Brits Backing Out?

CBSNews.com ^

[MadIvan]

Ivan, it looks to me like Blair and Britain are going to bail on us.

As I told another Freeper, if that happens, I will use every last ounce of spare energy I have to getting rid of Blair and Labour. I would never have voted Labour anyway, but it will signal a moral failure on Blair's part to do the right thing, even what it was politically inconvenient. We don't need a leader like that; such a leader could only bring us to ruin.

I hope we'll try to be sympathetic to Britain, but if Tony goes wet, or is booted, and Britain bails, that will be the end of Britain's seat at the top table. We will no longer be able to count on you. Sorry, but that's the way it will be.

Until the next Tory government anyway.

Regards, Ivan

[colorado tanker]

My take is a little different. Seems to me that Bush and Blair are playing "good cop, bad cop." Bush is firm on March 17th. The pygmy countries want April 15. Blair is trying to get the pygmies to "compromise" on the end of March, otherwise that crazy Bush will go in alone, even without the British, and demolish the UN in the process. My guess is Bush has already agreed to March 27, so long as we have firm committments of nine yes votes.

[Bombard]

What it all boils down to folks is that we can count on no one but ourselves. Depending on a Labor Party PM is begining to look like a major mistake. The world will be a much more dangerous place without the USA to lead it. But that is what is coming. The USA will take care of Saddam and then leave France and the rest to deal with the future. Then when they have screwed it all up they will come back to the USA and we can tell them to KISS OUR A##.

[Caipirabob]

Tony Blair showed a lot of courage and character to stand up to the Socialists. He just got outnumbered. He's earned my respect for standing by us though.

Still, it only serves to remind us that all Socialists are our enemy. Tony is not counted among them though. He's proven he's seen some of the light. Maybe he'll do some thinking and come completely around.

At any rate, he deserves the support we can give him. I believe he did as much as he could.

[judicial meanz]

This just hit the AP wires a little bit ago. Looks like the political game is heating up a bit. Its off the wire, so all it has is a picture reference number. I dont want to alter the heading or content.

____________________________________________________________

Blair Takes Biggest Gamble of His Political Life on Iraq Photos XAG107, XBER102, PAR102
By Barry Renfrew Associated Press Writer
Published: Mar 11, 2003




LONDON (AP) - Tony Blair is taking the biggest gamble of his political career with his tough stand on disarming Iraq, insisting that he won't back down even as rebels in his party call for emergency action to oust him.
The British prime minister is one of several allied leaders whose decision to stand by President Bush has exposed them to mounting, angry criticism at home. So far, none has shown any sign of backing down.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard is under attack for sending 2,000 troops to the Persian Gulf region; Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar faces a possible electoral backlash in local elections in May; and President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan also faces criticism over his backing for Washington. Arab nations that support the Bush administration, mostly behind the scenes, are equally nervous about growing dissent among their peoples.

Blair, the only allied leader to make a major military commitment, sending some 40,000 troops to the Gulf, has provoked a storm in Britain over his backing for Bush.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld appeared to raise the possibility Tuesday that British troops might not take part in an attack on Iraq, instead playing a role in later operations. The remarks stunned British officials, who insisted London was not backing out.

Blair's office stressed Britain remained fully involved in military planning.

"This has not changed anything. We are still working to get a second resolution," said a spokeswoman, speaking on usual condition of anonymity.

Rumsfeld appeared to back away after urgent phone calls from British officials seeking explanation.

"In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom," he said later in a statement.

While even his most bitter critics concede there is little chance of ousting Blair, there is concern that the British prime minister is suffering political damage that will undermine his rule or eventually cost him the support of his party.

Rebels within the governing Labor Party called for a special party conference to remove Blair if he backs a U.S. war against Iraq that lacks U.N. approval.

"I don't think it is possible to exaggerate the degree of concern about the illegality of what is proposed," said Tam Dalyell, a Labor lawmaker.

Expressing government exasperation, Labor Party chairman John Reid said Tuesday, "Why don't we spend our time discussing in the party what is the really important issue, which is not getting rid of Tony Blair, it is getting rid of the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein."

With most Britons and a large section of the Labor Party willing to back war against Saddam only with U.N. approval, Blair has been heading frantic efforts to secure Security Council support.

Although Blair has not stated what he will do if the council does not approve a war, he has said there is a moral case for war, and senior officials say Britain would almost certainly back any subsequent U.S. military action. To back down and let the United States go it alone would be a huge blow to British credibility and Blair's authority, they say.

Blair and his supporters are gambling on a quick, successful war with few casualties to prove they were right. Television pictures of happy Iraqi civilians greeting U.S. and British troops as liberators will sway public opinion, they predict.

Under this scenario, Blair would emerge vindicated and stronger than ever.

Britain does not have a written constitution, relying instead on a mix of laws and traditions. A prime minister can be removed only if he loses a vote on a major issue in the House of Commons, and even then, it is only tradition that compels him to resign.

While Blair is expected to win any vote in Parliament on Iraq because of support from the main opposition Conservative Party, a huge Labor vote against him would show he had lost the party's confidence and he would be under pressure to resign. Analysts rule out this option unless any war goes badly wrong.

Some Labor Party rebels called Tuesday for its National Executive Committee to call an emergency summit to remove Blair if he commits Britain to war without U.N. approval.

But other rebels quickly denounced the move, saying they were not trying to oust Blair, the leader who ended the party's 18 years in opposition and who remains the party's best electoral asset.

"The last thing we need at the moment is discussion and feverish speculation about the leadership of the party," said Chris Smith, an ex-minister and a leader of the anti-war camp.

[Robert_Paulson2]

bush said weeks not months.... last september...

what makes you think we won't back down... again and again... because we have repeatedly already.

this should have been clearly identified by us, as a texas-bluff from the end of the first month of delays forward...

we have, are and will continue to blink... because there is something up that we are NOT being told. What is it?

Many believe that Sadaam already has nukes... the means to deliver them, and the French/Germans/Russians and Chinese probably sold them to him. The UN is clearly with Sadaams' allies, which includes the chinese and russians.

This is the apparent reason why we might be blinking for the fourth month since "weeks not months" was uttered.... by our President.

Sadaam is laughing at us. So is Russia and China. WE may even know exactly what he has... Clinton may have even allowed our enemies to import the items himself. We must not have the ability to take it out. China, Russia, France and Germany have set us up the bomb... and done it via a proxy state that we cannot hold them accountable for... sun tzu strikes again.

I now understand the president's dilemma and the need for seven or eight aircraft carriers stationed on razor edge alerts all around the principle puppet masters... it is not just to take out a tinpot dictator.

But we are backing off for some reason... not clearly apparent to us as Citizens. The missile shield will not be deployed at all till next year... is that what we are waiting for?

[ellery]

Because this seems like a major monkey wrench to be thrown in at the last minute. If Turkey's waffling delayed us, what will this do? It's already hot in Iraq -- how much longer can we wait while we rework our plans yet again?

[Jay D. Dyson]

The longer we wait...the more support we will loose.

As much as it pains me to say it, I believe you're right. Speaking as an ardent Bush supporter, I have to voice my disgust for these continual delays. All it's done is allow the opposition more footing to think of different ways to block our every move.

And to those who claim otherwise, I challenge you to show me how these delays have drummed up more support for our cause or brought us any new allies. Near as I can tell, we are LOSING THIS WAR BEFORE WE'VE EVEN BEGUN IT. And let me assure you all that it is indeed demoralizing to see the appeasers getting the lion's share of the media coverage and the Leftist press making us look like we're "isolated" and "unilateral" (when we're damned well not).

And, worst of all, it pains me to say that this has come to pass because of indecisiveness in Washington.

Bottom line: WE NEED TO SH*T OR GET OFF THE POT.

-Jay

[Mo1]

Do we really expect outlets such as CBS or any liberal rag to give any info that is supporting Bush or our allies? I believe as we get closer those who have been against this war from the start will become even more desperate.

In short .. Nope and Yep they will get even more desparate.

For the last several weeks the news has been ALL OVER THE PLACE.

We are going to war in Jan .. then it's the 1st week in Feb. .. then it's between Feb 24th & 28th .. then it's March 1st .. then it's March 17th

Then we hear Saddam will exile in another country, but yet no country has offered to take him

Then it's Bush is pulling out .. then it's he giving the orders, then it's he delays

Let's face it .. The media has NO IDEA what is going on or when it will happen

[mr.pink]

That's a very interesting analysis.

[Judith Anne]

Amazing, the leaders who are rising and falling on the issue of the US-led war on Iraq...Chirac and Schroeder facing trouble at home, a leadership change in Turkey...even in a sense, Berlusconi. I'm sure there are others I can't think of right now.

[cmsgop]

My point was the Brits are not going anywhere. Turkey just got a new PM, and we got a Northern Front,it's all good.

[Quix]

WHAT?

SO, now Chamberlain is the British population and the leader is the sane one???

Sheesh.

[CatOwner]

"It's already hot in Iraq -- how much longer can we wait while we rework our plans yet again?"

Doesn't matter, we are not going into Iraq. I am more convinced of this than ever. The whole point of the last 4-5 months was to fake Saddam out of Iraq. Well, he isn't leaving. In fact, he is daring the US to come and get him.

Of course, my last sentence will prompt those so confident that we can get Saddam without breaking a sweat. If it were so easy, why not be done with it already? The longer we waited, the more went against our cause.

I am really depressed right now. And no, I am not going to switch political parties away from being a Republican, and yes, I would vote for Bush again in 2004. I am watching our economy go into the tank, my wife lose her job of 22 years, the price of gas go through the roof, and now California wants to triple our car tax.

Someone please tell me where is the positive in all of this?

[swheats]

That's my point. They don't know what the next move is. Bush and his administration has been fairly competent in not leaking what they don't want out until it's time. They have given me the impression they loathe the liberal media because of their bias.

Rumsfeld has stated over and over, that he will not comment on what our allies have committed to or not. It's for the allies to speak of. So in turn we have to read a columnist or reporter hunch or guess at what conclusion should be gleaned from any comment. My heart goes out to those who depend on these outlets for news and not able to watch the actual event for themselves.

[Robert_Paulson2]

I hope it's wrong too...
but ever since we changed "operation infinite justice" to "enduring freedom" to placate the same folks who bombed our WTC towers... I have been wondering about the character and resolve we need to actually win this thing.

I am beginning to doubt we have it.
Bush APPEARS to be blinking an backing down... very much like his father did on the "tough talk" on taxes.

I just don't know.

[madison46]

Victory will solve a lot.

From UPI Hears......

With unemployment up to 4.7 million and his economy stagnant, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has to give the speech of his life Friday to announce his new economic reform plans that threaten a collision course with the powerful labor unions. So why is he taking time off Wednesday evening to fly to London for a private dinner with Tony Blair, apparently intent on talking about Iraq, when the two men differ so strongly over Iraq and the second U.N. resolution? This is not one of those diplomatic engagements that have to be kept, like one of their regular daylong summits. British sources say the two men, horrified at the prospect of a lasting breach between the United States and its European allies, want to come up with a post-Iraq plan to get the Atlantic alliance back on track. The British think that the European Union should take over the humanitarian mission in Iraq and declare itself willing to join in the post-war reconstruction effort. Schroeder is expected to agree.

No help from them and they get nothing from us. No 'unexectued' oil contracts (france) or anybody else. Blair deserves credit for trying, but the people don't. Screw euroweenies.

[Dog Gone]

bush said weeks not months.... last september...

Yes, in terms of what he wanted in the UN resolution giving Saddam, weeks not months. Don't distort what he actually said. The base in Qatar wasn't finished until November, and don't try to tell me that you think we had any intention of going in before then.

We haven't backed down yet, much less repeatedly.

I can't believe the number of people here who think Bush has gone wobbly. It's insane.

[ellery]

Thanks for the reassurance -- I need it these days (God bless our troops and the Iraqi innocents whose immediate future rests on this decision)!

One thing I've learned through all this -- I'm 'way too direct and impatient to ever be in a position of national authority...

[dinok]

And, worst of all, it pains me to say that this has come to pass because of indecisiveness in Washington.

Bottom line: WE NEED TO SH*T OR GET OFF THE POT.

I'm with you bro. I stood in the streets in support of GW during the election fight. But what I have seen in the last month is making me wonder if this administration has what it takes.