Here's what I don't get about the whole Blair hatred thing from the left

As I recall, everyone knew that Blair's justifications for war were *******s at the time and loudly said so. No-one was seriously misled or thought Saddam posed any real threat to the UK.

And yet, despite us all knowing this, many of the same people who marched against the war went out and re-elected the ****er two years later. Where was their outrage then? And why hasn't this rank hypocrisy stopped them from now lining up to wag their fingers at him?

The thing is, that you have absolutely no way of connecting the people who went out and opposed the war to the cross they made on their ballot paper.

Also, as there is no anti-interventionist party among the three main candidates, whoever you vote for is likely to do this stuff.

Given the amount Bernie doesn't understand, it's a wonder he posts on politics at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Headgear - Wannabe viking

Given the amount Bernie doesn't understand, it's a wonder he posts on politics at all.

---

The only thing Berni doesn't understand is why anyone would hold an opinion that differed to his.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herbette Chapman - aged 15

The only thing Berni doesn't understand is why anyone would hold an opinion that differed to his.

---

R.I.P. Jorge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWv2

R.I.P. Jorge

---

Why did Jorge do a Fash?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alberto Balsam Rodriguez

Why did Jorge do a Fash?

---

Berni was mean to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

The thing is, that you have absolutely no way of connecting the people who went out and opposed the war to the cross they made on their ballot paper.

Also, as there is no anti-interventionist party among the three main candidates, whoever you vote for is likely to do this stuff.

---

No, but the numbers make it clear that a sizeable number of people who opposed the war must have voted for Blair after the fact. After all, even if just the two million people who marched against it didn't vote for him you'd have seen a sizeable swing away from Labour, so extrapolating that across the country, you are forced to assume that many millions of people who opposed the war and are happily mouthing off about the Chilcott Report nonetheless voted for Blair in 2005.

As for the argument that there were no alternative parties, that's simply not true as the LibDems opposed the war. It is equally the case that simply withholding one's vote altogether was an option that was available to absolutely everyone.

The fact is that many of those wringing their hands and wagging their fingers after the Chilcott Report simply didn't care as much about Blair's Iraq war as much as they like to pretend, which makes their faux outrage pretty hard to stomach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

No, but the numbers make it clear that a sizeable number of people who opposed the war must have voted for Blair after the fact. After all, even if just the two million people who marched against it didn't vote for him you'd have seen a sizeable swing away from Labour, so extrapolating that across the country, you are forced to assume that many millions of people who opposed the war and are happily mouthing off about the Chilcott Report nonetheless voted for Blair in 2005.

As for the argument that there were no alternative parties, that's simply not true as the LibDems opposed the war. It is equally the case that simply withholding one's vote altogether was an option that was available to absolutely everyone.

The fact is that many of those wringing their hands and wagging their fingers after the Chilcott Report simply didn't care as much about Blair's Iraq war as much as they like to pretend, which makes their faux outrage pretty hard to stomach.

---

That would be true if the war in Iraq was the only election point in 2005.. it wasn't, the economy wtc will have been up there. So it isn't a shock that Labour voters still voted Labour as the economy was still doing well then, and we hadn't had the "boom and bust" that we had through the 80's and early 90's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pokster

That would be true if the war in Iraq was the only election point in 2005.. it wasn't, the economy wtc will have been up there. So it isn't a shock that Labour voters still voted Labour as the economy was still doing well then, and we hadn't had the "boom and bust" that we had through the 80's and early 90's

---

Of course it wasn't the only issue, but the fact that people were clearly prepared to overlook the small matter of Blair having dragged the country into what they believe was an illegal and unnecessary war for which our military was clearly unprepared and which caused the deaths of thousands simply because they felt the economy was doing well rather gives the lie to their outrage and apparent hatred of him, doesn't it?