What a difference a day makes
WASHINGTON DC: It is impossible to conceive of the prime minister and the president standing shoulder to shoulder today as they've done so many times before to insist that the war in Iraq is being won, and that all that's needed is the will "to stay the course" (Bush-speak) or to "get the job done" (Blair-speak).
Just before flying to the US, Tony Blair was asked at Prime Minister's Questions whether he agreed with the new US defence secretary's stark assessment of the war. "Of course" came the reply as if that's what he'd always said. That follows his assent recently to the suggestion that Iraq was .
Clearly the rhetoric at this White House news conference will be very different form others in the past. What, though, of the reality?
The for some of what the British government have been urging on the American administration in private. Ever since 9/11, the prime minister has talked of the urgency of pursuing an Arab-Israeli settlement. I expect him to announce that he's heading to the Middle East again soon in an effort to accelerate the search for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In so doing Mr Blair is mirroring the call from the Iraq Study Group for a "whole Middle East strategy". So far, though, President Bush has not followed his lead.
The prime minister has also, like the ISG, spoken of engaging Iraq's partners, Iran and, in particular, Syria. Although Mr Blair's foreign affairs adviser recently visited Syria there are no plans for the PM to follow him on the road to Damascus. The message from London is that the door is open to President Assad but it is his choice as to whether he walks through it. His trip to the region will take in other countries though that are regarded as moderate Muslim allies.
Recently, a state department official here in Washington confessed that "we typically ignore" the British and "take no notice - it's a sad business". Tony Blair must hope that he just might be listened to, now that senior American politicians from both parties are saying some of the things he's been saying. He is, after all, in his own words "an eternal optimist".
I'm 
Comments
What a disgraceful way to tell the British people they are losing a war - a response to a question made by a leader of the opposition based upon a comment made during the vetting of a prospective defence secretary in a foreign country. And then to make out that it's something he's been saying all along. When will this non-leader step down and shuffle of into the reject bin of history? He can have his self-regarding memoirs, massive tax payer funded pension and lucrative executive directorships, just please make him go away.
What a disgraceful way to tell the British people they are losing a war
But Britain seems to have developed collective Stockholm Syndrome, where a lot of people still actually accept failure as the least worst option!
Churchill said that democracy is the least bad form of government available. Its main merit is not that it reflects the views of the people all the time (it can't) but it is self-correcting,i.e. the people or the government can get rid of the leader when he fails on a major scale (i.e.Nixon, Eden,, Chamberlain). It is tragic that the most disastrous Prime Minister in two centuries, who engaged our country in an unnecessary and morally unjustifiable war, has been allowed to continue in his post long after the magnitude of his error became clear. It doesn't say much for his party or the opposition.
Well said Robert McIntyre. He will of course leave office, as others in his administration have done "with his integrity intact!!!
'Stay the coursse' Bush-speak.
'Get the job done' Blair speak.
'Stay the course-pull out-get the job done'-Cameron flip flop.
'Don't get involved, it's not happening.' Ming speak.
Take your pick about where you're at, but let's be absolutely clear about one thing: Some of us have no intention of allowing a convicted human rights criminal look and appear as though he is innocent, and that it is not Britain's responsibility to end it.
Appeaement is, and has been proven to be, the biggest killer on this planet.
Action, ends it.
Gary
It seems that everyone has misinterpreted Mr. Blair's "Of course" response.
He was (as with David Frost) answering only the first part of the question.
Cameron: "Do you agree with the new American Secretary of defence?"
Blair: "Of course"
What the new secretary was saying is, of course, of secondary importance.
All the failings identified in this report must be shared by the British administration. It is interesting that no one appears to have made this connection openly in the media.
Whatever the failings of the Bush administration there is at least an open debate and or ivestigation going on about what is going on and or wrong. Not here though!
It really is one thing to take this country into an unprovoked war, (whatever the legality of the same) but to take us into a war which is being fought incompetently and or one we cannot win is incredible.
Pick your battles and make sure you win.
Thank goodness Tony Blair wan't around during the Second World war.
How inept is this commander in chief!
Let's not knock the PM again.
He's realised he made a mistake in supporting the US invasion of Iraq and now has the bottle to admit it.
I remember how I felt when Sadam refused to let the weapons inspectors do there jobs and after 9/11 which I clearly thought at the time, was like the end of the world.
Blair stated sadam had WMDs ready to go in 45 minutes "A lie" However no one knew for sure. BUT one thing was certain. Sadam was hiding or plotting something whether NOW or in the future.
What Bush and Blair did was neccesary, but Blair should have taken responsibility for his lie "Weapons of mass destruction ready to go in 45 mins" and resigned or been sacked.
The chaos in iraq is the result of Iraqis fighting each other because there is NO force that will breach there human rights and stop them..
ITS not the wests fault they are fighting. ITS not the wests fault they are in this position. IF you really want to blame something then HAVE a look at religion.. The same problem that will become increasingly apparent here soon..
Well said Robert McIntyre...Whatever happened to Statesmanship?
A Prime Minister without credibility, a Prime Minister without shame.
Nick - please put the ghastly TB on the spot by asking some really tough questions about Iraq! No more 'softly, softly', 'Mr Nice Guy', namby pampy PC 麻豆社 soft questioning please! This man has spent billions on a pointless war, which has given fanatics and extremists just the excuse they wanted to create absolute mayhem, killing hundreds more into the bargain. An absolute disgrace, total misjudgement and utter ignorance of Middle Eastern culture, history and attitudes. He should have listened to his advisors from the word go.
Nick, why not ask Blair if/when he is going to receive that nice shiny gold medal that he was 'awarded' by the U.S. Congress for supporting Bush and his adventures ?
What we need is a way for the electorate to dismiss an MP if they continue to flagrantly disregard the will of the people. As long as only get to cast one vote every five years, corrupt and cynical politicians like Blair are going to continue to abuse the trust we place in them.
Nor do I foresee any improvement from the next election. Each new government since the days of Maggie Thatcher seems determined to push the envelope in this regard. I fully expect whoever replaces Blair to be worse again, if only because Blair got away with so much, so why should not they?
I agree with Robert. This govt has completely lost it. Not a word of what they say can be believed. Not just on the Iraq issue, but also on the NHS. To say that A&E closures are necessary to SAVE lives, takes NuLab speak/spin to its extreme conclusion. 'Black is white, honest! Trust me...' The sooner we are rid of this govt, whose members wouldn't know the truth if it crept up and bit them, the better.
How will Tony Blair extricate himself for his political responsibility for the war in Iraq? He will no doubt seek to distinguish between his motives for going to Iraq and the current situation. Remember the dossier fiasco? Tony didn't lie to us because while the 45-minute WMD claim was false, he believed it to be true when he said it. This PM is full of Admirable Intentions. When will he realise that policians are judged by results, and take responsibility for his part in the greatest foreign policy disaster so far this Century?
I couldn't agree with Mr McIntyre more. Blair treats Parliament and therefore us with utter contempt. No wonder there's such an air of unreality about this war and any genuine attempt to bring it and the slaughter to an end. It's a game we're apparently only playing when the Big Boys across the road say we can - and though we're paying to join in it's always always to their rules. Blair's willingness to go into Client State mode when he's in sight of Bush shames and lessens us all. And Democracy.
It is really pathetic to watch Blair forlornly searching for some role to justify him hanging on to office for a few more months, when in reality his slavish service of Bush has left him so totally discredited in the world that he can no longer achieve anything. Hopefully Bush will tell him 鈥淐ondi鈥檚 going鈥 once more, and save everybody the embarrassment of watching an exercise in self-indulgence.
The truth is that both of these 鈥榣eaders鈥 are weighed down by the disastrous consequences of their past mistakes 鈥 and in particular by their inability to admit that their entire policy has been fundamentally misconceived from the outset. So they are incapable of adopting any policy that is soundly based, because explaining its basis would expose their lies and the sheer incompetence that has lead us to the current state of chaos.
The best service that Blair could do now for his people and for the people of Iraq would be to take a trip not to the middle east but to Buckingham Palace.
Nick
There's little chance of Blair making ANY difference to US policy, as you and he well know.
While Israel pulls Blair and Bush's puppet strings (and those of the Conservatives here and Democrats in USA too) peace will remain an illusion. Palestine based on the pre-1967 borders is the only route to peace in the Middle East. But Blair's tacit support for the Israeli invasion of Lebannon means he has no credibility as an interloctor.
After a fiasco of such magnitude, did they have to hire and pay a group of older guys to tell the world leaders (Bush/Blair)that what they did was indeed a disaster that is no way near going away?
Anybody glancing at the news in any media outlet(even Fox News)could have told them that.
One pathetic irony is that these two leaders were both re-elected in their respective countries after the misery they inflicted upon Iraq.
So, according to a now reprimanded State Dept. official, Blair was ignored? Blair should consider himself lucky, as whenever he opens his mouth nowadays he attracts derision.
I despair of both the Bush and Blair administrations - they have single-handedly ruined the reputations of USA/UK and the case for humantarian intervention. If only we had intelligent people directing the handling of Iraq it wouldn't have turned into such a mess.
Blair has recently made noises about subtle diplomacy with Syria, etc in his submission to ISG. Why is it that he has only said this type of stuff AFTER the Middle East turned into an even bigger mess than it was before? Why didn't he have the backbone to tell Bush that he needed to take notice of the importance of diplomacy AND warn him that the lack of post-invasion planning (including the ridiculous decision to disband the Iraqi army and police) would inevitably lead to catastrophe in advance of the invasion?!
"What a difference a day makes"
This is the beginning of a new day. You have been given this day to use as you will. You can waste it or use it for good. What you do today is important because you are exchanging a day of your life for it. When tomorrow comes, this day will be gone forever, in its place is something that you left behind let it be something good.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
Tony Blair said that he represents the British people on Iraq. Time after time Tony Blair fails to tell the truth. This is what one could expect from a crime family. I ask is this what the democratic West has come to accept? The Arab world has a score to settle and we should listen for their morals are those of their faith and show us in a bad light.
The George and Tony show just prompted me to remember a Spitting Image sketch, I think of Thatcher and Kinnock, where one was a giant in comparison to the other, a pygmy. Of course which is the giant and which the pygmy today?
It麓s a pity that Bush, Blair and Fogh in Denmark didn麓t read John Gray麓s book "False Dawn" before going to war. Or his book of 2003, "Al Quada and what it means to modern". If they had, they would never have ventured into the impossible, ie. to think that politicians can create a society from above, when i fact all societies are created from below.
I think it's important for us to remember that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was not just a "mistake"; it was illegal, immoral and incredibly stupid too. It was a war of choice that should never have been allowed to take place. When Blair and Bush stand beside each other today we shouldn't forget that they are, in my opinion, international criminals who, if we lived in a fully funtioning democracy, would already be on trial for war crimes sitting right next to Saddam! The only difference between them is - he lost.
The "eternal optimist" is a dangerous war crimminal who should be put on trial "shoulder to shoulder" with his Lord and Master Bush.
Prime Minister Blair being more educated and more experienced politician should have advised President Bush with forersight instead of endorsing and promoting his ill-conceived Iraqi war.
Maybe I am getting old and crabby,has nobody noticed that throughout the last 50 years when we have supported the USA we have been screwed.There is only a special relationship when it suits them.Yo Blair is the latest but still does not fully admit it to us or himself that he has been played with.He believes his own spin and still expects us to.He is out of his depyth in a puddle.
Why o why,will these two not heed the honest advice given too them daily by the real experts of war,its an absolute mess,its civil war now and civil war when they leave,the thought of what kind of failed state Iraq will become is the price Blair and Bush will have to pay for a monumental blunder.I agree with the majority of bloggers Blair must resign now!and if he does go,let there be no comparison to his timely oust,to that of Attlee's resignation.
If you follow the link to the story about Blair agreeing the Iraq war has been pretty much a disaster it says that Blair claims he mispoke. Is he retracting this retraction now the US has indicated that even they accept that a policy of mindless optimism and blaming the media can't change reality? It's quite funny how our government's talking points on Iraq tend to lag those of the US as we scramble desperately to agree with everything they say. After the US mid-terms it looked like we were going to be the only country still insisting that everything in Iraq was going fine.
Gary Elsby writes "Some of us have no intention of allowing a convicted human rights criminal look and appear as though he is innocent, and that it is not Britain's responsibility to end it."
But we left the greatest threat and most dangerous dictator in place: Kim Jong Il. He has nuclear, Saddam didn't and wasn't even trying.
To claim that we had a responsibility to topple Saddam but not Kim Jong Il is ridiculous. Whichever way you cut it, the Iraq invasion was wrong.
Oh, Nick, as an intelligent man you have a way of attracting the mis-informed! A bit like Blair really. (And you can take that as a self-criticism if you like!)
Two points: unlike the majority of the commenters here - I DO NOT KNOW whether Iraq will eventually be abandoned or end with an historic settlement.
And secondly, I believe that Blair and Bush are NOT WAR CRIMINALS, since UN agreement was reached for their decisions. Or is that too simplistic for the visceral vengeance seekers here?
I wish I could be as certain as your other some of your commenters about EVERYTHING, including our leader's motives. But I'm on my own it seems. With all their wisdom, shame the commenters here can't all get together and run the country ;0(
Hopefully the poodle might take a walk in the woods when he is over there.
"Iraq" is like a dog whistle for a standard package simplistic opinions.
Which "war in Iraq" is it we are supposed not to be winning? The war against Iranian-funded insurgents? The war against Iraqi women and children we supposedly want to kill? The war against religious warlords who have popped up since Sadaaam's disappeared? The war against the democratically elected government (Oh sorry, "American-backed" government - recognise the dismissal of the democratic vote, 麻豆社 lackeys?)
You never say Nick, beacause it interferes with the dog whistle.
Can I be the one to say that I think that Tony Blair has done an excellent job domestically, especially for the poorest people in this country (I was unemployed in 97, now I'm in work) and his government has made this one of the strongest economies in the world. Yes, he was fooled by Saddam just like the French and the Germans (who also thought he had WMDs), but he's never lied to the British public despite what his political opponents may spin. An honest mistake is different from a lie.
I imagine that most people on this page would say **** to the Iraqis - we don't care if they torture and kill each other, just bring our soldiers home ASAP, this week if possible. But fortunately for Iraqi democrats, our Prime Minister still thinks their democracy and they themselves worth fighting for, which makes him Britain's greatest PM in 50 years.
Does anyone remember when people said that Blair would do or say anything for the sake of popularity? Obviously now a proven lie, he's stuck to an unpopular course that will damage his reputation because he think's it's the right thing to do. And it is. Well done, Tony, if you stood again the British people would elect you again (you might lose Hampstead though).
The invasion of Iraq was never 'illegal', no more than the 'invasion' of Kosovo to protect the Muslims was illegal, or the 'invasion' of Sierra Leone to protect the government was illegal. Will the anti-Blairites stop constantly lying about this?
the problem in irak is that bush blair and others mention the election as if it was a genuine one.in fact it was a show conducted from the us for showing that thing is ok.the reality is that the sunni,the kurds are us collaborators and as such are more dangerous than the invaders(remember the french resistance)malaki,talabani,jaffari,chalabi are not known in irak there are c.i.a.agents and beleive me there is no way the real proud people of irak will let that happen.there will be no us friendly goverment in irak.never.
Anonymous is a typical critic with no moral conscience whatsoever.
Anonymous is not an Internationalist , but a Nationalist and opportunist.
To suggest that saddam had no Nuclear ambition is ridiculous, can he not remember the Israeli's bombing the Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981?
What was that for, to supply the Country with cheap electricity? The fifth largest producer of oil on the planet!
Saddam had every intentiion of sourcing a nuclear capability and I can't take Saddam apologists seriously, especially when they disregard crimes against humanity and the Governments determination to seek retribution for them.
Those with a conscience support all and any action to seek redress, and those without will always see the better side of a world criminal and regime by giving him a hug.
Gary
Well said, Glyn in Hounslow.
I agree with every word you've said. And watching the PM again this morning on TV on the multi-culturalism theme, he STILL amazes me! His finger is on the nation's pulse more acutely than any other politician today. And his steadfastness and conviction are clear to see even, as you point out, at the expense of is own popularity. Remember - this PM was hugely popular with a large majority of the voting public only a few years ago! But he doesn't wallow in self-pity or blame others. Personal disappointments and concerns are put aside and he keeps on fighting for what he believes in. True leadership.
The narrow-minded bigots who scream about Iraq and blame Blair for the religious and ethnic troubles that have long been there, forget that our PM protected Muslims in Kosovo against Christians. He had some fight on his hands to get Clinton's troops out of the air, but won that battle in the end, and so the war.
Blair now has to massage the political egos in the Middle East and get them to talk to each other like civilized human beings. If anyone can do it, he can.
This fight-back from the PM shows what he still has to offer. And the constantly low levels of support for his likely successor (I won't say "political assassin" - oh, all right then I will!) surely give some of us pause for hope.
Please leave a comment at the blog if you agree.
It's the most inhumane thing that you can imagine, what's happening to the iraqis today, and with all the powers that be in that country, doing only God knows what, and to say that iraqis will kill each other if america leaves, it's an insult, they were marrying each other before the invation and occupation, not killing each other, Why did america not secure the iranian border? instead just watched as the mullahs and their thousands of followers overflowed into Iraq?
Hazel, dear, please! This love-fest is slightly embarrasing. Yours ever, the Vicar
Nick, it seems to me that politicians no matter what party, whether on one side of the Atlantic or the other all speak with one voice. The truth of the matter is that if it isn't in their best interests they will not utter a word, nor will they undermine each other. The ISG was made up of very senior people and gave a totally frank assessment of the Iraq situation, however not a single one of them could throw out a strategy as to how they would have done things. The U.S. and Britain went into this war without an exit strategy and now are reaping their rewards for not doing so. Maybe, just Maybe the new Secretary of Defence will bring forward such a strategy that will work and hopefully everyone concerned will agree with.
Nick,
As an American veteran of the first Gulf War, or what I call the true beginning of the war in the middle east for the U.S. I find it hard to believe that reporters such as yourself haven鈥檛 noticed that PM Blair typically has the more progressive point of view between Bush and himself. What you and many of your commenter鈥檚 seem to be missing is this is the Bush Blair duet. Unlike our own President, Blair tends to say what is needed. He has made positive comments on global warming, some trade issues, and he usually calls things in Iraq as they are. Since their time in office together Blair has acted as the moderate, while bush is the zealot. It has been a solid strategy and still is, especially since the press corps fail to make an analysis of the situation and ask hard questions.
The problem I see here with reporters like your self is that instead of seeing this as purely propaganda meant to pacify you and the citizenry, everyone looks for the good parts in what these two men are saying and takes it at face value. While at the same time their policies remain the exact same. Neither Bush not Blair have made any real changes to what our militaries are doing in Iraq, and they both have a lot of friends making money hand over fist from the war they have escalated to catastrophic prapportions.
Although I鈥檓 sure this will fall on deaf ears, I can only try. Why don鈥檛 you reporters ask some real questions about what is going on in the Middle East. Like: Why does your administrations keep trying to call this a war on terror when reports from the officers and soldiers in Iraq, American and British, are that over 70% of the fighters they kill or encounter are Iraqi鈥檚? Are all of these Iraqi citizens terrorist too? Or why not ask about the involvement of Black Water and other private companies with paid 鈥渟ecurity鈥 aka mercenaries in Iraq?
This last question I haven鈥檛 heard anyone ask or just write about for over two years. Honestly Nick, I think most of the reporters in the U.S. and UK are towing the line, and playing the game because you are either scared of the retribution of asking really challenging questions, or you don鈥檛 really care that much and don鈥檛 want to rock the boat. Either way your playing Bush and Blair game, and failing the people who you should represent, well that is unless you feel like Bush and Blair are your people, and not the common people of the U.S. and UK.
Dear Nick, When all is said and done Tony Blair will have to live with his own conscience for the rest of his life and sometimes admitting a mistake to oneself is the hardest thing to do. He should have taken note of the massive protest against the war in Iraq but he chose to "swim against the tide" and tag along with George Dubya who now looks completely discredited.