“Seems to me he spent many months gathering this very support before attacking Iraq. Why would he do different?
Furthermore, GWB could have pitched a fit about the Brit hostages, saying the coalition had been attacked (it had!), & started bombing Iran last week. But he didn’t! Actually, he did no more than the EU, NATO, & the UN. Talk!”
Actually Britain requested no comments from POTUS on this matter and he obliged. Bush has very little public support and that makes him dangerous, he will do what is right and not care about his legacy. His biggest downfall was listening in how to be more compassionate toward guys like Al Sadr and Al Malaki. View the map and our bases. We are in attack stance on three sides of Iran, the plan was delayed by his compassionate conservatism when he shoulda been more Reaganesque about the whole matter.
Gosh, you’re even more cheerful than me!
“And we will all go together when we go.
Every Hottentot and every Eskimo.
When the air becomes uranius
We will all go simultaneous...
When we all go together when we go.” - Tom Lehrer
“Actually Britain requested no comments from POTUS on this matter and he obliged.”
So, Tony Blair went to the EU, NATO, & the UN for support, yet wanted his ally, GWB, to keep quiet. Could it be that GWB couldn’t get broad support for a free beer bash, much less an attack on Iran?
The president does not act in a void. Neither does he bear alone the consequences of his actions. Witness the ‘06 elections, where the Pubs took a beating because of GWB’s mishandling of Iraq.
Bush is part of a dynasty, so the family wont let him threaten his legacy, nor theirs. The Bushes have never acted w/o a strong base of support. GWB had it in ‘02-’03, he doesn’t now. Sad, but true.