Tony Blair – A Moral Vacuum

A morality-free zone

Up till now, I thought Tony Blair is merely an odious, scum-sucking, onanistic arsewipe. But apparently he is a complete moral vacuum. In an interview in the Guardian to promote his memoir, A Journey, Tony is happy to own up to (some) mistakes:

The fox-hunting ban. Was it a mistake? “I think yes on balance it was in the end. …I didn’t quite understand, and I reproach myself for this, that for a group of people in our society in the countryside this was a fundamental part of their way of life. [It] not one of my finest policy moments”.

Yet he refuses to apologise — in print, or anywhere else — for the lying, cheating, hell-loosing decision to join the blood-for-oil fest in Iraq: “I don’t seek agreement,” he writes. “I seek merely an understanding that the arguments for and against were and remain more balanced than conventional wisdom suggests.”

In other words, Blair’s moral compass is so peculiarly calibrated he can understand, and empathise, with the point of view of a bunch of long-faced toffs addicted to chasing foxes. He cannot, however, bring himself to acknowledge the anguish of the families of thousands of dead soldiers and hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi civilians. Maybe Blair’s fresh take on the fox-hunting ban comes fromo seeing Iraq the same way hunters see the countryside — as a pest-ridden problem to be solved.

6 thoughts on “Tony Blair – A Moral Vacuum

  1. He refuses to apologise for, as you put it, “for the lying, cheating, hell-loosing decision to join the blood-for-oil fest in Iraq.”

    WHY apologise for a decision he believed and still believes was the right decision? (The aftermath is a whole different issue, btw.)

    I suppose you’d rather he just LIED and said “sorry, I made that (right) decision wrongly”.

    What utter nonsense some of you people speak.

    • Did you not read my blog? The point is not the apology, per se. The point is that Blair is so morally blind he still believes that defying the wishes of the British public, and the warnings of the UN and its weapons inspectors, to invade a sovereign nation, murder its citizens and rob its natural resources was the “right decision”.

  2. Morally blind? The man who saved Sierra Leononians from barbarism.?The man who stopped ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Balkans? The man whose name will go down in history as bringing peace to Northern Ireland?

    When I read facile nonsense on Blair such as “morally blind” I tend to ignore the ignorance and instead focus on one simple thing at a time. One thing at a time is about all you can cope with. In this case I focussed on the silliness that you suggest – that you’d rather he LIED to you.

    If you need re-telling, which you clearly DO, only a small percentage of the people of this country marched against the invasion. Blair did NOT defy the wishes of the British public. CLEARLY he did not do so, as they voted for him again in 2005 with a majority that looks HUGE compared to what the Conservatives recently achieved.

    SOME may have warned against the WMD presence, but ALL major countries and the UN, including Hans Blix and even David Kelly, shared Blair’s belief that Saddam had them, since he had already used them on the Kurds and on the Iranians.

    As for oil – oh grow up.

  3. I guess some who have an interest to praise the emperors new clothes, find his smile delightful.

    I practice a game when I watch such “untouched” characters. It is called “on what is he on!”.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s