Would Bush have gone into Iraq without Blair ??

[kentuck]

As the truth seeps out in Britain, it is covered up with dirt in the US. With each new revelation of Blair's deal with the devil, he sinks lower and lower in the public opinion of the British. He has not reached the bottom but he can see it. How long before he pays another visit to Crawford, Texas?

On the other hand, Bush is ignoring the British revelations, pretending it is all "old news". He's just "doing his job" for the American people - he doesn't have time for trivial pursuits. He is busy protecting us from the evil terrorists. He doesn't need Tony Blair any more.

One has to wonder if he would have gone to war if Tony Blair had not stood behind him? Perhaps, but probably not? Blair made the decision to follow a madman. It was his decision that gave Bush cover and legitimacy. It was a mistake of humongous and historic proportion by the British leader. He will never recover from his toad sniffing.

[BattyDem]

1. Probaby. After all ... he still would have had Poland.

Did you forget Poland?? :evilgrin:

[havocmom]

2. Yes, the junta was gonna invade Iraq no matter what

Blair/Britian was just an attempt to put a beard on it.

[Cha]

4. Yeah, nothing would have stopped

them but blair's not going along would have put an uglier face on it.

No doubt blair has the big bucks in his retirement fund.

[havocmom]

7. Wasn't there something about a seat on the Carlyle board?

Yeah, the poodle is bought and paid for. Cheney screwed the pooch

[Cha]

11. There is a British tv

show on a 3 set disc at netflix that were made in the early '90's about Parliment and a ruthless prime minister..that mirrors so much of what's going on today!

If you ever get a chance..you and anyone else should see them..it's highly entertaining and maddeningly accurate on British politics and politics in the US.

"House of Cards Trilogy I: House of Cards (1990)"
"House of Cards Trilogy II: To Play the King (1994)"
"House of Cards Trilogy III: The Final Cut (1995"

More..
http://www.netflix.com/Search?v1=house+of+cards%2Fthe+trilogy&search_submit.x=38&search_submit.y=10

[kenny blankenship]

3. Not possible

Without a front rank ally like Britain it could not have happened without the world essentially declaring war on us. Bush could have done it anyway, but I doubt he would because it would have been a short path to political suicide.

America and Britain have a relationship on a cultural level. When Britain moves in a direction, America moves somewhat in that direction too and vice versa. If Blair had been prohibited by his party from offering Bush Britain's assistance, Bush would have stood way, way out and exposed here in America. People look at the reactions (to what we do) of different countries differently. If it's France that objects to our actions we tend to be gratified by their opposition and chalk it up to their envy of us (which is moronic xenophobia or Gallophobia that we inherited from Britain) But if Britain joins France and/or other countries in disapproval of our actions and of our government, it's HUGE. In that case we would have been all alone in declaring the invasion or proposed invasion justified--and I'm not forgetting Poland because they wouldn't split from the EU countries--and even the American public would then have to sit up and take notice that the rest of the world is horrified at our Permawar and the gibbering ape in our Whitehouse.

Blair was the key to the illusion of "a coalition" and the illusion of legitimacy, and sadly, Poodle Tony was only to happy to hump Bush's pantleg to a frayed tatter.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Probably.

Blair made it easier and gave him some cover, but we know he'd had a huge hard-on to do it ever since the PNACers got hold of him. Seems to me that the Brits were just along for the ride. Tony was punk'd, big time.

[Taxloss]

6. Yes.

Rumsfeld said as much, but he had to retract when he realised the mess he was making. But then the Bush invasion of Iraq was a litany of errors; perhaps imagining it could be done without us would have been one of them. Certainly, it's sobering to think that Thatcher might well have not gone in.

[ROH]

8. Yes.

"United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld indicated at a press conference the United States may invade Iraq without British forces but said the decision would be made by President George W Bush."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2842943.stm

[gumby]

9. George Bush does whatever he wants,

whenever he wants to do it. THAT is the story of his life.

However, when George got religion, he realized that since he's got God on his side, he knows that he doesn't even need to try and make excuses for ANYTHING he does.

Remember that George said that God told him to attack Iraq? Well, who can argue with God or God's errand boy?

[Cha]

12. "God" sent *

on a fool's errand.

[FreedomAngel82]

10. Sooner or later

Tony just helped him do it sonner. He would've found some other person to go along with his shit. I only wonder why Tony went along with it. What did he gain? I have heard he gained some military stuff that they've been wanting for several years. :shrug: I think now it's pretty clear Bush is trying really hard to get rid of Blair because of the recent minutes ordeal. I've also noticed with the Bush camp they just use people and dump them after they're done using them. And they've used Tony to get what they want. In Iraq. So now he's being dumped. He thought he was a member of the gang but isn't. My recent example is when Bush denied Blair the funding for the Africa thing he asked him about. Maybe Bush will make Blair so mad that he will eventually talk. I hope so.

[LynnTheDem]

13. Imo, yep.

I don't think bLiar's decision affected anything. The majority of Americans OPPOSED invading Iraq, even with bLiar standing alongside bush, and yet we're...

IRAQMIRED.