If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Blair's historic address of the joint session of Congress.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Blair is only one of 4 Prime Ministers in history to address a joint session of Congress. His speech will convey:
He was underlining the shared values which still united America and Europe and arguing that the world is a more secure and prosperous place when they are able to act together.
At the same time he is emphasising the need for the coalition to complete the job it began both in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that former terrorist states are transformed into prosperous nations.
Mr Blair is also seeking to bolster the Middle East peace process, arguing that without a political settlement in the region, international terrorism could not finally be defeated.
Do we agree with these points?
He was underlining the shared values which still united America and Europe and arguing that the world is a more secure and prosperous place when they are able to act together.
At the same time he is emphasising the need for the coalition to complete the job it began both in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that former terrorist states are transformed into prosperous nations.
Mr Blair is also seeking to bolster the Middle East peace process, arguing that without a political settlement in the region, international terrorism could not finally be defeated.
Do we agree with these points?
0
Comments
"There never has been a time when the power of America has been so necessary or misunderstood," Blair said to loud applause.
It was a sickening speech which appealed to the sheer vanity of the man. It's just a shame his ticket isn't one way. I hate to say this but if there is a terrorist attack in this country it will be down to Blair making us the 51st state.
but i still believe him to be a very clever and impressive man. he makes dubya look very small indeed, even whilst licking his arse.
Yeah but don't you think the real Tories could do a lot more damage than New Labour? That's why I keep voting Labour, it's an act of hope that Blair will be gone soon and we can get a dare i say it? Socialist PM in Downing Street.
I think he's a vain smarmy man with his fake conviction - he's a lucky man and I think he's on the descent now. A pygmy could make Dubya look small - hence the need for all his dad's advisors to cover up the fact that he's useless. If it weren't for his surname he wouldn't have a chance in politics.
Am I that naive about what? If we're talking about the Tories doing more damage to the country than New Labour then I think this is a statement which has been proved over many years - New Labour at least has some left wing credentials and most people in the party are left wing. If we're talking about Blair being gone soon I don't think that's naive - everyone's time in Downing Street runs out, Blair's will too and I'd like to have a proper Labour Prime Minister follow him and fix the damage he's done - if you think the word soon is at issue I'd refer you the example of Mrs Thatcher - how many people in the first few months of 1990 would have said she'd be out of office by the end of the year? As Harold Wilson said "a week is a long time in politics" - see the news today that Blair has apparently effectively admitted that Iraq had no WMDs. Although I think you were referring to my references to a Socialist PM in Downing Street - I don't think it's that unrealistic to believe that we could see a moderate return to socialism - the union power of the 70s won't come back but it's not unconcievable to see a future real Labour Prime Minister increasing workers' rights, renationalising the railways, air traffic control and certain parts of the electricity industry (the National Grid and British Nuclear Fuels to be exact) and making the tax system more redistributive. I don't know how much you know about the Labour Party as an entity, it's whole history has been characterised by shifts in power between its left and right wing factions, just as occurs in the Conservative Party, also I'd point out that the vast majority of trade unions and grassroots members and even elected representatives are increasingly unhappy at the direction of the government, Blair has basically used up all the goodwill or political capital given to him for getting Labour back into power in 1997 on lots of measures over the past six years - the goodwill is starting to run low and he isn't as much of an asset for the party anymore. To translate the old latin saying - times change and we change with the times.
Anyway, I'm glad America honored our friend. I hope Americans in a position to decide where they want to vacation, buy goods or grow their company... choose the UK to return the friendship. I know I shouldn't view the world the way I treat my friends...but I don't know how else to view it.:)
I'm honestly confused on this:
After his speech to Congress, the prime minister joined President George W. Bush at an afternoon news conference to refute suggestions that they manipulated the intelligence information to justify toppling Saddam Hussein.
"The regime of Saddam Hussein was a grave and growing threat," Bush said. "Given Saddam's history of violence and aggression, it would have been reckless to place our trust in his sanity or his restraint."
"As long as I hold this office, I will never risk the lives of American citizens by assuming the good will of dangerous enemies."
Blair also said that British intelligence information that the Iraqi regime was trying to buy uranium from the African nation of Niger was "genuine."
"We stand by that intelligence," he said. "In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s, we know for sure that Iraq purchased around about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."
So Blair is saying British intelligence says he did have uranium...right?