Skip to main content

Out of the Scottish Daily Record.
Tony Blair has privately admitted that he wants Democrat John Kerry to win tomorrow's US election
And no, we didn't forget about Poland, either. Looks like Kerry's claim for international support hold some serious water. Besides the Iranians, I'm not sure who else is backing Bush. Maybe he'll land that crucial endorsement by Kim Jong Il?

Originally posted to zenbowl on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:28 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh yeah, recommend (none)
    Do I hear Dandy Don singing in the distance?

    Can we expect security from the insecure?

    by PSoTD on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:27:21 AM PST

    •  Blair must have seen poll numbers moving to Kerry (none)
      Blair would only allow this out if he was sure Kerry was going to win.

      I already voted for Kerry. So There.

      by nyetsoup4you on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:50:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Poll-land (none)
        TELL TONY BLAIR THAT!!!!!!!  
      •  Fuck Tony Blair (3.75)
        That guy can't scratch his ass without first asking Rupert Murdoch's permission.

        Blair was one of the few people in the world that actually could have prevented the disaster in Iraq, but Murdoch ordered him to follow Bush blindly.

        Blair actually said last week (when it looked like Bush might win) that he thought Bush "was one of the most intelligent men he had ever met."

        •  Doesn't get around much, does he? (4.00)

          Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! Sir Walter Scott.

          by tomathawl on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:21:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  How did Murdoch figure in? (none)

          If you aren't completely appalled, you haven't been paying attention.

          by bunny on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:27:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Blair and the media (3.88)
            Rupert Murdoch owns Britain's biggest-selling paper, 'The Sun,' the influential 'Times' and Britain's only satellite TV system, 'Sky,' which includes a 24-hour news channel.

            A popular criticism of Blair is that he is all spin, no substance, and undeniably he has put a lot of effort into courting media owners such as Murdoch and managing the news- his former Director of Communications, the unelected Alastair Campbell, is widely thought to have been the third most powerful person in Britain after Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown.

            Some people believe that media support from the likes of Murdoch was influential in his decision, but personally I reckon that is overplayed. Despite winning two landslides, Blair hasn't lived-up to his early promise of transforming Britain, and most of the government's undoubted successes are due to the Chancellor, who controls the purse strings.

            I think a lot of Blair's motivation -apart from the faith that WMD would be discovered in Iraq, even if he didn't have the evidence to prove it- was that he wanted some grand legacy such as the democratization of Iraq to look back on, but most importantly he didn't want a negative legacy such as undermining Britain's 'role in the world.'

            The loss of our Empire has affected us less than a lot of people expected, but there is still a residual feeling that Britain has got to be special somehow, and many can't embrace the idea of defining itself by its relationship with the EU in a way that 24 others could. Consequently a large proportion of the British political class believe that Britain's role should be as the cultural, economic, even linguistic 'bridge' between the EU and the US that ensures 'the West' remains one entity.

            Since 9/11 a lot of Europeans have come to believe that the US fundamentally differs from European values, and there has loomed the idea of a common EU foreign policy independent of, and in part defined in contrast to, American foreign policy. This was brought to a head over Iraq, and the greater the threat of a split in 'the West' seemed, the more pumped up Blair's rhetoric became- "[Capital- H] History will judge me" etc.

            I'm not surprised by Blair's 'secret endorsement' because he will be best mates with whoever is in the White House- he thinks it's his job- but a Kerry victory will make things a hell of a lot easier for him. This will be both electorally and within the Labour Party, since many Labour MPs only voted for war because of their now-destroyed trust in his judgement, and because he was the guy to lead Labour back from 19 years out of power. The benefits of a Kerry victory, I think, far outweigh the cost of Blair looking a bit friendless over Iraq.

            Hope that helps to explain things.

            Kossacks for Congress      

            •  Almost agree (3.50)
              I liked your analysis of the Blair government and its relationship with the United States.

              I think, hpwever, that the current Blair position regarding the re-election of Bush is slightly different than you portray. I believe it has less to do with the other European leaders and more to do with issues at home and future relationships with the next president.

              Overwhelmingly, Labour Members of Parliament favour Kerry. What has kept them so quiet in not giving him vocal endorsements? The fear that if Bush is not re-elected it will isolate Blair and make him more vulnerable. In turn, this makes their own seats more vulnerable in next year's election.

              So, both Blair and the Labour Party would like, in their own self-interest, for Bush to be elected to office.

              Now something odd has happened. Cherie Blair came last week to the States to speak on international law at Yale. In doing so, she was very critical of the stance being taken by the current administration on a number of issues, including the detention of suspected terrorists.

              Why?

              Neither this visit nor the content of what was said happened by accident. It will have been considered in detail before she left England to keep this engagement.

              One explanation is simple. Cherie's criticisms of the stance taken by Bush under international law gives Blair more credibility with his backbench MPs, who vehemently oppose the United States regarding the length detainees are held without judicial trial etc.

              By why do it now, just before an election? Something prompted Cherie Blair to feel free to make the comments that she did. Well, one thing for certain is that Blair will know the closeness of the vote. Indeed, the intelligence services, who monitor these things carefully may have taken, in the last two weeks, a DKos type view that a Kerry win is on the cards.

              This explanation not only frees Cherie Blair to speak her mind in the way that she did but she may also have been encouraged to do so as the start of bridge building with President Kerry.

              In other words, there may be encouraging news that can be taken from what she did for all Kerry supporters.

        •  Murdock and Blair (none)
          My God. How do you know this?
        •  He said that? (none)
          What a jackass.  

          "You go to your TV to turn your brain off. You go to your computer to turn your brain on." - Steve Jobs

          by Subterranean on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:32:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here's the article (none)
            From the Guardian two weeks ago:

            Tony Blair's idea of lunch is a salad and Diet Coke and he rates George Bush one of the most intelligent men he has ever met. Gordon Brown wants to be Prime Minister, but would find it a letdown.
            These are the surprising insights of Dr Irwin Stelzer, the US economist, right-hand man of Rupert Murdoch and close confidant of the two most powerful men in British politics. In his first major newspaper interview, in today's Observer, Stelzer offers unrivalled insight into the Blair-Brown relationship. He also attacks the widespread perception that he is Murdoch's 'enforcer', capable of bending Downing Street to the mogul's will.
            Given his ties to Murdoch and allegiance to Reaganomics, Thatcherism and neoconservatism, Stelzer's influence in Downing Street will unsettle many Labour supporters.'I see them when they want to see me if there's a specific issue I know about ... I might call up and say I have an idea, and if it's worth listening to me we'll have a cup of coffee.'
            When Blair wanted to ask Stelzer's advice on the minimum wage, 'he invited me over what he calls lunch, which is a salad and Diet Coke', recalls Stelzer, a right-wing author and columnist. Meetings with Brown, meanwhile, do not linger on the dish of the day. 'I don't think Gordon knows what he's eaten if he's in a discussion.'
            Stelzer confirmed Brown's desire to reach No 10, but added: 'I don't know if he'd like the job. I don't know how he would tolerate the frustration of dealing with a ministerial colleague who first of all wasn't as bright - which I guarantee you none of them would be - and second was not completely signed on to both the means and the ends.'
            Blair is a 'more intuitive' politician who is 'more comfortable in the Middle England and celebrity milieu'. He has told Stelzer that 'George W Bush is one the most intelligent men he's ever met'.
            •  I wonder (none)
              if it was Dr Stelzer who explained to Rupert Murdoch how the war on Iraq would lead to oil prices dropping to $20 per barrel?

              The truth is that if Kerry gets elected Blair's days are numbered - he simply invested all his credibility in backing Bush up. Bad enough as that was, can you imagine how much worse people will think of him if he even attempts to cosy up to Kerry in the same way.

              I wonder if Gordon Brown is clearing his diary for the next few weeks.....

        •  I don't know about Murdoch... (none)
          ...but I agree with the sentiment. I would like to appropriate a line by Atrios on a related subject. When neocon hack Andrew Sullivan posted some criticism of Bush one time, Atrios wrote a post titled, "Who the fsck cares what Andrew Sullivan thinks?" He went on to say that Andrew Sullivan completely discredited himself when he was busy warmongering and accusing liberals of treason and appeasement, so that regardless of whether he endorses or denounces Bush on a given day, he should simply be shunned by all decent people. I would say the same thing of Tony Blair. He's as culpable as Bush for the mess we're in; his warmongering helped give the war a false veneer of legitimacy when France, Germany and Russia were condemning it, helping Bush push it through at home. Even if he decided to switch to cheerleading for Kerry today, Tony Blair should simply be shunned by all decent people.
      •  Reality check (4.00)
        Blair would only allow this out if he was sure Kerry was going to win.

        He didn't "allow this out". It's a newspaper report that "two confidants" supposedly said that Blair "privately admitted" that he wants Kerry to win. Maybe it was an intentional leak, but it could just as easily be a matter of a couple of confidants not being very good at keeping confidences ... or even just a couple of supposed confidants b.s.ing a reporter.

        Heck, even if this is true, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement. The report points out that it could be a good thing for Blair's political future if Kerry wins. That could easily be the only reason Blair cares one way or the other.

        Another reality-based voter for Kerry/Edwards

        by Bearpaw on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:34:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Turn out the lights.... (none)
      ...but it sure as hell was no party
  •  Love to Hear Good News (none)
    And Blair's political life will be helped by it.
  •  Don't forget.... Putin! (none)
    despots & warmongers like to stick together....

    The baby AND the bathwater-- all of it!

    by persimmony on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:33:39 AM PST

    •  We're on a first name basis (none)
      Let's call him Vladmir.  Cause W does.

      Got a gun, fact I got two. That's OK man, cause I love God -- Pearl Jam

      by Muboshgu on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:39:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No they don't. (none)
      Bush wants to interfere in Russia's affairs as much as possible. He's moving American troops from Germany to Poland, Uzbekistan and Romania for that purpose, in order to have NATO patrols encroaching on Russian borders. And Paul Wolfowitz, the neoconservative ideologue who played a key role in lying us into war with Iraq, has advocated provoking Russia into a war. The neoconservatives in the Bush administration want to destabilize Russia with hostile policies. Furthermore, Putin opposed Bush's warmongering in Iraq.
  •  Coverage in the UK press (none)
    Supporitng opinions and articles are also in the Telegraph
    and the Independent

    I hope the meme gets out there in the US press before tomorrow.

    •  Tony Blair thinks Bush will "mellow" (none)
      .. in a second term, eh?  I'd like to know what evidence he has.  I don't see it.  If Bush is willng to do all that he has done in spite of the closeness of the election and having no mandate, and in spite of having to face re-election, I shudder to think of what he would do without the necessity of a re-election bid hanging over him.

      I think it's just wishful thinking on Blair's part.

      •  If he got any mellower (none)
        he would cut loose on the Oval Office carpet.

        Dick is, of course, running the world and does not need to consult the empty suit.

        "Juntos pedemos" --George W. Bush gubernatorial theme, as interpreted by the Houston Chronicle

        by rhubarb on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:47:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  where is the outrage? (none)
    as I mentioned in another thread on a similiar topic...Imagine if this was the President of France sending overtures to Kerry

    The right would be going apeshit, Drudge would have to use two sirens!!!

  •  It won't keep him out of the dock in The Hague. (4.00)
    Another rat jumps.

    CTHULHU ENDORSES KERRY
    "Bush too evil even for me", Great Old One says

    by Jon Meltzer on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:45:08 AM PST

  •  Unattributed. (4.00)
    like many of the tabloid papers in the UK, a flat statement without anything to back it up.

    If true, just gives credence to the sum of Blair: a craven opportunist.

    Let's hope President Kerry meets with Gordon Brown first.

    Bush war record: one avoided, two botched.

    by susanp on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:45:41 AM PST

  •  OMG (none)
    Doesn't Blair know that Kerry has been denegrating our allies, including Britain?  Well that's what W says!

    Or maybe, just maybe, Tony Blair would like somebody at the helm of the U.S. that he can count on to make a wise and informed decision before he calls in favors from allies.

    Unfortunately this statement will probably be buried because the sources are anonymous, but the desire for Blair to favor Kerry makes all the sense in the world.

  •  ALL THAT PILLOW TALK MUST BE HELPING! (none)
    According to the BBC:

     

    Cherie accused of attacking Bush

    Cherie Blair has been lecturing in the United States
    Cherie Blair has been accused of criticising George W Bush's policies in a private address she gave during a United States lecture tour.
    The prime minister's wife is said to have praised the Supreme Court for overruling the White House on the legal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

    The Tories said she broke a convention that British political figures do not act in a partisan way when abroad.

    But Downing Street said she was speaking in her capacity as a lawyer.

    It said she was not expressing political opinions.

    Mrs Blair's remarks are said to have been made in a speech to law students in Massachusetts.

    She said the decision by the US Supreme Court to give legal protection to two Britons held at Guantanamo Bay was a significant victory for human rights and the international rule of law.

    She also described the US legal code as an outdated grandfather clock and welcomed a decision to throw out a law backed by Mr Bush relating to sodomy in Texas.

    Human rights

    BBC news correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said Mrs Blair was likely to face further calls for restraint, since the US election is imminent.

    "There have been some objections from people reasonably close to the Bush administration about her making these comments in their backyard just two days before a presidential election," he said.

    "Conservatives here too have made their feelings clear.

    "Cherie Booth has always regarded herself as having an independent career. She has continued to practise as a major human rights lawyer in the courts.

    "It's not unusual for her to make these sorts of criticisms clear but it can be embarrassing."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3968843.stm

    •  Someone's been reading "Lysistrata" (none)
      finally
    •  It's her law firm that is preparing (none)
      papers to take Tony before the Hague... eventually, at least for now, they have said the war was 'illegal'...

      'said privately' --- what the heck does that mean? He's hedging his bets...? Big deal... Brits should have thrown him out a year ago... imho

      An unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates

      by crone on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 03:34:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can't throw him out, look at the alternative (none)
        Michael Howard instead?
        Do you honestly think that vampire could do any better? In any case, he backed the war too..

        The only hope would be of a Gordon Brown mutiny, but with a general election planned for next spring, that doesn't look very likely.
        If they suffer in the GE (They won't lose anyway, the cnservatives are doing worse than ever and the Lib Dems, although gaining, are miles away) there might be a backlash against King Tony, and maybe a Brown usurping. One can only hope. The main thing would be to get David Blunket out of the DoJ, he's worse than Ashcroft.

        "Families is where are nation finds hope, where wings take dream." - George Bush Jr

        by bobcatster on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:07:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Don't Forget Mrs. Blair (none)
    She caused a bit of a stir when she made some comments in favour of Human Rights instead of her husband.

    From the independant:

    Further apparent evidence of some distance opening up between the Bush and Blair camps has come with reports that the Prime Minister's wife criticised Washington's policies on terrorist prisoners and gay rights. In a speech in Harvard, she praised the Supreme Court's decision to give legal protection to Britons detained at Guantanamo Bay, and condemned the arrest of a gay couple in Texas.

    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.-Benjamin Franklin

    by Luam on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:49:20 AM PST

  •  This is important I think... (4.00)
    I still can't post a diary (not quite 1 week yet!) but I think what I'm about to tell you may deserve one, so I will let those of you who can create diaries decide.

    I checked the Al-Jazeera website today for the transcript of bin Laden's tape. It's bugged me all weekend that they only allowed 6 minutes of it to be aired after pressure from the US Ambassador in Qatar (CNN-see below).

    Let's just say the transcript shown there today is MUCH longer and includes way more info than what was there on Saturday. There IS mention of Iraq and plenty more. I think the transcript is now the full 18 minutes. I could be wrong but it sure has a ton more detail in it now....

    Here's the link, see for yourself: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

    See this CNN article for proof of the US involvement, here's the excerpt: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/binladen.tape/index.html

    ""The U.S. embassy in Qatar received a copy of the Osama bin Laden tape from the Qatari government Friday, a senior State Department official told CNN. The Al-Jazeera network, which aired the tape, is based in the Qatari capital of Doha.

    The total length of the tape received by the U.S. government is 18 minutes. Bin Laden spoke for 14 minutes and 39 seconds. U.S. officials would not comment on what else is on the tape.

    The official said that once the embassy received the video, the U.S. ambassador to Qatar asked the Qatari government to use its influence with the management of Al-Jazeera to convince the network not to air the tape.

    "We are disappointed that the tape was aired," said this official.

    It was unclear whether the Qatari government urged Al-Jazeera to refrain from airing the tape. However, the network did not air the tape in its entirety.""

    Canadians care too...

    by jbalazs on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:50:00 AM PST

    •  Here are the parts that were left out. (I think) (4.00)
      There are two places I've left something here that we've already heard, just because of context: But everything else here has not been reported yet:

      "Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To proceed:

      Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.

      Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

      No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

      No-one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

      But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

      So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

      I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

      The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced.

      I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

      The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

      In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

      And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

      And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

      This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr. did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr. Did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

      So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

      Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

      This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.

      And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998.

      You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan, as well as my interviews with Robert Fisk.

      The latter is one of your compatriots and co-religionists and I consider him to be neutral. So are the pretenders of freedom at The White House and the channels controlled by them able to run an interview with him?  So that he may relay to the American people what he has understood from us to be the reasons for our fight against you?

      If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the correct path that will lead America to the security that it was in before September 11th. This concerned the causes of the war.

      As for it's results, they have been, by the grace of Allah, positive and enormous, and have, by all standards, exceeded all expectations. This is due to many factors, chief amongst them, that we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.

      Our experience with them is lengthy, and both types are replete with those who are characterized by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr. to the region.

      At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.

      So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretense of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty.

      All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two  Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

      This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

      All Praise is due to Allah.

      So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

      That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinizes the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.

      Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

      And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

      And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. (When they pointed out that) for example, al-Qaida spent $500 000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than 500 billion dollars.

      Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.

      As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

      And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the Mujahideen recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the blee-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah's permission.

      It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Haliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is...you.

      It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within twenty minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.

      It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50 000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.

      But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. We were given three times the period required to execute the operations - All Praise is Due to Allah.

      And it's no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive ones from among the Americans warned Bush before the war and told him, "All that you want for securing America and removing the weapons of mass destruction - assuming they exist - is available to you, and the nations of the world are with you in the inspections, and it is in the interest of America that it not be thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome."

      But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America.

      So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future. He fits the saying, "Like the naughty she-goat who used her hoof to dig up a knife from under the earth"

      So I say to you, over 15 000 of our people have been killed and tens of thousands injured, while more than a thousand of you have been killed and more than 10 000 injured. And Bush's hands are stained with the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business.

      Be aware that it is the nation who punishes the weak man when he causes the killing of one of its citizens for money, while letting the powerful one get off, when he causes the killing of more than 1000 of its sons, also for money.

      And the same goes for your allies in Palestine. They terrorize the women and children, and kill and capture the men as they lie sleeping with their families on the mattresses, that you may recall that for every action, there is a reaction.

      Finally, it behooves you to reflect on the last wills and testaments of the thousands who left you on the 11th as they gestured in despair. They are important testaments, which should be studied and researched.

      Among the most important of what I read in them was some prose in their gestures before the collapse, where they say, "How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the weak without supervision." It is as if they were telling you, the people of America, "Hold to account those who have caused us to be killed, and happy is he who learns from others' mistakes," And among that which I read in their gestures is a verse of poetry, "Injustice chases its people, and how unhealthy the bed of tyranny."

      As has been said, "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure."

      And know that, "It is better to return to the truth than persist in error." And that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.

      In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida.
      No.

      Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.

      And Allah is our Guardian and Helper, while you have no Guardian or Helper. All Peace be Upon he who follows the Guidance."

      Canadians care too...

      by jbalazs on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:09:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry (none)
        I accidentally pasted the entire text instead of just the new parts. I won't post again, it's just too long. But I can e-mail the Word document to whoever wants to start a diary (if anyone does, that is.)

        Canadians care too...

        by jbalazs on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:38:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  thanks for the post (none)
        while it doesn't surprise me that the biggest butchers on the planet claim to take their marching orders from beyond, the perversity of it continues to confound me.
        its not a new thing of course - i urge you to read mark twain's "war prayer" - still it is hard to be optimistic about the species progressing. will we ever get beyond it?

        i'm an agnostic, i'd be an atheist if it weren't for mozart

        by rasbobbo on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:00:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks J! I will diary and give you credit (none)
      On the case now!

      Plenty of flu shots for those of us with National Health Service

      by LondonYank on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:02:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  They know which way the wind is blowing. (none)
    The Guardian has this as well.

    Blair is a political oppotunist, and for him to be moving this way means that he is expecting a Kerry win.

    I still hold onto a fantasy that on Nov 3rd we will see a relieved Bliar breaking down and sobbing "It's over, over at last." Won't happen though.

  •  Besides the Iranians? (none)
    Well, so far I've heard about Vladimir Putin.  Oh, and the terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings.

    I'm pretty sure Zarqawi and bin Laden are grateful to Bush for sparing their lives when they could have been eliminated, too.

    Whol else might be supporting Bush?  With the recent internal political struggles over the plan to withdraw some settlers from the Gaza Strip, I bet Sharon really wishes he had some American support to shut up his right wing.  So he's out.  I dunno, Kerry would allow reimportation of Canadian drugs, basically letting the Canucks pay taxes to support cost-conscious Americans, so they might not be happy about that.  On the other hand, Bush is a megalomaniacal warmonger, so I wonder if that balances out.

  •  Not a surprise (none)
    I think this would be fairly obvious. His connection to Bush does immense damage to Blair in the UK. If Bush were out of the picture, his electoral chances would improve significantly.
  •  He's an ass, too... (none)
    Tony Blair is the Colin Powell of Britain.

    "Yeah, I knew it was a mistake, but I figured it was gonna' happen anyway and I thought I could help make it better."

    Yeah, right...

  •  it is about time he did something right (none)
    instead of being the president's pet poodle.
  •  don't forget... (none)
    Besides the Iranians, I'm not sure who else is backing Bush. Maybe he'll land that crucial endorsement by Kim Jong Il?

    Well, at least Bush has the Mordor endorsement sown up.

    Navigating through this basement that masquerades as a nation... --Atmosphere

    by AlanD on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:15:55 AM PST

  •  Blair is a great candidate (4.00)
    to be tried for War Crimes too.

    Let him stick around with his ultra-left neo-con friends who have just a few more hours left.

    His role in Mes-O-Potamia is not something to forget or forgive.

  •  Please. (3.80)
    While I think this is great news, Blair belongs on the same raft we send out to sea, along with Colin Powell, and all the rest of them that think the can jump to the good side as they see the dark side's ship sinking. Blair can endorse all he wants, and he still deserves to lose his next bid to be elected.
    •  Regrettably... (none)
      ... I have to agree. When it comes to conviction, anaylsis and acting on his beliefs, someone like Bin Laden actually beats these guys. At least Bush and his cronies actually believe that we are stupid children who can't run our own lives. Blair and Powell just march to the tune and mouth the words. How sad is that?

      I always liked Blair, so seeing him fall under Bush's spell was as heartbreaking as watching McCain sit silent.

      What a waste.

  •  If bush goes before world court blair goes also! (none)
    this snake is trying to save his hide. NO way bush could have pulled this off without blair. He deserves the death penalty;nothing less would suffice.
    I doubt he will find a buddy in KERRY no way
  •  I guess . . . . (none)
    Tony Blair is telling Bush "to go it alone".

    Though a million people speak it as one, a lie is still a lie.

    by silas216 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:49:37 AM PST

  •  If Kerry is Elected, Blair won't Wiggle (none)
    off the hook, he'll still be accountable to his own electorate.

    be best to not start off the consensus building kerry admin by taking shots at people.

  •  Amazing that Blair (none)
    Is probably going to outlast Bush. This just goes to show you how much that country still hates the tories (as well they should).

    P.S. It's STILL about the oil.

  •  Even him!! (none)
    OMG

    If even Bush's "allies" say that they want to see a change... maybe he saw his recent heart problems as a sign from God? Who knows?

    Clearly, we shouldn't forget Poland. Oh wait. They're getting out in January. Well...

  •  Tony Blair likes to be popular (4.00)
    It's just too bad he decided too late to return his loyalties to the American party which actually shares its values with his own British Labour Party.

    The theory that's gaining steam about Blair is this: he came into office as more or less a student of Bill Clinton's success story, then was left to basically learn at Clinton's elbow for the latter's second term.

    When W. showed up, Blair thought he would be the mentor, for a change.  Too bad you can't teach an "infallible" person anything new, Tony.  So of course, to show his support for us during the recent miseries, he has basically chained Britain to the back of Bush's wagon---for all the good it's done either country.

    I was a student in England during the John Major period.  A guest speaker at our campus was one of the highest-ranking members of Parliament from the Labour Party, who was in awe of Clinton's success and hoped to duplicate it in the U.K.  This person, of course, did not become the new Labour prime minister; Blair did.  

    I wonder what this person, if she is still in Parliament, thinks of Blair's warm embrace of the War That Nobody Wants?

    We may yet find out.  While nobody here (and hardly anyone there, either) wants a return to the dreaded reign of someone like Margaret Thatcher, it could well develop that the Tories take back control of the Parliament and elect one of their own to be the new Conservative P.M. of Britain---and they'll have Tony Blair to thank for their return to power, just as we will have Georgw W. Bush to thank for our own here.  

    Still, if I can only have one of them in power at any one time, I'd much rather have a Democratic President of the U.S. than a Labour P.M. in England.  Wouldn't you?  I mean, there can be no doubt as to which one affects the fate of the entire world more profoundly, either for good or for ill.

  •  Odd post positioning! (none)
    In the funny way that these posts work, I have just made a comment about Cherie Blair's speech at Yale last week. It has been stuck immediately under the lead comment, whilst rightly it should be here (if you know what I mean - as clearly I don't)
    •  Blair and the Labour Party's Position. (none)
      (Now my earlier post repositioned here)
      Almost agree (none / 0)

      I liked your analysis of the Blair government and its relationship with the United States.
      I think, hpwever, that the current Blair position regarding the re-election of Bush is slightly different than you portray. I believe it has less to do with the other European leaders and more to do with issues at home and future relationships with the next president.

      Overwhelmingly, Labour Members of Parliament favour Kerry. What has kept them so quiet in not giving him vocal endorsements? The fear that if Bush is not re-elected it will isolate Blair and make him more vulnerable. In turn, this makes their own seats more vulnerable in next year's election.

      So, both Blair and the Labour Party would like, in their own self-interest, for Bush to be elected to office.

      Now something odd has happened. Cherie Blair came last week to the States to speak on international law at Yale. In doing so, she was very critical of the stance being taken by the current administration on a number of issues, including the detention of suspected terrorists.

      Why?

      Neither this visit nor the content of what was said happened by accident. It will have been considered in detail before she left England to keep this engagement.

      One explanation is simple. Cherie's criticisms of the stance taken by Bush under international law gives Blair more credibility with his backbench MPs, who vehemently oppose the United States regarding the length detainees are held without judicial trial etc.

      By why do it now, just before an election? Something prompted Cherie Blair to feel free to make the comments that she did. Well, one thing for certain is that Blair will know the closeness of the vote. Indeed, the intelligence services, who monitor these things carefully may have taken, in the last two weeks, a DKos type view that a Kerry win is on the cards.

      This explanation not only frees Cherie Blair to speak her mind in the way that she did but she may also have been encouraged to do so as the start of bridge building with President Kerry.

      In other words, there may be encouraging news that can be taken from what she did for all Kerry supporters.

jaydfwtx, manyoso, Greg Dworkin, GrassyTroll, slappy1218, PSoTD, MRL, Lestatdelc, Grassroots Mom, RobertInWisconsin, John, buffalo soldier, oloos, wells, stevelu, Nazgul35, Mark In Chicago, Irfo, Goodprovider, Ben P, bluecayuga, magic1, Mexicana, SenatorX, Haus, theknife, tlrand, brooklyn4clark, bgod, queerbklynboy, TexasDemocrat06, Southern Bird, ZT155, Groper, RINO, westcornersville, wytcld, Winger, iSiS, heilbush2004, skintigh, Swift195, my dixie wrecked, jabb, Schmuck, dehbach, egoldstein, ARingMD2B, meg, Victor, Jaiwithani, citizen, spoooky, nimc, wastelandusa, LauraC, ZoBai, Raven Brooks, figdish, fightcentristbias, ashke, AllOrNothing, frisco, lawnorder, Luam, Reasonable, Muboshgu, sportsman885, bumblebums, historyrocks, thecarriest, RennieMac, dlothspeich, TexasDemocrat, Ruth in OR, mrCurmudgeon, Patturk, theprogressivemiddle, Eternal Hope, Cupcake, JChamberlin, Guy Inagorillasuit, portermason, Cranston Dem, silverbax, joyous, Ash Tree, concernedamerican, FleetAdmiralJ, gerbbils, wunderwood, vaughn, kwinz, c0ppelius, Cautiously Optimistic, silas216, Sjoerd, mentaldebris, bonddad, chi mai, understandinglife, Ti Jean, Lab Rat, Catriana, philo, shaft, SusanHu, ask, demokath, bluestateexile, ereid922, peacemom, AlyoshaKaramazov, davinic, political, repeat, charlie brown, ericpa, Kosa Nostra, DickSteele, DesertCat, DrB, 28whitman, MisterOwl, sam07, Colman, BoringDem, bribone, sophiebrown, alpox, VermontDem, tocqueville, EdwardsRaysOfSunshine, nuket, Just thinking, Gingerandspice

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site