« On dogmatism | Main | PNP gives another demonstration of its world-class investigative powers »

November 10, 2005

Comments

gonzo

Everyone is more or less aware of the poodle's sycophantic deportment, what's your take on gordon brown then?

Torn

Hi Gonzo -- Brown was a supporter of the war. For that alone I'm against him. At the time of the UN resolution there was great and (misplaced) hope that Brown would turn against this disastrous adventure, causing a schism in the Labour Party. Without Brown's support Britain would not have gone to war, I am sure of that. And if Britain had not been by their side would the Americans have gone to war? I think they probably would have done, but they would have thought about it a bit harder (and American public opinion would have been a lot less gung ho). So Brown has blood on his hands as far as I am concerned. In other areas (financial probity, social conscience, etc) I think he would be a good prime minister. Dull, but very competent. I wouldn't want to see his face on the news every night though. So that's my take on Gordon.

gonzo

I see... so that really doesn't augur well for british politics, does it? I mean, what on earth happened to the real Labour Party? Where did it go? and who are these impostors? It's a real mystery to us non-brits...

Oh and I believe you're spot on vis vis Brown. have a look at this little nugget: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/KYE/x-kye-Nov2005.htm

Anna de Brux

My Bush allowed himself to be manipulated into believing anything because he had wanted to invade Iraq from day 1 of his presidency but didn't know how to do it - 9/11 showed him how.

I don't believe for a moment that he was not briefed as to the real score in Iraq prior to the invasion - that suspicions of Iraq amassing WMDs are just that: MERE suspicions. As Commander in Chief, Bush provided the guidelines as to what he really wanted to happen without going into specifics; all his aides had to do after that, was to interpret and translate those presidential 'guidelines' into what Bush had wanted to hear: that there are WMDs in Iraq, therefore must invade and conquer the Iraqis before UN inspectors are done with their job.

Of course, he needed a lap dog to the barking for him and who else could fulfill the role but UK's Tony Blair, the poodle, another outstanding and outspoken LIAR and genuine hypocrite!

The Bush presidency was dead set on getting its revenge for Bush's Sr's humiliation (for not having completed the job of in Iraq) even if it meant having to sideswiped the UN. It didn't matter an iota to Bush that in so doing, he had to weave lies and more lies, backed by miles and miles of Texan yarns!

Blair the poodle is now cast aside, whimpering in wounded agony with his tail between his legs. But not after he's swallowed Bush's woven yarns that violently divided the world - where is honor in all that?

Torn

Spot on. In support of the argument in your first para, in "Against all Enemies" Richard Clarke describes his briefing with Bush on September 12 2001:

"Look" Bush told us "I know you have a lot to do and all ... but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he is linked in any way."

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr President, al Quaeda did this."

"I know, I know.; but see if Saddam was involved ... ."

...

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the president said testily and left us. (p. 32)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad