So why did Blair do it?

[funflower]

He was flying high, one of the most popular politicians in the world. Then he flew out to Crawford for a visit with * and went home "committed" to creating the present mess in Iraq. I really thought he was smarter than that and not a schmuck like *. What happened to him?

:shrug:

[cestpaspossible]

1. Because he is an immoral person who miscalculated the politics.

[atreides1]

3. Blair Isn't Immoral

He like his buddy George, is amoral. It's never a matter of good or evil, it's what's good for him that counts.

[cestpaspossible]

8. well,

I might agree with you on Blair - not sure - but on Bush, I would say he is immoral, not amoral, imho.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. I'm inclined to agree.

I think Bush is probably intensely principled, it's just that his principles are really bad ones. Blair, I suspect, is far more of an opportunist.

In fairness to Blair, though, the question he had to answer was not "Should there be an invasion of Iraq", to which the answer is clearly no, but "Given that America is going to invade Iraq, should we go with it", to which the answer is less clear - as it is, America has a strongly ingrained us-against-the-world mentality, and if even we (I'm from the UK) had turned against it then things might be in even more of a mess than they are now. I'm not sure that's a good enough argument (I think it probably isn't), but it's certainly something to consider.

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. Perhaps he was told the same thing Congress was told to allow "war"

without declaring war per Constitutional rules. There is some _extremely_ powerful motivation moving people around...what could it be?

[JDPriestly]

4. My guess --

He's a people pleaser. He needs to be liked more than anything, and Bush is a-- bully fearless when it comes to taking advantage of those kinds of personalities that want a lot of approval.

Sorry I don't have a link, but if you look at the pictures of Bush and John McCain, you realize that McCain is also a people pleaser when it comes to Bush. He is drawn by the challenge of trying to make Bush like him. Liberman is also a typical person with an insatiable need to be approved. These guys just fall apart when Bush fingers them. I figure Blair is the same type.

[AP]

5. Had no choice. To stay out would have been to hand Bush Iraq

at which point the game would have been up for the EU. Iraq would have been a huge transfer of wealth from the ME (and therefore, Europe and Russia) right to Houston, and it would have destabilized all the governments who had become identified with building a progressive EU, and they would have been replaced with a corporatocracy interested in weakening the level-playing-filed rules in the EU (which Bush learned to hate when they blocked the GE-Marconi merger).

To participate meant to have some slight say -- some calming influence -- to prevent inevitable chaos and to build up institutions which benefiited Iraqis and the region rather than Houston, Texas.

[funflower]

9. Interesting theory.... so why didn't France & Germany want in?

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. I believe that Germany at least, tried to get construction bids in Iraq

and of course, were shoved aside by no-bid contracts to Cheney's friends.

[AP]

14. France is run by rightwingers -- they didn't need to participate.

The probably picked up a few liberal voters by being anti-war. They also had all those gas deals with Hussein, along with Russia, so they were probably being lobbied hard not to particpate.

Germany -- I'm not sure about. Perhaps because of Naziism, there is a political premium on being anti-war. But Schroeder was in a very precarious position, electorally speaking. He narrowly won his subsequent election, and he also relies on a coalition with Greens, I believe. So he couldn't take any chances.

Blair had the biggest buffer of all of them so he was in the best position to stick his neck out for Europe.

[johnaries]

24. Iraq owed France, Germany, and Russia huge sums of money,

they were afraid if the government fell they would loose the debt owed to them.

[cestpaspossible]

10. Interesting take on it

totally wrong, imho - to participate did not mean to have some slight say, some calming influence - but interesting none the less.

[AP]

15. The way the British behave in Iraq is radically different from the US.

Iraq is not used to hand out money to private corporations, and there is significantly less chaos in the areas the UK occupies.

[cestpaspossible]

26. I agree that Bushco has used the UK and its troops like a tool.

And to mix metaphors, Bushco played Blair like a fiddle.


What I don't agree with is the idea that Blair or the UK exercised a moderating influence.

[jpgray]

18. Ah noble Tony Blair, would that your altruistic motives were understood!

:cry:

It's too bad he had to lie to people, distort intelligence and bully his advisers in pursuit of his selfless goals.

Sorry AP, but I guess I just don't buy that explanation.

[AP]

25. What was the lie?

[jpgray]

28. That he hadn't decided on war until after the UN investigation

According to leaked minutes, etc. he had decided in 2002.

[kenny blankenship]

36. Well I haven't seen it demonstrated that GB is making money

from this invasion. American companies are making it hand over fist, even though (as is usual for empires) the overall enterprise is a big money loser for the imperial country.

Maybe Blair sees his own personal benefit from the Iraqi war down the road a ways--i don't know about that. I don't think any solid information has yet surfaced to make a case for this which of course means that a near majority of DUers take it as gospel truth.

I think there's chronic undervaluation (in American discussions) about the so-called "special relationship". Too often, we Americans just don't understand our own power. We are the most powerful country in the world hands down (for now) Britain has been given a privileged position as a junior partner in our management of the planet. (We used to be their junior partner). Intelligence sharing between our governments extends to one gov using the other to spy on its people. Financially prestige and plums accrue to them for being in partnership with us. In this particular situation, Blair understood that President Asshole-fuckface-Chimp-in-a-man's-Suit was going to rape Iraq, no matter what kind of lies would be needed to provide him with an excuse, and no matter how much world opinion rejected or debunked those excuses. I am not convinced that this was something that Blair thought was an especially good idea or something he would come up with or advocate on his own. However, President Asshole was in love with the idea of mass murder for oil and geopolitics, and proved implacable. Britain thus had a very stark choice to make between either risking displeasure by not helping out with the rape (and they would be expected to actively help--since they are our old pals from way back--not just stand by and say nothing) or Britain could ensure that it retained its preferential treatment (preferential compared to the continent) by not letting this one incident cause a rift that might jeopardize the "relationship". Once GB was thrown out of the confidence of the Whitehouse and made just another country without privileges in all strategic matters, there's no surety about getting that preferred status back. Imagine what the Tories would do to Labor with that club to wield on their heads. I'm sure Blair hoped Bush would be rejected by our voters. Kerry would be more reasonable to deal with even if he too was wedded to this fuckheaded murderous Iraq policy out of convenience.
All manner of lies have been required of Blair since making this decision to kill Iraqis for sake of the survival of the "special relationship". Some of these lies which he's been obliged to make up, he probably persuades himself are true--or can be true in the future. It's all going to work out for the best, he tells himself no doubt. But it has all gone badly and he's been saved mainly by the unwillingness of the American press to report on Iraq's reality and the general interdiction at the US border against dots being connected, and against consequences for war crimes coming home to roost in our society and electoral politics. No wmds at all, anywhere? ok. Torture? ok. Exposing CIA agents as payback for their truthtelling? ok. No Iraqi terror connection? ok. Civilian deaths from allied bombing and shelling reaching into six figures? ok. Smoking gun memoranda proving the manufactured nature of the casus belli? ok. The American public has lapped it all up and swallowed it down, and managed only just recently to come to the limp forlorn conclusion that the war "isn't worth it". Not that it's an "abomination" or "the war is a disgrace and a LIE", or that it's "a blot on our country's honor", or God forbid they should open their eyes wide and gasp, "It's an international crime of aggression with criminal atrocities as standard operating procedure, with torture and with the usurpation of Congress' Constitutional powers !!!" Impeachable offenses to say the least, not to mention Nuremburg material as well! Oh no nothing like that has been heard from middle America. In Spain, there were profound consequences for Jose Maria Asshat because of his abuse of the public's opinion about American imperialism and his lying. But in America no consequences whatsoever arise, no matter what --and Bush's crimes are thousands of times more foul than Asshat's were. Mild disapproval and apathetic judgements of the whole affair not being "worth it" are the most Americans can bestir themselves to feel. Also in Britain unfortunately, the voters disapprove but they refuse to punish. If Blair had been spanked before Nov. 2004, Americans would've been stripped of their comforting illusion of world approval and would have rose up to spank Bush out of office. Or if only Bush had been spanked, then Blair would have been thrown out this week... And so the circular cynicism of the electoral politics of each partner to the special relationship serves to shield the criminal acts of the leaders of the other side in a criss-cross of shamelessness and ennui.

[bvar22]

6. Simple.

1) While Blair was at Crawford, he was shown photos of the Wellstone Crash.

2) Blair was offered a cushy job at Carlyle for after, and was given an admission ticket to the Rich White Men's Club.


You remember in the Bible when Satan took Jesus to the cliff and showed him the Wealth of the World?
Well, Jesus said "NO"..... Tony Blair said "YES!"

[funflower]

13. No doubt he was shown something....

but I'd figure the British Secret Service can probably protect him (presuming they want to do so).

So * is really Satan? THAT I can believe!

[paula777]

7. In 2000 Iraq switched to selling it's oil in Euros. If all OPEC members

followed suit, the US economy would collapse which would not bode well for the UK either. Perhaps they were trying to send a message to all other OPEC members that if they switched to euros like Iraq had done - then they could expect the same result from the US?? Just a theory ...

[BigBearJohn]

12. I concur. Makes good sense to me.

[Atman]

20. Bingo! Give that man a prize!

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. The grander conspiracy theories about murder, threats, cushy jobs, they're all fun, but way too complicated and unnecessary. Google it...you'll find a lot written about the Euro crisis with Iraq. It is a huge problem for us, and the UK.

[emulatorloo]

16. Here's what I always thought. . . .

That's the only explanation that made sense to me.

[stillcool]

17. Me too !! He's looking for a BIG piece of pie.........n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

19. I wonder myself

And why the hell did he keep the memo?? :shrug:

[pretzel4gore]

21. solidarity....

bush is a ...blackmailer, and he's blackmailed the 'anglo/american' ruling elite by stumbling blindly into the 'war' with iraq. The 'war' itself isn't a problem ; both britain and US will gladly sacrifice 20 30 thousand men in the 'war' if necessary....the problem is that the fiction of legality that western pols always maintained has been vandalized, cuz bush just ignored it and barged ahead......the brits obviously know what happened on 911, they know who has nukes and can/will use them, they know what the economic implications are of oil shortages etc, and out of all that, blair was told to support the stupid punk, or the shit really really hit the fan!.....al gore also feared arousing 'popular' dissention after the conjob 2000 election, if you all will recall....kerry too!
truth is a toxic mess these powerdful guys must forever avoid stumbling into, or at least until they're dead and the record is so doctored up (see 'zapruder' video) that their offspring can't be rounded up and shot, their wealth seized etc.....911, the 'war' in iraq and everything you see in the corporate bushevik media are reckless gangster actions that force the ruling elite of western society to close ranks around bush....the comical thing is that the xian fundamentalists don't seem to know it, yet they support it (even bush must be shaking his head)
it's pure evil....lol

[funflower]

30. So, who's going to round up the offspring

and shoot them? I mean that was a really bad speech at the RNC, but I don't blame Barbara and Jenna. It was Karen Hughes' dumb idea.

[pretzel4gore]

34. the freepers, the xians, the bullying thugs, have been had

at some point, it will become intolerable, even to them, and they will(?)...well look at what they've done in bush's service! ...imagine their rage when they realize how massively bushinc has squandered the national treasure! The bushevik power comes from the sheer numbers of nitwits who AT LEAST do not oppose them (letting them fix the elections) while bush destroyed what everyone, the freepers most of all, love...in ruining a good thing aka the USA, bushinc has consigned vast numbers of his supporters to a hardscrabble existence, and millions are already feeling it... marxism has always said that when the rich have all the money, it's then easy to locate....lol

[sweetheart]

22. Blackmail

The british military is entirely useless without american cooperation,
including incredible cross-development on such things as the eurofighter.
The entire british nuclear deterrent is American-made, and cannot be
depoloyed or used without American cooperation.

Both Britain and America were patrolling the "no fly" zones of iraq,
and fighting a low-level war for a decade in this regard. The americans
assured him that it would be a "slam dunk" and that the no fly patrolling
could then end and his country would be on less of a war footing.

By the "special relationship", there is sooooo much under-the-table
business favours and dosh flowing through the city of london, that by
bush rasing a finger, he could plunge britain's economy in to a tail
spin, and force the UK to re-arm itself with non-american weapons which
would cost billions and leave the UK open to strategic military problems.

Recall that earlier in blair's presidency, britain wanted to refuse to
sell its HUD displays to american aircraft used for the genocide by
israel... and this same blackmail thread was used to get the british
government to roll over.

There was never a choice. Blair's only other choice would have been
to come clean and resign his post.... and in all honestly, that is
what he should have done, what he should do, and what he will do
soon enough.

[grasswire]

23. early on.....

...when Bush was selected, allegedly an emissary was sent to Blair, telling him that the financial lords (those who hobnob with Saudis and the Royals) would ruin him and Britain if he did not cooperate fully with Bushco. He was threatened with ruin of Britain's economy. That was the backstory then.

[funflower]

31. This makes sense to me.

So little Tony was a lapdog from the start? Any links or info that would substantiate that?

[Zynx]

27. Jeff Gannon

[ljm2002]

29. So after reading the other theories...

...here's mine: (a) yes, Blair wanted the UK to have a piece of the oil action in Iraq; (b) the UK is not on the Euro either, so when Saddam went to the Euro it had the same implications for the UK as for the US -- our interests were exactly aligned in that realm; (c) Iraq is still a country whose existence in its present form was a creation of the British Empire, so they still have a vested interest, if you will, in meddling therein; (d) Jeff Gannon.

Okay, that last is pure conjecture. But given what we know about JimmyJeff, the idea of him being a "honeypot" for blackmail of the rich and powerful is not all that farfetched. And how else to explain Blair's unwavering toeing the Bushco line, even when it made him look like a complete ass -- quite apart from the war criminal thing.

[RogueTrooper]

33. Partly it was Kosovo

Clinton was not that keen on going into Kosovo and it was Blair who had to convince him. One of the tools Blair used was the constant invocation of Saddam and Iraq during a "speaking tour" prior to the Kosovo war. Clinton may not have been that keen on American involvement in Kosovo but he was happy enough for Blair to jolly around the US drumming up support.

All that rehetoric eventually came back to haunt Blair.


Many DUers are upset because he gives support to Bush but Blair's job is not to help the Democrats but to govern the United Kingdom.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

35. "The Secret Behind Blair's Wars"

(Make of this what you will; personally I think it's probably tosh but it makes for interesting reading nonetheless)

Dear Mr. Keys,

All the discussion on the Iraq war is essentially a diversion. There is a secret clause in the Trident submarine treaty that was signed by Mrs Thatcher in 1983. The secret clause states that the British Prime Minister is required to go to war if he/she gets the order from the President of the United States. You will appreciate that this information explains a lot, notably why Blair has repeatedly gone to war, but only when required to by the Americans. It also explains why Blair is so different from his Labour predecessors, such as Harold Wilson, who refused to send our troops to Vietnam in 1968. The secret agreement was designed by Thatcher to secretly tie the hands of British Prime Ministers for many years to come. Without naming sources, I received this information from a British Army officer a couple of years ago.

Some people (Martin Bell?) may try to dissuade you from raising this information in your campaign. That would be a grave mistake. it could cause a sea change if you can get it into the media. It is convincing, it is true and  it explains things.  If you can get it into the news somehow, you will be able to take the initiative, even if you lose this election. This information will be of immense value to your movement 'Military Families Against War'. It can be used to focus your campaign around a priority objective, which is to get the treaty revised and the secret clause removed.

Owing to the subordination of our national sovereignty to foreign interests -  American and even Israeli - there is significant dissent within the armed forces and the security services. It don't think it will take much for people with courage to speak out in your support. After all, it's obvious. Already Britain has a varied record of dissent in such matters: several people have spoken out on sensitive issues. If not in Britain, they have done it in America, thanks to the First Amendment.

I would be very grateful if you would send a brief reply, to let me know that you have received this. I firmly believe that your son's tragic death will not have been futile, if you and your movement can make this a national issue.

Yours sincerely,
Gordon Logan

http://cryptome.org/pm-secret.htm

[Benbow]

38. I think it is tosh

It sounds really flaky. The original was probably written in green ink.

[Benbow]

37. The UK Prime Minister's "Achilles heel"

I think that it is possible that Blair was threatened with something by the Bush administration but instinctively I feel that it was closer to home than ruining the UK economy: I feel that it could have been a threat to make public something that would wreck his personal reputation forever. He looked really really ill before the UK agreed to help the US invade Iraq.

However, what everyone over here in the UK knows is that both Blair and his wife find money and power irresistably seductive. They both appear to be ridiculously dazzled and witless when around wealthy, ostentatious and influential people. It's wierd.