Bush43 Blair Honeymoon to End In September, '07

The long trans-Atlantic honeymoon is about over. Tony Blair, the ebullient Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been forced to retire early. Because Blair in is role as the leader of the British Labor Part, which was once a socialist party, gave long and unquestioning support to Pres. Bush, he will not be able to exceed Margaret Thatcher’s record for tenure as PM in the 20th century.

London, From an Associated Press story. [Chancellor of the Exchequer] Gordon Brown, [equal to our own Secretary of Treasury] and regarded as the No. 2 post in the parliamentary system employed by the UK,] is expected to succeed Tony Blair as prime minister by September, 2007. Mr. Brown suggested Sunday that he will pursue an Iraq policy that is more independent of Washington than the current government.

Brown acknowledged that mistakes were made in the aftermath of the invasion and promised to be "very frank" with President Bush. He also said that Britain is likely to scale down its commitment of troops to Iraq over the next year - even as the White House is considering dispatching thousands more, perhaps on a temporary basis. [A last hurrah for Bush43.]

Brown's comments, aired on the British Broadcasting Corp.'s Sunday AM program, seemed intent on distinguish himself from Blair, who has been strongly criticized for his unflinching support for Bush and the war, both unpopular here.

"I look forward, if I am in a new position, to working with the president of the United States, George Bush," Brown said. "Obviously, people who know me know that I will speak my mind. I will be very frank. The British national interest is what I and my colleagues are about."

A spokesman for the U.S. State Department declined to comment on Brown's interview.

Blair said he will step down as prime minister and leader of the governing Labour party before September. Brown, who is credited with helping Blair reinvigorate the Labour party, is unlikely to face any credible challenge when the party elects a new leader, who will automatically become Britain's new prime minister.

Brown, in the BBC interview, also said that Saddam Hussein's execution - in which Saddam, a Sunni Arab, was taunted with the name of a radical Shiite cleric, [did] nothing to stem Iraq's sectarian violence. "Now that we know the full picture of what happened, we can sum this up as a deplorable set of events," Brown told the BBC. "It is something, of course, which the Iraqi government has now expressed its anxiety and shame at."

Brown also told the BBC he believed the ideological battle for the hearts and minds of young Muslims was as crucial as the battle against communism was for previous generations. Brown, in charge of Britain's Treasury since 1997, said he had worked with officials across the American political divide and remained close to ex-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and [Clinton’s] former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.

In the interview on Saturday, Brown also said he believed there should be some form of inquiry into the aftermath of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. "There are lessons to be learnt, particularly from what happened immediately after Saddam Hussein fell," he told the BBC. Uh oh. [The lack of foresight, intelligence and planning will become apparent to the world.]

"One is that in Iraq itself there is absolutely no doubt - and I think people will agree on this in time - that the passage of authority to the local population should have begun a lot earlier, so they had to take more responsibility for what was happening in their own country." He said the experience of insurgency in Iraq and Islamic extremist terrorism had proven that "we will not win against extremist terrorist activities and propaganda activities unless we [engage] this battle for hearts and minds as well."

The Treasury chief said he believed Britain was unlikely to join any future U.S. plan to temporarily increase troop numbers in Iraq, aimed at stemming the current bloodshed. [Oops! No Surge From England!]

Britain would "continue to move troops from combat to training, to complete the redevelopment work" and was likely to scale down their presence over the next few months. Britain has around 7,000 soldiers stationed in southern Iraq, mainly based around the city of Basra.

"I believe it is true to say that by the end of the year [2007], there may be thousands less in Iraq than there are now," Brown said. [Brits are coming home! Enough is enough!] Parliament would have a stronger role under his leadership, Brown said, and be better able to hold the government to account. END. My comments in brackets. []

Everyone over here seems sure Bush43 will ask for 10,000-20,000 more soldiers for Iraq, probably on Wednesday evening by tv. The object is to pacify Baghdad and its environs. Bush43 will argue this is a surge which implies temporary deployment. Semantics, others say. It is an open-end increase in troop strength in bold defiance of the November 7 election results. Critics say he will not commit himself to either a method to measure success or to a time certain to stay in Iraq.

If so, this shows all the more this man, Bush43, is very likely an Amendment 25 case: “It is to be my way or no way at all! I’m not just the president, I’m the Commander-in-Chief!” He once said he was a unite-er. Then he said he was a decider. He has not consulted with the Democrats who are asking for a bi-partisan approach on security personnel and strategy issues. Hmm? Now he looks as if he has lost his way. It seems the elder Bush41 has taken charge. To bail out the junior Bush43. Old, experienced hands are replacing Neo Con sycophants. As those around him bail out, B43 looks to be the last man standing. On a bankrupt but oh so deadly policy.


[edit on 1/7/2007 by donwhite]

Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes - Please Review this link

[edit on 7-1-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Edited and sourced as requisted


The long trans-Atlantic honeymoon is about over. Tony Blair, the ebullient Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been forced to retire early. Because Blair in is role as the leader of the British Labor Part, which was once a socialist party, gave long and unquestioning support to Pres. Bush, he will not be able to exceed Margaret Thatcher’s record for tenure as PM in the 20th century.

London, AP. Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, No. 2 in UK is likely to replace Tony Blair September, 2007, suggested he will pursue an Iraq policy more independent of Washington than Mr Blair’s. Brown promised to be "very frank" with President Bush. He also said Britain is likely to scale down troops to Iraq. Britain has 7,000 soldiers stationed in southern Iraq. "I look forward to working with President George Bush," Brown said.

Brown also said that Saddam Hussein's execution did nothing to stem Iraq's sectarian violence. Brown believes the ideological battle for the hearts and minds of young Muslims was as crucial as the battle against communism was for previous generations. "I believe it is true to say that by the end of the year [2007], there may be thousands less in Iraq than there are now," Brown said.. END. Edit in brackets.

Everyone over here seems sure Bush43 will ask for 10,000-20,000 more soldiers for Iraq, probably on Wednesday evening by tv. The object is to pacify Baghdad and its environs. Bush43 will argue this is a surge which implies temporary deployment. Semantics, others say. It is an open-end increase in troop strength in bold defiance of the November 7 election results. Critics say he will not commit himself to either a method to measure success or to a time certain to stay in Iraq.

If so, this shows all the more this man, Bush43, is very likely an Amendment 25 case: “It is to be my way or no way at all! I’m not just the president, I’m the Commander-in-Chief!” He once said he was a unite-er. Then he said he was a decider. He has not consulted with the Democrats who are asking for a bi-partisan approach on security personnel and strategy issues. Hmm? Now he looks as if he has lost his way. It seems the elder Bush41 has taken charge. To bail out the junior Bush43. Old, experienced hands are replacing Neo Con sycophants. As those around him bail out, B43 looks to be the last man standing. On a bankrupt but oh so deadly policy.


[edit on 1/8/2007 by donwhite]

Anyway, after that there will be someone even worse, Gordon Brown, even more extremist than Blair, a big player of Bilderberg, a globalist, a police state advocate... Well... meet the new boss, worse than the old boss.

Sorry for double post...

[edit on 8-1-2007 by Vitchilo]

I will be voting for the democratic candidate in '08.

You see, my state has had a slow 'blue revolution' since the Clinton years, going from a solid red state (Republican Governor, Republican Senators and Reps, voted Republican in Presidential elections) to a slightly blue state. The Governor is Democrat Tim Kaine, The Senators and Reps are mostly Democrat as well, in this most recent election I believe Webb is a Senator now. I'm talking about VIRGINIA!!

So in the past I'd vote for the 3rd party, like Nader for instance.. just as a personal protest to the stupid Electoral College, making all the votes that are blue in a red state not count, or red in a blue state during the presidential election. Ths 'point value' win a state crap. Bush took office in 2000 with an Electoral College win but Gore had more raw votes. By true DEMOCRACY standards, Gore shouldve been president, and the Electoral College shouldn't exist! If there was ever a major revolution or revamping of the american government, i'd love to see the electoral college go, as a citizen of the country. It is just an instrument to deny people true vote power through majority and minority 'rule sets' like its a game or something.

"Ohh.. you didnt pass go, so you can't collect $200 sorry."

[edit on 1/8/2007 by runetang]

posted by runetang

I will vote for the Democratic candidate in '08. My state has had a slow 'blue revolution' going from a solid Red state to a slightly Blue state. The Governor is Democrat Tim Kaine . . Senators and Reps are mostly Dems in this most recent election I believe the Dem Jim Webb won. I'm talking about VIRGINIA The Old Dominion State!

In the past I'd vote for the 3rd party . . as a personal protest to the stupid Electoral College, making all the votes that are Blue in a Red state not count, or Red in a Blue state. Ths 'point value' win a state crap . . the Electoral College shouldn't exist! If there was ever a major revolution or revamping of the American government, I’d love to see the electoral college go . . "Ohh.. you didn’t pass go, so you can't collect $200 sorry." [Edited by Don W]

1) Virginia. Named for my #2 favorite English monarch, the first Queen Elizabeth, a/k/a the Virgin Queen.
2) Yes, Jim Webb barely beat George Allen who made the racial faux pas.
3) How do you pronounce Kaine as in Governor Tim Kaine?
4) Some of my ancestors crossed the Cumberland Gap around 1815 into Kentucky, once a county of Virginia.
5) West “By God” Virginia separated in 1863.
6) The Electoral College was a pro slavery compromise made at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.
7) Post 13th Amendment, it was serendipity to the smaller states. Every state, regardless of population, gets 3 electoral votes. It takes 38 states to enact a constitutional amendment. That means 13 states can prevent any amendment.

The seven smallest states, population wise, in descending order, are MT, DE, SD, AK, ND, VT and WY. Wyoming, for example, has but 171,000 people per electoral vote. California, OTOH, has 662,000 people per electoral vote. More than 3 times as many as Wyoming. The next five least populated states are, in ascending order, RI, HA, NH, ME and ID. This comes to 12 states. One more is needed to block a reform of the electoral college or outright abolition of it which I would favor. There are 3 states with fewer than 400,000 people per electoral vote. In descending order, they are, NM, WV and NE. New Mexico, the most populated of these states, has 390,000 people per electoral vote. Just one of those states is needed to block an amendment, if the others stand together.

Some states have already made reforms. I believe Maine is one. I think Maine allows each of its 2 congressional district votes to go to the winner of that district, and the two state wide votes go to the candidate who polls the largest number of votes state wide. That is a minor improvement.

I am not sure if any states has gone so far as to allow fractional voting in the Electoral College. It appears this is one area where each stats can decide.


[edit on 1/8/2007 by donwhite]

Brown is not going to be as close to America anymore. He has said that on many occasion, especially this weekend when being asked about the British role in Iraq is being controlled by America.

I have a feeling that Brown will withdraw troops when he takes over, i cannot see him keeping them there if he is planning on calling an early election.

posted by infinite

I feel Brown will withdraw troops when he takes over, I cannot see him keeping them there if he is planning on calling an early election.

First, I like Tony Blair as PM. Next, I cannot yet understand his decision to become the alter-ego of Bush43. Third I know next to nothing about George Brown. Fourth, because he is #2 in the Labor Party, I’m prepared to give him the advantage of waiting to see him at work before deciding on him. I have noticed many times a person acts differently when assuring the mantle of power.

It is my impression that Blair already has lost one vote in the House, but that he opted to describe it as “not” a vote of confidence. it was remarked then by observers that one more losing vote means he is out as PM! It is a long time to September. I think everyone “knows” if the UK contingent in the Coalition Forces should sustain an event causing a large number of casualties, that the Commons would vote Blair out of office without waiting for September. Traditionally - as observed over here - when changing leaders in the same party, an election is likely to be held sooner than later. The Conservatives seem to continue to function in general disarray hence pose no immediate threat of a takeover, but politics can change in unexpected ways. Look at the US in 2000. How a loser can be changed into a winner.

Q. Do you think there will be a General Election in the UK this year?



[edit on 1/9/2007 by donwhite]

Firstly, the "Commons" doesn't vote Blair out, unless he gets impeached.

His party (Labour) may choose to replace him before the date he chooses to stand down.

Brown is the current Number 2 in the Labour party BUT that does not necessarily mean he would become the leader of the Labour party and thus the new Prime Minister. Theres a couple of people who may run and split the party vote, so weird things might happen.

From my perspective, Labour in the UK is not likely to win the next General Election, regardless of who is leader. They've basically trashed their traditional values and ties to the communties the party purports to represent.

Originally posted by donwhite

First, I like Tony Blair. I know next to nothing about George Brown.


[edit on 1/9/2007 by donwhite]

I have to assume you don't live in Britain, for 2 reasons, firstly you say you like Blair, he has become the most hated politicain the country ever had. And if you think USA under Bush has introduced alot of very facsist laws since 9/11 yo should take a lookat the laws Blair has introduced and laws he has been atempting to introduced, they are even more facsist. Secondly you don't know Gordon Browns name!!!
I don't mean to sound rude, but if you actually like Blair it is most likely because the press (he is a close friend of Rupert Murdoch) don't give a true picture of how he has been running the country, or how deeply unpopular he is in his own country.