« Why America Doesn't Ratify Treaties | Main | "The US is a great place to be anti-American" »



Well said, Mr Blair. I'm so plesed and relieved that he has finally got round to telling it like it is, even if it had to be in America and not in my own country. The British press would have had him for breakfast if he'd tried it here.

Wonder what his successor thinks!?

As the only British (or even European) politician who seems to have an international perspective (perhaps Sarkozy is on his way up) I am ever hopeful that Tony Blair might now start to make an even greater impact. We are much in need of his skills. And some of us miss him dreadfully.

I don't know whether the resignation of the Iranian nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani had anything to do with Blair's speech, but Ahmadinejad does enjoy making gestures. He may have been happy while the preception of mediation was ongoing, but if HIS man was coming round to the international viewpoint, well, he had to go.

Whether a war can be avoided in the Middle East, with Pakistan's current dreadful situation and Russia working far too closely with Iran for comfort, only time will tell.

Meanwhile, the USA must stay strong.

Ignore the fools in the British and American press and the sillies who think that Blair & Bush are the real criminals.

They are fools.

Let's identify our enemies, for through that recognition, we'll know our friends.

I'll link your article to my blog:


Tony Makara

Hasn't Blair got enough deaths on his bloodsoaked conscience already? It makes me angry to see the way that politicians who will never be called to fight themselves are all to happy to enourage conflict and the deaths of others. Tony Blair caused many deaths because of his lies over Iraq, why should anyone listen to his comments on Iran. The way to approach Iran is through diplomacy not conflict. Tony Blair seems to have his mind set on making sure that he is worth his thirty pieces of silver, or should I say his congressional gold medal.



'The way to approach Iran is through diplomacy not conflict.'

Now if the Iranians quit displaying those helpfully translated 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' banners on their missile launchers at parades I might say as you do, approach them through diplomacy.

Until such time, I suspect your faith in diplomacy is rather unwarranted.

Yes of course I understand that the Iranians are driven to these rhetorical displays by the unremitting hostility of the Great Satan and the Zionist entity but you know, you'd think even the mullahs would have been grateful to the Israelis for taking out the Osirak reactor and even grateful to the US for deposing Saddam.

No pleasing some people.:)

Bob B

Tell it like it is? OK, this is how it is:

It is hugely significant that Blair didn't dare make the like of this speech in Britain where he would have been quickly reminded of the lies in the government's dossier on Iraq's Weapons of Mass destruction, published on 24 September 2002, where it was claimed four times that these weapons could be used within 45 minutes of a command being given:

The invasion of Iraq was carefully planned in advance:

As for the motives, we have had no satisfactory explanations for these reports in MSM:

"WASHINGTON - At least $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds that was given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority there cannot be accounted for, according to a draft U.S. audit set for release soon.

"The audit by the Coalition Provisional Authority’s own inspector general blasts the CPA for 'not providing adequate stewardship' of at least $8.8 billion from the Development Fund for Iraq that was given to Iraqi ministries.

"The audit was first reported on a Web site earlier this month by David Hackworth, a journalist and retired colonel. A U.S. official confirmed that the contents of the leaked audit cited by Hackworth were accurate. . .

"One of the main benefactors of the Iraq funds was the Texas-based firm Halliburton, which was paid more than $1 billion out of those funds to bring in fuel for Iraqi civilians.

"The monitoring board said despite repeated requests it had not been given access to U.S. audits of contracts held by Halliburton, which was once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, and other firms that used the development funds."

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday."


"Bush lied" is a bit tiring and I thought, getting old. I don't see many of the original Democrats who started this attempt to pull the rug out from our efforts continuing its mantra. They've been soundly exposed for their lies and hypocrisy, plus, we're winning, and their 'principled' consciences may be too concerned about reelection and/or just plain looking, really bad.

Bush has only "lied" because the Left has lied preaching he's a liar. Its easy to go back into the late '90s with the Clinton Administration, convinced of Saddam's WMD. John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton to name just a few have all claimed it right up to Bush taking action.

Clinton's address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."

Has anyone heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Well, it's a document approved by Congress and signed by Clinton in October of '98. It set forth as American policy the support of groups opposed to Saddam Hussein and encouraged regime change. It even set aside millions for the Iraqi National Congress, the group many war critics have accused of duping the Bush administration into believing in WMD. But if the Bush administration was duped, so was the Clinton administration, since the Iraq Liberation Act has his signature on it. And duped does not imply they knew the truth, on the contrary.

You can google "Clinton Iraq 1998", find and read Madeline Albright sounding as hawkish on Saddam as Donald Rumsfeld ever was. Albright was Clinton's Secretary of State right up to the change of administrations. Al Gore's transformation from reasonable hawk to a sort of howling anti-war Mr. Righteous is particularly disturbing.

I remember Collin Powell being convinced enough he brought what info could be shared before the UN. He even revealed recorded conversations between Iraqis showing how they were trying to evade weapons inspectors.

Actually it would be a little easier to post about those Dem politicians who began this lie, revealing how they have lied, but that would still take pages worth of documented quotations. There is so much to counteract the "Bush lied" mantra its a bit difficult to even know how to pick and post.

Even concerning Saddam's harboring of terrorist bases, some were found in northern Iraq well after the war began but there was no intent by the MSM to have it known. Of course Saddam was also giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

Another tidbit... Jeffery Goldberg (The New Yorker) before the war: "Zarqawi is a high-ranking al-Qaeda operative who runs a subgroup of al-Qaeda. He is a specialist in chemical and biological weapons according to several European intelligence agencies, and he is most notable right now because he washed up mysteriously in Baghdad several months ago and was hospitalized in Baghdad. He was wounded, apparently, fighting the Ameicans in Afghanistan. The question is: How does someone--he's a one-legged, bearded, Arab-Afghan fighter. How does someone like that wash up in Baghdad, in a hospital, in a country that's a secret police-run state without the leadership of this country knowing and approving of his presence?"

Even Tenet said Saddam would have nukes although at around this time. Gee I guess we should've waited.

Those who (assuming they don't suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome) say the administration lied because they cherry picked information, or faulting them for acting on information indicating the earliest estimates of the threat are quite presumptuous in that they are not the one in office, ultimately, held responsible and accountable. If you are being told the guy next door is building a bomb and he's going to blow you and your family up, and you have a lot of differing opinions about how long its going to take to build this bomb, do you take all the different assessments and choose to believe the ones that say it will take a year, rather than the ones that say it will take a month? Or do you just take all the estimates and average them? Or do you, right after 9/11 caught you by surprise - caught the world by surprise - decide that you will no longer give a terrorist the benefit of the doubt and decide to act on the information that says he could have the bomb built in the least amount of time, out of an over abundance of caution?

One more thing. Israeli intelligence said WMD could have easily been sent into Syria via train. Saddam stalled for plenty of time, which has to make anyone wonder.

My own opinion is Bush was not and could not be 100% sure. But, he was genuinely concerned enough to believe, most likely, WMD would be found. I would not want to be a major leader in this world today considering the horrible consequences upon humanity with the slightest error in judgment, and be pressured... to act only if realities were known 100%.


Re: Blair's Iran Speech in NYC

I've perused some of the posts on this blog shredding Tony. What part of Blair's speech on Ahmadinejad and Iran were erroneous?

I suppose the crowd that believes Iran is developing nuclear "energy" and not weapons while Ahmad and the Mullahs talk about driving Israel and the Zionists into the sea.

There was such a crowd in the 1930's. The ones who believed Hitler was just another tinpot despot and would never wreck such enormous death and destruction across Europe.

There were voices back then, warning of Hitler. Tony Blair is one such voice today.

Go ahead, pretend Iran is not gearing itself for a push in the Middle East. Pretend the London Tube bombings were just a brief moment in time and that there isn't a group of crazy bastards who believe in teaching their followers that blowing oneself up is the height of martyrdom.

Tony Blair is the UK's greatest asset.

At least Blair is out there, not sitting behind some keyboard pontificating.



Bob B

"Tony Blair is the UK's greatest asset."

He has done immense damage to the credibility of the New Labour government and in the opinion of many in the British electorate, on the available evidence he should be standing trial in the ICC in the Hague as a war criminal.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker