The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Teflon Tony – A Rogue’s Guide To Keeping Slippery As A Greased Piglet
It’s not because he took Bill’s advice on non-stain clothing, but his uncanny knack of coming out of controversy without taking the blame that earned ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair his latest nickname.
But there’s more than spin to Tony’s masterful manoeuvring, so just how does he always come up smelling of roses?
---You Can Lead A Horse To Water, But It’s Not Your Fault If It Drinks---
We take our example of this tactic from the dossier linked to the Hutton report (don’t worry, I won’t go on about it).
Intelligence claimed Iraq could prepare its WMDs for use in just 45 minutes, but failed to point out that this only referred to deployment on the battlefield. Consequently, the media and general public assumed this meant the weapons could be used against British bases in Cyprus and even against Britain itself within that 45 minutes.
Although he never sought to correct people’s mistaken assumption, when the truth came out Blair coolly pointed out he never specified anything about the 45 minutes, then wandered off into the sunset.
---Muck Hitting The Fan? Hide Behind A Fat Man---
They say the old ones are the best, and using a scapegoat, or if you will, a human shield, has certainly passed the test of time.
Watch the artful positioning of the Prime Minister, using the assistance of media allies, during recent backlashes regarding the equipment and funding available to armed forces.
Geoff Hoon took massive damage, but the burden of responsibility never quite reached the door of No. 10. When executed this well, it’s an art form. And a spectator sport.
---I Know Something You Don’t Know---
In a relatively stable political position, your enemies need proof before they dare make solid accusations against you. Sure, they can allude to accusations, but that won’t do too much damage – did you see Howard ask Blair for ‘reassurance’ nobody from Labour’s government leaked details of the Hutton report to the Sun? That’s as bad as it’s likely to get.
And the key to making sure your opponents don’t have that vital proof? Hide it.
Mr Blair has solid proof, he claims, that Iraq have WMDs. But nobody is allowed to see it.
This is the single point holding up the entire Iraq war, if this evidence were shown to be wrong, unreliable or fictional, Blair would be dead and buried. So you can see why it’s so important no details of that information can ever be publicly scrutinised.
Blair can handle the suspicion there were no WMDs, for whatever reason, so long as he can lean on his information. And nobody will be allowed to challenge that crutch.
---Principles Can Hold You Prisoner, Semantics Can Set You Free---
The idea, of course, is that you can abandon policies, so long as you find a loop-hole to escape through.
Where’ve we seen this recently?
Where do you begin on this one? So many examples available, here’s a couple of them.
Tuition fees – Labour’s last manifesto promised not to introduce them, but because they won’t come into force until after the next election, he argues he gets off on a technicality. Since nobody will outright call him a total liar without watertight proof, he’s right.
1441 – The UN resolution that can be interpreted as permitting use of force in Iraq. If you try hard enough. The coalition could never get the UN to agree to military action, because a big chunk of the UN was against it. But if you hold the resolution at a funny angle and squint, it looks like maybe Blair can send troops in after all.
So there you have it, a comprehensive guide to getting away with it. If you ever find yourself as prime minister of some country maybe these techniques will work for you too. But remember, there’ll be at least one ageing nerd complaining about you on the internet :^)
It’s not because he took Bill’s advice on non-stain clothing, but his uncanny knack of coming out of controversy without taking the blame that earned ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair his latest nickname.
But there’s more than spin to Tony’s masterful manoeuvring, so just how does he always come up smelling of roses?
---You Can Lead A Horse To Water, But It’s Not Your Fault If It Drinks---
We take our example of this tactic from the dossier linked to the Hutton report (don’t worry, I won’t go on about it).
Intelligence claimed Iraq could prepare its WMDs for use in just 45 minutes, but failed to point out that this only referred to deployment on the battlefield. Consequently, the media and general public assumed this meant the weapons could be used against British bases in Cyprus and even against Britain itself within that 45 minutes.
Although he never sought to correct people’s mistaken assumption, when the truth came out Blair coolly pointed out he never specified anything about the 45 minutes, then wandered off into the sunset.
---Muck Hitting The Fan? Hide Behind A Fat Man---
They say the old ones are the best, and using a scapegoat, or if you will, a human shield, has certainly passed the test of time.
Watch the artful positioning of the Prime Minister, using the assistance of media allies, during recent backlashes regarding the equipment and funding available to armed forces.
Geoff Hoon took massive damage, but the burden of responsibility never quite reached the door of No. 10. When executed this well, it’s an art form. And a spectator sport.
---I Know Something You Don’t Know---
In a relatively stable political position, your enemies need proof before they dare make solid accusations against you. Sure, they can allude to accusations, but that won’t do too much damage – did you see Howard ask Blair for ‘reassurance’ nobody from Labour’s government leaked details of the Hutton report to the Sun? That’s as bad as it’s likely to get.
And the key to making sure your opponents don’t have that vital proof? Hide it.
Mr Blair has solid proof, he claims, that Iraq have WMDs. But nobody is allowed to see it.
This is the single point holding up the entire Iraq war, if this evidence were shown to be wrong, unreliable or fictional, Blair would be dead and buried. So you can see why it’s so important no details of that information can ever be publicly scrutinised.
Blair can handle the suspicion there were no WMDs, for whatever reason, so long as he can lean on his information. And nobody will be allowed to challenge that crutch.
---Principles Can Hold You Prisoner, Semantics Can Set You Free---
The idea, of course, is that you can abandon policies, so long as you find a loop-hole to escape through.
Where’ve we seen this recently?
Where do you begin on this one? So many examples available, here’s a couple of them.
Tuition fees – Labour’s last manifesto promised not to introduce them, but because they won’t come into force until after the next election, he argues he gets off on a technicality. Since nobody will outright call him a total liar without watertight proof, he’s right.
1441 – The UN resolution that can be interpreted as permitting use of force in Iraq. If you try hard enough. The coalition could never get the UN to agree to military action, because a big chunk of the UN was against it. But if you hold the resolution at a funny angle and squint, it looks like maybe Blair can send troops in after all.
So there you have it, a comprehensive guide to getting away with it. If you ever find yourself as prime minister of some country maybe these techniques will work for you too. But remember, there’ll be at least one ageing nerd complaining about you on the internet :^)
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> Their reports, according to unclassified press releases,
Trusting the press now then are we? (Was it in the Sun by the way?)
> Their reports, according to unclassified press releases,
Trusting the press now then are we? (Was it in the Sun by the way?)
That's not what we were told though was it?
Pre-emptive action before Iraq leak WMDs to terroists who use them against us, or pre-emtive before some scientist works out how to make WMDs?
It's a slightly less pressing need. You could argue that perhaps it didn't justify blowing thousands of civilians to pieces after all...
Pre-emptive action before Iraq leak WMDs to terroists who use them against us, or pre-emtive before some scientist works out how to make WMDs?
It's a slightly less pressing need. You could argue that perhaps it didn't justify blowing thousands of civilians to pieces after all...
er, Iraq Weapons Survey Group anyone?
Their reports, according to unclassified press releases, essentially show that they've found evidence of a concealed research program, of banned weapons, in short anything but actual WMD. There is piles of evidence showing Iraq under Saddam was pursuing WMD.
Their reports, according to unclassified press releases, essentially show that they've found evidence of a concealed research program, of banned weapons, in short anything but actual WMD. There is piles of evidence showing Iraq under Saddam was pursuing WMD.
Up to the politicians to decide? Which politicians? The ones who wanted evidence and proof of Saddam's threat to the rest of the world (the UN), or the ones who wanted to brush over the fact there wasn't any evidence? (Bush and Blair)
I wonder what Hans Blix makes of all this...
I wonder what Hans Blix makes of all this...
I was very disappointed about Blair's enquiry - looking into the intelligence, but not at all into the political reasons for war.
He said 'that's for politicians to decide'. What? Decide after the war took place? You'd think so with all the 'Iraq's a better place' reeled off whenever anyone tries to question the reasons.
Of course, an investigation into the reasons doesn't decide the reasons for war, it just (hopefully) shows the public what they really were. And since Blair claimed to be so certain about the very intelligence he's now questioning, I think it's more than fair to question what those reasons were.
He said 'that's for politicians to decide'. What? Decide after the war took place? You'd think so with all the 'Iraq's a better place' reeled off whenever anyone tries to question the reasons.
Of course, an investigation into the reasons doesn't decide the reasons for war, it just (hopefully) shows the public what they really were. And since Blair claimed to be so certain about the very intelligence he's now questioning, I think it's more than fair to question what those reasons were.
It is not a case of sticking up for anyone.
So you think that's OK? Just because that's what happens? I don't know how you can say that and still stick up for Blair.
Sure, you should be able to expect integrity in politicians but the fact is this is a democracy, an increasingly stupid one, and the majority don't tend to vote in the person with integrity but the one who tells them what they want to hear.
Well, yes we deserve better, but will we ever get it better... i doubt it. All the mistrust now felt for the govmt is likely to just lead to more voter apathy... and in the worst case, at the next general election we'll end up with the extreme parties gaining seats (BNP with their aggressive campaigns for example).
It's all very depressing.
It's all very depressing.
I think Belldandy does make some very good points, but still I really don't think they justify the government's apathy towards the public misinformation.
Yes, lots of people are pretty dumb, yes, if they'd taken time to look into the Iraq thing they'd have seen nobody tried to actually claim there was a direct threat from Iraq to the UK (though even now the 'but the world's a safer place now' arguments do *imply* otherwise), most of those who claim 'whitewash' seem only to be doing so simply because the government didn't get any criticism, rather than looking at the reporting events and the government's handling of the dossier to draw their own conclusion.
But I stand by the view that you really should be able to expect a high standard of integrity from your politicians, which includes making sure political truths are reported, whether the mis-truths work for or against them, and however dumb some of the public seem. However disappointing the reality tends to be, we deserve better. Don't we?
Yes, lots of people are pretty dumb, yes, if they'd taken time to look into the Iraq thing they'd have seen nobody tried to actually claim there was a direct threat from Iraq to the UK (though even now the 'but the world's a safer place now' arguments do *imply* otherwise), most of those who claim 'whitewash' seem only to be doing so simply because the government didn't get any criticism, rather than looking at the reporting events and the government's handling of the dossier to draw their own conclusion.
But I stand by the view that you really should be able to expect a high standard of integrity from your politicians, which includes making sure political truths are reported, whether the mis-truths work for or against them, and however dumb some of the public seem. However disappointing the reality tends to be, we deserve better. Don't we?
Page: