Keith,
I suspect the reason why Blair and Clinton got on so well is because they
each had policies keyed to the latest opinion poll.
Harry
___________________
Keith wrote:
>Karen,
>
>At 06:51 29/08/02 -0700, you wrote:
><<<<
>AHA! Another contrarian opinion about the Iraq war and Tony Blair,
>originating from Bath, England!!! And there is a quote in Latin! Cheers!
>Karen
> >>>>
>
>What a wonderful lot we are in Bath! I've heard of Geoffrey Wheatcroft,
>though I haven't met him. I'll follow with his whole NYT article ('cos it
>isn't very long).
>
>But Wheatcroft is quite right. Tony Blair is rarely able to deliver what he
>promises. He agrees with "either" when "or" is away -- and vice versa.
>He's very telegenic and that's what got him to where he is. He protects
>himself with a small loyal band of spin doctors, and the spin changes from
>month to month according to the weather.
>
>He certainly won't be able to lay on UK support for Bush's policy -- about
>70-80% of the population are dead against it -- and, what's more, almost
>100% of the "chattering classes".
>
>Keith
>
><<<<
>AN UNCERTAIN ALLY ON IRAQ
>
>By Geoffrey Wheatcroft
>
>
>BATH, England — Although Dick Cheney says that the United States is
>determined to make war on Iraq, George W. Bush has promised to consult
>America's friends. Although Donald Rumsfeld, invoking Churchill, has said
>that the right decision is more important than pleasing allies, even he
>must be apprehensive about acting entirely alone. And although Washington
>seems to have written off the Arab world and most of Europe, the
>administration is plainly counting on one ally, Britain, to come on board,
>as it did in the Gulf war and in Afghanistan. But that assumption may be
>wrong.
>
>In the latest polls, a majority of British voters — Conservative and Labor
>alike — don't think Tony Blair should support American policy on Iraq, a
>fact that will weigh heavily with our poll-obsessed prime minister. Downing
>Street is now trying to soften its stance and says privately that Mr. Bush
>has done "nothing" to explain the necessity of the war.
>
>If the White House had followed Mr. Blair's career closely, it would treat
>his promises with caution. Few of Mr. Blair's many American admirers seem
>aware of his habit of telling any audience what it wants to hear. Depending
>on whom he is talking to, he is conservative or liberal, sympathizes with
>Irish nationalism or with Ulster Unionism, regards European integration
>with enthusiasm or with reserve. Even some of his supporters have worried
>whether this chameleon quality would catch up with him.
>
>Of course, all politicians sometimes do this. You don't get to lead a large
>democracy on a narrow platform, and two-facedness may even serve admirable
>purposes in cajoling warring sides to reach compromise.
>
>But the alarming degree to which Mr. Blair evinces this tendency is shown
>by a long line of victims, all of whom thought they understood him. Before
>the 1997 election, Paddy Ashdown, then the leader of the Liberal Democrats,
>was led to believe that Mr. Blair intended to bring him and his party into
>a coalition. After that election, Roy Jenkins, the former cabinet minister,
>was also led to believe that Mr. Blair would support proportional
>representation. After the 1998 Belfast Agreement, David Trimble, the Ulster
>Unionist leader, was once again led to believe Mr. Blair would back him up
>if there was no rapid progress toward disarmament of the Irish Republican
>Army. All were left dangling when he forgot what he had said to them.
>
>Such evasiveness may sometimes be inevitable in domestic politics, but in
>international affairs it can be very dangerous. We have seen something like
>this before from Mr. Blair. Visiting the United States in the spring of
>1999, he much impressed Americans by his resolute stance in the face of
>Serb aggression. Shortly afterward, Mr. Blair published an article in the
>Sun, the right-wing London tabloid, that suggested he would not send in
>British troops.
>
>Now we see another example. President Bush is convinced after talking to
>him that Mr. Blair is gung-ho for a war against Saddam Hussein. Yet King
>Abdullah of Jordan was convinced after visiting Downing Street that Mr.
>Blair has grave reservations about such a war.
>
>Even if Mr. Blair does favor an attack, it is by no means certain that he
>can help the White House. The prime minister has enjoyed astonishing
>political success while never concealing his disregard for the Labor Party,
>for the House of Commons and for the cabinet. All now represent threats to
>him. At next month's Labor conference there will be bitter criticism of
>plans for war with Iraq. The veteran member of Parliament, Gerald Kaufman,
>usually a Blair loyalist, has said that "there is substantial resistance in
>the parliamentary Labor Party against war on Iraq, not just from the usual
>suspects" — not just the ornery anti-American left, that is, but from many
>mainstream members of Parliament who supported America's war on terrorism
>after Sept. 11.
>
>There are also rumblings from some of Mr. Blair's closest advisers, like
>Peter Mandelson, suggesting that support for military action against Iraq
>might be politically disastrous.
>
>Americans easily forget that under parliamentary government, the prime
>minister with no fixed term is never entirely secure. In 1990, Margaret
>Thatcher, a figure of world renown, who had won three elections, was still
>deposed by her parliamentary party.
>
>Some sarcastic voices from the Pentagon might retort that it doesn't make
>any great difference whether Mr. Blair survives, or whether the British
>take part in a war. In a purely military sense that may be true, even if we
>pride ourselves on the skills of our special forces. Politically, it's
>another matter. If President Bush went ahead with a war lacking the support
>even of the British government, it would highlight his unilateralism in the
>most dramatic way. "America contra mundum" may be what zealots in the
>administration want. From outside, it looks perilous.
><<<<
>
>Geoffrey Wheatcroft's books include "The Randlords" and "The Controversy of
>Zion."
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
