20 Comments on A few words about TB …

Fake Fan Base on Fri, 29th Jan 2010 11:39 pm


When Blair made those decisions about substance and presentation (45 mins, WMD etc) he was doing so as Britain, and really only answerable to god. Cabinet, Parliament and the British people never really featured.

The critical reflecton of others was irrelevent particularly with neocon influenced group think which happened to fit anyway with the emerging views of our great leader.

At least the British people know about him now and his reputation is in tatters. Few leaders have had to have so much blood on their hands betore they come to terms with their own responsibility.Today, even Rumsfeld would have been more capable of real human emotion and regret..

Hartmut Rast on Sat, 30th Jan 2010 9:25 am


With all respect Mr Taylor, the war in Iraq has always violated international law and is still today without legitimacy by the UN.

I am just Joe Average and not the brightest one in geography but I know for sure that the Iraq is not a region in Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorists were born and raised. Or wasn’t that the reason for the “War on Terror” ? Was the “War against Al Queda” before or after “hunting Osama Bin Laden” in Iraq or am I totally wrong because the US and their allies invaded Iraq for the threads by Saddam Hussein to attack the Western world with chemical and biological weapons.

I missed those announcements as well as I obviously missed the latest declaration why Western troops have killed more than 500,000 Iraqi civilians nobody is counting anymore. Even not Amnesty Internation which I am quoting here.

Thank God that Tony Blair is blessed with such memory and knew why we have to bring all this suffering and grief into foreign countries and giving the Muslim world a reason to hate their intruders and force their violence behaviour against us.

If someone would kill my family or traumatize my children with nightly house searches I would know how to react, and you ?

Mike Upstone on Sat, 30th Jan 2010 11:27 am


Apologist rubbish and spin: this would make Alistair Campbell proud. It smacks of your still having a ‘Common Purpose’ with the old boss…

There is a vast amount of evidence not just of criminal “conspiracy and cover” up but also of an equally criminal lack of preparation and equipment of British soldiers. The evidence is piled high, but it’s back to Blairite policy ‘principles’ here, outright denial in the face of the evidence.

The war was illegal from start to finish – there is not a micron of room for doubt as it is one of the very first things our officers are taught at UK military academies; a war of aggression is illegal. We didn’t even fulfil our legal obligations to count dead civilians.

The impact of this illegal, murderous action has been, as was widely forecast beforehand, to increase ‘terrorism’, enormously – including introducing ‘Al quaeda’ (as Robin Cook stated in the Commons, actually the CIA’s Afghan ‘database’) to Iraq, who did not exist in any way there beforehand. Several reports have confirmed this ‘exponential’ increase in terrorism, including those from MI5, Chatham House, State Department, FCO and Scotland Yard.

No wonder you are keeping your head down, but I’m sickened that you are attempting to conduct a flag waving PR rearguard for your old war criminal employer. I seem to recall it was a war criminal government with a principle of Cabinet responsibility…

This is an embarrassment.

Democracy? I’ll BET you’re currently turning down interviews!!

rhian on Sat, 30th Jan 2010 4:11 pm


Yes I agree, and even withstanding all the confusion and ongoing aftermath since the invasion, what a relief yesterday to hear Tony Blair giving us a powerful reminder of the threat we were (and still are) under after 9/11. Its about time the balance was re-dressed: there have been too many years of whingeing people naively attacking the decision to go to war when they have never visited the Middle East, don’t understand the fantacism of Islamic extremism and characters like Saddam Hussein who was another menace to Western security and financing suicide bombers through out the region. I admire Blair for his tenacity and his willingness to stick by his beliefs at the time. Maybe we will need Blair back when unfortunately we and the US are inevitably going to have to make a decision about the Iranian threat…

Sue B on Sat, 30th Jan 2010 10:20 pm


Hi Matthew,
What was your role in between IPPR 2003 and RSA 2006? I had assumed you were part of the New Labour team?
Interesting post I would like to comment in more detail on, as they was lots of spin going on which is always difficult to unravel

Oh Rhian please…..war on Iran! Blair back in power! Are you completely mad or do you understand something I dont? Perhaps you like the wacky revelations ending or something…..

Livy on Sun, 31st Jan 2010 6:26 pm


I would have thought you’d rather nail your balls to a moving train than post about this.

My attitude to Mr. Blair and Iraq is a bit like my view on abortion; I don’t really have one, at least publically, and don’t feel I’m qualified to pronounce on the issue without a functioning uterus.

By the same token, I didn’t read the intelligence reports landing on his desk every morning which detailed the variety of ways people around the world want to kill infidels – and not just those of us wearing uniforms. Let’s remember that we’re talking about the sort of people who stone women to death, preach the overthrow of our government, the murder of our civilians and ban any book written after and including the Guttenberg bible.

It’s funny how British people are the first to cheer when things go well and the first to boo when things go badly.

There’s a third option, MT.

Life is about making choices. That’s it. It really is that simple. You pick a side, and you stick; you don’t cut and run when things get ugly. Most of these turncoats who have testified made themselves look like rats off a sinking ship.

Government ministers, the main opposition, the foreign office, the civil service and a great deal of the public all supported the war. Parliament voted for it, and civil servants are almost genetically predisposed to be servile. And now we’re left in a position where the former Prime Minister is the only one left defending it. Fine, when governments fall maybe people are lined up and shot. But that doesn’t mean they have to get on their knees. This all reminds me of the way Hilary Clinton U-Turned on the war as soon as she ran for the nomination; despite having voting for it, she then had the nerve to say “we were defrauded”, and “things have changed”. Nothing changed. The only thing that changed was she had an election to win.

Rhian: Yes.

But the Iranian threat is slightly different; the west will probably just have to pay them off. Iran is actually a lot closer to nuclear capability than Iraq was, they don’t need that amount enriched uranium for power stations. It’s not so much the bomb they really want but rather the near invincibility on the world stage that comes with it. This is the basic lesson learned from North Korea. Once you’re armed, people who previously threaten your existence tend to leave you alone.

Sue: …I mean… why bother? You need to wake up and smell your hazelnut latte. We were involved in Desert Fox back in ’98, we bombed Iraqi nuclear, Chemical and biological plants. This whole thing was always on the cards, or rather, the grand chessboard.

Forget our personal feelings. There’s more at stake here. I may personally believe that the blood of man should only be spilt to redeem the blood of man, but it wasn’t my responsibility to ensure London didn’t turn into Tel Aviv, and whether you like it or not the successes of our intelligence services are private whilst their failures are public.

As for the man? He made Labour electable after 18 years in the cold, and was the only leader in their history to win three consecutive general elections and make the breakthrough in Northern Ireland that so many previous Prime Ministers failed to achieve. (Which, by the way, is what a lot of this was all about. It’s not my place to imply a quid pro quo, but after 9/11 a great many people in DC relaxed their support for Irish republicanism. Even Chris Meyer wrote about it)

Enough about spin, please, this is getting tedious. New Labour didn’t invent the 24 hour news cycle and they certainly didn’t invent press secretaries, PR or comms. What we call ‘spin’ goes back at least as far the Roman Senate, and probably before that. As soon as an unelected media (self-appointed supreme arbiters of right and wrong in the universe) start believing themselves to be more powerful – and righteous – than government, a political party with a public mandate who feel their job performance is impeded will fight back.

Nice cheapshot on the religious beliefs. Fact is, rejection of theory is in itself theory; even if we’re not influenced by a Christian upbringing we are at least subjected to other social, cultural attitudes, as well as genetic hardwiring that we’re convinced amounts to personality and independent thought.

A little while ago Mr. Blair was honest enough to say, roughly paraphrased, that ‘knowledge’ is not the same as ‘facts’; that he only knew what he believed. Without that kind of determination, that incisive ability to not only see all the angles but have the balls to play one, how else is the Prime Minister supposed to make daily life and death decisions that would baffle the rest of us?

That’s the point. The man matters as much as the mission. It ties in with the previously mentioned ‘methods of communication and persuasion’, and the lovely Miss Anne McElvoy hit the nail on the head on Friday. “His gift when under pressure is to make the listener doubt that there is any cause for concern, and that any sensible person who knew as much as him would share his view.” [If she reads this blog: I think you rock. 10 minutes of your time, coffee's on me]

It’s been said that George Bush Jr. privately believes he will be resurrected by history in the same way as Harry Truman. Time will tell. But it’s pretty moronic of Guardian commentators and other petulant ‘meddling lefties’ to ask the same kind of questions about Tony Blair; likening him to Eden or even talking about war crimes. All wars are crimes. But it’s also a big bad world out there, and everybody’s got guns.

Scot on Sun, 31st Jan 2010 9:51 pm


Livy, for someone who pronounces no valid opinion on TB or the associated war that was quite a ramble!

Perhaps this link will help you remember the kinds of ‘persuasion’ used
http://www.scottcsmith.net/remindus.swf

I think those who supported the war because they believed the misinformation or trusted the sources are those you call turn-coats?

Caitriona on Sun, 31st Jan 2010 10:57 pm


Watching Tony Blair on Friday reminded me of what it used to be like when the UK had a leader as Prime Minister.

Ian Leslie on Mon, 1st Feb 2010 4:28 pm


I second Scot’s opening comment.

Watching Blair boss the inquiry on Friday gave me a vivid insight into how difficult he must have been to argue with, within No10 or cabinet. When his mind is set, he’s clearly a force of nature. Instead of making the Iraq post-mortem about him/his integrity, whether he’s Good or Bad, we should ask whether our institutions of govt have the right balance to a) Get the most of someone like this, ie benefit from such strong leadership skills, whilst b) Restraining such a leader from overriding doubts and opposition and taking the country into bad decisions (I’m not suggesting Iraq was a bad decision, necessarily, I’m just posing the general question). This is what Chilcot is for – to examine the system, not to make judgements on individuals.

Livy on Mon, 1st Feb 2010 4:52 pm


Nice one Catriona,

Cheers Ian, Scot.

Yeah…. fair play I suppose.

I only post ramblings that long to ensure nobody actually reads them. That way, I can at least act as if I know what I’m talking about, and nobody will refute any of it due to the sheer silly length of my Hannibal Lecter style diary entries and their ability to masquerade as relevant commentary.

Livy

Danny Jones on Tue, 2nd Feb 2010 11:51 am


The war certainly says a lot about Tony Blair’s ability as a leader; he managed to take the country to war in the absence of aggression, unlike Mrs Thatcher who had Argentineans in residence in the Falklands. Had the run up to war been conducted more openly, then it would not have happened; the logic for it is very far from clear when compared to the Falklands or the first Iraq war.

Setting aside the quality of leadership and Mr Blair’s success in achieving a goal he clearly believed in, did it take us in the right direction? It is probably still too early to say, but it certainly doesn’t feel like it was the right thing to do. In reality, we will never know, because we don’t know how Iraq would have developed if left alone; perhaps war with Israel, or another war with Iran or a WMD attack on the UK through terrorists? A better question is did the war prevent more suffering than it caused? We don’t yet know and never will for certain.

As for poor preparation of the military forces, which is an additional charge laid against Mr Blair; war was ever thus, except for the Spartan’s and a few other militaristic states throughout history. It’s not a particularly helpful line of reasoning; had we been totally prepared (whatever that means) we would still have suffered casualties, perhaps just as many as we did. I fear that we have created a lot of angry people who now want to do us harm.

We are also too focused on the men and women who died. The death of our service personnel is terrible for their comrades, families and loved ones, but they are volunteers and the role of the services is generally to shoot and be shot at. Too much of the media coverage of the Iraq war and now Afghanistan is about the latest casualties, rather than why we are there and what success looks like. The process of determining what should have been done differently is not aided by interviewing another grieving parent angry at Mr Blair.

And finally, I seem to remember that the first lesson at Sandhurst was that when someone shouted at you, it paid to jump, followed shortly after by learning how to create very shiny boots. I don’t recall much on debating wars of aggression, but it was a while ago.

Sue B on Tue, 2nd Feb 2010 3:49 pm


What I found disappointing about this blog post MT is the shift from a somewhat authentic writing style to something clearly related back to your days from 2003-06 as TB’s head of policy and strategy advisor. Just reads like cleverly constructed spin.

Livy – I’m not sure why you brag about filling up the forum comments with words you know are nonsense and meaningless. Just fluff to sabotage and distract people from real comments and ideas. And please refrane from judging me by your standards, I’m no coffee morning chattering London type.

Back to the post. I don’t think the approach you’ve taken is fair in your position now within RSA, it appears you have taken your loyalty to TB too far once again and compromised your integrity. To summarise you state:
- TB said nothing new but said it well and truthfully……
-TB’s comments tho were important for history and current foriegn policy
-TB’s evidence tallies with everyone else
-No evidence of cover up or conspiracy
-TB is a vulnerable human being – all real – no stage management
-It was nice and decent of TB to turn up and say nothing new again
-Haters will just continue to hate him whatever he says
-Others tho will be reminded what a great man and leader he was/ is and the threat of Iran ( see Livy)
-TB is totally trustworthy and MT has had no insight insight or involvement in Iraq strategy
-Acknowledge failings of not realising key difference of international war and domestic policy arguments
-Nothing would have changed final outcomes anyway except for maybe better management of TB’s damaged reputation

Clearly this is neither balanced or open to many millions of people’s opinion prior to the war and subsequently that something else was at play here. Sometimes what lazy people call conspiracy is actually a valid alternative theory that is being prevented from coming to light by those who prefer information management

Livy on Tue, 2nd Feb 2010 3:57 pm


Love you too, Sue…

(Actually…I like a green tea in the morning)

matthewtaylor on Tue, 2nd Feb 2010 4:04 pm


OK folks. Barbara said i shouldn’t post on this and – as usual – she was right. It felt like a bit of a cop out not to seeing as I worked for the man. But we aren’t going to resolve this one on my comments pages and I don’t want all my lovely readers to fall out. So can I apologise for opening this up and encourage you all to comment on my much nicer and less aggravating post today?

Sue B on Wed, 3rd Feb 2010 10:14 pm


A couple of points to finish as you clearly want attention focused elsewhere and do not wish to elaborate or explain.

I believe it was right you posted on this topic but only if you were to post true feelings not party line and TB cheerleader stuff. May I remind you that although he was your boss you were also his boss. I know its a crazy concept but Blair was elected to serve as public leader, to represent the people, to serve, so a bit less of the subservience and recognition he should be accountable and responsible for the powers and resources he used on our behalf (especially if as Claire Short describes he was circumnavigating democratic process as an el presidento).

I suspect not all witnesses would have tallied with TB – ranging from Claire Short the day after, do you think Robin Cook or David Kelly would have agreed? Not to mention millions of citizens, numerous international govts and the UN.

Lets face it. Everyone can spot that for reasons not disclosed a war was desired.

PS: No readers are falling out with each other over this…Livy is just fluff (trying to be funny) and others are concerned at what you said and/ or didn’t and realise the significance. As you say it wont be resolved on a message board if you don’t wish to and at least my personal integrity is in tact.

mas on Wed, 3rd Feb 2010 11:23 pm


somehow seems easy to claim ‘integrity’ with anonymity

Personally I’m interested to hear the thoughts of somebody with a better insight than I. My only criticism is it’s maybe a slightly nervous post, but given what the subject provokes that’s understandable. I think you’d be damned if you did or didn’t anyway, but for me much better you do.

Mike Upstone on Sat, 6th Feb 2010 2:17 pm


The total lack of commitment to core democratic values and to the rule of law is truly astonishing… a very bad day for the RSA.

sue b on Mon, 8th Feb 2010 1:26 pm


I think personal integrity is just that, something personal.

Between you and your maker or your deathbed (whichever suits)…..we know what is right and what is honest. Simples

Not sure a phone number or email address or twitter account will really change that. or pretending to cry to attract a sympathy vote:)

Livy on Mon, 8th Feb 2010 1:42 pm


A bit like the integrity of ministers who brief against their own people and then show up in print as, “An unnamed senior cabinet source said…”

matthewtaylor on Mon, 8th Feb 2010 9:14 pm


Hi folks. Look, I probably shouldn’t have posted on something so emotive, although I’m not quite sure why my rather circumspect personal reflections should be a ‘bad day for the RSA’ Mike. Let’s move on – there are plenty of other places to discuss this issue to every-one’s heart’s content. How about commenting on the 21st century enlightenment (see today)

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!