I just watched Tony Blair take on the whole British parliament in a debate. One-by-one they stood up and challenged him. He answered their challenges (unscripted) with eloquence, humor, and solid argumentation. I disagree with his position but sat their flabbergasted at his oratory skills. And the kicker: Blair's not a great orator. But when you compare him to Bush.... On a related note: Rumsfeld, the oratory Frankenstein himself, now tries his best to piss off our best friends. This administration is so incompetent... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12774-2003Mar11.html WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday left open the possibility the United States might invade Iraq without the help of British forces, then quickly backtracked to quell the firestorm his remarks touched off.
The parliamentary debate is pretty amazing - Sometimes I make my kids watch it tape delayed so they can see how different systems operate - kind of reminds me of an old church service - up - down - up - down .... every time Tony gets up with his notes portfolio and responds. Part of the reason Prime Ministers tend to be great speakers is because of this system of debate. The best contrast would be to look at the great orators in Congress and envision how they would be as President. But of course, we don't elect a Chief Debater - we elect a Chief Executive. Rumsfeld can be somewhat of a loose cannon - not necessarily a bad trait for a SecDef -
Yes, it looks great, but the major problem is that you practically live in an elected dictatorship. Almost all of the Government MPs owe their position to the Prime Minister, so he/she can do anything he likes within certain parameters. The problem he has with his Iraq policy is that he is pushing those parameters to the limit. So this is why he is running into some trouble, for the first time since Labour were electe in 1997. Mind you, is it any wonder the US Government dismissed the French idea of a public heads-of-state conference at the UN?
you understood his point. if anything he was trying to give blair some breathing room. aren't you one of those "don't listen to everything the media tells you". and hell he had iraq teed up with the U-2's and didn't even get his hair raised.
Yes, there is that isn't there. Still, it is a refreshing change from the meaningless, scripted, blather that emanates from the well of either house on any given day. I love Question Time, especially when the house is in an uproar. The "hear, hear's," boos, and the derisive laughter. Our system could use a bit of that. If nothing else it would make good political theater.
This probably deserves its own thread. It was a huge, huge story on BBC America news. But it was a nothin' story on the American networks. I would have thought that it would be at least somewhat important here, but no.
uk plays down comments: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030312/wl_nm/iraq_britain_dc
Re: Re: President Envy Maybe you should quit using "access hollywood" for your domestic newssource.I dont have cable or sattelite, so i dont get BBC America. I get my news from the "Classic three" .And I sure as hell remember this story being significantly covered on the national news at 530pm cst . But of course its easier to make ************ up and point fingers saying how the American media is dropping the ball.
isnt Blair and co. the British govt.? so saying Britain or as Irish stated the UK played down the comments would be in a way correct. The British people elected a Labour parliament and its leader as PM.They represent Britain, the people chose them.Many of the people may disagree with current policy but that is the in's and outs of democracy.they'll have the chance to take away his privelage of speaking for them at the next election.Till then .. when Blair and co. speak they speak as Britain.
not only that i'm pretty sure if anyone is affected by rummys comments it's blair and co. so if they're the ones playing it down regardless of whether or not "they're the UK" then i'm pretty sure what the british media think about the comments doesn't add up to flip if those most affected play it down.
If you want to use semantics to deny the fact that the majority of the UK were taken aback by Rumsfeld's comments, that's fine. But don't feed the line to us smart people.
I can't wait for our next election. Do you think the USA will support - economic contraction - increasing deficits - multi-theatre wars - restricted civil liberties I seriously doubt the democratic nominee will have the fortitude to challenge the voters with a line like: "Are you more free now than you were four years ago?" Our politicians are lame and most of the media sources are their lap dogs. It's always a good experience to watch and read the British system. A nice counter-point. I guess we will see if the result is any different. Will Blair and Bush's political careers survive the next two years?
What Rumsfeld should have done: (whispering in Bush's ear) "We are militarily capable of going this alone if Blair has to pull out due to the political heat." What Rumsfeld did: "Say Tony, old chap, let me add some logs to that fire."
the middle class american response "yeah pretty much...what can you do about my retirement funds?" you've completely missed how people get voted if you think "personal freedoms" is on the top of peoples list.
I like the fact that he didn't. It's unsual (if not unheard of), and, while a political hot potatoe, it's a nice change from the usual diplomat-speak.
TWUB, do you like the fact that he just energized the anti-Blair faction of the Labour Party? Do you like the fact that he made it slightly more likely that Blair might be ousted from within the Labour Party?
>>"if Blair has to pull out" dude, 'rhythm method' is IRELAND!!! i, for one, like parliamentary systems in general, and coalition building, because it seems to me that it allows for more minority opinions to be heard...am i wrong in that thinking? (wouldn't be the first time) thus spake the ardently unapologetic, tree-hugging, peace-loving green nader voter. flame away!
I recognize the need for diplomat-speak. However, I find it refreshing to hear someone say what is on his mind, rather than filtering it through politically correct mode. But did the anti-Blair faction really need energizing?
Re: Re: President Envy Dear irishFS1921, We've got the drop on you, you commie pinko. Raise your hands in the air and turn around very slowly. Love, Charlton Heston
No. He gave a straight(ish) answer to a straight question, which is always good to see. The problem I have with Rumsfeld is the underlying ideology.