Tuesday, March 28, 2006

The Vanities of Tony Blair

Dost think that power's disguise
Can make thee mighty seem?
It may in folly's eyes,
But not in worth's esteem:
When all that thou canst ask,
And all that she can give,
Is but a paltry mask
Which tyants wear and live.

In an address to a rare joint sitting of Australia’s parliament, courtesy of his partner in the Coalition of the Willing, Aussie PM John Howard, British PM Tony Blair
condemned growing anti-Americanism around the world as ‘madness’ in the face of the challenges confronting global peace in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

What an utter hypocrite when he failed to acknowledge that the ‘challenges confronting global peace in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere’ had been as a result of American arrogant, avaricious and
duplicitous belligerence and criminal aggression.

Duplicitous? Why?

Because according to a New York Times report, Tony Blair was in possession of a 5-page memo by President Bush stamped ‘extremely sensitive’ circulated among his (Blair’s) most intimate senior staff, which minuted that both Bush and Blair acknowledged that no unconventional weapons were found inside Iraq.

Because that meant the lack of excuse to invade Iraq,
Bush then talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colours of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Saddam Hussein.

Now, isn’t that both duplicitous and evil? Surely for such a dullard like Bush to be so driven, he must have been brainwashed by provocateurs.

I’ll blog a bit more on the ‘extremely sensitive’ secret memo later.

Back to the Australian Parliament, Blair urged the formation of a global alliance [another Coalition of the Killing?] in the struggle for democracy and justice(?), and brazenly asserted that such an alliance does not end with, but begins with America. Blair spoke of the common values of Australia and Britain, including a belief in democracy, rule of law and fairness.

I puked a couple of times at Blair’s shameless hypocrisy.

Plugging away for his transatlantic cousin and co-conspirator, Blair continued:
“The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved, the danger is that they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged.”

Engage in what? Killing innocent people like those termed ‘collateral damage’ or ‘terrorist SUSPECTS’? More Abu Ghraib's, more Guantanamo Bay's, more
Black Room's, more Bagram-ish hells, more extraordinary rendition, more Gulag Archipelago's, more Bush's crusades?

One thing I can tell you, the British have always been good with words in the tradition of Winston Churchill ["I have nothing to offer you but blood, toil, tears and sweat" & "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills", etc]. They'll talk the hind quarters off an ass.

Of the 3 leaders of the Coalition of the Willing, Blair is the most culpable.

We can dismiss Bush because he’s so plain dumb that he was easily led up the garden path by his nose by his circle of so-called advisors - "9/11 - it's the Saudis and Egyptians, hey-ho let's attack Iraq!".

I apologise to my American friends if they feel hurt I’ve insulted their Head of State even though they might not have voted for him. But note that Bush did the very thing [against the USA's interest] that his father had steadfastly refused to do even in Gulf War I - occupied Iraq.

May we ask who were his advisors who advised Bush to act against US interests? Which one nation has currently benefited most from the Iraqi chaos, and will again from Iraq's eventual disintegration?

We can also dismiss John Howard because Australia’s foreign and military policies are premised on the USA being her umbrella. Australia relies heavily on the ANZUS pact (meaning Uncle Sam) to bail her out of trouble. Ever since WWII, and especially more so after Harold Wilson pulled out ‘East of Suez’, it doesn’t matter who the PM of Australia is but every man Jack of them would back the USA to the hilt because Australia expects (or hopes for) such reciprocation.

Because of her total reliance on the USA, Australia has participated in every military adventure, good and bad, that the USA had called upon her – Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and II, Afghanistan, you-name-it, in the past, present & future, Australia will be there with the USA. She perceives that strategically she has no choice.

We now come to Tony Blair – intelligent, erudite, and probably the most successful and popular Labour Party PM of Britain after WWII. Why did he want to follow a dill down folly’s way?

Super-ego, conceit, vainglory! Tony Blair reckons he could influence George Bush, failing in his hubris to realise that many others, even more powerful and devious, were already manipulating the strings of the Bush puppet.

What we have here is a British PM who have the intelligence and surety of independence to go the British or European way, decided to be complicit in the Bush Administration’s deceit and diabolical plans to fabricate reasons to attack and invade Iraq, all purely because of Blair's amour propre, that he wants to be remembered as the British PM who had led America into the 21st Century New Age. He wants to be exalted in the same way as Winston Churchill continues to be by the British.

Thus Tony Blair, of the 3 leaders, is the most culpable of the war crimes against the Iraqi people, and crimes against his own soldiers who had died needlessly in Iraq.

Dost think that pride exalts
Thyself in other's eyes,
And hides thy folly's faults,
Which reason will despise?
Dost strut, and turn, and stride,
Like walking weathercocks?
The shadow by thy side
Becomes thy ape, and mocks.

- from an old English poem copied by John Clare

1 comment: