NYT, Nagourney: War Takes Higher Toll on Blair Than Bush

War Takes Higher Toll on Blair Than Bush
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: May 7, 2005


LONDON, May 6 - Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush were bound together in the war against Iraq, and the conflict provided a backdrop for their re-election campaigns - with its nightly images of casualties, shifting justifications for removing Saddam Hussein and waves of antiwar sentiment.

But as became clear on Friday after the British election, that is where the similarities ended. Six months after Mr. Bush won a second term, Mr. Blair returned to 10 Downing Street visibly chastened. His party's delegation to Parliament was slashed by nearly 100 seats, a sobering setback that Mr. Blair's advisers attributed largely to his partnership with Mr. Bush in advocating the war.

In the American campaign, Mr. Bush arguably succeeded in turning the war into an electoral asset, linking the pursuit of Mr. Hussein to the fight against terrorism that he began after the Sept. 11 attacks. Even the failure to find illicit weapons and the continuing violence in Iraq seemed not to matter to American voters, to the frustration of Senator John Kerry, his Democratic opponent.

But Mr. Blair's situation could not have been more different. His campaign became gripped and battered in the final two weeks by the very kind of Iraq news that seemed to roll off Mr. Bush: the death of a British soldier, the appearance of the dead soldier's tearful mother denouncing Mr. Blair and orchestrated leaks of government documents that challenged the truthfulness of the case he had made for war....

***

The reason for the divergence was plainly the gulf between the United States and Europe when it comes to Iraq....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/07/international/europe/07assess.html?oref=login

That's also something to consider...

it was only really Murdochs papers and TV who blatantly supported it and pumped out propaganda.

The BBC is independent and reported as such and some of the other media relentlessly pursued it discovering a lot of uncomfortable truths for Blair.

Mainly that he downright lied aboput the reasons which doesn't sit well with Brits, even if they were in favour

brains?

...weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, Sadam was responsible for 9/11 and Bush would protect us from terrorism. The British people know better.

of votes where not counted.

We'd have had no government in the US

What a refreshing thought.

Barbara Boxer would be in charge now! WOOHOO!

a stolen election offers no insights into what the voters did or did not think...trying to analyze the thinking of people whose votes were never entered into the system as they intended is futile. Either the American election was a fraud, in which case the outcome bears no relation to the thinking or beliefs of the American voter or it was legitimate and reflected people's thinking. If you believe the 2004 election was stolen then there are no conclusions about the thinking of the voters to be drawn from the outcome... with or without a cowed press corp.

Fundies wouldn't! Blair's problem is he didn't have all those religious freaks campaigning for him. They also have freedom of the press and fair and balanced news over there. The fact that they don't have Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly and Savage could also make a difference. I wonder if they have 9 hour waiting lines and Optical scanners in the UK? Me also think's many of us'ins are jist plane dummer.

The Brits didn't fall for the bullshit that Bush's America did. More proof for my theory that the reason repugs have always crapped on schools is because to stay in power they need a really, really stupid electorate that is incapable of critical thinking.

I don't mean the politicians lied less, but that the voting method was less prone to abuse.

The reason for the divergence was plainly the gulf between the United States and Europe when it comes to Iraq....

What do you mean, Mr. Nagourney? Like, the big POND between us? Or was that a euphemistic reference to those silly Brits who never did buy the WMD excuse (I'll bet they were shocked to find out they were right!), as opposed to us oh-so-clever Americans who knew better?

Uh, right.

Maybe the real reason Blair had such a hard time in his election compared to Bush** is because our press didn't bother circulating the truth during the presidential campaign.

And the clever way you avoided mentioning how one of those leaked British documents makes Bush** out to be a LIAR right alongside Blair proves you still aren't interested in the truth.

The effing media/press in this country DISGUSTS me.

Bush will pay for his sins. He'll pay far more than blair, and will,
by the end of his tour of the hell worlds, wish and pray for a life in
as pleasant a world as this. Bush did not read that there really is
karma, and you do indeed reap what you sew... no, bush will pay a toll
in the darkest dungeons of hell for his crimes, just you wait.