Has Anyone Knowingly Eaten Horsemeat?
ChatterBank1 min ago
Tony Blair, A Friend In Need....
http://
Don't you just love this guy (TB) he has set a new standard for personal morality...and making money.
Don't you just love this guy (TB) he has set a new standard for personal morality...and making money.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jomifl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Morning QM, yes some do think that but I didn't. You are right about the parameters of his role. A centuries old problem true but Blair is being paid a lot of money for this role which many people question that he is not taking seriously enough. I won't dwell on the recent lavish party which caused a furore in some circles.
It would be nonsense to suggest that Blair doesn't care about what is happening in Gaza I believe there is a strong perception though that he should be doing more.
Your other point is fair enough about people paying him sums for his services. It is a simple choice whether they do it. I find it odd that the President of Kazakhstan uses him!
It would be nonsense to suggest that Blair doesn't care about what is happening in Gaza I believe there is a strong perception though that he should be doing more.
Your other point is fair enough about people paying him sums for his services. It is a simple choice whether they do it. I find it odd that the President of Kazakhstan uses him!
Ag, far from your comment, "Blair is being paid a lot of money for this role", his position as the Quartet's Peace envoy is an unpaid one!
This is the problem, you see, the largely right-wing gutter press in Britain constantly whines about his perfectly legal earnings, but they absolutely NEVER remind their readers that - for whatever he does in the Middle East - he gets absolutely zilch!
Now, you're perfectly free to say that he doesn't do enough there (in your opinion), but that is a wholly different matter. In addition, what he spends on parties is as much a matter solely for him and his family as any party-giving YOU organise is for you and yours.
This is the problem, you see, the largely right-wing gutter press in Britain constantly whines about his perfectly legal earnings, but they absolutely NEVER remind their readers that - for whatever he does in the Middle East - he gets absolutely zilch!
Now, you're perfectly free to say that he doesn't do enough there (in your opinion), but that is a wholly different matter. In addition, what he spends on parties is as much a matter solely for him and his family as any party-giving YOU organise is for you and yours.
QM, I had read that he was being paid and having checked you are absolutely correct. Thanks for clarifying.
I know Blair has received a lot of bad press for only visiting the troubled area a couple of times since 2009 as opposed to say, over 100 visits to Jerusalem. I recall him stating that security issues was the reason for this.
Regarding the party, as I mentioned, there was further bad press with the timing, etc. I didn't want to make a big issue of it. He was perfectly entitled to hold it and he would have known in advance the likely backlash. This would be water off a duck's back to Blair compared to a number of other issues.
I know Blair has received a lot of bad press for only visiting the troubled area a couple of times since 2009 as opposed to say, over 100 visits to Jerusalem. I recall him stating that security issues was the reason for this.
Regarding the party, as I mentioned, there was further bad press with the timing, etc. I didn't want to make a big issue of it. He was perfectly entitled to hold it and he would have known in advance the likely backlash. This would be water off a duck's back to Blair compared to a number of other issues.
Good afternoon, Ag. You refer to Mr Blair "only visiting the troubled area a couple of times since 2009 as opposed to say, over 100 visits to Jerusalem."
Did you not know that his Quartet office is IN Jerusalem? Consequently, it seems quite logical - to me at least - that that is precisely where one would expect to find him. If your figure of 100 visits there in five years...an average of a visit every two or three weeks...is correct, then that seems to be rather a busy schedule on this particular task of his.
Surely you would not expect him to be strolling around Gaza whilst Israel is demolishing the place, would you? I have no intention of entering debate on the rights and wrongs of the whole Palestinian/Israeli conflict but - given that Hamas keeps lobbing rockets at random intervals into Israel and the latter respond instantly and massively - just when do you imagine it would be wise to go there? As you say yourself, "security reasons" would make that unwise at any time.
Did you not know that his Quartet office is IN Jerusalem? Consequently, it seems quite logical - to me at least - that that is precisely where one would expect to find him. If your figure of 100 visits there in five years...an average of a visit every two or three weeks...is correct, then that seems to be rather a busy schedule on this particular task of his.
Surely you would not expect him to be strolling around Gaza whilst Israel is demolishing the place, would you? I have no intention of entering debate on the rights and wrongs of the whole Palestinian/Israeli conflict but - given that Hamas keeps lobbing rockets at random intervals into Israel and the latter respond instantly and massively - just when do you imagine it would be wise to go there? As you say yourself, "security reasons" would make that unwise at any time.
Afternoon QM, I did know his office was in Jerusalem and I am in complete agreement with you that logically you would expect to see him there. It wasn't my opinion, I referred to the 'bad press' he received because of the low frequency of his visits to the Gaza area. I mentioned the security issues which is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
So, I think we are in complete agreement?
Certain aspects of the media put out figures which, on the face if it, paint a poor picture of Blair on this occasion. Such a simple fact of where his HQ is, dare I say it, deliberately overlooked, to pour scorn on him.
So, I think we are in complete agreement?
Certain aspects of the media put out figures which, on the face if it, paint a poor picture of Blair on this occasion. Such a simple fact of where his HQ is, dare I say it, deliberately overlooked, to pour scorn on him.
G'day, Ag. (I must be in an Aussie mood today!)
The only quibble I'd have with your last response is your use of the phrase, "on this occasion". I cannot recall any occasion in recent years on which the aforementioned press has ever painted anything other than "a poor picture" of Tony Blair.
Look at the opening paragraph of the article linked-to in the OP. It reads:
“Tony Blair gave Kazakhstan’s autocratic president advice on how to manage his image after the slaughter of unarmed civilians protesting against his regime.”
Well, Bahrain has an autocratic leader against whom unarmed civilians have been protesting since 2011. Despite the Tory-led government we have now had since 2010, Britain has gone on selling arms/military equipment to that “autocratic leader” and many of Bahrain’s citizens have died as a result…many more, actually, than those who died in the Kazakhstan massacre.
Consequently, why has The Telegraph failed to “paint a poor picture of David Cameron”, too? Surely they ought to have done, if helping such a leader is enough to condemn Tony Blair. Which is the more harmful, advice or guns?
The only quibble I'd have with your last response is your use of the phrase, "on this occasion". I cannot recall any occasion in recent years on which the aforementioned press has ever painted anything other than "a poor picture" of Tony Blair.
Look at the opening paragraph of the article linked-to in the OP. It reads:
“Tony Blair gave Kazakhstan’s autocratic president advice on how to manage his image after the slaughter of unarmed civilians protesting against his regime.”
Well, Bahrain has an autocratic leader against whom unarmed civilians have been protesting since 2011. Despite the Tory-led government we have now had since 2010, Britain has gone on selling arms/military equipment to that “autocratic leader” and many of Bahrain’s citizens have died as a result…many more, actually, than those who died in the Kazakhstan massacre.
Consequently, why has The Telegraph failed to “paint a poor picture of David Cameron”, too? Surely they ought to have done, if helping such a leader is enough to condemn Tony Blair. Which is the more harmful, advice or guns?
QM - as you know from Ferguson something can be perfectly legal ( that would be shooting the fella ) and still cause moral or social revulsion - however expressed.
Bliar's moneys may well be lawful -
Dick Cheney - when he was vice president sent in troops to Iraq and it was trumpeted around Amerikee how the reconstruction of Iraq that was soon gonna be flattened - would be effected by Cheney's construction industries. Lucky lucky Mr Cheney (and Mrs Cheney). Half of America said 'cool ! I wish I could do that ! ' and the other half said 'disgraceful no-one should profit from the Roman republic'
[sorry that last bit is from Cicero I think]
Tny Blair - yes a friend in deed
Bliar's moneys may well be lawful -
Dick Cheney - when he was vice president sent in troops to Iraq and it was trumpeted around Amerikee how the reconstruction of Iraq that was soon gonna be flattened - would be effected by Cheney's construction industries. Lucky lucky Mr Cheney (and Mrs Cheney). Half of America said 'cool ! I wish I could do that ! ' and the other half said 'disgraceful no-one should profit from the Roman republic'
[sorry that last bit is from Cicero I think]
Tny Blair - yes a friend in deed
qm // I cannot recall any occasion in recent years on which the aforementioned press has ever painted anything other than "a poor picture" of Tony Blair. //
I cannot for my part recall any occasion where President Truman is not portrayed as a hopeless in competent. and you know what ? that may be because he may be a hopeless incompetent
and how lucky the palestinians are to have him leading the search for peace . I can tell you they feel less lucky
I cannot for my part recall any occasion where President Truman is not portrayed as a hopeless in competent. and you know what ? that may be because he may be a hopeless incompetent
and how lucky the palestinians are to have him leading the search for peace . I can tell you they feel less lucky
Afternoon QM - there is much more that could be said about Blair's earnings, press bias, Tory hypocrisy, personal morality etc.
Getting back to the OP, I think a lot of people can see the irony of TB giving advice on 'image' to another leader when he has undoubtedly himself taken a battering post-Iraq.
Getting back to the OP, I think a lot of people can see the irony of TB giving advice on 'image' to another leader when he has undoubtedly himself taken a battering post-Iraq.
As I've pointed out right here on this thread, Ag, much of the bad "image" attached to Mr Blair is based on one misconception or another, all of them instigated by the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the right-wing press’s reaction to it.
Over the years, on this site, I have had many a debate on this with lots of people. There was, for instance, someone who assured me that he could prove some lie that everyone believed Mr Blair had told in Parliament because the supposed untruth was clearly to be seen in Hansard. Of course, it wasn’t in Hansard, for the simple reason that the words had never been spoken. This sort of thing has gone on endlessly for a decade now.
As regards right now, firstly, the opening two responses on this thread were from people who - like many - mistakenly believe that Mr Blair’s title as the Quartet’s “Middle East Peace Envoy” means he should scamper around all 18 countries of the Middle East, from the Bosphorus to Aden and the Gulf of Oman, wherever and whenever a squabble or worse develops there. Hence we often see absurd contributions such as, “Why isn’t Blair out there sorting this out?” when ‘this’ has nothing whatever to do with him!
Secondly, you yourself, for example, imagined - like many - he was coining in earnings from his position despite the post's being an unpaid one. Thirdly, you also believed - like many - that his frequent visits to Jerusalem were unjustified, despite that being the very city his office is in.
So it goes on. Yes, he’s “taken a battering”, as you say, but have you any conception of how many of the blows have been utterly without foundation?
Over the years, on this site, I have had many a debate on this with lots of people. There was, for instance, someone who assured me that he could prove some lie that everyone believed Mr Blair had told in Parliament because the supposed untruth was clearly to be seen in Hansard. Of course, it wasn’t in Hansard, for the simple reason that the words had never been spoken. This sort of thing has gone on endlessly for a decade now.
As regards right now, firstly, the opening two responses on this thread were from people who - like many - mistakenly believe that Mr Blair’s title as the Quartet’s “Middle East Peace Envoy” means he should scamper around all 18 countries of the Middle East, from the Bosphorus to Aden and the Gulf of Oman, wherever and whenever a squabble or worse develops there. Hence we often see absurd contributions such as, “Why isn’t Blair out there sorting this out?” when ‘this’ has nothing whatever to do with him!
Secondly, you yourself, for example, imagined - like many - he was coining in earnings from his position despite the post's being an unpaid one. Thirdly, you also believed - like many - that his frequent visits to Jerusalem were unjustified, despite that being the very city his office is in.
So it goes on. Yes, he’s “taken a battering”, as you say, but have you any conception of how many of the blows have been utterly without foundation?
QM, you state, again, that I believed that TB had made over 100 visits to Jerusalem as opposed to a few in Gaza. If you actually look again at what I stated, I indicated that it was a section of the media not me. I also mentioned the security reason in Blair's defence and that I was aware his office was based in Jerusalem.
I have no doubt that sections of the media have and will continue to distort the truth where TB is concerned but would you consider that the left-wing press would also have had cause to criticise his image and leadership on occasions?
I have no doubt that sections of the media have and will continue to distort the truth where TB is concerned but would you consider that the left-wing press would also have had cause to criticise his image and leadership on occasions?
"Would you consider that the left-wing press would also have had cause to criticise his image and leadership on occasions?"
Ag, every leader of whatever hue is inevitably criticised and rightly so. I have no objections at all to criticism based on sound reasons. As already pointed out to you, though, masses of anti-Blair criticism is baseless.
By the way, there scarcely even is a left-wing...in the sense of Labour-supporting...press in this country, but if you seriously believe that the Guardian, Independent or Mirror - which I suppose are the closest things to such a press - have nothing but good words to speak of Tony Blair, then you are sorely mistaken!
Ag, every leader of whatever hue is inevitably criticised and rightly so. I have no objections at all to criticism based on sound reasons. As already pointed out to you, though, masses of anti-Blair criticism is baseless.
By the way, there scarcely even is a left-wing...in the sense of Labour-supporting...press in this country, but if you seriously believe that the Guardian, Independent or Mirror - which I suppose are the closest things to such a press - have nothing but good words to speak of Tony Blair, then you are sorely mistaken!
TB has said publicly that he doesn't even try to explain himself any more, Ag, as it's a waste of time struggling against the tide of misinformation that has been thrown at him.
I think I'll end this debate on a literary note. I've been reading Hilary Mantel's 'Bring up the Bodies' lately and just today I was startled to find a section of the text that seemed so relevant to our discussion here, I felt I had to pass it on.
Katherine, King Henry VIII's (ex)wife has just died and Thomas Cromwell, his Master Secretary, has been considering her constant claims, which he believed, of how miserably neglected and wretchedly poor she was.
Now, however, he - as part of his job - is looking at the actual account-books which show that she had in fact enjoyed a lavish lifestyle. Cromwell then says:
"You wonder what else you have always believed, believed without foundation."
Thank you again for a courteous discussion. I'm sure we'll meet again soon.
I think I'll end this debate on a literary note. I've been reading Hilary Mantel's 'Bring up the Bodies' lately and just today I was startled to find a section of the text that seemed so relevant to our discussion here, I felt I had to pass it on.
Katherine, King Henry VIII's (ex)wife has just died and Thomas Cromwell, his Master Secretary, has been considering her constant claims, which he believed, of how miserably neglected and wretchedly poor she was.
Now, however, he - as part of his job - is looking at the actual account-books which show that she had in fact enjoyed a lavish lifestyle. Cromwell then says:
"You wonder what else you have always believed, believed without foundation."
Thank you again for a courteous discussion. I'm sure we'll meet again soon.
Evening QM, yes I should imagine that TB must have long since given up trying to answer his critics. No good flogging a dead horse so to speak.
An interesting analogy you quoted! Very similar scenario, spookily so! I try not to take everything at face value and prefer to make my own judgments as you can't always rely on what's in front of you. I slipped up over TB's unpaid role but I held my hands up.
'I was once a sheep but I learnt from my experience and I am now a lion!'
Good discussion QM, see you next time on whatever comes up!
An interesting analogy you quoted! Very similar scenario, spookily so! I try not to take everything at face value and prefer to make my own judgments as you can't always rely on what's in front of you. I slipped up over TB's unpaid role but I held my hands up.
'I was once a sheep but I learnt from my experience and I am now a lion!'
Good discussion QM, see you next time on whatever comes up!
