Bush bashes Tory leader!

[Imran Siddiqui]

And what are Fox's and Letwin's views on the war in Iraq?

[Whaleboy]

If he's smarmy, then he's obviously been proven right, so anti-war. Letwin is an idiot, thus a hawk, it's not rocket science

[Sandman]

Here's Rifkind on Iraq, writing in the increasingly wacky Independent:

23 May 2004

"He can convince most people of most things, and himself of almost anything." These words, originally said of Gladstone, sum up Tony Blair and, in particular, his policy on Iraq.

Blair must be aware that, both in Britain and throughout the world, his unconditional support for President Bush has led to the despair of his friends and the derision of his enemies. He is no masochist and he remains preoccupied with his own political survival and his place in history. He must therefore have persuaded himself, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that American policy is wise and more likely to succeed than any other.

It is the only way one can explain why the Prime Minister's political instincts and judgements, which were impeccable for his first few years in power, have been not only wrong but, also, destructive to his reputation and political authority since the beginning of the Iraq crisis.

It need not have been so. I happen to believe that the Iraq War was both unnecessary and undesirable. But even if the Prime Minister considered it to be justified he displayed inexperience and poor judgement in his handling of the crisis. He gave the President an unconditional assurance that Britain would be on side if the United States decided on war. At the same time he was assuring the British public that a second UN Security Council resolution would be needed.

This was not deliberate deception. Blair had convinced himself that his skill and charm would ensure that the Security Council would deliver a second resolution. He was wrong. In the same way he believed that by going to Damascus he would persuade the Syrians to drop their opposition. Again he was wrong. All he received for his pains was a humiliating dressing-down by President Assad in public.

His mistake was to know little of British history and to reject the views of his diplomatic advisers. In the past our excellent relations with the US have never required unconditional support for the White House. You could not get more pro-American than Margaret Thatcher but it is well known that she ferociously attacked Ronald Reagan over the US invasion of Grenada and not just in private. She used the BBC World Service to vent her indignation. Harold Wilson refused Lyndon Johnson's request to send British troops to Vietnam without lasting damage being done to relations across the Atlantic.

Downing Street would have us believe that the Prime Minister prefers to make his vigorous representations in private. But Sir Christopher Meyer, until recently our ambassador in Washington, and present at many of the meetings between Blair and Bush, has said publicly that Blair has not been robust or insistent, even in his private representations.

It is not too late. If the Prime Minister wants to redeem some of his reputation the next few weeks will be crucial. The Americans have lost so much support throughout the world that they could not afford to lose the British as well. Blair, therefore has the maximum leverage if he is willing to use it.

He should insist that continuing British support will require three commitments from Washington. First, it is more important that the Iraqis to whom sovereignty is transferred at the end of June are acceptable to the Iraqi people than that they are friends of the Americans. Only when the Iraqis believe that they are being governed by their natural leaders and not by the US will the insurgency die down and some stability return. This does not mean that coalition troops should withdraw. That would be disastrous, and the Spanish government has been foolish to order its own troops out. But the coalition forces must answer to the Iraqi government and not just to the coalition forces.

Second, for as long as a foreign army is needed in the country it must have the legitimacy that can best be conferred by a new United Nations resolution. But that will not be possible without French, Russian and other support in the Security Council. President Bush needs allies but they will only be available if he is willing to share power. The British Government should make that clear.

The third requirement is that responsibility for nation building must be removed from the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld. The Pentagon's experience and skill are in winning wars, not winning the peace. That is for statesmen and diplomats. The responsibility, under the President, should be transferred to Colin Powell and the State Department.

If Tony Blair made these the conditions for continuing British support there is every likelihood he would succeed. If whispering them into the President's ear doesn't work, he should shout them from the rooftops. In current circumstances, that would be real leadership.

Link

Seems sensible enough to me... but I doubt it'll go down well in the Nedaverse.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In the past our excellent relations with the US have never required unconditional support for the White House. You could not get more pro-American than Margaret Thatcher but it is well known that she ferociously attacked Ronald Reagan over the US invasion of Grenada and not just in private. She used the BBC World Service to vent her indignation. Harold Wilson refused Lyndon Johnson's request to send British troops to Vietnam without lasting damage being done to relations across the Atlantic.

Very interesting and something that should be quoted every time an American considers the French to be backstabbers for not unconditionally following the US.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Does this seem as sensible?

Rifkind made head of Iraq security firm

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Tuesday April 13, 2004

Former Conservative foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind has been appointed chairman of one of the largest private security firms operating in Iraq.
Sir Malcolm, who served in John Major's government during the 1990s, is now the prospective parliamentary candidate for Michael Portillo's safe Tory seat of Kensington and Chelsea.

Today it was revealed that had become the chairman of AmorGroup, which has 650 employees in Iraq, as well as significant numbers in Afghanistan.

Sir Malcolm will be part-time and based in London. The US-owned company is not disclosing what his salary will be.

According to its website, ArmorGroup has 7,500 employees in 50 locations. It says its work is to " identify, reduce and resolve exceptional risks in complex, sometimes hostile, environments".

A fortnight ago, four American private security personnel employed by another US firm, Blackwater Security Consulting, were killed and their bodies desecrated in Falluja.

It is thought up to 10,000 "security consultants" - who critics say would be more accurately described as mercenaries - are working in Iraq, on salaries at anything between £600 and £3,000 a day.

ArmorGroup's spokesman said most of its British employees in Iraq were former soldiers "all of whom must have seen active service".

However, last week the company received unfavourable publicity when it was revealed that one of their employees was jailed for four years on 10 counts of soliciting murder.

Derek Adgey, a Belfast-born former Royal Marine, was found guilty in 1995 of helping the loyalist terrorist group the Ulster Freedom Fighters by passing them confidential military information. He was brought home from Iraq by the company.

It is not clear whether Sir Malcolm will be visiting Iraq personally. A spokesman for ArmorGroup said Sir Malcolm "may visit" the country. "He has plans to visit most regional hubs," he added

Seems to me that reducing UK troop deployment in Iraq would create something of a surge in demand for Malcy's mercenaries, don't you think?

The man is scum. Pond life. Mercenary-hiring filth. He's a bright hope for the Tory future? Good luck to 'em.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Sorry- forgot the link.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1190968,00.html

[Sandman]

Monkeys and typewriters, I suppose.

[lord of the mark]

Only when the Iraqis believe that they are being governed by their natural leaders and not by the US will the insurgency die down and some stability return. This does not mean that coalition troops should withdraw. That would be disastrous, and the Spanish government has been foolish to order its own troops out. But the coalition forces must answer to the Iraqi government and not just to the coalition forces.

debatable, inevitably. Though the evidence from Najaf suggests a strong degree of Iraqi govt control.

Second, for as long as a foreign army is needed in the country it must have the legitimacy that can best be conferred by a new United Nations resolution. But that will not be possible without French, Russian and other support in the Security Council. President Bush needs allies but they will only be available if he is willing to share power. The British Government should make that clear.

Check, a resolution was passed before June.

The third requirement is that responsibility for nation building must be removed from the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld. The Pentagon's experience and skill are in winning wars, not winning the peace. That is for statesmen and diplomats. The responsibility, under the President, should be transferred to Colin Powell and the State Department.

Check, CPA dissolved, US relations with Iraqi govt in hands of US embassy.

[Dauphin]

If I were Howard I would find this highly amusing, and just react non-chalantly. Afterall, Bush's declaration of persona non-grata is not going to effect Howard's chances of becoming PM. If Howard somehow became PM, and Bush is still in power, what's Bush going to do? Make good on his threat - the US alienating the UK in the war on terror would be interesting to see. And if Kerry is in office, who cares about the snub? Kerry and Howard could make a good relationship to draw a line under Iraq.

[Ned]

US alienating the UK? I think the people who attack the US and Bush are responsible for the "alienation."

This kind of thinking is similar to those who say that Bush is causing division in the country when it is the Democrats who are daily calling Bush all sorts of names and who are politicizing literally everything.

I can only hope these SOB Tories never come into power until they get some responsible leaders.

[notyoueither]

It's not just Democratic Yanks calling Bush all kinds of names, Ned.

TBH, when his administration was busy writing memos on how torture can be justified, I had a few choice, but not repeatable, words for the man as well.

Face it. His administration has been a PR disaster since about 3 weeks after victory in Afghanistan. The PR disaster is among allies. The disaster elsewhere is worse.

If even conservatively minded Brits and Canucks are deserting you, your ship is well and truely full of holes.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Ned
I can only hope these SOB Tories never come into power until they get some responsible leaders.

Never thought you would call a conservative party names, ever. You never cease to amaze me, Ned.

[Whaleboy]

US alienating the UK? I think the people who attack the US and Bush are responsible for the "alienation."

No, to alienate is to initiate the alienation, literally to make someone alien to you. That requires a decision on the part of the person who does so, in this case, retaliate. Howard in this case has made it clear that he wants to work with the US so he has not actually alienated the US.

Using your logic of course, we can work back to the cause of the problem in the first place... the USA's needless wars stimulating alienation, which is primary to the reaction of others .

This kind of thinking is similar to those who say that Bush is causing division in the country when it is the Democrats who are daily calling Bush all sorts of names and who are politicizing literally everything.

Of course because the Republicans have been nothing but honourable, reasonable and courteous...

[Whaleboy]

Never thought you would call a conservative party names, ever. You never cease to amaze me, Ned.

Some people get rather attached to their little wars, flags and pikachus...

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's not just Democratic Yanks calling Bush all kinds of names, Ned.

TBH, when his administration was busy writing memos on how torture can be justified, I had a few choice, but not repeatable, words for the man as well.

Face it. His administration has been a PR disaster since about 3 weeks after victory in Afghanistan. The PR disaster is among allies. The disaster elsewhere is worse.

If even conservatively minded Brits and Canucks are deserting you, your ship is well and truely full of holes.

All these Tory jokers are doing is playing politics, which is what the US Democrats are doing.

The final analysis of Iraq will be decided by the people of Iraq themselves. As far as I can tell, the vast majority still are appreciative of being rid of Saddam and really do want democracy. I predict total success.

I note, here, that he world seems to have everything backwards when it comes to terrorists and aggressive dictators like Saddam. The world, particularly Europe, has been appeasing them for too long. I believe that Bush is unpopular because he is not an appeaser. The people of Europe and, it appears, Canada, cannot stand someone like Bush who prefers to confront terror and their supportive governments rather than trying to "understand" them, etc., etc., etc. Bush is right and will be re-elected, IMO.