If Blair were to pull out of Iraq....apologize to the world....

...admit that his getting Britain involved was misguided, and just basically say "Look...I caved into pressure, I f*cked up. Now the objective is to get everyone home safe."

Disclaimer:
I REALIZE THIS IS GROSSLY OVERSIMPLIFIED AND WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

But let's pretend it did...what do you think the worldwide reaction would be? Would Blair be looked upon as a true leader, one who ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY for his mistakes? Would the British people drag him through the streets and crucify him? Or would the retribution from the BFEE be so swift and brutal, there would be no time for either of the other two scenarios...

I was just imagining last evening after George the Idiot spoke, utterly refusing to say that anything he'd done was wrong or mistaken (which CLEARLY it is a f*ck up of biblical proportions...)....wouldn't it be nice if Blair took the opportunity to go in the complete opposite direction?

...the only reason he got involved was because he couldn't trust America to go into Iraq and behave in a way which wasn't designed to cause chaos in the Middle East, which would give Bush control over the spigot which fuels economic development in Europe.

I wish he'd just admit that he knows Bush isn't his friend and that he feared that Bush's intentions in Iraq were not merely to create a lot of profits for corporations HQ'd in Texas, but also to destroy economic competition from Europe for America corporations. He knew that Bush meant to go in there and cause chaos, and to flow a lot of wealth to Texas and that Blair got involved because he knew he had to try his hardest to throw a wrench in Bush's plans and that he couldn't do that by staying out.

I wish he'd admit that because it's obviously the truth.

Surely he would have had more leverage that way.

Why do you think that the way this was presented publicly is the truth?

That may well be possible.

was willing to let Bush have total control of Iraq (and therefore, over the spigot of European economic development) and didn't want to have a single member nation at least physically present, and observing and ready to step in and pick up the pieces.

He shares certain character traits with Bush, particularly great stubborness and an inability to accept defeat or admit failure. Dangerous traits.

political and economic situations.

It always comes down to personality.

Republicans didn't like Clinton becuase he was an unethical philanderer. It had nothing to do with the fact that he generally wanted to shift political, cultural and economic power down to the people and away from the vew, extremely large and wealth corporations and individuals for whom the Republican part exists to serve.

As it was with Thatcher, so it is with Blair. It is the hubris of a Prime Minister's Office that has centralized too much power into its own hands.

Blair doesn't want bush to be in control of the spigot of European economic development because he knows Bush will turn it off and then the resulting economic malaise will turn into electoral victories for fascists across Europe.

Bush wants to be in control of the spigot of European economic development because he doesn't want Europe to be a competivie economic force. That's because he has no intention of turning the US into a competitive economic force. He wants to make life easy for very big America corporations who don't really provide anything of real value. If they had to compete with European businesses, the jig would be up. Can't have that. Better to destroy Europe economically. Causing chaos in the ME is a pretty good way to do that.

Looks like I'll have to work on my ass skills.

We all knew their case was solid bullshit long before "Shock and Awe" hit primetime.

They intentionally defrauded the American public into a permanent and bloody occupation of Iraq. We'll be sending our children off to die for their vital corporate interests for years to come.

How could he possibly see a con job THAT BIG and THAT SUCCESSFUL as a "mistake"?

Perhaps he'd be feted. He may want to avoid travelling on small planes afterwards, as his withdrawal from the occupation removes any illusion of a 'coalition of the willing'

Before that, this might've been possible.

Reread the articles that claimed this was the case.

None of them cite a person by name as a source for this information.

Furthermore, they're part of a pattern of "news" stories about Blair that pretend that he's not really liberal, yet can't provide any real evidence supporting this claim.

It's so obvious to me that, if you are a RW'er and you can't beat a guy from the right, you drive a wedge into his support from the left and then hope that you can pick up an electoral victory out of the pieces.

That's what the press and the RW has been doing with Blair with these stories and with so much of the rest of their strategy against him.

I really am interested in what you guys think would happen...

:)

One more, at the risk of looking desperate.

:kick:

> ... the retribution from the BFEE be so swift and brutal, there would
> be no time for either of the other two scenarios...

Not necessarily in terms of "terrorist" attack but certainly in terms
of international bullying, manufactured crises, espionage, blackmail,
scandals (real or imaginary) and other media manipulation events.

Blair would not be able to stand upright as he'd be under attack in a
way he has never faced before.

Not that he's actually in any danger now though - he's still an invertebrate.