Half of Britons Say Blair Should Go - Poll

[Barrett808]

Half of Britons Say Blair Should Go - Poll

LONDON (Reuters) - Just over half of British voters believe the Prime Minister lied over the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq and they want Tony Blair to quit, a poll on Saturday showed.

The NOP poll in the Independent newspaper showed 54 percent believe Blair lied and 51 percent want him to resign.

Blair survived unscathed the Hutton inquiry into the suicide of a Ministry of Defense weapons expert, but this week has been sucked into a new row over why he went to war in Iraq.

Blair said he did not know, when he won parliamentary backing for war in March last year, that a government assertion Saddam could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes referred only to battlefield arms, not long-range missiles which could threaten other nations.

A sticking point for Blair is that no one in government sought to correct the press when they seized on this intelligence, writing headlines suggesting Saddam had ballistic missiles which could have hit British interests in Cyprus.

Opposition Conservatives have seized on Blair's apparent ignorance of the detail given the fact Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon was aware of the limits of the intelligence.

(more)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=nm/britain_blair_poll_dc

[JoFerret]

1. Why only half?

.

[Fargin Ice Hole]

2. half of the US agrees.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoFerret]

4. Blair very unlike Churchill

Churchill was an unrepentant reactionary empire builder. Blair is merely a self important and delusional, liberal minded self righteous silver tongue. He should go before he takes the party down with him and saddles the UK and us with right wing Bush-compatible conservatives.

[Briar]

6. Far from it

Kicking out Churchill was necessary for establishing the welfare state. One of the things we got right in the twentieth century!

[CJCRANE]

5. As normal with the press...

no-one asks the obvious question:

even if Saddam could have attacked Cyprus with a few missiles, why in hell would he want to do it? It's just a tiny little island that's got nothing to do with Iraq.

Let's face it, just about every country in the Mediterranean could attack Cyprus if they wanted to but know they wouldn't get away with it without the full retalitaion of the British/NATO military.

It's just like the story that Saddam could've attacked New York with pilotless drones sent across the Atlantic - even if he could have done it, why would he?

[Avonrepus]

7. If Blair goes

Which is unlikely, who would rEPLACE him? would it be a REAL Labour MP or just another Blairite, I'd imagine the latter. As for Blair/Churchill similarities, they've both messed up Iraq. Remember Bliar once said, "we should gas the tribes, to spread a lively terror", or was that Churchill?

Also do you think Brown is a Blairite? I think at best he's Blair in a LAbour sheep's clothing, I'd imagine he wouldnn't change much.

[CJCRANE]

8. Gordon Brown's the man

to replace Blair. His solid, no-nonsense demeanor is the perfect antidote to Blair, plus he's been positioning himself for this opportunity for his whole adult life. I get the feeling that he's to the left of Blair, and would move the party closer to the centre. The Blairites would try to stop him moving the party too far to the left though as they'd be worried about losing the crucial "Middle England" votes.

[fortyfeetunder]

9. I'll believe it when...

they vote for removing Blair. And Britons are probably as skeptical as we are about our opinions on *.

[CJCRANE]

10. Blair's not really the main problem anyway,

it's his master.

But the only way to get a fresh start in international relations would be for master and apprentice to be replaced.