Tony Blair closes RSA 2012, denounces WikiLeaks

Former British Prime Minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair was RSA's pick to close out their annual security conference in San Francisco, and he took the opportunity to bash WikiLeaks as "disgraceful." Blair took time out from his busy official role of bringing peace to the Middle East to pad his pockets speak for an …

[Graham Marsden]

What a fucking hypocrite!

"Individuals need to have private communications, he said, but at the same time there are people who threaten our way of life that have to be stopped. Politicians, however, need privacy to function, "

And there we have Blair, once again, in a nutshell: One rule for them, another for us.

The man who tried to give us DNA databases, ID Cards, ANPR and CCTV on every corner with facial recognition to track us everywhere we go and watch everything we do thinks that he and his cronies "need privacy to function" but *NOBODY* else does!

Hypocrite.

[Anonymous Coward]

AIR HEAD?

Why do people give this pri*ck air time. He's done enough damage without giving his opinion on something he knows nothing about.

Actually he does that all the time, he's supposed to ne the middle east peace envoy, a gallon of petrol in one hand, a lighter in the other.

[Anonymous Coward]

who's next on stage?

Jordan?

[Scorchio!!]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

What is more the fucking dork didn't know how to use PGP and thus his email was exposed to the outside world. Prick. I wish that his Muslim attacker in a Palestinian mosque had succeeded, and I'll even take religion if he and his ilk are assassinated. It would have been appropriate had he been bagged up and sent to bin Laden as a present for Ede (sp?). Big Brother? More like dirty greasball.

[PassiveSmoking]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

You, sir, makes me wish I could upvote this 1000 times.

That one quote is everything that's wrong with British politics in general and Blair's NuLabour in particular.

War is peace!

Freedom is slavery!

Ignorance is strength!

[Jason Hindle]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

Allow me to be the 34th like to the What a fucking hypocrite post. The damage that awful, vain little man has done to the fabric of this country is immeasurable IMHO.

[Anonymous Coward]

ARE YOU SURE that's

Not a wax work dummy with a tape recorder stuck up its ar*s?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ARE YOU SURE that's

George Bush had his hand up his ars* you mean.

[JDX]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

While I am no fan of Blair, and don't deny he's a hypocrite... I do agree that the idea of openness for politicians is not viable in many areas.

It's akin to the parent-child relationship... you have secrets from your kids about some things, but feel you are quite entitled to know their secrets even if it involves a bit of snooping. Before you rush to down-vote "snooping on your kids" imagine you are a parent who thinks their kid is on drugs or is self-harming and talking to them doesn't help... are you SO sure you wouldn't snopp in their room when they were out?

[Alex Osmond]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

Apples and Oranges?

Your kids don't vote for you, you don't 'represent' them.

A very very different relationship. I want to know what 'my' elected leaders are up to - and I should have that right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

Makes the WikiLeaks rant all the more ironic. If ratfuck weasel bastards like Blair actually did their jobs instead of feathering their nests with and mismanaging our money; we wouldn't need WikiLeaks in the first place. Not totally surprising he's against it...I have no doubt that there's a few places Blair doesn't want spotlighting. What made it through via the papers was disgusting enough.

[Graham Dawson]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

JDX, you've got it backwards. They are our servants, not our masters. We aren't their "children". That sort of paternalistic nonsense is the reason this planet is such a political mess.

[Anonymous Coward]

Strictly speaking...

...they are the country's servants and have reponsibilities that go way beyond keeping the people who happen to be alive at the moment happy.

[JDX]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

They may be our servants but we task them with the job of looking after us and that means we give them the decision making power. It's like if I hire a bodyguard or even a personal trainer - they get to TELL me what do do as part of their job. If I don't like how they do their job, I fire them, but telling them how to do their job will lead to reducing their effectiveness. Same with sending your kids to school... you pick the school and then let them get on with it.

All discussion about Blair in particular, our current government/MPs, and so on aside... I think it is ridiculous to suggest the running of the country should be fully public. This is real life, not some weird utopia where everyone is lovely to each other.

[Richard 12]

@JDX

Analogy fail - Politicians are not parents.

MPs are supposed to be our representatives to the Crown - that was the point of the House of Commoners back when it was invented - a way for the 'common people' to exercise some control over the monarch.

They are our delegates. Our underlings. Our servants.

The ones to whom we, the public, have delegated the (boring) task of carrying out the functions of Government in line with our collective will.

That is what a Parliamentary Democracy is, involves and requires.

Thus is it self-evident that they must have all their actions exposed to the public eye - because otherwise how do you know that they are doing their jobs?

(Although the definition of 'common people' wasn't quite what we'd recognise today.)

The idea that MPs are some kind of 'parent' is dangerous and must be erased - that way lies dictatorship.

[JDX]

Re: @JDX

>>Thus is it self-evident that they must have all their actions exposed to the public eye

So the police/special forces should tell us about all the undercover operations they're working on, potential threats, etc? I'd argue the answer to that is self-evident, and now suddenly we're on the slipperly slope where it's not black and white, and a line has to be drawn what should be divulged and what shouldn't.

[Richard 12]

Re: @JDX

Yes, they must.

In the case of 'sensitive' undercover operation then not during, but shortly after.

Otherwise how can anybody possibly know whether they are appropriate?

You're basically saying that the police/special forces should be permitted to wander around murdering anyone they like, because they think it was justified.

So ALL must be divulged. The only grey area is when.

[Mezkal]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

Politicians are meant to be our equals, not our betters. That's what representative democracy is all about. Obviously you're expressing some fetish and confusing that with opinion. Stay in nappies foras long as it pleases you, the rest of us will think and act as responsible adults.

[nexsphil]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

What, so politicians are like parents? What?

[Graham Marsden]

Blimey! (Was: Re: What a fucking hypocrite!)

When I first read that article and was pissed off enough to make that OP, I wasn't expecting over 100 upvotes! Thanks everyone.

(And one downvote, it seems, from the Vicar of St Albions...!)

[N2]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

Sir,

As the 49th thumbs up to your post, I wish to congratulate you on such a concise response to the article.

The very fact that blair can actually charge money for spouting such hypocritical bile, saddens me but re-assures me that my decision to leave the (dis) united kingdom was the right one.

[Hardcastle the ancient]

#52

LIke the chap said, I wish I could upvote this 1000 times.

Bugger it, Register, I'd pay a tenner to be able to upvote this 1000 times.

He is a worthless shit, isn't he?

[Anonymous Coward]

#63

In this particular case I'll be happy to be a number.

[h4rm0ny]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

And if there were any single individual who best demonstrated why we *can't* sit back and trust our politicians, it's Blair. Someone who would lie in order to start a war, is pretty much as low as you can get.

Making Blair the Middle East Peace Envoy remains the sickest joke most people in the Middle East have ever heard. He should be tried for war crimes and one day I hope to see that.

[Daegroth]

Re: What a fucking hypocrite!

And also remember that this is the PM who's government rolled out Freedom of Information legislation which has been completely mis-appropriated by journalists (usually from the Daily Mail) to turn any non-story into a ripping.

[Arctic fox]

"Self-confessed tech know-nothing"

It shows.

[ElReg!comments!Pierre]

Gain some credence with the know-nothings.

... lose all credibility with the target audience.

Got to love the PR department.

[Graham Lockley]

>Blair asserted that you needed "the wisdom of the oldies" to put the technology itself in context

I suppose that at 55 I'm still not old enough to realise that state censorship is a bad thing then. Can't wait to grow up.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy at work

"there are people who threaten our way of life that have to be stopped"

Yes, and you were stopped. Sadly a clone of you got your job.

[Anonymous Coward]

@ Mahatma Coat

Brown, a clone of Blair? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @ Mahatma Coat

Brown wasn't elected. I was referring to Cameron.

[Random Handle]

Re: @ Mahatma Coat

Cameron is PM by virtue only of Lib Dem votes which were, in the main, votes against him....so you can't really claim him as an elected PM either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @ Mahatma Coat

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm saying it is what it is.

I wouldn't want to get into a discussion about the pros and cons of various electoral systems but Cameron became PM because that's the way the system currently works. Don't like it? Contact your MP and lobby him to change it. That's how the democratic process in the UK is supposed to work.

[Richard 12]

Re: @ Mahatma Coat

I did.

Unfortunately the Sheeple voted against AV.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @ Mahatma Coat

"Unfortunately the Sheeple voted against AV."

Yes, shame no one made a convincing case to convince the sheeple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: AV

Ironic that its only the Liberals who are still bleating, dispite 79% of the populous (or at least those who gave a damn) being agaist AV.

[L.B.]

Re: @ Mahatma Coat

"Unfortunately the Sheeple voted against AV."

Or perhaps those who voted against AV are the smart ones, that can see how corrupt all the governments are in the rest of Europe. YES, EVEN MORE THAN OURS!

A perfect/worst case example: Silvio Berlusconi, kept in power by a corrupt "AV" voting system where you have absolutely no say in who actually gets elected at all, you just get to choose the proportion of MP's taken from each party.

Only the brain dead hypocrites of the liberals could think a system where; those who vote for iffy/unpopular candidates should get second, third,... vote when their first choice get eliminated, yet those who vote for the most popular candidate only ever get one!

[Richard 12]

Re: @ Mahatma Coat

"A perfect/worst case example: Silvio Berlusconi, kept in power by a corrupt "AV" voting system where you have absolutely no say in who actually gets elected at all, you just get to choose the proportion of MP's taken from each party."

Italy uses a kind of PR, it's not even vaguely related to AV. (And Party-list representation is generally considered a rather poor form of PR.)

AV is "I want candidate A. If I can't have A, then I want B.".

This is trivial to understand by anyone who's ever asked someone to pop to the local shop to get some biscuits.

"I'd like chocolate hobnobs, if they don't have any then ginger nuts are fine."

AV allows you to vote for the one you want, and to say which alternative you can live with.

FPTP forces you to vote 'tactically' - you cannot vote for the one you want, you have to vote against the one you hate.

Unfortunately both Labour and the Conservatives knew damn well that AV would damage their future prospects so launched a massive FUD campaign against AV.

Did you notice that the entire against argument was "AV costs too much", "You're too thick to understand AV", "It might cause hung Parliaments"?

No reasoning. In fact nobody ever gave a single indication as to why AV would be a worse way to choose your MP than FPTP.

- Incidentally, the reason FPTP reduces the chance of Hung Parliaments is because it results in a two-party system for each candidacy.

Look at your local polls - there will only be two parties that stand a chance in your constituency. Mine happens to be Labour/Conservative, like most. Sheffield Hallam (Clegg's) is Liberal Democrat/Conservative.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: @ Mahatma Coat

And more of the usual nonsense from the pro-AV crowd.

"....No reasoning. In fact nobody ever gave a single indication as to why AV would be a worse way to choose your MP than FPTP....." You all keep on going on about how the anti-AV arguments were so weak or non-existant, yet you lost so badly. Gee, I wonder if it was because the pro-AV arguments just didn't resonate with all those voters that turned out to vote "no thanks".

[Random Handle]

Re: @ Mahatma Coat

>Cameron became PM because that's the way the system currently works. Don't like it?

In practice it makes little difference to me. I was simply pointing out that the current Government was formed, not elected. Describing Cameron as an elected PM implies he has a mandate.

[Ben Rose]

Re: @ Mahatma Coat

Blair wasn't elected either, except in his own constituency. The Labour Party was elected and, as leader of the Labour Party, Brown became PM as did Blair.

We vote for our local MP, nothing more. The party with the most seats can form a government. Of course Labour under Brown actually got more seats in the last General Election than the Tories did so if anybody wasn't elected, it's Cameron.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair

Can anyone read that without hearing it in the voice form the begining of Porridge ?

You are a habitual criminal .....

[LarsG]

Re: Anthony Charles Lynton Blair

Class

[night troll]

Re: Anthony Charles Lynton Blair

If only we could hear those words, in court, in real life.

I have a dream.........

( spawn of satan 'cuse that's what he is)

[N2]

Re: Anthony Charles Lynton Blair

<quote>Can anyone read that without hearing it in the voice form the begining of Porridge ?

You are a habitual criminal .....</quote>

should read:

You are a habitual war criminal

[Anonymous Coward]

How come he's still free? I thought that people who lied to start wars would be war criminals and that there would be some repercussions? Or do you get some sort of fucking absolution for a terrorist creation program? I'm not quite sayin' that him & Bush should have been next to Hussein on YouTube...but in terms of human misery they aren't far behind.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re-Wording plus a closer suggestion to the RSA CONF "2013"

Politicians may say and believe they need to have private communications, but at the same time there are psychopathic oath breakers who threaten our way of life that have to be stopped.

You can't have a situation where you're claiming issues of extraordinary sensitivity and say there has to be complete secrecy just so you can hide treason, murder, theft and domestic or international terrorism.

It will never again be up to the mainstream media to provide clear facts, they have burned their bridges and continue to burn even more to this very moment. You don't stab people in the back 9 inches, then pull the knife out 3 inches, and expect things to be well. Even if the knife was completely removed, and I remind you it ain't, there must be healing of the wound before any further dialog. In the US this is a failure of POTUS appointing the FCC who the big 5 tow the establishment line with. Until the PEOPLE control the public spectrum and not corporations and the president, this won't change here, I don't know about the UK though I'd assume some psychopathic crap along the same lines is playing out.

Dear RSA CONFERENCE,

Give us 16/32 and 64 KB AES Keys!! AES 512 is not enough, do the math.

Second, next time invite George Noory, or Art Bell, or Alex Jones, or Jesse Ventura, or Ron Paul, or Wayne Green.

Any one of them would have been much better.

Outside the US conference closers?

how about that Saudi King guy (sorry I forget the name) who taught his country to do ham radio

how about the cops who have been dismantling the stealth 2nd communications network in Mexico.

how about the people who cut communications in those countries like Egypt, etc.

anyone who repaired the broken undersea cables.

[Destroy All Monsters]

An innovative leader!

http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2012/02/16/time-to-recognize-the-blair-governments-criminality/

'In the kabuki theater of British parliamentary politics, great crimes do not happen and criminals go free. It is theater after all; the pirouettes matter, not actions taken at remove in distance and culture from their consequences. It is a secure arrangement guarded by cast and critics alike. The farewell speech of one of the most artful, Tony Blair, had "a sense of moral conviction running through it," effused the television presenter Jon Snow, as if Blair’s appeal to kabuki devotees was mystical. That he was a war criminal was irrelevant.

....Deploying sinecures of "peace-making" and "development" that allow him to replenish the fortune accumulated since leaving Downing Street, Blair’s jackdaw travels are concentrated on the Gulf sheikhdoms, the US, Israel and safe havens like the small African nation of Rwanda. Since 2007, Blair has made seven visits to Rwanda, where he has access to a private jet supplied by President Paul Kagame. Kagame’s regime, whose opponents have been silenced brutally on trumped-up charges, is "innovative" and a "leader" in Africa, says Blair.'

[Anonymous Coward]

The best Former Prime Minster...

that money can buy.

[Jeebus]

How can someone who has legitimately caused the deaths of hundreds of his own countrymen and women be recognised and reported as having an opinion on exposing lies and deceit by government pissants.

[Scorchio!!]

@Jeebus

Please, spare a moment for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Schorchio!!

"Please, spare a moment for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis."

That is at least 1 million and probably as many as 1.5 million - NOT including the maimed, bereaved, and homeless, stateless refugees (who number 4-5 million or more).

Please note that 1.5 million is exactly quarter of the number (6 million) usually associated with The Holocaust. (See, for example, http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=120 which was only up until 2007). Yet no one has been hanged yet.

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that in our glorious free democracy, no one can even be indicted of a crime without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Who never agrees to bring charges against "people like us".

[Scorchio!!]

Re: @Schorchio!!

I err on the side of caution because the BMA stats were shown to be erroneous, and because I like to have an irrefutable dataset when thinking of capital punishment! However, I'll be happy to see the full set produced in court, with Jeb and Tone sitting next to one another, holding hands and praying to their god.

The comparison with the holocaust is apt, and I note that the Jews are one of the 5 Semitic tribes, one of which was in Babylon IIRC. Always worth remembering.

Otherwise I apologise for the surge of anger in my post. The sight of that smug, sh*t eating grin with its massive bank balance is sometimes more than the honest man in me can bear. No wait. I've just thought of something... ...actually, no. I've just exercised restraint and cut my comments about using my ex military skills as a marksman on a drop forged, bolt action rifle. That would never do. Unless passed into law of course.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: @Schorchio!!

" Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that in our glorious free democracy, no one can even be indicted of a crime without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Who never agrees to bring charges against "people like us" "

Perhaps we can change and emulate Iceland;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17254544

How I wish, fervently. The things done by to our country by these experimenters were very badly wrong. They had no right.

[Naughtyhorse]

deaths of hundreds of his own countrymen and women

deaths of thousands of his own countrymen and women...

there! fixed it for you

and the million or so arabs dont really count :-)

[Christoph]

It's easy to tell that his speech was a long string of complete blatant shameless lies.

His mouth was open.

[John Smith 19]

"very little knowledge of technology"

That of course is *not* an apology for all of the grossly intrusive *lifetime* surveillance polices (ANPR is 5 yrs and growing, and how is DNA retention changing? They may have cut the Forensic Science Service yet that still seems get funding, either in house or "outsourced")

Just that he does not understand it and (of course) relied on his "advisers"

Who knew they would be a collection of senior civil servants with a data fetish and a group of suppliers looking to make serious money on the contracts?

History tends to judge leaders. So far the *only* long term achievement of the whole Labor govt they should be proud of would be the setting of a minimum wage, which IIRC was done at Browns prompting.

So did attendees think they got their money's worth with him for the keynote? You did pay it.

[QuiteEvilGraham]

You missed a word from the title...

I think that the missing word was "through".

Peace to all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tony who?

Oh, you mean that poodle who allowed Bush to tickle his belly ion public?

What about him and who gives a fuck what he thinks?

[Anonymous Coward]

One Chance

can someone, pro Blair, pro whatever give me an example where we need secrecy, where we need no meeting minutes, where we need no transparency that benefits society as a whole?

[Ken Hagan]

Re: One Chance

I don't think Mr Assad reads this forum.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bob Loblaw

Blair blair blair, blah blah blah.

[Bob Vistakin]

Was he born evil, or did the absolute power corrupt him absolutely?

Traditionally you could sum up each major party in 1 word, which was basically your choice at elections; Tories=Corruption, Labour=Incompetence, Liberals=Clueless.

"New" labour stole the tory corruption element, whereas with the current Tories in power it's the other way round.

Britain needs another prime Minister who lies to start wars for his own personal financial gain.

Britain needs another Chancellor who is happy to send soldiers out to die in some desert for a pointless cause, and to make sure this happens refuses to pay to equip them.

Britain needs another Home Secretary who fiddles their porn.

Britain needs another Borders and Immigration minister who fiddles his tampons.

Britain needs another Childrens Minister who fiddles his poppies at remembrance ceremonies,

And Britain certainly needs another Prime Minister who promises, on the day he is elected, to "not only be whiter than white, but to be seen to be whiter than white". So, how did that work out for you then, Tony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Was he born evil, or did the absolute power corrupt him absolutely?

Also on the day he was elected he announced a jihad against unmarried mothers...that portion of the population who have least time and money to defend themselves and who had most cause to expect support from a "Labour" government. I knew things weren't going to go well then; but he still managed to surpass my lowest expectations.

[John Smith 19]

@Bob Vistakin

"Traditionally you could sum up each major party in 1 word, which was basically your choice at elections; Tories=Corruption, Labour=Incompetence, Liberals=Clueless."

Historically Conservatives caused sex scandals, Labor called corruption scandals.

"Was he born evil, or did the absolute power corrupt him absolutely?"

I suspect that a study of people who actually *become* politicians will show they have certain genetic "pre-dispositions." Like the alcoholism gene.

In their cases it will be a collection of behaviors, some of which will make alcoholism seem *trivial*. In Blair's case it looks like a pronounced mis trust in ordinary people grossly *disproportionate* to the threat they present, coupled with a messianic belief he is right.

[Dr_Barnowl]

Re: Was he born evil, or did the absolute power corrupt him absolutely?

They're all just bleeding into one another ; I don't perceive any major differences between them now.

Watching the Conservatives lambast Labour for continuing with the PFI schemes that the Conservatives themselves introduced, particularly when you know that they too will continue with them, is the soul of irony.

At least with the fire and brimstone socialists you knew what they stood for. All the current lot will kiss your baby and shake your hand while promising eminently reasonable dreams to the public, while either quaking in their Gucci shoes or salivating internally at the thought of their corporate masters.

And the corporates fear and hate the internet (at the same time as they love it), because it gives the commoners the means to organise and communicate. Hence we have the BBC publishing "opinion pieces" that we should tear it all down and start again with something that can be controlled. They propose legislation that mandates tracking all email, phone, and social media communications. We have computer systems (predominantly phones, for now) designed to ignore the commands of their users and do the bidding of their corporate masters.

What to do, what to do....

[g e]

Politicians need privacy

To do the self-serving sneaky shit they do without fear of being outed.

Can you actually get a Doctorate in disingenuity these days cos they all seem to have one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fixed it for you

The original quote appears to have a full stop missing. I believe it should read:

"...at the same time there are people who threaten our way of life that have to be stopped. Politicians."

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Fixed it for you

Damn! -beat me to it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Fixed it for you

Bugger! Me too, but I actually typed it. And can't edit it now. You win, Mr. Coward.

[Robert E A Harvey]

He has changed my mind

It is worth listening to world leaders when they have something to say.

I was ambivalent about WikiLeaks, and about Assange, but if that c*nt is opposed to it I am going to become a true believer.

[Naughtyhorse]

self serving - lying shitbag - mass murdering fuckwit in favour of using state secrecy to cover up lies and incompetence....

film at 11

[Whitter]

Choose your weapons

A slow hand-clap or just don't turn up.

About time the crowd learned to deal with its content discontent.

[The Alpha Klutz]

Re: Choose your weapons

eat about 6 dozen eggs beforehand and sit in the front row blowing off

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Done

When I started reading this thread I intended to jump in and stick the boot in to this lying prick Blair but you seem to have covered it pretty comprehensively, well done all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tony Blair is a King!

You know, like that one they say tried to command the waves. Only spelt different.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Tony Blair is a King!

It would seem that you did not hear him, after he was pus^HAhed and resigned; you are all blessed. Ah, lovely.

[NobbyNobbs]

Re: Tony Blair is a King!

*that* king was tryin to demonstrate that no one was above god. So I think you aretty much spot on with the corrected spelling name.

I remeber watching V for vendetta and thinking John Hurt looked just like blair

ironic really tha a labour leader was the 2nd comming of thatcher, even to the point of having a wek leader follow to try and ssave face when their party was defeated on the next eletion.

[jestersbro]

Tony Blehrrrr!

I really hate that man. Such a bloody hypocrite. Courts the scum of the tabloids and then jokes at their expense. Make very strong statements on topics he freely admits he knows nothing about. I really don't like him at all. Blehrrr!!

[mhenriday]

But, Ian, why the superfluous qualifier «tech»

in «tech know-nothing» to describe our beloved Anthony Charles Lynton Blair ? Was it in order to preserve that other qualifier «self-confessed» ? The most pressing current problem with Mr Blair is that he is not «confessing» to the mulititudinous crimes against the peace and other war crimes for which he - and his bosom cronies like Willian Jefferson Clinton and George Walker Bush - are responsible (I almost wrote «bear responsibility», but of course, none of these people have ever borne - and it is unfortunately unlikely that they will ever be forced to bear - responsibility for their actions) before a tribunal at Den Haag (or elsewhere). The idea of the despicable Mr Blair referring to something other than himself as «disgraceful» would be ineffable, were it not for the fact that he has made a career of it. Note that the RSA is allowed to deduct the no doubt considerable fee paid to Mr Blair for his mouthings as a «business expense» - see there, a tax loophole that can and should immediate be closed to help bring the US federal budget into balance !...

Henri

[Richard Brown]

What money can't buy

All post war Prime Ministers under Queen Elizabeth II have either been created at Knight of the Garter or given a peerage. Tony & Gordon have received nothing.

Order of the Garter is the most prestigious order of knighthood in the UK and its award is the personal prerogative of the Queen. The order is restricted to a membership of 24 knights. Two new knights were appointed in 2011 so there were posts available if the Queen wished to appoint them.

This is probably the the only way the Queen has of giving these two bar stewards that time honoured English salute.

[amanfromMars 1]

What money can't buy .... Pennsylvania Avenue Access

Plenty of Proxy Foxy Recharging White Knights always available to fill that position, .... of that you can be sure. Garters are earnt, not rewards with Right Royal Access to Ancient Treats and such Presumptions. Flights of Fabulous Fantasy in Streams of Virtual Reality.

Capiche, AIRenegade?

[I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects]

Man, I am glad I got in early with this thread. It took me forever to upvote all those comments.

Is that what Windows 8 feels like?

[The Alpha Klutz]

tony blair makes the scum of the earth look good

[Scorchio!!]

@The Alpha Klutz

"tony blair makes the scum of the earth look good"

Until I read this I thought that ToniBler *was* the scum of the earth. I stand corrected.

[JDX]

Wow

Tony's even less popular than MS, Google and Apple put together!

[hplasm]

Re: Wow

Now you have achieved enlightenment, Grasshopper, try to imagine this infinitely larger.

[the-it-slayer]

I have a definition for him...

It's those people in life who do no good, are seen as lazy, tell lies to go up the ladder, lick the arses of the people they should respect and then kick them down when they're above them.

This TB guy is just one of those bull$*itters in life. Selfish little mongrel of a human being. All I'll remember him for is bursting the UKs financial stability by letting an incompetent man called Brown make it burst after he left (when he knew the ship was sinking).

[P. Lee]

Did the US really annoy Blair?

and in return he gives wikileaks massive credibility the only way he can?

[FatGerman]

Optional

Dear El Reg,

As a site I trust to bring me entertaining and sometimes informative technology stories, I find myself troubled by the fact that you're giving space to a lying, deceitful, bag of shit who brought politics in this country into disrepute. Please revert to giving us space to have pointless arguments about operating systems.

Yours,

Not anonymous because when the black helicopters some for me I want the Reg to be here to cover it.

[diodesign]

Re: Optional

"As a site I trust to bring me entertaining and sometimes informative technology stories"

Damned by faint praise.

C.

[QrazyQat]

"I was in Washington for meetings yesterday, and I have to be able to speak frankly. You can't have a situation where" the public who elect you know what you're doing.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Of Simulation and Dissimulation

Francis Bacon's essay of the same title starts off:

DISSIMULATION is but a faint kind of policy, or wisdom; for it asketh a strong wit, and a strong heart, to know when to tell truth, and to do it. Therefore it is the weaker sort of politics, that are the great dissemblers.

http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-7.html

Besides still being a relevant observation on the value of privacy (rendered as "closeness, reservation, and secrecy"), it's also telling as an indictment of Bush and Blair. All politicians lie, and we expect them to "dissemble" (pretend not to be what they are) and "simulate" (pretend to be what they are not) to some degree of another, and as appropriate to the circumstances. However, these men have taken simulation and dissimulation to such a level that one wonders if they are the only ones who cannot see their lies as anything but transparent falsehoods. Such people are beyond being merely immoral---they are outright dangerous.

[Anonymous Coward]

The RSA are obviously retards for even considering giving this thing any exposure.

This "Tony Blair" thing is completely corrupt, a blatant liar and part of the corrosive corporatist traffic which goes to and fro between government and crony-capitalist corporations; to put is bluntly, he is an enemy of progress, an enemy of freedom, an enemy of genuine capitalism, and an enemy of the human race, like many in the political class!

The sooner this parasite disappears from perception _permanently_ the better!

[Anonymous Coward]

That he continues

To line his own pockets while his wife does the same from Public Purse (legal aid) and we taxpayers foot the security bill for him

It's akin to us paying to guard an overpaid footballer with a singer(?) wife the rest of their lives

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a shame

that Blair only feels that way about democracy now. If we'd had democracy in '03 then one man wouldn't have been able to take the country to war against the wishes of the vast majority of the population*. That's right - I'm looking at you T.

* A little side note for our American cousins. This shouldn't be news to you by now, but please remember that the people of the UK were an unwilling party to the coalition of the willing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, lets follow your American Overlord's lead shall we?

[Anonymous Coward]

The man everyone wants to forget

It amazes me the speed with which Blair has become an irrelevance and indeed an embarrassment. Ex PMs usually pop up from time to time after they are out of office, but apart from the few paid gigs he does its remarkable how little interest any media outlet has in what Blair has to say (for which I am eternally grateful and note this also extends to his chum Bush). In that sense he's a bit like the OTT night in the pub that got a bit out of hand and is best forgotten by all concerned, only minus the wit and alcohol but with a far worse hangover.

Perhaps El Reg should do the Right Thing and ignore him entirely as it only encourages him.

[john devoy]

he's an idiot

Tony Blair never saw a bandwagon he didnt jump on or a chance for rank hipocracy he never took.

[Anonymous Coward]

re-remembering the past ..

"He also admitted to getting social media wrong. When social media first emerged, he said that politicians saw it as something which would act as a brake on the conventional media"

This is news to me, I would have thought the politicians would have seen blogs as a threat as they couldn't be controlled and spun like the conventional media, but then again Tony does have a talent for re-remembering the past.

"That this House recalls the Prime Minister's assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction capable of being used at 45 minutes' notice; further recalls the Government's contention that these weapons posed an imminent danger to the United Kingdom and its forces"

http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/useful/sp-iraq/

"I've never said that Iraq was about to launch an attack on Britain", Tony Blair

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/838641/posts

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah we love Tony Bliar.

You see you guys all think he's a failure.

You're seeing it from the wrong perspective.

He has, (as his wife kindly pointed out in the newspapers when she said we should waste money on third world women rather than their men, because women spend their money on food, and men waste it in gambling dens (that need to employ women,)) always worked for his family.

From his perspective he has...

1. Give the pope more power over Northern Ireland,

2. Flooded the country with Polish Catholics,

3. Made absolutely millions for his family,

4. Secured his children's future,

5. Secured the world's oil, and

6. Caused the deaths of over a million Muslims while making it look like it wasn't anything to do with him.

From his perspective...

Stitiched up Britain for the Pope,

Killed millions of Muslims for the Pope,

Earned Millions for his family.

Has now got himself in a job, equivalent, to the captain of the ship which brought in the black death on rats, dictating cross border health regulations.

Whether you like it or not, he has earned his place in his heaven. He will be beatified in a hundred years.

What's not to admire about that? From his perspective he's made a great success. Had he been English and done the same thing to France, everyone would be lauding him. He who dies with the most wins, especially if the last cheque he writes bounces, which I'd be surprised if it didn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pope on a rope

Ian Paisley a regular on El Reg. Who'da thunk it?

[Matt Bryant]

Oh, how I laughed!

Whilst it is amusing, reading at the rantings posted here, I have to ask how many of the UK posters reflexively voted Labour in 1997 and ensured Tony Blair's actions? The man won three General Elections, and I'm betting many of you put a cross on the ballot by the name of your local New Labour candidate without a moment's thought.

How many of the European posters reflexively and unquestioningly voted for some form of socialist government in their own countries? IIRC, there were 36 nations involved in the Mutli-National Force in Iraq, including many European ones. Oh, and those reflexive votes for European socilaist governments also ensured the economic chaos that has ensued. Please don't pretend it is all the bankers' fault, they weren't spending the public money like it was water in Greece.

And how about our Yank posters, how many of you voted for Bill Clinton with the usual and habitual "I can't vote Republican, I must vote Democrat"?

I've said ti before - an electorate usually gets the politicans it deserves. You reap what you sow.

[h4rm0ny]

Re: Oh, how I laughed!

More people voted against Labour than voted for it, in the last General Election that Tony Blair headed up. Labour got a majority of seats.

[Matt Bryant]

Re:Re: Oh, how I laughed!

"More people voted against Labour than voted for it....." Unfortunately, that is how the UK electoral system works. It's not about numbers of votes, it's about number of MPs elected. Some MPs have constituencies with larger numbers of voters than others, but their constituencies carry equal "weight" in Parliament (supposedly). The party with the largest number of seats has the right to form a government, either alone or in co-opration if they don't have a clear majority.

And before you start going on about proportional representation, please look at the mess that has caused in other countries such as Greece, where all the horsetrading has hindered the Greek government in implementing the actions the Germans wanted them to, or how it recently kept the Belgians from forming a government for 541 days!

[Graham Marsden]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

@Matt Bryant: "before you start going on about proportional representation, please look at the mess that has caused in other countries such as Greece" etc etc etc

Ah, the same old arguments that were trotted out when we *DID* have a chance to change a broken electoral system and which were refuted time and again, yet, due to large amounts of money spent on a campaign of FUD and lies ("Vote No to AV or the baby dies") we ended up with an electorate that were confused or scared into sticking with FPTP.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

".... Ah, the same old arguments that were trotted out when we *DID* have a chance to change a broken electoral system...." Yes, because the "broken" system has been looked at before and recognised as not perfect, but no-one has come up with a solution that is good enough to persuade the general populance it is better. Hence we have old arguments. If AV cannot stand up to "old arguments" then it is simply not good enough either.

Let's say someone is wearing sandals and want to wade across a stream. They worry their feet are going to get wet. They have already considered wearing ballet pumps but reckon cloth will not be waterproof, hence their feet will still get wet. You propose trainers, flash sports ones, because you think they are really cool! But the wader points out they will be no more waterproof than sandals or ballet pumps. You don't think to suggest Wellies beacuse, in your mind, flash trainers are the ultimate footwear, all due to the advertising, so you simply lambast them for using "the same old arguments" in rejecting your trainers. You whine on and on about how your trainers are just SOOOOO cool, that you were cheated, etc, etc, and you insist that the wearer muct have been "scared" into not taking your trainers. The fact that the wader simply made a smart decision eludes you because you think THE TRAINERS ARE SO COOOOOOOOOL!!!! In short, the failure is yours, not the general public's.

Just because a system is imperfect, it does not mean replacing it with the trend au jour is going to be a better solution.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

You coming out as a Blair supporter then MB? I mean, surely you were in favour of the War on Terror in Iraq? I doubt, somehow, you were part of the million-strong anti-war march.

Wouldn't suprise me if you were a supporter of Blair/Bush, but it's a bit of a blunt instrument for trolling, isn't it?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

"You coming out as a Blair supporter then MB?...." No, merely pointing out the amusing way the same people that greeted Blair as some great liberator from the Tories are now the same people moaning the hardest about his "achievements". Oh, but I was in favour of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

Everything aside, Matt, for a moment, may I ask you a question in all seriousness?

When the war in Iraq/Afghanistan kicked off, I, like many, was in favour of the "direct action". Several of my friends were soldiers and their enthusiasm for the fight swept me along, as well as the rhetoric from many of our leaders. 7/7, initially at least, galvanised my opinion.

It wasn't until some time later that I changed my mind and "swapped camps", based on the arguments presented to me and the evidence I uncovered for myself.

Why do you support the action taken in Iraq?

I'm not taking the piss here, I'd genuinely like to know your opinion.

FTR, I was never a Blair fan, nor am I a Cameron fan, and I don't rate the Lib Dems either....

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

"....Why do you support the action taken in Iraq?....." And here we go off on another sidetrack away from the topic in hand. I thought you lot were so hot on Manning and his freedom? Evdiently not.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

Nice evasion. Not.

Not prepared to answer the question? No suprises there. Only a moron would still be in favour of the Iraq war.

Again, you are woefully unaware of my position on Manning. He should be treated humanely and given a fair trial, not tortured and then put in a show-trial to appease the redneck right-wing of the yankee public.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

"Nice evasion. Not....." Er, yes it was! And I sense another one coming soon!

".....not tortured....." Bingo! We're back to more pathetic whining that Manning was "tortured". That has been so debunked it is soon to be in the next edition of the Oxford Dictionary as an example under "deluded".

"....fair trial....put in a show-trial...." Please explain how it is a "show trial"? It seems he has fair recourse, he has a legal team which seem unemcumbered from spouting any male bovine manure they like about the Corp, and it's all being done openly and in the public eye. In short, your statement is again just more complete cobblers.

Please go back to IndyMedia or whatever other handwringer site you crawled over here from. This is a techies' site, we have brains, we can actually think for ourselves, and we're not going to swallow your mindless drivel just because you tell us to.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

Another sidetrack?

err....so what does Manning have to do with anything in this article or thread then? Or, indeed, how does it relate to the question I asked you, which, I believe has relevance to the discussion of the career of Tony B.Liar?

Elucidate please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

I get the feeling we need an additional icon, of an erect penis with the owner's hand wrapped around it.

[Graham Marsden]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

Matt Bryant: "If AV cannot stand up to "old arguments" then it is simply not good enough either."

Oh good grief, Matt. It wasn't about the arguments, it was about the amount of money that the "Say No" campaign (backed by the Tories) could put into straw man advertising ("If you vote for AV this soldier won't get a bullet proof vest") and other ridiculous nonsense such as that contained in your second paragraph.

If you really wanted to summarize the situation accurately you could have said "Let's say someone is wearing sandals and want to wade across a stream. We could have given them a choice between the sandals and ballet pumps, stiletto heels, trainers, slippers, wellington boots, flip-flops, waders, army boots etc etc, but if we did that, they might actually realise that there *are* better options."

Instead, they, like you, offer a false dichotomy of "well it's either sandals or trainers" and use that to set up a straw man argument showing how bad the "only available" alternative is.

The only bit you did get right is that "it does not mean replacing it with the trend au jour is going to be a better solution", but you miss the point that it was never an open and free choice in the first place.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

Besides the fact this has nothing to do with Tony Blair, it is amusing to hear another "we woz cheated" whine from the Left!

".....It wasn't about the arguments, it was about the amount of money that the "Say No" campaign (backed by the Tories) could put into straw man advertising...." IIRC, Labour were anti-AV too, but that's beside the point. You're now insisting that not only were all us voters scared out of voting for AV, you also insist that BIG MONEY was intent on keeping us scared. Subscribe to many conspiracy theories, by chance? In fact, I saw MORE of the pro-AV advertising than the anti-AV, was that all given for free? I doubt it. Please just accept the simple fact that your arguments weren't strong enough to convince the populance.

"....We could have given them a choice between the sandals and ballet pumps, stiletto heels, trainers, slippers, wellington boots, flip-flops, waders, army boots...." And that was half the problem with AV - none of the AV supporters seemed able to push a coherent message, you spent half the time arguing amongst yourselves as to which footwear you actually did think was best. That made it very easy for the anti-AV campaign to defeat you lot, especially as some of the options thrown into the ring by the pro-AV crowd looked just like self-serving idiocy.

"....but you miss the point that it was never an open and free choice in the first place." Would you like some cheese with that whine? You got a referendum, you lost because the people did not see value in the choice you presented. End of story. Now shut-up, grow up, and accept it.

[Graham Marsden]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

Ah, once again the Matt Bryant movable goalposts are back out of storage, not to mention irrelevant personal attacks.

No, Matt, I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories and trying to denigrate my arguments like that just shows the paucity of yours.

The fact is that when one side in an argument can (like you repeatedly try to do) move the goalposts and change the argument to irrelevancies instead of dealing with the actual issue that we should have had a discussion into *all* the options available *before* any referendum was ever held, we were given a false choice and straw man arguments (another one was the claim that AV was somehow not "one person one vote") then it's not a case of "an electorate usually gets the politicans it deserves. You reap what you sow", but those who follow the Golden Rule ("He who has the gold makes the rules") decide what we reap from what they sow.

Once again I'll let you get the last word because there's no point in trying to have a sensible discussion with you.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

".....just shows the paucity of yours...." I don't need to repeat my arguments, for two reasons:

1. It is up to you to present some form of argument for AV, which you have not, you have simply whined about how supposedly unfair the process was.

2. We won! < Cue smug laughter!

[h4rm0ny]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

"whine from the Left!" ???

Why on Earth do you suppose that anyone who wanted AV is on the "Left" ? Labour were against it, the Conservatives were against it. I'm considered right-wing on many issues and I supported AV. You're constructing odd strawmen images of your critics. Some sort of Divide and Conquer principle trying to turn it into a Right-Left division and garner some support? Sorry - your preconceptions are misplaced. Also, calling someone's post a "whine" is just a cheap way of trying to dismiss what they say. Argument by analogy, as you do by immediately resorting to talk about traininers vs. wellies, is the real flaw. Unless you can explain how wellies are closely analoguous to the existing system and trainers are closely analoguous to AV other than just because you say one is better than the other.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

h4rm0ny has you bang to rights there, MB.

To reinforce his point, and the weakness of your "argument" (I struggle to call your point of view an argument, as it implies reason and you lack that, really.) I shall point out that I am generally "left wing" (Neo-Socialist) and I wasn't really in favour of AV either; it was a watered down version of PR and I'm not even certain that PR itself would be a good idea.

In the end I settled for FPTP, as it's better the devil we know, and the argument from the AV camp was not cohesive or clear enough.

Please, bring your next deluded assumption about how your fellow commentators think. We'll be waiting for the laughs.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

""whine from the Left!" ???" Take it up with Bernie, he was the one that insisted it was all a Tory / Big Money conspiracy. I was just enjoying the fun of mocking his insecurities.

"....Unless you can explain how wellies are closely analoguous to the existing system and trainers are closely analoguous to AV...." Blimey, it wasn't that hard to follow, was it? The whole point of that was to show that Bernie couldn't see that his offering was unacceptable to the general public, he assumed we'd all been "scared" out of chosing AV. Just like the person pushing trainers, Bernie is so convinced about AV but he is just unable to convince anyone else, so he has to assume he was somehow tricked rather than admit his belief in the perfection of AV is flawed. It's a bit like those guys in nightclubs that get rejected by a girl and therefore have to insist she's a lesbian, becuase they just can't accept the fact that they're not good looking enough to interest her.

I apologise for using an analogy that was obviously far too complex for the pro-AVers to follow. Maybe The Reg can add a feature to allow the uploading of diagrams to help them. Ones in crayon.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

Personally, I am more inclined to listen to the opinion of Amnesty International who condemned the treatment of Manning OUTRIGHT as torture, than the opinion of those inflicting the torture, but this is old ground and we've trodden it before. Also, yet another stupid sidestep by you avoiding the subject.

"""whine from the Left!" ???" Take it up with Bernie, he was the one that insisted it was all a Tory / Big Money conspiracy. I was just enjoying the fun of mocking his insecurities."

Please show me where I said that? I think you've got the wrong poster. More proof that the only dialogue you understand is the one going on in your own (wrong) head.

You're not even a very good troll, are you?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

"Personally, I am more inclined to listen to the opinion of Amnesty International...." I guess you're only inclined to listen to anyone that chimes with your limited POV, especially professional whiners like AI. Unfortunately, anyone with any legal power completely disagrees with you and AI, hence the complete failure of legal moves to get Manning's treatment branded "torture".

Apologies, Bernie, it was actually your fellow whiner Graham Marsden that accused the Tories of "scaring" us all out of voting for AV:

".....It wasn't about the arguments, it was about the amount of money that the "Say No" campaign (backed by the Tories)....." Posted 5th March, 18:42.

Please forgive me for confusing the two of you, it must be down to the vacuuous nature of your bleatings being so similar and strikingly unoriginal, presumably because you both over-grazed on the same astroturf.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

Apology accepted.

I'm done arguing with you now. It's clear that you are just a troll, or mentally deficient in some way, as no one in their right mind could think any of the following:

* War in Iraq is good.

* It's reasonable that the USA redefined the word torture

* US foreign policy is perfectly justified.

* The right to question the orders of a superior is a fallacy

* AV/PR is a bad idea entirely

* Tony Blair was a good guy

* The Tories are good guys

* State secrecy is perfectly fine, in all cases.

* The treatment of Bradley Manning is ok

* Julian Assange should be raped, then shot.

* No one else, anywhere on these forums, has any intelligence and only you're right.

These are all opinions you've spouted. You are clearly delusional and sociopathic.

Go find some help.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

"....I'm done arguing with you now....." What, is it time for your after-milk nap?

".....no one in their right mind...." Interesting that you are so closed minded that you cannot perceive that someone else could have a different POV without being mentally challenged. Personally, I think that says plenty about the limits of your intellectual capabilities.

".....War in Iraq is good...." No, war is never good, but it is often necessay. You may come to understand that when you grow up. Until then, I'll just laugh at the rest of the frothing, trend-du-jour, ranting points you listed.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

" ...you are so closed minded that you cannot perceive that someone else could have a different POV..."

I didn't have to look very far to see you saying the same thing, Matt. What's good for the gander and all:

"...it must be down to the vacuuous nature of your bleatings being so similar and strikingly unoriginal, presumably because you both over-grazed on the same astroturf..."

You go on to say that war is sometimes neccessary; I agree. Can you tell us why you believe the war in Iraq was neccessary?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

".....I didn't have to look very far to see you saying the same thing...." Actually. we're totally different - I show up the holes in your arguments, you just post bleatings.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

"Can you tell us why you believe the war in Iraq was neccessary?"

It seems you can't, or won't, answer my question. I suspect that's because you know that it is entirely unreasonable to attempt to defend your point of view on the subject as the war in Iraq had no moral justification at all.

Oh, and by the way, did you see yesterdays news?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un?newsfeed=true

"The UN special rapporteur on torture has formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning..."

"In his opening letter to the US government on December 30 2010, Mendez said that the prolonged period of isolated confinment was believed to have been imposed "in an effort to coerce him into 'cooperation' with the authorities, allegedly for the purpose of persuading him to implicate others."

So, the UN condemns the treatment of Bradley Manning as torture after a 14 month investigation that your precious USMC refused to cooperate with.

Only rednecks think it wasn't torture now.

Game Over.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

Oh dear. I was trying to save you further embarrassment as I predict you will simply trot out more well-worn, debunked, handwringer froth in response to anything to do with the Iraq War. I saw the removal of Saddam Hussein from power as both necessary to reduce the chances of a major Mid East war (along the lines of another invasion of Kuwait), to protect the minorities in Iraq (such as the Kurds and the Southern Marsh Arabs) from further persecution, and to bring Saddam to trial for his crimes. Are you contending that Saddam was whiter than white and had no crimes to answer to?

".....Oh, and by the way, did you see yesterdays news?...." The Guardian is not a paper I would recommend to anyone, it's the exact political opposite (and equally as brow-beating) as the Daily Mail that you and your fellow bleaters so happily ridicule, whilst ignoring the paucity of real reporting in the sources you choose to read. The Guardian's falling out with A$$nut, after being quite happy to originally work with him on stolen US documents, is simply an example of their hilariously inept "journalism".

".....UN special rapporteur on torture .... Mendez...." Ah yes, Juan Mendez of Human Rights Watch fame. An institution criticised for its focus on bashing Israel at every opportunity, whilst largely ignoring real issues such as Kashmir, and whose members like posing with Nazi war memorobilia. I'm not surprised the totally corrupt UN Human Rights Council, infamous for electing such well known oppressors of human rights as Iran to its ranks, whilst ignoring human rights violations committed by council member states, should choose a representative with such a bias against the US military. Am I surprised Juan Mendez is wasting time and money pushing the Manning "torture" rot? Nope. Am I surprised that you don't have a clue to the political leanings of the people you quote? Nope again.

".....Only rednecks think it wasn't torture now....." Only a faux intellectual bigot would tar a group of people with such an assertion. I happen to know some very clever "rednecks", one of whom has a very senior position in hp, a job no doubt way above your paygrade and requiring far more intelligence than you can muster. That is if you do have a job even. I'm beginning to think that unlikely.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

Oh, am I sensing annoyance from you, Matthew?

"Are you contending that Saddam was whiter than white and had no crimes to answer to?"

No, but I will contend that no one gave that as the reason Iraq was to be invaded. It wasn't even mentioned in the so-called "dodgy dossier"; the very secret reasons (if you believe it) that we went to war at all, instead we were fed BS about "45 minutes for Iraq to launch WMDs at us" and "Saddam supports Al Qaeda". If liberation of the an oppressed people HAD been the reason I would probably still be applauding it as a "moral war". If it had been, perhaps we'd now be doing the same in Saudi, Somalia, Uganda, Iran, North Korea, Syria... ('Merica! World Police! We're not after your oil, no sirree, we just want you to be free!)

But it wasn't, and I think we all know that now.

Anyway, its the same US that propped Saddam into power and the same US that sold him the chemical agents he used on the marsh-arabs (as a test in preperation for war on Iran, which served US interests perfectly.)

Let's move along for the baby-troll, shall we?

Ok, so let's assume that the Guardian is lying completely. Unlikely, as its not the Mail, but let's pretend for the kiddies....

....how about CNN or ABC? How about Glen Greenwald?

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

...Maybe you'd like to check Reuters? The BBC? Al-Jazeera?

Or...let's read the report from the UN itself! Here you go.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/03/12/A_HRC_19_61_Add.4_EFSonly-2.pdf

So, I think thats the evidence presented that the Guardian wasn't making it all up, so I can dispose of your "you can't trust 'em" argument. There's an awful of lot of international groups and governments now coming to the conclusion that the US is actually pretty nasty when you get down to its core, whilst the good 'ole boys are sitting there, wrapped in flags and crosses and saying "it ain't so" over and over to make sure that they (and foolish people like you) continue to believe that they are all liberty, justice and mom's apple pie. Wakey! They aren't!

And then you present some comedy gold...

"Only a faux intellectual bigot would tar a group of people with such an assertion."

Really?! I'm not sure I even need to answer this, but if I did it would merely to Copy/Paste some choice examples of you doing this over and over. I doubt I'd even need to leave this topic to do so, so I shan't waste my time. Your hypocricy amazes me, and many others here, but I don't think anyone is suprised by it anymore. Just for you though, I shall change "redneck" to "rednecks with particularly low intelligence" to clarify. Or, if you prefer, "Only a poorly educated bucket of slugs would...etc. etc.". I do, however, applaud the way you got a straw-man AND an ad hominem attack into the same sentence, that takes a small measure of skill.

Move along, nothing to see here....oh wait...one more ad hominem non-sequitor to deal with.

"a job no doubt way above your paygrade and requiring far more intelligence than you can muster. That is if you do have a job even. I'm beginning to think that unlikely."

A VP or something then? Or some kind of director? Yeah, that'd be above my pay-grade, true enough. I am not going to give details of what I do due to certain security directives and so forth that I have to abide by in my nice, well paid role working for the nation. That is, unfortunately, as far as I can take a discussion about what I do.

Trollface, 'cos one of us should wear it proudly.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

"Oh, am I sensing annoyance from you, Matthew?...." No, that's simply a mixture of boredom and resignation, both prompted by your predictable frothing.

".....No, but I will contend that no one gave that as the reason Iraq was to be invaded...." And there we have another major failure, both in political understanding and simple reading comprehension. In political understanding, you failed to grasp that the Allies needed a legal argument to go to war, hence the WMD angle to show how Saddam was infringing on UN Resolution 1441. If you had asked me to justify the the Allied arguments around WMDs and Res 1441 then you could just bleat that standard, anti-War whines and still come across as vageuly on-topic.

"....US that sold him the chemical agents...." I think you'll find that the majority of Saddam's chemical agents, along with a lot of his high-tech coms, bunkers and other war material came from Europe, especially Germany and France. His chemical precursors came from many countries, only a tiny fraction coming from the US. Wikipedia has the following (and even a echo-chamber bigot like you should be able to find Wikipedia):

".....The know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign firms. The largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie Ltd.) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq...."

All you are doing is displaying the fact that you have done zero original research, just swallowed the anti-US soundbites fed to you.

But what you actually asked was what reasons did I have for supporting the Iraq War, so it is a failure on your part to immediately trot out the very worn, standard, anti-War boilerplate. Did I expect you to do any original thinking and actually consider my points and maybe make counters? No, your lack of original thinking has been self-evident from your first post. You don't even deserve a trollface.

[Bernard M. Orwell]

Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

Good research on the origin of the Sarin used on the marsh-arabs, I concede that point.

I'd say we could continue debating all this until Nibiru turns up, but I think we've cleared the thread of all other commentards and the landlord of inevitability is flashing the lights of last orders at us.

Beer? I'll get the coats...

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

"....Beer?..." Ah, if only we could solve all the World's troubles over a pint.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh, how I laughed!

Yes I voted for the twat in '97. Haven't voted Labour since and never will again. My Dad saw right through him, but I didn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's got nothing to hide...

...then what's he worried about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this parasite...

....dead yet?

Pity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Has the twat managed to start a war in Iran yet?

[Lord Of the Flies]

This imbecile needs to be in Jail for crimes against humanity. Shame on RSA, No wonder they are going downhill fast.

[bobbles31]

In the privacy debate I love the "politicians need to be able to speak freely" argument. I have never yet seen a member of the press retort with "surely elected representatives should be made to stand by their opinions and decisions in a public forum", after all then we might get a level of honesty from our politicians that the 30 million odd disinterested voters seem to expect but never get.

Rather than the public having suspicions about meetings where agenda item 1 is tank movements agenda item 2 is how to hide the tank movements from the public and any other business is who's corporate sponsor is going to get what oil contract in Iraq.