Obama and Blair?
Today Obama is expected to win by a landslide with the highest voter turnout in US history. His “Change” motto has been heard everywhere from TV commercials to social networks. Yet there seems to be a dark sense of similarity between him and Tony Blair. At the time of their campaigns, both young, energetic, well spoken, highly educated lawyers, promoting social change to fashion a better country.
In 1997, no-one really knew Blair’s agenda, a centre-right middleclass barrister and politician filled the shoes of the late John Smith. His rhetoric of “Change” and “New Labour” were heard everywhere, that eventually Tony Blair and New Labour won a landslide victory after 16 years of conservative rule. Blair ended up serving 2 1/2 terms.
Blair started off as a seemingly humble quiet man, with close knit family, moderate wealth and seemingly warm and good intentions. He ended up in causing the death of tens of thousands innocent civilians overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, all in the name of promoting his own agenda, disguised as the “war on terror”. At the same time, he went from being moderately well off, to a multimillionaire with a vast portfolio of properties and advisor to multiple multi million-dollar companies. His sole trademark was his distinct ability to lie and deny the truth, whatever the facts had shown.
Many are predicting that Obama might end up with the first democratic majority win above 50% since Carter in 1976. Yet all this blind support and ignorant trust surely are the right ingredients to turn sour? Obama has no track record or any executive experience. There simply is no way to accurately know whether all his statements are true or not. He might have the same good intentions that Blair had in 1997 and is just as elegant with his words, but as many know, there is an underlying force in Politics that will steer even the best person in ways that were never fathomed.
It’s quite a show to see the US follow in Britain’s footsteps, and how they think this one man will make a difference. Let’s hope that this “Change” doesn’t take the world to a place of no return.
~ by Amrix on November 4, 2008.
Posted in Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, Carter, change, John Smith, Tony Blair, US Election
Interesting article – and fair in the “underlying force” business. All the high ideals of the innocent – naieve – politician will hit reality when they are fully cognisant of the facts.However, with reference to Blair your analysis is inaccurate, if you don't mind me saying so. Quote:”He (Blair) ended up in causing the death of tens of thousands innocent civilians overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, all in the name of promoting his own agenda, disguised as the “war on terror”.Blair did not “cause” the deaths of these people. Most of them have been killed by their own – insurgents united. Yes there is an argument that the Iraq invasion brought it to a head, giving such as these tribal groups an excuse to kill their own people even more than before. They knew that we in the west, in our usual self-blame way, would blame our own leaders. And so, yes, the argument could be laid that the invasion fomented an already bad situation where Saddam was killing thousands of his own people with WMDs while the world looked the other way.But the Iraq invasion was over in a month. It is with a UN mandate that any and all countries have been there since then.Since most people have died at the hands of the suicide bombers SINCE then, does it also follow that the UN has now killed thousands to promote its 'own agenda'?The sloppy thinking on this needs to be tackled.The only agenda of the west is to keep out forces of evil intent on destroying the freedoms we celebrate and depend on. Bush, Blair and about 30 (not enough) other countries understood this threat. For that they should be thanked and not constantly traduced.Or would you rather we just left the Middle East alone as though nothing they did to advance their various causes had anything to do with our way of life?Do you really think you'd be free to criticise leaders if and when fundamental Islamists take over the west?Obama, from what I can see is an empty suit. Blair had two years before coming to power to explain what he was about. And on coming to power he brought devolved government to Britain, in particular the historic agreement ending centuries of strife in Northern Ireland. He also saved Muslims from ethnic cleansing by Christians in Kosovo, and had to work on Clinton to get America onside. He also defeated the hand and head decapitators in Sierrea Leone, where he is now lauded as a hero. Hardly the actions of a man trying to keep power from the people, or with some secret agenda.Apart from that, largely thanks to Blair, Britain punches above its weight internationally, as it should, as the cradle of western democracy.The “war on terror” is real. Ask Pakistan as well as numerous Middle East countries where they are picking up the pieces from it weekly. And it did NOT start with 9/11 and Bush's response on behalf of the American people. Even if it had, so WHAT?! It's a tough enemy to fight when disparate and hard to recognise.Seems the battle for hearts and minds has some way to go.Personally I'd feel safer with McCain in the White House, but we have to cope with what democracy throws up. At least WE have that choice.
Considering that upto 2 million people demonstrated on the streets of London before the Invasion of Iraq, then I think it is fair to say that he (Blair) is partly responsible. The question is not whether Iraq had WMDs, because there is evidence that shows that Iraq did, but whether many innocent civilians have died, and the answer is an resounding YES.