|Do you Bush-haters think Blair is lying too? (nm)||94Nole|
Jul 17, 2003 12:18 PM
|Quite possibly. Why? (nm)||czardonic|
Jul 17, 2003 12:41 PM
|Did he have a score to settle for his daddy too? (nm)||94Nole|
Jul 17, 2003 12:49 PM
|Don't know enough about British politics to suggest a motive. nm||czardonic|
Jul 17, 2003 1:04 PM
|don't know if I'd describe myself as a Bush hater||MJ|
Jul 18, 2003 5:20 AM
|but you may as I'm able to engage in objective criticism of elected leaders - I know most Bush lovers are unable to do that and in fact as Doug so eloquently put it the other day would rather stick their heads in the sand in respect to credibility problems, mistakes and accountability - no see evil, no hear evil, no speak evil in respect to Bush - although perhaps more appropriately no see WMD, no hear WMD's, no speak WMD's...
Blair's support for the war, unmitigated support for Bush and the increasingly right white wing of the US and problems with WMD's are leaving him pretty seriously exposed on the homefront - (whether he's made the right decisions or not in anyone's opinion) what is clear is that he is alienating a significant portion of the traditional Labour electorate - on the other hand - there's not a credible opposition from Lib Dems/Tories and the factions within the Labour party are difficult to control or unite - they'd rather agree to ban fox hunting than get the bloody trains to run or something else that's actually productive
is he lying? look at his speech to Congress - history will 'forgive' even if no WMDs are uncovered - sounds like even Blair knows Blair and Bush were/are lying
|Finish the quote, MJ...||94Nole|
Jul 18, 2003 5:40 AM
|you take Blair out of context, the following line of the speech was certainly the more important (sp?) point he was making. They are guilty until proven innocent. Even at that point, there would be something else. THe Dems need something to hang their hats on, WMD is it...for now.
The men are in no win because there does exist a large number on the left that do hate GW because he is President and not their beloved Algore whose election they failed in having the Supreme Court fix.
The left really does want it both ways they're just not willing to admit that but prove it daily by their actions.
|nobody in the UK is a democrat||MJ|
Jul 18, 2003 6:35 AM
|I realise it may be difficult for you to conceive of such things outside of the traditional US persepctive though...
when both Bush and Blair were campaigning for war they cited all sorts of 'hard' evidence of WMD's - TB even went as far as making a 45 minute deployment claim - now, some months later, it appears they at least exaggerated if not deliberately misled the public regarding their WMD's claim - perhaps you've read some of the recently published articles concerning this very point
nobody here in the UK thinks GW's rigged election, Al Gore, or the US Supreme Court have anything to do with Tony Blair, the Labour Party, British politics generally excepting the points made in my post above
if you want to rehearse old arguments we can - I thought you were looking for a comment on Blair rather than more tubthumping for your fella - but however you approach things Bush did not have a mandate when he took office - and you must at least recognise there was a cloud regarding the election
the war, Kyoto, ICC, UN, general bufoonery (pretzl choking, folksey lowest common denominator expressions, humourous diplomatic episodes), an open ended commitment to Iraq with an increasing US body count, a increasingly huge deficit, poor US employment and economy, the tax cut, failure regarding OBL and terrorism, John Ashcroft (generally), guns, record for executions, a huge increase in govt bureacracy with Homeland Security and GITMO there's lots of other reasons to 'hate' (though I'd say 'question') GW's effectiveness as a leader and policies other than just because he's president and Al Gore isn't...
I have no idea what your last sentence is all about - but perhaps it's time you revert to the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil mantra which seems to be commonplace for you hysterical American neo cons - you, Doug, Steam and other asorted rabid neo-cons have succeeded in lowering the political debate on the board to the equivalent of shouting pinko-commie liberals bad - god fearing conservative family values white guys good - but it's amusing neverthless
BTW did you realise that Blair presides over a western european nation with socialised medicince which not even the most radically arch conservative in the UK would contemplate dismantling? how'd you guys let that pinko-commie get an audience with the exalted one?
what do you think about Dean? I'd like to see him kick some Bush arse
|I think you mean Democrat (nm)||TJeanloz|
Jul 18, 2003 6:42 AM
|HEHEHE - correct! - nm||MJ|
Jul 18, 2003 6:45 AM
|Since we know W's reason...||94Nole|
Jul 18, 2003 7:04 AM
|what is/was Blair's reason for uniting with the US and waging war?
Maybe I am the ignorant one here.
Jul 18, 2003 7:42 AM
|I think there is a legitimate special relationship between the US and the UK
I think Blair recognised that post-9/11 the US would take a fundamentally different approach to the world and that Britain should be placed to:
1. influence/restrain the US; and
2. act as a US diplomat where possible particularly in quarters where the UK may have greater influence.
Better to be working for effect on the inside than on the outside. Who's had a greater effect on US policy - Britain or France/Germany?
However, while the centrist Blair (a pinko-commie by the standards of rabid neo-cons here on the board) will always align himself with power he may lose his power base at home.
People here like the American people (like people like people everywhere) but have serious reservations about Bush and such a close alignment with far-right US government policy - particularly the left wing of the Labour party (whom Ashcroft would have had executed for treason, terrorist question asking or some other trumped up hysetrical charges)
|I understand the Ashcroft concerns but||94Nole|
Jul 18, 2003 9:20 AM
|Bush has acted anything but right-wing since taking office. With the exception of the tax packages, he's pumped more beauracracy and big government in the US govt than his predecessor and unfortunately he's not finished.
I can't imagine why he is taking such extreme measures unless to remove all usual issues from the plates of the Dems (that's why they are attacking on the WMD because W is giving them all the domestic stuff they want and they can't argue that, not with any muscle).
I really am baffled at Bush's domestic agenda, as I think many are on the right side of the aisle.
I can buy your argument about the UK and Blair, I guess he too wanted to send a message to any bold terrorists that the UK will not stand idly by.
I never was much of a debater and am usually easy prey, just ask OldEdScott. Adult A.D.D. maybe.
|good question||Jon Billheimer|
Jul 18, 2003 11:30 AM
|I believe you're right about Blair hoping to influence and moderate U.S. foreign policy thereby building a bridge between the Americans and Europe. However, I think he failed. With GWB everything's pretty much a one-way street. He has gratefully accepted Britain's support but in return has not relinquished any of his unilateralist swagger. Now that U.S. servicemen are being killed in Iraq the Americans are belatedly asking for international peacekeeping support--after having labelled the U.N. and Europe as nuisances to be ignored at all costs.|
Jul 21, 2003 12:34 AM
|agreed I think he failed too - that's the tone of many editorials here - that Britain has cast itself with a doomed enterprise in Iraq and that there's no reciprocity in the UK-US relationship - it's one way and all about W - unless we'd have seen an even more extreme W without a moderating influence
difficult to ask for international support from anybody when you've ridiculed them publicly and failed to grasp the nature of their objections
|to not end up like france and germany?||rufus|
Jul 18, 2003 11:16 AM
|"you're either with us or against us". and boy, if you're against us, we sure as hell aren't gonna forget it. and you are gonna pay.|
|"(The) Dems need something to hang their hats on. . ."||czardonic|
Jul 18, 2003 9:57 AM
|Bush has politicized this War on Terrorism since 9/11. He has used the political popularity of hard-nosed foreign policy to further his domestic agenda, casting everything in terms of "homeland security" and impuning the patriotism and commitment to national security of any Democrat who has stood in his way. The GOP used the war in Iraq as a political football during the 2002 elections, and even smeared a triple-amputee veteran of a war that Bush got out of serving in and couldn't trump Cheney's other "priorities".
Yet, now now that Bush has declared the mission accomplished, every claim he made to sell the idea has been discredited -- the Iraqi's did not greet us as liberators, there is no evidence that Iraq had reconstituted a nuclear weapons program, chemical and biological weapons remain un-found, Saddam is at large, no proof has been found of links to Al Queda.
But, if a Democrat mentions any of this, they are accused of playing "politics". Of course they are. This war was about politics from the start. And given the above list of failures on Bush's part, you are right about there always being something else. Bush has a lot of dismal leadership to answer for.
|I guess the US soldiers that were interviewed during the...||94Nole|
Jul 18, 2003 10:33 AM
|conflict, describing the Iraqi people's warm reactions to them were lying too, huh, Czar? How many times did the Iraqi people come out cheering the troops? Many.
You want to know why we aren't seeing it in the news? Because this is the same old M.O. by the mainstream media that has been documented by insiders over and over (One example, read the book "BIAS"). One can read the WSJ and read good economic news, but the mainstream media doesn't report it. But let a company layoff a 2,000 workers and it is in the top 3 news stories on all networks and the Commie News Network. The bias is real and it is amazing how people on the left claim that Fox is politically motivated. I think I'll move to a small island off of Samoa and live off of fish and coconut.
|That was months ago. How many have since been killed?||czardonic|
Jul 18, 2003 10:50 AM
|Fact of the matter is, those scenes of cheering citizens were played ad-nauseum, especially the staged celebration surrounding the toppling of Saddam's statue. Even the "Commie News Network" ran them on a near continuous loop. There was no attempt to sweep them under the rug. Then the subsequent scenes of looting were played over and over. Then the scenes of protest. Now the reports of soldiers being killed on an almost daily basis.
But I guess you think that stories about our soldiers being killed should be downplayed, lest they overshadow the Good News about the situation in Iraq (or our economy).
|So, should we just pull out and let chaos ensue?||94Nole|
Jul 18, 2003 11:19 AM
|Does the fact that it was months ago make it any less true? What should we do? These are fanantic guerillas doing the killing. Not mainstream Iraqi people, do you agree? Don't where I heard it or read it but we were in Japan something like 7 years after WWII.
Heck, there's hardly a day that goes by that there isn't a military death somewhere in the world, combat or non-combat. I don't like it a bit more than you, but I am sure glad they are willing to put themselves in harms way to protect my and your rearend. Should we disband (sp?) the Military because people die doing their jobs? We shoudl perhaps do away with our local police forces too because sometimes they die in the line of duty?
Heck, there is almost a murder a day here in sleepy old Jacksonville FL.
In fact, there are protests every day here in the US. These are likely those that SH supported and naturally, they will be protesting. They now have to do something to "earn" a living other than rat out their fellow citizens only to be killed by SH's thugs. Usually fringe groups too because mainstream people are too busy making the world go around so that the fringe groups can protest.
What is your point?
|My point? Operation Iraqi Freedom was a corrupt attack. . .||czardonic|
Jul 18, 2003 12:00 PM
|. . .waged for political reasons that has failed to deliver its advertised benefits. Period.
But Bush got us into a mess that someone will have to get us out of, and it is becoming clear that it will have to be someone other than Bush, who does not posess the leadership skills to handle the situation -- probably the UN. Iraq needs enough peace keepers to provide stability and an objective interim governing body that is not tainted by the corruption of Bush's neo-con string-pullers.
|"a corrupt attack. . ." in what regard? Was the action...||94Nole|
Jul 18, 2003 12:17 PM
|not within the authority of UN Resolution? I think so.
What makes it corrupt? Were there laws broken by the US invasion?
|In every regard you can name that would justify the loss of life||czardonic|
Jul 18, 2003 12:29 PM
|President Bush recently made a gross misstatement about Saddam not letting in the UN Inspectors. But even if that were true, defying the UN inspections does not justify the loss of life. Especially given what we now know about the overstatements made by Bush about the imminent threat Iraq posed.
In fact, it is becoming a genuine possibility that the Bush Administration committed a federal felony by tampering with intelligence. If that isn't corruption, I don't know what is.
|It is very unlikely||Kristin|
Jul 18, 2003 6:01 AM
|...that the pure truth ever leaves the mouth of a world leader. Especially the leaders of the western world. Though I recall our own president slipped and told the truth once while on a stage, but he didn't mean for anyone to hear that.|| |