Tony Blair interview on The Daily Show
Posted by red pill junkie at 20:14, 19 Sep 2008I've just finished watching Jon Stewart interviewing Tony Blair on Comedy Central's The Daily Show (click here for the full episode).
It was a good show, and I do think Blair showed a lot of courage and integrity for even daring to show up with someone like Stewart, who's certainly not afraid of asking uncomfortable questions.
However, I was slightly disappointed that Jon kept the conversation too "local". They only talked about 9/11 and the war in Iraq, but he never questioned Blair on the surveillance policies that were enforced on the UK after the WTC attack and their own bombings in 2005; I would have loved Jon to ask Blair about all the CCTV cameras installed in every corner of London, and also about the poor Brazilian immigrant that was shot —viciously, I might add—in the head by British police officers because they mistook him for an islamist terrorist.
What other question would you have liked Jon to ask Blair?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- red pill junkie's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
22 December 2007
15 hours 2 min
Good Link Red Pill. I would like to know how much gold that he and President Bush stole from Iraq that was housed by Saddam Hussein and knowing, what he knows now, would he make the same imperialistic decision relative to invading the innocent nation of Iraq. Does he feel part responsible for the heighten Islamic militant fundamentalism that is brewing in the United Kingdom and was it worth siding with an idiot like President Bush. Thus, was this more about using 9/11 and stripping the UK citizens of Civil Liberties and justifying the reactionary and oppressor legislation in the name of protecting its citizens from so-called allege Islamic extremist, which in theory was no different than the United States Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act. Blair and his partner in crime, George Bush should be charged with war crimes against the innocent people of Iraq. What is your perspective and how do you view former Prime Minister Tony Blair relative to Iraq and based on the interview? Lastly, The United Kingdom perhaps since 1986 has imposed an unjust travel banned against Minister Farrakhan based on the strength of the Zionist lobby in the UK. I may not agree with Minister Farrakhan on every issue, but Blair continued this injustice against Farrakhan while he was in office. We know that he and Bush works for the same Cabal. They say jump and the reply is always, "HOW HIGH BOSS?"
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
12 April 2007
9 hours 7 min
What is your perspective and how do you view former Prime Minister Tony Blair relative to Iraq and based on the interview?
Well, he would never admit it in front of a camera—and certainly not in front of a comedian!—but you can see that he regrets the involvement of the UK in the invasion of Iraq. He tried to maintain the argument that, based on what he knew back in 2001-2002, he made the choice he thought was best. We have to assume he may have been given false or unreliable information the same way Powell tried to win the support of the UN by showing some blurry pictures that were supposed to scare the Hell out of everybody.
Maybe that's why he became a Catholic: to work on the guilt issue :-P
Lastly, The United Kingdom perhaps since 1986 has imposed an unjust travel banned against Minister Farrakhan based on the strength of the Zionist lobby in the UK. I may not agree with Minister Farrakhan on every issue, but Blair continued this injustice against Farrakhan while he was in office. We know that he and Bush works for the same Cabal. They say jump and the reply is always, "HOW HIGH BOSS?"
I was not aware on this ban imposed on Minister Farrakhan. Are we sure this wasn't something enacted by Margaret Thatcher and her iron-lady manners?
Maybe he should re-apply to have this ban revoked, now that Blair is out.[/quote]
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 December 2007
15 hours 2 min
Noam Chomsky in his book titled, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” stated, “To be more precise, it was the public that was peering into the abyss. Those at the center of power relentlessly pursue their own agendas, understanding that they can exploit the fears and anguish of the moment. They may even institute measures that deepen the abyss and may march resolutely toward it, if that advances the goals of power and privilege. They declare that it is unpatriotic and disruptive to question the workings of authority—but patriotic to institute harsh and regressive policies that benefit the wealthy, undermine social programs that serve the needs of the great majority, and subordinate a frighten population to increase state control. “Literally before the dust settled’ over the World Trade Center ruins, Paul Krugman reported, influential Republicans signaled that they were ‘determined to use terrorism as an excuse to pursue a radical right-wing agenda.’”
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
12 April 2007
9 hours 7 min
Politicians can use terrorism as an excuse to impart laws that would not be accepted on peaceful times.
This week Mexico suffered an act of violence that might be technically considered an act of terrorism. Some a-holes threw a grenade at the people gathered to celebrate our National Independence; this is the tip of the iceberg of a long series of violent events made by the drug cartels, and although the reasons why they have chosen to change their policy of no-aggression towards civilians —or 'seemingly' no-aggression, because often they have no trouble in getting into a gun fight with the police while innocent by-standers are the middle!— this act led our President to try to pass a law that would make it easier and quicker to confiscate all the material possessions involved with a criminal act.
Sounds reasonable, right? But get this: if you were a landlord and rented a house in which a felony was perpetrated, the government would have the right to confiscate YOUR property, unless you could prove you had no prior involvement with the people involved in the felony and acted in good faith. Can you imagine how much time and lawyer-hours that would cost?
So there are people that may even feel pleased when terrible events happen, because as you said, they can further their agenda and keep people scared.
Or maybe I'm going too far and they don't feel pleased, but it definitely reinforces their world-view and helps them give a righteous undertone to their statements.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
4 days 8 hours
Some examples of these kinds of responses to terrorism.
The US Patriot Act was supposed to be temporary, with "sunset" dates built in. I'm not sure where this is at now, there was debate on extending it indefinetely. In any case, the US being what it is, I expect that eventually this will be repealed. When that will be, and what parts will remain, is anyone's guess at this point. Even though GWB was certainly instrumental in passing this act, there has not been much opposition from the Democrats. On the contrary, they are helping quite a bit.
In Canada in the 1970s, there were some separatists who violently tried to make their point. Kidnappings, murders and the like. A War Measures Act was invoked, which suspended some civil liberties. This was the usual thing, allowing what is normally unreasonable powers of arrest, and search and seizure and so forth. However this really was temporary. Of course now there are again more unreasonable laws in response to the current crop of terrorists.
Germany (the Federal Republic) had a problem with domestic terrorists in the 1970s. They passed some "temporary" laws making arrest, search and seizure easier. These laws are still on the books today, and are being strengthened due to, again, the current crop of terrorists (yes there are extreme Muslim terrorists active there).
The other German state (the German Democratic Republic) didn't have need for any weakening of civil liberties because (a) they supported the 1970s terrorists, and (b) they didn't really have any civil liberties to begin with.
And then supposedly, if you want to be on TV, just walk around London, England.
This is typical stuff. It's not really any particular government, or any particular political agenda. It is the bureaucrats - as long as they can keep track of everything and everyone, they feel safe. Not that it works.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
12 April 2007
9 hours 7 min
WAR IS PEACE
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
25 November 2004
3 hours 19 sec
GW Bush said it like it is:
------
I don't believe in belief!
Perceval
30 April 2004
21 min 8 sec
Well, he would never admit it in front of a camera—and certainly not in front of a comedian!—but you can see that he regrets the involvement of the UK in the invasion of Iraq. He tried to maintain the argument that, based on what he knew back in 2001-2002, he made the choice he thought was best.
Yeah, that's come out in other statements he's made over the past year or so. He seems to get within a whisker of saying "oh boy, that was a real cock-up of a decision", but never does. Just sort of does this polite nod of the head by saying "I made a decision I thought was right at the time".
Why is it that the most in-depth and honest questions from an interview continue to be with Jon Stewart, the host of a comedy program? Rest of the media, hang your head in shame.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
12 April 2007
9 hours 7 min
Jon Stewart admits he's a comedian. I can only say... God bless the comedians!
I honestly think Stewart and Colbearr are some of the most intelligent persons that have appeared on a mass media in a very, very long time.
And they both have two very large set of cojones, too ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
30 April 2004
21 min 8 sec
What other question would you have liked Jon to ask Blair?
It would have been interesting to bring up this little slip of paper...
Hopefully if the Repubs don't get voted back in, a few people in charge might ask Dubya and co. about it at some stage too.
;)
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
12 April 2007
9 hours 7 min
Fahim says he wants Dubya and Blair to be prosecuted for war crimes, on account of the war in Iraq.
IMO the most imprtant thing that has to be restored in American democracy is the concept of accountability. You should be held responsible for your actions and mistakes, even if you're a patsy, or a CEO of a big corporation.
I think the idea of accountability began to erode with this guy.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie