Could U.S. Aggression Toward Iraq Mean Regime Change — In Britain?
	found on The New Republic written by ksu93, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Thu 26 Sep 4:27am
		"Lost in all the talk about whether the United States can and should bring about a regime change in Iraq is the very realistic possibility that Tony Blair, and not Sadaam Hussein, might be the one most at risk of losing his job. The idea may seem absurd. British Prime Minister Tony Blair enjoys a handsome majority in the House of Commons and is opposed by a Conservative Party that languishes between 9 percent and 10 percent behind his Labour government in every opinion poll. But it is a rule of British politics that a prime minister's most dangerous enemies are on his own side of the aisle. And in backing Bush's war on Iraq—even though 80 percent of Labour MPs disagree—Blair has placed himself in direct opposition to the views of the party upon whose consent he relies. Citing the historic examples of Anthony Eden, forced to resign after bungling the Suez War in the 1950s, and Margaret Thatcher, ousted in a 1990 leadership challenge, the article points out that such a fate for Blair may not be as far-fetched as one might think: 53 Labour MPs registered a protest vote at the end of Tuesday's emergency debate on Iraq, while an opinion poll following the debate registered little enthusiasm for military action without UN approval, or for Tony Blair's close support of George W. Bush. Backlash against U.S. foreign policy on the Iraqi issue has already had a profound effect on the leadership structure in Germany, and Blair faces the unenviable dilemma of alientating his domestic support, especially on the backbenches, or distancing himself from U.S. policy and facing the same backlash as Gerhard Schroeder. So, could Britain be next?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 62 commentsbest: 4 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  George has more to lose than Tony   by geekybob       at Thu 26 Sep 5:08am score of 1     Tony Blair might face opposition for supporting the war, but George Bush will almost certainly lose in 2004 if the war results in too many casualties, or an unexpectedly bad result, for our side. I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Re: George has more to lose than Tony   by David Flores       at Thu 26 Sep 6:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     but George Bush will almost certainly lose in 2004 if the war results in too many casualties, or an unexpectedly bad result, for our side. And don't forget the economy. The CEO of American Airlines is already predicting a slew of Airline bankruptcy's if Bush goes ahead with the War. It'll happen to Bush Jr. just as it happened to Bush Sr., and just as it happened with the leaders of the Argentine military junta that attacked the Falklands. Once the war fever is over and the country looks around and sees what a mess the president has made of the domestic situation, the voters will not be kind. come polling day. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: George has more to lose than Tony   by seawater       at Thu 26 Sep 1:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     Once the war fever is over and the country looks around and sees what a mess the president has made of the domestic situation, the voters will not be kind. But that only happens once a war is over. When the country is still at war, a president usually gets a wide majority of support. Bush's game plan seems to be to keep us in a permanent state of war against Al Qaeda, Iraq, the "axis of evil", terrorism, etc. As long as the voters feel we're at war, they'll rally round the commander in chief.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: George has more to lose than Tony   by Adipic Acid       at Thu 26 Sep 1:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     As long as the voters feel we're at war, Yep, perpetual war in Vietnam sure got LBJ re-elected! Wait... No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: George has more to lose than Tony   by seawater       at Thu 26 Sep 1:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     Too true. Except that, well, LBJ didn't run in 1968.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: George has more to lose than Tony   by Tessera       at Thu 26 Sep 1:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     That we should be so lucky again....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: George has more to lose than Tony   by Adipic Acid       at Thu 26 Sep 1:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     He didn't run because he was convinced he'd lose. Why was he so sure? The war was killing his popularity. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  You're ignoring the obvious difference   by TheRisen1       at Thu 26 Sep 4:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     Vietnam was a meat grinder that we lost before we even started. Bush, OTOH, is picking fights that he knows he can win. As soon as this one's over, doobies to donuts says we'll miraculously find evidence that some other major oil exporter is 'building weapons of mass destruction' or 'harboring terrorists' or some such bullshit. It's working for him so far. TeeAhr1: Raving batshit loony? Or hope for man??   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  The too-many-casualties myth ... is it true?   by Miguel Agullo       at Fri 27 Sep 5:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     I recently read an article in the New Yorker (not online, unfortunately) which described the "realist" GOP view on this subject, held by people like James Baker. I generally dislike their kind; however, I'm inclined to think they are right in this case. Their theory is basically that Bush should not have declared war on terror but on Al-Qaeda, which would have provided focus to the effort. Furthermore, they are inclined to think that once the Taliban where overthrown, the war should be conducted in a police, rather than military style. But on to the casualties. Describing the Tora-Bora battle (a still only semi-acknowledged disaster that possibly led to the scape of senior Al-Qaeda managers), they criticize America's timid involvement in it and particulalrly its reliance on local troops (which ended up asking the Brits for reinforcement). The government's actions were clearly shaped by a "avoid American casualties at all costs" reasoning. Yet, the realists claim, in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, Americans were ready to pay blood if it was what it took to get to the terrorists behind them. Specially if the case was clearly outlined (which, with the declaration on the war on terror instead of a specific enemy, it wasn't) As I said, I completely agree with this thinking. The "realists" also oppose the war on Iraq on several grounds. a) The U.S. is not good at re-building nations. b) Tasks in Afghanistan are not yet finished. c) Distracts from the war on terror. d) The real danger is losing Pakistan to terror - and the Pakis have nukes. e) The U.S. should imprint its power on the world by doing less more efficiently rather than by being everywhere, often messing up in a huge way - which kills the purpose in the first place. As one of them said "If you level an Afghan village by mistake, don't be expecting its inhabitants to be hard-core fans of America".   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: The too-many-casualties myth ... is it true?   by Adipic Acid       at Sat 28 Sep 9:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 47     a) The U.S. is not good at re-building nations. Too true. The bleak wastelands of Europe and Japan are mute testimony to the US' utter incompetence at nation-building. I agree with your other reasons, but that statement is BS. We've made mistakes in nation building, but we can be pretty good at it when we decide to spend the money and effort to do so. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Correction   by Miguel Agullo       at Mon 30 Sep 5:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 61     The bleak wastelands of Europe and Japan are mute testimony to the US' utter incompetence at nation-building. In fact, they are a testimony to nation-REbuilding. The U.S. poured money into existing, but depleted, modern societies. How to create those modern societies out of places like Afghanistan is a very different challenge. You have to build everything, from a road system to a police force. By the way, the reasoning is not mine, it's the GOP's "realists" current thinking.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: Correction   by Adipic Acid       at Mon 30 Sep 5:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 62     Blanket statements like "the US is bad at nation-building" are rarely, if ever, true. Of the nations in the Middle East, I would guess that the US would have the most luck in re-building Iraq. It is mostly a secular society that has slowly (at the point of a gun) moved away from the tribalism that afflicts many of its neighbors. The only countries we might have more luck with would be some of the tiny Gulf states, and possibly the urban parts of Iran. Certainly the festering pile of corruption and primitivism that is Saudi Arabia would be far more challenging to re-build as a democratic nation than Iraq would. I still think that this is the wrong time for any of this. I have yet to be convinced that Iraq crosses the "clear and present danger" threshold. I did support a full up invasion at the end of the first war, since it seemed to me that we'd have to go back and fix that situation sooner or later. Later hasn't come yet. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  The non-realist, surreal GOP scenario   by Miguel Agullo       at Mon 30 Sep 6:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 63     Right, the U.S. leads an international coalition that for years imposes terrible sanctions on the Iraqi people, wages one, maybe 2, wars against them and you (and half the administration) consider it a prime target for nation re-building by the U.S. Do you plan to get the cooperation of the Iraqi people at gun point too? Another creepy aspect of the issue is the fact that indeed Iraq is a secular nation. Mess with it in the wrong way and chances are you will create another integrist Islamic nation. I would like you and the rest of the people in the GOP who think nation-building in Iraq will go well without a doubt, to think about Algiers. A modern society, with plenty of natural resources (gas and oil) and a history of Western cooperation. Yet after a disagreement over who won a clean election (the Islamists won) a bloody civil war has been ripping the country apart for over a decade (the Islamists often march into a village and cut the throat of everyone in sight). Not that bothers the international oil industry, very much still operating in the country. There you have a very possible template for Iraq. Do you like it?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: The non-realist, surreal GOP scenario   by Adipic Acid       at Mon 30 Sep 7:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 64     I would like you and the rest of the people in the GOP You know what happens when you ass-u-me something Miguel? I'm not a Republican. Of course that may hurt your blinkered worldview too much. I have another template for you. Germany, 1931. Worried that poking their noses into that mess would merely make the situation worse (after all, the country could go shudder Communist!), Europe and the U.S. did nothing. Perhaps that's overstaing things a bit, particularly with Iraq's military capabilities. Maybe Mussolini and his gassing of the Ethiopians is a better comparison. Out of that pair we got, among other things, the Guernica bombing. The world is full of unintended consequences. If you demand perfect foreknowledge of all of them before acting, stay in bed. Is Iraq the next Germany or the next Algieria? My guess is it is neither. Right now, I'm in the wait and see category. As I said in my previous post, I'm opposed to an invasion at this time. Back in the original Gulf War we had the chance to remove Saddam, and chose not to take it. We're living with the results of that decision now. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Godwin's law to justify war in Iraq?   by Miguel Agullo       at Mon 30 Sep 7:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 65     I'm not a Republican Congratulations. Still, this whole thread has spun out of a comment I made pointing out a GOP thinking current which is opposed to intervention in Iraq. The other current in that party agrees with your point of view on nation-building. Thus the mistake. My mistake. Newsflash: Germany went on to wage a war against the world. A war it could have easily won. That is simply not the case with Iraq. Iraq can maybe, and with all the restrictions in place that is a big maybe, hit Israel with one of its innacurate Scud missiles. Israel can retaliate with nuclear weapons. Spin it all you want, it really doesn't sound like the Polish cavalry taking on the German Panzers in '39. You think Algeria is not a good template, but you don't ellaborate. I wonder what makes you think that 2 countries that share many characteristics would evolve in completely different ways. I am not saying it is not possible. I am just wondering why you discard it upfront.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  regime?   by chasing       at Thu 26 Sep 6:54am score of 1     Blair does not a regime make, so even if he were ousted there would be no regime change in the UK, unless that ouster was a part of a broader revolution (which isn't going to happen). No matter the number of Presidents and Prime Ministers we have over the course of the next fifty years, even if Saddam lasts through those fifty years (which of course he won't) our "regimes" will outlast his. So it's sort of silly point, even if the crux of it was confined mainly to the heading... As for the ousting of Blair by his party, he probably doesn't have to worry too much about it as it's his charisma that, by and large, got the Labour party where it is. If he goes the party might well fall to the Tories, although probably not until after an After-Blair fails (as Major was the After-Thatcher). His job is on the line, yes, but probably not as much as it seems. At least, not yet.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Re: regime?   by holgate       at Thu 26 Sep 7:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     As for the ousting of Blair by his party, he probably doesn't have to worry too much about it as it's his charisma that, by and large, got the Labour party where it is. But that's a double-edged sword: right now, I suspect that Labour voters would be quite happy to see Gordon Brown step forward. That son of the Manse may not have the glowing charisma of Our Glorious Tony, but he also escapes the perception of being two-faced.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: regime?   by chatsubo       at Thu 26 Sep 8:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     I agree with holgate. The Tory Party is in a shocking state, and their leader Ian Duncan Smith (best known for his nervous cough) is so ineffectual that Prince Charles has taken it upon himself to become leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. The Lib Dems are a force at local level, and can cause the Tories and Labour some problems in key seats, but it would take a sea change in politics for them to ever come to power. The real threat to Blair is Brown. Brown has kept his mouth shut about Iraq (though he has given the nod to the principle of collective responsibility) and would be in a very advantageous position if any war went badly, or even if the war went well but the costs were so high that the much needed public sector reforms had to be delayed. Labour Party members don't like Tony Blair. They respect his ability and are grateful for him for winning the 1997 election, but nobody actually likes him. He doesn't talk the language and he can't hit the spots that Gordon Brown can hit with ease (though ironically, Brown is behind much of the legislation that upsets the comrades of Old Labour). Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  How about a Regime Change?   by Goldmund       at Thu 26 Sep 7:29am score of 3.5 witty     In the United States? Maybe we could replace our current, warmongering administration with one that is willing to listen to the consensus of the world's leaders and act accordingly instead of choosing a path and then bullying other countries into following it. How about an administration that doesn't lock up suspected 'terrorists' without due process, holds them indefinitely without releasing any proof of their supposed wrongdoing (it's National Security), and then releases them without so much as an apology? Or a administration that has placed a religious zealot in the highest prosecutorial seat in the land, a man who is uncomfortable with the sight of a semi-nude statue of Justice, a man who believes that expressing disagreement with the current administrations' actions in the 'War on Terror' is akin to assisting terrorists or a man who is working harder than anyone to make it even easier for the government to spy on you. Or maybe we could replace an administration that has placed former CEOs and Company Execs in regulatory positions. Fox guarding the henhouse, anyone? What about replacing an administration that has continued on the long, slow process of eviscerating the Bill of Rights? Goodbye, Fourth Amendment. Our 'leader' is a former coke-head, frat-boy, failed business-running, corporate lackey who is only in power because the supreme court in his Brother's state decided that he had more votes. He doesn't even have the majority of the populations mandate to run this country. "There ought to be limits on freedom..." George W. Bush October, 2000 -1 Obnoxious. Bring it on.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  one question   by Petronius       at Thu 26 Sep 7:54am score of 1.5 modappeal   in reply to comment 7     Are you registered to vote? If so, you shall have your chance to remove Bush in due time. If not, you are all sound and fury, signifying nothing. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Choose Your Own Reply   by stankow       at Thu 26 Sep 8:36am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 9     [Insert joke about how he's not on the Supreme Court, so his vote won't count anyway.] [Insert rant about how Bush is going to suspend elections anyway.] [Insert complaint about the corrupt system and how the Democratic candidate won't be any better anyway.] [Insert "I liek Pokemon!"]   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Choose Your Own Reply   by Ajax       at Thu 26 Sep 12:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     [Insert "I liek Pokemon!"] The truly scary thing is that if the election were held on Plastic, Ash Poopem would probably carry a plurality of the vote, on the strength of nothing more than his Ralph-Wiggum-esque utterances and an admittedly encyclopedic knowledge of that anime on crack, Pokemon. "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  one more regime to change...   by curve06       at Thu 26 Sep 12:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 7     That pesky one in the Senate, with all those 'shallow-thinking' liberals screwing things up. I believe Senator Durbin (D-IL) summed up the whole situation very succinctly. He said, is Bush seeking a "regime change in Iraq, or a regime change in the Senate." If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind. - Kurt Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Whatever.   by ExciteableBoy       at Thu 26 Sep 1:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 7     ... who is only in power because the supreme court in his Brother's state decided that he had more votes. Uh, the Florida Supreme Court decreed that the election results couldn't be filed until there were more recounts. The US Supreme Court overturned their verdict because the deadline for filing election returns had passed. Get your fundamental facts straight before you rant. Maybe we could replace our current, warmongering administration with one that is willing to listen to the consensus of the world's leaders. Al Gore said during his 2000 presidential campaign that a regime change in Iraq was a goal for his presidency. Is Al Gore "warmongering"? Also, the US was attacked last year by people who took advantage of the openness of our society and the rights that our Constitution affords. Can you suggest why they won't strike again? Should we carry on as though they won't? Do you suppose any US president would have acted differently? I won't address your charge that the fox is guarding the henhouse because we all know that Democrats are completely free from any corporate taint. ... a man who is uncomfortable with the sight of a semi-nude statue of Justice ... That's a myth, but if you feel that it substantially affects the way he'll do the job he was sworn in to do, party on. Our 'leader' is a former coke-head, frat-boy, failed business-running, corporate lackey ... And Gore's a stoner and Clinton didn't inhale. Sticks and stones. Plastic is for substantive discussions. If you want to type a screed full of empty invective, post it on DU or smirkingchimp.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Typical Americans   by chatsubo       at Fri 27 Sep 4:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     we finally get a post about British politics and we end up with 20 messages about Bush. Anyone would think you people are obsessed. A spooky kinda love/hate relationship. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: Typical Americans   by Goldmund       at Fri 27 Sep 9:29am score of 1   in reply to comment 45     Sorry, chatsubo. All my fault. It is a love/hate relationship, I hate him and several others in this nation love him. What can you do about it?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  War based on lies   by GodSpiral       at Thu 26 Sep 7:39am score of 2.5 astute     Politicians lie all the time. We're stuck with one of them no matter what, so as long as they steal/divert just reasonable/fair amounts of money from the public, we should be grateful that they are kinder than Stalin. Powerful private interests far greater than the simple plebs in political office gain from war. Opportunities are generated without costs to them. Pressure exerted on the officials politically indebted to these private interests. National prestige and envy (and $) blind and suppress the conscientious duty of officials to its people(Goering quote). That war rather than conflict resolution is the preferred outcome is the vicious crime perpetrated on the people. Hatemongering lies and exaggerations are the tools to ensure that path. The warmongering rhetoric against Iraq is even more preposterous than Germany's propaganda against Poland in 1939. Saddam has no intent or capability to invade its neighbours. That's the biggest lie of all. But there are smaller lies too. Clearly purposeful lies. The most flagrant: Al Qaeda has ties to SH. Its misleading because its a purposefully overreached conclusion from AQ members are in Kurdish-held territory. Anyways, The general case against war. The purposeful lies by the establishment is the reason they deserve to be eliminated. As long as they protect us, they can be as reasonably corrupt as they please. When trying to kill us instead of protecting us, they've violated their primary responsibility, and crossed the line of "no confidence" or "High crimes and misdemeanors." The honest pursuit of conflict resolution is inconsistent with demonizing lies of irrational un-negotiable opponents. Only the honest pursuit of conflict resolution is consistent with the public interest. We are witnessing corrupt US leadership's attempted murder of its own people. No politician should support corrupt needless massacres, and those that do, should be impeached. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Cynicism Rules Ok?   by luggage       at Thu 26 Sep 8:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     Does any one person amongst us really believe that politicians are irreverent, unrepentant crooks? really?! That all the people who choose politics as a course for college, or become grassroots activists, local councilors, bureaucrats, whatever....they are all in it for number one first and only? I believe that this view of politics we all seem to love, it's a sham. People become politicians because they want to change things. They are frustrated with the status quo and the inability of their supposed leaders to get anything done. There are few who are the exception to the rule, but that is the same in any field. What gets us so angry and so frustrated is that we know (subconciously perhaps but we do know) how difficult the job really is. You do not just get elected into Eden. There is no utopia where the elected House smoothly and without argument does your bidding. A politician enters into a morass of conflicting interests; a) his/her constituents expect attention to their problems at a local level whether they be jobs, security, immigrants.... b) the sponsors (getting elected takes money) expect to be listened to and have their interests taken care of..... c) the party he/she belongs to has demands on time and support that may conflict with personal beliefs..... d) the bureaucrats that run the administration don't want their world disturbed by some part-timer who may not be in office for very long.... e) the hordes of special interests all want their turn bending his/her ear, cajoling, threatening, promising..... f) and that "part-timer" also wants to make a change, but realises it is not going to happen overnight. Suddenly a mission becomes a career becomes a job, and the goals get further away. Tony Blair may fall if Dubya's plans come unstuck but I doubt it. He is an operator and I am sure he has a safety net. He will shift blame, raise new ideas, claim victory in defeat etc etc. He has been in the game a long time and shown himself to a much better player than any of his opponents. Let us just hope he has some principles left that he stands by that are bigger than himself. Democracy, not a very good system of government, but the best one humanity has come up with so far.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Cynicism Rules Ok?   by GodSpiral       at Thu 26 Sep 10:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     A good analysis, but I think your conclusion is "its complicated." People become politicians because they want to change things. They are frustrated with the status quo and the inability of their supposed leaders to get anything done. There are few who are the exception to the rule, but that is the same in any field. I believe only two US presidents have followed through on their intentions to benefit the nation, rather than succumb to selfish use of power. Washington for insisting on a constitution instead of grabbing the dictatorship that was offered him, and Jefferson for enabling the bill of rights (the only aspect of the constitution that grants protection to people from government). But human rights and freedoms don't end where the bill of rights does. Other than equity in voting rights, nothing in the last 200 years has promoted human freedom, or limited authority of Government over its subjects. We endure the tyranous rulership, Washington and Jefferson attempted to avert. The one Basic human/public right neglected is the obligation of government to define and mandate itself to uphold the public interest rather than "its office". A rulership maximizes the vagueness and reach of its authority, and clings to that right. Beyond that, political freedoms and fairness are not actively pursued/allowed by the US Government. Incumbent protection acts are passed off as election reform. More democratic voting systems continue to be shun, and ultimately, the self evident truth of the right to secede (self-determination) is explicitly suppressed. So the good intentions of political students, is much like the other people who say "its not about the money." In the quest for power, even if merely subconscious, the natural human failure is to attempt to exert it maximally under pretext of good, when in fact, the only good possible is when that power is eliminated (purposefully to achieve a good outcome --perhaps eliminating an opposing power as well). It is proof that the one ring binds them, and rules them all, that no politician has since been able to successfully bring government closer to "by and for the people." We simply elect the ring bearer amongst those that want it the most. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Cynicism Rules Ok?   by zengerkin       at Thu 26 Sep 1:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     I believe that this view of politics we all seem to love, it's a sham. People become politicians because they want to change things. They are frustrated with the status quo and the inability of their supposed leaders to get anything done. There are few who are the exception to the rule, but that is the same in any field. Some people get in politics to change things for the general welfare of citizens and some get in politics to change things for themselves and their friends. From his words and actions, i would have to guess that the Bush administration is more about changing things for themselves and their friends. In general I would say that your above summation of politicians idealistic nature is naive and denies virtually all of the American politics that I've witnessed in the last 30 years. Congressmen. Think of the House as being the condom that DC wears while it assfucks the nation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Cynicism Rules Ok?   by Ajax       at Thu 26 Sep 1:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     [Does anyone really believe...] That all the people who choose politics as a course for college, or become grassroots activists, local councilors, bureaucrats, whatever....they are all in it for number one first and only? I don't think that most people believe that all people interested in politics are corrupt greedheads. It's just that in any given race between the corrupt greedheads and the honest and principled public servants, the corrupt greedheads tend to win. That's been the case in every democracy the world has ever known. The people who want power enough to do anything to get it tend to see that dedication rewarded. It's inspiring, in a sickening sort of way. People become politicians because they want to change things. They are frustrated with the status quo and the inability of their supposed leaders to get anything done. And then they get elected and find out why. That's assuming they haven't compromised themselves so many times already in their quest to attain office that they've become, ipso facto, the status quo. It's said that power corrupts. Given that fairly self-evident canard, democracies tend to be good, stable forms of government because they tend to spread the corruption around over time. "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Cynicism Rules Ok?   by plutocracywatch       at Thu 26 Sep 12:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Speaking of regime change, you write, "the self-evident truth to secede..." (Like nullification no doubt.) The US Constitution never mentions secession. Although the Southern states dominated the federal government from 1790 to 1860, they never legislated the terms and conditions of state secession, despite having passed laws stating the terms and conditions for states entering the Union. Such issues include the obligations to the federal debt or surplus, repatriation of loyalists, compensation for federal investments, protection of loyalist properties, borders alignments, currency alignment, and the effect on foreign treaties. If the truth is a right it need not be legislated. Some ancient rights like duelling or tyrannicide developed through common law. Sexual harassment in our time evolved through the courts. Kindly cite the precedent setting cases establishing the rights of states to secession. Despair not, the Constitution is amendable! read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  State Secession   by GodSpiral       at Thu 26 Sep 2:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 22     An interesting article on nullification: a www.townhall.com link Here's a history/rant of US secession movements and its treatment. a www.lewrockwell.com link I went googling to see if my interpretation of the constitution has been discussed before. Doesn't look that way. The US Constitution never mentions secession By not mentioning it, it forbids it, IMO. But it actually is somewhat explicit: From Article 4: no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. and From Article 1, section 10 a www.law.cornell.edu link, which basically says that no State can commit acts that only a sovereign Nation would (issue money, enter treaties...) My read is because there is no mention of secession mechanism means that it is not allowed. The US is like the Hotel California. The implication from the first block is that a State cannot also not split itself into parts that diverge in membership to the Union. But also, the passage right after this in article 4, though hard to parse, is conclusive in my view. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States Suggests to me that any US territory must be respectful of congressional authority as to its status. Minnesota cannot decide to join Canada. this page makes an ok case for why I should be wrong a rlcole.tripod.com link, but basically any case is going to be up to the government, and they're predisposed against it. If the truth is a right it need not be legislated. Some ancient rights like duelling or tyrannicide developed through common law. Interesting. Truth is no match to US Gvt interpretation of the law, and its puny weapons, and the weapon holders allegiance to the constitution. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: State Secession   by plutocracywatch       at Thu 26 Sep 4:52pm score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Dilorenzo, who recycles post-Confederate propaganda and slander, dishonetsly usurps separation for secession. The Declaration of Independence uses the word separation. The right to rebellion is not the same as secession. Had the Founding Fathers said secession, the point would be his, but they did not. Jefferson did not use the word secession in that quote - "a remedy is separation." Had the Confederates used rebellion and separation, this post would not be necessary. The Hartford Convention is as significant as the ban many small towns once had against school marms being seen in public on a Saturday night. Political theory, no matter how gaseous or trenchant, does not make for law. The Supreme Court ultimately decides the law in this nation. The people make law as they serve on juries. There is no successful case for state secession in this nation. There is a successful secession from a state when that state is under rebellion - West Virginia. The Confederates always support state secession and always oppose municipal and personal secession. Article 1 Section 10 forbids the states from issuing fiat money by requiring them to accept only the weights and measures of gold and silver. My point is that the mechanism for legal and undisputed secession could have existed by Congressional legislation and Constitutional amendment but did not. Had the South created and followed such there would have never been a war. Instead the hypocrites supported an uber alles federal government when it came to returning fugitive slaves - actually conscripting all local and state officials to enforce that law, expanding territories for new slave states with Indian removal and the war on Mexico, paying for internal improvements, and funding the Navy to protect cotton exports on the high seas. Secession as a concept is sound. The Confederate secession was neither legal nor moral. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: State Secession   by GodSpiral       at Thu 26 Sep 7:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 39     I agree that the South's attempt at a secessionist movement that dissallowed secession from itself was dishonest and immoral for only this reason. Its my interpretation that the US constitution (and every other government but signapore and austria) is dishonest as well for not providing for the right of fair secession. thanks for the history brushup, though. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: State Secession   by plutocracywatch       at Fri 27 Sep 4:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 43     I did catch an author on C-Span 2's Civil War Sunday a couple weeks ago who said the Supreme Court in the case of White V. Texas ruled the Confederate secession illegal. The Union did not put Jeb Davis on trial because they "did not want to lose in court what they won in the battlefield." That would have been an intersting case as freed slaves may have made up all or part of the jury, a plus for the government, or the fathers of the Southern soldiers, a minus for the prosecution. Canada is an example of how threatened secession should be handled, with plebiscites and negotiations, although we don't know what the final outcome will be. My guess is Quebec will not leave. The break-up of Checkoslovakia went without violence. Yugoslavia's break-up proved a humanitarian disaster. It's always fun talking with you. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: State Secession   by GodSpiral       at Fri 27 Sep 8:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 46     D'oh I forgot the biggest block to secession in US law: The pledge of allegiance "indivisible" clause. Though I am confused as to the full legal status of the pledge. a canada.justice.gc.ca link Canada has studied the international law aspects of self-determination. It concluded that a "people" has such a right, but may not do so unilaterally. Although a people is not well defined, it would not include an ideologically defined group, even if that ideology is based centrally on the right of self-determination, or other more representative governance. Canada is an example of how threatened secession should be handled, with plebiscites and negotiations Indeed. I guess arbitration could guess at a fair separation of assets, liabilities, income streams and obligations, but Canada's court didn't say arbitration was necessary. Rather, only negotiations were, and creepily, "the ultimate sanction for "unreasonable intransigence" [in negotiations] is a political one" (war). Guidelines for what philosophy is fair are not absolutely necessary, but would be very helpful. I think a (fair) bias towards the incumbent state is useful in keeping relations among the two future nations as friendly as possible, and in preventing "frivolous" pursuit of self-determination. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  The Danger of Historical Comparisons   by uncarved block       at Thu 26 Sep 10:06am score of 1     Yes, it's possible that Blair could get forced out due to the objections of his own party-- but using the historical example of Thatcher is bad, bad history. If I remember correctly, her approval ratings never topped 27% in her entire career, a career which oversaw a fundamental shakeup in the UK's economic workings, and the disastrously expensive Falkland's war. In short, things had happened for which she could (fairly or not) take the blame.       Blair's weakness, from what I've heard, is the opposite: he's done little, if anything, to make Labor happy they voted for him, and yet done everything to make the Tories want him out. The article makes a good case why Blair should fear Brown, but leaving out the specious comparison to Thatcher would, IMHO, have made it an even better argument. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Re: The Danger of Historical Comparisons   by furryape       at Thu 26 Sep 12:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     The Falklands war was in 1982, Thatcher was ousted in 1990, after winning elections in 1983 and 1987. This means that the FW's effects were minor if anything on Thatchers Ousting. Also, according to this link, Thatcher had a 43% approval rating in 1984. However, the most important thing to remember she was ousted because her own party lost confidence in her, not the general public. Michael Heseltine, an ex-cabinet minister, challenged Thatcher for the leadership of the party. Thatcher actually WON that election, but not by a big enough margin to win it outright - she needede 4 more votes (got 204, needed 208), and it became obvious that in the repeat election, many people who voted for her before wouldn't vote for her again, because no-one expected Heseltine to do so well.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  Blair Witch   by mrwarmth       at Thu 26 Sep 1:01pm score of 2 compelling     Blair is a notorious control freak, and it is unlikely that he would have embarked on this course without first considering the risks. He has spent his entire tenure as PM pissing off the left wing of his party. Whether he could survive also alienating the centrists is an interesting question. I think the answer depends on two things. First, will any action against Iraq succeed? The answer to that question is almost certainly yes, so it is a safe gamble on Blair's part. Second, is he seen as the only leadership alternative within the Labor party? The Tories are pretty weak right now, and Labor may feel they can afford to oust their leader and still retain power. However, is there a current Labor leader that could appeal to all the voters who voted for Tony Blair because he convinced them he wasn't the Labor Party of old? I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps on of our UK plasticians can fill us in. This strikes me as the most important factor in the equation. There is possibly a third factor, though I'm not sure how decisive it would be. That is will Blair be the only European head of state to actively help the Americans? If he is the only one, then he is more vulnerable. If, as seems more and more likely, the French would participate given a UN mandate, then he might be more protected, since he could legitimately portray the effort as a European one. Chirac is pretty safe regardless of the outcome, because right now in France he is seen as the alternative to fascism. Blair doesn't have that advantage. Blair is supporting Bush on this issue because he wants to have a say in post-Saddam Iraq. He wants this not just for the sake of political prestige, but by virtue of Britain's own foreign policy concerns in the Gulf. I think ultimately this is why France won't be able to resist getting involved. They realize the US is very likely to win, and if they were not involved, then they will have no say in what happens after that. I think they consider that more of a long-term danger than the danger of riding the coattails of a US victory. This I think is Bush's overall strategy. He knows the key European players won't want to be left on the sidelines, particularly if the US is likely to win. Only Germany can afford that gamble, because they do not have any world diplomatic ambitions to protect. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

52.  Re: Blair Witch   by ideonode       at Fri 27 Sep 12:40pm score of 1   in reply to comment 26     +astute and Labor may feel they can afford to oust their leader and still retain power Here's an interesting tidbit. I remember reading somewhere (but I do not remember where) that the person who may finally topple Tony Blair will be his wife, Cherie. She's currently a very successful British lawyer. However, her career can't really go much further whilst her husband carries on being an elder statesman of the world. So, the rumour goes something like this: before Blair got into power, he made a promise to his wife - two terms maximum (unlike the US, there's no upper limit on the number of terms a person may be PM). The Labour Party bloodhounds know this, and even before all this sabre-rattling and war-posteuring, they'd been baying. Personally, I doubt there'll be an abdication in the short term - in answer to your question, there is only one other politician who comes close to Blair, and that's Gordon Brown, and he lacks any kind of commanding presence on the global stage.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: Blair Witch   by mrwarmth       at Fri 27 Sep 1:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 52     My feeling is that Blair is siding so closely with Bush because he wants to be on the winning side, and he wants the power and prestige of that position to accrue to himself and to the UK. It's interesting to see France suddenly rousing itself to the threat, and starting to make conciliatory noises in Bush's direction. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

40.  Blair reminds me of Clinton.   by Conrad Bombora       at Thu 26 Sep 5:13pm score of 1     I'm not saying that to be disparaging, and being an American I'm not truly familiar with Blair's political history but what I do understand is that he is pissing off his own party by taking a more conservative stance much the same way Clinton did in the 90's. So I don't think he has any thing to worry about, if any thing he'll come out stronger after this almost guaranteed victory in Iraq. I think comparing him to past leaders is like the whole apples and oranges thing. "Must be nice to hope for the thing you wish to want... Sure beats doing it." Strangers with Candy   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  Too true.   by MAYORBOB       at Thu 26 Sep 6:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 40     When Blair burst onto the scene, that was the comparison that was made; that he was the British Bill Clinton. And the two of them seemed to have gotten along famously. As a matter of fact, members of his own party who were upset at what they saw as Blair's fawning routine over Clinton, had a nickname for him -- Monica. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]