Thatcher blasts Blair for taking Britain to war on the basis of lies.

[MoonRiver]

Baroness Thatcher has criticized Tony Blair for taking Britain to war in Iraq on the basis of flawed evidence about Saddam Hussein's weapons. The former prime minister's embarrassing criticism emerged as Mr Blair was among the 670 guests who attended a party to mark her 80th birthday.

Although Lady Thatcher remains a strong supporter of the decision to topple Saddam by invading Iraq, it is the first time she has questioned the basis for the war. Yesterday's Washington Post reported that when asked whether she would have invaded Iraq given the intelligence at the time, Lady Thatcher replied: "I was a scientist before I was a politician. And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof - and then you check, recheck and check again."

She added: "The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/15/155145/47

Opportunistic? You betcha! That old warmongering bat would have liked to have done the same thing. She just wouldn't have been so stupid in how she went about it. Matter of fact she probably wouldn't have been stupid enough to start the entire misadventure. Tony asked for this, and he's going to take a licking from both the left and right. Bend over little poodle.

[Fenris]

1. This from Mrs. Falkland Islands!

:rofl:

[ButterflyBlood]

7. I'm no fan of the woman, but I don't see what was wrong there

Argentina siezed the Falklands in an act of aggression. Britain came in and drove them out. No different than if another nation attacked and took Puerto Rico, or if China were to attack Taiwan.

Plus their defeat there brought down the horrific military regime running Argentina at the time. That's definately a good thing in my view.

Regardless, I definately despise the woman. And this latest comment is probably just an attempt to discredit Blair and hopefully by extension, all of Labour, including the true leftist faction.

[MoonRiver]

8. I'm just pissed that Blair, a supposedly brilliant man, gave the r/w

this ammunition. They will definitely use it.

[wuushew]

10. The Falklands are a group of cold wet rocks

What is the logic of going to war when defending your strip of land is more costly in lives and money than pursuing other means like sanctions?

Also there is a very good claim to be made that Great Britain illegally took ownership of the islands in the early 19th century.

[mrfrapp]

11. Rationale for the Falklands War

"What is the logic of going to war when defending your strip of land is more costly in lives and money than pursuing other means like sanctions?"

The logic is that the people who lived there didn't want to be occupied by a military regime with which they didn't agree. If there's ever a case for going to war it is to defend your land and your people from foreign occupation.

"Also there is a very good claim to be made that Great Britain illegally took ownership of the islands in the early 19th century."

That's a ridiculous argument. Why should the occupants of the islands today be punished for the actions of a completly different group of people? The actions of the British and Argentinan governments at that time are as remote to the current settlers of the island as the actions of the Mexican and American governments are to today's occupents of California. To continue this example, I wouldn't expect the American goverment to sit on it's backside if Mexico decided to reclaim the land it once "owned" - even if it was Bush who ordered the military into action. There are certain scenarios which transcend political boundaries and I honestly can't think of a better argument for a standing army than for defence against invasion. Come to think of it, that's the entire argument. There is no other reason for a standing army.

I hate Thatcher and her legacy as much as the next person and there's an argument that the dispute over the Falkland Islands could have been resolved diplomatically but to surrender the islands to Argentina without any resistance would have been reckless for any politician. It may seem like "a group of cold, wet rocks" to you, or to me for that matter, but it's also somebody's home and where they make their living. If the Falklanders pledge fealty to Britain then Britain owes them the services of its military.

[wuushew]

14. The cost of the war was rather high

HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS Sheffield and MV Conveyor



The war lasted 74 days, with 255 British and 655 Argentine soldiers, sailors, and airmen, killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

Committing to action that will take further human life seems wrong when defending one's pride in things like lifeless land. Again why was diplomancy ruled out? If the rump of the British Empire could scrape together a naval armada then it could easily feed and provide for the displaced refugees of the Argentinian invasion.

[mrfrapp]

16. The cost was high

The cost was high, there's no doubt about that.

"Committing to action that will take further human life seems wrong when defending one's pride in things like lifeless land."

It wasn't lifeless. It was and is somebody's home. If you can't understand that then I don't know what else to say.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Is that supposed to mean she would not have done the same thing????

[MoonRiver]

4. I think she's saying she would have acted on cold hard facts, not spin.

The truth is, although she would have loved to invade Iraq, she wouldn't have stuck her neck out like Blair did. She's a POS, but now people like her have big time ammo against Blair. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[EuroObserver]

9. She's saying she wouldn't have got caught lying n/t

[bluestateguy]

3. Her position on the war is confusing

Sounds to me like "I supported the war before I turned against it, but it was still the right thing to do" type of nonsense.

Didn't this woman always have a reputation for being a no-nonsense straight shooter who was bold and decisive? Her statements make no sense to me.

[MoonRiver]

6. She's using the mile wide gaping hole in Blair's credibility

to destroy him, and, probably, in her mind, the Labour Party.

[rzemanfl]

5. Didn't I read somewhere about a week ago that she was senile

and not allowed to speak to the press? A pre-emptive strike in advance of her birthday? "Old girl is dotty and all that."

[Jacobin]

12. She would have been the first to back BushBot

she's only doing this as a political hack...she's conservative, he's Labour.

She's still just an old hack

[MoonRiver]

13. I completely agree, as stated in my op.

But doesn't it pyo that Blair has handed the rightwing this gift?

[ikri]

17. Blair did offer the RW a gift

Unfortunately (or fortunately come to think of it) for the RW in the UK they're a bunch of hawkish unreformed Thatcherite fuckwits for the most part.

The Conservative party in the UK fully backed the Iraq war. Even at the last election here they could have used the war to engage the huge numbers of very pissed off Islamic voters here. Instead they decided to try preaching to the converted and went with the standard RW vitriol against immigrants, managing in one easy maneuver to alienate the precise voters they needed to bring them back to power.

Blair's real political gift isn't his questionable charisma or "boyish" charm. His gift is that he knows the UK Conservatives better than they know themselves. If he hands them ammunition it's because he (generally) knows that they'll use it to shoot themselves in the foot.

[lateo]

15. *spit take*

Huh? Wahhhh?

That old hag....