THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

The first meeting between President Kerry and Tony Blair will be interesting.

Kerry. I'm not sure about you Tony. You seem to be far too close to my political opponents in the US.

Blair. Well Bush is history now, and in any case if it wasn't for me helping him to **** up on Iraq, you wouldn't be here.


Where do you think he will go first?

London
Berlin
Paris
Baghdad?

My money is on Beijing

Traditionally, either the Canadian PM is the first visitor, or the Prez visits the Great White North as his first venture out of the country.

Therefore, i hope he will go to Ciudad Mexico, and make nice with our oh-so-valuable friends to the south. They serve, and are often made to stand and wait.

Now you point it out, Set I should have remembered that. I wondered why the bookmaker gave such good odds on Beijing.

Mexico eh? Is he going to give Texas back, including George Bush?

No, we stole that fair and square, we're keepin' it. I don't care what the Shrub does after he leaves 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, so long as he doesn't let the door hit him in the ass . . .

When Bush wins re-election what will you folks who are already claiming Kerry's victory say?

My guess is you folks will accuse Bush of voter fraud again.

Only if he's guilty, again.

The Mountie has spoken . . . Arf ! ! !

I was watching bush only a few minutes ago and I thought, its not just his talking ability but his walking competence that is in question.

The guy seems to have the natural fluidity of movement of semi set concrete.

Ican, if Bush wins which I admit is a possibility, I will emigrate. Mars is particularly scenic in Novembrium (earth time November).

Trouble is mountieman, he got away with it once, so whats to stop it again?

Oh my. If only all those who promised to emigrate the first time Bush was elected had done so, Hollywood would be a much less congested and much more pleasant place now.

Well I never promised to emigrate first time around foxy, and I aint no hollywoould starr and moreover I hadn't a clue what a complete a**hole shrub would turn out to be

Steve

My hometown buddy who's been living in London for thirty years wrote me last week and shared the following...


We'd been communicating regularly throughout the run-up to the the war and he had eventually decided, after the PM's final big speech, that Blair's decision was the right one (adding that his wife and two daughters thought Tony was not to be trusted).

I gather his reaction is not uncommon? I know Labour did very poorly in the recent elections.

If you could actually guarantee that plus guarantee taking all the rest of the like minded people with you (including Kerry-Edwards) to Mars, I could vote for Bush-Chenney with great enthusiasm. Otherwise I am left with a preference for a runway over a windsock.

Absolutely

I'm a member of the Labour party. I joined because of Antony Lynton Charles Blair. And I still think he is a superb politician, a great actor has great charisma and an ability to get a way with murder.

He took a gamble on Bush over Iraq, and lost....but has got away with it. Anyone who has paid attention and followed the debate realises that Blair knew exactly what he was doing and is incredulous that he could have sold a war to his own people and his own party on a false prospectus and got clean away.

But most people dont follow the debate in detail, thats the problem.

Blair's other great asset is the weakness of the opposition conservative party. Under leader iain Duncan Smith, they were more pro war than Labour, and criticised Blair for not committing troops earlier. Now under leader Howard (IDS being a complete fool) they say they would not have voted for the war had they known what they know now. (But blair pointed out recently that Howards said to an American audience only in May that the war was "necessary justified and in some respects over due")

The only opposition to Tony Blair with any integrity comes from the Liberal Democrats, but even they are a bit wobbly...being opposed to the war, until it started, then being for it for reasons of supporting our troops.


Blair wiped the floor with Michael Howard recently in the House of Commons. Just when every one was predicting his downfall, he lets rip witha broadside and goes off on his hols grinning broader than ever.

People are sick of the war. They want Iraq to go away. So does Mr Blair. And when you look elsewhere in this country, things are not going too badly. Public services are improving. The economy is bouyant. Unemployment is none existant. Inflation is none existant. Child povety is well on the way to being eliminated...take Iraq out of the picture and really the govt is home and dry for thenext election.

Finally the Labour Party itself has transformed itself from the days when it appeared to prefer internal dissent and fratricide to government, in some ways gone too far the other way, and rallies round the Furher whatever.

So what was the question? Was Blair right? Morally...dunno leave that to the churches (all say no)
politically As explained above he's got away with it
Legally. His mate the Attorney General says it was legal so legal it was.

In summary there are an awful lot of Labour mps and party members who will never for give Blair for lying to them over the necessity for war. But will they let their fury boil over into bringing down Blair and the Govt? No.

steve

Thanks for that. As depressing as it is.

Last evening, Charlie Rose (possibly the most thoughtful and interesting interviewer of arts/letters/political types presently on TV) interviewed Ted Turner, originator of CNN. Turner mentioned a conversation he had had with Blair several years ago where Turner had advised Blair that he really ought to do something about Rupert Murdoch who Turner perceived to be gaining dangerously pervasive control of the political mechanisms in Britain. Tony replied thus..."If it weren't for Rupert, I wouldn't be PM. I can't go after him."

I know we've spoken about TV dramatist Dennis Potter before. In the interview he did shortly before his death some six or seven years ago, Potter too spoke of the negative and dangerous influence that Murdoch had exerted on British politics.

Instead, 85 % of it has gone to US contractors
registration with WP (free) required

Blatham

You are quite right about the malign influence of Murdoch.

In 1992, one of Murdoch's British stable of papers, the infamous Sun, put a devastating image of the then Labour leader on its front page the day of the general election. They featured Neil Kinnock as a light bulb. Underneath was the slogan, "If Labour win today, would the last person to leave Britain turn off the lights".

And of course Labour lost. And next day the Sun's banner headline was "It was the Sun wot won it".

You have to remember that Britain is almost unique in having national daily tabloids which go to the very limit (and sometimes beyond it) of news versus entertainment.

The Sun is past master at getting the balance right. You have to give credit, they certainly know how to play the hopes and fears of the average working man. (Sex football money football and sex or any combination thereof).

And I think Blair realised both by inclination (he is not really a redistributive socialist, but a social democrat...and so am I for that matter), and from tactical considerations, that he HAD to get Murdoch on side.

And so he did. And he told the truth when he said if it wasnt for Murdoch he would not be pm. To everyone's astonishment, the Sun supported New Labour in 1997, and the current era began.

You might say well how is his influce "malign". I would say that Murdoch unlike Blair does not really have the best interests of this country at heart. He is interested in the Murdoch empire not the British empire or commonwealth or Britain as part of the EU and certainly against the euro challenging the dollar. But Murdoch also needs to be on the winning side, and try as they might to revive the Conservative party, they are dead in the water. If Murdoch were to go with the opposition in the next election, I dont think it would matter, Blair would still win and Murdoch would have done himself no favours.

Blair as I said is probably the most able politician of a generation. His ambition is to make Labour the natural party of government for Britain in the 21st century just as the Conservatives were in the 20th century. He is well on his way to achieving this, despite some local little difficulties, such as Iraq. (Phew nearly wandered off topic there)

John Kerry's alleged heroic performance in his 4-month tour of duty serving in Vietnam allegedly prepared him well for his tour of duty as a multi-year lying villifier of his Vietnam fellow servers. That in turn allegedly prepared him well for his multi-term tour of duty in the US Senate. That in turn has allegedly prepared him well for a tour of duty as the next President of the US.

Why is that?

Well hell, ain't that obvious? That's all because Tony Blair and George Bush are allegedly liars. :wink: