You would think, wouldn't you, that if you were going to take a widely-reported phrase as the title of your polemic against Tony Blair you might just check that the phrase had actually been uttered as reported? You might even listen to the recording. Top marks to Simon Hoggart (via Neil D at Harry's Place and MM at Labourhome) for drawing our attention to the fact that George Bush never said "Yo, Blair!" Listen to the start of his programme and you'll hear the President very clearly saying: "Yeah, Blair, what are you doing?"
Bottom marks, then, to Geoffrey Wheatcroft, whose book Yo, Blair!, was published in February 2007. It was a trite work of utterly conventional opinion. It even included the fake compliment, "Blair isn’t a liar", but could not even leave that as a full sentence: "... not in the sense that most of us are." Cue cliche: "Blair is something different, and far more dangerous: he is not a liar but a man with no grasp at all of the distinction between objective truth and falsehood." (p36.)
Joint bottom marks to Matthew Norman, whose recent column started (second paragraph, anyway) with another story about Blair that is untrue.
'Yeah Blair' sounds as or even more disrespectful...
Posted by: cheale | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 03:25 PM
Still sounds like Yo Blair to me and even if it wasn't his creepy Obsequience to Bush says all that needs to be said about the relationship.
There was no way that Blair was an equal partner, more a sycophant, pleasing his master.
Posted by: flipped | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 03:33 PM
I wonder if it's quite proper to use one's column to pick-off rival accounts and biography's of one's master?
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 03:36 PM
I agree with cheale: if anything "Yeah, Blair, what are you doing?" sounds even worse that "Yo, Blair". At least that greeting can be taken to lend some backslapping bonhomie to the exchange. As it stands, it sounds as if Bush is barely acknowledging Blair's presence, much as one would a casual acquaintance, rather than a staunch partner in the greatest foreign policy fiasco of recent times; a disaster, in British context, on par with Suez, and even greater in economic and military terms.
I'm hoping the Indy becomes a lot less starry-eyed about Blair. The headline yesterday, "Hope fades over EU role for Blair", really brought it home how the Blair fanboys here are still in mourning over their clay-footed hero's (much deserved) downfall. Who in their right mind "hopes" Blair would be put in an unelected office wielding significant power, especially given the following illuminating quote: "Sources close to Mr Blair suggest that he would be interested in taking the job but only if it is a done deal."
Ha! Blair the Great White Hope of Western Democracy wants to be given one of the most powerful offices of Europe without competition and without effective public oversight. He hasn't even the guts or decency to follow the examples of Hewson or Geldof and work for the betterment of the poorest of the poor in the private realm.
I saw the man was a snake-oil salesman in 1997. The state of the Labour Party (and indeed the country) today shows what happens when a leader with so much potential lacks moral fibre and casts basic decency aside for political power.
I guess "Yeah, Blair, what are you going?" about sums it up for all of us.
Posted by: Macander | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 06:13 PM
POLITICAL MYTHS - EXPRESSING A TRUTH? WHAT A RUBBISHY EXCUSE!
How long does it take the big press boys to catch on? I reported this MYTH here some months ago:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/08-view-blair-videos/#notyo
James Landau admits rather sheepishly to being the one who broke the story.
Andy McSmith, of the Independent, also admitted to using it, and says that it would have been impossible to check it properly.
QUITE WORRYING
What other myths (lies) on Blair & Bush have been around the world before the truth got its boots on?
The main message is, as a "quite disappointed" journo says in this Myth clip, "never let the story change a good deadline".
Having said all that, I DO think that even "Yeah Blair" does Mr Bush no favours. It sounds rude, and a little dismissive. Something OUR previous PM would never have been.
Perhaps that explains why neither leader was inclined to draw too much attention to the myth at the time.
Posted by: BlairSupporter | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 06:22 PM
Rentoul you're not helping your boss with this. firstly you've gone and reminded everyone about it again. Secondly yeah Blair! sounds even more disrespectful. What's wrong with Tony, Mr Blair or Prime Minister. Can anyone imagine any previous US president addressing Winston Churchill with, yeah Churchill! None of them would ever dare!
Posted by: tari | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 07:45 PM
THIS really is the level of your blogs' debate? Grow up.
Posted by: Diogenes | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 08:15 PM
John Rentoul - the Bliar apologist, I do hope that some time in the future there is a war crimes trial. I wonder if Dubbya will say "Yo Blair" as they leave their cells in the morning, to appear before the judge.
Posted by: AndyUK | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 10:34 PM
The problem for Blair was that many people believed that Bush was quite capable of saying "Yo Blair" to the PM. Politics is largely about perception. None would have believed any similar statement being made made by Reagan to Thatcher, Kennedy to MacMillan or Roosevelt to Churchill.
Posted by: Charlie | Friday, 09 May 2008 at 12:41 AM
The right wing Sun newspaper are lying about the labour party again. They claim 23% is the lowest any government party has ever had. WRONG. The tory party in 1994 December was on 22%. While Labour was on 61%. This is according to Mr Lamont's book in office. So wjhy have the Murodch press and tory blogs rpeated this lie over and over again. Even the BBC repeated the lie. Murdoch is in the tory's hand now.
Posted by: dirty european socialist | Friday, 09 May 2008 at 09:55 AM
For all of Blair's grandstanding and appearance of equality. The leader of Great Britain was revealed to be a servile inferior, hesitating before his idiot master who was indifferent to his existence. Blair humiliated himself by evangelising Bush´s foolish crusade and more importantly, humiliated our country. If we needed to be reminded of how impotent and irrelevant we are in the world today, Blair did a sterling job.
Posted by: Sid | Thursday, 15 May 2008 at 11:30 AM
Everybody has been jabbering about the placed points of interest in the conversation. Nobody mentions the key phrase Blair utters "...I know you have discussed it with British Israel..."
Do you know what that is?
Posted by: Jericho Morton | Sunday, 19 October 2008 at 02:42 AM