Posts Tagged ‘tony blair’
Tony Blair denies praying with George Bush

Former PM said he never prayed with Bush before the invasion of Iraq, but he did pray with the Salvation Army

Tony Blair never did pray with George Bush before the invasion of Iraq, he said on Tuesday. “It wouldn’t have been a wrong thing, but it didn’t happen”, he told Charles Moore, the former editor of the Daily Telegraph – answering the question he had refused to answer when it was put to him by Jeremy Paxman and he was still prime minster. But he did pray with the Salvation Army, he said, when he was leader of the opposition despite the horror of some of his staff.

(Read more…)

At a debate with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, he told the audience of 450 people in Westminster, central London: “I remember the Salvation Army coming to see me when I was leader of the opposition.

“At the end of it, she said: ‘We’re all going to kneel in prayer’.

“There were two members of my office, who should remain nameless, who looked aghast.

“I said: ‘You’ll have to get on your knees’. One of them said: ‘For God’s sake’ and I said: ‘Exactly’”.

Blair, who converted to Catholicism to join the same faith as his wife Cherie, added: “One of the things I loved about meeting such people in office was their unashamed proclamation of their faith.”

At the debate Blair was funny, and sometimes self-deprecating: “I once wrote a pamphlet about why a human rights act in Britain would be a thoroughly bad idea – then, as prime minister, I introduced one” .

Even in this politician’s afterlife, his religious beliefs had a vagueness about them. He was challenged from the audience about his belief in the resurrection and while he was clear that he believed it, it was not at all clear what he meant. “My father was and remains a militant atheist” he said. “So it’s a debate I am well familiar with.

“For me the resurrection in the sense of someone reborn is a very important, indeed essential part of Christian faith. Rather than see this as part of a debate about physiology or biology, I see it was what it tells us about human condition.”

The former prime minister was speaking at a debate with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Charles Moore, Lady Thatcher’s biographer and, like Blair, a convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.

Challenged by Moore as to why he called Islam a religion of peace when no one would feel it necessary to call Methodism “a religion of Peace”, Blair replied that there were times in Christian history when you would have doubted that Christianity, too, was a religion of peace. Yet he believed that religion and democracy should grow together.

“How do we create a situation in which every religion has its truth claims reconciled with the existence of different ones? I believe there is a simple and obvious way to do this – to recognise it would be very arrogant towards God’s purpose for us, not to recognise that others have their own ideas.”

Williams rephrased the argument slightly: “A lot of religious people assume that they have to win God’s arguments for him. That seems to me a preposterous religious position to be in.” Blair suppressed a giggle of recognition.

But when it came to actual practical clashes between religious and political beliefs, the panel talked about gambling rather than sex or even assisted dying. Williams recalled the Lords debate in which the Blair government’s plans for supercasinos had been defeated. “The idea that you could regenerate an impoverished corner of Manchester by importing a supercasino seemed to me utterly utterly bizarre.”

“We are in danger of assuming that morality is self-evident, that there is a default morality which is secular and that what religious people think is just a decoration.”

Blair was unrepentant. Although he was anxious for religious groups to make their voices heard, democracy, for him, meant that elected politicians would listen, and then do what they wanted anyway: “I didn’t agree with the Salvation Army position on gambling. If people could already gamble online, so I didn’t see why they should be stopped from doing so here. [And] In the end, I as prime minister should decide what was best for the country.”

Williams was more thoughtful about the limitations of his power. Talking about women bishops, where his proposals for a compromise to soothe the feelings of the defeated opponents had been rejected by the church’s general synod, he said: “The bishops – myself included – have had to learn just how difficult it is for women to hear an all male body pronouncing on their future. I still think myself that we had the right general idea, but that’s not going to make much difference.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2012

 
Blair-Bush Iraq war transcript may be suppressed

Government may block information tribunal ruling that ordered record of phone conversation to be released, sources confirm

An explosive transcript of one of Tony Blair’s final conversations with George Bush before the invasion of Iraq may be suppressed by the coalition government, Whitehall sources have confirmed.

Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, believes there is “a case to answer” in favour of blocking an information tribunal ruling that ordered the former leaders’ telephone exchange to be released in the public interest.

(Read more…)

The then British prime minister and US president reportedly discussed the opposition of the the then French president, Jacques Chirac, to military action which he had voiced in a television interview two days earlier.

The proposed veto of the transcript’s release would be discussed by the cabinet within weeks, sources confirmed. Blair and the current Labour leader, Ed Miliband, were asked their opinion on the proposal last week.

If the government halts publication it would be the third time the coalition has overruled an information tribunal ruling since January. This is despite promises from David Cameron and Nick Clegg that they would lead the most transparent government ever.

Clare Short, international development secretary at the time, said Greive’s proposal was “truly shocking”.

“We saw under Tony Blair that the position of the attorney general, in that case with Lord Goldsmith, had become increasingly politicised, and I hope we are not seeing the same now.

“I can only conclude that, by putting this to cabinet, the present government is trying to protect the right of future prime ministers to deceive the British people in the way that Blair did,” she said.

Blair and Bush are believed to have talked on 12 March 2003 about the possibility of military action in Iraq without a promised second UN security council resolution backing such action. Blair has since repeatedly blamed Chirac for the failure to get a second resolution.

Four months ago, the information tribunal ruled that the government should disclose some of the conversation following a freedom of information request by Stephen Plowden, a private individual who requested disclosure of the entire conversation.

The Foreign Office lost an appeal against an order by the information commissioner, Christopher Graham, to disclose records of the conversation between the two leaders.

Judge John Angel, president of the information tribunal, said Foreign Office witnesses had downplayed the importance of a decision to go to war, a view the tribunal found “difficult to accept”. The government was refused permission to appeal against the ruling.

Jack Straw, the then foreign secretary, claimed in evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war that Chirac made it clear France would not back a fresh UN resolution “whatever the circumstances”.

“I don’t think there was any ambiguity.”

The issue is important because the Blair government claimed Chirac’s interview killed off all hope of a diplomatic solution.

Straw’s claims were contradicted by Sir John Holmes, the then British ambassador to France. He told Chilcot that Chirac’s words were “clearly ambiguous”. One interpretation, Holmes said, was that Chirac was simply warning that France would veto a fresh UN resolution at that time as UN weapons inspectors had not been given a proper chance to do their job.

The government has been accused of abusing the use of ministerial vetoes over tribunal rulings, most recently in the rush to stop publication of a risk register assessment of the NHS reform bill.

The November 2010 Transition Risk Register set out internal government assessments of the risks posed by the NHS reforms in the Health and Social Care Act which became law in March after a tortuous passage through parliament.

The veto over information tribunal rulings was used twice between 2005 and 2010; it has already been used twice this year.

In an interview with the Guardian, Graham voiced his concerns that Cameron’s attitude towards freedom of information was encouraging civil servants to circumvent the law. He said the Coalition may be finding it difficult to deliver their plans for transparent government.

It was revealed on Monday that opposition in Whitehall to the disclosure of key documents relating to the invasion of Iraq, notably records of discussions between Blair and Bush, has meant the Chilcot inquiry will not now be able to publish its report for well over a year.

A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office declined to comment.

© Guardian News and Media 2012

 
Former aide says Tony Blair was pressured by Murdoch not to delay Iraq invasion

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch allegedly telephoned then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair on March 11, 2003 — eight days before the U.S. invasion of Iraq — and urged him not to do anything that could delay the start of the conflict.

The allegation appears in the diaries of Blair’s former communications director, Alastair Campbell, excerpts of which have been appearing in The Guardian. (Read more…)

As summarized by the Associated Press, Blair told Campbell that he “felt the Murdoch call was odd, not very clever.” Both men suspected that the call “was prompted by Washington, and another example of their over-crude diplomacy.”

Blair recently admitted in testimony before Britain’s media ethics inquiry that Murdoch had phoned him three times during the run-up to the war. Murdoch himself claimed during the inquiry that he’d “never asked a prime minister for anything.”

According to the latest revelations, however, Murdoch wanted to let Blair know that his News International would support Britain if it backed the U.S. war. “Murdoch was pushing all the Republican buttons, how the longer we waited the harder it got,” Campbell wrote.

Photo by Sebastian Dooria via Flickr