Posted on 11/10/2004 10:59:00 AM PST by BritishBulldog
So reports we heard of Blair hoping for Kerry victory was correct? Tony Blair should be thanked for what he has done and in the future think twice about trusting him IMO.
It's the US and Israel...we better get used to it.
I really hate that. It was always comforting to know that we were backed by our British allies. Margaret Thatcher/Ronald Reagan and Tony Blair/George W. Bush.
I guess the latter is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
"With Bush back, Blair begins the distancing"
Is that anything like "The Quickening"?
He's on his own if he's going to be like that!
Calm down folks. This is an opinion piece and as we know by know, the British media is as hallucinatory as they get. While there may be some truth here, it is also conceivable that there isn't.
I do think Bush owes it to Blair to be more supportive on Blair's "pet" issues such as Aids in Africa, etc.
Tony was just as buddy-buddy with Clinton as he was with Bush. Never trust a suck-up, he is in Labour after all.
Descriptions were that he was acting very strangely...some even said he was near tears.
I do believe Blair was hoping for a Kerry victory.
This article is nonsense. In the past year more than 150 US MArine officers have trained with our British cousins and nearly that many Brits have participated in joint training operations that showcase off of the US technology.
THe Brits also have access to some of our most advanced naval technology.
Britain is more frightened of being swallowed up by the French-German axis than GWB.
I understand where you're coming from, but that still shows him as a heretofore unwavering ally. It will be sad to see the "distancing" that the article speaks of.
As opposed to, say, Germany.
As the saying goes, "Nations don't have friends, only interests."
Perhaps that's going a bit overboard. There are friendly nations, just no guarantee that they'll always remain friendly.
With those qualifications in place, aren't you kind of forgetting Australia?
Oh joy, another European country or leader against the US. Shock.
tony is distanting from george as he running next year...he can't win kissing up to george
The difference between an unwavering ally and a suck-up is one of attitude. An unwavering ally can admit he doesn't necessarily agree with the new US president (which should be expected since politically Tony is on the same side as Clinton, hard liberal) but because his country and our are allies he will work with the president. Tony didn't do that, Tony immediately put on the veneer of total friendship, no differences, that's a suck-up. I didn't like him when Clinton was president and nothing in how he has behaved since January of 2001 has improved my opinion of him.
I would agree with you, if we knew the story held true. I always thought the unity between Bush and Blair was built more on the long and close friendship between the US and UK, then anything personally between the two leaders. After all, Tony Blair was a "Clintonite" at heart.
Why would you believe a UK MSM report... this writer clearly seem to have an agenda
I agree that I was wary of him when he "replaced" Margaret Thatcher. But, it meant a lot when were feeling the deep pain of 9/11 to have him take a strong stand against terrorism alongside president Bush.
I got sucked into the emotion of the situation and I guess that's why I feel betrayed.
Just color me "gullible."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.