From the horses mouth(?): Bliar says "Dont blame me".

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Stonker, Jun 2, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. In the current edition of The Economist, a B'liar's eye view of his time in office:

    My highlighting (in blue). Seems to be saying "We're doing a brilliant job in Iraq, apart from the bits George and I totally fucked up by not having a plan."

    Need I invite comment?
  2. Waltism has entered politics, it seems.
  3. rage mode on

    cnuting cockbite
  4. The same lie repeated often enough in this case , no matter how much he wishes it is still not the truth.

    Saddam's relationship with Al-Q could be best summed up as "If I catch you , it's piano wire time"

    I join m'learned friend Halo in outrage. When does this man stop?
  5. ''We need a sufficiently strong basis, founded in a clear and even-handed commitment to our values, for the world as it changes to adopt these values''

    Arrogant, egotistical and effortlessly superior...
  6. Just to summarise all our opinions on 'OUR Glorious soon to be EX-leader'

    "Gentlemen, with a full magazine , at the target to your front, in your own time go on"
    or words / range commands similar

  7. Well said Darth
  8. Excellent summing up. short to the point and truthful, well said Sir.
  9. In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

    "While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement."

    The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

    "Politics And The English Language" by George Orwell.
  10. A thought or two:

    hmmm . . . . 8)