Keith, Not enough information with which to speculate. The reason to send Bush Sr. to Moscow is because he'd been in the oil business a while and he has the prestige that comes with being President Emeritus.
I'm not sure why Kissinger went, but he knows a lot of people and he has had a lot of experience dealing with the Russians. I think there may well be a connection between the callback of the Ambassador and conclusions reached in Russia, but I doubt they were as you described. A teleprompter is a screen with the words moving down it so you can apparently be looking at the audience even as you read everything. Bush had his speech notes on the rostrum, as does practically every speaker who is doing a 'one up'. If you are making the same speech for the umpteenth time, you don't need to bring your notes. As it was, he didn't seem to refer to them much - if at all. He spoke for quite awhile with apparent ad libs and with generally good humor. I didn't know he drank a non-alcoholic substance. That's disgraceful - I won't vote for him Wow, that's news! Clare Short has been critical! Seems to me that the UK newspapers are almost entirely critical of Bush and have been from the beginning. However, you know them better than I so I'll concede the point. The Tories report increasing membership, Is there any prospect of a comeback? Harry ******************************************** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net ******************************************** -----Original Message----- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 4:08 AM To: Harry Pollard Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Kissinger and Bush Senior failed.RE: Hamer is not an Ambassador (was Re: [Futurework] Has Saddam won? Harry, At 01:09 22/11/03 -0800, you wrote: >Keith, > >You are dreadfully wrong. > >I should mention that LUKoil began their investment in 1997 with $3.8 >billion - not nearly enough for what had to be done, but they were >expecting others to join the investment. They couldn't do anything >however because of UN restrictions. Yes, I'm aware of that. The story that hasn't been told yet is why Bush Senior and Kissinger were in St Petersburg just at the precise moment when all the Russian oil corporations were meeting there. The day after they returned from Moscow, Bremmer was suddenly recalled from Baghdad. What other inference is there that Bush knew he was no longer able to develop the oilfields in Iraq? The US and UK oil corporations had already turned him down. (And, of course, the French and the Chinese won't yet despite their previous contracts with Saddam until a legit government is in place.) > >So, let's not give the impression that something was in full throttle - >only slowed by the Iraqi situation. I suspect that now they want to get >some use out of their (up to now)wasted $3.8. > >Wasn't Bush's major speech a triumph! He spoke without a teleprompter >(I think you call it an AutoCue, or something). No! He had a script. > He also refused a beer in a British pub which is practically > sacrilegious, He had a beer -- of the non-alcoholic sort! Even more sacrilegious! > That must have been hard for him to do, Keith, as you've mentioned in > the past that he'll return to drink and drugs at the first opportunity I think he will in due course -- but not when he's being comforted by his best friend in the world. Now he's back in Washington Bush's dilemma will now intensify because, as Control Risks Group have said recently, big business wants Bush to get out. (And these are bigger businesses than Bechtel!) > >Oh, and you did notice the Guardian poll that found 47% of the Brits >were for Blair and the war, whereas 41% were against. The Guardian is a >left wing paper, but I remember when it was a first class Liberal publication. I expected this partial reversal of the tide going against Blair and Bush when Bush was here. But the tide is turning back again. C;lare Short has already blamed Bush abd Blair for mishandling Iraq and increasing terrorism. Back-bench Labour hostility to Blair's policies is rising and there are some hints that the new Tory leader will go towards Ken Clarke's opposition to the present policy. I think Bush will get out of Iraq far quicker than people presently realise. > >All this in spite of the bias of Brit papers against Blair - and >mightily against Bush. I saw a BBC Newsnight the other day. A lone >American faced someone who had written a book on Americans and Bush, >and Shirley Williams (My God she's still alive! Great!) > >The "impartial" moderator dismissed what the American said as "his >hobbyhorse". The American was intelligent and moderate, but that didn't >help him. The moderator wanted blood. > >The tenor of the program was anti-American and particularly anti-Bush >(the Baroness was pretty fair) because they were working their particular scenario. > >I've often wondered how a an impartial point of view can be sustained >in Britain considering the outright bias of the Brit papers. I'll grant you that Newsnight is against Bush, but there's no outright bias in the UK papers -- a slight one, no more. But I'm sure opposition will increase from now onwards. Keith --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003 _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
