Bush bashes Tory leader!

[notyoueither]

Attitude.

[notyoueither]

... and a joke. You still know jokes, right?

[Drake Tungsten]

Not really. Japan isn't big on your Western concept of "humor"...

[notyoueither]

Poor dear.

[Provost Harrison]

Who cares? By the time the next general election takes place, it looks like Bush will be nowhere near the whitehouse

[Ned]

When Kerry says Bush lied about WMD and that Bush went to war "without allies," he demeans Blair on two counts.

It looks like Howard and Kerry are now allies.

Strange bedfellows.

[Whaleboy]

Expect to become unhappy should they win. You might be too young to remember what Howard is like in a position of power, but I'm not. He has the soul and compassion of the dead.

What was I thinking?

This isn't pettiness. It's sending a message to leaders all over the globe, ie. that the War On Terror is the most important thing to the Bush Adminstration and that if you **** with them on this issue, you will pay the consequences, whether you're a conservative like Howard and Chirac or a liberal like Schroeder. They're playing hardball, which is exactly what you should be doing when engaged in a global war against an ideological enemy. You think this kind of **** from Howard would've flown during the Cold War? Hell no, and this is a similar situation.

Are people getting stupider around here? Firstly, the War on Terror(TM) isn't an overarching concern given that the US government has other priorities, and if it takes it to such a level of importance that free speech and decades-old relationships are compromised, that is a sad indictment on the US admin. Furthermore, Howard isn't criticising the war on terror, he is criticising Blair over Iraq, specifically the intelligence used and his motivations thus. I think its safe to say that Iraq has rather a large degree of separation from the WoT!

Such simplistic Orwellian ideas from Bush as "you're either with us or against us" belies the simplistic thinking and erroneous logic that would lose them such a war in any case.

"This one issue" is the most important issue to the Bush Administration and to many Americans. Your labeling of this as "pettiness" just shows that you really don't understand the priorities of the Bush Adminstration or how far they're willing to go to safeguard those priorities.

Strange how climate change and AIDS represent a far, far larger threat to the American people and the world than terrorism. Their priority for the war is to get re-elected, not to protect their people, since if that were their aim, they would divert resources proportional to individual threat, and you would see money being spent on reducing dependence upon oil, for example.

Furthermore to all this, has Howard taken any kind of action against the Bush admin, or Blair? No. He has expressed his view, as all politicians do, and doing his job he is attempting at best to do what is best to run the country, and worst, represent the electorate. Unfortunately for Blair his dependence upon the White House is contrary to that best interest to the UK and the world according to Howard. It is a contrary view, does the White House not tolerate contrary views now? Heres me thinking the principle of your nation is founded upon free speech and tolerance of other views!

BTW, this whole "Howard only offered a contrary opinion" line is pure chicanery. Howard led a concerted attack on Blair, the Bush administration's most valuable ally in the War on Terror. He didn't just voice a dissenting opinion.

I can mount a concerted attack on Blair, take his arguments and refute them utterly, it is still a matter of voice and opinion. It is no different with Howard or conservative party policy, which I believe this isn't anyway! Did he take legistlative action against Blair? Did he somehow do something that is not allowed by an opposition politician in a democracy?

Never said they were tolerant But Drake has a point, this does send a message.

Indeed, agree with us or suffer

Howard can attack Blair all he wants. When he turns his back on his former friends in America and attacks America's #1 ally on the international stage, however, he should expect some sort of response. And such a response is definitely not uncalled for, let alone petty.

Why what does it achieve? Is it anything more that petty retribution or the typical Bush scare-tactic+intimidation that he has used for years?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2762-1236896,00.htm

As I see it, he has not turned his back on his "friends", not that expressing a contrary opinion necessarily means turning ones back anyway. If such a response were called for, such eye for an eye childish playground politics would be far more prevalent in the world today accross the political spectrum. Alas for you, it is not.

I didn't contradict myself at all. Howard is free to attack Blair. When he does, however, there are bound to be consequences. Not a difficult idea to comprehend, especially for a law student who is supposed to be good at reading and understanding.

If you consider that he is being attacked for expressing a contrary opinion, not for the opinion itself (in effect, ad hoc ad hominem) by a government professing to send its own people to die in the name of free speech, then yes there is an inherent contradiction at work here.

I don't think there's any hate for Howard, just anger that he would go against years of Republican-Tory friendship to criticize Blair and Bush (on an issue of utmost importance to the Bush Administration) for political purposes.

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that a politicians opinions are secondary to the relationships his party has forged, considering that in his view his opponent, also an ally of that partner, has made a mistake.

As Drake pointed out, this move drives home the urgency of this endeavor. I can see FDR blowing a fuse over the opposition party leader to Churchill making such an attack.

I hardly think the two are comparable, namely because the survival of a nation was at stake which seemed to necessitate putting democracy on hold for the duration, whereas no such need is apparent here, due to the nature of the threat (again, relative to other threats, it barely scratches the surface) and the fact that there is an election in November . Furthermore, during the war there was an agreed political consensus, a manner if you will not to attack the war office because technically Britain was not a democracy at the time. There is no such situation here. It is a democracy, and frankly, a free speech free for all with regards to Blair.

Where did I say I was surprised? All I'm saying is that I understand the motivation for Bush's refusal to meet with Howard and that I don't find the reaction petty. Upon analysis, I find it rather clever, actually.

In that case, you'll enlighten me on what was gained? And don't play the "he's set an example" card because that does your argument, if you profess to support free speech, more damage.

I disagree that the Conservatives are going to get a sniff at power because of this, in the UK at least. I don't see Howard becoming PM anytime soon. If he does become PM because of this, then more power to him. If he doesn't, however, the Tories are going to have his head soon enough for destroying relations with the Republicans for no discernable gain.

Not so, an opposition party, where it does not win in the this country, will claim success if it has gained more seats and reduced the majority of the ruling party, which considering Labour's current majority, would be a big coup. Howard has now effectively commandeered the support of all those who are anti-war in this country, seems to have struck a nice balance .

What are the Tories going to do foreign policy-wise if they gain power at the expense of gaining the ire of the US administration? Are they going to completely reverse course and embrace Europe? Or are they just going to sit back and do nothing until Labor comes back in to remove them?

In all likelihood, the armed forces will assume a defensive, not offensive role, we are unlikely to find ourselves in any wars on our own and it is highly unlikely that due to the nature of the mood of the people and the conservative leaders, the UK finds itself up Americans ass again. Of course, here a government has better things to worry about than the size and use of its penis military.

British firms will be making a hell of a lot more money in Iraq than French or Canadian ones...

Are you suggesting that was a justification for going to war and supporting America?

And I look forward to the day when Canada may develop a foreign policy.

Do you take foreign policy to mean "enemies"?

I'm sure they know why Howard is doing this. I just don't think they care. The War on Terror is their sacred cow and this is a message to Howard and others not to **** with them on this.

So it would seem that following that logic, they should do the same to anyone who's been ****ing with them on the WoT. That would harm their perceived support of free speech. So why just Howard? Specific Bush intimidation it would appear...

I don't think they care about the War on Terror so much for their own welfare

Because the WoT certainly isn't doing anything for the welfare of anyone in the West. Or the East for that matter...

My attitude about this is that Howard has to go. Bush should make that clear. The Tories can seek votes vis-a-vis Blair on other issues. But, when it comes to the alliance with the United States, politics should end.

Why? That's precisely where the important politics begins!

I don't see how Vietnam is even vaguely comparable to Britain, but whatever floats your boat.

Read what he wrote, I think you'll find that his analogy holds water.

Sorry Drake, but Imran has completely pwned your ass!

[Drake Tungsten]

So much writing, yet so little substance. Impressive. Have you considered a career in politics?

[MrWhereItsAt]

What stuns me more than a little is that at least someone in the US Administration is essentially tampering in the political affairs of another independent sovereign nation! I thought this sort of thing was practically illegal, not even considering the morality of trying to influence elections in another nation in such a way...

That is a pretty awful brand of leadership too, if Bush has ruled out working with someone who may become the PM of their best ally. And I don't for an instant believe that Bush or the higher-ups endorse such a decision either, until I see it proven in a report somewhere. I may think Bush is an idiot and the current Admin's activities are a long way off what SHOULD be done, but I don't yet believe that stupidity extends as far as alienating the greatest ally they have.

[Whaleboy]

So much writing, yet so little substance. Impressive. Have you considered a career in politics?

Have you considered refuting my points?

[DinoDoc]

Do we regularly meet with opposition parties from other countries? I honestly don't know and I'm kind of curious at this point.

[Whaleboy]

Not that I'm aware of... there's generally a cordial relationship between all main British and American political parties (the four of them) but theres no official thing that I know of. I should think a lot of it is the legacy of Churchill and FDR + Thatcher and Raygun.

[red_jon]

If Howard gets elected, do we get to be the next Iraq?

The whole thing is getting too weird. Why are the Tories and Labour taking each other's foreign policies?! Gaaah.

I'll ignore them and carry on supporting the Lib Dems

And Provost, we have to hope Bush gets another term, he's doing better than anyone to push the British people towards Europe!

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do we regularly meet with opposition parties from other countries? I honestly don't know and I'm kind of curious at this point.

Not the president, but members of the admin. probably do- specially members of oppostion groups from regimes we really hate, or members of likeminded political parties around the world.

As for the "topic"- being *****y idiots and intollerant of dissent like the current WH is a minor sin in politics- making their *****yness public, well, THAT is a whole new ball game.

I am sure some paleo-conservatives in Britain of the old tacherite wing want to have the cozy snuggfest with the repugs that old Battleax had with Ronnie Raygun, but Blair was slick and stole the show by following Bush in his Babylonian Crusade, so what are the Tories to do?

I do think though Blair will win again, if only cause the Tories are weak- this won;t help them much since as revilled and utterly hated as Bush is anywhere 30 miles out from the US atlantic shore and eastward, the tories don't seem to have much brains or popular support.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's a very dangerous path for the Tories to take. Given their track record on Europe (ie- equating it with a leper colony in hell), alienating the US starts to make them look a little short of friends. I suppose they're trying to appeal to the isolationists who've been voting BNP or UKIP.