Tony Blair: Is This The Beginning Of The End?


Well-known member
Does anybody think the inability of the US and UK to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq be the beginning of the end 4 the one-time seemingly invincible Tony Blair?
The End for Tony Blair ? I dont think so as it would require the whole country to be anti Tony and to be honest I think most people couldnt care less. The fact that no WMD have been found doesnt mean that there weren't any to start with as they could quite easily have been moved abroad. In any case there is strong evidence that the reason why we know that there were WMD was because the West supplied them in the first place and they have since not been accounted for. So the argument can always be that they are well hidden not that they dont exist and this can be argued for year and years.

I would accept that it is easy to hid ea WMD programme, but not so easy to hide weapons ready for deployment in 45 mins. This is so patently untrue that Blair will lack credibility on any statement of faith that he chooses to make in the future.

For me, a bigger issue is that he was elected on a platform of "education, education, education", which has since turned out to mean abolition of student grants, universal student tuition fees, top-up fees, and mass redundancy for teachers putting teacher/pupil ratios back to the levels seen in the 1950's. Children in some local schools are being sent home early to save money on employing either supply teachers or classroom assistants. If ever there has been a failure of policy, this is it!

We are verging on getting into politics here, so maybe this is a subject best left alone.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter if WMDs are found or not. Iraq has been liberated and the West will have access to Oil and probably a friendly Government in an area it needs one. The Iraqi people will soon be independent and actually have food to eat, medicine for their hospitals, something Saddam denied the masses.

Saddam was/is a murdering tyrant, the invasion long term will save thousands if not millions of lives, we should be praising Blair for making a stand when weaker mortals like the Cook and Short would not.

I have never voted for Labour.

The problem is they didn't seem to have enough evidence of them existing before the war started.

I thought Colin Powell's presentation to the UN had little evidence. A satellite photo of a truck that could have contained anything and a few conversations that could have been about anything. Hans Blix wasn't impressed and challenged some of the satellite photos .

I was for the war. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good enough justification for me. But the WMD's were used to justify the action and as they were not used against our invading forces and they have not been found in Iraq, Tony Blair could be in real trouble.

If they had moved them, surely the intelligence people that said they had them would have monitored where they moved them to. It can't be easy moving that amount of WMD's while we are monitoring their conversations. Why don't we have satellite photos of the convoy moving all these weapons?
The campaign was actually called :-


Now what do those initial letters spell?

JonnyT - I actually agree with you. But if that was the objective we should have had the courage to say so. What I find difficult to stomach is the tissue of lies and hypocracy fed to us by our leaders.
Roger M
I agree with you, the main objection I have is that we were either lied to or misled (PC word).
This is now endemic in this government and that is what, I believe will be their downfall.
The point I was making was that Blair will not go because of this issue partly because he is backed by the US and lets face it no-one really challenges them including the French who, (because they have now lost trade with the US over this) are desperatley trying to get back in their good books and who is the mediator for this ? Yes it's Mr Blair. So who exactly is he going to be in real trouble with and who would replace him ? Short and Cook ? you must be joking that would be like the IDS situation, Prescott or Brown ? no they just dont have the qualities to lead. So that leaves no-one and the one thing the govt doesnt want above all else is to lose the next election.

Hiding WMD is easy, a lot of the biological and chemical ones could be transported by car there would be no mass trucks travelling around so no satellite pictures would have picked up anything unusual. The key to this will be when all the key figures are captured as they would know where anything is hidden. If after that there is still no evidence, well the issue will become an old one and other things will have taken their place.

I think RogerM's point is much more likely to be the cause of his end because it is these things that people care about. Unfortunately IDS is unelectable so even that will have a limited impact. The only real threat would be a strong and charismatic leader of the opposition.

And as for politicians not revealing the truth well what do you expect, it reminds me of the Blackadder 3 episode for the Dunny on the Wold By Election when Blackadder was filling in the form for Baldrick to stand as a politician and asked:

(BAdder) Any criminal record Balrick

(Baldrick) None whatsoever

BAdder): For Heaven's sake Baldrick you're going to become a politician, I tell you what I will put down sexual deviancy and fraud

That sums up politics in its entirety for me.

so if the war was justified then we shall shortly be invading zimbabwe and N.Korea then, both dictatorships with an appalling human rights record? im no big fan of Saddam, but if we ignore the international legal process we create far more problems than we solve. Any coutries who feels threatened can invade other countries pre-emptively with legitimacy? well thats the basis for a sound global situation. Oh but wait it was America. thats different . . .
The USA has no reason to persue Zimbabwe.

North Korea is going to be addressed, in fact the first steps were made yesterday. Before the end of September the UN will have issued a resolution...

By the way, Happy Tax Freedom Day to all. Today is the first day of the year that the cash you earn is actually all yours, everything you've earned so far this year has just paid your taxes for the year.

Next year tax freedom day isn't until 7 June, in 2005 it won't be until 9 June. Unless of course nice Mr Brown introduces some more taxes for us to enjoy.

Aren't we all lucky to have a government who know how to spend our own money so much better than we do. Saves all that hassle of free choice doesn't it? Can't complain, eh, we voted for them. Well someone must have, hopefully they won't make the same mistake again.

It's good to see the government spending our money wisely though. Look how much better the Schools, Hospitals, Rail System, Road Network etc is now! Erm, perhaps not then.
I thought Maggie Thatcher and John Major should have resigned several times but they manged to carry on. Tony Blair will probably survive but who will want to vote at the next election? I agree that IDS is unelectable, lots of voters have lost faith in Tony Blair and people don't like wasting their votes on the Liberals. There is only one party in it for me
The head of Iraqi weapons research gave himself up to the Americans - This was filmed - He stated there had been no weapons of mass destruction (remaining undestroyed since gulf war 1)? - He can't at this stage have known who else had been captured. Did all the top rank agree to deny there had been any? - knowing which way the war would go? If the WMD had been as prevalent as the coalition claimed this is untenable - there would be documentary evidence and many witnesses - even if the material had been exported (I seem to remember a story about some ships leaving Iraq just before the war and steaming in circles in international waters. Haven't heard of them being boarded yet). If there were WMD's he would have kept quiet (to the press) and bargained with the Americans for immunity (Even more importantly - so would Tariq Aziz!) Rumsfeld's admission that WMD's may never be found, together with Horowitz's that WMDs were chosen as the one topic everyone could agree on, leads me to believe they aren't talking and makes me more cynical -- That's if the dodgy dossier. Powell's performance at the U.N - criticised by Blix,remember - and the rest isn't enough? --- Do you know how long it took me to write this Big Business? and you go and post that !!!!!!!
jonny40, you probably spent more time on that post than they spent on their policies!

Didn't mean to ruin this thread but I can't help mixing politics with humor. This is one of my faves:

John Desmond Lewis made his legal name, Tarquin Fintimlinbinwhinbimlin Bus Stop-F'Tang-F'Tang-Ole-Biscuit-Barrel, when he ran as a British parliamentary candidate of the Raving Looney Society of Cambridge in 1981. He did this for two reasons: to set a new record for the least number of votes ever cast in a British election and to have his new name read on television by the Lord Mayor. He attracted 233 votes, far above the mere 20 which was the record, and the name was shortened on TV to "Mr. Tarquin Biscuit-Barrel." Better luck next time. The name, by the way, comes from a Monty Python routine about such a candidate.
I must disagree with you JonnyT - Iran is the next one on Bush's hit list.

All is revealed in Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" which, I suspect, Dubya has not realised is a work of Fiction.
It took me so long because - I'VE GOT NO HANDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!p.s Piano to sell. One (very) carefull owner. Offers?? -- Postcards only please. -- DOH!!!
Last edited:
so the loss of innocent lives (including British and US soldiers) is ultimately justified because Iraq is no longer ruled by Sadam Hussein?. There are so many evil tyrants oppressing their people all over the world while the west conveniently ignores them and even does business with them. Sadam's only mistake was invading Kuwait otherwise he would still be in power now with the support of the so-called 'liberators'.
anyone who thinks the labour party is going to dump Blair
is sadly deluded,imo.
for what ? so John Prescott can put
on his C.V 'I was PrimeMinister for a day'
every dog should have his day, but really.
and even then we only get stuck with Gordon.

Of course he could resign - 'to spend more time with his family ' ?
(rather him than me)
and anyway, whoever says the CIA cant plant something doesnt
know the CIA.