Article

2003-06-03 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-06-03 12:07 am|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 so the tories are abandoning their principled support for Blair on Iraq to make political capital. Would the US GOP have done so differently??? Colorado Con, you listening?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-03 07:33:35|| 2003-06-03 07:33:35|| Front Page Top

#2 Since you ask - do you hear GOP members saying that the Yugoslav situation was a pack of lies? No. Do you hear them contending Clinton was ineffectual and solely trying to deflect attention from his scandals re: Bin Laden and Sudan? Yes, and I think history will bear the notion out

Posted by Frank G 2003-06-03 08:55:20|| 2003-06-03 08:55:20|| Front Page Top

#3 Given the Tories are not demanding an enquiry (which is usually an opposition's reaction to any perceived government failing) but simply accepting it's all but inevitable given the situation, I wouldn't regard this comment as anything more than the mininum expected of a British parliamentary opposition. It's as though Her Majesty's Oppostition were on work to rule. Look to the Labour backbenches and the Lib Dems for Blair's real enemies on the Iraq issue.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-03 09:19:28|| 2003-06-03 09:19:28|| Front Page Top

#4 And when dubya came into office did he attack Bin laden in afghanistan - No. There was no consensus in the US before 9-11 for an effective assault on the Taliban. And no, it wasnt to deflect attention from the scandals - it was something that he needed to try, though it did turn out to be ineffectual.

And of course Kosovo is not analogous, since there was real genocide occuring there, and graves have since been found in Serbia.

So what do you think accounts for the differences between the US GOP and the party of conservatives beloved Margaret Thatcher??? Other than the presence of Tony Blair???

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-03 09:24:27|| 2003-06-03 09:24:27|| Front Page Top

#5 If the Guardian's report is correct and not unduly unbiased (i.e., does the majority of the Tories stand for support of the P.M. or is there a fringe minority that the Guardian tapped into), then I am truly disappointed with the Tories. Such is not a profile in courage and would be a cynical abandonment of their own policy positions for political gain.

I would hope that the GOP, if they were in an analgous situation, would side with the President and their own policy positions. (e.g., the welfare reform law, NAFTA).

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-06-03 09:48:16|| 2003-06-03 09:48:16|| Front Page Top

#6 It's the opposition's job to hold the government to account and act as the main accuser of the party/ies in power. If they didn't demand an inquiry in a situation like this, they wouldn't be doing their job. The great majority of Tories supported Blair over Iraq (a significatly higher proportion than Labour MPs), but the fact is the Government's main argument in favour of war is legitimately open to question. Like it or not, the WMD issue needs to be resolved, or Blair, and whoever sided with him over Iraq, will seem to have, knowingly or unwittingly, deceived the public over the threat posed to the UK by Saddam's regime. Therefore, if WMDs, or satisfactory explanations as to what happened to them, do not come to light in the near future, an inquiry will be necessary. It's unlikely this will happen, but it's naive to think that calling for one is simply a political trick, after all, the Tories, for supporting the war, would look at best gullible for being so supportive.

Blair's spinning is an issue the Tories can capitalise on greatly, however. And I, for one, won't countenance supporting Blair at a ballot box because of his support for further European integration European - a far bigger issue for this country.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-03 10:06:07|| 2003-06-03 10:06:07|| Front Page Top

#7 ...Not that I'd vote Labour before a lobotomy, anyway, but I think my views on Europe reflect those of a growing number of Britons. Blair has to be stopped from dragging Britain into the black hole of EUrostatedom.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-06-03 10:25:08|| 2003-06-03 10:25:08|| Front Page Top

#8 bulldog - perhaps you are right it is the job of an opposition to oppose. as you may have noted, some Americans who post here dont seem to realize that, and consider the Dems virtually traitors whenever they oppose anything Bush does in foreign policy - not only genuine idiotarians, but even such stalwarts as Joe Leiberman have been criticized for positions no more "traitorous" than taken by the tories.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-03 10:29:41|| 2003-06-03 10:29:41|| Front Page Top

#9 and its certainly possible for you to be supportive of Blair on Iraq and the WOT, and still vote against him because of the Euro, etc.
Just as I can strongly support Bush on Iraq and the WOT, while intending to vote against him because of his domestic policies.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-03 10:31:20|| 2003-06-03 10:31:20|| Front Page Top

#10 The difference being that you would vote against Bush for lesser of two major issues facing the U.S., and Bulldog would vote against Blair for the greater of two important issues facing Btitain. Now, from where I'm sitting, it looks like your decision is influenced by politics, not genuine concern.

Posted by Mike N. 2003-06-03 11:28:34|| 2003-06-03 11:28:34|| Front Page Top

#11 First I'll only vote dem in 2004 if they nominate a candidate i can live with on foreign affairs - and second sorry if i think domestic affairs are still an important issue facing the US. What i have a problem with is people who have scream "politics!!!" if Lieberman comes up with a reasonable criticism of, say, the progress of nation-building in Afghanistan, but can look the other way at the actions of the tories. Yes an opposition is supposed to oppose, theyre supposed to try to get elected, and theyre supposed to present genuine policy alternatives. Those are all connected in a democracy.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-03 12:07:49|| 2003-06-03 12:07:49|| Front Page Top

#12 First, All you said was that you intended to vote against Bush, you included no stipulations. Second, I never said that domestic policy was not important. Also, I beleive that if you go back and re-read the post I replied to, you'll see why I was screaming "politics". Third, Not to knock Lieberman, but I've yet to hear him give any reasonable criticism of the Afghan nation-building project. Fourth, that could be becuase I haven't paid much attention to him since he flip-flopped on the issues when he ran with Gore.
And finally, That's why I'm afraid that your love for Lieberman seems a little out of place.
Stalwart my ass! Only if the polls support it, or he'll get the face time.
Next thing you know, he'll be asking which party will give him more time to speak on the Clinton impeachment. Oh, wait a minute....

Posted by Mike N. 2003-06-03 13:01:15|| 2003-06-03 13:01:15|| Front Page Top

#13 pols including Dubya have positions that "evolve" - i dont hold Joes softening on affirmative action against him - he had no choice. He didnt flip on culture - yeah he fundraised in hollywood, so what. And he didnt flip on Social - he was never commited to privatization - just interested in the concept.

And all this is on domestic policy - he has been stalwart on foreign policy - more so than Dubya.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-03 15:17:11|| 2003-06-03 15:17:11|| Front Page Top

#14 Claire Claire Claire...

Put away the ganja and pay attention:

Didnt; you get severence pay? Are ya tryig to sweeten an unpaid severence?

Posted by badanov 2003-06-03 20:13:49|| [www.rkka.org] 2003-06-03 20:13:49|| Front Page Top

09:17 Raptor
08:15 liberalhawk
04:40 R. McLeod
04:37 R. McLeod
01:50 Anon1
22:40 11A5S
22:18 11A5S
21:08 tu3031
21:02 tu3031
20:55 tu3031
20:50 Fred
20:49 TPF
20:22 jdhays
20:21 Tokyo Taro
20:15 11A5S
20:15 rammer
20:13 badanov
20:11 Angie Schultz
19:02 Steve White
18:57 Fred
18:49 Dar
18:36 Frank G
18:34 Frank G
18:32 Frank G