Blair 'disaster' admission over Iraq a 'slip of the tongue': official

AFP on TurkishPress.com ^ | 11/18/06 | Roland Jackson

[NormsRevenge]

A TV grab released by Al-Jazeera's new English-language channel, shows British Prime Minister Tony Blair giving an interview to veteran broadcaster Sir David Frost at the prime minister's official London residence. Downing Street moved swiftly to play down an apparent admission by Blair that the invasion of Iraq had been a "disaster," labelling his comments a "slip of the tongue."(AFP/Al-Jazeera)

[stanz]

Everybody's allowed one.

[MadIvan]

They replayed the audio portion of the interview on BBC Radio 4. Blair never said it was a disaster - the interviewer said it was and Blair muttered as he was trying to get onto his next point.

Regards, Ivan

[NormsRevenge]

TV grab released by Al Jazeera's new English-language channel shows British Prime Minister Tony Blair giving an interview at his official London residence. During the interview, Blair appeared to concede the situation in Iraq was a disaster.(AFP/Al-Jazeera)

[NormsRevenge]

It is an AFP/Al-Zazeera collaboration, after all.

[MadIvan]

The press is trying to hang Blair as of late.

Regards, Ivan

[NormsRevenge]

The 'Laddy' in waiting, Gordon Brown, doesn't impress me much, how about you?

[MadIvan]

He may not get it. I'd rather it was John Reid.

Regards, Ivan

[Cogadh na Sith]

Really, we should have kept the No Fly Zone, sanctions, and Oil-for-Palaces in place until France, Germany and Russia successfully got them ended. We should have essentially occupied Iraq by air in perpetuity to protect the Kurds and Marsh Arabs regardless of the cost to the US.

We certainly could have waited until Saddam actually had WMD and trusted the Intell agencies that failed to predict 9/11 to predict the Exact Moment that Saddam had the bomb and acted Right Then.

We should definitely have ignored all the Signals Intelligence from Saddam's top commanders and scientists telling Saddam about his Great Advances in Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Warfare.

If we could have successfully ignored all of that and been willing to bear the burden of occupying Iraq from the air, we wouldn't be in this disaster!

[I see my hands]

"admission by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that the invasion of Iraq had been a disaster"

How can there be an admission of something that isn't true?

Iraq isn't a disaster.

We are killing the enemy where they live. Is the alternative of them killing us where we live all copacetic and stuff?

[LibFreeUSA]

I wouldn't say it's been a disaster. Disaster is....

Little Big Horn
Dunkirk
Bay of Pigs
Desert One
Mogadishu

I would say it's been a good strategy defeated by terribly bad planning (blitzkrieg war with no occupation resources), which allowed the development of insurgency immediately upon the victory of ground operations.

It's as simple as that!

Had they followed up the ground victory with an additional 250,000 troops to the 175,000 they used, in order to close the borders air-tight, and to secure all weapons, and establish martial law, then things would have turned out differently.

But, no. They went into it like it like it would be a stroll in the park.

[TheCrusader]

Iraq should have been over and done with long ago. There's far greater need to send Iran back to the stone age than there is for us to oversee Iraq's islamic "democracy". What a waste of military resources! All those U.S. warriors located right beside Iran and Iran is still threatening Israel and the free world with the building of nuclear arsenal.

[Canard]

Hahaha, the Downing Street spin machine is working hard on this one!

They've updated it a bit from earlier, the first effort was to say that Blair was just 'acknowledging the question' when he said 'it has' in reply to Frost's assertion that Iraq had pretty much been a disaster.

But they obviously decided that was a bit lame and put their heads together to get something better!

[Canard]

Brown's pretty much back to a shoo-in now. After the Labour Party had its little flurry of excitement around conferance time over potential candidates, no-one seriously emerged.

I doubt Reid can make the nomination criteria, he has no base and I doubt he appeals as an anti-Brown candidate. The left will put up a runner, of course, who will fail. Aside from that corronation is far more likely that contest at this stage.

[GoLightly]

The press is trying to hang Blair as of late.

I think they've had the rope ready for quite some time.

[justa-hairyape]

We certainly could have waited until Saddam actually had WMD and trusted the Intell agencies that failed to predict 9/11 to predict the Exact Moment that Saddam had the bomb and acted Right Then.

Good points, but Saddam had WMD. The main question was did he destroy all of them as required by U.N. resolutions. The Left started off saying he had, but then their argument was morphed into he never had them. Leftist paint a delusional fantasy version of reality. It makes them feel better about themselves and how they conduct their lives.

[syriacus]

Things were difficult in Korea, while Truman was president.

30,000 US troops died in Korea in less than 3 years under Democratic President Truman. (1950-52).

If the libs could multiply, they would notice that 10 times as many troops died in Korea in approximately the same length of time as 3,000 troops died in Iraq.

How dare the libs imply that Bush doesn't care about our troops!!

[Hostage]

Occupation of Iraq isolates Syria and Iran.

The disaster is not the invasion of Iraq, it is the failure to follow through with the topping of Hezbollah and Hamas in those countries.

The US had the opportunity and will in 2003 with 'Shock and Awe' and should have just gone and done it, the French and others be damned.

Because as it is now the enemy has a base in Syria and Iran. So they can take shots at Iraq without consequences. And their propaganda machine has full protection in those countries as well.

So the failure is in conducting a half-war rather than a full war. The failure is that it has become a President's war rather than a War declared by Congress and backed by the American people.

If we had stayed out altogether, the enemy would be stronger and consolidated. They have nukes and control of much of the oil. We have nukes, not much oil and a divided government. It wouldn't take long for the enemy to have toppled Saudi Arabia and to position themselves to drive the US out of Afghanistan.

This really is a repeat of 1939.

Where do current American leaders get the idea that they can fight a global war by firing a few shots, flying a few planes, launching a few missiles and then head for home?

The more that I think of the decision to annihilate Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the women, children and elderly, the more I think of the sheer horror of those decisions, the more I understand that every Japanese person was viewed as a combatant, that there was no way to win a war on the Japanese mainland other than to shoot up every town and village which would have taken many many years at the cost of millions more dead.

The bomb brought the Imperial Japanese and all the people there to the realization that their annihilation was coming.

What will bring Muslims that are obedient to radical terrorists, what will bring the same sense of annihilation? Certainly not half-wars. The US cannot win a half-war or war of attrition because people know there is a horrible of arsenal weapons that could end it tomorrow so why wait? Either use the horror or surrender.

Did the US think it could win a half-war with Tojo?

[Hostage]

You are on the right track. Martial Law was and is an absolute requirement. The Germans were under Martial Law for quite a long time during occupation.

But the war could not be won just by sealing up the borders there and declaring Martial Law. The war would continue globally from bases in Syria and Iran.

Why is it that people act as if this war is not global? I hear constantly people saying it was a mistake to go into Iraq, what? Is a global war only correct in certain pre-approved regions? People who think such things are worse than morons, they are dangerous in their influence, an influence that could lead to unthinkable horror!

[Hostage]

You get it.

But admit it, you and I as well as most everyone do not want to face reality, that the idea of the US trying to 'cool' it down so we can have back our peace someday, is a fantasy.

I liked that fantasy world which until just a few years ago was a quasi-reality. Peace we had, a vacation from history. Strongly seductive and addictive, I indulged that fantasy. I don't like war. I don't like to think of it.

An old friend of my family landed on Omaha Beach in WWII. His name was Ed. I asked him how did it feel? He said he didn't feel. I said what? He stayed silent so I asked him what did you think when you hit the beach? He said he didn't think. I said come on now!

Then he said everyone on his landing craft was told they were already dead. He didn't feel and he didn't think because he was already dead, his individuality and sense of self had died. He was a killing machine. And when I last talked to Ed in 1988, he was a kind gentle old man that you would think never killed another human being. He killed hundreds.

Coming back to today and my fond fantasy, at least I am aware I was living in a fantasy world, postponing reality to another day. I have a son now. I'd like him to experience the fantasy as reality one day.

That's why I want Bush to finish these b*stards off now! NOW!