Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Poll indicates over half of British people believe Blair is a liar and should resign

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Poll indicates over half of British people believe Blair is a liar and should resign (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/44756-poll-indicates-over-half-british-people-believe-blair-liar-should-resign.html)

Poll indicates over half of British people believe Blair is a liar and should resign

Hm, now what was that quote again....

"YOU HAVE BEEN SAT TO LONG HERE FOR ANY GOOD YOU HAVE BEEN DOING. DEPART, I SAY, AND LET US HAVE DONE WITH YOU. IN THE NAME OF GOD, GO!."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=488780

Quote:

After Hutton, the verdict: 51 per cent say Blair should go
By Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor
07 February 2004

Tony Blair's loss of public trust after the war on Iraq and the Hutton report is underlined today by a poll for The Independent showing more than half of voters want him to resign.

The NOP poll, conducted this week, shows that 51 per cent want the Prime Minister to quit and 54 per cent believe he lied to the nation over the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

It also shows the Tories are ahead of Labour in popularity. The Conservatives are on 36 per cent, with Labour on 35 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 24 per cent.

But when those polled were asked how they would vote if Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, was leader, Labour regained the lead. The Conservatives would be on 36 per cent, Labour 37 and the Liberal Democrats 22.

The poll concludes a terrible week for the Prime Minister in which the Tories called for his resignation and Brian Jones, a former MoD intelligence expert, widened his criticism of the Government's dossier on Iraq.

When asked what they thought of the statement: "It is now time for Tony Blair to resign and hand over to someone else", 51 per cent said they agreed or strongly agreed - 35 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

The depth of public disillusion with Mr Blair is highlighted in another finding. When asked about the new inquiry into the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, some 68 per cent believe it will be a "whitewash", while just 23 per cent believe it will be a "genuine attempt to find the truth".

When asked "Given what you know now, do you think Tony Blair lied to the nation over the threat posed by Iraq?" 54 per cent responded "yes" and 31 per cent said "no". The rest were undecided.

Michael Howard, the Tory leader, renewed his call yesterday for Mr Blair to step aside over his admission that he did not know the exact nature of Saddam's weapons threat before the war. Mr Blair told MPs on Wednesday he had not known the claim that Iraq had chemical weapons ready to fire within 45 minutes referred to battlefield rather than long-range munitions.

The Government's dossier stated that "intelligence indicates that the Iraqi military are able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so". Press reports at the time which suggested the claim involved ballistic missiles capable of striking British interests in Cyprus went uncorrected by the Government. Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, and the former foreign secretary Robin Cook added to the pressure on Mr Blair when they revealed they had been told the weapons were short-range mortars.

In contrast to Mr Blair's fortunes, Mr Howard's positive poll ratings continued. Forty-seven per cent of those asked felt that he had done a very good or fairly good job since becoming leader in November, compared with 15 per cent rating him very bad or fairly bad.

Mr Howard said it was clear that Mr Blair had to resign over his admission about the 45-minute claim. "I've been a member of a cabinet that took the country to war. I remember the kind of questions John Major used to ask and we all used to ask, and it's just absolutely extraordinary that the Prime Minister took this gravest of all decisions without bothering to ask that simple question."

Lord King, a former defence secretary and a past chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, said Mr Blair's admission was "quite extraordinary". He said: "The Prime Minister made a point in the dossier ... he said it is not possible to share intelligence with the whole country for obvious reasons and, therefore, as Prime Minister he had made it his duty, along with his colleagues, to be briefed in detail, so that they could set out the facts in that dossier," he told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

NOP interviewed 1,003 people by telephone between 4 February and 5 February. Results were weighted to be representative of the population.

I gotta wonder what W's "true" rating would be

If Blair is pushed out, which appears likely now, I wonder what the sudden reversal of British support will mean to the US.

Probably not much, come to think of it.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out Tony.

So, because 51% of the people polled thought he should resign, he should do so? In a few weeks, the numbers will change. Besides, we've got *elections* to decide the fate of politicians, not opinion polls with their potential bias (wording of questions, etc).

If we were to follow each and every opinion poll, the world would be in chaos.

Dragonlich, it is a pretty serious accusation, to call a Prime Minister a liar. I dont know if it is just in the UK, but of all the multitude of sins politicians can commit, lying is the one that is never forgiven. If Blair is proved to have lied, he would have to resign, there is no other possibility.

And what this survey showed is that over half the people of this country believe Blair is a liar. It is going to be very difficult to go forwards now, there is very little good faith in Blair, in the country or the House... I for one can see no other option but that he must go, and go quickly and quietly.

Strange, as I already showed in another thread, it's pretty much impossible to prove Blair lied, if he lied at all. Just because tons of people believe something, this does not make it true.

I for one am getting a bit fed up with this whole debate. The war has happened, Saddam's regime was removed, Iraq is free. Are we now going to spend years talking about one tiny little detail in the vast amount of things that were said before, during and after the war? Is that the best the anti-war crowd has to offer?

"Blair was incorrect about (insert petty detail), so he must have lied about everything, which proves he is evil incarnate, and therefore he must resign!" Get over yourself, will ya!

(And FYI: I supported the war regardless of the whole WMD issue, so I couldn't care less about this whole 45-minute claim.)

The war against Iraq, while I don't agree with it, does have a humaniterian justification. Also, there is no doubt that Iraq had the will to try and build weapons that under UN law, it was not allowed (the same weapons of course that the France, UK, Russia and US and so on own and threaten other countries with.)

The war happened, and what we now need to concentrate on is handing power and control of the Iraqi economy and society as quickly as possible back to Iraqi people.

But the fact remains, Blair lied. I do not believe in any thread has it been shown that Blair did not lie - we know that Blair is a liar, we know two of the lies which he has told.

1 - That he had no part in the naming of Dr Kelly. This is a lie. We know that Blair chaired two committee's where the strategy of naming Kelly to discredit him.

2 - The 45 minutes claim. Blair knew the intelligence was bad, so many people are coming out now and saying they told Blair it was bad, that the 45 minutes claim was just not true. Blair also claims that he did not know the claim actually only refered to battlefield weapons (which is still not true)... how could he not have known this? Everyone else involved knew, can we believe Blair did not?

Whether Blair was right or wrong, that we can debate - that he lied, that we know is true, and that is why he must go.

Strange...

1) The naming of Kelly. You *think* it's a lie, you don't *know*. Quite a difference. Until you provide undeniable proof, I'll assume it's your opinion, not a fact.

2) Same here, you *think*, not *know*. Your interpretation of the facts is extremely biased, and IMO completely and utterly false.

Dragon, I dont know what more can be said... you clearly don't believe that Blair can be PROVED to have lied, I think he has been proved to have lied.

On the plane to Hong Kong, he explicitly said he wasnt involved in naming Kelly. But we know, it is documented, that he chaired two meetings that were called to discus how they could get Kelly's name out. Blair clearly thinks he can say "well, I didnt actually have anything to do with it, it just happened to come up at this meeting" - but to me that is purely and simply a lie - he was aware of what was happening and his answer to the journalists was a falsehood, and there seems to me to be a clear intention to deceive.

About the 45 minute claim, we do know that Blair was advised it was probably not true. We know that for a fact. We know that all the evidence suggested that it as not true. What we cannot prove 100% is that Blair did not for some reason still believe it to be true, even though we can see the evidence suggested it wasnt. But Blair new the claim was dubious, we know that for a fact - either he chose to believe something he knew to be dubious or false - or he lied.

But all politicians are liers, ok that lie is a big one and pushed our country(UK) into war.
IMO he did what he had to do and thats kiss americas arse. Being cushdy with america is probably in the UK's best interests at the end of the day.
I say dont blame blair blame the united states of america :p

I apoligize for the lamness of my post by the way.

In life, you do what you believe based on the information provided. That is what Blair and Bush did. If 90% was false and only 10% true, that is all hindsite. They cannot read the future, nor can they change the past. They can only take steps to ensure that the next big desision has better intel.

I personally believe that Iraq HAS WMD. They may be hidden well, they make be located outside of Iraq, but I believe they have them. I watched the inspectors try for years to get that asswipe Saddam to let them do a reasonable inspection. If they don't have WMD, why all the BS dramatics to make us THINK they have them. Maybe they (Saddam and his supporters) brought the whole friggin war on themselves by their actions of not following NATO directives.

/RANT - scenerio.
I buried a turd in the desert in New Mexico (or was it Arizona?). Send an inspector to find it. I will tell them whether they are HOT or COLD just like in the game. See if they can find it. BTW, I get to shoot at them during the progress. Presidents, Prime Ministers and soldiers are doing a very TOUGH job out there, and deserve some loyalty.

Exit soapbox.

Now if only we can get congress to impeach Bush..

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Pimp
Now if only we can get congress to impeach Bush..

only in a perfect world....

Well, I am sure it has been quoted many times before, but if Clinton can come so close to being impeached for lying about having oral sex with an intern, it is bizzare that there has been no real campaign to impeach Bush whose lies lead his country into two phoney wars (Afghanistan and Iraq)

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
if Clinton can come so close to being impeached

Excuse me? He was impeached.

Impeach Bush? For going in and doing what Clinton was supposed to?

Not saying that I don't respect the opinions here but I wonder if maybe the views represented here are not aligned with what mainstream America's mindset is. I don't hear any rumblings from my customers (I have both an Army and Air Force base with-in 3 miles of my work), friends or fellow workers even closely resembling the opinions here. Nobody believes that Bush contrived evidence just to go into Iraq (or if he did they believe it needed to be done anyway). They also understand that actions had to be taken following 911 in Afganistan.

Sometimes a turd in a punchbowl needs scooped out and that sometimes the ladle gets some stink on it too.

Bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian who is hiding in Pakistan.

How does attacking Afghanistan help fight him?

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Well, I am sure it has been quoted many times before, but if Clinton can come so close to being impeached for lying about having oral sex with an intern, it is bizzare that there has been no real campaign to impeach Bush whose lies lead his country into two phoney wars (Afghanistan and Iraq)

He wasn't impeached for lying, he was impeaced for lying under oath, which is illegal.

Also try using a little logic, Osma was Afghanistan, had his training camps there and fled most likely to Pakistan when we invaded. Nothing phoney about that my young confused communist friend.