With Iraq as his legacy, Blair to step down.
By on May 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 am
With Iraq as his legacy, Blair to step down.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair “began the final countdown to his departure today by promising a resignation announcement next week and anointing Gordon Brown as his successor,” The Guardian reports. … Meanwhile, a new poll by The Independent found that 69% of the British public ‘believe he will be remembered most for the Iraq war. Remarkably, his next highest ‘legacy rating’ — just 9% — is for his relationship with the American President, George Bush.’”
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
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
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
Ex-CIA analyst: Forged ‘yellowcake’ memo ‘leads right back to’ Cheney David Edwards
Published: Monday April 30, 2007
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ExCIA_analyst_Forged_yellowcake_memo_leads_0430.html
A former CIA analyst claims that falsified documents which were meant to show that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein regime had been trying to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger can be traced back to Vice President Dick Cheney.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:19 amSo sad too bad. See ya Tony!
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 amTo an article:
http://thinkprogress.org/
HTML:
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 amvery interesting articleWe may come to an understanding nowCurrently it looks like there is no hopewhat can we do שיפוצים מבנים מסוכנים חיזוק מבנים שיקום בניינים תמ"א 38
very interesting articleWe may come to an understanding nowCurrently it looks like there is no hopewhat can we do שיפוצים מבנים מסוכנים חיזוק מבנים שיקום בניינים תמ"א 38
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 amF*** off Tony, you pointless, gutless twerp. Your job as George W Bush’s personal ball washer has just passed to John McCain. Your legacy is one where you have reduced your country to a fig leaf in front of George W Bush’s foreign policy.
Your desk at the Carlyle Group is waiting. James has put you in the one by the toilets.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 amChurchill left office beaten as well. Good thing history was the final judge.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 am#4 Churchill was a b!tch as well. You would like him, Jakey.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 amChurchill left office beaten as well. Good thing history was the final judge.Comment by Jake — May 2, 2007 @ 12:37 am
Tony Blair is no Winston Churchill – and you’re no American – you piece of sh*t traitor.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:42 amChurchill left office beaten as well. Good thing history was the final judge. Comment by Jake — May 2, 2007 @ 12:37 am
You think Blair is “beaten”? Maybe “beaten-down” from bad leadership.
See the difference is when Churchill was defeated, he had already WON his war – not lost it like Blair has. It’s amazing how these little *subtleties* like *competence* always seem to escape you wingNUT cultists.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 amThat god d4mn Bush bloody poodle.
Yo Blair! Don’t let the door hit you in the behind on your way out, you sorry excuse of a Prime Minister.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:45 amJake, this is not going to turn around for ya, no matter how much lipstick you smear on this pig.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:47 amTruman left office with low approval ratings as well. Most Americans now are grateful for Hiroshima.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:47 amIf the Middle East is flourishing with democracy in 50 years, both Blair and Bush will be judged favorably by history.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 am#4 Churchill was hated before WWII. Just as Bush was hated before Iraq. The difference is Churchill had the lend-lease agreement and the eventual ally in the US. Not sure what he actually did to earn your admiration.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 am#10 Grateful for Hiroshima. Wow. You show your true colors every day don’t you?
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 amPity. Blair was one of the best PMs UK ever had. His real crime was his mistaken belief that a US President could never be so criminally incompetent as Bush proved to be.
The legality of stealing Iraqi oil would never have been an issue if the war had been over in a couple of weeks. We would have been out of there and Iraq would have had a US puppet President and the world would have moved on.
Blair discovered the fact that Bush is insane only after he was pot committed. Pity.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 am#10 By the way, if Bush dropped the bomb, he would be all smirky and proud. That decision weighed on Truman every day of his life.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 amWhat is with these right-wingers, always comparing Pres Bush to Truman and Blair to Churchill?
Couldn’t these two important politicians stand on their own merits, without being likened to previous administrations?
Oh, wait. They can’t. They don’t have any merits. Never mind….
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 am#14 That is bull. He would still back Bush if he thought it was politically expedient. He is nothing but an empty suit.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:53 amMost Americans now are grateful for Hiroshima.
Comment by Jake — May 2, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Yeah, I think they love the black rain part and the skin falling off with some scratching.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:55 amGod damn you, Jake. I don’t know a single American who takes pride or has any appreciation whatsoever for Hiroshima. Maybe that is something you find within the walls of your aberrant religious group, but you surely won’t find that on the street. You really are the most profoundly assholish troll I have ever seen.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:55 amTruman left office with low approval ratings as well. Most Americans now are grateful for Hiroshima. Comment by Jake — May 2, 2007 @ 12:47 am
What the f*ck do those things have to do with each other? Once again, someone that *won*, compared to a *failure* (that would be both Bush and Blair).
A better comparison would be Nixon – who presided over the final failure in Vietnam.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 amBlair was one of the best PMs UK ever had.
Comment by Abby — May 2, 2007 @ 12:51 am
I beg to disagree.
His support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq has more than undone whatever good decision he might have made before betting on Pres Bush’s horse.
Blair could have change the course, he could have set on a different path. He didn’t. He also decided to “stay the course”.
The disaster Iraq has become is also his responsibility.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 amMost Americans now are grateful for Hiroshima.
Comment by Jake — May 2, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Jake, you’re a sociopath through and through. But you’re constent.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 amIf the Middle East is flourishing with democracy in 50 years, both Blair and Bush will be judged favorably by history. Comment by Jake — May 2, 2007 @ 12:49 am
Only from the law of unintended consequences. Because they’ve f*cked up things so badly, we’ll probably get off of oil, and democracy will flourish when we STOP propping up dictators.
You’re a really st*pid Jake*ss.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 amJake, you’re a sociopath through and through. But you’re constent. Comment by Shane — May 2, 2007 @ 1:00 am
Yeah, he’s one bad day from shooting up his gradeschool.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 am#11
If the Middle East is flourishing with democracy in 50 years, both Blair and Bush will be judged favorably by history.
Comment by Jake — May 2, 2007 @ 12:49 am
I almost spit my beer out at this comment. Trust me Jaker, if there is still oil in the middle east in 50 years, there won’t be democracy in the middle east in 50 years Jerkoff. By the way Jake, the middle East is not one country jerkoff, it’s a set of countries. Isreal is a democracy in the middle east surrounded by dictatorships. Yet I don’t see your so-called democracy spreading assmonkey. Bush is the worst president of the U.S. ever. Now and in 50 years.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:03 am#24 If he could lift a gun. Not going to happen.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 am#25 I disagree, Topper. There are a few democracies in the ME. They just happen to vote for people the Bushies don’t like. Kinda like Central and South America. Guess we will be executing black ops there like we have been down in Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, etc. No wonder people hate us.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:09 amChurchill led his country against an invader and kept his popularity throughout the war. He was able to lead his people from the brink of defeat to a glorious victory against overwhelming forces arrayed against them, with the help of America of course.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 amBlair was an accessory to an illegal invasion perpetrated by the US. Not only has he been unable to keep his popularity, but he has led his people to what will likely be a defeat against an underwhelming, technologically limited, fractured enemy.
Also, Churchill had experience as a soldier against the Afrikaner people in Africa, and had experienced failure in the form of war policy during WWI. Please, don’t try and compare greatness of any leader of WWII, or any other war for that matter, to the corrupt, incompetent failures that lead either Britain or the United States at present.
If they cannot stand on their own accomplishments, then they are worthless. If they are fishing for comparisons to define their greatness, then it is obviously lacking. We will never compare a hero, a great human to Blair or Bush. Instead their names shall be synonymous with failure and lies.
Actually Topper, Lebanon, Turkey and even Iraq and Iran have forms of democratic (or republican) government that compare well to Israel. The phrase of Israel being the “only democracy” is nothing more than AIPAC b*llsh*t propaganda. In fact Israel is often chided for not being a Democracy, as they refuse to allow the Palestinians in their territories vote in their elections. Unless you considered South Africa a “democracy” under apartheid.
One could even argue that several of those countries are more democratic than we are, considering bush’s loss-victory of 2000.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 amIsreal is a democracy in the middle east surrounded by dictatorships.
Comment by Topper Harley — May 2, 2007 @ 1:03 am
Palestine is a democracy, just like Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Turkey, Lebanon and Israel…kind of…
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:11 amTopper, I almost forgot Jordan, that has a Constitutional Monarchy which includes veto override capabilities of the assembly..
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 amPalestine is a democracy, just like Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Turkey, Lebanon and Israel…kind of… Comment by Juan C — May 2, 2007 @ 1:11 am
Yeah, Jake*sses like Jake are used to listening to Fox, they’re unaware of *reality*.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 am#30 Well, Palestine isn’t accepted as a nation by most but the rest that you listed are democracies. And we didn’t make them democracies at the barrel of a gun. It doesn’t work that way.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:15 am#31 Not to mention Jordan, though not a democracy is the most pro-western country in the region. I would rather have a country that is friendly to the US than a country that is democratic.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:17 amMy bad guys. But you get my point. I forgot about Lebanon and being European I always considered Turkey to be well, more part of Europe than the middle east. From wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East
One widely used definition of the “Middle East” is that of the airline industry, maintained by the IATA standards organization. This definition — as of early 2007 — includes Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Yemen.[10] This definition is used in world-wide airfare and tax calculations for passengers and cargo
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:18 amJake*sses like Jake are used to listening to Fox, they’re unaware of *reality*.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
It is amazing that one of the most brutal totalitarian regimes in ME, Saudi Arabia is completely overseen by White House reports on human rights.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 amAfter the debaucles of the last two presidential elections, every country is more democratic than the U.S.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 am#31 Not to mention Jordan, though not a democracy is the most pro-western country in the region. I would rather have a country that is friendly to the US than a country that is democratic.
Comment by JPark — May 2, 2007 @ 1:17 am
Hey, it’s a Constitutional Monarchy (democracy), like Blair’s Britain…
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 amI would rather have a country that is friendly to the US than a country that is democratic.
Comment by JPark
Like Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia or Indonesia?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 amIf anybody has taken offense at my last post, please accept my apology. And if TP should decide to remove it, I don’t mind at all. as I am fairly certain that Jake has seen it, and that is sufficient in itself.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 am#39 I knew I was sticking my foot in my mouth when I wrote that :) Add Libya to that list.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:37 am#39 You didn’t offend me stone. The bastard thinks Hiroshima is one of the great things the US has done. It says a whole lot about the pathetic little lech.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:39 amComment by stonehinge — May 2, 2007 @ 1:26 am
No offence here, Stonehenge.
My friends of Japanese ancestry certainly don’t feel grateful for Hiroshima; what they do have is an ambivalent mix of discomfort and uneasiness. And these are the ones who are third, fourth generation Americans whose families were living in the US before Pearl Harbor.
They do not look forward to the Dec 7th holiday, or to the TV specials on that day either.
Of course, for people like Jake, these my friends are probably not real Americans anyway.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:46 amHey, JPark, I wasnt lecturing anyone…just in case.
BTW, numbers of posts change so could you please post the authors of the post? It is easy to follow in my opinion. :)
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 amJuan, I honestly knew I stuck my foot in my mouth. We shouldn’t be kissing Saudi a$$.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:09 am#43 Juan, if only we were still able to use the font tools I could put people’s comments in italic. But…we can’t because suddenly the tools don’t work, despite what TP says.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:16 amDoes anyone know the manual characters for italics?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:17 amHi there
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 amSweet, “” is the italics prompt
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:25 amwith no spaces
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:29 amOk, it is , with no commas.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:34 amTony Blair will get his ass kicked in Scotland hes finished and so is labour
when speaking about Churchill remember he was the first person to use chemical weapons in the middle east , he used mustard gas on the Kurds
JUST LIKE SADDAM – a true piece of history that is ignored
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 amits up to america now to tell Tony Blair hes Not welcome ……… we leave his futre in your hands ……….. we dont want him
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:39 amI think Blair had good intentions i.e. to get rid of a dictator. He was interested in that issue even in the 90s. It’s just that he wasn’t qualified to deal with it.
There should be training for prime ministers and presidents in the same way there is training for accountants, lawyers, doctors, generals, etc.
Makes sense to me, anyway.
Martin Gifford.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:30 amIf so, why did the british reelect him ?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:09 amYeah those subtleties do escape some people. Win a war and lose an empire, it’s all good.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:28 amthe reason Blair was elected again is our voting system is the same as Americas “first past the post”
As where Blair promised “proportional representaion” and never delivered
Even is Scotland we use PR thats why we going to Kick blairs ass and deliver Scottish national Party
Bush has already said Scotland should not have independence he should have shut his mouth bush The minute he says anything we will do the opposite
NEXT BIG Problem is next election I the usual idiots in this country ( England ) are going to vote Tory ………. These guys are neocons and even the Shadow home secretary supports Nuking Iran
Tories are Neocons
——————————————————
Freedom for Scotland we dont want Blair hes a mass murderer just like Bush ——– The Sasanachs can keep Him
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:03 amWho was the first high government official to authorize use of mustard gas against rebellious Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq?
If your answer was Saddam Hussein’s cousin, the notorious “Chemical Ali” — aka Ali Hassan al-Majid — you’re wrong.
The correct answer: Sainted Winston Churchill. As colonial secretary and secretary for war and air, he authorized the RAF in the 1920s to routinely use mustard gas against rebellious Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq and against Pashtun tribes on British India’s northwest frontier.
MY VERSION OF CHURCHILLS LEGACY
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:07 amLay down with a dog and poof you wake with eternal fleas.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 amTony, everyone seems to be doing a tell-all. How about you go them one better and do a tell-all-truth?
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:30 amIf Blair was that great,English people and his party would have kept him….
It is his party(The Labour Party) who told him to leave..that’s how it works in England.
Blair was very popular before the Iraq war,but the war in Iraq weakened him and his popularity went nose diving since then,and England now is withdrewing most of its troops from Southern Iraq.
The four leaders who signed to this Iraq war in 2003, and sent troops were:
Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi : lost election and Italy withdrew most of its troops
Spain Jose’ Aznar: lost election and Sapain withdrew all its trrops from Iraq as a result.
Bush also popularity is around 32% and the US Congress is calling now to end this war.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:38 amwhy is it so difficult for the social democrats to gain traction in the uk ? neither the tories nor labour can extricate themselves from apathy and corruption – as we have all seen from the dismal performance of lightweight tony blair
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:46 amTony Blair deserves NO respect, nor sympathy, because he sold his soul to George Bush and helped to destroy Iraq.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:03 amWhat is the obsession the American Right has with Churchill? And inevitably the name “Churchill” is code for English Fascism, Imperialism, and Anti-Democracy.
One should understand that Churchill was no lover of humanity or freedom for all. He was a racist. He advocated the gassing of the Iraqis and the aerial bombardment of Baghdad’s rebels in the 1920s. He thought Britain should let Gandhi starve. He called out the army to break up strikes by Britain’s unions.
He is remembered for his wartime rhetoric. But that’s all it was. He his military strategy was a disaster in the First World War. He spent most of the Second World War drunk. Britain was not saved by blood, sweat, toil, and tears; it was saved by a few brainiacs who broke the Enigma code.
Churchill is always compared to Chamberlain, but Chamberlain was an honest small ‘c’ conservative and a competent bureaucrat. It was the Imperialists –Eden & Churchill– who were against Appeasement because they felt Germany was competition, not because it was inhumane. Remember, Churchill championed the pro-Nazi Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson.
Appeasement is not an evil policy. It may or may not work depending on the situation. Chamberlain’s policy bought Britain & France time. And there was no appeasement when German took the rest of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain actually organized a very efficient rearmament of Britain from March 1939 on. And what does one call Churchill’s give away of Eastern Europe at the meetings at Tehran and Yalta if not appeasement?
Tony Blair and Churchhill? I think the people can see that link. And it won’t be positive. Churchill was despised by liberals and progressives for his Monarchist and Imperialist and Racist views. And the people of Britain kicked him out.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:13 amAnalysis: Fight rages over Iraq oil law
WASHINGTON, April 27 (UPI) — Discussions turned contentious among the more than 60 Iraqi oil officials reviewing Iraq’s draft hydrocarbons bill last week in the United Arab Emirates.
But the dispute highlighted the need for further negotiations on the proposed law that was stalled in talks for nearly eight months, then pushed through Iraq’s Cabinet without most key provisions.
Tariq Shafiq, one of three authors of the law, said he attended the Dubai summit “reluctantly,” at the request of Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani.
“I thought it would help,” Shafiq said, hoping all Iraqi sides in the debate over its oil law would meet and iron out their differences. “Apparently it did not.”
Petroleum Intelligence Weekly reports talks in Dubai led to “heated exchanges.”
Instead, the voices of those who disagree with the law or, like Shafiq, oppose what it has become since the initial draft and how it was kept from the public, were not given part of the platform.
“Had there been genuine interest in having consensus,” Shafiq said, “the two differing parties should have sat — not publicly in front of the television — to discuss with an open heart how you can reach a compromise. But this apparently was not their aim.”
Most of the law, which is better referred to as a regime, or a set of interworking laws, has yet to be finalized. But the main sticking points have the central government and Kurdistan Regional Government at loggerheads still.
Although the Bush administration, led by former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and now U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, praised passage of the framework law when Iraq’s Cabinet approved it late February, it doesn’t quite qualify as one of the benchmarks he has set for success in Iraq.
“To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis,” Bush said in a national address Jan. 10. But neither the KRG nor the central government has agreed on the percentage of oil revenue to be shared. The KRG wants an automatic mechanism to redistribute the funds, while the central government wants it collected to the central bank, to be doled out by the Iraqi finance minister.
Before any more development of the oil sector, struggling to produce 2 million barrels per day, both sides must agree on which of the 116 billion barrels worth of fields will be under the control of the central government — most likely via the reconstituted Iraq National Oil Co. — and which fields the regions and governorates will control. The Iraqi constitution, passed in 2005, was written vaguely to garner enough support, but fueled the current disagreement over control of oil reserves, the world’s third-largest.
Shahristani told reporters on the sidelines of the Dubai meeting that Parliament would take up the law this week — which didn’t happen — while Ashti Hawrami, the KRG’s oil minister, vowed Kurdish parliamentarians would veto it as written.
Negotiations continue on other aspects, such as the contract models allowed to sign with much-needed investors and the exact roles the federal oil and gas council, Iraq Oil Minister and INOC will play.
All this is supposed to be done by May 31, a deadline set by a Bush administration that needs a progress marker for Iraq, a fragile Iraqi central government that is falling apart and the KRG that is ready to continue development in its semi-autonomous and relatively peaceful northern region.
“I just don’t see that. It’s just too much,” said Frank A. Verrastro, director and senior fellow of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a centrist Washington think tank. The framework is important, he said, but it has no value standing alone.
He said at least in Dubai they realized there are “significant issues” to resolve still.
There are many who oppose the law. Iraq’s oil unions have threatened to shutdown production if foreign companies are allowed too much control. Many political and sectarian blocs also feel that way. And Sunnis, a minority group without oil land and the power wielded while Saddam Hussein reigned, fear they’ll wind up without if the central government is weak.
“If the law does not state a precise formula for that distribution, then the law is fairly meaningless,” said Thomas Mowle, an associate political science professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy who served in the Strategy, Plans, and Assessment Division, Headquarters Multinational Force-Iraq, Baghdad, from August to December 2004.
“If the law includes the distribution of revenue from future oil projects, then the Kurds are likely to reject it as unconstitutional,” he said. “If the law does not include such revenue, then it will accomplish little toward national reconciliation.”
Shafiq said “the majority of the oil technocrats are against” the law as written. He said the eight months negotiators took after the drafters were finished was too long. And it was kept secret from the public and parliamentarians, which then added to the politicization.
“The weak thing about their procedure is they never published the draft,” Shafiq said. “They should have had teams to explain this to unions, to intellectuals, to nongovernmental organizations, to the parliamentarians, and then get the gist of their reactions before they start finalizing a draft.”
And then, with the Bush administration needing results, officials leaned on negotiators to pass something. Out came the framework. Khalilzad announced its passage, and the KRG sent out a news release.
“That was a big mistake,” Shafiq said.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 amJake has now given Bush and Blair 50 years to “bring Democracy to the Middle East.” What a joke. No wonder Bush doesn’t want any measurable goals in Iraq — the Republicans continually fail and just want to keep moving the time they’re given to “get it right” despite the fact that no progress can be shown.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:02 amBush’s Poodle Steps Down – After his people admonished and rejected him (just like the american people are doing to bush) and the Downing Street Memo resurfaces and is made public, Blair decides that the proper thing to do is to step down. At least he’s not as arrogant and deluded as bush, that’s all I can say. He recognizes that he’s impotent to govern at this point (just like Bush) and he steps aside. It’s a shame that the necessary “insight” required for a normal human being is not capable in the mental disease of Dubya. When one suffers from “delusions” or worse “delusions of grandeur”, their mental handicap makes it impossible for them to gain the proper insight to realize that it’s all about “them” and their “mental problem”.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:15 amAnd, while Bush suffers from his mental disorder, American crumbles. It’s so very sad, indeed.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:16 amNot unlike Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned – Bush sits in defiance and ignorance, while this country goes down.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:16 amYou want to know how expensive War is? The Churchill-Roosevelt Lend-Lease program that helped Britain fight off Hitler was finally paid off last December. That’s right December 2006! Sixty-five years after it began. Whoa!
And, BTW, there tends to be a popular misconception that the US defeated Nazi Germany, but any fair appraisal of the European Theatre of War will give the deciding factor to that evil empire the Soviet Union.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:27 amHey Tony you lay with the dogs you better expect to get fleas.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 amIf only we had a way to do a vote of “no confidence” in this country to make our leader step down. It is ridiculous that the public has no say in getting rid of a dangerous president. Congress is too weak willed to do it, so there should be some way for the people to do it. After all, he is supposed to be working for us.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:58 amCan’t happen soon enough.
The “coalition” of the willing continues to break apart.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 am“With Iraq as his legacy, Tony Blair steps down…
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm….. into a pile of poodle poop he didn’t see beside the Bush.
It is a testiment to his strong leadership on the war, that most believe he will be remembered for his efforts in the war. The small percentage of those who believe that he will be remembered for his relationship with Bush, contradicts the notion that most see him as a lap dog of the president. Independant leaders on both sides of the Atlantic believe that the war in Iraq was, and is, the right course of action.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:59 pm…Let’s see that’s:
Italy
Spain
Israel (pending)
GB
…they’re teaching US how to be a democracy…
…by holding THEIR leaders accountable…
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 pm