Hasn’t this been proven false with the revelations by Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke that Bush was gunnin’ for Saddam since the first day he took office?
I think the answer is that he’s slightly left of the far-right conservatives, but throws them a few bones to keep them in his base. All that pre-election talk of being a “compassionate conservative” and having “moderate” views was just lying to the electorate (which, as we now know in retrospect, he’s very willing to do).
My understanding is that if Blair hadn’t backed Bush… Bush would have become totally isolated and the UN might have been wounded beyond repair. I guess Blair hoped to bring Bush back into the UN umbrella and soften the rhetoric from both sides of the War issue.
Was it a "noble" sacrifice ? Yes up to a point. Blair really beleives that toppling Saddam was a great thing to do. I guess most people too. What was wrong was how Bush went about it... stepping on toes and saying the rest of the world should stay put while the US played "liberator".
My reckoning is that Blair miscalculated how anti-multilateralist Rummy and Cheney were. (Bush is the puppet). He took a lot of political flak from the callous comments by Rummy about not needing British troops to invade Iraq.
BTW I saw the Blair biography yesterday in A&E... and its a sad ending to what seemed like a great politician and leader's career. Supporting Bush was the silliest thing he ever did... special relationship or not.Well, having agreed with London_Calling on one thing, I have to disagree over this:
I hear this all the time, and every time I do it startles me because it is so far from reality. Those who think the U.S. has shifted heavily to the right in recent years need to consider this:
In 1964, Barry Goldwater ran on an almost libertarian platform, and won the nomination of the party. He wanted to dismantle the government in big ways.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan said that government is the problem, and not the solution. He advocated wide ranging cuts in government programs.
In the 1980’s, pet conservative causes in Congress were forced prayer in school, abolishment of the NEA and the Department of Education, and a rollback of all government regulation. The EPA was under constant attack. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell had so much power that they could wield a de-facto veto on just about any Republican move to the left. It was virtually impossible to be a pro-choice Republican.
The early 1990’s brought ‘The Gingrich Revolution’ and the ‘Contract with America’, which was a pretty conservative document. When Hillary Clinton proposed nationwide health care, she was met with howls of outrage at the very thought.
And look at the Democratic party - in the past, it was full of people like Patrick Moynihan and ‘Scoop’ Jackson - conservatives and moderates.
Fast forward to today - The U.S. has a Republican president who has increased the budget of the Dept of Education by 43% since taking office. He doubled the budget of the NEA. He proposed a new 543 billion prescription drug benefit for seniors. Under Bush, government spending has grown faster than it did under Clinton. Hell, Bill Clinton famously said, “The era of big government is over”. George Bush does not believe that. He also does not believe that government is the problem, and not the solution. By the standards of conservatism past, George Bush is damned near a liberal. At best, he’s a moderate Republican. He bears the most relationship to an old Southern religious Democrat, in my opinion.
And the Republicans in general have exorcised their most reactionary elements - Jerry Falwell went from being a power broker to an embarassment, as did Pat Robertson. No one listens to either one any more. And when’s the last time you heard from Ralph Reed or the Christian Coalition? They used to be in the news daily, and they drove large swaths through the Republican party. Not any more.
I think what has happened is that the Republicans have moved slightly to the left, but the Democrats have moved WAY to the left, so the gap between them is larger and that makes Democrats think of Republicans as more conservative. But they aren’t. Just go back and pick up a copy of, say, “Policy Review” magazine from 1980 or 1990 and see what the issues were. You might be surprised.
People who say “the United States has moved to the right” are talking about a fifty year trend. You, on the other hand, Sam_, are talking about a single Presidential term.
1, 2, 3 and 4 were examples of a rightist orientation.
Sam_'s description of the Bush Administration is supposed to show a leftist shift.
In other words, his examples made my point.
Umm… they both want a page of their own in “the history books” ?
They both like a good war to bring the country together ( ha ) and secure a election win (remember the predicted “Bagdad Bounce” which lasted about 15 mins- ha ha) ?
Blair knows he will look more sensible whilst standing “shoulder to shoulder” with NumptyBoy. Like when you always get a tasty lady out with a minger and you and your mate have to fight over who gets the fluff.
He misjudged just how big a fukup they would end up making.
He thought that there would be more support around the world for Iraq. He just looks like a poodle coz no-one else turned up.
These are all IMHO and take no account of the politics of the pair of course. As that was the line of the OP - i’ll shut up now !
Sin
Oh; well, I’ll let him speak for himself, but I took his point as
IOW, Bush is not out of the US mainstream of the last 50 years.
I read somewhere once that one of the reasons Blair likes Bush is that he’s more honest than Clinton was, and keeps his word.
Of course, googling “Blair Bush honesty” and the suchlike doesn’t reveal any pertinent sources.