Replies

You and I and few others -- I observe and am pleased and proud to say -- seem to operate from the same core beliefs and fundamental honesty and are in agreement on pretty much all of the issues that matter.

But, while I will agree that Blair has -- in the context of his relationship with Our Beloved FRaternal Republic and with President Bush -- appeared to be saying all of the "right" things, it has been clear also that he has been saying other "right" things to the many "wrong" and Evil groups with whom he is more at home -- and with whom he "needs" KKKli'ton-like, to retain his "political viability."

These include but are not limited to: the UN; the EU, the British Labour Party and even the Sin Fein/IRA. [Whose bank-robbing and drug and gun-running mass-murderers Blair still cravenly and shamelessly appeases]

And -- at the potential cost of the lives of more brave Americans, Australians, [Who already, with their New Zealand/ANZAC comrades, know a little about the mortal danger of having the bloody British at their rear!] Israelis and Iraqis than I would care to predict -- when it came right down to the crunch the Clinton-cloned Blair's devious duplicity has come home to rest and he has proved his own and the British Nation's real, 2003, worth. Just as, more than one year ago, I predicted that he and it would.

Best ones -- Brian

He will commit his military to fight the war against Saddam, the same as President Bush.

I'm not familiar with the cronies and company that Blair keeps so I can't address that. But he seems to me to be taking a principled stand on the war. Wouldn't it be so much easier for him to succumb to the pressure from those in his political realm? Why would he risk his political life for such an antipodal and unpopular stance? That's not how clintoon did things (take a poll, lick finger and test which way the political wind was blowing). Not for the fun of it, I'm sure. Or maybe I'm just a little naive . . .

What escapes most of the rabble is that Blair is motivated, as a convinced Third Wayst Leftists, in perpetuating the one worldisim if the neo-liberals. This group, (who had American like Strobe Talbott proclaim that sovereignty would no longer matter in the near future and their would be one world govt.) only differ from neo-cons in that while the neo-cons want the same thing they want America's hegemony as the seat of this one world govt. The third-wayists want the UN as the govt. of this one world system.

That is why Blair is gung-ho for this. He has operated on the premise that the US would push along this one worldisim by acting as the world's police man for the UN. The Neo-cons gladly go along because they also want America as the worlds controller whose power comes from the White House (no congressional oversight need apply) and not the UN security council. But since both sides needed each other off to the UN they went at first...

Both neo-con and neo-liberal views are dangerous and a threat to the constitution of the USA as I know it.