Well Tony, which is it?

I hope people also, however, do not disrespect those of us who came to the view then and hold the view now that, with the history of Saddam, and with what he did not just to his own country but to the wider world, that we are safer and more secure without him in office.

Tony Blair Press conference with the Italian Prime Minister [13/07/04]

OR

My Government recognises that we live in a time of global uncertainty with an increased threat from international terrorism and organised crime.

Queen's Speech [23/11/04]

You cannot have it both ways. Either we are safer or we are not. It's simple boolean logic.

Tony would have us congratulate him for making us safer and at the same time have us willingly give up 800 years of human rights so that he can save us from unprecedented threats.

So, if we are safer, why do we have to give up our civil liberties and face the risk of political pursecution?

If we are not safer, Why not? Has Tony risked the lives of his electorate by lying to invade a broken, harmless nation that never EVER attacked us?

It is one or the other and Tony has made a complete balls up of it either way.

/. later