Blair stamps little foot, walks out on Sedgefield constituents. BlairSupporter stamps little foot, walks out on Syrian pro-democracy protestors, Difference is, the Syrians will never notice.
As promised, I return to Uncle Jimmy's recent demonstrations of bewilderment and barefaced mandacity. In a post on the Responsibility to Protect he takes us through the United Nations' policy and procedures governing interventions of various kinds, including use of military force, to sort out the internal affairs of a country whose government is systematically and incorrigibly denying the human rights of its people. He lists (correctly as far as I can tell) the various ways in which these criteria might apply to President Assad's suppression of democracy in Syria.
He then tells us, astonishingly that he does not in fact support such intervention in Syria, not because he wishes to see both sides in the Syrian conflict wipe each other out, but because he's become fed up with having to justify the Bush/Blair "intervention" that was the Iraq War.
If he is serious about not simply wanting the two sides to kill each other (which is, after all, the stated position of his Nazi pal Bonni) then he is very bewildered indeed. After all, the United Nations had no involvement in the Iraq War. The Security Council was not asked to approve it, because Bush and Blair knew that they did not have the votes to get approval.
Of course, perhaps Jimmy is simply arrogant rather than befuddled. He will refuse to support the UN (which is never likely to ask for his opinion) on intervention in Syria because it refused to support Blair (who never asked for the UN's opinion) over Iraq. How sweet: he imagines he is relevant. Mind you, he imagines Blair is relevant, so why not?
As to Jimmy's outright blatant lying, he posted about a very silly "poll" conducted for some BBC programme or other. Most of what he has to say about it is fair enough, but when discussing the reasons given by those questioned about their reasons for their opinions he comes up with this beauty:
Next, a man said, “he ran away from the country, didn’t want to be an MP any more, did he?” [Factually incorrect. He was forced out by Gordon Brown, Tom Watson, Chris Bryant and the rest of the treacherous curry plotters.]
Now whatever one's opinion of the rights and wrongs of the "curry plot", all that it attempted (and achieved) was the ousting of Blair as leader of the Labour Party and thus as Prime Minister. As Jimmy would know if he were actually British (as he pretends to be), the only people who could have caused Blair to stop being an MP before the next election would be his constituency Labour party. They were unconnected with any Westminster plotting, and perfectly content (one assumes) with the MP they had returned to parliament six times (with more than 50% of the vote the last five times). If Tony Blair had cared as much for his constituents as they did for him, he could still be their Member of Parliament today. the fact is that the very same day that he was ousted as Prime Minister, this feckless and corrupt wate of space simply abandoned those constituents by resigning his parliamentary seat in a fit of pique. If he couldn't run the country any more he wasn't interested in the affairs of little people with no money. No, they could have a by-election to sort out their puny local concerns while he swept off to feel important and line his pockets.
So Blair precisely "ran away from the country" because he "didn't want to be an MP any more" (on the day he resigned he took up his new and lucrative role in Jerusalem as Middle East Envoy of the Quartet). And for Jimmy to suggest otherwise is simple, flagrant, lying.