Tinfoil hat conspiracy re: Blair and his imminent removal from power

[knowledgeispower]

:tinfoilhat: Okay, this might sound crazy and far fetched, but here is my theory about the whole Tony Blair fiasco:

It was all engineered by the Bush Administration to get Blair out of power and discredit the labor party so that the conservative party or the torries can get back into power.

Think about it: wouldn't George W. just love to have Margaret Thatcher II as his partner across the pond? The two of them could plan the spread of absolute "free market" capitalism to every niche of the globe. I'm talking the Enronization of everything. It would be like the Robber Barons of the 1920's, only on a global scale never before seen in the history of mankind. This is what Reagan and Thatcher were working towards in the 80's.

But then they got derailed by that damned Bill Clinton. To make matters worse Blair came into power in London and all of a sudden you had labor/democrats ruling the (arguably) two most powerful nations in the world. Blair was immensely popular: in 2000 there was no end in sight to his rule. Clinton also proved to be immensely popular in time, and he should have been rightfully succeeded by Gore. In fact, Blair openly "endorsed" (to whatever extent a foreign power can) Gore in the 2000 election.

Then the coup occured and the Bush administration seized power. They couldn't do shit until 9/11 (another tinfoil hat conspiracy I subscribe to). But after 9/11, the world was their oyster. They succeeded in attacking Afghanistan (despite extremely dubious links to 9/11: after all it was the freaking SAUDI's and PAKISTANI's that funded that operation) and thereby were able to build their much wanted oil pipeline to the Caspian Sea Basin (check out this link to learn more: http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html).

But that is sort of a side note, really. The main point is that the Bush administration then set its sites on Iraq. The evidence that Iraq had to be invaded was extremely dubious. Shit was just plain made up, like connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda, connections between Iraq and 9/11, and of course the forged nuclear documents. Yet, for some reason, Blair stood by the United States as it flaunted world opinion to attack Iraq. Why?

Blair has always been a proponent of the United Nations and NATO. Neither of those organizations would endorse or take part in the invasion. So why did he back it? Furthermore, Blair is quite the politician. Almost 90% of Britons opposed the war before it began, so why did Blair proceed despite overwhelming evidence that it would be damaging, perhaps beyond repair, to him politically? IT JUST DOESN'T ADD UP. How does a guy who openly endorsed Bush's opponent in the 2000 elections suddenly end up Bush's best and only friend among world leaders?

As if the war itself were not damaging enough to Blair (he still managed to avoid the number of casualties the U.S. has experienced after all), then came the Dr. Kelly thing. I think most reasonable people can begin on the assumption that Kelly did not commit suicide. So who murdered him? Was it Blair to cover up the fact that the intelligence behind the attack of Iraq was "sexed up"? I would think not, it just seems too obvious and would get Blair in too much hot water (as it has done).

So who killed Kelly? Is it possible that the Bush Administration had Kelly killed to bring more heat on Blair? Kelly's death combined with the Iraq war scandal has all but assured Blair's exit from office and a corresponding fall in Labor power is highly likely. Isn't this just what the Bush administration should want? Like 9/11, are they really damned lucky, or did some guys in a smoky room engineer the whole damn thing?

This is what I can't answer: why Blair felt compelled to go along with the Bush Administration when it must have been obvious they were trying to doom him. The only thing I can find is from Greg Palast about a meeting between Blair and Bush shortly after the election in which the Bush Administration told Blair they would destroy him and Britain if he didn't fall in step with them. Here is an excerpt from a Buzzflash interview with Palast about this:

BUZZFLASH: Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were very similar. They were centrists. They were able to get elected by being moderates to both sides of the aisle. And Blair, like Clinton, is known as an intelligent man, unlike George Bush. People are so surprised that Blair is not only supporting Bush's agenda, but is in lockstep, as if he's following the orders of the Bush administration. And I'm not kidding when I tell you that we've gotten a slew of e-mails from BuzzFlash readers that suggest Karl Rove must have embarrassing pictures of Tony Blair, and they're blackmailing him. And it sounds ridiculous, but how do you explain this intelligent man walking his country and his soldiers into hell following the orders of George W. Bush?
PALAST: You're getting warm. The answer is Irwin Stelzer. He is the guy who is a good friend of George Bush from the Hudson Institute, and the most powerful lobbyist in Britain representing British-American interests and, by the way, chief lobbyist for Rupert Murdoch. As soon as Bush seized the White House, Stelzer walked into Blair's office and said ‘we noticed that you were supporting Mr. Gore during the Presidential election' - even though clearly that didn't carry many states. Blair's effective endorsement of Al Gore did not go unnoticed. And there was a price to be paid. Blair was given a list of the things that would befall Britain from military subsidies and equipment, to a reduction of value in the dollar versus the pound, which would destroy England's exportability. And Blair was basically told get in line, stand up and salute or "here's your last cigarette, Tony."

You can read all of that interview here: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=188&row=4

And here is a full article from Palast about the meeting: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=31&row=4

So what do you guys think? Is Blair just an evil bastard? Is he being forced out by the Bush Administration?

[Old and In the Way]

1. Definitely think he was used, abused, and now can be discarded

for a new pro-Republican PM. I think Tony's support for the war was related to BP interests in the ME, but, first and foremost, I think he was played by this administration. If he ends up on the board of directors of Carlyle, then I'll have read this wrong.

[Classical_Liberal]

2. Tony allowed himself to be used just like Gray Davis

Neither had to. Tony isn't even sorry he allowed himself to be used, so why feel sorry for him. The Tories won't come back in Britain, and neither will thet republicans in California. . Why because Arnold's free enterprise theories are what fucked it up. Arnold even hired the dumbass who deregulated California Power as his campaign manager. In England New Labor IS thet Conservative party. The tories are just assorted crackpots. Additionally, Tony is just the head of his party. He is not elected by all of Britain. He is the equivolent of the speaker of the House. The party just has to ditch Tony and they will have no problems against the Tories, or anyone else for that mattter.

[tom_paine]

3. This has crossed my mind

I don't know. Wouldn't surprise me, though.