Just to re-inforce the point : Blair is getting a shitload of grief over Iraq at the moment. Doesnt mean he has to listen. In fact he only has one answer - ‘we tried to go to the UN for a second resolution, but France said no’. He repeats it veery well though.
Luci - GWB wont pay, Balir wont pay. The Iraqis will pay for many years to come. Dunno what else to suggest really.
Sin
luc: *Sure he can. He just did. *
Yeah, at first. But now at least he’s given a serious response about the substance of the issue. I don’t mind if Bush supporters deny that Bush misled the public about the war—I think they’re wrong, but they’re entitled to their opinion, as long as they’re willing to defend it.
What I do mind is if they try to sweep the whole thing away as a non-issue inspired by mere irrational Bush-hatred. No way dude—lying about war, or starting a war illegally, is a very serious issue, and if such an allegation is at all credible, it MUST be taken seriously.
See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
My response was delayed by cognitive factors and internet gremlins. Plus some wierd ass echo effect I cannot account for.
What utter rot.
“IF I accept that the memo writer was honest, and IF I accept that his impression was accurate…”
Sir Richard Dearlove (you just can’t make something like that up…) Britains spy chief, presumably a man in whom the PM has some confidence, don’t you think? Confident enough to proceed with war plans.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-5-2005_pg4_3
“…IF* I accept the the person giving the briefing accurately understood and portrayed his bosses’ approach…”
How could he not have? By what mechanism do you suggest he was sent to the meeting with an agenda entirely opposite, or even partially discordant, with “his bosse’s” approach? This isn’t even grasping for straws, this is grasping for the shadow of a straw.
Do you hear any denials? And, further, if the British were wildly mistaken about the Bush intentions and approach, don’t you think that would have sufaced at some point, given that this was months…months, mind you…before the actual onset of hostilities.
You may wish to characterize this as “hearsay”, and I well understand why you might wish to, but hearsay from people in a position to know is quite different from the rumor one hear’s from one’s sister-in-laws hairdresser.
Got anything plausible?
What the fuck is wrong with you? It was Julia Roberts in Runaway Bride.
Honestly, after Clinton I stopped caring. They all freaking lie, and right at us these days. It’s like being outraged that the Mob would kill you after promising not to if you told them where the money was. Where’s the ‘blah’ smiley?
New CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll out today reports that 55% of American voters disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq. Your view is now in the minority, Bricker, by a percentage that George W. Bush would call a mandate.
Let’s examine these players a bit. The person giving the briefing (C) is giving the briefing precisely because he is a professional diplomat with first hand exposure to the Bush administration. Employed and charged with accurate representation of the policies expressed during such talks. His superiors, being human, can not personally attend every diplomatic meeting on every topic so they employ representatives skilled in communicating the policies clearly, effectively, and accurately. It is his job to make sure his “impressions of the way the matter was being handled by the Bush administration” are fair representations of the policy. So, the first link in the chain, the briefer giving the presentation, seems reasonably reliable. Of course you could contend the presenter was still inaccurate, being human and all, but the probability goes down a fair bit when you consider he is a professional spokesman for policymakers and charged with conducting briefings in which the content is a fair and accurate representation of the policy.
Next link in the chain, the memo-writer. I presume you understand that just like in court, these are professionals whose job it is to keep the record. The record may have errors in it but, just like a court reporter’s transcriptions, these official records of the events at the briefing are generally fair and accurate. Again this is a professional charged with capturing the meeting contents accurately for reporting to policymakers.
We’re not talking blogs here with Matt Drudge summarizing some legal document. We’re talking professional diplomats and note-takers. This is hardly something to be hand-waved as hearsay.
For added irony, please keep your “totem-pole hearsay” hat on and re-read the National Intelligence Estimates from 2002, with particular emphasis on these sections, which Bush apparently thought solid enough to include in the SotU.
Enjoy,
Steven
I’ve been wondering for quite a while now, Bricker- is there ANYTHING that Bush could do that would conceivably put a dent in your obvious admiration for the man and his policies? You seem to be pretty damned reliable- if there’s a negative thread about Bush and friends, you pop your head into the thread almost immediately to heap scorn upon the instigator of the thread.
Seriously- if Bush were to be shown to be a baby-eatin’, yak-fellatin’, liberal-lovin’ jerk, would you at any point be willing to say, “Okay, maybe he’s not as wonderful as I’ve maintained”?
'Cause at this point your stance doesn’t appear to be so much “I think he’s doing a great job” as it is “I’ve said in the past that Bush is The Man, and I don’t want to appear to have been wrong at any point in my life about him”. Um… kinda like you don’t want to appear to “waffle”, I suppose…
Bricker, completely ignoring the cite in the OP, do you think Bush was open to a negotiated, peaceful solution? If so, under what conditions?
HOw are they defining ‘voters’? THose that DID vote in the last election? Those that are eligible to vote in the next? Registered voters who are more likely to stay home on election day?
Whazza diff? If they only solicited responses from carbon-based life forms, so what? I suppose, from the Bushivik point of view, vetting them as voters makes it from bad to worse, but still, there isn’t any good news there.
Perhaps I misunderstand the thrust of your question.
You think Bricker is impenetrable, try reading something from Brutus or Clothahump sometime.
The resolution of Bush apologists to stand up for his actions continues to amaze me, even now. If only such power could be harnessed for good, instead of evil…
The thing about this that still irks me is the fact that I knew Bush was lying from the start. I was as certain about that fact as I am certain the sky is blue. But I also knew that by the time everyone else had absolute proof he was full of shit, we’d be so immersed in “Democracy For Iraq” and “Aren’t we better off without Saddam in power?” that the underlying justification would be forgotten.
Did you get called a traitor to your face for stating that fact? I did. Closest I’ve come to a fist fight in 30 years.
kidchameleon, I remember a time when a president who had won reelection by literally historic proportions was driven from office only a year and a half later for his crimes. I am apalled that my country has changed to such an extent that that is no longer possible.
But aren’t the most recent polls showing Labour, and Blair, returning to power anyway? Once he’s had his own “accountability moment”, damn straight he won’t be listening.
You have to bear in mind the UK political system is different. We don’t vote for Blair, we vote for a local Member of Parliament. Unlike the USA this means that the Execeutive and the Legislature (ignoring the permanent Tory majority in the House of Lords) is always the same party.
This means we cannot directly punish Blair without also punishing those who, as John Lennon famously put it, live in the cracks between the 2 parties. I’m in this position - I want to punish Blair but at the same time I don’t want to punish the poor who benefit from the social programs the Tories will scupper to fund their ‘to those that hath shall go more’ approach.
I can’t vote for Kennedy to be PM, all I can do is vote the Lib-Dem candidate and as they have no chance of winning in this constituency and it is a marginal, it means not voting for Labour is a direct vote for the Conservatives.
I guess I’m going to vote Labour, with the gamble that Blair will be dumped by his party in the next 18 months.
I do understand the system and the bind it puts you into. My question was if Blair will choose to interpret a Labour victory as a vindication of his Iraq policies.
I think if Saddam Hussein had agreed to full, complete, open, no-conditions, no-bullshit weapons inspections, and committed again to observing the no-fly zone imposed after GW I, I believe that would have guaranteed a peaceful solution.