Two little words
"It has". Two little words that signify so much. They were uttered by Tony Blair in answer to Sir David Frost's suggestion that the situation in Iraq since the war had "so far been pretty much of a disaster". What do they signify? That the PM knows that there is simply no point any more arguing with interviewers, with the listening public and - arguably - with reality. Tony Blair knows that's an argument that has already been lost. He wishes instead to focus on the argument about who's to blame for the disaster - insurgents he insists - and what should be done now - staying there until "the job is done" he will continue to argue.
Political strategists call this strategy "concede and move on". There is one problem with this analysis. Downing Street deny he meant to say it. He was, they say, merely being courteous to his interviewer by acknowledging his question. Mmmm. As someone who's interviewed the PM more than a few times this argument's new to me. It is, of course, most likely that those two words were not a slip, not part of some strategy but were instead a reflection that Tony Blair doesn't regard the suggestion that the situation in Iraq has "so far been pretty much of a disaster" as remotely surprising.
More important than his views, though, are those of the politician visiting Basra today - Gordon Brown. Which words would he use to describe the situation in Iraq and, more importantly, how to improve it?
I'm 
Comments
I'm so old that I remember the time when politicians who admitted that their foreign policy had been a disaster had some dignity and resigned.
Why on earth is Gordon Brown visiting our serving soldiers in Iraq. He is after all still the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps he'll be handing out some advice on how they can reduce their tax burden. The pretext is to discuss funding the reconstruction of Iraq (while carelessly chucking away a whole further wedge of taxpayer's money) but this is more about political grandstanding to enhance his own image. It does not get my approval but I expect he'll be paying his own expenses for the trip?!
Of course he did.
He can't help telling the truth accidentally every now and again.
A rare moment - Prime Minster Blair speaking honestly albeit momentarily. He quickly recovered however and sought to blame everyone but himself for the mess. Business as usual then.
"Concede and move on",eh?
Doesn't that simply mean trying to escape responsibility/culpability for what has been a catastrophically ill-judged and poorly managed intervention/war. The casualties can hardly move on, can they, and those stuck in a rapidly disintegrating Iraq similarly don't have that luxury of being able to brush things away in preparation for a lucrative retirement.
What weasel words are we next expected to swallow?
Someone needs to point out to Blair that the majority of Iraqis want the US and UK troops out now. It's only the 'puppet' government that needs the coalition's support to keep a hold on power.
As Usual , Blair chooses his words carefully: 'we'll stay as long as the Iraqi government wants us to.'
Frost should have countered: 'what about the people of Iraq?'
How sad that the 91热爆, SKY News and the other news agencies have chosen to make such a fuss about something that actually didnt happen. Blair used the words "it has" BEFORE Frost had uttered the word "disaster". The only story here is that the PM anticipated the end of the question incorrectly. Did Frost quiz him on the 'admission'? No. Has Downing Street issued a denial? Yes. Therefore, it's not a story. Grow up 91热爆 and all you other bored journalists with nothing better to do on a Saturday morning. Stop misrepresenting people, and misleading the public. Shocking.
Would the answer have been that much different if the question had been "over the last few years hasn't the situation in Downing St has been pretty much of a disaster?" ?
50,000, 100,000, or possibly 655,000 dead - and it's simply a disaster! An error of judgement, a mistake ! Thousands of innocent men, women and children have died, are dying and will continue to die. Munch's painting, 'the scream' is the most vivid description of my reaction to this. The sheer magnitude of the horror of it all is unbearable - does Blair feel this, does Bush? They decided; thousands died. How can Blair live knowing, feeling this.
So you are saying, Blair is responsible for all the chaos in Iraq? What a load of "bbc-interpretation of the truth" rubbish, minimalist reporting on par with tabloid press. The trouble with fashion reporters like yourself is that you are too busy satisfying and fueling the voiced minority instead of giving the public a balanced picture. Why should a Prime Minister concede to journalists just because they believe they are right? While pointing out the PM's words, readers of this column please look at the reporters words! I'll give you two words Hutton-Dyke, lets try and get one over the government! How petty! Nick have you forgotten to look outside the box!
I'm not sure why people are so keen to get Tony Blair to 'concede' as to whether the Iraq liberation has been a 'disaster' or not - even from this interview it seems clear that his views on the success so far are entirely academic. He is still resolved to pursue his Iraq policy. Nothing has changed on the basis of this 'admission'.
"concede amd move on", this is something TB should have done two years ago at least.
I really do not understand why Gordon Brown has gone to Basra. The effort put into a P.R. exercise like this is amazing. Throwing another 拢100 Million (over three years) as part of the P.R. operation shows how little regard Blair and Brown have for their respective offices.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely
I'm sure that we are intended to think 'Yes, the situation in Iraq since the invasion has been a disaster but it's nothing to do with me, guv' I'm finding it increasingly difficult to deal with Blair's total inability to accept that any part of his strategy on Iraq was wrong - and more than that, that the situation is down to 'external forces' emanating in Iran and Syria. There are some rather more important 'external forces' at work in Iraq, and they are the US and UK.
As Tony Blair admits now that the Iraq war is a disaster and official statistics state that over 150 000 Iraqi civilians have died, he should take some responsibility and resign straight away. Whether or not he admits it, he is responsible.
But what is the point of Blair conceding (just) that it is "a disaster" if he won't face the reality that the botched post-invasion planning was the cause and that UK - US policy is just making things worse?
Is he that out of touch with reality or just trying to 'tough it out' without a plan or a policy to do so?
Hey Nick! Great Newslog - please keep on with the good work. Anthony O 'Neill, Glasgow
I'm not sure why this is news. Blair has demonstrated British impotence even more graphically than Bush has American. Both are on their way out. It doesn't matter any more what they say.
What matters is that the liberal democracies find a way to bring these two war criminals to Justice and ensure that their constitutions prevent other egomaniacs from instigating similar atrocities against humanity.
Hello there,
in my opinion his declaration sounds like that of someone who goes to war (with a false pretext) and then blames the enemy for his own defeat.
Regards,
Taro
Admitting that the post-war insurgency, the daily terror attacks, and the necessity of a long-term commmitment of British troops that now seems inevitable is, indeed, a disaster is NOT the same as conceding that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a poor one. Disasters are, almost without exception, unforeseen. The argument that Iraq, today, is a disaster is not incompatible with the argument that the invasion was entirely the right thing to do. Indeed, it IS a disaster that extremists and killers have seen Iraq's fragile democracy as an opportunity not to promote a regime that would be the beacon for a peaceful and democratic Middle East but, instead, as an opportunity to cause murder and mahem. Whether Blair meant to say it or not, his policy HAS been correct and, thanks to factors way beyond his control, the situation today IS indeed a disaster. I think we all know what he really means and it does not seem to me to be particularly newsworthy.
I think you mis-read him. He was appearing on Arabic TV and his mission was to pin the blame on Arabs and not on Bush/Blair. So there has to have been a disaster, otherwise there鈥檚 nothing to blame them for.
It was not an acceptance of error 鈥 he says there has been no 鈥渁ccident in planning鈥. i.e., nobody could possibly have predicted that 鈥渁l-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other鈥 would fight against western invaders. In this continued denial, he depends on the silence of the many policy advisers in the FCO and MoD whose briefings must have told him that precisely this would happen.
Unfortunately it is a denial intended not to strengthen the UK鈥檚 position, but purely to protect himself. How many Arab viewers will have been persuaded that the disaster is the fault of Arabs and it is up to the West to impose a solution? How much more powerful would his message have been had he had the courage and statesmanship to accept that everything that has happened was predictable and that he has been guilty of error?
SHOCK HORROR, hold the front page!
Blair makes slight slip of the tongue.
Its a great shame when an intelligent person in your position cannot address substantive issues and sings the Rothermere/ Barclays/ Murdoch tune.
He knows it's no use arguing with people who ignore all facts and logic in their irrational hatred of Britain/America/Bush/Israel.
I think he is well aware that Iraq is now a political disaster. Hoewever, he cannot come out and say it in that terms, bearing in mind how many people have died since the invasion. But can anyone see a rational way out? I think that the election disaster in the USA for George Bush has now prompted a change in the UK Government.
I cannot see a way out from Iraq for the Government, and they know it.
I can see how all the perspectives you鈥檝e offered, Nick, have some salience. One of the key problems with politics is taking too black and white a view, when maybe might be a more useful point of view. This isn鈥檛 to water down realities but more properly acknowledge realities. So often, we jump to conclusions about what someone may mean, or make statements when a suggestion or question might be more appropriate. Developing range and flexibility, and the maturity to make use of it to positive ends, are worth considering.
I think, it鈥檚 pretty clear that simplistic and noisy presentations get attention, but the lower road of careful examination and gentle tone gains more in the long haul. As per the recent 91热爆 news item discussing politics, the media, and society in an internet context, as well as your own softer and more rounded blog topic, there is a space for something that steps away from the shrill soundbite approach that has been the default of recent years. Indeed, it could also have a useful impact on general issues of behaviour and trust.
Internationally, it鈥檚 possible that a calming down on the domestic front will have a knock-on effect in the turmoil of the Middle-East and elsewhere. As other peoples come to realise that fiery speeches and violent protests have little or no traction here, this will help remove some of the social aspect to difficult situations and give some space for a more mature and long-term view to develop. While the immediate gains may be unnoticeably small, if the approach is right then gentle and sustained action will create the right result.
Well, yes, in a sense it鈥檚 the insurgents fault that they鈥檙e continuing to fight this war but it鈥檚 silly to imply that that absolves the rest of us.
I can see three possibilities:
We foresaw the outcome, considered it worthwhile overall and still think it was worthwhile overall. (Well done us! But we ARE to blame for the negative side, it鈥檚 just that we think the positive side outweighs it.)
We foresaw the outcome and thought it was worthwhile but now living through it we no long think that. (In retrospect, bad move us.)
We failed to foresee the outcome. (In retrospect, bad move us.)
Which does he think it is? Or is there one I鈥檓 missing?
I feel it is obvious to any free thinking individual that an answer consisting of the two words "it has" which were delivered in relation to acts of terrorism that have beleaguered Iraq on a daily basis and have as such been deliberately misinterpreted.
These words, 鈥渋t has,鈥 have been readily seized upon by those with an anti Blair agenda and interpreted as an admission by the Prime Minister that all items pertinent to Iraq are a disaster.
Being a person who examines the evidence from both sides of any debate or incident I find that opinion which is polarised one way or the other is resultant from obsession rather than assessment.
Any polarised opinion, which is most often willingly stoked by any equally polarised opinion which is available, is accepted without any research or open minded evaluation, this results in obsessive behaviour and expression by the recipient:
A man with an obsession is a man who has very little sales resistance.鈥
C.S. Lewis (British Scholar and Novelist. 1898-1963)
NB. I have never voted for Tony Blair or New Labour.
Before the US/UK invasion and occupation of Iraq, most experts on the region, whether diplomats or academics, believed the policy would fail. Blair instead chose to listen to the ideologically driven US neo-Conservatives instead, who had much less expertise in the region as we now see.
Blair and his Tory acolytes have clearly been proved wrong. The late Robin Cook used to argue that Blair should apologise, but this he could not do. Because to make such a terrible blunder on this scale there is only one way he could apologise and mean it, and that is to resign.
He can apologise now of course, although he is not ready to do so.
The terrible reality for Blair today is that as Iraq turns into a poisoness pit of criminality, terrorism and religious fanaticism that threatens to destabilise the whole region, that will be the main Blair legacy after so many years of government.
Perhaps this was another attempt to damage Brown.
After putting the boot in with the sugar with his "Clunking Fists" claim during the week, was this Blair happy to have the media talking about the disaster in Iraq, just when he knew that Gordon Brown would be shown visiting?
Would a 91热爆 interviewer have put Mr Blair on the spot that slickly? I think not! The 91热爆 have obediently passed on the news according to the MOD for years, and exclusively that since the Hutton Hatchet...
I guess this is s slight breakthrough but of course he didn't go as far as saying that the war was a mistake.
The thing is eventaully either he or Gordon Brown (after Blair stands down) will have to concede that the idea of 'getting the job done' doesn't go anywhere. Becuase the job is never going to get done. It will just drag on and on until we leave after which there will probably be a blood bath the government will be overthrown and eventually there will be some sort of normality, unfortunatley though this may mean a Taliban style state will emerge and Iraq will be far more of a problem than it ever was under Saddam.
The remark made by Tony Blair in the David Frost interview claiming that in Iraq "it is not dificult because of some accident of planning...", only affirms the sickening fact that (some) politicians will do and say almost anything to avoid admitting mistakes have been made. Did the prime minister never read the acclaimed book "Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks?
Well we've all heard of someone being caught out lying! It looks like the reverse has happened here Mr Blair has been caught out by inadvertently telling the truth by agreeing to David Frosts claim that the Iraq situation has been a disaster! The whole situation with the Downing Street denial included is like something from a black comedy! You just can't make it up! Unbelievable!
Perhaps Blair and his collegues should have given consideration to the political and historical background of Iraq before deciding to wage war.There were many of us who did. To say now that this 'disaster' is down to the insurgents, and those such as Syria who back them sounds lame and only serves to illustrate his gross incompetence and criminal negligence.
1. If what Paul writes in comment 7 is true, I look forward to a retraction from all the news agencies, and an apology to Mr Blair for misrepresenting him. There are enough actual happenings to question, surely, without inventing them for effect. Very sloppy journalism, if true.
2. I wonder if, while in Basra, Mr. Brown will entertain the troops by repeating his claim this week that the offending of mainstream opinion is something that needs to be rooted out, if necessary by law. If so, perhaps the younger soldiers at least can look forward to fighting for the forces of Oceania in the not too distant future.
I watched the interview and my views are not in accord with much of the press reporting (particularly the Telegraph) as the PM did not mention the invasion etc. Yes, as one contributor stated above he answered a question too quickly - easily done with Mr Frost interviewing as he is rather slow. I acknowledge mistakes are made by all PMs but sometimes wish that the office was worthy of more respect.
Blair needn't worry about having to deny his comments; no-one believes a word he says.
Of course it has been a disaster, it always was going to be one. I really cannot understand how anyone could have thought it was going to be otherwise. Did the British public not learn any foreign history and do they actually believe the drivel our politicians spout these days? The Foreign Office must take some of the blame. Either they also believed the drivel or they were not listened to.
Before we agree to go 'ad hominem', may we see an accurate verbatim transcript, in sequence, of what words were uttered by interviewer and interviewee on this point?
And even if Blair is then 'guilty as charged', would he not have been right to agree with a description of uncontrollable sectarian violence as a 'disaster'? Would he have been more credible in denying that it was, and is, a (human) disaster?
'Brown makes first visit to Iraq'
Clearly somebody thinks that the poor Iraqis haven't already suffered enough.
Thinking back to 2003 I recall a conversation I had with my father in law. In that conversation I made 2 very important observations.
1. Nothing would be found. On the evidence I had seen, gleaned from news accounts and listening to the words of the UN it was clear that the US intelligence was flawed to the extreme. The US kept saying there were WMD yet none were found, despite the US apparently knowing exactly where to look.
2. I stated that within 1 year the Iraqis would be shooting at US and UK troops and effectively there would be a state of civil war in Iraq.
My father in law was convinced that within a year the troops would be leaving a thriving democracy behind in Iraq. One year later he apologised to me. The reason I was able to make the assessment I had? I studied Northern Ireland politics at school. British troops went into Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics, yet within a year found themselves under siege. You cannot maintain peace in a country where the population sees you as an occupying force. Peace cannot be found by violence and bloodshed.
In my opinion several majors mistakes were made during the invasion of Iraq. 2 stand out for their sheer arrogance and stupidity. Both were as a direct result of "Shock and Awe". The invasion of Iraq systematically disabled the Iraqi security forces. The very people needed to maintain peace in a captured country was destroyed. Secondly, the Iraqi army was a conscript army. There is no family in Iraq that did not know someone within the army. The complete destruction of the army means that there was not one family that was not affected by the invasion. No matter how much people welcomed the overthrowing of Saddam the US and UK troops were left in the impossible situation of controlling a country were every single civilian had a reason to hate them. Not one person in Iraq has been unaffected.
Yes Iraq has been a disaster. But it is one of Tony Blair's and George Bush's making. The results were obvious from the start. Quite simply history had already shown what would happen, with Vietnam and Northern Ireland teaching us the effect of how an occupying force can destabilise an already dangerous situation. The biggest crime any politician can make is to take advice from someone who does not learn from history. As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The intention was good, freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people, but you cannot go to war on good intentions. The reason Saddam was left in power for so many years was simply the fact that previous governments recognised that removing him was not as simple as we were led to believe.
Significant that this comment by Tony Blair came to us via an Arab news network.How ironic,British tv media is now seen by all politicians as arenas for propaganda, spin and obsfucation which they get away with all the time. More independant news please.
Simon.
I was really dissapointed on reading this. It was the second article to be displayed about the situation in Iraq and what I thought was going to be a sensible disscussion on Blairs present stance on Iraq. Instead was a drone of sensationalism. I haven't heard or read the interview so don't know the extent of the question preceeding Blairs answer but a comment posted above about the fact Blair simply pre-empted the end of the question wrong makes me even more frustrated.
Making dramas out of crisis is not what serious journalism is about.
First of all I think it's great that Frosty's first interview made it to the headlines.
Tony Blair and many other politicians - and hacks - have had no escape but to acknowledge the extent of the disaster in Iraq, but what I think is shamefull is how they don't want to about the misery of the Iraqi people.
It鈥檚 interesting how many people are willing to accept that 鈥榠t has鈥 was a mistake. Paul (7 above) says it was uttered before David Frost got to the word 鈥榙isaster鈥, so Nick and rest of the World鈥檚 press are guilty of cravenly putting words in Blair鈥檚 mouth. Get real!
It was a big decision to go on Al Jazeera at all and he would hardly have done it without knowing in advance what the questions would be. Which would explain why he began his prepared response before Frost had finished asking the question. Perhaps the White House were unhappy about any admission, but Blair insisted on going ahead. Compromise - do it, but in a deniable way.
But why is he going it alone? Let鈥檚 just hope he doesn鈥檛 plan to prolong his premiership while he attempts a last-ditch personal crusade to bring about a Northern Ireland-style settlement in the Middle East. Sadly, this is a futile vanity as he is far too discredited to be in a position to do any such thing. It will lead only to today鈥檚 visitor to Basra very soon giving him two other little words of advice.
What is most disappointing, to me at least, is how many people seek to justify his poor judgement in this whole affair. Whether Mr Blair was motivated by some kind of slavish adherence to Mr Bush's policies, or if it was shockingly poor judgement in disregard of informed opinion, doesn't really matter. It seems clear that Mr Blair is responsible for much wrong action, and ought to admit it.
If you look at the video you'll see that "it has" were the first words in an uninterrupted reply from Blair after Frost had finished his question.
And the politicians wonder why nobody trusts them any longer......
I live in America and support the message from our recent election - We want to get our troops out as soon as possible to avoid further deaths - of our soldiers and the Iraqi people. The way that I recommend this be done is to open discussions with Iran and Syria directly or in a group. America does not have any business to make a country believe in a certain way. After the US's troops are gone, a United Nations force should be deployed so that some kind of order can be maintained. (I totally support our brave troops and those from other countries. When the troops are gone, the Iraqi people can decide what they want.)
Jerry Clark
Minnesota, USA
It is interesting that the Prime Minister assesses the chaotic Iraq situation with the phrase "...to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war.".
Isn't that how most wars start - with the ideological "vision" of a power-hungry clique? The "mere detail" is then the sacrifices of people who are forced into taking a position loyal to their state or traditional faction.
Reading Graves 1927 biography of T.E Lawrence - or the recent Maitland biography of Wilfred Thesiger - is most sobering. The likely outcome of an invasion of Iraq was writ large in the sands of history of the Middle East.
I watched the interview in full, because the new English channel is intended for English speaking audiences, world-wide, not, as some people here seem to believe, just "for Arabs". It was an entertaining piece of TV, which showed the Prime Minister to be incredibly vain, and possessed of an extraordinary lack of ability to discern when he is being strung along.
Which could explain a lot.
Everything I hear about the present Prime Minister and the present Labour government reinforces the idea that calling their performance 'amateurish' would be a huge compliment. In the middle of a winter storm with torrential rain, they would still say 'what a beautiful summer sunny day!" They live in denial and we pay the price for their irrational behaviour.
It is quite bizarre that the majority of the broadcasters and newspapers focus on the insurgents in Iraq whilst completely ignoring the situation in Northern Ireland. Over 1000 - yes, over one thousand British servicemen were murdered by terrorist insurgents in Northern Ireland, yet Blair considers the leader of the political wing of the terrorist insurgents to be an ally of the United Kingdom. Ain't democracy wonderful?
History will record that Blair's Iraqi Invasion was an absolute unmitigated disaster for the Iraqi People and the Middle East in general.
Anthony Eden was a successful Prime Minister right up until the Suez Invasion in the 1950's...it was his downfall and that is what history remembers Eden for.
Blair should do the honourable thing and resign with immediate effect.
To accept the appropriation of blame in the "insurgents" and other factions lap is to miss the multiple causes of the present reaction in Iraq to the US lead invasion. One of factors in place is that it was based, as everyone knows, on a set of premeditated and utterly transparent lies. Lies that we know to be lies. Lies that Iraqies know to be lies. If we are able to attibute to the "insurgents" etheral qualities such as fundamentalism, idealism, and in some cases evil, then can we not also attribute some physical and very real effects to be the result of a supposedly uncorporeal "lie".
Is it such a slow news day that Blair's "it has" "admission" makes such big headlines? Come on, get real! Iraq is way too important as a topic to deserve such shallow journalism.
"Why on earth is Gordon Brown visiting our serving soldiers in Iraq?"
To spend 拢100 million of our money that he's extracted through his stealth taxes to show what a big deal politician he is - why else. After all its not his money is it?.
Wasn't con man Tony being interviewed by Frost on the Al Jezeera channel? And isn't our Walter Mitty PM famous for saying what he thinks his audience want to hear? Work it out.
Mr. Blair it is time for you to stand up to President Bush. This is not normal relations. This is a war. You must do what is best for England, not what is best for Mr. Bush.
Blair and Bush attacked Iraq because it was a weak, easy target 'the low hanging fruit'
Historically this has always been the way of the great Anglo-saxon island powers - England and America. Blessed with a georgraphy that affords them the luxury of expanding by cherry picking their targets, they have never started a war by directly attacking a strong nation before. Not once
The African and south American tribes, 19th century china and the Ottoman Arab world were all suffering chronic internal weakness before the English attacked these 'threatening societies'
In building its empire England never once took on a nation nearly as strong as itself, nor have the Americans. It is this care and the consequent limited ferocity of the conflicts they start that has given the English and Americans the false tag of 'peaceful powers' unlike the land bound Germans and the late coming Japanese who having to take on the strong nations in major wars to expand, due to unfavorable geographical or historical reasons earn the label aggressive or warlike nations.
This inspite of the fact that together the English and their American cousins have attacked and invaded more countries and nations on earth that any other society in human history.
Oil rich, sanction impoverished Iraq with its discredited dictatorship and clapped out army was too tempting a target to forgo for these powers.
Unfortunately for them they didn't listen to the french, who learnt their lessons in Algeria and remembered. The same ones the Americans leanrt in Vietnam and forgot. They are presently being cured of their amnesia in Iraq
If those who claim Blair was misunderstood or just mis-spoke are right it seems fitting that a prime Minister who has led the way in spinning half truth after half truth now sits impotently while his own words are mis-reported.
I'm sure all those he's ever authorised briefings against are really enjoying the spectacle.
Tony Blair knows his policy on Iraq has been a disaster. His silence on the subject for the last two years has been deafening !
Finally admitting the obvious is the sign of a man with nowhere else to hid.
It seems that Blair will occasionally let a bit of truth slip out regarding Iraq. As I sit here in the US, I don't think I'll ever get even that much from Mr. Bush.
There is no complete white or complete black view in politics. What Tony Blair said is true from the perspective of Iraq and Middle East situation at present.
It is nonsense to think that the Islamic extremists would not have attacked in the UK or UK's security is under threat due to Iraq action.
The action in Iraq against the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein has been successful to achieve the goal of establishing democracy and rule of law as none can think of drastic change without any difficulties in a country where Sharia law type of system existed for many years, dictator ruled and oppressed the people.
Ask the Iraqi people about the UK and USA policy then you will get the right answer. That is the right thing Blair did.
If you ask the family members of the soldiers, anti war campaigners and the policy makers sitting in the central London then he is wrong.
Judging the British policy from terrorist threat, Middle East, rising Islamic extremism and dictatorial rule, Tony needs to be praised.
John Farmer wrote:
"As usual, Blair chooses his words carefully: 'We'll stay as long as the Iraqi government wants us to.'
Frost should have countered: 'What about the people of Iraq?'."
No. Frost should have asked: "But what about the people of Britain? Why should British troops continue to be killed as long as a foreign government wants it, regardless of the views of the British people?"
And in any case we all know that it is the USA's government that decides, not that of Iraq or the UK.
where has all the spin gone; ignorance is bliss. im a bit scared. This comes two days after a visit from lynda waltho too my college where she said the reason she thinks we havnt made such a fuss about North korea and wmd's is because they dont have any oil.
My 16 yr old brain cant take it and i think im loosing faith in socierty well almost (its nothin a bit of asboing cant sort :P:P:P)
It has been notable that since the government started to acknowledge the difficulties in Iraq, there has started to be some political movement on the issue. Prior to that, for 3 years, while they stubbornly refused to do so, there was stagnation. Now, since they have accepted, initially, that mistakes were made after the invasion and more latterly since Tony Blair said that he agreed with General Dannatt and has almost accepted that the invasion of Iraq has contributed to some people being persuaded to take up the terrorist cause - there has been some political progress. Acknowledging that by invading Iraq, 鈥渋t has鈥 developed into a mess may take us a little further. How much more progress might there be if the US and British governments together actually admitted that the whole adventure had been a gigantic mistake?
To own mistake is the first step to rectify it.Insistence in justifying the wrong would certainly compound the matter. To own a mistake is human greatness and demands a great courage as well.
It was typical of Blair that, having conceded - shall we say - that the situation in Iraq was at least a bit of a 'mess', he then went on to blame the other protagonists: Al Qaeda and Iran. In other words, everything 'we' have done (note Blair's general preference for the royal 'we') is perfectly reasonable and unobjectionable; it's just the 'extremists' who've messed things up. But who started the violent power grab in the first place?
I am no friend of Tony Blair and I have no doubt that the Iraq was was a disaster. I would love Tony Blair to admit that, apologise to the British people and try to make things right.
Sadly, there is no sign of that. I watched the clip from the Frost programme and saw absolutely no hint of admission. The phrase seemed a meaningless filler to me, much less sensational than it looked on a transcript.
This strikes me as journalists trying to make news.
I am reminded how Kruschev used to ask you a question, answer it himself and then tell you that you are wrong.
The Prime Minister is trying to keep a brave face: coming to grips with the unpalatable truth must be very daunting even for him. Seasoned and well respected journalists will continue to place banana skins on his path and he must be wary of 'the slip of the tongue' however astute he is. Journalists would continue to crucify him until he admits his policies have been wrong. But here the jury is still out and perhaps the verdict will come when the PM has left Downing Street. Gordon, assuming he would take over the reins of power, could pin the blame on Tony when things become highly uncomfortable. After all there is very little love between the two!
Tony Blair normally does not suffer dictators and fools gladly. But Musharaff is a reformed dictator and is by no means a fool: he is a reformed dictator who has taken the trappings of moderation and even espouses democratic credentials.He has risked his own life on several occasions by being so helpful to the British and Americans. He has been a king-pin on giving vital information on Islamic terrorists based in Pakistan who are determined to wreak havoc in Britain and the United States. So Britain owes him immense gratitude. Tony realises it is necessary to be pragmatic and reach out even to the devils you know: in this case the leaders of Syria and Iran for the sake of world peace. Tony could still get world recognition for his indomitable search for world peace and international understanding. He has to be excused for the debacle in Iraq but he was determined to get rid of an odious dictator. So he should be forgiven for that. Basically he is a very decent, astute statesman
Tom Mauchline
You've restored my faith in this country's youth and the bright future it has in store for us. Thanks.
Now where's my passport?
It says it all when the only time you get you truth out of Blair is by accident. At least his stooge, Margaet Hodge, thought she was speaking in private.
How do we get Al Jazeera TV in the UK,Ive got a digibox but it isn't delivering Al Jazeera.Saw the clip and not sure who is now looking the worse for wear Blair or Frost.
Come on Tony don't hide your infrequent true statements under a camel in the Qatari Desert,let's have them out in the open,say Speakers Corner in Hyde Park.Yopu know the place just near M&S Marble Arch
Ed Corbett
"so far been pretty much of a disaster".
So far has been a total and utter catastrophe would have been the words I would have used.
Here's a link to a YouTube of the Blair/Frost interview.
Blair did start to answer before Frost finished asking so he MIGHT have been unsure of what he was committing to. I don't think so. Not that it matters anyway. So far, it HAS been pretty much of a disaster and Blair would not have been the politician he is if he'd denied that. I don't know why exactly people think they've scored one over on the PM just because he admitted the obvious. He still thinks it was a just cause. He may be right. And we shouldn't lose sight of the reasons, even if we don't agreee with them. It's impossible to prove what might have happened had we not gone into Iraq. That's one of the major difficulties facing the coalition. Their critics think everything was, and would have remained, hunky dory!
Hmm...mmm