Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
To Gasps from the Gallery, Blair: "We Should Be Proud of the War"
Shouts of 'murderer' and 'liar' as the man who took us into Iraq states his case
Asked by the inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, whether he had any regrets, he replied: "Responsibility but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein. I think that he was a monster. I believe he threatened not just the region but the world. And in the circumstances that we faced then, but I think even if you look back now, it was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office."
An anti-war protester wearing a Tony Blair mask stands behind wooden bars in a mock jail as he demonstrates outside the Iraq War Inquiry as former British Prime Minster Tony Blair is called to give evidence in London , Friday, Jan. 29, 2010.
(AP Photo/Alastair Grant) Sir John appealed for calm as a heckler shouted: "What, no regrets? Come on!" His voice fading, Mr Blair insisted that Britain - especially its armed forces - should feel an "immense sense of pride" over the Iraq war. He added: "I had to take this decision as Prime Minister. It was a huge responsibility and there is not a single day that passes by that I don't reflect and think about that responsibility." He insisted that the war, which cost the lives of 179 British soldiers, was justified despite the failure to uncover any weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Blair even predicted that Western leaders might be forced to invade Iran, as it presents as serious a threat today as Iraq did under the rule of the "profoundly wicked, almost psychopathic" Saddam seven years ago.
The former prime minister closed his long-awaited appearance before the Chilcot inquiry by arguing that the world was a safer place following the war. Members of the audience, who included the families of dead servicemen and women, yelled "murderer" and "liar" at him, while several were led out of the hearing in tears.
Mr Blair admitted making mistakes in preparing for the aftermath of the invasion and in presenting the case for war. But he was otherwise unrepentant about joining the US-led military action in March 2003, making plain he was preparing to send British troops into Iraq long before the invasion began. Although weapons of mass destruction were never uncovered in Iraq, Mr Blair argued that Saddam "retained absolutely the intent and the intellectual know-how to restart a nuclear and a chemical weapons programme". He repeatedly singled out Iran as he warned the current generation of world leaders that they face a similar dilemma today, adding that his fears at the time - that failed or highly repressive states with WMD "become porous, they construct all sorts of different alliances with people" - were even stronger now "as a result of what Iran particularly is doing".
Police mounted a massive security operaton outside the QEII Conference Centre in Westminster as Mr Blair was smuggled in through a rear entrance to give evidence. Before the cross-examination began, Sir John Chilcot, appealed to members of the audience not to heckle Mr Blair - and warned his witness to be truthful.
Once the questioning began, the former prime minister fiercely denied misleading the country in the count-down to war. He said: "This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It's [about] a decision."
Mr Blair dismissed claims by Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington, that he had secretly committed to join an invasion when he met George Bush at the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002 - almost 11 months before the war began. He insisted that he had said nothing in private that he was not saying in public - adding that Sir Christopher was not at the meeting.
Mr Blair said that during the meeting he was still pressing - despite US scepticism - for a fresh attempt to bring Saddam to heel though the United Nations. But when asked what message he believed Mr Bush took from the talks, he said: "Exactly what he should have taken - if it came to military action because there was no way of dealing with this diplomatically, we would be with him."
Mr Blair told the inquiry he believed the "calculus of risk" posed by rogue states changed completely following the attacks of 11 September 2001. Before then the international community had relied on a "hoping for the best" strategy of containing Saddam Hussein through targeted sanctions and enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq. But he admitted that it was the "risk calculation" that had altered since 9/11, rather than the intelligence about WMDs.
Apparently contradicting assertions at the time about the "growing" threat from Saddam, Mr Blair said: "It wasn't that objectively [Saddam] had done more ... It was that our perception of the risk had shifted."
Later Mr Blair said he stood by his use of the word "growing" in the September 2002 dossier making the case for war, pointing to claims (that were subsequently disproved) that Saddam had mobile units for unleashing biological weapons. Mr Blair, who said the dossier was regarded as "somewhat dull and cautious at the time", also maintained he was right to assert in the document that it was "beyond doubt" that Saddam had developed WMDs. Mr Blair told the inquiry: "I did believe it. I did believe, frankly, beyond doubt."
Mr Blair did acknowledge that the Government should have made clear that the notorious claim Saddam could launch weapons within 45 minutes referred to battlefield munitions rather than long-range missiles.
He said newspaper reports focusing on the 45-minute claim should have been corrected. But in a reference to the battle between the Government and the BBC over the claim, and the death of weapons scientist David Kelly, he said the issue took on a "far greater significance" in the light of later events.
He admitted that the coalition made two crucial mistakes in planning for the aftermath of the invasion - not catering for "the absence of properly functioning civil service structure" and that "people did not think Iran and al-Qa'ida would play they role [in Iraq] that they did".
He did strike a note of contrition, saying he was wrong to suggest in a recent interview with Fern Britton that he supported regime change regardless of whether Saddam had WMDs.
The protests: ‘Lies, deceit, evasion'
Murderer, liar, war criminal, coward. Few attendees of a public hearing can have been met with such naked fury, but these were the words which greeted Tony Blair as he arrived at the Chilcot Inquiry yesterday.
As the former prime minister slipped quietly through a side entrance of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in Westminster, a crowd of 200 anti-war protesters chanted: "Blair lied, thousands died." Yesterday, their numbers diminished from the two million who marched in protest before the Iraq invasion, but they made their voices heard.
"He does not have the integrity to come and face the people. Sliding in by a back door entrance is typical of his lies, deceit and evasion," said Lindsey German, convener of the Stop The War Coalition.
Campaigners bearing placards calling for the prosecution of "Westminster War Criminals" and sporting "Jail Tony" T-shirts mingled with a fancy-dress parade of wig-clad "judges" carrying the pictures of dead Iraqi children.
But amid the circus, a sombre, dignified note was struck as campaigners solemnly read out the names of soldiers who had died in the conflict, while the families of some listened silently in the drizzle.
Inside the inquiry, families watched uncomfortably as the man they blame for their relatives' deaths spoke. One father walked out, proclaiming it was a "complete waste of time". Theresa Evans, whose 24-year-old son Llywelyn was among the first to die in the invasion in a helicopter crash, said: "I would simply like Tony Blair to look me in the eyes and say he was sorry. Instead he is in there smirking."
Others heckled Mr Blair as he finished his evidence. One of the audience shouted, "You're a liar" to which a second added, "and a murderer".
In the final twist, Grace McCann was held back by police as she attempted to perform a citizen's arrest on Mr Blair on his way out of the building. Inspired by a website, arrestblair.org, she insisted her actions were the only thing worthy of a "war criminal".
- Posted in



146 Comments so far
Show AllIts so hard to even comment as Blair seems to exist in a reality far detached from real life.
Yep, that's a psychopath for ya. They say and do whatever they like, and feel neither shame nor remorse.
We **MUST** learn to deal with them as the virtual non-humans they are, diagnosing them in childhood and locking them up forever. They create 100% of the non-accidental misery in the world.
Are you on the commission that decides to lock children up "forever"?
There is no such commission, but there should be. And if I were asked to sit on it, I would.
I apologise if I'm making an unfair inference, but you sound like you think young psychopaths are normal children, just a little off. That's very much not the case. Here are some examples of just how much "not":
------------------------------------------------
In 1979, sixteen-year-old Brenda Spencer received a rifle for her birthday. She used it to shoot kids at an elementary school near her San Diego home, wounding nine and killing two. A reporter asked her later why she had done it. Her answer: "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day."
In 1993, two bodies were found on a country road in Ellis County, Texas. One was male, one female. The boy, 14, had been shot, but the 13-year-old girl had been stripped, raped, and dismembered. Her head and hands were missing. The killer turned out to be Jason Massey, who had decided he was going to become the worst serial killer that Texas had ever seen. He tortured animals, stalked another young woman, and revered killers like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and Henry Lee Lucas. He was nine years old when he killed his first cat. He added dozens more over the years, along with dogs and even six cows. He had a long list of potential victims and his diaries were filled with fantasies of rape, torture, and cannibalism of female victims. He was a loner who believed he served a "master" who gave him knowledge and power. He was obsessed with bringing girls under his control and having their dead bodies in his possession. [He's apparently psychotic as well as psychopathic; the two don't always or even usually go together]
Nine-year-old Jeffrey Bailey, Jr. pushed a three-year-old friend into the deep part of a motel pool in Florida in 1986. He wanted to see someone drown. As the boy sank to the bottom, Jeffrey pulled up a chair to watch. When it was finished, he went home. When he was questioned, he was more engaged in being the center of attention than in any kind of remorse for what he had done. About the murder he was nonchalant.
On April 13, 2000, three first-graders in north-western Indiana were apprehended in the act of plotting to kill a classmate. They had formed a "hate" club and were trying to recruit other girls to join them in the planned slaughter. They were not yet sure whether they would shoot their target victim, stab her with a butcher knife or hang her. Their plan was interrupted, but another victim in similar circumstances was not so lucky.
Jessica Holtmeyer, 16, hanged a learning-disabled girl in Pennsylvania and then bashed in her face with a rock. Afterward, a witness reported Holtmeyer to say that she wanted to cut the girl up and keep one of her fingers as a souvenir.
----------------------------------------------------
Psychopaths are incurable by any current technique. In very real and important ways, they're not human, just human-shaped.
In my human development studies I've been exposed to case studies of at least younger children being brought out of remorseless bullying states, so the human technology of creating environments for establishing sympathetic and empathetic relationships, though still new, are becoming more available and refined.
The level of hideous violence is not a great point for your argument: once there is a maladaptive response in the sympathetic/empathetic relationship process the perpetrator is oblivious to the amount of human harm being done.
Plus, your argument below about healthy people being swayed by the communicative qualities of the psychopath is also weak. A healthy person will on the first instance of meeting a psychopath have an intuition that something is off, with confirmation coming within 15 minutes of a speech or other behavior pattern. But of course that brings US to the collective problem...where are the healthy people? Change which insurance agents and lawyers get the commission on health care if you want, but it won't get at the root of the health problem that leaves Helen Thomas as the healthiest person in DC; no offense meant to Helen, she must be lonely in some ways. Psychopaths like Blair and Bush send their nation's youth through the Big Muddy time and time again because they get applauded for doing so. It's sickening to recall, but remember when Bush, for about 2-3 years, actually had members of congress baaing like hounds during the State of the Union Address'?
And now this malaise of the Nation's Mass Consciousness of not questioning the Afghan Surge until after the summer of 2011...what, we're going to pin the atrocities on Barak Obama because we call it Obama's War? "Grandma, Grandpa...what did you do during the Middle East Catastrophe Regarding Oil and Gas?"..."Well Johnny, we did all we could do...we called it Obama's War."..."I'm so proud of you, you're really part of a Great Generation!" No, the sickness is broad and deep. Blaming the sickness on Blair, Bush or Obama won't reveal the real challenges to be faced, or reveal the answers for solving those challenges. And the killing of the first born male of Americans or Afghans deemed psychopathic by "some such commission" on children won't help either.
In my human development studies I've been exposed to case studies of at least younger children being brought out of remorseless bullying states, so the human technology of creating environments for establishing sympathetic and empathetic relationships, though still new, are becoming more available and refined.
---------------------------------------
Psychopaths sometimes bully, but few bullies are psychopaths. The children you describe have deficient self-other boundaries, so that they don't automatically identify with the other, but once it's brought home to them, they "get" it and begin generalising. That fixes the problem. Psychopaths never "get" it, and never generalise. They often become skilled at *feigning* human responses, but they do it in an instrumental, self-serving way to deflect anger, etc.
---------------------------------------
The level of hideous violence is not a great point for your argument: once there is a maladaptive response in the sympathetic/empathetic relationship process the perpetrator is oblivious to the amount of human harm being done.
---------------------------------------
Again you're confusing the behavior of normal offenders with those of psychopaths. Normal offenders can indeed grow callous and contemptuous of their victims' pain. But psychopaths have in-built, hardwired callousness. The difference is subtle, but enormous. Normal offenders can be (re)trained, but obligative psychopaths have nothing *to* retrain, as far as we can tell.
---------------------------------------
Plus, your argument below about healthy people being swayed by the communicative qualities of the psychopath is also weak. A healthy person will on the first instance of meeting a psychopath have an intuition that something is off, with confirmation coming within 15 minutes of a speech or other behavior pattern.
---------------------------------------
Not so, the evidence being the amount of clinical literature on the subject. Yes, the "stupid" psychopaths will trigger a response in healthy people because they're too stupid to be self-protective. But the smart ones have learned, and don't. In case descriptions, trained clinicians have noted as a caveat how easily even they can miss the momentary pause as the smart psychopaths assess a situation and pick a normal-seeming response.
Mairead knows what she's talking about, Puck.. Twain.
No, the ordinary person does not know in the first fifteen minutes that something is off.
I could tick off the names of members of our political bodies, our own leaders, various leaders of the world, television personalities and other well-knowns, and be able to say with more than a fair amount of conviction, that person is a psychopath. One gets more sophisticated about psychopaths as time goes by. Because I have a strong background in psychology, I had a tendency to go for the behavioral change models and the possibilities to help turn people around, but then I had my own personal experiences with psychopaths, and learning the lessons was very, very difficult because they look and sound so normal and can be so clever and accomodating.
You cannot turn psychopaths around. They are masters at indicating that they have learned their lesson, that they see your point, that they are going to change their ways ... because, for example, it is in the interest of the psychopath wanting to be given parole to convince his social work group leader that he is ready for the outside world or because, it is in the interest of another psychopath to stay in a marriage for the convenience of hearth and home when he knows his/her mate will believe him/her again because that's what the mate really wants.
I fear that our country and other nations of the world have truly become infected by the clusters of psychopaths who are our/their "leaders" and/or the manipulators of us.
Mr. Obama always includes in his speeches the words "the decency of the American people" and "American values."
We are not, by any stretch of the imagination, that culture of decency anymore. We never were fully, but there was in the vast majority of people a basic decency, both innate and learned, that made for good neighbors and good communities. But I am talking the end of the Great Depression and the WWII years and a couple of years after that. Enter the mind/emotional manipulation and intellectual dulling of television programming/conditioning and the corporate/marketing model, and in a few short years, the cultural changes morphed and morph into something more coarse and more shallow ... about every ten years or so and even less time now.
As far as our American values, ... what are those values now? I would offer that they are more reflective of our psychopathic leadership than not and they are essentially based on one-liners rather than anything deep and thought about and clearly chosen.
If you haven't, read Dr. Hervey Cleckley's seminal work on psychopaths, THE MASK OF SANITY, published in the early 1940's, do so. It is available for download. He realized that over and over and over again in his psychiatric practice, he was fooled and made to be the fool by particular young people and adults he worked with. And he began to realize these people were a whole 'nother breed of humans, now sometimes called "intra-species predators."
Check out lovefraud.com and the accompanying interactive blog site, started by a psychologist who herself was totally taken in and married to a flaming psychopath.
"Decent" by the way doesn't order more drone bombings that maybe kill a couple of "terrorists," but always kill civilians -- men, women and lots of children -- anywhere from seven to 177 at a clip. "Decent" does not publicize that it has set up three tent hospital facilities in Haiti, providing expert and excellent medical care 24/7, and never mentions the plans to bomb Gazans again and continue building steel walls 60 feet deep in the ground to prevent food, medicine and other humanitarian care coming in to a bombed-out Gaza Strip through tunnels from Egyptian territory. "Decent" does not supply the bombers of Gaza with fleets of aircraft that carry in their bellies the additional gifts of illegal White Phosphorus and Steel Splinter bombs to drop on the unarmed populations of 40 to 50 per cent children and young people. "Decent" doesn't keep claiming decency when the plans are to invade and bomb many other nations.
Frankly, Mairead has a point. For those cat-burning, limb-severing, head-bashing little psychopaths, lock 'em up. Treat 'em well, and help them create a life right where they are. For the rest, if it were possible as in other days years back, bring them before an International Court, etcetera. But obviously too many of the Judges of the Courts themselves and the attorneys are themselves psychopaths or infected by this psychopathic culture.
Where this all will end is not looking good. And I would say at this time, that a few of the strongest nations in the world are governed by psychopaths and have clusters of them around them and also the usual minions who like to be near power and do what they are told. The people sleep on with their vapid dreams, and over-all, that is a recipe for the kind of disasters we have not yet seen.
a very unpeaceful /cm.
Some people figure they are qualified, even though many psychologists are somewhat 'psychopathic' themselves. I say beware of those who deem themselves qualified to judge others in this regard, especially when given the power to decide their fate(s). They are often members of the "I know what is best for you (and everyone else), even if you don't" club.
And others, who never doubt that ego is a perfectly good substitute for training, are happy to take the part of the Bushes, Blairs, Obamas, et al. and their childhood precursors. It's almost canonical.
(It's surgeons who need a touch of psychopathic fearlessness to function well. Psychologists, like cops and lawyers, tend toward suspiciousness.)
Perhaps turing them into Jannisaries (euniched warriors/diplomats) would work.
I can't imagine how. It's not (as far as anyone knows) sex-hormone linked.
True. But castration will keep them from breeding.
For sure it would do that! But the condition is not known to be heritable, either.
There's a study that found a strong genetic component, but its methodology is badly flawed. For some reason, they chose to compare twins who were/are *not* raised apart, thus contaminating any conclusion about genetic influences.
I think you are 100 per cent right.
There is nothing to say to or about someone who lives in such a hermetically sealed bubble.
Blair says he has no regrets over the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the subsequent deaths of over one million Iraqis, and the poisoning of the land with Depleted Uranium.
He also says he would repeat his actions.
This 'man' (and I use the word very loosely) is a psychopath. Utterly without conscience or morals.
And Government and business today is top heavy with such individuals.
Neither Bush, nor Blair, nor any of the other criminals who engineered this human tragedy will ever be held accountable before a court of law. That means that 'law' no longer means justice (if it ever did). Our governments and our courts now belong wholesale to the moneyed and Corporate Elite.
It's time to bring this farce to an end.
Time for 'Western Civilization' to leave the stage. It's done more than it's share of damage.
Do you really see Western Civilization disappearing? I don't and the replacements, China for one, are coldly capitalistic.
Not so much disappearing as collapsing under it's own weight and garbage. There is a grotesque overbalance of 'wealth' at the top (the Elites) and an identical mass of the poor and destitute ate the bottom.
Something has to give.
And when it does, we will see the end of modern technological life as we presently understand it.
And yes, I will miss the various and sundry conveniences it brings me.
But I know how to garden, forage and scavenge.
Because you will have the few remainders of the Elite in their security patrolled enclaves, with their new serfs, and the vast majority outside making do with whatever they can scavenge.
Note to Blair: Leaving all ethics aside for a moment, your logic is lacking:
Removing Hussein and his sons did not require the deaths of over a million mostly innocent people.
Even slime like yourself know that. You can't fool everybody with your lies or even disingenuous statements such as your continual placement of Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence.
History will be very unkind to you.
They could have gotten Saddam when he was on the 60 Minutes interview with Dan Rather prior to the attack and saved all those lives.
MSM still lets Blair off the hook all the while he lies to them with a straight face. How was Iraq supposed to build a nuclear weapons programme while the UN occupied the country? It's not even realistic but MSM doesn't challenge these ridiculous statements but rather focuses on his emotional justifications without regard to fact.
Pride?
Be proud?
"He suggested the world could now be faced with the threat of a nuclear-armed Iraq if he and President George Bush had not taken action to confront the Iraqi dictator. "
In 2000, sanctions had reduced Iraq to a broken state.
Had the US/UK not attacked Iraq, those sanctions would still be in place today. Iraq would not be any closer to fielding nukes than they were in 2000.
Blair's statement also ignores the work of the UN's IAEA inspection teams.
Psychopaths say whatever they like with no sense of shame or wrongdoing. They will tell even the baldest lie with such aplomb that healthy listeners can begin to doubt their own understanding of what's real.
There's some speculation that the legendary ability of vampires to control their victims might have a partial basis in people's experiences with psychopaths.
Yeah, but mainstream media lets them slide when making such unsupportable statements no matter how ridiculous.
I am not sure who came up with the moniker that Blair was Bush's poodle, but he definately nailed it! The only way Blair can have no regrets is if he is a psycopath!
The poodle thing was good to ridicule him with, however Tony got paid off in more ways than one. I don't have hard evidence, but I can assure you that Tony is laughing all the way to his account at United Bank of Switzerland. Remember British Petroleum and BAE Systems were lobbying him heavily in favor of the invasion.
I find it very disheartening to realize again and again that politicians in any given country who rise to the top are for the most part scum without ethics, morals or principles that only aim at getting richer and mantaining power whatever the cost.
But no matter what they do they wont brake my belief that truth and justice will prevail, they wont stop us and we wont give up.
Agreed. WE will prevail with truth and justice.
Blair has to live in a world delusion to not have a mental break down. He is repeating what he tells himself everyday. Not to say that he is innocent, hardly. He is a war criminal and knows it very well, so he is defending himself every moment.
He should be put on trial with all the evidence open and revealed as is suppose to happen in a free society but that will not happen until the American Empire is dismantled and put on the run. Then and only then will we see justice for all of the war criminals who we call/called our leaders.
and the latest: an anti-war protester was restrained by police as she tried to make a citizen's arrest on b'liar as he left the 'iraq inquiry' fiasco...........
these bastards are protected, left, right and centre.......
apparently she got the idea and nerve from the website: arrestblair.org.............
hey tony blair - you say you meant well
so how come you fear you'll end up in hell?
a fine catholic man you claim to be
but your name will be damned for eternity.
The hard fall of Tony Blair.
"W" Bush must be laughing his a$$ off, sitting back, scot free, clearning brush. "Poor Tony." "Heh, heh... Ain't gonn happen to me."
Out Out Damn Spot!
all the perfumes of arabia will not sweeten this little hand..............
I guess B'liar did not understand that it was NOT so damn insane or Hussein that attack the USA on 9/11. Bush's friends who were sequestered out of the USA immediately after the tragedy, were the culprits. It was Bin Ladin , a son of the very family Bush et al were in business with for years. You know the war arms and machines.
Kiss $ss Kiss $ss Kiss $ss you can't interupt business.
Thank goodness for Chretien who refused to be bullied by the USA, in particular Bush as well as B'liar. If it would have been Harpo, Canada would be in Iraq as well.
Under Blairs flawed , Any country could invade occupy and install a new government in any other country it saw fit to, simply on the basis of a "hunch" that they may someday pose a threat to someone else.
He has essentially validated Hitler's invasion and occupation of Europe
What a pompous imbecilic asshole.
Of course he's a smug Bliar and a murderer and an insult to poodles with all the thinking power of the murk at the bottom of the deepest quagmire.
Yup, typical psychopath --- like most Republicans. They believe their own lies on a certain level. They know they are this close [] to cracking up if their facade falls away -- and it will eventually.
And most so-called Democrats as well, remember how many of them supported the invasion? Just about every Democrat in both Houses gave Tony a standing ovation, remember? The Brits have a two-party system as well, if you don't like Labour what are you going to do vote Conservative?
Exactly. The two party system is designed to preserve the status quo. The pretense of choice helps placate the rabble. If real change happens, it's going to be through some other medium.
The Brits have a multi-party system, just no proportional representation as yet.
"He suggested the world could now be faced with the threat of a nuclear-armed Iraq if he and President George Bush had not taken action to confront the Iraqi dictator."
Still spinning the lie of WMDs in order to go to war for the military industrial complex corporate dogs to make a ton of money. How much money? Go look up government contracts and faint. Brits have their piece of the pie too and certainly wouldn't be denied. MONEY money moneymoney
really? how can you have first past the post with a multi-party system? Last I checked the C/L have been in power for a century.
It's the first-past-the-post that leads to the possibility of having a government that received less than 50% of the vote. Even if there were but three parties it is conceivable that one of them could win with as little as 34%.
The Liberal Democrats - who spoke against the Iraq invasion - have promised to introduce proportional representation - if & when they ever make it past that post!
Yes, a two-party system, like I said. If/when PR electoral system is introduced (unlikely) we can expect a multi-party sytem (like those on the Continent)
There have been coalition governments - such as the US presently enjoys.
re your earlier assumption on 100 years of C/L rule.
Lloyd George, PM during WWI years, was a Liberal.
He's also the one who promised the Zionists a homeland in Palestine.
I was off by only a few years with my generalization, however first past the post (winner takes all) is indeed disproportionate and leads to dominance by two parties. Any comparative govt. text will tell us that. Coalitions during wartime are a bit of an exception. Parties have changed names and morphed over the years, however the US and UK are similiar in that they have seen dominance of the same two parties for ALMOST a century.
a de facto duopoly.
bad cop, worse cop.
That's what I always say as well, exactly as you put it. We should make T-shirts with that written boldly on the front.
my T reads: it's a matter of notional security