1. Clearly the folks at Google have no idea what I am discussing in this blog. Their last automatic ad had something to do with a test that you could take to determine what kind of Mom you were.
2. Assuming for a moment that George Bush lied about our reasons for going into Iraq, why is Tony Blair such an adamant supporter of the war effort? Remember, Tony Blair could lose his job tomorrow, and he is a member of the Labour party (which is about as liberal--if not more--than our country's Democratic Party). Why would a man like Blair risk his political career to follow Bush's lead when the PM is much more like Clinton than he is like the current president?
3. Liberals claim that George Bush is a pathetic leader incapable of making a coherent, cogent, concise, constructive comment. "He's no Reagan," they say, "and he is certainly no Clinton." Yet, in the same breath, they answer my previous question vis-a-vis the British Prime Minister by saying that Bush must have manipulated Blair into following his lead. Bush is supposedly incapable of communicating with the average American on his or her own level, but somehow he can effectively convey the need to go to war to an Oxford-educated, British Prime Minister with 23 years political experience who has everything to lose by following suit. Go figure.
4. Speaking of Tony Blair and the war... Have you ever heard him speak about the war? He makes more compelling arguments for the Iraq war than does Bush. (You have to hear this guy speak to understand what I am saying.)
5. Why is it that illegal immigrants from Mexico can influence our government, but they have no influence on their own?
6. What is the point in voting for Republicans if they spend more money than the Democrats?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Just browsed into this blog.
I've been to Iraq, as a civilian official.
Iraq is a mess, Bush and Rumsfeld are manifestly incompetent. Why Blair supports it, I don't know. He seems to be a power-mad authoritarian from what the Brits I know say and what I read on the BBC.
I think you should enlist and go to Iraq, find out the truth for yourself.
While I must defer to your commentary vis-a-vis the present situation in Iraq since I have never been there, I must say that your comment is quite telling.
Why would a "power-mad authoritarian" like Blair play second-fiddle to George Bush, a man who is "manifestly incompetent"?
Now, throw into the mix the realities of British politics. In London, the PM can lose his position overnight if his party loses confidence in his leadership. (You may recall that this is exactly what happened to Lady Thatcher. She supported the poll tax, and the Conservatives pushed her out.)
Given that the Labour Party is more in step with the Democratic Party (which, of course, is opposed to this war), and given that the British people are, by and large, opposed to this war... why would a megalomaniac like Blair ever defer to the "incompetent" Republican President of the United States?
Think long and hard, and I'm sure the answer will hit you.
Post a Comment