I think there would be more damage to Blair if he did this, it would be implicit justification for all the anti-war people, it would confirm in their eyes and many undecideds that intelligence was misused and the British public were misled and deliberately misinformed.
By cutting away from Bush he would be felt to be saying Bush was wrong, that the war policy is American and his moral stance was faulty.
I know someone who just spent a few weeks on holiday with relatives in Texas. She is 17 years old and those American teenager of her own age were not even aware that British forces were even in Iraq at all, not even in the previous Iraq war.
I would not extend this ignorance to all Americans but it certainly shows a lack of awareness about events beyond US borders by some, and these teenagers happened to be all college types too, lord alone knows how badly informed less able Americans are.
I wonder to some extent just how much Bush himself is in possession of the facts and how much control he exerts in the White house amongst his hawkish administration.
Its more about what power and influence does Blair have than “finding a way” to snipe Bush… thanks for nothing.
What about people who support Bush and DO KNOW who Blair is. Many people like December used to like to rattle off about the "allies" and Blair ? I have no love for Bush... quite the contrary... but Blair is a serious politician and I felt he carried more weight.
Are you not paying attention? Blair carries no weight with the American electorate. None. He’s nice to have around, eloquent and able to articulate an actual reason for going into Iraq, but that is it.
Blair’s sole ability to manage anything within the administration is based solely on his personal relationship with Bush. If you believe that Blair is a moderating influence, hope like hell he survives.
Basically you want to know why America insists on allowing a president to remain in power when world opinion tilts solidly against his policies. Christ! That’s like wondering why Chrétien is still in power despite banning Brazilian beef on little merit and subsidizing Bombardier to Embraer detriment. Because Brazilian opinion means nothing to the Canadian electorate.
Actually I think what Blair does or what happens to him does matter a great deal to the politics of the Iraq war.
First of all the average American may not know or care a great deal about Blair but the people who supply him with the news and commentary do. There were plenty of fence-sitting moderates in the US who were greatly swayed by the eloquence of Blair and were re-assured by the British participation in the war. These are the kind of people who work for networks news or write editorials in newspapers. If , for instance, Blair resigns because of the Iraq war this will have a huge impact on these informed moderates and this will in turn percolate to the population at large.
Secondly Blair was a hugely useful ambassador for the US policy in Europe. He was probably responsible for that letter from various European leaders in support of the US. His troubles will definitely diminish European support for the US on this issue . European leaders already know that their public heavily opposed the war. They saw Schroeder ride his opposition to the war in the polls. Now if the biggest European supporter of the war is in political trouble because of it it will serve as a warning to them.
Do you never read what people say? Its been said over and over again, but here’s the short version. Whatever Blair may say or do, its internal to the British people and has little or no effect on the American Electorate. Understand? Thats not to say that Blair isn’t liked and respected here, because he is. Thats not to say that his views carry weight, because they do. Its not to say that some people would be hurt, angry, disappointed, etc. if Blair did what you are suggesting. But the issues that will make or break Bush are INTERNAL to our country, not the views, opinions, rants, or what have you, of other countries, peoples, leaders, etc. Get it??
Try this for drill. Pretend for an instant that your president in Brazil supported Bush in the Iraq war. Then, say, Bush and your president had a falling out and Bush denounced him for some reason. Would that change how you voted? Would it make you want to vote for someone else? Would you even care? If you did, would it influence you more than the internal issues in your country? What if the country was France or Germany, and they had a falling out with your president? Would you care? Would it change your vote? If the answer is, as I suspect, ‘No’, then why do you suppose that it should change mine?
You will have to come up with another great scheme to get rid of Bush unfortunately, as this dog won’t hunt, as my in laws from North Carolina say (not sure exactly what it means, but it sounds good).
Well personally, as a Canadian voter,I think it was despicable how Canada played dirty in that trade dispute. YMMV (our current problem with Japan beef imports might be considered poetic justice).
I think we’re being a little simplistic here. Yes, if Blair yanks support and starts calling for UN leadership in Iraq the US electorate might for the most part not even hear about it. It will affect what Bush&co can do in the world stage and that could well reach the public. If no other countries are willing to fight in Iraq under American military leadership you can bet that will mess with US occupation plans/costs.
I agree you CarnalK, I was simply trying to find a Brazilian example.
The thing about UK support evaporating is that it leaves the US only slightly more isolated than right now. The British position on UN involvement hardly changes; while other countries play pretty much the same game as before, continue to isolate the US. Problem is how big a difference does one more veto/abstain vote make when it was already 3-2? As others have pointed out it likely doesn’t do much for domestic politics.
It occurs to me that it might get played up as way for a Democrat contender to avoid being tagged as inexperienced in foreign affairs. Who the hell cares, when the current “expert” is doing so well?
I also think the internationalism of the American public is understimated. They may not know a whole lot about world politics but they do have a sense that it’s dangerous for the US to undertake foreign-policy adventures alone. If you look at the polls both before and after the war you will find consisent majorities for strong UN and international involvement in Iraq.
And like I said the members of the media establishment who help shape public opinion are even more internationalist and have been strongly influenced by Blair.
If Blair fell it would not be a fatal blow for Bush but it would be a blow.
xtisme… if my president had been blunt and undiplomatic we certainly would think a bit worse of him. We certainly would think that he shouldnt be pissing off other countries… but then Brazilians are worried about their image beyond our borders more than the US. The press here wouldnt let a diplomatic disaster go by without sucker punching a president. We of course might think the other president started it too.
I do understand americans mostly dont give a shit about what others think. The less than brainy americans at least. The next election wont be decided by these Bushites or the liberals… it will be decided by moderates and undecided. A small % will swing it either way like it did last time. So what a few million think is quite relevant.
These might be swayed to vote Bush if the 1) economy get better. 2) Iraq shows some hope 3) Diplomatic efforst improve. They might vote democratic if 1) Economy goes worse, 2) Iraq becomes worse, 3) Diplomacy becomes shambles and finally thou not likey 4) Blair jumps out ?
Do you disagree that the few will make a difference ? That if the economy and Iraq doesnt change much… that unlikely things might gain electoral weight beyond the likely ? Anything is ammunition in an election.
So if you still think what Blair does in an election year is totally irrelevant I am surprised. He might in fact tone up his support for Bush… and we all know americans are suckers for a nice british accent.
No you don’t understand, despite ** xtisme**’s excellent posts. American politics is driven by domestic issues not foreign policy. This, shockingly enough, happens through out the world. You seem to feel slighted by the fact that the US might re-elect Bush despite world opinion of his actions.
Foreign opinion of American policy is simply not relevant to its elections. It has nothing to do with giving a shit or not. That the knuckle dragging red necks, who could only dream of being as worldly aware and insightful as your Brazilian elect, are interested primarily in their own lives and those of their countryman, rather than someone else’s seems to boggle your mind.
What obligation does the US electorate have to you or the rest of the world? And why?
Of course world opinion is not that relevant to the elections themselves… but its effects are certainly relevant to the US. The US electorate is ignorant as are most electorates around the world… but then they arent the ones making foreign policy. I am worried about the few that can tip the scales… or some of the elite that might feel the effects of big changes. (Blair or not.)
Hell, you can pretty much say that the raison d’etre of our whole damn country is our desire to not care what other people think. 99% of the people in the US are direct descendants of people who deliberately chose to leave “the old country” behind. Why the hell should those people turn around and ask the old country for advice?
Hard to see how he can be much more stalwart than he has been. FWIW, Rashak, I’ll make you happy. If Blair were suddenly to about-face, I’d ask why, and if he gave the least hint that it was about saving his own political bacon, I’d ignore it. If he says he’s changed his mind about Iraq, I’d simply say that I thought he was right the first time (and moreover, it’s too late to go back now).
But yes, if he were to come out and say W personally lied to him or that he has become aware of the evil nature of Dick Cheney, or some other scorched-earth break that no sane PM would ever undertake, yes it would affect my view somewhat. Of course, I am bigger a Blair fan than 99% of Americans … and I didn’t vote for W last time anyway.
Very middle class Londoner here, and the wife is a fully paid up member of the chattering classes (Journalist), and my experience is totally different.
Whilst I and my chattering pals may be interested in Hutton, and find ourselves disgusted about the levels of venality, corruption and lies from this administration, it is far from the dominant issue.
Frankly outside the chattering types no one cares less about Hutton.
What will decide the votes of my pals are the local schools, crime, property prices and the size of our bonuses (bonii?).
As to the anti-war hippies; that was a flash in the pan, and once the war started it vanished. It’s just the swoppies who are still making a noise.
Do you know anyone who will vote SOLELY on the basis of the war?
I would say they bear the responsibility of having elected a man who has launched an illegal invasion of another country which has resulted in countless problems around the world. While I understand that many Americans do not support these policies, the American people as a whole bear the collective responsibility for these actions. It would be fine to care only about domestic policies if they restricted themselves to domestic issues but the fact is that the USA is meddling in many places around the world and this has effects on people outside the USA.
Now, if you are saying the USA should only care about its own interests and the rest of the world be damned, then a corollary of that is that the rest of the world can say the same thing and killing Americans is justified if it serves the interests of someone around the globe.
