We knew he was lying, but did he?

SIR - Why on earth are people still insisting on voting for the Labour Party this May 2005. It has lied and cheated the public again and again during the Iraq war, immigration, violent crime and hospital waiting list figures. It has introduced stealth taxes and even been caught rigging the postal voting system.

Letter to Editor, Daily Telegraph, from Philip Priestley, High Wycombe, Bucks. April 19, 2005

MI6 chief warned Blair Iraq facts fixed

On March 13, 2003, Blair took us to war on a lie. The more we know the more we realise we can never again trust the honesty or judgment of this dangerously plausible conman -

BBC once again disgracefully anti-Tory -

Yet another cry of 'Wolf ' -

'Security' - the excuse of tyrants

Could cover-up finish Blair? - Blair's duty to publish

A shameful day for Labour and British justice

Transcripts show No 10's hand in war legal advice

Lawyers say Goldsmith was politically pressured

Women who shamed Blair - "He pinged his waxen smile at cameras" Quentin Letts

Why should Gordon Brown believe anything that Tony Blair says when no one else does - Letter to Mail on Sunday, January 23, 2005, from Vic Croft, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex.

Some pledges, Tony

Here are the six General Election pledges Labour might like to adopt:

1. No more lying.

2. No more dodgy donations.

3. No more freebees.

4. No more cronies.

5. No more spin.

6. No more Blair.

Letter to Mail from Steve Willis, Bristol. Wednesday, February 16, 2005.

Tony Blair's pledge cards made no mention of pensioners. Perhaps they're the jokers. Letter to the Daily Mail from Brian Green, Daventry, Northants - Feb 22, 2005

Who is better off under Blair?

Empty slogans, 8 years on

Will Blair be counted out? Labour increasingly seen as ruthless and squalid. Don't blame Campbell, blame his boss (William Rees-Mogg - The Times, February 7, 2005) - Download this article- pdf format -

In an interview in The Spectator, Lord Butler, author of report into intelligence failings before the Iraq war, repeated his criticisms that doubts in intelligence reports to ministers should have been repeated in dossier presented to public

Accountablity, Iraq and Mr Blair - Spy Chief in new 'sexing-up' row

"There is nothing that you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe."

A tragedy based on a pack of lies - WMD - The search is called off (in secret)

Grasping, Greedy, Untrustworthy

BLAIR - A man who is becoming the past

BLAIR LIED & LIED AGAIN

Shamed by Blair

Mr Blair says that instead of questioning his integrity we should be asking if the invasion of Iraq was right. What reaction does he expect from those of us who were in favour of the invasion of Iraq all along? Does he seriously imagine we believe in his integrity?

Those of us who supported the war have all the more reason to despise a Prime Minister who by his lies has discredited the case for firmness against out enemies.

Letter from Alan Pillinger, Rome, Italy - Daily Mail, April 29, 2005

Blair is a stomach-turning liar

'Liar' taunts haunt Blair

Write this letter to your Labour MP to get rid of Blair

All day TV stunt backfires on Blair

Post-Iraq, if Mr Blair states: "Today is Thursday", his observation will be called to question, writes Steve Richards - THE INDEPENDENT, Thursday, March 24, 2005. He goes on - This election is about Iraq, Iraq and IRAQ.

ODD, THAT

Former Met Police chief Sir John Stevens, now fast-tracked to Lord Stevens, warns us that there are about 200 Al Queda fanatics here in Britain.

Is it just me, as a retired, cynical anti-terrorist and Special Branch officer, or do his remarks have anything at all to do with his present association with a company specialising in - you guessed it - terrorism? Letter (Name/Address supplied) Daily Mail, March 10, 2005

Who could trust the PM and Chancellor when the Chinese will not even buy a used car factory from them. Letter - B. E. Hotson, Eastbourne, Sussex - Daily Mail, April 18, 2005

Absolutely no politician - or, come to that, policeman - has the right to lock me up without recourse to a judge and jury. I'm protected by Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights. Every MP who supports Charles Clarke's 'house arrest' Bill must be removed from office at the earliest opportunity. And it matters not one iota to which party these power-hungry lunatics belong - their constituencies must deselect them forthwith.

It is worth remembering that Adolf Hitler began his ascendancy by the same politcally dubious route. That Clarke should feel able to present his Bill to Parliament is the result of a politcal party having an overwhelming majority, a politically neutered House of Lords and a weak monarchy which seems concerned only with its own image. Barrie Draper, Axminster, Devon. Daily Mail, 24/02/2005

Tony Blair's visit to Baghdad wasn't a 'surprise' - it was stage-managed with troops lined up and cameras ready. What a showman! Letter to the Mail from Shirley Saunders, Shanklin, IoW- 27/12/04

Actor Tom Conti, talking about Prime Minister's Questions on Andrew Neil's TV show The Daily Politics: "I'm always hugely impressed by Tony Blair's ability to rebut accusations. He's like an actor who doesn't really believe in his script himself but has the incredible skill to make everyone else believe it." - Ephraim Hardcastle - Daily Mail, February 3, 2005.

A story on the news was that thousands of Blair Government documents had been shredded to beat the January deadline of the new Freedom of Information Act. It was true. This had the exciting feel of Watergate all over again. What documents, Number 10 was asked. "We have no information," was the answer. From The way it is by John Edwards, Daily Mail, February 16, 2005.

IRAQ BRIEFING

September 11, 2004 (500 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,003 US - 65 UK - 5,595 Iraqi - 1390 civilians - 21 media

December 20, 2004 (599 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,305 US - 75 UK - 5,920 Iraqi - 15,122 civilians - 25 media

January 17, 2005 (627 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,362 US - 76 UK - 6,008 Iraqi - 15,257 civilians - 25 media

January 18, 2005 (628 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,364 US - 76 UK - 6,026 Iraqi - 15,259 civilians - 25 media

January 29, 2005 (639 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,417 US - 76 UK - 6,076 Iraqi - 15,331 civilians - 25 media

March 1, 2005 (670 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,490 US - 86 UK - 6,164? Iraqi - 15,782 civilians - 25 media

April 6, 2005 (706 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,543 US - 87 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media

May 11, 2005 (741 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,610 US - 88 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media

May 31, 2005 (761 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media

June 3 , 2005 (765 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,670 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media

September 29, 2005 (883 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,928 US - 96 UK - >>6,164 Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media

IRAQ: Is this the smoking gun?

Transcripts show No 10's hand in war legal advice - Lawyers say Goldsmith was politically pressured

On March 13, 2003, Mr Blair took us to war on a lie. The more we learn about it the more we realise that we can never again trust the honesty or judgment of this dangerously plausible conman

Come back Gilligan, all is forgiven. Penny Young, Diss Norfolk to The Guardian, February 24, 2005

One day we shall know the naked truth about the sordid deal that was struck by Blair and Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war. We shall learn it first from American documents, released under the Freedom of Information Act. By the time our own National Records Offices releases the relevant documents, most of us will be dead.

Some of us war-opponents' worst suspicions were confirmed when a prominent American neo-conservative came to London last week. He proffered the view that the Weapons of Mass Destruction excuse was inserted by Washington at the request of Blair, anxious for ammunition to forestall a Labour rebellion and to win the official Opposition's support.

That would certainly explain the somewhat erratic line the U.S. pursued over WMD's. It leaves both Labour MPs and the Official Opposition looking greater dupes than ever.

The resignation of David Blunkett must have puzzled some of our Continental friends. "You do not 'ave ze piston?" the French will puzzle, referring to their system of reciprocal favours expected of ministers and officials. The Italians will be puzzled by the tiny scale of Blunkett's misuse of his parliamentary allowance. Andrew Alexander writes in the Daily Mail - December 17, 2004

But before we pride ourselves on our high standards, we should acknowledge that we have a Prime Minister who lied us into a war - and is allowed to remain in office.

HAIL, BLAIR! He of the bread and circuses. Unlimited access to sex, drugs, drink, tobacco and gambling will ensure an easy transformation from democracy to dictatorship.

HAIL CAESAR! Those who are about to abandon morality, salute you. P. Bates, Urmston, Manchester - Daily Mail, October 22, 2004

There's no way in Blair will be accepted as a Roman Catholic. He'll have to spend the next 20 years in the confessional box. G.I.Stephenson, Chaddesden, Derby - Daily Mail, Oct. 25, 2004

The Pentagon and the path to war in Iraq taken by Bush and Blair

April 6, 2002: Blair meets Bush at President's Texas ranch. Bush says Saddam must be deposed.

June 28, 2002: UK commanders meet American counterparts in Florida - start planning against Iraq

July 16, 2002: Blair tells MPs in the House: "No decisions have been taken about military action.

July 25, 2002: Blair at news conference "We're all getting a bit ahead of ourselves on issue of Iraq"

Aug 13, 2002: US Commanders discuss the possibility of sending of British forces to nearby Turkey.

Aug 21, 2002: Home Secretary David Blunkett say that the talk of a coming war in Iraq is 'hype'.

Aug 29, 2002: George Bush approves the goals, objectives and strategy of the battle plan for Iraq.

Sep 24, 2002: Downing Street dossier on WMD threat says Iraq could launch attacks in 45 minutes.

Oct 31, 2002: Full battle plan for invasion of Iraq- code named 1003V - is issued by the Pentagon.

Nov. 8, 2002: UN 1441 tells Saddam to cooperate with inspectors or 'face serious consequences'.

Nov 27 2002: UN weapons inspectors under Hans Blix arrive in Iraq to commence their inspection.

Dec 8 -17, 2002: US Armed forces hold 'Internal Look', a dress rehearsal for the invasion of Iraq.

Jan 20, 2003: Britain deploys a force of 30,000 troops to the Gulf Region - preparing for invasion.

Mar 18, 2003: The House of Commons votes for war against Saddam Hussein.

David Hughes, Political Editor - Daily Mail, September 30, 2004

After lying over 'intelligence' reports to justify a war many people didn't want, how can we believe the 'terror' threats now? Tess Nash, Letter to the Editor - Daily Mail November 25, 2004

ODD, THAT

Letter (Name and Address supplied) to the Daily Mail, March 10, 2005

Former Met Police chief Sir John Stevens, now fast-tracked to Lord Stevens, warns us that there are about 200 Al Queda fanatics here in Britain.

How long can this lame-duck Premier go on?

MI6 chief: I warned Blair that Iraq facts were fixed

On March 13, 2003, Mr Blair took us to war on a lie. The more we learn about it the more we realise that we can never again trust the honesty or judgment of this dangerously plausible conman

Transcripts show No 10's hand in war legal advice - Lawyers say Goldsmith was politically pressured

Grasping, Greedy, Untrustworthy

IRAQ - The final judgement

Exposing Labour's moral vacuum

Blunkett's departure signals the end - the death knell for Blairism

Now rattled Blair runs for cover

Cronies and hypocrites win again

A Government so mired in deceit and self-delusion that it cannot distinguish between loyalty and lies

Not in HIS backyard! - Our 'green' PM helps block plan for wind farm near his home

Why Mr Blair can never be trusted

Comment - Daily Mail, October 14, 2004

No word of real regret. No hint of genuine contrition. The chilling conclusion to be drawn from Tony Blair's half 'apology' in the Commons is that having led Britain to war on a false prospectus, he would be quite prepared to do it again. Once more, we are witnessing a Prime Minister in denial. His case for an invasion - repeated ad nauseam - was demolished when the Iraq Survey Group found no weapons of mass destruction. Yet the architect of our worst overseas fiasco since Suez seems to inhabit a fantasy world where black is white and truth is falsehood.

Of course Saddam was a monster, as the mass grave just uncovered in Iraq confirms. But that wasn't why Mr Blair took Britain to war. No, this invasion was launched on the basis of 'sexed up' evidence about a non-extent threat. We now know that the intelligence did NOT establish that Saddam had WMD. It was 'patchy' and 'sporadic'. Yet Mr Blair assured MPs it was 'extensive, detailed and authoritative', showing 'beyond doubt' that Iraq had these weapons.

That wilful exaggeration is what led Parliament to vote for war. That is what demands a genuine mea culpa. By relying on slithery self-justification, the Prime Minister offers a textbook study on why faith in politicians has all but collapsed. And why he can never again be trusted on issues of war and peace.

The most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would be to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of Commons and get them to demand it. I would therefore urge all voters in Labour-held constituencies to write a letter along these lines to their sitting Labour MPs:

WWW silentmajorityspeaks.com

The people declare war on 'liar' Blair

However you vote, give Blair a bloody nose

**How long can this lame-duck Premier go on?**

Blair cannot ignore our outrage over Iraq

Tony Blair's speech after the election appeared contrite. His admission that he had lacked experience was impressive. But it turned my blood cold when our Prime Minister said that in the case of Iraq, it was time to 'move on'.

Can any phrae so callously and insidiously wipe the slate clean? 'Moving on' is now part of the lexicon of British life and I think it's dangerous.

Blair's contrite speech reminded us that if you want to stand up against the status quo in this country, you won'tk be merely disagreed with - a welcome and natural part of democratic life - you'll be made to fell you're speaking from some weird place called 'The Past', not the right-on Labour concoction known as 'The Future'. You haven't 'mlved on'.

How can any society that seeks to challenge its Prime Minister on the legality of a war that killed thousands, sit there while its leader sweeps it aside, telling it, in that grubby little phrase, to 'move on'. A large secgion of British society has embraced the vaacuity oif the words 'moving on' without examining the destructive power of the message.

Our lives, in private and public, are littered with examples of people casually rationalising a my8riad selfish and destructive actions with the nauseating observation: "Yeah, it was wrong, but it's time to move on ... "

'Moving on' is a linguistic short-cut to a guilt-free zone. Guilt is regarded like cellulite or yellowing teeth, inherently bad and in need of banishment.

But guilt has a vital function because it reminds us all that our actions may be wrong. How does Labour plan to enforce anti-social behaviour laws and discipline in schools if the prevailing message is 'I don't want to look at my guilt. Let's move on'.

This Government's obsession with ditching the past and pursuing the future is creating a sordid ideology of relative moralities. So let's all stop using the horrible little phrase 'moving on'. Our actions, good and bad, aren't erased by it. In domestic trivialities, it's cheap. In war, it's obscene.

Fiona MacDonald Turner - Warninglid, W. Sussex - Daily Mail, May 11, 2005

Now we've seen Goldsmith's legal advice given before the Iraq war, it appears the the only person telling the truth was Saddam, when he said he had no WMDs.

N. J. Clarkson, Cheshunt, Herts. - Daily Mail, May 3, 2005

Blair the hypocrite

According to British campaigners, imports from Burma have more than tripled since Tony Blair came to power in 1997 and reached £62.2m last year. (From BurmaNet News - October 8, 2004)

Out of touch with the real world

It was perhaps the most telling image of the week: a sweating, floundering Prime Minister reduced to open-mouthed confusion when confronted with the problems of real people in a real world.

On BBC's Question Time special, Mr Blair was 'absolutely astonished' to discover that GPs are refusing to make appointments more than two days in advance, to comply with Whitehall's requirement that patients must be seen within 48 hours. He thought it 'absurd'.

But even then, he didn't grasp the point. He said he was sorry for the experience of 'one person', only to provoke a storm of complaints from the audience that they too had suffered such bureaucratic, target-driven nonsense. A chastened Mr blair promised to investigate.

Eight years on, isn't it a little late to wake up to what is really happening in the NHS? He makes much of the extra billions for health and paints a glowing picture of new buildings, more MRI scanners and faster treatments. And to be fair, there have been some improvements.

But the rose-tinted view from Downing Street is far from the full story. The appointment fiasco is only one example. Need to see your family doctor in the early evening or at the weekend? Hope for a home visit late at night? Forget it. Under their new contract, GPs no longer need to be available out of hours.

Meanwhile, the targets culture distorts clinical priorities. The BMA warns that lives are jeopardised in A&E departments because of Whitehall's demand for patients to be treated within 4 hours. Doctors must cut corners to meet that target, often by pushing patients into inappropriate wards just to get them out of casualty by the deadline. That leads to bed shortages and cancelled operations.

Lives are put at risk in other ways too. The MRSA superbug rages in hospitals, partly because managers are blocking requests to close infected wards so they can be properly cleaned. The reason? Performance targets again.

On and on it goes. Mr Blair points proudly to new scanners, while a third of them stand idle or under-used because of a shortage of radiographers. But there is plenty of money for the bloated army of bureaucrats appointed to enforce New Labour's obsessive targetting.

His failure to introduce genuine reforms in the NHS encourages waste and mismanagement on a colossal scale. But, as on Iraq - where he enthuses over democracy while closing his eyes to the 60 terrorist attacks a day - this Prime Minister sees only what he wants to see.

Rarely has the chasm between rhetoric and reality yawned so wide. Rarely has a politician seemed so woefully out of touch. (Comment, Daily Mail, April 30, 2005)

How long can this lame-duck Premier go on?

Do it for Tom Keys. Do it for Dr. David Kelly. Do it for a government that will restore trust in UK politics

Give Blair a bloody nose with your vote

BLAIR LIED & LIED AGAIN

Bombshell breaks silence over Iraq

Howard declares war on 'liar' Blair

Michael Howard ditched the last vestige of bi-partisanship over Iraq last night (September 29) and charged Tony Blair with lying to the British people. As relations between the party leaders plunged to a new low, Blair was hit by a second bombshell as a secret Pentagon file revealed he was planning for war in Iraq at least nine months before MPs approved military action. Read the full story here.

Blair - a B-liability?

Cold War II

So we are now involved in the second Iraqi war, are we? Who won the first one? Or was it a draw? Given that we are on the eve of the Labour Party conference, I don't suppose there's any way of preventing Tone from mouthing more hot air about the 'huge defeat' we are poised to deliver in the struggle, or crucible, against global terrorism.

Whatever turns him on. But I wish he would leave me out of it. I don't want to be told that 'all sensible and decent people' now have only the choice of backing him over what he chooses to call the 'new Iraqi conflict' against world terrorism. The choice of sensible and decent people in this mad adventure is not only that of backing him. The alternative is not backing him. We can do that without backing out. Keith Waterhouse, Daily Mail, September 23, 2004

Iraq is Blair's poll tax, say the people who put him in power

Unite to save our country

Glib words and bitter reality

Unlike Thatcher, he has failed to transform the economy

Hollow man of British politics has no idea what a big hole he's in over Butler Report

Now it's admitted Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and the Government's dossier was wrong, can BBC chairman Gavyn Davies, Director-General Greg Dyke and Radio 4 reporter Andrew Gilligan have their jobs back? Of course not. Neither can poor hounded-to-death Government scientist Dr David Kelly have his life back. Bowever, it's reported that Tony Blair's propagandist, Alistair Campbell, whose hissy fit cause this, whole squalid row, has been re-hired. Isn't democracy grand? ................................................................... Ephraim Hardcastle, Daily Mail, October 14, 2004

What will it take to get Blair out of office?

Totalitarian Britain - no longer a democracy

A suitable case for the Nixon treatment?

Who can restrain President Blair? You can

Experts 'didn't find any WMD's in Iraq' - dateline 9/11/2004, so vote Blair out of office, or write to your Labour MP to do it for you.

Isn't it time for us to laugh at this pathetic man who deludes himself into believing he's our great leader who deserves re-election?

Jennifer Thatcher from Bath, writing to the Daily Mail - October 19, 2004

Father Timothy Ross shouldn't waste any more of his time wondering if Tony Blair will become a Roman Catholic. Blair has, no doubt, told the Chief Rabbi he wants to be a Jew, the Muslim council he is embracing Islam, the Scots that he wants to be a Wee Free and the Mormons that he's becoming a Latter Day Saint.

All the rest of us want is for him to become an ex-Prime Minister as soon as possible.

When it was time for Maggie Thatcher to go, MPs of her own party found the guts to make it happen. Despite over 11 years of successful premiership during which she transformed the UK economically from dustbin to powerhouse and helped the US derail Soviet communism, the Iron Lady was victim of bloodless revolution, after which John Major, her successor, limped on for a further six and a half years before succumbing to the inevitable.

Tony Blair has so far enjoyed seven years of power, coasting on the economic legacy left to him by the Tories in 1997, boasting of a huge majority in Parliament virtually unchanged in a general election he called after his first four years. Nobody can have possibly imagined that he would persuade his army of Labour MPs to enthusiastically support the most right wing US President of recent times and send British soldiers to invade Iraq on a blatantly false prospectus.

Having written the last paragraph this writer finds it equally incredible that a man who has deliberately distorted the truth, has been indirectly but definitely responsible for the death of a dedicated and conscientious scientist, the 'middle-ranking' civil servant, Dr David Kelly, is still, writing on July 9, 2004, still Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

"I have to accept it seems increasingly clear that Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy," Blair admits in the middle of his statement on the Butler report. That admission by an honourable man would have been followed by a state-ment announcing his resignation as Prime Minister.

"But this is Blairland," comments the Daily Mail on Friday, July 16. "where standards and decencies that once ensured a proud record of integrity in public life are contemptuously ignored. ...... Resign? Of course Mr Blair won't resign. There is nobody to make him. And nothing to stop him blundering again either."

By July 19, after the Butler Report was published, it has emerged that not only had Blair 'sexed-up' the dossier that took this country into Iraq, but he has had the nerve to 'sex-down' the Butler Report to eliminate any criticism of himself in that report. For that he surely deserves political lynching.

What will it take for Tony Blair to be kicked out of office? If not Labour MPs or his colleagues in Cabinet, it is left to the people of this country. We have to be mobilised to make our screams of protest loud enough to be heard in not only in Westminster, but throughout this United Kingdom. The answer is here.

"The maestro of saccharine sincerity has been corrupted by office as absolutely as any Roman emperor. Greed for the exultation of power has eaten into his soul, his judgement and his integrity," says Max Hastings

The problem is, we have a Prime Minister in denial over the Iraq debacle. Despite a grudging half apology for being wrong about Saddam's WMD, he tries to wriggle out of responsibility by blaming poor intelligence. But it wasn't the intelligence that was wrong - it was the way Mr Blair outrageously exaggerated it.

It was he who issued dodgy dossiers, he who allowed a demented vendetta against the BBC for telling the truth, he who helped to bring down a regime openly opposed to Al Qaeda, and he who- like President Bush, hadn't the faintest idea what to do once Saddam was toppled.

No, it isn't he who holds a knife to Ken Bigley's throat. But the barbarians responsible would never have been let loose in Iraq but for the war. Now that country is a magnet for terrorism Its people united only in hatred for the occupiers. Hostages are in torment. And the Prime Minister - who was warned time and again what this war would bring - still can't bring himself to utter a word of genuine contrition. (Mail Comment, Sept. 30, 2004)

Damning verdict on Blair's war

Comment - Daily Mail, October 7, 2004

Even now, when the truth is laid out for all to see, this Government just can't resist trying to spin its way out of culpability for a wretchedly misbegotten war.

While the Iraq Survey Group confirms it has found no weapons of mass destruction, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw ludicrously pretends the threat from Saddam, in terms of his intentions, was 'starker than we had seen before'.

But Britain wasn't dragged into this conflict because a vile dictator had malign 'intentions'. We were assured again and again that Saddam not only possessed these weapons, but could deploy them within 45 minutes. Now, once again, those assurances are exposed as rubbish.

The implications are deeply disturbing. Britain is threatened as never before by terrorists. Iran is close to an atom bomb. North Korea's nuclear ambitions are well advanced. Rogue regimes every-where are encouraged by the debacle in Iraq.

So, what happens if - God forbid - our intelligence services discover plans for an attack on these shores? Could this Prime Minister convince the public of the need for an armed response. Or, as Michael Howard asked this week: "Could the British people trust him a second time?"

The answer is that - like the boy who cried 'wolf' - Mr Blair won't be believed, whatever the danger. The tragedy is that a war that was supposed to make Britain more secure has left us more vulnerable than ever.

Now we've seen Goldsmith's legal advice given before the Iraq war, it appears the the only person telling the truth was Saddam, when he said he had no WMDs.

N. J. Clarkson, Cheshunt, Herts. - Daily Mail, May 3, 2005

Mr Blair has lied and deceived us over Iraq. He must resign at once. Do you agree?

Agree strongly
Agree
Disagree
Disagree strongly
Don't know
Don't care

Please click one of the links above to cast your vote

Current results

BLAIR LIED AND LIED AGAIN

Mr Blair will try to rally the nation, but his lies mean that even his party may not listen

"This is the moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle down again. Before they do, let us re-order the world around us." - Prime Minister Blair - 2001 Labour Party Conference

To commit us without apology - in fact with relish - to fighting a war in a terrorist state that he(Blair) has been instrumental in creating is nothing less than a sign of madness.

The Blair Mutiny

A quick hit of hurrahs for Blair the fraud

Yesterday in Parliament - by Quentin Letts, Daily Mail - July 8, 2004

We broad-brush men try to maintain an Olympian detachment from policy matters, yet there are days when the red mist descends.

As with children's shinbones on the ski slopes, as with magpies' necks, and as with delicate antique chairs whenever my big-thighed brother-in-law |John comes visiting, something snaps. I'm afraid it happened to me yesterday when Tony Blair tried to slalom round his opponents on the issue of schools.

In one sense it was a masterly performance. Mr Blair kept Labour MPs cheers high in the air. He made it all sound vaguely believable. From the tone of his defiant voice, so scornful of independent schools, so much the defender of comprehensives, you would never have suspected this is the same man who is trying to nab Tory ideas on 'choice'.

Within the space of just a few minutes Mr Blair took contradictory positions. He flipped faster than an Olympic swimmer in a butterfly turn. Listening, I just thought, ugh, what a dis-honest man. What a con.

The mood on the Labour backbenches at Prime Minister's Questions was vented early by Andrew Love (Lab, Edmonton). Mr Love, a Scotsman despite his seat being in North London, is equipped with one of those stiff little moustaches often found on a certain generation of traffic warden.

Given where than 'tache' is parked it is a surprise so much gets up Mr Love's nose. But it does, mes braves, it does. The inaptly named Comrade Love bristles with indignation.

"No tax concessions for those who wish to take children outta the state system!" thundered Edmonton's Rob Roy. Mr Blair springboarded of this mean contribution to aver that there would be 'no return to 11 plus! No subsidy to private schools!"

Had anyone actually suggested this? Not that I'm aware of. The Tories want to give parents freedom to choose where their children go to school but that is not the same thing as a subsidy. Yet by a snide little shuffle here, a misrepresentation of Tory policy there, the Prime Minister presents himself as a champion of comprehensive school values he would not accept in a straightforward way for his own childrren.

His fraudulent efforts won him a quick hit of hurrahs from the Labour benches yesterday. At some moments Peter Hain, sitting next to the PM, was nodding with agreement even before hearing what had been said.

With one breath Mr Blair talked of public education as 'excellence for all! Not a return to selection!' Almost with his very next lungful of oxygen, however, he admitted: 'In fact we don't have a two-tiered education system now. We have a many-tiered system.' It is a system, in other words, in which there is already plenty of privilege. Repeatedly, when Michael Howard with his Welsh-Jewish roots said the word 'schools', Labour MPs mocked his Inspector Clouseau pronunciation. 'Skheeuuwlls' they jeered.

This, please note, is the same parliamentary Labour party which consistently takes po-faced stances against any form of mockery based on physical imperfection or differences deriving from ethnic/racial background.

Mr Howard asked about several 'flagship' schemes the Blair government launched in recent years to help state schools. It turned out, just fancy, that hardly any of them has produced any form of action. What a load of lies we have been sold by these snakes in recent years.

Mr Blair boasted that exam results have never been better. No one I know accepts that this reflects higher standards. Mr Howard merely asked why so many of today's 12 year-olds cannot read or count.

Charles Kennedy, Lib Dem leader, also discussed schools policy. Mr Kennedy is far more honest a defender of comprehensives. Mr Blair punished him for his decency by patronising him and entangling him in another web of evaisions and falsehood.

"You should cross the floor!" sneered Mr Blair at wobbly Charlie K. "Nah!" cried a Labour voice. "He wouldn't make it." Not an uplifting day.

Blair 'scraped the barrel' to justify invasion

by James Chapman, Political Correspondent, Daily Mail July 12, 2004 (eve of Butler Report)

Tony Blair's claim before the Iraq invasion that Saddam Hussein posed a 'current and serious' threat to Britain came under devastating fire last night.

John Morrison, former

Silent Majority Speaks

Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship

December 26, 2006 (1308 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 2978 US - 126 UK - >650,000? civilians - 25 media

January 17, 2007 (1328 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 3022 US - 129 UK - >650,000? civilians - 25 media