Private poll 'fuels war doubts'

From the BBC:

Polling suggesting that US President George Bush is deeply unpopular in the UK has fuelled ministers' doubts over war with Iraq, it is reported.
Tony Blair's private pollster, Philip Gould, conducted the survey, whose details are being kept secret, says the Guardian.

I cannot help feeling that George W would be a lot more popular in the UK and Europe if he had not been so "America First and Screw the Rest" on a number of issues.  Steel imports, Kyoto and GM foods to name but three.
I agree, national selfishness does seem to be a key issue with lil' George, which has the adverse side effect of making the Americans love him. He got into power under reduced foreign deployments (read as: either far less capabable and well funded people do it, or we don't care if the sourthern hemisphere tears itself apart), and the national missile defence (read as: let our allies get nuked, Germany doesn't produce no oil), and economy before environment. I say we all rig the next American elections, they're so buggered up as it is they won't notice another fix :).
I am not defending George W because I do earnestly believe that he is a moron and Condi Rice is a danger to the civilised world, but to take a view that he is closed to foreign poilitics is a simplistic view.

American politics is currently locked in a House of representatives that is fighting the White House for power. the US constitution allows for what it calls "checks and balances" which is why half of both houses are re-elected every 2 years and the executive (President) cannot act unilaterally without the support of the Senate or the Representatives, but the Executive can veto the power of the 2 houses. The houses view "Dubya" as weak because he has no overall electoral mandate and viewed Clinton as weak on domestic politics. They houses have raised domestic politics to the head of the agenda prior to Sept 11th, and view the consequences of Sept 11th as a "domestic" issue as the attacks happened on US soil. The President has to respond to the requirements of the houses as the GOP (republicans) is fighting elections on an almost annual basis and the GOP has to respond to its critics as it is not in a strong position. Whatever it does it will be criticised, if it takes a strong domestic line it will be attacked for not taking a strong international lead, and if it acts on the world stage it is criticised for failing to respond to domestic pressures.

I am not indemnifying the US, who i think have acted so atrociously in their actions over the past few years that they have a lot to answer for, but it makes sense to understand the pressures that the President has to face before reaching a decision on how to respond to the foreign policy of the US. Personally i was never too sure we should have rushed into going to Afghanistan as we have no clear role there and the mission has crept beyond the initial remit. Given we are over-stretched as it is, fighting Americas wars for them when we have foreign issues we have a responsibility to act in (white farmers being murdered for their land by Mugabe's henchment being top of that agenda) is criminally negligent. Still, I suppose Tony the lapdog wouldn't have been lauded on the world stage for getting involved in something as small as defending farmers. And as for the "War on Terrorism", perhaps the US should stop funding the IRA and we should bomb the bogside back to the stone age.  :mad: :mad: :mad:


I agree that the SPAMs have a very hipocritical attitude to things especially when it comes to their "War on Terrorism".  I have yet to see a single cruise missile hit Belfast or the Basque region of Spain yet!!

Funny how pre-Sept 11th, the Yanks (i.e. Clinton) couldn't keep their snouts out of Irish politics yet now they are very quiet on the subject.  Do NORAID still exist in the US ?  or have they been outlawed for funding terrorists in the war against terrorism ( I somehow doubt it)

Latest Threads