On Air: Has Tony Blair's donation affected your opinion of him?

Come BBC on the man is doing a noble thing. He could have chosen to shut up and give his profits to his foundations. Lets not read too much into his noble deed but celebrate it. What's watering down his noble action is largely the anti Iraq war sentiments. If people can separate that from his donations it fair. After all, the money will also caters for soldiers wounded in Afghanistan or even Sierra Leone not just Iraq.

I wouldn't want to guess at Blair's intentions.
Why is a man who started an illegal war not being held to account?

Is Tony Blair offering "blood money" ?

Purgatory, yes/no ?!
So why the fuss?
No fuss, you make it a fuss ~ye-you!
Ye, good 'PR' for the book.co.uk
At the water~cooler I might give at thoughts.
By the way, the WAR was inevitable.
Morally unjustifiable, just like any war.

bjay

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind”

I'm afraid it doesn't change my opinion of Mr. Blair one bit. I've always considered him to be a smarmy, self-serving publicity hound. The publicity surrounding this gift simply exposes us to more of his smarmy, self-serving behaviour. I wish he would simply go away.

This borders on being like Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.....send them to war so they get hurt so you can then claim some fame for helping to mend them. This reinforces my view even more strongly that Bleah's ego blinds him to anything else but making himself look good, despite his miserable record for doing just the opposite. He should fire his publicist or get some lessons in looking at yourself through the eyes of others.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

He didn't have to donate the money. He may be taking some responsility for the outcome of his decisions. That is certainly more than the present and past administrations have done with the banking scandle. Another qustion that must be asked is why are these funds needed. It is always interesting how the patriotic flag wavers are always ready to send people off to war yet we see war after war that those same individuals do not insist that they be properly cared for upon returning. Approving bonuses for bankers in publically owned banks when soliders are in need of rehabilitation and services is one of the more disgusting examples of wealth influencing priorities and who pays the price when the lobbyist conduct their shell games. The elected seem capable of rationalizing anything.

That his action in dragging Britain into former President G.W. Bush's senseless Iraq war based on lies and deceit was the most stupid thing he ever did? No! I still have that opinion of him and no amount of monetary gifts to ease his conscience is going to change my mind.

No, not really. Mr. Tony Blair certainly supported and committed British military personnel to an unwise military action. Many people, I among them, were vigorously opposed to this war; but a great many other people convinced themselves it was an absolutely necessary action. I believe Mr. Blair was one of these. It is a common lot that our judgments may be both well-considered and incorrect! People questioning the sincerity of his donation because of lost or maimed loved ones may be forgiven their anger. Those critical without personal loss most likely share two realities: They are from opposing political parties and they are blinded by the brilliance of their own hindsight. It would be best if everyone wishing to make dispute could realize some simple lessons from this war: Aggressive wars are exceedingly bad ideas, while defensive ones are nearly always avoidable consequences of poor judgments. None ever rises to neutrality by any metric one may wish to apply.
g

7 million dollars is a lot of money and any recipient of such amounts would be grateful.

Now going to the reason for his act of charity: well Blair and Bush will have to live the fact that their judgement was greatly exposed by their decision to go and Iraq. They will have to live that all their lives. It is a shame that him and Bush let hawkish individuals, with suspect motives, lead them to Iraq. Otherwise, prior to Iraq, I was quite fond of him and what I have for him right now is a sense of sympathy.

Interesting PR move. I think Blair is working hard to try to deflect possible future prosecutions for war crimes. I am happy he made this contribution, because it will help some of those that were maimed by his terrible policy decisions. But, this in no way makes me think any better of him. It's between him and his God, but I still think he should have to answer for his crimes.

Blair didn't just help to kill 179 British soldiers but also 1 million Iraqi civilians. That's 1 million dead human beings. They are our victims too. We should stop seeing this merely from a British or American point of view and start to look at the victims. And to scrutinize much more closely the people we allow to perpetrate international crimes on our behalf. Blair is not the first and Cameron and Obama won't be the last.

One cannot make done things undone. This is nevertheless a finger given. It is better than nothing, but not so good as a hand. Itis a step in the right direction, but will not help those who died in two wars that should never have been started.
I agree with Blair in his opinion that our soldiers do a great job. It is the governments which are to blame when our lads die for no good reason. Using our army as a "foreign-legion" for USA interests is however not defending our country.

"'I believe that they [the Armed Forces] are fighting for the security of this country and the wider world against people who would destroy our way of life. But whatever view people take of my decisions, I think that there is only one view to take of them: they are the bravest and the best.'"

If that is true then the dead and injured should not be reduced to beggary to get help for what they gave. They should not have to depend on Nobless Oblige from the wealthy, all of the British people ought to pay taxes to take care of them.

The idea that the wealthy can toss a few pounds their way to alleviate their conscience, is unconscionable.

Blair will never be my favourite. I cringe at the thought that (to the best of my knowledge) we do not have any politicians that have actually served in the armed service of the country.
However it is mealy minded of the doubters (equally for the most part that have not served) to think bad of such a magnanimous gesture that will assist compensate in no small way for those servicemen that so dearly need all the respect, help and encouragement that this country can give them.
Just remember, this is for the servicemen not the politicians, our poorly equipped (by US comparison) are simply the very best in spirit and training and are certainly the most professional of the lot.

I never particularly liked Tony Blair or many of his “New Labour” policies, but at least he made the Labour party electable in the UK again and got shot of the Tories.
It all went horribly wrong when he turned into George W’s poodle and the Iraq debacle happened, I also suspect it was about that time he caught religion in a big way.
He made a terminally stupid error and possibly lied about the real situation to bring most of the rest of his party along with him, so if this donation is his way of beginning to acknowledge how much harm he has done the UK, not to mention wrecking Iraq, and all the deaths he has been directly responsible for, be they British soldiers or Iraqi civilians, all well and good. He may even eventually admit it up front, then maybe some people may be able to forgive him.
The cash sum is actually a drop in the ocean of his current and potential wealth so it isn’t exactly an enormous sacrifice, unless more is to come – maybe he could give a large donation to Lubna’s hospital (and get her to administer the cash).
I don’t think he can expect opinions of him to change, mine certainly hasn’t, just on this one action, much more sackcloth and ashes is needed, but maybe this is a start.

First we have to realize that this can be a PR campaign.
The commission involved with 'The Iraq Inquiry' has still not come out with a verdict therefore this could be a ploy to sway the public opinion in his favor.
As it is the Labor party was highly critical of the timing of the inquiry and subpoenaing some high profile people including Tony Blair to bear the witness stand which definitely seemed to help the Conservative party during the parliamentary elections.

Nonetheless, the donation is indeed a very kind gesture by Tony Blair.

The fact that The former British PM Tony Blair is donating the profits from his memoirs is a good gesture now that he is no longer in power and he wants to have a good place in the public eye. From his past interviews and speeches he didn't show any regret about committing the British troops to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His donation must be the least he can do to repair some of the damages caused by the wars.

After all, his decision to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't unilateral. It was approved by the House of commons where even his political opponents from the Conservative party voted for it. A lot will remain to be answered, especially the wisdom of toppling Saddam Hussein in the absence of concrete evidence about his possession of weapons of mass destruction.

For his opponents, especially, outside he UK, he will remain a war criminal. For his supporters, he will remain a national hero who has succeeded in undertaking successful economic policies while defending UK interests abroad.

It is a great deal of money and I'm sure it will be well spent by Briish Legion. Whatever Tony Blairs reason,it is still a noble deed,he could have done all sorts of things with it. But he chose to say a big thank you to our troops.

I think alot of people in the US and the UK were not happy with Bush and Blair's decision to take us into war with Iraq. We cannot change the past. Bottom line the money will benefit men and woman who fought for their countries. What ever his intentions it will be a good thing for these military people. I always liked Tony Blair (better than Bush), but not being a UK citizen, his decisions did not effect me like the British People.

It is tacky and somewhat insulting.

Does Blair think this will absolve him of his decision to race forward with this war? An attempt to garner favour with the public? I am sure it must have tax benefits as well.

I'm just shocked that a politician is taking personal responsibility for the decisions made under his administration.

Anonymous donations serve the cause - public donations serve the donor.
I'm not impressed.

The British Legion should just take the money for the benefit it provides. As to Mr. Tony Blair a brilliant politician stated he felt it was right to get rid of Sadam Hussien which is his genuine feeling, but in hindsight perhaps it would have been better not to have done so, for the terrible state of affairs Iraq finds itself today. A past Cabinet Minister Mr. Healy stated before the invasion words to the effect "invading Iraq was to open a can of worms with gigantic proportions". We see today he was right and the invasion should never have taken place. Iraq was better off and contained even though the dictator Sadam Hussein ruled in a ruthless way with an iron fist. Some countries just cannot live under a democracy, to think they can is mistaken. "Better a villain you know than a villain you dont".

The donation doesn't change my opinion on him, but I didn't hate him to begin with, I'm pretty neutral towards him.

Was he a good politician for Britain? Meh, but not the worst either.
Did he start the war in Iraq? Yes, together with Bush.
Is he responsible for all the mayhem after the invasion? No, the Iraqi people and foreign jihadists are (not even in occupied Nazi Germany after WWII did we see this kind of mindless, bigoted violence, so that says a lot).

It's not about forgiving him... The man is giving a large sum of money to a charity, plain and simple. The action should be celebrated whether or not you supported his decisions. While it would be nice for the families of lost soldiers to be compensated, I think the money is much better served going to rehabilitating the actual soldiers who have been injured. While I completely opposed the war from the beginning, I think that Mr. Blair made the decision (to go to Iraq) that he thought was best based on the information that he had, I don't think that he did it for selfish reasons, and I don't think it's fair to blame him entirely for the British deaths suffered in the war. However, this donation shows that he is attempting to take at least some responsibility for his actions.

I'm not impressed. All that publicity around it , the public statement, the memoir on sales ... it sound a lot like a public relation operation to me.
If he had kept it secret and low key it would have been different.

Many of you are being unfair. You are saying that he is just making the donation to improve his reputation. If he hadn't made it, or if he had made it anonymously, you would be saying that he still hasn't done anything to take responsibility for his role in the war. Would you prefer that he hadn't made a contribution to rehabilitating soldiers?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Tony Blair could have lived the rest of his life without giving anything back and still had quite a grand life. The fact that he is doing something like this shows he has regrets about some of the decisions he made. I applaud Tony Blair and see that he is as human as the rest of us.

An untrustworthy man trying to buy salvation in this way sums up his integrity, zilch.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Blair giving his donation to help the wounded and maimed of his war would be like OJ Simpson giving the proceeds of a biography to a women's refuge.

The entire argument is currently operating under the one-sdied presupposition that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. While nothing can bring back soldiers' lives or undo damage caused by war, the Middle East currently knows more broad regional stability under nominal democracy than under the maniacal ravings and cruel dealings of a latter-day Hitler.

My largely positive opinion of Mr. Blair has therefore not changed and he should be commended for his generosity.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This does not change my opinion on Tony Blair in any way, good or bad. I do not agree however, with people like Peter or other callers who are grieving. Fair enough, it is trajic that they are dead but your child as an adult CHOSE to join the armed forces, if you choose to do this you can expect to put your life at risk, sorry if you died.... your choice.

The current debate is operating under the one-sided presupposition that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. While nothing can bring back soldiers' lives or undo the damage of war, the Middle East currently knows broader regional security under nominal democracy as opposed to the maniacal ravings and cruel dealings of a heartless madman.

My largely positive opinion of Mr Blair therefore has not changed and he should be commended for his generosity.

Based on the callers who think Blair is courageous, noble, etc for this donation, apparently it is succeeding as a PR move.

But if he wants me to revise my opinion of him, he'll have to acknowledge that he was deliberately complicits in falsehoods that cost thousands of lives. That would at least be a start.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Mr. Blair is probably very aware that his reputation will not be immediately affected by this gesture of donating proceeds of his book to the Royal British Legion. But as most politicians he probably has a view to how history will remember him. There will be a softening affect by posterity as a result of this gesture. He will be remembered as a politician who cared enough to spend his own money to atone for his perceived sins, and that is probably a large motivating factor for Mr. blair to do this, using the march of time to alleviate some of the negative impressions and allow this one very positive act to shine for the decades and centuries to come.

What an appalling indictment of the British Government's attitude to its armed forces it is that it is necessary for charities to care for their wounded.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

At 7:32pm on 17 Aug 2010, Raskalnikov wrote:

"What an appalling indictment of the British Government's attitude to its armed forces it is that it is necessary for charities to care for their wounded."
---

Exactly the point! As PM, he could - while he was in power - have made sure that ex-forces personel get teated well. Instead some, who are still suffering from the Gulf-war syndrom, for example, have not even had their problems recognised by the government, let alone received help or compensation.
The British Legion does a good job, it is just a pity that we need it.

Yes, he's simply offering blood money to redeem himself for doing George Bush Junior's bidding.

I am reading a lot of what I would consider "tallest poppy syndrome". If you don't like what Blair has done in the past, YOU go out and try for a position of power. If you don't like that he is donating his time and money for a worthy cause, YOU try to do better. Stop cutting the man down for making hard decissions unless you are prepared to step up and do what you think is better.

I applaud his efforts. At least he's doing something.

I do have deep sympathy for all those who write having been bereaved or concerned by those injured in the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan (& Sierra Leone).

Nonetheless, the former PM cannot do right by them no matter what he had decided.

If Blair had pocketed money from his book's sales it would be 'blood money' & if he does as he has indicated, it is seen as a 'guilty conscience'.

Personally, I have no doubt Blair feels very guilty about the suffering his policy-decisions brought to hundreds in the UK and untold thousands in Iraq & Afghanistan. That will not alter by his donation of monies to the British Legion or any other 'good cause'. There is no atonement for those policies. I'm quite sure he very much needs his particular faith in these years out of office as the cruel debacle continues and he realises the full extent of the consequences of his actions.

However, all that said, I do not see any point in continuing to pillory the man for making decisions with which many will not have agreed: Blair wanted the job at No.10, his was the burden, he made the choices and has been found sadly, tragically wanting in the fine art of 'sound judgement'.
In 2002 I believed PM Blair was right to send UK Forces as a part of NATO to Afghanistan - - I still think that was a correct decision.
In 2003 I believed PM Blair was right to back our No.1 ally of the last 100 years the USA and send UK Forces to Iraq - - I thought it was correct - - I've changed my mind.

As ex-PM Blair has discovered and those so critically damaged by his choices have since found, unlike mine, a Prime Minister's made-up mind does not have the luxury of being wrong without consequences.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Never cared much for the man but as he knows, money talks volumes so what better way to "placate" his conscious by giving away millions!!!!

I am still not understanding this profound hatered of Tony Blair. An for all the distorted claims that Blair, the 'mericans or who ever is responsible for the death of a million Iraqi's, a ) get the number right (about a 1/5, but still too many) and b ) the vast majority was killed by insurgents and sectarian killings.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Oh yes, Tony Blair´s donation has affected my opinion of him!
I actually think this is a wonderful gesture of him and now my opinion changed therefore considerably for the better:
Congratulations, I am deeply impressed now!

My opinion of Tony Blair will never change. He joined in with Bush's illegal war and caused the deaths of hundreds of Britons not to mention tens if not hundreds of thousands Iraqis. Until Blair took office British Prime Ministers were honourable men of principal. Even though Neville Chamberlain tried and failed to appease Hitler he was still an honourable man, but Blair was a disgraceful charlatan with a glib tongue and a dishonest character. Blair may well donate some of his ill gotten gains to the British Legion but in fact he should donate all of his ill gotten gains if he had an ounce of honesty in him. He should be put on trial to plumb the depths of his duplicity and guilt in the Iraqi tragedy.

James Sanjana wrote:
"Even though Neville Chamberlain tried and failed to appease Hitler he was still an honourable man, but Blair was a disgraceful charlatan with a glib tongue and a dishonest character."
---
To a large extent I agree with James Sanjana. Neville was conned by Hitler, Blair does not have that excuse.It may be that he is now trying to say sorry in a rather backhanded way. That is better than nothing, but not as good as openly saying he had been wrong.It certainly will not bring back the lives and health lost.

Tony Blair must be ashamed of himself when he gives to charity when he is fully answerable for the war on Iraq, as his and Bush's barbaric, heinous, satanic,wanton and illicit and illegal action to go to war on Iraq and displace and misplace millions of innocent Iraqis.This action is nether justified nor justifiable and is punishable as a war crime of utmost gravity.By their action, they have permanently altered the whole Iraqi culture,way of life and heritage and scenario.
He should give his blood-stained money to Bush,his partner in crime against humanity.

I can only agree with James Sanjana, 'Blair was a disgraceful charlatan with a glib tongue and a dishonest character.'. After all the death and destruction he has brought in the middle east, a donation to charity is the very least he could do, a public apology is also in order.

Is it possible that a person's sincerity regarding an issue is not the main concern? Blair has always said "I believe" and "I did what I thought was right." Perhaps we shouldn't react with "That's all right then," but consider his actions, regardless of whether or not they were performed sincerely or insincerely. If one sincerely believes that the moon is made of green cheese that doesn't make it so; if one sincerely believes that people with red hair are invariably sex maniacs that doesn't make it so. Suicide bombers are not condoned because they are sincere (how sincere can you get?); why should it be different for Blair? Right and wrong (to the extent that this can be ascertained) is perhaps not a question of sincerity. Saying that one is sincere or that one believes is, perhaps, on answer at all.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

lraq once landed scud missiles on its near neighbours which included Jordan and lsrael so WMD were a genuine concern, by invading lraq Blair was likely to be, and has since been (financially) rewarded as we have seen, and now this City Finance Co with his name on as figurehead looks like another example, its just terrible.