[medscribe]

Hmmm...looks like Rummy and W are giving Tony Blair political cover.

[ewing]

And he deserves some after all the water that he has carried for us in the International Community during this process.

Unlike the Frenc we don't leave Allies twisting in the wind..

[dinok]

So much for Tony's Churchillian stature.

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

[Bulldogs22]

Too many liberal grandmothers in Parliment.

[OldFriend]

Blair appears to have aged 20 yrs practically overnight.

What a shameless bunch of wusses the Brits have become. We should have known from their hysterical carrying on when Diana died that they had lost all their courage and backbone.

[Anti-Bubba182]

"(CBS) Sources tell CBS News that Great Britain – America's closest ally – may find it politically impossible to commit its military to a U.S.-led attack on Saddam Hussein. And that could force the United States to go it alone in Iraq..."

Since when do we trust anything out of CBS news.

[ellery]

I'm suddenly feeling quite nauseous.

[ewing]

What are these armnament benchmarks that they want?

Saddam is already building more Al Samoud missiles and exchanging old engine parts on the ones he is detroying..

[kcvl]

The United States of America will rescue the Iraqi people from Saddam's HELL. We will keep our families safe from terrorist. We will also remind all of these COWARDS what we find when we finish.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

U.S. officials say there are already secret surrender negotiations underway with the commanders of some Iraqi military units. Rumsfeld says that before the shooting starts all Iraqi units will be given one last chance to give up.

I sure hope this is disinformation and that we are actually trying to get Saddam to knock off some of his commanders -- because that's the likely effect of telegraphing this to him.

[WHBates]

Blair has a serious problem but we have to do what we need to do. The longer it goes without resolution the worse our economy will get and the more danger for our troops.

If we have to, I guess we'll have to do it without the Brits. It's a sorry situation we are in.

But I do think that Blair has given it his best. It's too bad that a large majority of the British public think very little of our long-standing relationship.

[Russell Scott]

The liberal media trying to stop what they can't stop. A God fearing Christian leader named President George W. Bush.

[shrinkermd]

Rummy looks thinner, older and tireder. He seems to have aged 10 years in the last week.

[GalaxieFiveHundred]

Hmm, prophecy on the part of The Clash?

"Forget it brother, you can go it alone"

[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.

[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.

[Quix]

WHAT?

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

Sheesh.

[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.

[Beck_isright]

Uh, no. I just listened to the 2300 broadcast from the BBC. The Royal Marines just deployed a brigade with armor up to the Iraqi border. This is just political bovine scattology from Dan Hewitt to po W.

[cake_crumb]

"Brits Backing Out?"

No...it doesn't look that way.

After all the media trumpeting calls of 'IMPEACH BUSH' from a billion gazillion anti-war protestors here in the United States, and with support for a war on Iraq only leukwarm while his approval numbers drop through the floor, has President Bush hasn't backed out?

Perhaps the Propaganda Machine wants President Bush to drop out as avidly as they want Blair to drop out REAL BAD, to save the Third Way, or whatever the worldwide coalition of socialist democrats is calling themselves these days?