Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Blair Tinted Spectacles

David Cameron got Blair's back up today by having the temerity to ask the Prime Minister about the situation in Iraq. Unlike last week, when Blair expressed his "sympathy and condolences to the families of those members of our armed forces who have lost their lives" during parliament's summer recess, the PM had no British deaths to hide behind this week. No condolences were offered to the families of the hundreds of Iraqis who have died in the last seven days. Obviously.

Cameron asked him if he agreed with General Dannatt that the original goal of establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq should be downgraded.
Our policy remains to make sure that Iraq continues as a democracy. We have a democracy in Iraq for the first time in that country's history. Seventy percent of the people came out and voted in the election... and what's more they voted for a non-sectarian government in which the Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds all work together.
Yet again, the question must be asked. Is this a deliberate lie or the expression of the fantasy of a dangerously deluded idiot?

Here, not for the first time, are the indisputable facts. The top four parties in the December elections were:
  1. United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) - 5,021,137 votes, 41.2% of total, 128 seats
  2. Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan (DPAK) - 2,642,172 votes, 21.7% of total, 53 seats
  3. Iraqi Accord Front (IAF) - 1,840,216 votes, 15.1% of total, 44 seat
  4. Iraqi National List (INL) - 977,325 votes, 8.0% of total, 25 seats.
One of those parties, the INL, is a non-sectarian party in which the Sunnis and Shia and Kurds all work together and the other three primarily represent the interests of specific sectarian groups. That's how they presented themselves at the election.

"They voted for a non-sectarian government in which the Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds all work together." Well, eight percent of those who voted did so it's not a total fabrication but even a committed Blairite must surely concede that it wasn't a remotely truthful desciption of the situation.

So, was he deliberately lying or does he genuinely believe the fiction he's pedalling?

Blair's parting shot to Cameron on Iraq is also worth noting, not least for the visible anger with which it was delivered.
The policy of standing up and fighting these extremists abroad and at home is the right one and there will be no quarter given to those who oppose us.
All hail the Great Leader for he is wise beyond question. Those who would question the infallible wisdom of the Great Leader are despicable traitors and must be silenced immediately. No quarter will be shown to those who oppose Him.

His messianic complex is getting worse. How much more damage will this man be allowed to do while the Labour Party sit on their hands?

Tags: , , ,


Anonymous said...

"No quarter will be given" etc.

I think in fairness to Blair, one must point out that it's at least possible that by "those who oppose us" he meant the extremists/terrorists/insurgents/whatever, rather than his political opponents.

CuriousHamster said...

I can see that it is possible but I really don't think that's what he meant.

He said (in a tone which suggested extreme annoyance at being challenged on this issue by Cameron) "I believe that it is a strength that there has been a bipartisan policy on this, and I hope that that is maintained."

When Cameron pressed him further, he then went on to say that "the policy of standing up and fighting those extremists abroad and at home is the right one, and there will be no quarter given to those who oppose us".

It seems to me that he'd already set out the policy and then went on to say that "no quarter" would be given to those who oppose it.