British Prime Minister Tony Blair takes a beating from Englishman Geoffrey Wheatcroft in this piece, in which he criticizes Blair for his rationale that "it would be more damaging to long-term world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so."
Wheatcroft writes: "The harder these arguments are looked at, the more curious they seem. You don’t say: ‘My big brother is a crazy kind of guy. On Saturday night he likes to get blind drunk and drive through town at 90. It would be more damaging to peace and security if he acted alone than if he had my support, so I’ll go along with him for the ride.’ Either Washington was doing something wise and virtuous, in which case it should have been supported for that reason, or not, in which case should have been restrained and, if necessary, opposed."
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
26 Comments
What exactly did the British have to gain by going to war in Iraq?
The list of things used to threaten Brittish cooperate with going along with the Iraq fiasco will probably never be known through any crediable source.
Under the table dealings have always been a part of politics and the steady erosion of whatever honesty was left has become vitimized by the Zionist-Jew Shylock vulture.
That may be the best reason to get on with the jailing and hanging of the Zionist-Jew international criminals. Along with their latest gift: 75 dollar a barrel crude oil.
Before I leave 75 dollar a barrel crude oil, you might take note of Karl Rove and Bush’s new strategy of explaining to dumb-ass Americans why they’re paying nearly 4 dollars a gallon for gasoline.
It’s because of, get this, no less than Oil Company Gouging.”
Yes, I’m serious, it’s “Oil Company Gouging.”
Of course Karl and George don’t bother to explain how that works, but some damned Zionist bastard fool sent some “links” and I had tears rolling down my cheeks laughing as I read their reasoning. It was funny. I mean r e a l l y funny.
The Zionist bastard had no less than five “links,” so Karl has been busy.
The reason was never mentioned that Bush and the Zionist bastards of Zionist-Jew Israel have been threatening to blow-up the world’s oil fields in the Middle East, mostly Iran, with Atomic Weapons, but rather the tired old “oil Company Gouging” routine-thing. You’d think they’d get something new, but, no, there it is.
The funny part is that Oil Traders buy Oil on the open market and sell it to the Oil Companies and 75 dollars is what the Oil Companies are paying for it, so how do you “gouge” from there? Well You don’t.
Then they had a “link” which said they were gouging at the “Well-Head, yes The Well-Head, no less, and that my dear friends needs some serious “SPLIANING.”
The Truth: If you threaten the world’s Oil supply with Atomic Weapons the price goes up { for fear of the supply going down or glowing in the dark }.
Very good point by Wheatcroft. Blair should be called on his decision to blindly follow Bush.
Maybe Blair should be “called” on his decision to blindly follow Bush *by British voters*, but frankly I think Americans should be unconfusedly grateful to Blair.
My opinion is predicated on that, as things stand now, we have absolutely no idea what kind of – or how many – additional mistakes would have been made if Blair had lacked access to Bush’s ear during this time.
I can think of a few ways President Bush could have made things significantly worse. The chances are probably better than good that he would have, too, without Blair’s input.
So yeah, let Britons shed Blair because he lent some British couth to President Bush’s Cowboy Bob foreign policy, but we Americans should be grateful that someone with some brains – and a working conscience – had stuck with us long enough that he was there to keep the lynchings to a minimum.
I guess I have to disagree with you flike. While Blair might have tempered Bush’s idiocy in some small way he also gave Bush the ‘cover’ of being able to claim a “coalition”. Perhaps if Blair had said “Hell no” that might have emboldened those in and around the administration who knew better to speak up. Who know, maybe even toady Colin Powell might have objected to the folly.
You may be right, Ben. We probably won’t know for another 50 years or so, if then.
I think President Bush decided on a March to Baghdad about 10 minutes or so after he left that classroom on 9/11, and Britain was sufficient but not necessary for our coalition. We’d have gone into Baghdad with only Poland and Ukraine in our pockets if need be.
At least Blair was along to keep as much egg off our face as he could, assuming the US was going into Iraq no matter what.
The subtitle for the eventual historical text will be:
“A Mad Dog and an Englishman”
heheh DD.
Why would anyone think bush listened to blair? He doesnt listen to anyone else, why them?
Blair was just in love with shrub and his soaring popularity rating and thought he would catch the tail of the comet that was the bush machine.
I guess those comet tails burn, eh tony? Oh yeah, and they FLAME OUT too.
One way to look at this is, how is the value of a vote to NOT join the coalition maximized?
A decision to leave a coalition carries far more weight than does a vote to not join the coalition.
Britons are rightfully angry that Britain’s reputation has been dragged through Abu Ghraib and secret prisons in eastern Europe, but Americans should be grateful that Blair kept the very real power implicit in “we’re out of here” held over President Bush’s head.
The decision to march on Baghdad was made in 1996 by PNAC. The opportunity presented itself when the moron Bush was allowed to become president.
When that Zionist psychopath Ariel Sharon sat Bush down and told him all about the “end-days” and how the Jews needed to prepare the holy-lands for the second coming of Jesus, the “war on the misnomer” began.
“Spike” from “Notting Hill” would make a better president.
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/04/19/post_63.php
http://www.greenwichcitizen.com/localnews/ci_3736601
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/2658316.html
No, that’s not PRICE GAUGING, is it dumbfuck Ed?
but Americans should be grateful that Blair kept the very real power implicit in “we’re out of here” held over President Bush’s head.
Flike, with all due respect, do we know that happened? I dont think blair could afford to pull out. He would have had to admit he was wrong for backing bush.
Tony blair is no more able to admit a mistake than the preznit. Once he was in for a penny, he was in for a pound, with no way out. Just like bush.
You may be right, kfg. And I agree, his enemies would have tried to hang him for being wrong in the first place.
I do seem to remember several instances where Britain leaked information, or let drop hints that it was thinking of drawing down troop strength. These may have been used by Blair’s government to gain some control over Bush’s policy, short of abandoning the coalition.
I can think of a few ways, Machiavellian though they be, to claim the moral high ground while pulling out of the coalition, but obviously I have no idea whether they’d ‘work’ or not. And I obviously have no way of knowing whether Blair had identified similar ways to quit the coalition while minimizing the political damage of doing so.
Again, we won’t know the truth for decades, if ever.
At any rate, joining the coalition gave Blair and Britain *some* say in what happens in Iraq; those who sat out the coalition are powerless outside talking about rights and obligations.
If you’re arguing that (a) George Bush would have foregone invading Iraq if Britain had sat out, or (b) complaining about American nation-building mistakes, outside the coalition, is effective in determining Iraq’s future (or just safeguarding treasure and blood), then I guess we disagree.
Britons have every right to be angry, but Americans should be grateful – for Britain’s treasure and blood if not for Blair’s (assumed; by me if not by you) amelioration of Bush’s tactics.
Speaking of deserving blame–check out these new CNN poll numbers:
32 percent approve of Bush. That’s 5 more points than Nixon got right after he RESIGNED.
Worst. President. Ever.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/24/bush.poll/index.html
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said he wants to divide his panel’s inquiry into the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq-related intelligence into two parts, a move that would push off its most politically controversial elements to a later time…..An aide to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), the panel’s ranking Democrat, said that Democrats are aware Roberts is mulling a decision on whether to divide the inquiry and that Rockefeller is unlikely to oppose such a move if Roberts goes through with it. But one Democrat who has followed the probe said separating the controversial elements would relieve pressure on Roberts to complete the entire inquiry soon…..Questions about the Bush administration’s handling of pre-war intelligence have new political relevance as the midterm elections draw nearer. Public concern about the war in Iraq is considered a major reason for Bush’s low job approval rating, which, in turn, is widely viewed as harmful to congressional Republicans’ political fortunes.
“It has resonance in the following way,” said Phil Singer, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “One of the major critiques against Republican incumbents in the Senate they take a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil approach to the administration on a number of issues, including on the Iraq issue. To the extent the Senate Republicans continue to refuse to ask tough questions and ask for accountability, it’s going to be a political liability for them.”
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Fro...
Worst. Senator. Ever.
TrueBlue
Keep in mind that Karl Rove has his thumb into everything and polls are easy to manipulate, making them unreliable.
He is rotten to the core and will stop at nothing, no matter how underhanded, to win this upcoming election. He has the entire AIPAC Machine { of bribed congressman } at his disposal and no dirty trick will not be used.
Haaretz Reports
There is no excuse for this murder. Those so-called “rubber-bullets” are steal and have a thin coating of hard rubber so they can be called “rubber bullets.” Just another Zionist-Jew lie and excuse for brutality and a legitimate Palestinian retaliatory response.http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/709310.html
Zionist-Jews are worthless animals and Bush could stop this if he wasn’t an animal as well.
A mad dog and an EnglishmanWent out into the mid-day sun.
And got their brains fried. The Brits should have known better. They have been muddling around and screwing things up in that part of the world for a couple of hundred years now. They are about as well-liked as we are.
Clarion Ledger:
Supply fear sends price of oil higher
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060419/NEWS/604190342/1002/NEWS01
Notice how the Dallas Morning News, where the Editorial staff is all pro Zionist Israel, lies about Bush causing these gasoline prices with his and Zionist Israel’s nuclear threats against Iran
http://www.dallasnews.com/
Dallas Morning News:
“The high cost at the pump has turned into a major political issue, with Democrats and Republicans blaming each other for a problem.”Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,Lie,
Read it yourselfhttp://www.dallasnews.com/
Dallas Morning News: “Bush can’t fix this.” { don’t those Zionist-Jew bastards wish? }
The hell he can’t. He caused it. All he has to say:
” There will be no nuclear attack on Iran.” And watch the price of crude oil tumble all the way to 35 dollars and then some.
The Iran problem can be solved by trading Zionist Israel for a “Good Jew” Israel and yank those Zionist bastards out of the West Bank, disarm them and form a Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its Capitol.
Dallas Morning News:
“Bush can’t fix this.” { don’t those Zionist-Jew bastards wish? }
The hell he can’t. He caused it. All he has to say:
” There will be no nuclear attack on Iran.” And watch the price of crude oil tumble all the way to 35 dollars and then some. { A buck a gallon for gasoline }
The Iran problem can be solved by trading Zionist Israel for a “Good Jew” Israel and yank those Zionist bastards out of the West Bank, disarm them and form a Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its Capitol.
http://www.dallasnews.com/
The British government is zionist occupied just as our government is. As such, the puppet Blair had to go along in iraq just as he will have to go along in iran. At least the Brits can vote for the BNP but we Yanks have no political options.
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!!
Like Britian had a choice about going to war. They are our “Lapdog” and always will be.
Fetch!
Sit!
Roll Over!
You forgot one XXX:
Play Dead!