Bush And Blair: Secrets & Lies (The Rotting Albatross That Is Iraq)

[KittyWampus]

Bush and Blair: Secrets and Lies

The rotting albatross that is Iraq still hangs around Blair’s neck, and, after the revelations of secret government papers laying out the dangers of joining Bush’s war, its stench has become impossible for anyone to ignore but for the man closest to it – the Prime Minister
By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor

BLAIR’S secrets are out, and this is what he knew a full year before the invasion of Iraq: the war was illegal, it would turn into a quagmire that could last for generations and it was more than likely that, once Saddam was overthrown, a new Iraqi government, even a democratic one, would start developing weapons of mass destruction.
These warnings were contained in a series of top-secret documents that Blair read and digested long before the invasion. It’s little wonder that Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, says these revelations are “the crown jewels”.

The documents show that, despite the reservations of his own foreign secretary and the Cabinet Office Overseas and Defence Secretariat, Blair was swept along by George W Bush into a war that the British people did not want. His motive? The preservation of the transatlantic special relationship. America, under Bush, was going to take out Saddam no matter what happened – and the White House clearly expected its loyal ally the UK to follow in step behind the US.

On Monday, Blair began his week by trying to draw a line under Iraq. At the TUC conference in Brighton, he attempted to put Iraq on the back burner by talking up his domestic agenda. His choice of words couldn’t have been more ironic: “Even if I’ve never been away, it’s time to show I’m back”. He could have been talking about the spectre of Iraq hanging over his career and British politics: Iraq has never been away, but today it’s back with a vengeance.

http://www.sundayherald.com/44911

[JNelson6563]

1. This seems appropriate

http://www.bushflash.com/brits.html

Cheers--
Julie

[Catfight]

2. Interesting video clip. Both Bush/Blair should be hung. n/t

[hedda_foil]

3. Good grief, Julie!

The real story of how Bush threatened Blair into poodledom, complete with choir and trumpets!

This is a must see flash.

[mike_c]

4. time for regime change in poodleville....

eom

[Carla in Ca]

10. Is Blair pulling troops to avoid impeachment?

n/t

[democrat in Tallahassee]

5. does that mean no more English muffins? what'll we call em now?

freedom muffins?

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Remember you will have to ask your

xenophobic member of congress for that

:-)

[KittyWampus]

7. How About The New Cologne- Freedom Leather?

actually, that sounds about right.

[KoKo]

8. Doesn't this make everyone sick.If only Blair had said NO! Will our press

report this? Will it tell the American people that Bush rammed an illegal war down our throats and killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and over a thousand of our troops killed and thousands more maimed and mentally destroyed the lives of thousand more?

How can anyone read this and not just want to explode. Why did Blair do this and coerce his legal counsel into saying it was legal to do it when everyone told him it wasn't.

Now Blair is pulling the Brit troops out and leaving Bush in the mess.

I think this was leaked because Blair Govt. is ready to distance itself from the Chimp. What will the British public think about this? :nuke:

[Mr Creosote]

12. Interesting times ahead

for Mr Blair. Victory of historic proportions in 1997. Defeat of historic proportions in 2004? Or 2005?
It should be impossible for him to lose. There is a swing of huge proportions required to overturn his massive majority, and electoral demographics give him a huge advantage over the Tories.
BUT:
Turnout: turnout is falling election after election - largely because of the behaviour of politicians. This will work against Blair.
Tactical voting: in the recent european and local elections the Liberals did much better in the "north" and the tories did well in the "south". Repeated at the General Election this could see the Tories holding everything they have, and even making a few gains, whilst their vote transfers en masse in the "north" to the Liberal Democrats allowing them to make big gains.
Scotland: Labour can only lose in Scotland. The Scot Nats just re-elected Alex Salmond as leader. He is high profile and very effective. Unlike his predecessor. A resurgent Scot Nat party will take votes only from Labour. This will either result in more Scot Nat MPS, or split the centre-left vote and let some Tories back in. Either way it's bad news for Tony. Which is one reason why he may call an election quickly before Salmond can really get at him.
Looking at the individual parties:
Conservative: haven't actually done anything to cause a further collapse in their vote. Haven't done anything much to pick up votes either. But with a collapsing Labour vote and tactical voting should make gains.
Liberal Democrats: the only question remaining is how much of a breakthrough they make. Big gains at Labour's expense in the "north".
Labour : hugely unpopular. Vote will collapse - relying on demography and unsophisticated voting to hang on. The other option is some kind of manufactured pre-election stunt (shock discovery of WMDS perhaps).

So Mr Creosote's conclusion is:
Labour will win again, but with a massively reduced majority, on a much smaller share of a much smaller vote. This should raise questions about whether the politicians have degraded the political process to such an extent it no longer produces legitimate government.
Blair will face problems. Internationally his policy was to be Bill Clinton's very bestest friend, and then Dubya's very bestest friend. The future President Kerry has far too much intelligence and integrity to fall for Blair's old bollo, so that will call a temporary halt to the "special" relationship (has anyone in the US even heard of it, I wonder?). Blair will have problems in parliament, since it will be new labour that loses out more than old labour. He is a weak man and will be gone within 2 years. His successor? Well it's supposed to be the resolutely pro-war Brown, but whether the Blairites really want him is, at best, an open question, as is whether old labour would stand for him either. PM Robin Cook?

[Amigust]

9. If Blair Knew, Bush Knew Too

"the war was illegal (why should he care!), it would turn into a quagmire that could last for generations (guarantee of big $$ for his daddy and buddies--and himself? too; starve the beast and hatchet domestic programs) and it was more than likely that, once Saddam was overthrown, a new Iraqi government, even a democratic one (not a chance), would start developing weapons of mass destruction (after all the big $$, that's irrelevant, just more opportunity)"


http://amigust.blogspot.com

[struggle4progress]

11. kick for Tony B Liar

:kick:

[Disturbed]

13. Iraq was a wet dream...

that morphed into a bloody nightmare.