What the Heck Is Going On? Part Two

WizardOfAz · March 11th, 2003, 06:58 PM

Tony Blair on the "hot seat" and now the Brits support is questionable?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in543535.shtml

WizardOfAz · March 17th, 2003, 12:29 PM

UK's Blair Loses One Minister, Maybe Two Over Iraq

By Mike Peacock

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) suffered his biggest political blow of the Iraq (news - web sites) crisis on Monday when a senior cabinet minister resigned in protest at the prospect of war and another said she may follow.

"As I cannot give my support to military action...I write with regret to resign," Robin Cook said in a letter to Blair. "In principle I believe it is wrong to embark on military action without broad international support."

His resignation came as the United States issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to leave the country or face war after diplomatic efforts to win United Nations (news - web sites) backing for military action collapsed.

The diplomatic impasse confirmed Blair's worst nightmare.

His pro-U.S. Iraq policy has set the centrist Labour leader against a large part of his party in the biggest crisis of his premiership since taking power in 1997. The wider public is also largely opposed to a war without U.N. backing.

The embattled prime minister faces a vote on a Gulf war (news - web sites) in parliament on Tuesday and the prospect of a massive rebellion by his own party. Cook's resignation, the first time a cabinet member has quit in protest over policy since Blair took power, could also lead other disgruntled ministers to walk.

Last month, 122 Labour members of parliament, more than one in four, defied Blair's hawkish Iraq stance. Rebels in Blair's ruling party say that number could rise by another 40 this time.

The support of opposition Conservatives will deliver Blair parliamentary support almost whatever the size of the Labour rebellion. But opposition in his party could be lethal for Blair's leadership if there are many casualties of war.

Weighed down by Blair's political problems, the pound had fallen by late afternoon to a three-month low against the dollar.

MORE RESIGNATIONS?

International Development Secretary Clare Short said she may also quit government. Her officials said she was reflecting on her position overnight.

Last week, she said she would resign in the event of an onslaught without U.N. authority, calling Blair reckless.

Cook's decision came as the United States and Britain made the final preparations for an imminent war.

President Bush (news - web sites) will address the nation later on Monday after Washington said Saddam must flee or face war.

Bush had given the United Nations the rest of Monday to back a resolution sanctioning the use of force to rid Iraq of suspected weapons of mass destruction. But France restated a veto threat that effectively signaled the end of diplomacy.

Cook, the government's leader in parliament and a former foreign secretary, said he was dismayed Britain was once more divided from its European partners.

But Blair turned his fire on France.

"The threatened French veto set back hugely the considerable progress we were making in building consensus," he wrote in reply to Cook's resignation letter.

"I passionately believe that if the international community had stayed rock solid in its determination and unity around resolution 1441, Saddam could have finally been disarmed without a shot being fired," he said.

On a more welcome note, the government's top lawyer countered claims from some quarters that war on Iraq would be illegal under international law by saying he believed it could be justified under a raft of existing U.N. resolutions.

"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441," Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith said.

U.N. resolutions 678 and 687 were passed before and after the 1991 Gulf War. Resolution 1441 was unanimously voted through by the Security Council last year, demanding Saddam disarm or face "serious consequences." (Additional reporting by Katherine Baldwin)

AZCB34 · March 17th, 2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WizardOfAz
Tony Blair on the "hot seat" and now the Brits support is questionable?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in543535.shtml

This isn't a surprise IMO. There have been more anti-war protests over there than here. I think the concerns both ways are very real. I doubt in the end if Blair doesn't support the US but he is outting his political career on the line with this...just like Bush.

Chaplin · March 17th, 2003, 01:39 PM

Most of the people protesting the war have some other agenda. In my opinion, they don't know what the hell they're protesting about.

Brian in Mesa · March 17th, 2003, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaplin
Most of the people protesting the war have some other agenda. In my opinion, they don't know what the hell they're protesting about.

Ditto.

And enough with these celebrities voicing their opinions and then whining about the backlash...what do they expect?

Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Sheryl Crow, etc...BLEH!

Most recently, the Dixie Chicks went on stage and said they were ashamed that the US President was from Texas. Brilliant move. Now stations are boycotting their music and people are publicly destroying their cds, concert tickets, etc.

AZCB34 · March 17th, 2003, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
Ditto.

And enough with these celebrities voicing their opinions and then whining about the backlash...what do they expect?

Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Sheryl Crow, etc...BLEH!

Most recently, the Dixie Chicks went on stage and said they were ashamed that the US President was from Texas. Brilliant move. Now stations are boycotting their music and people are publicly destroying their cds, concert tickets, etc.

Aren't you ashamed the President is from Texas?

He is probably a Cowboy fan. Instantly brings into question his intelligence.

Shane · March 17th, 2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AZCB34
Aren't you ashamed the President is from Texas?

He is probably a Cowboy fan. Instantly brings into question his intelligence.

LMAO!

CB I doubt that Bush is putting his political future in jeopardy over this war. The last poll I saw showed that something like 89% of Republicans supported war, 60+% of independants supported war and 52% of democrats actually supported war as well.

So it wont be the war that would kill him politically it would be other issues if that happens JMO!

schutd · March 17th, 2003, 02:34 PM

Careful. Bush senior had an astronomically high approval rating coming out of Desert Storm and he lost the election. [EDIT: Oh, Shane, I see what you mean. I totally agree. It wont be the war that kills him, it'll be his obsession with it and his domestic policy that will ultimately do him in if that happens]

As far as celebrities stands. I guess everyone has the right to react however they want when a celeb speaks out against war. But that celeb has every right to say it, and I for one wont allow my preference of someones body of work be it music, art, film or televsion be clouded over their personal views. Hey, they have the public forum, they choose to use it to spread their personal beliefs, great, they should expect both praise and backlash, as there are two sides to every argument.

But for people to put as much emphasis as they do on those (ie: stars') opinions is pretty assinine, IMO.

Tony Blair is royally screwed. He hitched his wagons to the US before he knew how his own party felt, and it will be his undoing. And even if he wavers and backs off his pro-US stance, he'll be viewed as wishy washy, and the decision will have been made for purely political reasons, cooking him even further. His only option is to stay the course, and hopefullt the labour party wont remove him before he can commit troops.

As far as what people "over there" are protesting about, I dont know how we would know their collective state of mind, but I would assume its an anti-war one, whatever the cost. Admirable, but misguided I feel.

I guess we'll know more here in about 90 minutes...

Chaplin · March 17th, 2003, 02:45 PM

It's probably too late for Britain anyway. They've passed the point of no return, it looks like we'll be at war within 3 days.

AZCB34 · March 17th, 2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shane H
LMAO!

CB I doubt that Bush is putting his political future in jeopardy over this war. The last poll I saw showed that something like 89% of Republicans supported war, 60+% of independants supported war and 52% of democrats actually supported war as well.

So it wont be the war that would kill him politically it would be other issues if that happens JMO!

Just the act of going to war likely won't effect his political future but if this thing drags out and/or the goals set forth aren't carried out, then that approval will nosedive. Additionally, I think it is a foregone conclusion that the minute we set foot on Iraqi soil (via invasion since it can be assumed Special Forces are already in Iraq), there will be terrorist attacks here in the US. That too will have political implications to Bush...especially if he cannot achieve the goals he has set out.

As for the celebs, let them talk. Nothing they end up saying will change the scenario...at least not very much. The minute we started caring about what they wore on red carpets and who was screwing who, that somehow meant we cared what they think about politics. If people didn't care/listen, then shows like Access Hollywood and ET and E Network wouldn't exist. As for me, I don't care and I don't listen to them.

AZCB34 · March 17th, 2003, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaplin
It's probably too late for Britain anyway. They've passed the point of no return, it looks like we'll be at war within 3 days.

CBS is lobbying hard in Washington trying to delay the start of the war until after the NCAA tournament is over.

As an aside, CBS will shift NCAA coverage to other Viacom networks and there will be no regional TV stuff like you get going through the network since that technology supposedly isn't as readily available on the cable networks.

Brian in Mesa · March 17th, 2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AZCB34
CBS is lobbying hard in Washington trying to delay the start of the war until after the NCAA tournament is over.

As an aside, CBS will shift NCAA coverage to other Viacom networks and there will be no regional TV stuff like you get going through the network since that technology supposedly isn't as readily available on the cable networks.

They said awhile ago that if there is a war during the tourney, the tourney games will be shown on VH1 and MTV.

Brian in Mesa · March 17th, 2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by schutd
Bush senior

There is no senior, there is no junior.

Except of course with Al Gore, Jr and his dad...

Chaplin · March 17th, 2003, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
They said awhile ago that if there is a war during the tourney, the tourney games will be shown on VH1 and MTV.

Late last week, that stance has changed--CBS apparently is very close or has already made a deal with ESPN to cover the games.

Brian in Mesa · March 17th, 2003, 04:14 PM

Looks like the games will be on ESPN

...unless the war is over by Thursday.

What the Heck Is Going On? Part Two

Blair Continues to Get Blistered At Home

Re: What the Heck Is Going? Part Two