|
Banned
|
Quote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...7/nblair27.xml
Compliant and subservient: Jimmy Carter's explosive critique of Tony Blair
By John Preston and Melissa Kite
(Filed: 27/08/2006)
In an exclusive interview, President Carter made it plain that he sees Mr Blair's lack of leadership as being a key factor in the present crisis in Iraq, which followed the 2003 invasion - a pre-emptive move he said he would never have considered himself as president.
Mr Carter also said that the Iraq invasion had subverted the fight against terrorism and instead strengthened al-Qaeda and the recruitment of terrorists.
"We now have a situation where America is so unpopular overseas that even in countries like Egypt and Jordan our approval ratings are less than five per cent. It's a shameful and pitiful state of affairs and I hold your British Prime Minister to be substantially responsible for being so compliant and subservient."
The outspoken attack by the former Democratic president shows the extent of the alienation between the Labour Party and its traditional Democrat allies in America....
......"We've never before had an administration that would endorse pre-emptive war - that is a basic policy of going to war against another country even though our own security was not directly threatened," he said. In his book, President Carter writes: "I have been sorely tempted to launch a military attack on foreigners."
But had he still been president, he says that he would never have considered invading Iraq in 2003.
"No," he said, "I would never have ordered it. However, I wouldn't have excluded going into Afghanistan, because I think we had to strike at al-Qaeda and its leadership. But then, to a major degree, we abandoned the anti-terrorist effort and went almost unilaterally with Great Britain into Iraq."
This, Mr Carter believes, subverted the effectiveness of anti-terrorist efforts. Far from achieving peace and stability, the result has been a disaster on all fronts. "My own personal opinion is that the Iraqi people are not better off as a result of the invasion and people in America and Great Britain are not safer."...
|
....and this:
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193011,00.html
Men Plead Not Guilty to Bush-Al-Jazeera Bombing Memo Leak
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
LONDON — Two men pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges of making a damaging disclosure by leaking a memo which included references to U.S. President George W. Bush talking of bombing Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera.
David Keogh, 49, a former Cabinet Office spokesman, and Leo O'Connor, 42, a former researcher for a lawmaker, were released on bail after appearing at the Central Criminal Court.
Their trial was set for Oct. 9.
Keogh faces two charges of violating the Official Secrets Act and O'Connor faces a single charge.
<b>The Daily Mirror newspaper reported that the memo revealed details of a conversation between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House on April 16, 2004.
According to the newspaper, Blair argued against Bush's suggestion of bombing Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar.</b> The Daily Mirror said its sources disagreed on whether Bush's suggestion was serious.
Blair has said he had no information about any proposed U.S. action against Al-Jazeera, and the White House called the claims "outlandish and inconceivable."
|
....and this:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...400160_pf.html
Senators Defy Bush On Terror Measure
Panel Backs Rival Bill On Interrogations
By Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 15, 2006; A01
A Senate committee rebuffed the personal entreaties of President Bush yesterday, rejecting his proposed strategies for interrogating and trying enemy combatants and approving alternative legislation that he has strenuously opposed.....
.......The disagreement centers mainly on how to square the CIA's techniques with the Geneva Conventions, which say wartime detainees must be "treated humanely." The administration bill says the United States complies with the conventions as long as interrogators abide by a 2005 law barring "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment of captives.
<b>McCain and his chief Republican allies on the Senate committee, Chairman John W. Warner (Va.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), say that this requirement is too narrow and that the United States should not try to limit its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Instead, they want CIA officers to abide by the common understanding of the treaty's meaning, including a ban on "outrages upon personal dignity."
Bush's bill would also allow alleged enemy combatants to be convicted by military commissions relying on classified information not shared with the suspects.</b> The McCain-backed measure would make the exclusion of classified information more difficult, and it states in general terms that defendants have the right to examine and respond to any evidence directly related to guilt or innocence.
Joining McCain, Warner and Graham in voting for their bill yesterday were Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and all of the committee's Democrats.
The dispute has fractured the GOP establishment. Powell and numerous retired military officers wrote letters supporting McCain's position, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other administration officials weighed in on Bush's behalf. The president made a rare visit to Capitol Hill yesterday to rally House Republicans and thank the House Armed Services Committee for overwhelmingly approving legislation that mirrored his position.
"The most important job of government is to protect the homeland, and yesterday they advanced an important piece of legislation to do just that," <h3>Bush told reporters. "I'll continue to work with members of the Congress to get good legislation so we can do our duty."</h3>........
|
...and of course, it's about this:
Quote:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2452354
.........Sept. 16, 2006 — In the Rose Garden Friday, President Bush was loud and clear: If Congress doesn't agree with him, the hunt for terrorist plots will be crippled.
<h3>"The bottom line is simple," he said. "If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward."
President Bush wants his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions' ban on inhumane treatment of enemy soldiers.</h3>...
|
<b>This thread, and the crisis of leadership that we are experienceing at the federal level in the US, today, is what the discussion is about. It's not about Carter, It's about the shrinking space, and perceptions, of those who support the failed leadership...I think that it makes them a lil "panicky", and very...very....cranky!</b> |