Aparantly Blair was on a real high after is Congressional speech. Also co incided with the defeat of a left wing Union leader, and blame for mis information being levelled at the BBC instead of Govt.
So he has a drink on the plane to Tokyo. Then it hits wild turbulance and he gets a call saying David Kelly had killed himself. Blair nearly broke down at a press conference in Japan.
But the next day he is back in normal grin mode. Another country another day another time zone....China big smiles all round.
Just what is this guy on is what I want to know?
We all know the WMD excuse over Iraq is so much bshit but what if a relatively small conventional war now prevents a nuclear war down the line?
But what if a relatively small conventional war keeps us from preventing a nuclear war down the line; ie, NK? That's my big worry!
One has to wonder about the degree to which many of the actors in this two-year-long drama are walking around on eggshells how, and how many (on the contrary) are sitting in windowless rooms planning horrors which will guarantee their ascendancy once more...
But, who will believe them again? And, they can't get away with another scenario like the last one!
An ICM poll published in Tuesday's Guardian newspaper showed public faith in Blair's trustworthiness had slumped by 12 points in the past month to just 39 percent.
It also showed Blair's personal approval rating down to minus 17 from plus seven on the so-called ''Baghdad Bounce'' in the immediate aftermath of the war to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
At the same time the government's lead over the opposition Conservatives dropped to just two points from 12 two months ago, according to the telephone poll taken shortly after the discovery on Friday of the body of weapons expert David Kelly.
The poll showed Labour support at 36 percent compared to the Conservatives who were static on 34 percent.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters07-21-151900.asp?reg=MIDEAST
Quote:Noose tightens on Blair
JASON ALLARDYCE
LORD Hutton, the judge heading an investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly, is to demand that Tony Blair surrenders sensitive e-mails, paperwork and phone records which could draw the Prime Minister directly into the affair.
Hutton, whose inquiry is expected to begin later this week, will make the request after sources close to the government suggested a trail of paper and electronic data could prove Downing Street's involvement beyond doubt.
Scotland on Sunday has been told that notes on the government's decision to "out" Dr Kelly as the source for BBC claims that the case for war in Iraq had been "sexed up" may have been taken during Downing Street's daily 8.30am meetings of senior staff. A spokesman for the inquiry said it was vital that any relevant Downing Street records be passed to Lord Hutton in order to establish the role of ministers and officials in the events that led up to Kelly's suicide shortly after his identity was leaked.
The Downing Street meetings would have been attended by Blair's communications director Alastair Campbell, chief of staff Jonathan Powell and political adviser Sally Morgan. Insiders also claim Kelly may have been alluded to in e-mails and telephone calls which are routinely logged.
Yesterday Lord Hutton met Kelly's grieving family privately to discuss how his forthcoming inquiry into the death would proceed. There were reports last night that Kelly's wife Jan may have kept a record of the days running up to his suicide that could tell the full story of his treatment by the government.
Hutton's intervention was backed by one of Kelly's closest friends, Professor Alastair Hay, who believes Blair was intimately involved in the affair. He said the handover of such materials was essential and a spokesman for the Hutton inquiry said Hutton would expect nothing less.
The latest developments are a serious setback for the Prime Minister, who has been fighting hard to distance himself from the Kelly affair but now finds himself facing fresh questions about his role in the events leading to Kelly's death. Last night former Labour defence minister Doug Henderson added to the theory that Blair could be caught up in the investigation after he told Scotland on Sunday he believes Blair may himself have been consulted about the leaking strategy.
He refuses to accept Blair's claims that he was unaware of the strategy to leak Kelly's identity as the BBC source for its claims the case for war in Iraq had been "sexed up".
..
Another source close to the government said Blair's "fingerprints were all over it" and one of Kelly's closest friends insisted the Prime Minister was linked directly to the death of the Ministry of Defence scientist, who was appalled to find his name and reputation thrust into the public arena.
http://www.news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=811762003
Interesting development. If true, makes me believe Blair would do anything for a third term - lying to the US Congress would not be beneath him!!!!!!!!!
Blair strikes me as well-spoken to the point of being glib. Still I'd take him over someone who sounds as terminally clueless as Bush.
By the way, Steve, we Yanks spell it "nauseating", too...
How will this connect to Bush? Blair and Bush are, right now, joined at the hip. After all, Blair's assurances and apparent sincerity were good hypes for the Bush image. And, too, Blair is the only ally the WH has. So, if Blair goes down in all this, will it help drag Bush down? Bush's personal ratings are steadily going down (latest Zogby poll has him at 53% and dropping). And some of the WH smear campaigns are beginning to back up - more belief in and sympathy for Joseph Wilson now.
So the old tales are true....what a tangled web we weave.
The older I get, the truer those old tales seem to be, mamajuana...
If Blair goes down, will he pull Bush down? Kind of an International tell all!
mamaj and et al, The dropping polls on GWBush might be significant now, but at some point, it might reach that impenetrable level where his base of support will never change to negative. As we all know, politics is similar to religion for many. No matter how many contradictions or omissions, people rationalize them to continue their faith. Where that level is is anybody's guess. c.i.
I heard on the NPR report on Dean's campaign that there is now a blog group called "Republicans for Dean." That may mean a small shift, or a large one, so this piece of info isn't confiming or denying your timely and wise observation, CI, but just thought I'd add it to the growing mound of info on Bush-Now-Vulnerable!
CI - Interesting observation. So many factors enter into all this. Tonight, on the PBS Newshour, McGruder and Sam Dash were on, talking about the Nixon administration. The way McGruder told it, there were eerie similarities between those times and now. He said loyalty was the thing most stressed, and you didn't question if you were loyal. Which is part of what any political base is all about, anyway. Dash, who was Senate counsel for the Watergate Commission, equates the Bush administration with the Nixon one.
The Zogby poll is interesting. You can no longer just pull it up, nor reference some of it. You now have to join or register or something. Since I'm an on-line participant, they issued me a password. And the Zogby poll is one which the WH looks at, since it's usually answered to by more republicans than democrats, and they poll likely voters, rather than passers-by. But polls always tell only parts of a story.
mamaj - one big major difference, this Congress will never (and I do mean never) investigate and the Supreme Court will never (and I do mean never) require the Executive branch to turn over evidence. We have already seen situations where they appellate Courts wouldn't require Cheney to rightfully turn over evidence - evidence that could be smoking guns in both the Iraq War, Enron/Kenneth Lay and California fiasco.
This was telling - no one would appeal the verdicts to the Supreme Court (like it would do any good) either because the Dems no longer controlled the Senate.
Our government is very corrupt - and there is no mechanisms to stop it! We are under Fascist control :sad:
Many people here feel they were lied to and tricked into supporting a war that had another agenda. I never thought WMD were all that important, just a legal nicety for starting an aggressive war against an independent sovereign state.
Blair held a press conference today in which he stated again (how many times is that?) his absolute faith that we did the right thing. That the combination of WMD and rogue states is the most serious problem facing the world in the 21st century. And I'm not going to say he is wrong on that. Its just that I want to be told the truth about the real reasons for supporting the American adventure into Iraq. And the fact that there has been little to show for it, no tangible benefits or advantages leaves a bitter taste. At the moment it is all negative. Death and destruction. No WMD found. No Saddam. Billions pounds spent. No signs of a democratic pro western Iraq emerging from the ruins. But who knows in the longer term perhaps it will all come good? Blair's problem is that he has to be able to demonstrate the beginnings of a better future for Iraq but that is mainly in the hands of the Americans, and they seem to be making a pretty ham fisted job of peace making in Baghdad (although I will grant that it is not easy). I don't think the longer term benefits will arrive fast enough to save Blair. He has lost the trust of huge amounts of "middle England". So even when he is able to say that the health serivce is getting better or that school exam results are at a record high, people will dismiss it as spin or if proved true - as good luck, not the fruits of Labour policy. Whatever happens from now on, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair is damaged goods in the eyes of the electorate. But I have a sneaking suspicion that in the long term history may prove Blair right, but as someone said, in the long term we are all dead.
steve wrote:I never thought WMD were all that important, just a legal nicety for starting an aggressive war against an independent sovereign state.
I agree exactly, and when that "legal nicety" is a lie, then the whole premise becomes illegal - therefore, the perpretrators criminals!!!!!!!!!
Exactly Bill
And that's why Blair is so positive in his conviction that WMD will be found. Blair will never say "ok, give up, they had no useable WMD" because the logic of that is it makes him guilty of launching an illegal war of aggression. something the Nuremburg Trials took a dim view of. So even when everyone else has gone home and couldn't give a damn about WMD any more, our Tony will still be on the case.
Tell Walter I say "Hello" and have "Fun"!
I will certainly say hello to W and mrs W for you Bill.
(I had to edit my post above, its tomorrow I pick them up, if I left it as 'today' then W would no doubt spot it and send me a million emails.......did you see that Walter? lol)
Yeap, Steve.
(And thanks in advance, Bill! :wink: )
