Blair splits with Bush on Iran/Syria.
By on Nov 13th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Blair splits with Bush on Iran/Syria.
“The first cracks in the united front over Iraq between Tony Blair and President Bush appeared last night as the Prime Minister offered Iran and Syria the prospect of dialogue over the future of Iraq and the Middle East.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush’s poodle was taken down by his alliance with Bush. Guess he’s learned his lesson?
November 13th, 2006 at 8:25 pmAh, a “fairweather” friend, he is. Blair is not nearly as retarded as GWB, are we suprised? What do they call that again? You know when you talk to people about problems, instead of a pre-emptive strike… DIPLOMACY !!! Thats right, I nearly forgot.
http://www.getsomejosh.com
November 13th, 2006 at 8:38 pmWell, I wonder if Blair asked for permission first.
If so, this is not much a “crack”, as it is a save-face move by the Bush administration who are looking for ways to extricate themselves from the mess they have created in the Middle East, or at least create an impression of success -2008 is not far away.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:40 pmGrow some more cohjones Blair…everyone wants to see you do a ‘Love Actually’ moment….
It’s a start….
November 13th, 2006 at 8:57 pmTony’s man crush has worn off. He’s like the battered SO who has been b-slapped once to often and is now ready to chuck it.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:00 pmOh no! What will Bush do without his loyal poodle?
November 13th, 2006 at 9:02 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
Tony Blair? What possible influence does George Bush’s ‘figleaf’ imagine he has in either Syria or anywhere else for that matter? What is his leverage – cancelling Assad’s subscription to Masterpiece Theatre? The man is a useless prat jerking off on the world stage…
November 13th, 2006 at 9:03 pm‘Poodle’ is barking now…will he bite?! that is the question…
November 13th, 2006 at 9:13 pmIn my opinion, the Bush administration is testing the waters and preparing the public opinion for negotiations with Iran, and that this is not a “crack” in the Blair-Bush alliance. I think we are all aware of the “Yo Blair!” relationship between the two.
Let’s not forget Pres Bush already named Robert Gates to head the Department of Defence. Gates has been advocating talk with Iran for a few years now. Gates’ nomination fits very well if that is the new course of action.
This is more like a subtle “cut and run” away from “staying the course”, or it’s “staying the course” while “changing and adapting” to the realities on the ground.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:16 pmVery plausible Gregor, very plausible.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:24 pmgregor is right.
this is not a crack in the coalition of the wicked imperialists, it is merely each giving cover to the other. blair can show his constituents he is ’standing up’ to his pimp, when it is not really so. recall that blair has, or is soon to ‘testify’ to the baker boys…
it is similar to the strategy the democrats and the republicans will use come december… the baker plan will be offer everyone cover and all parties involved are just posing for their collective constituencies. the democrats can say they had some impact in the plan, the republicans can agree with the plan and everyone wins! but for the dead ones, that is… a sick little game is being played, and everyone is just nodding and posing.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:13 pmIt is mind boggling to think that it is “news” that countries will talk to one another instead of threatening and labelling the other. The West has a bunch of kindergarten children in charge of their respective Government’s.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:26 pmYes, James, i agree. But, what part of that don’t you like? =)
BTW, I was late getting to the Newsweek post. Since this is related (in my own twistophrenic way of seeing things), I’ll post that rant here.
What the Newsweek cover really says is that Baby Bush is about to lose a whole buncha money from the private sector, and now Poppy is gonna stop the bleed before it gets any worse. For the money people, it is their signal to git out while the gittin’s still good. Poppy is one of the key players in the Carlisle Group, those best-positioned to make a lot of money from the war machine. I was in Beaumont, Texas the very day that Poppy was making the rounds with the money people so that all the pieces of this 9/11-related fiasco could be set in-place. So, this is just closure to those same people so they know it’s time to get out. They will understand, shift their money around and fully support the withdrawal. It’s nasty, it’s cynical, but it means no Iran War, no Syrian War and an end to the Iraqi fiasco. We can go with that.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:48 pmNovember 13th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/15426
Israel Official: Strike on Iran Possible
Yeah, Israel, let us know how that works out for you . . .
Meanwhile, we’ll be working hard to get our military kidz stuck in Iraq home safe and sound so that they don’t get caught in the “middle” between you and yet another one of your enemies. .. caught in the middle “as planned”, perhaps? . ..;-)
And trust me . . . I go out “a-drankin’” with these military kidz when they come back to North Cackilacki between military tours .. .and at this point, you REALLY don’t want them in the middle between you and Iran . . . IF you know what I mean, Vern . . .;-)
. . . after all, not everyone is like the Reverend John “Separate-But-Equal-Heavens” Hagee and Nancy “Israel-4-Ever” Pelosi . . .
http://www.antiwar.com/utley/?articleid=9456
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0527-23.htm
. . .and I doubt “daddy’s little girl” is very handy with an M-16 Rifle, nor do I really think she supports you THAT much, just enough to send someone else’s kidz to kill and die for you …
. .
Uhm, one question Israel, are you going to expect the American Taxpayer to continue to pay for your genocide and apartheid programs??? Just wondering since it would appear that we
kidz have been suckered on that whole “Income Tax” thang anyway . .. ;-)
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
Our property taxes, sales taxes, and alchohol and tobacco “sin” taxes will support OUR domestic infrastructure jes’ fine, thank you very much .. .and BushCo obviously already has plently enough gunz and bombs.. ;-)Perhaps you could get Sith Lord, Darth Rothschild, to “loan” you the money for this “splendid little holy war with Iran” . . with compound interest, of course . .. ;-)
“Bring the boys back home.
Bring the boys back home.
Don’t leave the children on their own, no, no.
Bring the boys back home.”
- Bring The Boys Back Home from The Wall by Pink Floyd
peace.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:05 amBRAVO Rose !!!
November 14th, 2006 at 2:17 amBush officials had already been telling reporters that the administration favored including Syria and Iran in talks about the future of Iraq and the Middle East, so it’s hard to see how this could be thought of as a split.
Also, let’s remember that this is merely a recognition of reality. Officials from the Maliki government and Maliki himself have been talking to Iran and Syria for some time now.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:19 amIts a Blair trick to blame Iran – I need not mention the real intension namely another war – pathetic Blair
November 14th, 2006 at 4:58 amOur new friends in the Middle East
Iran and Syria were demonised to justify the invasion of Iraq. Now Britain and the US want their help sorting out the mess …
Democrats in american Goverment start sorting this mess out , Bush is stalling for more war by blaming Iran and Syria .. the world sees though this plot …come on
November 14th, 2006 at 5:13 amAre Democrats Turning A Blind Eye to Civil Liberty?
Unless November’s new blood improves the Democratic Party’s civil liberties pedigree, the Democrats will have failed even before they are sworn in next January.
In its disregard for truth, public opinion, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Constitution, and statutory law, the Bush administration has been more of a regime than an administration. The Bush/Cheney executive branch has operated independently of all the constraints that provide accountability and prevent despotism.
The Bush regime was able to evade these restraints because Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and because Republicans wielded 9/11 as a weapon to forestall political opposition.
With signing statements and other unilateral declarations of presidential authority, the Bush regime asserted executive branch powers beyond the reach of Congress and the judiciary.
The Bush regime perpetrated a coup d’état against the Bill of Rights and the jurisdictions of Congress and the courts. Unless Democrats roll back this coup, Americans have seen the last of their civil liberties.
Judging by Democrats’ statements in the flush of their electoral victory, Democrats have little, if any, awareness of this critical fact. Democrats are anxious to get on with their agendas and have shown no recognition that the first order of business is to repeal the legislation that permits torture, warrantless detention, and domestic spying.
If Bush threatens to veto the resurrection of U.S. civil liberty, the Democrats can impeach Bush as a tyrant as well as for pushing America into an illegal and catastrophic war on the basis of lies and deception.
Bush is the most impeachable president in American history. However, the incoming speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has declared impeachment to be “off the table.” Obviously, this means that Bush will not be held accountable and that the Bill of Rights is a casualty of the vague, undefined, and propagandistic “war on terror.”
November 14th, 2006 at 5:26 ammaybe it’s a Good Cop / Bad Cop strategy.
November 14th, 2006 at 6:01 amDon’t let it go unnoticed Olmert was in Washington during these Iran/Syria discussions. Israel first/America second.
November 14th, 2006 at 6:17 am#21 – More likely a dumb cop, dumber cop strategy.
November 14th, 2006 at 7:08 amits more Bad vs Worse than Good vs Bad.
great article here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2452352,00.html
November 14th, 2006 at 8:12 amBlair is not up for reelection, neither is Bush (if there will be elections, that is).
Their parties are currently paying the price for their failed policies and are trying hard to avoid getting an even more thorough thumpin’ next time, as far as the Republicans are concerned and the thumpin’ that is inevitably coming to them, in Labour’s case.
Mr Blair and Mr Bush are getting their own personal thumpin’ now, by their own people and they are getting what was coming to them. This won’t save the Labour Party from the losses in the next elections, neither will those two “leaders” be able to save their faces. All due to the vote of the American People last week.
But what might be saved is the lives of the US and UK soldiers that have to be brought home asap and if that is fallout from the panic, that befell Republicans and Labour, its a good thing. The leaders may not be able to save their faces, so what. But many soldiers may be saved from the fate of so many others. Good thing.
November 14th, 2006 at 8:49 amBush doesn’t “dialogue”. He “expects”. Bullies don’t agree, they impose.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:13 amBlair will find himself back in the doghouse if he doesn’t heel.
I’m not sure that Pelosi meant that Bush could not be impeached. That would give him impugnity that NO president has ever had. I think she meant that under the current circumstances, impeachment was not their intent. On the other hand… if the investigations turn up further impeachable offenses, Ms. Pelosi may not want to, may not even be able to stop impeachment procedings. She cannot guarantee Bush another two years any more than Bush can assure her of her seat for two years. Stuff happens.
Bush and cohorts have robbed the tax payers or U.S treasury of billions of dollars.It’s time to count the money and find a way for the : CHICKEN HAWKS :to cut and run and declare victory.Leave the democrates empty bank and someone to blame and 20 years to try to get America back on it’s feet.Republicans always rob the middle class and steal for the wealthy.Lke father–like son!
November 14th, 2006 at 11:17 amHope the democrates stand up after we elected them and not let big business continue to run the country.Also the msm starts holding Bush responsible for all his blunders and cover up.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:31 amIt pains be every time I’m reminded of Nancy Pelosi’s remark about impeachment being “off the table.” We elected these people because are enraged by the behavior of the cabal ruling this country. We want justice for the troops who have been forced to face an unnecessary conflict, we need justice for the innocent Iraqis who have been blown away, we need justice for the US tax-payor who have to foot the bill for this debacle. We demand accountability.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:15 pm