In appreciation of the UK.

[pnjsurferpoet]

I'm posting this here so you know a lot of people in the US, besides me, appreciate the UK. This is an editorial running today about Blair.

FREEDOM'S FRIEND



July 18, 2003 -- Tony Blair, prime minister of America's most stalwart ally, stood before Congress yesterday and — with power and eloquence — spoke of the core values that bind Great Britain and the United States. And more.
"There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban [or] that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people," said Blair.

"The spread of freedom is the best security for the free," he added — reminding an oft-fractious Congress that the liberation of Iraq was about something more than weapons of mass destruction.

"The threat comes because in another part of our globe there is shadow and darkness . . . where a fanatical strain of religious extremism has arisen, that is a mutation of the true and peaceful faith of Islam," said the prime minister.

Blair's address clearly reflected a nuanced appreciation of America's role in the world — an understanding, frankly, missing among many Americans.

But it was also a ringing call to arms in which the prime minister explicitly called upon the United States to fight terror by fighting for liberty around the world — and by staying the course in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Members of Congress, ours are not Western values; they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom . . . "

Indeed, added Blair: "Abraham Lincoln said, 'Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.' "

Nor will they long have it.

Blair is in considerable political trouble back home, mostly for his undaunting support of America since 9/11.

That is, the prime minister is a standup guy with an acute sense of history.

Congress received him well.

Congress clearly knows a friend of America when it sees one.

[Clandestine]

Are you truly so easily swayed with fancy political soundbites pnj? Are you utterly incapable of seeing that such rhetoric is rarely the true face of what politicians or governments truly are concerned with?

If not then there is little point in making much more of an effort to enlighten you to the true nature of power politics.

[pnjsurferpoet]

Are you truly so easily swayed with fancy political soundbites pnj?

hmm:rolleyes:

Well, apparently sometimes I am.:p

[Clandestine]

Then grow out of it. Its hollow rhetoric and there are legions of speach writers whose task it is to paint wonderfully euphoric images to cloud people's minds and appeal to the unquestioning sentiments of the masses.

Its just another way politicans have of blowing smoke up your arse.

Look beyond the platitudes and pursue the need for leaders to be fully accountable to the public which they are sworn to serve or youll find down the road that you have been made a fool of time and time again by the reality of power politics.

[pnjsurferpoet]

paint wonderfully euphoric images

But they are wonderful to hear...taken just as a speech...that was a great speech.

And regular Americans, without any doubt whatsoever appreciate Blair and the UK's friendship.

I know what you're saying Clandestine though.;)

[byny]

fROM THE nEW STATESMAN

I was talking to a senior member of the Bush administration the other day, and I asked him why he thought Tony Blair was so popular in the United States. 'Because he puts principles above polls,' he replied. 'An unprincipled politician does what the polls tell him.' It was an interesting perception of a man now practically reviled in his own country: that Blair is popular in the US despite his fellow countrymen, not because of them.

American views of the British, I've always found, are much more complicated than a superficial analysis might suggest. There is still residual mistrust dating from the revolution; but that is for the nation as a whole, rather than for individuals. Margaret Thatcher achieved similar heroic status to Blair, but - and this is the widespread American view - it was for knocking an ungrateful country into shape and clobbering the unions. Both Blair and Thatcher, in fact, have been the subject of idolatry in the US that is in inverse proportion to the regard with which they are held in their own country; each is seen as a leader who has followed the American Way rather than the British.

Blair, above all, is seen as articulate - which is not that hard when nearly all his public utterances in the US are made alongside Boy George. Personally, I find his performances with Bush to be fey and peculiarly embarrassing, especially when he is presenting new, highly dodgy 'intelligence' culled from that morning's edition of the New York Times (see NS, 16 September 2002). But Americans are always prone to stereotype foreigners, and we should never be fooled into thinking that speaking the same language (or a similar one) makes the two countries less foreign to each other.

I find that when Americans hear my British accent, they tend to assume I'm clever and well educated - and that I have a broader vocabulary than them. (This last may be true; I find I often dumb down my conversations with Americans.)

This is the stereotype into which Blair conveniently fits: that he is cleverer and better educated than American leaders, and that he speaks from a wider vocabulary (again, probably true). Ever since Thatcher's days, there has been a cult following among the chattering classes here for the Sunday-night cable television screenings of Prime Minister's Questions. Dealing with roars of disapproval and heckling is an experience unknown to American politicians, and brings much admiration if the Prime Minister can make his or her words resonate above the hubbub, and even more admiration if he or she appears to be getting the better of the yelling and nasty hordes.

But Britons should not be fooled into believing that what they think matters to the Americans. The Bush administration was not in the least reluctant, for example, to land Blair and Britain in it by letting it be known that the forged 'intelligence' about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger (which Bush used in his State of the Union address) came from Britain rather than from the CIA or other US intelligence sources. When it comes to the crunch, America acts in its own interests; Blair or Britain comes second, at best, in the calculations.

It is much the same with the two Britons, Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, whom the Americans plan to put before military tribunals and who face death sentences in Guantanamo, Cuba. Blair, I notice, has kept quiet about this; it has been left to two junior Foreign Office ministers, Baroness Symons ('clearly, we want the Americans to give us assurances that the international minimum standards of fair trials will be met') and Chris Mullin ('we will follow the process very carefully'), to voice dissent. I expect the two Britons eventually to be repatriated; the Americans offered earlier this year to send home the Australian who is also facing a military tribunal, but the Howard government said it did not want him. Yet the Americans have not hesitated to put Blair into a difficult position where domestic pressures may force him to express dissent against the US.

Should it come to that, Blair will find his popularity here vanishing speedily. He will be seen as weak on suspected members of al-Qaeda, and a wimp when it comes to military tribunals and death sentences; in short, as un-American. That side of Blair, the more left-wing side characteristic of the former plain MP Blair rather than the PM Blair, is unknown to Americans. If Blair and Bush ever discussed the beliefs they held in the past, I suspect Bush would be in for a shock.

Indeed, the days when President Kennedy's door was open practically daily to Lord Harlech (formerly Sir David Ormsby-Gore), Britain's ambassador to the US, have long since passed. Astonishingly, Britain has even been without an ambassador for the past six months, a period which included the whole of the Iraq war. Since the outgoing ambassador, Sir Christopher Meyer, left to become chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Blair has not dared to spare the new ambassador, Sir David Manning, from his position as No 10's chief foreign policy adviser. Manning will come to Washington at the end of the summer, but the main links between the two governments today are Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and Jonathan Powell in No 10.

Despite Americans' subconscious beliefs that Brits are better educated and cleverer than they are, the American Way still stands high in their minds above all others. If Blair started disagreeing with American views, his heroic status would quickly be dropped. His popularity here is because, rather than pursuing the Third Way, he has fully adopted the American Way - just like Margaret Thatcher.

[pnjsurferpoet]

Nah, some of what he said is true. But it's simplier than that. We view the UK as friends and a parent to the US. That's why "things British" are valued...including accents.

Regarding those guys in Cuba. If they went to Afghanistan and fight for the Taliban against the Northern Alliance that's one thing. If they went there to kill American soldiers...screw 'em.

Also left out of the article is how many "brits" from that nasty little mosque, Finley, in Northern London came to America to kill us. The immigrant problem in the UK is well known in America. It doesn't mean we're anti-UKish. It means we don't want liberals here or in the UK to give hateful people the opportunity to kills us.

I just posted this to show it isn't just me who love the UK in America.

[dantheman]

I am also confused by Blair byny, his attitude when it comes to global terrorism and the war on iraq terror and America, but we know he is more left-wing on other issues and also pro-european.
I didn't know you could be commited to both.

[Clandestine]

Well said. I must say that from the start of his speech I immediately thought to myself, "here is a prime example of the lapdog lciking his master's privates to win praise".

[pnjsurferpoet]

Clandestine. OMG:lol: :crazyeyes :eek:

[pnjsurferpoet]

The United States has agreed to suspend legal proceedings against British terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay until U.S. and British officials have discussed their case, Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said Friday.

[kevlar85]

Just thought I'd copy today's Voice of the Daily Mirror in here so PNJ can see how the Prime Minister's speech went down with his traditional supporters:

Hero worship in the US will not save Blair
TONY Blair got the greatest reception of his life in America last night - and loved every minute of it.
The Prime Minister basked in glory as the US Congress leapt to their feet 18 times to cheer virtually his every utterance.
What a change it must have made to all the aggro he's getting back home.
But forgive us if we don't share the ecstatic joy of our American friends.
The truth is that Mr Blair got his astonishing victory parade because he backed George Bush in his illegal, unethical war on Iraq when hardly anyone else would.
He committed thousands of British troops, many of whom have now been killed - and with serious risk that more will perish as post-war Iraq erupts into lawless chaos.
In short he stuck his neck out against the will of the British people and the United Nations and backed America in what many now view as a war based on lies.
That's why America feels such a debt of gratitude.
And that's why there was something quite nauseating about last night's spectacle.
In the middle of his speech Mr Blair revealed he may be "wrong" about WMDs. There may be no link with terrorism after all. And by implication, we may never find Saddam's fabled arsenal.
What a devastating throwaway admission.
If this is true, then the whole justification for the war collapses and Mr Blair knows it.
Our troops will have died fighting on a false premise, and our nation will have been conned.
No wonder many Labour MPs are now rebelling against their leader.
The New Statesman's amazing attack on Mr Blair yesterday merely serves to illustrate the depth of anger directed at him for the very decision so lauded by America last night.
When he returns from his ticker-tape reception in Washington, the Prime Minister will find a party and a country massively underwhelmed and increasingly enraged.
Mr Blair said that if he is wrong then he believes history will forgive him.
We do not share his belief. If Weapons of Mass Destruction are not found soon in Iraq then no amount of hero worship in America may be enough to save Mr Blair back home.

The truth of the special relationship is that it is a one way street and always has been, Britain may get some occasional breadcrumbs of international influence from Washington but the loaf is always in American hands.

PNJ the "if" in your sentence is crucial - we don't know if the two Britons in Guantanamo did do anything wrong and most probably we never will, Bush's declaration that they are "bad people" means they have already been judged and as their solicistor said in a statement to London Today "the worst human right abuses in the world are always covered up by saying the victims are 'bad people'." They will not get a fair trial and will be executed if we can't get them back to Britain, which I hope we can, this is America stooping to the levels of Saddam's Iraq - maybe there's a case for regime change in Washington now? Doesn't matter, if there isn't we can make one up... good old Alastair.... ;)

Clan - well said! "Yankee Poodle Blair" as the Mirror calls him today! :)

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
The United States has agreed to suspend legal proceedings against British terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay until U.S. and British officials have discussed their case, Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said Friday.

So they get to spend even more time in Guantanamo they must be thrilled! This is exactly the type of breadcrumb I was talking about. It's a delay like the UN was a delay. Bush owes us the return of British citizens for his squalid little war and if we get it it'll be his attempt of paying back the favour to Blair. If we don't, and I don't expect we will given the lukewarm messages saying "Can we have our prisoners back Mister?" , it will show all of us the truth about the special relationship.

[pnjsurferpoet]

Kevlar. What is your definition of "traitor"?

Also, the Mirror was always against the war and anti-US. I used to have it bookmarked but couldn't stand the bias.

[dantheman]

Even though I'm in support of a fair trial for woshisname and woshisname, people should remember that these two are possible terrorists and here's hoping they get a lenghtly prison sentence if convicted, considering the effort people have made to suport them.
Can't say I like the Daily Mirror though.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
Kevlar. What is your definition of "traitor"?

Also, the Mirror was always against the war and anti-US. I used to have it bookmarked but couldn't stand the bias.

Why don't you tell me your definition of a traitor PNJ? And if you're implying what I think you are then please make a direct accusation.

Yes the Mirror was against the war - but why don't you use the logical route and ask WHY were they against the war? The Mirror isn't anti-American trust me PNJ you'd know if a British tabloid is anti anything - look at the way The Sun treats the EU. I think you should go back to reading it and at least educate yourself to the other viewpoint.

[pnjsurferpoet]

"traitor" regarding those guys in Cuba not you you silly college dude.:)

To me, if they went to fight the coalition forces, they could have killed one of your soldiers. Isn't that being a traitor to the UK?

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by dantheman
Even though I'm in support of a fair trial for woshisname and woshisname, people should remember that these two are possible terrorists and here's hoping they get a lenghtly prison sentence if convicted, considering the effort people have made to suport them.
Can't say I like the Daily Mirror though.

Yes they are possible terrorists and IF they are convicted I hope they spend the rest of their lives behind bars - but if the evidence against them is so compelling why can't they be tried in the same way that we or the Americans try the rest of our criminals? I support Britain and America not stooping to the levels of Saddam's Iraq or Mugabe's Zimbabwe because I still like to think that we are bastions of human rights and democracy and justice in the world - a reputation that is not upheld when we stoop to these levels.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
"traitor" regarding those guys in Cuba not you you silly college dude.:)

To me, if they went to fight the coalition forces, they could have killed one of your soldiers. Isn't that being a traitor to the UK?

Fine, glad we cleared that up or we could have had a little falling out there - you silly high school kid. :p

I only believe they are traitors if they are convicted of crimes by a normal jury on the basis of evidence, not being randomly arrested, subjected to human rights abuses and not getting a fair trial. If the evidence against them is so compelling PNJ why can't they have a normal trial where they would surely be convicted?

IF they went to fight the coalition forces then yes they are traitors to the UK and I agree with you wholeheartedly BUT they haven't been tried fairly or even convicted yet.

[morrocan roll]

weren't these guys there BEFORE ...any 'coalition' forces?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
What is your definition of "traitor"?

keeping it simple, a traitor is someone who shits on his own people. lets take the bush administration ...it is well documented that pakistani inteligence chiefs were interviewed by BBC radio four, months before 9/11 ever happened. the inteligence was that america was finalising it's plans to invade afghanistan. the big problem was convincing the american gullible and the rest of the world that america had right and reason to do it ...the right and the reason miraculously appeared on 9/11!
george, cheny and rumsfeld have lied and lied and lied a whole fucking lot more about chemical weapons ...biological weapons and even nuclear weapons to get YOUR dumb ass on their side!
they have been proven to be liars regarding the W.O.T. THE cia AND BRITISH INTELIGENCE SAID THERE WAS NO LINK WHATSOEVER BETWEEN SADDAM AND ALQUEDA ...oops caps lock ..there was no threat to any country at all from a massively weakened iraq ...due to war and sanctions yet still you see these people as honorable.
THEY ARE FUCKING TRAITORS!
you have an amazing gift for being blind to the truth. astounding. all these lies were pointed out to you before the war ...you doubted, fair enough. the lies have now been proven, even owned up to to a degree and you still don't fucking get it!
it's all been lies pnj. ALL OF IT! the terrorist bit ...the whole fucking thing ...and still you salute and pay homage to this bunch of crooks and traitors ...why?

[pnjsurferpoet]

I'm sure Bush and friends aren't nice people MR.

One thing I read Kev is that a trial might bring out witnesses and information they don't want made public. That makes sense to me. Is it true. I don't know.

MR if they were there before the coalition forces...then they are innocent...to me.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
I'm sure Bush and friends aren't nice people MR.

they are more than just 'not nice' pnj! they are acomplished liars who have taken charge of your great country. they are changing the rules and the laws to line the pockets of their friends at YOUR expense and mine. they continue to decieve you and diminish your countries international standing to an alarming degree. they continue to be the biggest threat to world stability. your great country is now seen as a rouge state with weapons of mass destruction. it didn't used to be like this. how can you trust such fucking crooks to be so well armed?
get them thrown in jail at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Clandestine]

pnj, why dont you consider that what they dont want revealed through any open trial process is just how many innocent victims Bush and co have rounded up, tortured, and held against all legitimate reason and international conventions of human rights.

Given that their lies are being revealed one by one and they are back peddling worse than Clinton ever did, why can you not simply acknowledge that this admin is in fact more than "not nice people" but outright fascist criminals who should themselves be in prison?

The prisoners in Gitmo should be remanded into UN custody and screened properly and either released for lack of credible evidence or tried in an international court. Anything less than that threatens to stain our country with a black mark worse than the shame of what was perpetrated against Japanese Americans during WWII.

(damn MR, you reading my mind or something?? Your post wasnt there when i started to write my response to pnj, and then when i finally posted, there you are saying more or less the same as me!! Strrrrange!)

[Aladdin]

What chance do the prisoners have of a fair trial when the President of the United States publicly states "The only thing I know for certain is that they are bad people"?

Never laugh again at banana republics and little dictatorships. You'd still have a better chance of a fair trial there than in George Bush's Free America.
:mad:

[pnjsurferpoet]

Aladdin, your take on the guys. They went to Afghanistan because....and while there they did/didn't plan to fire on British/US/Coalition troops? What is your take on this?

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
I'm sure Bush and friends aren't nice people MR.

One thing I read Kev is that a trial might bring out witnesses and information they don't want made public. That makes sense to me. Is it true. I don't know.

MR if they were there before the coalition forces...then they are innocent...to me.

Then you ban the press from the trial and make all involved in the trial sign the Official Secrets Act (I assume there's an American equivalent) meaning no information makes it public. Then they can have a fair trial by jury or at least with their own solicitors present to defend them and have a fair trial - problem solved.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
Aladdin, your take on the guys. They went to Afghanistan because....and while there they did/didn't plan to fire on British/US/Coalition troops? What is your take on this?

That's not for him, you or President Bush to decide. That's for the jury to decide - innocent until proven guilty remember? Whether they did or didn't set out to attack Allied forces is irrelevant when we are discussing the trial except to say that they are suspected terrorists - operative word being suspected. Also correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the shoe bomber Richard Reid have a civil trial? And there was far more evidence against him than anyone in Guantanamo... but maybe that's the point... :chin:

[Clandestine]

Given that we've already had several reports in the past year of US/UK authorities and intelligence services fingering people, breaking down their door and dragging thm off on the claim of links with terrorism only to release them later with insufficient proof to believe that quite a significant portion of those held in Guantanamo are innocent victims of an establishment crazed with its own power and acting only for the preservation of a powerful cadre of corrupt cronies at the top.

Contrary to the suggestion of applying the official secrets act, I would argue that unless this situation is resolved openly and with public scrutiny can any hope of fair trials be assured. The way the system is set up at present, most of the prisoners will merely be issued some junior military advocate who will not have the clearance to review all the supposed evidence against the accused in order to prepare an adequate defence and the whole process will be nothing more than show trials with a predetermined outcome.

Bush has no legal authority under international law to unilateral hold nor arrange trial for these people. If it isnt done at the international level it will only show clearly that this admin is no better than that of the despotic governments they have labelled the "axis of evil".