs]

I suppose I'm saying that people chose which version of events to accept based on how it affects them. Blair claims that Iraquis would have starved to death, but I know that we don't get the full truth in the west.

The same thing would apply to how they portray Iran on TV at the moment.

Hmmmm stoning folk to death for adultery?? Cutting limbs off for theft?? Unless you include Amnesty International as being part of the non full truth portraying TV folks, then that IS the harsh reality of life if you dare to cross the "law" in Iran.

Also, with Iran, it's not just low-level administrative nincompoops who are making frankly worrying proclamations on the cases Amnesty International and other independent Aid organisations have been reporting.

Certain branches of the "Western media" can certainly apply a slant/twist to the truth to fit an agenda, but I don't think the evidence of the regime's brutal side in Iran is anything less than unequivocal.

[Woody1985]

I suppose I'm saying that people chose which version of events to accept based on how it affects them. Blair claims that Iraquis would have starved to death, but I know that we don't get the full truth in the west.

The same thing would apply to how they portray Iran on TV at the moment.

Ahh, so you mean that's his view because he views it that way to justify the lost lives?

I thought you meant that it was my view on him. I was simply trying to establish if he actually said it or not.

[steakbake]

Oh give it a rest. So Iran is really some kind of paragon of democracy, freedom and tolerance, which is deliberately being misrepresented by the nasty capitalist western media.:violin:

Perhaps you should spend some time listening to the testimony of Iranian dissidents and exiles,or viewing the ample evidence of the brutal suppression of protest. Stonings, anyone?

And of course, the Iraqis were really having a whale of a time under good ole Saddam :rolleyes:

Regime change was not the reason we were given for why we were going to war. If it was, I would be hoping we might invade Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma etc to liberate their people from brutal oppression.

On the one hand we were told that the invasion would be quick and that Saddam's army was depleted and ineffective. On the other we were being told that they represented an immediate danger to the world and could fire WMDs at us within 45 minutes.

Contradiction, contradiction, contradiction.

[Mibbes Aye]

Regime change was not the reason we were given for why we were going to war. If it was, I would be hoping we might invade Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma etc to liberate their people from brutal oppression.

On the one hand we were told that the invasion would be quick and that Saddam's army was depleted and ineffective. On the other we were being told that they represented an immediate danger to the world and could fire WMDs at us within 45 minutes.

Contradiction, contradiction, contradiction.

I know. Who would have thought the political reality would be so complicated? :rolleyes: :greengrin

I think your first paragraph raises an interesting point.

Is it wrong to take military action to effect regime change, if you're going to be selective about where you invade?

(This is assuming that one agrees it's okay to take military action of course, based on principles of liberal democracy etc etc etc).

The consequences of invading North Korea would be potentially far more cataclysmic than those of invading Zimbabwe, say. To overthrow a 'bad' regime by force in the latter, but not the former, may be interpeted by some as hypocritical but is surely a case of idealism being shaped by realism.

It wouldn't be 'wrong', would it?

[hibsbollah]

I know. Who would have thought the political reality would be so complicated? :rolleyes: :greengrin

I think your first paragraph raises an interesting point.

Is it wrong to take military action to effect regime change, if you're going to be selective about where you invade?

(This is assuming that one agrees it's okay to take military action of course, based on principles of liberal democracy etc etc etc).

The consequences of invading North Korea would be potentially far more cataclysmic than those of invading Zimbabwe, say. To overthrow a 'bad' regime by force in the latter, but not the former, may be interpeted by some as hypocritical but is surely a case of idealism being shaped by realism.

It wouldn't be 'wrong', would it?

It is an interesting point. It just goes to show that the 'war decision' is always shaped by self-interest, never by ethical considerations.

North Korea has no important natural resources, a fearsome military machine and, if defeated in a war, would be the source of millions of starving refugees that would flood South Korea (and potentially) Japan and potentially overwhelm two previously successful economies. Nobody wants war with North Korea, so it doesnt happen, regardless of the strong ethical and moral case.

If you intervene in some countries but dont intervene in others, it doesnt make the intervention decision wrong in itself, but it does show the hypocrisy involved. It would be more honest if powerful countries just admitted it was all part of national self-interest.

Just finished reading this-an excellent introduction to the subject.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nothing-Envy-Lives-North-Korea/dp/184708141X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283516897&sr=8-1

[heretoday]

It was the same old Blair in the interview. He didn't say much really.

I'd like to have seen how he would have coped had he been in charge when the financial world collapsed.

He seems to have escaped all opprobrium for that.

[John_the_angus_hibby]

Consumate communicator. Able to empathise ala Clinton. Was a natural thespian (one issue is that he would fool himslef as well as others). He is also a natural authotarian. Honestly wanted deliver major change - some good some bad - inpublic service delivery. Bravely intervened in Kosovo. The issue is that a) this gav him the taste of war as diplomacy by another name and b) 9/11 convined him that the west faced an implacable enemy and that the US would strike out blindly unless tempered by British involvement. (yeh right! That worked!

He was niavely used by US neo-cons and he is denial and has a bit of a god complex.

Just my view.

[IWasThere2016]

I agree that he did more good than bad - at the he was used by US also.

I've met Blair - very pleasurable man. He is also tall - he must be 6'2

[bawheid]

I agree that he did more good than bad - at the he was used by US also.

I've met Blair - very pleasurable man. He is also tall - he must be 6'2

Get him signed up and playing midfield!