Today has already been described as the most important day in publishing history since Johannes Gutenberg thought of movable blocks of metal with letters on them, which makes it a big day for the Blair-hating community. For an alarming proportion of my colleagues in journalism and allied trades, the idea that Tony Blair's memoir might provide an important and instructive account of how one of the most successful of modern British prime ministers saw his time in office is simply preposterous. The main lines of inquiry can be sketched out now: Does he apologise for Iraq? Does he admit he was a shallow chancer whose only achievement was to introduce the word spin to the English language? And so on, for thousands and thousands of words. All day.

Immoderate views of Blair are held by a minority of the population, while in the media class they are the norm. The notion that Blair was, on balance, quite a good prime minister, is often regarded as an extremist statement. The BBC in particular seems to regard "on balance a good thing" and "war criminal" as moral equivalents of equal weight, and the airing of both as fulfilling its obligation under Royal Charter to impartiality. And this daft idea of balance is made easy not just by the world-view of most BBC journalists but by the easy availability of so-called serious commentators who hold views about Blair – "evil" is an interesting word, used by Matthew Parris on the right and Natasha Walter on the left – that seem to me to be detached from reality. So where does such incontinent Blair rage come from?

I have been puzzling over this for some time and, amid all the bile and insults my inquiry provokes, the response of one Blair hater was useful: "You well know that many people believe he deceived Parliament and this country into an unnecessary war. Given that is what people believe, then the anger is easy to understand isn't it?"

Up to a point, but this only takes the question back one stage: back to why so many people believe such an unreasonable and unlikely thing. And it usually turns out that they don't. Very few people actually believe that Blair had a meeting – on a sofa in Downing Street, naturally – and said to his closest advisers: "I've got this brilliant plan for joining the American invasion of Iraq: we'll say it's all about weapons of mass destruction and when it turns out that there aren't any, everyone will hate me for ever. How does that sound?" Great plan, they all said, and made the necessary preparations.

What people believe is not that Blair lied, but that he was so desperate to keep in with the Americans that he exaggerated the threat from Saddam Hussein. That has the advantage of fitting with what was the conventional view, that the British interest is best served by a close alliance with the US, but overlooks the more obvious reason for assuming the worst of Saddam, namely his previous history of concealment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-rentoul/john-rentoul-where-does-blair-rage-come-from-2066946.html

----------------------------------------------

No... Many people — especially those who knew (or guessed) in advance that a giant hoax, a giant double-cross was going to be played on the people of the world — knew that Blair, Bush and Howard were LYING in regard to Saddam's WMDs. Every spinful indices were so thick with obvious trickery that only a complicit powerful private media in bed with these three men's governments and an underesourced public media could let these mega-porkies through, all without any proper assessment of the definitely "created" situation.

--------------------

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100051996/tony-blairs-memoirs-playing-the-victim-card-in-this-pathetic-way-will-do-nothing-for-his-reputation/

Hang on a second. Blackmail? Problem drinking? Are these the memoirs of Britain’s longest-serving Labour Prime Minister or the latest salvo from Katie Price in her ongoing battle with Peter André? I was expecting some high-minded lessons in the art of statesmanship, not a series of jaw-dropping revelations about Gordon Brown. Reading these memoirs, you get the impression that Tony Blair’s visceral hatred of his chief rival has clouded his political judgment. Champagne corks will be popping in Downing Street tonight because A Journey does very little to enhance the reputation of either Blair or Brown.

I suppose that, as readers, we should be grateful that Blair has used his long-awaited memoir as a platform for settling scores. But shouldn’t ex-Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom be above that sort of thing? Peter Mandelson was widely criticised by members of his own party for being so indiscreet about the battles between Blair and Brown in his own memoirs, but nothing he disclosed is as explosive as Blair’s insinuation that Brown was behind the official investigation into the cash-for-honours scandal.

Blair’s admission that he became over-reliant on alcohol – perhaps partly as a way of coping with the frenzied attacks constantly being launched by Brown and his political allies – is equally unbecoming. Is he playing the victim card in a bid for sympathy? It’s reminiscent of John Prescott’s disclosure that he suffered from bulimia, as if, like his deputy, Blair is trying to turn his own story into a misery memoir. Hard to believe this will do much for his standing in the Middle East where, according to the book, Blair hopes to spend the rest of his working life in an effort to bring peace to the region.

----------------------

Typo mischief by Gus...

Tony Blair's account of his time in Downing Street became the fastest-selling autobiography of all time yesterday after shifting hundreds of thousands of copies in its first 24 hours.

The book, A Journey, went straight to No 1 on Amazon.co.uk's British bestseller list and sold more copies in a day at Waterstones than the former business secretary Lord Mandelson's memoir managed in three weeks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-memoirs-from-no10-to-no1-2068147.html

 

Blair Disliked Yeltsin Hug

 

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair describes his discomfort at receiving a long bearhug from an "unpredictable" President Boris Yeltsin in a new book.

"I recall meeting him at an international summit shortly after the Kosovo conflict," Blair wrote in his memoirs, "A Journey," which were published Wednesday. "[He] came across the room to greet me with one of his famous hugs."

"The hug began. The first 10 seconds were, I thought, wonderfully friendly. The next 10 began to get a little uncomfortable. The following 10 started respiratory problems," he said.

"I finally got released after about a minute and staggered off in search of a stiff drink. I think he made his point," he said.

--------------------

Gus: two pisspots — one religious, one a pisspot...

From Tony's memoirs

...

"That night she cradled me in her arms and soothed me; told me what I needed to be told; strengthened me; made me feel that what I was about to do was right," Mr Blair writes of Cherie, with whom he now has four children.

"On that night of 12 May 1994, I needed that love Cherie gave me, selfishly.

"I devoured it to give me strength, I was an animal following my instinct, knowing I would need every ounce of emotional power and resilience to cope with what lay ahead."

----------------------------

Gus: the Mills and Moons format editors would have asked Tony to rewrite this too hot passage... So would the pope who in his wildest dreams could not accept that his new mate from Pommyland was an "animal following his instinct" — in the light of the "fact" that men have nothing to do with animals since they were created in god's own image and that women were a bit of cutlet. I am confused...

Robert Fisk: Blair should take responsibility for Iraq. But he won't. He can't

This is not a debate, it's a bloody, blood-soaked disaster for which the former PM should take responsibility

 

Has this wretched man learned nothing? On and on, it went during his BBC interview: "I would absolutely...","I definitely...", "I believed absolutely clearly...", "It was very, very clear that this changed everything" – "this" being 11 September 2001 – "Let me state clearly and unequivocally", "The Intelligence picture was clear...", "legal justification was quite clear", "We said completely accurately... "Because I believed strongly, then and now...", "My definitive view in the end is..." You would have thought we won the war in Iraq, that we were winning the war in Afghanistan, that we were going to win the next war in Iran. And why not, if Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara says so.

And I hereby abandon all further reference to Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara, with its unhappy reference to Britain's humiliating military defeat in 1915 Mesopotamia. He must be re-created Lord Blair of Isfahan. Having conquered Saddam, he wants to conquer Ahmadinejad. "I am saying that it is wholly unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons capability," he told poor old Andrew Marr. It was necessary for the Iranians," quoth he, "to get that message, loud and clear." Thus did our Middle East peace envoy prepare us for war with Persia. But I rather fear the Iranians got his "message" a long time ago: if you want to avoid threats from the likes of Lord Blair, you'd better buy a bomb pdq. After all, what he didn't announce was: "I am saying it is wholly unacceptable for North Korea to have nuclear capability." And we all know why.

-----------------

blair is "enforcing" history. His "history" has not much to do with reality, only a spruiking of the illusions of it. See toon at top..

Even his loyal spin doctor Alastair Campbell admitted this morning that he was shocked by one revelation in Tony Blair's memoir - that the pressure on him from Gordon Brown to step aside became so great that he began to rely on drink as a support.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Blair describes in A Journey how, towards the end of his decade in Number Ten, he would drink a whisky or gin and tonic before dinner, and then have several glasses of wine with his meal. He said he became aware it was "becoming a support".

Campbell told the BBC this morning that he was genuinely surprised by the revelation. He had never seen his old boss drunk and assumed he meant that alcohol had become a "crutch".

And why did he need the booze? Because of Brown.

Read more: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/67981,news-comment,news-politics,maddening-gordon-brown-drove-tony-blair-to-drink-reveals-a-journey#ixzz0yRbOdzUW
-----------------------

Meanwhile:

Gordon Brown may have done Tony Blair a favour by driving him to drink. New research from America suggests that drinkers - even heavy ones - live longer than teetotallers.

A survey of more than 1,800 people by researchers at the University of Texas found that, over a 20-year period, mortality rates were significantly lower among those who drank than for those who did not touch liquor. Even heavy drinkers - those imbibing four or more drinks a day - outlived those who did not partake at all.

The sample was made up of 55- to 65-year-olds who were monitored as they entered old age. Of the teetotallers in the group, 69 per cent died over that time, but only 60 per cent of the heavy drinkers ended up in the great saloon bar in the sky.

The worst news for the anti-booze brigade was that the research found only 41 per cent of the 'moderate' drinkers - those who took one to three drinks a day - failed to survive 20 years.

Read more: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/68095,news-comment,news-politics,drinking-could-be-good-for-you-say-scientists#ixzz0yRcewdOn

Anti-war protesters hurled shoes and eggs at Tony Blair on Saturday as he held the first public signing of his fast-selling memoir.

Scores of demonstrators chanted that Blair had "blood on his hands" as the former British prime minister arrived at a Dublin book store.

A shoe, eggs and other projectiles were thrown toward Blair as he emerged from a car, but did not hit him.

A flip-flop could be seen lying on the roof of a BMW in Blair's motorcade.

Security was tight for the signing, with book buyers - who appeared to outnumber the 200 or so protesters - told to hand over bags and mobile phones before entering Eason's book store.

Some of the protesters, who were held behind barricades, scuffled with police, and there were at least two arrests.

Tony Blair heckled by anti war campaigners

After Tony Blair posed with X Factor duo Jedward on Friday night, observers might have been forgiven for assuming that there was nothing the former British Prime Minister would not do to flog his new memoir. However, today it became clear that the prospect of facing hundreds - if not thousands - of angry British anti-war protestors was too much for Blair, after he cancelled his book signing in the Piccadilly branch of Waterstone's this Wednesday.

Blair was given a taste of what may have laid in store for him after protesters, angry about Blair's role in the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, chanted "Butcher Blair" & hurled eggs & shoes at him during a book signing in Dublin over the weekend.

It's a victory for the anti-war movement & the thousands who contacted Waterstone's, outraged at it hosting a book-signing for Tony Blair. He now knows beyond doubt that he cannot go anywhere in public without being confronted by protests over his war crimes & by attempts to make a citizen's arrest.

And this applies to the "secret" book launch party that he is   hosting at the Tate Modern gallery on the evening of Wednesday 8 September. This has already been termed the "war criminals' party", as Blair is sure to be joined by Alistair Campbell, Jack Straw & others who helped concoct the lies that took Britain into the illegal war in Iraq.

Prominent figures from the arts - including Brian Eno, David Gentleman, Katherine Hamnett & Cat Phillips have already expressed their outrage that the Tate Modern is being used to promote Blair's memoirs & have called on the gallery, even at this late stage, to cancel the event.

The public rage being vented at Blair has now gone multi-media with a Facebook group being inundated with pictures of his book appearing in the crime section of bookstores after users joined its campaign to "make bookshops think twice about where they categories our... greatest war criminal".

The Facebook page, entitled 'Subversively move Tony Blair's memoirs to the Crime section in book shops', features photos of Blair's book in the Fantasy, Horror & Crime sections of stores across the UK. Within hours of being set up it had more than 5,000 members.

And a little irony to go .....

Who was it who said: "You've got to put in prison those who deserve to be there"?

Answer: Tony Blair - 6 September 2010

...

Here's an example. On one occasion Frost floated the theory that perhaps Western policies might have played a part in fuelling extremist action. Blair responded:

 "the change in foreign policy happened after 9/11. 9/11 was not something provoked by the West. It was an unprovoked attack which killed 3000 people in New York in one day"

Now obviously Blair is acutely aware that the world was not living in a state of benign grace before 9/11, nor was the West forced into adopting radically belligerent foreign policy measures thereafter. So the first part of the comment is probably just a lapse into auto-pilot, peddling the old trope "9/11" changed everything".

But what of the second part? It's hard to believe that the Quartet's Middle East envoy truly thinks that there is absolutely nothing in history, during centuries of Western involvement, that some in the Middle East might have found provocative.

 Let's hope that he and his sponsors are listening to the Middle East now, though, because Jordanian commentator Tahir al-Udwan, writing in the newspaper Al-Arab al-Yawm, is surely not the only one to express opinions like these:

"The hatred toward the Americans in and outside Iraq, from Afghanistan and Pakistan to the border of the Atlantic Ocean, is deeper than the hatred that the terrorist 11 September attacks on New York generated among the Americans."

If this hatred results in bloodshed, who will Blair blame then?

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2010/09/07/blair-ignoring-history

Tony Blair's decision to cancel his party at Tate Modern gallery today, following him pulling out of a book-signing at Waterstone's, is another victory for the anti war movement & for the overwhelming majority in Britain who oppose his wars.

The number of prominent artists who supported the Tate protest is yet another indication of how widespread is the determination that Blair will one day be held to account for his war crimes in Iraq.

The ignominy of war criminal Blair scuttling away from any contact with the general public is bound to be discussed at tonight's public meeting in the House of Commons.

Anti-war MPs speaking at the meeting, including Caroline Lucas, Paul Flynn & Jeremy Corbyn, will say why they will be calling in tomorrow's parliamentary debate for all the troops to come home from Afghanistan now.

Tomorrow will be the first time that MPs vote on the Afghan war.

elsewhere .....

Britain's special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan is quitting with immediate effect, London said Wednesday, following a reported clash with NATO and US officials on fighting the Taliban.

The Guardian newspaper reported in June that there were serious disagreements in recent months between Cowper-Coles and officials from military alliance NATO, which is leading international troops in the country, and the United States.

He was convinced the military-focused counter-insurgency effort was headed for failure and wanted talks with Taliban insurgents to be a priority, said the daily.

Britain's Afghan envoy resigns

Nelson Mandela felt so betrayed by Tony Blair's decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq that he launched a fiery tirade against him in a phone call to a cabinet minister, it emerged today.

Peter Hain, a lifelong anti-apartheid campaigner who knows the ex-South African president well, said Mandela was "breathing fire" down the line in protest at the 2003 military action.

The trenchant criticisms were made in a formal call to the minister's office, not in a private capacity, and Blair was informed of what had been said, Hain added. The details are revealed in Hain's new biography of Mandela.

"He rang me up when I was a Cabinet minister in 2003, after the invasion," he told the Press Association. "He said: 'A big mistake, Peter, a very big mistake. It is wrong. Why is Tony doing this after all his support for Africa? This will cause huge damage internationally.'

"I had never heard Nelson Mandela so angry and frustrated. He clearly felt very, very strongly that the decision that the prime minister had taken – and that I as a member of the cabinet had been party to – was fundamentally wrong, and he told me it would destroy all the good things that Tony Blair and we, as a government, had done in progressive policy terms across the world."

Hain grew up in South Africa, where his anti-Apartheid campaigner parents knew Mandela, who he now describes as "a friend and a hero"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/12/nelson-mandela-tony-blair-peter-hain-iraq-invasion

South Korea has made fools out of the media again. This how the US and its allies operate. Lies, lies, lies. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? And what about Saddam's WND? And the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

The US is killing people every day in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Its allies Israel murder people by the hundreds and slaughter peace activists, yet the UN is not allowed to do anything.

Which country is the only country insane enough to actually use nuclear weapons?

South Admits Firing First Shells In Row With North Korea