Tightrope walking
Gordon Brown is walking a tightrope in advance of his first summit with President Bush. He's doing all he can to signal to people at home that the Brown/Bush relationship will be very different to the Blair/Bush partnership, whilst striving to reassure the Americans that nothing fundamental has changed.
So, in a lengthy statement released in advance Mr Brown does not mention the word Iraq once but he does praise America's stand against international terrorism.
He does declare that he is an Atlanticist and an admirer of the American spirit before going on to talk of our two countries shared history, values and challenges for the future without spelling out how they stand together now.
Aware that, for political reasons, he must never be seen to be as close to George Bush as Tony Blair, we are told that the the Prime Minister will wear a suit - not chinos as his predecessor did - and will not be accompanied by his wife because, we are told, it is not "that kind of meeting". The meeting Downing Street says it wants will focus on the need to revive world trade talks this summer and to ensure that an international peace keeping force is soon deployed in Darfur.
The Americans are likely to seek reassurances about Gordon Brown's plans for the country that dare not be mentioned. It has emerged that the prime minister's foreign affairs adviser recently asked American academics what the impact would be of a British withdrawal from Iraq. Downing Street insists that there are no plans for that nor has British policy changed. At dinner tonight when they are alone, the President may need more reassurance than that simple denial.
I'm 
Comments
I'm sure all those dead Iraqis (how many is it now? 100 thousand? 600 thousand? More?) and their families (not to mention the maimed and dispossessed) feel they owe the US (and by extension, the UK) a debt of gratitude.
Thanks Gordon. Good to see you've got your priorities right.
Gordon Brown is taking a strong and positive position, and some of the comment from the peanut gallery is interesting. Certainly, I admire America's industry and helpful contributions, and great American's, such as the philosopher are an encouragement. However, it has a dark side of overly competitive bullshit and gung-ho interference. Nick may be right in suggesting Gordon Brown is walking a tightrope but this is the fire and water of Zen. As sharp and dramatic as things can be drawn, the opposite of being relaxed and patient is equally possible. What we say about other people, often, says a lot about ourselves.
As the high attention earners and seekers flock abroad to the West, the most interesting story for me, today, was more domestic and orientated towards the East. My personal aspiration is to see a stronger and deeper relationship between Britain and Japan, and as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wobbles, some positive encouragement and support for Japan might come in useful, as Japan gets to grip with a more diverse and engaged world. The Glastonbury and Fuji music festivals show what we can learn from each other internationally and locally. For me, no matter how inspiring the likes of William James are, given a choice, I'd rather be a .
Nick has no spoon, I have no chance. Such is life.
"The world owes a debt to the United States for its leadership in the fight against international terrorism, Gordon Brown has said."
I see that Mr Brown is suffering from the same myopia that Mr Blair had. Perhaps someone needs to buy 10 Downing St a new world atlas - one where most of the world isn't shaded in red, or red, white and blue.
A tightrope indeed. One that has to be walked though and with some satisfaction for all parties. When
Bush departs there has to be fair relationship with his replacement.
Searching for a solution to Iraq is not easy but it has been entirely due to the Bush-Blair association. They are accountable! Seemingly able
to avoid the 'buck' that Blair said he was fairly and squarely his. Not, it seems, man enough to really face it. His legacy to his own country is nothing short of sacrilige. The poor
not lifted out of poverty! Just an empty declaration. The richer even richer - where was and is justice?
Why do we suffer such ineffective
government? Time for change? YES
Why should the two leaders keep mentioning Iraq? Is it not an ongoing fight against terror in the area?
The policy towards Iraq will remain as it is, and it would have stayed the same even with a conservative govt. at the helm.
Or is it not a fact, that if Iraq is not mentioned, the media would not have much to say about these meetings?
Let us give the leaders of the democratic west the space to work and shelter us from the Communist evil!
Good for Gordon Brown!
His stance shall benefit the UK as well as America. Our president (I am urging his impeachment) needs a strong man of convictions sitting at the dinner table, reminding the president of important global issues. I especially appreciate Brown's intention to be businesslike and intelligent about such issues. He will show Bush that cordiality and forthrightness are not mutually exclusive. Hang tough, Gordon!
To think that the UK's position towards the US will change because Tony Blair has departed is wrong. Gordon Brown talks of change non-stop but the one area that people really want to change is foreign policy but that is not going to happen anytime soon.
Gordon Brown says "World owes US a debt" ...Not sure what that means. Like any other Hollywood script, its US which created a monster in Taliban by giving them billions in arms. When the same monkeys backfired after Russia was done with, there arose the need for corrective action: the so called war on terror.
So why this propaganda now? and why do Mr. Browne have to maintain this pretense? Is he trying to be an American stooge?
The UK, Australia and the US stand apart or together as circumstances dictate. One only needs to read history to know this.
We might squabble and debate finer points when nothing more pressing demands our attention, but under no condition, would one contemplate for long a threat to the other without realizing it as a threat to itself. As an American, I can think of no other nation we would consider ourselves more intimately linked to than the UK. Tony Blair was true to this tradition, and for this, I am grateful to him.
imho mr brown is scared of saying anything against mr bush
He may praise America on fighting the war on 'terror' -but America has certainly fueled it in the first place!
It seems from Gordon Brown's recent comments that the only reason for this trip is so he can have his neck measurements taken so his poodle collar will fit.
He is being just as much of a poodle as Blair was.
"He's doing all he can to signal to people at home that the Brown/Bush relationship will be very different to the Blair/Bush partnership"
Only obsessive hate-filled left wingers who shout far beyond their weight thanks to sympathetic journalists in the 91热爆, Daily Mirror and Guardian
I remember Brown saying once that he wanted to establish a US style enterprise economy.
What happened to change his mind or was he only joshing?
It seems to me that
William Hague's position with David Cameron towards George W Bush is one of "David, let's you and him fight".
Being "not slavish and gaining frankness" is probably relatively easy talking to Condi Rice but I don't think it would wash with Bush or Cheney - Gordon Brown will be much wilier than that.
As for Ming - oh dear. Cheney would have his innards fried for breakfast.
Utter crap. US policy in the Middle East is primarily responsible for global terrorism; its policies for 'combating' it are morally and strategically bankrupt, and the continued association of the UK with them simply continues to make this country a target of further attacks.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Dear Sirs,
In light of "our two countries shared history, values and challenges for the future," I consider wether or not the two leaders realize that, 'IT IS' that same shared history, values and
challenges for the future that have given rise in large part to the present quagmire?
Even assuming that these highly effective people and their staffs UNDERSTAND this, I also wonder if they UNDERSTAND the difficulty of keeping large groups of people in the dark(so to speak) about the past, present and future, in this information age?
This conflict between the East and West, Christianity and Islam, Rome and Persia etc., is like listening to two opposing parties fighting over interracial marriage.
I believe and do not have the media outlets to spread, the truth that thiS is all about the war of "IGNORANCE."
It is widely accepted that change is generally slow and at the degree of complexity involved with foreign affairs it should be. The dilema however is that people in general are not bying the age old rhetoric given by leaders explaining their positions.
Who will take the moral high ground and say on 'YOU TUBE' or any other mass media outlet not manipulated (yet) by old boy interests or old cliche-ish cronyism, that the belief systems of yesteryear have given rise to what we have here today, it is what it is, but it must go on an agreed upon new path no longer dictated by outmoded beliefs and dogma!
I recall a line from the Star Wars trilogy, princess Leia telling some villain, "the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip
through your fingers."
Well the reality here is the more old baloney used to justify the antiquated, the more minds will become disinterested. That might be just enough space for some fanatic on one side or the other to overreact
and destroy a lot of creativity/productivity and lives well beyond the more than enough now(of course some might see all that as economically stimulating ergo justifiable).
HOW CAN I MAKE IT APPEAR I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF FANATICAL ISLAM OR OVERBEARRING DEMOCRACY AND NOT ANGER EITHER OF THEM? I KNOW, I'LL JUST SIT IN THE MIDDLE, TRY AS BEST I CAN TO AVOID THE CROSSFIRE AND COLLATERAL DAMAGE AND THEN BOW TO WHOEVER WINS WITH A FINGER CROSSED BEHIND MY BACK!
Now we all know who's really walking the tightrope.
Nick,
Gordon Brown has had long enough to think about his first meeting with the President. It's clear what he wants to do: to be close but not as close as those figure-hugging jeans Peace Envoy Blair wore on his first PM trip to the US.
Gordon has no interest in upsetting Bush or the American people or for that matter the 'globalisation' as we all understand it.
But Gordon is a politician down to his much played with finger-tips. He will know the mood of the UK and US nation is very much against Bush and that in 2008 we will see a new President - who is currently campaigning on the word that you say Gordon dare not say. For this reason even Bush and Cheney will know the political (and maybe personal) position Brown finds himself in.
The only thing that could damage Gordon's no doubt well-honed plan (and form of words) is if Special Envoy Blair throws a well-rehearsed wobbly on his holiday to steel the headlines.
Gordon Brown should keep in mind that the USA's economic policies and corporate activities are a major cause of the terrorism and resentment that much of the world is expressing.
The EU on the other hand is perceived as a more humanitarian and liberal entity; and which is also the greater economic power house. (only in guns is the USA "superior" to Europe).
We can hope that under new Democratic leadership the US will regain a sole and rejoin the liberal traditions of most democratic societies. But Gordon Brown should see that the EU is the future (as well as the past) of European tradition.
Too bad the left wing media, so much exemplified by the 91热爆's Political Editor, have tried to contort all sorts of facts to make them the proverbial silk purse. But most real thinkers will see the sow's ear all along.
From a distant cousin in the Colonies across the Atlantic,
Mike
It seems Brown willfollow Poodle Blair and be a coward, typically perfidious Albion!.
There is no tightrope here.Policy remains policy and it would help, yes if there we reassurances that business as usual with no suprises exists.
It IS simply friendly leaders of nations which have oppostion to,yes Iraq, but the larger picture is of terrorism about the world, for former goverment leaders failed to act more than 30 years ago in stopping this cancer before it all started up as recognizable daily events in our news.
Its taken that long to emplace agents,research infrastructures and build arms as well as small factional armies using the crudest of methods yet very effective.
The aloofness of countries now spoiled to peace,have forgotten what it took to have that which they enjoy.Did we think the evils of the world would just stop?
Britain has the most to lose by the influx of Islamic peoples who escaped their own miseries only to reinstate it in your homelands as seeing our wars against Islamic factions as a war against their peoples.Bringing about a numbers of takeover if this should ever come to light.
Simple leaders of nations willing to talk about it is no tightrope of relations.If their own people would support them,it would likely shorten all the fighting by showing united fronts that subdue oppositions goals of divisions within.
No one likes to be seen as a puppet of any other country but seen as such like Britains, Tony Blair accusations by clueless people who stir up trouble of more divisional natures.
If anything, all oppositions toward their goverments stand are puppets lowering themselves to their enemies instead of a stand against them and for allowing that to help their enemies in a very treasonistic way.
I do not believe most know what freedoms costs are and how even tiny nations came very close to taking over the world before.We know Islamic radical movement is far worse than the communistic one we have all faced, yet I have thought it may be backed by the very same.
Iran does get its missles and tech from Russia and China doesn't it?
Yes I would say theres no tightrope here,just a very loose rope if we stay complacent and divisional,will hang us all.
How symbolic a move in terms of the Bush / Brown relationship. Bush stamps his authority on special relationship the moment Brown gets off the plane.
Bush takes Brown to a gllfing buggy, gets Brown to sit in the passenger seat whilst Bush drives. I think this is significant in that Brown has being trying to differentiate himself from Bush.
My view was this was symbolic: Bush is driving behind the wheel and Brown is the passenger.
what i mean by this is Bush is in control; he says what goes. Classic 鈥渋鈥檓 the boss鈥 stuff.
I wonder what the impact on ties between the US and UK will be if there's an announcement of a British pullout from Iraq? Surely, the Americans won't put sanctions on Britain! There may be strains on defence related deals in the near future, but I can't see it seriously affecting trade and other relations too much. How hard is it for Mr. Brown to go and say that we want to have America as our most important partner, but we want to pursue a different strategy which might prove more effective in safeguarding Britain and its interests overseas?
Hi Nick
When you say Brown chooses to distance himself from Bush 'for political reasons' you imply that he does so not for reasons of personal conviction, but that it is a matter of mere expediency. Surely this is a matter of opinion? Of course it's possible to paint every political act as motivated by spin or political skullduggery (and it seems to me that most Westminster journalists do indeed see our national politics through this prism) - but might it not be the case that a fair few of our politicians actually go into politics because they believe in something, and want to change things for the better? Perhaps Brown really believes that while the transatlantic relationship remains important, it needs to change in subtle ways. By all means expose spin where it occurs, but I do worry about the potentially corrosive effect of habitually equating politics with spin.
Regards,
Matt
How has it come to pass that all public comments by the representatives one developed nation about another must be couched in so much diplomacy as to be utterly meaningless. What, really, are 'allies' other than those who will not criticise another's wrongdoing? It's a similar phenomenon to presidential/prime-ministerial infallibility. How has it come to pass that all public comments by the representatives one developed nation about another must be couched in so much diplomacy as to be utterly meaningless. Why is it that presidents and prime ministers are infallible in the eyes of their allies? Must there never be any honesty between allies?
It is well-documented that the all justifications for the Iraq war (WMD, connections with 9/11/Al Qaeda) were at best inaccurate (the truth, as indicated by more than just the Downing Street Memos, is that the US was looking for any excuse it could find). It's also well-documented (one source being the US' own National Intelligence Estimate) that the US occupation has massively increased the number of radicals in Iraq (and who wouldn't be radicalised by the the invasion of their country, leaving hundreds of thousands of their countrymen dead?), and has destabilised the whole region. Yet no government will acknowledge ANY serious error, in themselves or their allies. A recent survey in the UK indicates that 75% of the population believes that Bush poses a danger to world peace, yet the British government's attitude to its US partner is at worst placatory; there is no acknowledgement of the views of the people. Everyone knows the Emperor has no clothes, but no elected official will say it; when Brown says 'We should acknowledge the debt the world owes to the United States for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism' he's doing a great disservice to his own electorate, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to the truth.
What do the UK and US have in common? Geographical proximity? Widespread evangelism? The concept pre-emptive war? Lack of socialized healthcare? Disregard for global treaties and organisations (Kyoto; landmine production; the International Criminal Court)? 'Generous' gun laws and soaring murder rates? Disregard of the Geneva Conventions? Systematic kidnap ('rendition' sounds so much nicer) and torture? Suspension of habeas corpus, one-sided extradition treaties, capital punishment, massive domestic surveillance, the overthrow of democratically elected governments? What values do we really share? I would suggest virtually none. The British government needs to say that the Emperor has no clothes, even if it has short-term economic impact.
I wonder if our President Franklin Roosevelt was called Prime Minister Churchill's poodle???
Of course he's said positive things about the US - he's hardly going to criticise them on a diplomatic visit. Thats just not the done thing.
Thankful for WHAT?? For lies and deceit?? Young soldiers and civilians are dying for BIG OIL BUSINESS. This war was all about oil and IRAN is the next chapter. Oil and natural gas are in the same area and Iran has both (enough to keep America's SUV's on the run for more than 50 years. The US has used the bomb-can't believe we have double standards with America.
The FANATICS are the Americans. I live here and see it everyday, from germs to neighborhood watch hysteria. Your government has created today's terrorists- and still breeding tomorrow's. WE THE BRITISH ARE NOT LIKE THE AMERICANS AND SHARE ONLY THE LANGUAGE. I don't see myself as culturally (what culture??) close to them. I am sorry, but I am sick and tired of listening to you yanks complain about-we were lied to blah,blah, blah. Enough of this and take the streets and demand his impeachment! The world new who BUSH was and you guys elected him twice.
Unfortunately, I think Gordon Brown will continue to be "joined at the hip" and we the British people will have more problems in our own home. I just hope that we don't join Bush in more genocide. We have done enough damage.
A tightrope indeed. Knowing how to parle with Bush will be the easiest part as Bush is a simple man of simple thoughts. More difficult will be the legacy of expressed US opinion that Gordon Brown will carry into his relationship with Bush's replacement. A replacement that won't be known for some time. With three New Yorkers (Clinton, Giuliani and, likely, spoiler Bloomberg) as the probable final contestants in the coming US Presidential election, perhaps Brown should be visiting with and impressing New Yorkers rather than "weekending" at Camp David. Bush is the past. Look to the future Gordon Brown! Connect with the US people directly and avoid Mr. Bush.
I am very confused as to the post that claims US corporate activities and economic policies are a major cause of terrorism. I would enjoy Mr. Shaw's explanation of this very wide and and vague accusation. Is he in effect saying the problem is Americans live in houses and the terrorists live in caves? Let us remember British corporations are wide spread and very lucretive to the British people here in America.
Also it is hoped that our British friends are aware that Bush has the lowest favorable opinion by the American people in the history of our country. We also want the US and British troops home and know we have been lied to continuosly by the Bush-Cheney Regime.
Yet at this very critical time we need to stand firm as two nations who will not tolerate airliners flown into skyscrapers or bombs blowing up in subways (the Tube).
An old song says "United we stand, divided we fall" and I can look back only 60 years to WW ll and see this as valid.
Dan Wilcox, A Yankee in King Arthurs Court.
One can only hope for change away from the stupidity of past policies that have fueled senseless confrontations with Middle Eastern nations for grossly inhumane economic purposes. A positive change would be for Brown to implement more new (and non-nuclear) energy technologies, and thereby eliminate the need for meddling in the Mideastern oil fields.
Meanwhile the results of years of warmongering jingoism will have to be contended with by a new leader who at least has a brain and a smidgeon of wisdom. We need to be most concerned about the possibility of more Manchurian candidates.
Of course we owe the yanks many things, put the combat to terrorism - if taken in consideration all this terror culture exists due to America and it's dull foreign policy along some 50 years, it seems quite fair we should owe them terrorism too. Poor thing Mr Brown forgot to mention that.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's arrival in the Bush Camp is a very good thing to extend the war to crush terrorism in the Middle East just as $30million usd in arms is being sent that way. Slangyvar
The US did'nt start this undeclared terrorist war. The US kith & kin we know was suddenly attacked by it's unislamic quaeda mental cases with hardly any warning using US hitechnology.
i.e.17 Terrorists embedded in the recalcitrant suddenly peacenik EU.
The West must stop arguing & blaming itself for war crimes not unlike those of the Third Reicht 1930-1945 if not worse.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's arrival in the Bush Camp is a very good thing to extend the war to crush terrorism in the Middle East just as $30million usd in arms is being sent that way. Slangyvar
The US did'nt start this undeclared terrorist war. The US kith & kin we know was suddenly attacked by it's unislamic quaeda mental cases with hardly any warning using US hitechnology.
i.e.17 Terrorists embedded in the recalcitrant suddenly peacenik EU.
The West must stop arguing & blaming itself for war crimes not unlike those of the Third Reicht 1930-1945 if not worse.
nothing is owed to the US, nothing at all, they have only caused grief, i really dislike the 'relationship' that has been built between Britain and the US. not only is the US's leader a bit of an idiot but Britain as a whole supports their country but sometimes there seems a lack of support for the British from them. i think Britain should become more distanced from the US, it would serve us well if we did. The US are the main root of trouble and many are aware of this--why can't we just break away from them!?
Yes, the world does owe the United States a debt of gratitude for the war on terror. I also believe we have proven our good will repeatedly, such as World Wars I and II, and rightfully earned a bit of consideration.
Yes, mistakes have been made but they were made with the best intent. Did we fuel today's Islamo-fascism by funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1980s? Of course. No question about it.
But we did not invent Islamo-fascism. In fact, properly seen, we are still fighting World War II. Modern Islamo-fascism is a direct outgrowth of Nazism and the propaganda of the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in his roles as the Islamic world's Lord Haw-Haw during World War II and his influence in the post-war world -- such as the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It still comes down to democracy versus fascism. It still comes down to determination not to repeat the horror of the 1930s and 1940s. It still comes down to a determination that there will NEVER AGAIN be a Holocaust.
The world does owe a debt of gratitude to the U.S. AND to the people of the UK.
Like many other Americans, I grieve at the loss of each American life in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also grieve at the loss of each UK soldier, each ally and those heroic Iraqis and Afghans who stand up to evil.
Is it simplistic to see the world in such black and white terms? Perhaps, but sometimes it does come down to right and wrong and to good versus evil. As it is today.
'We should acknowledge the debt the world owes to the United States for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism'
With that comment Brown has told the world that while we just lost a pathetic poodle, what we have now is a stunted miniature spaniel.
Who is it invaded a sovereign country recently, committed, acts of torture, rape and murder? That膹偶藵s it! 膹偶藵The coalition of the willing膹偶藵. The US, UK and Australia.
Who else has invaded a sovereign country, attacking the civilian population, destroying city膹偶藵s living areas, that is non military targets, and who sowed as much of the country as they could reach with the lethal to children and pedestrians, bomblets? Ah yes, the was Israel! And who supplied them with the bomblets?
Ah yes, that was the US!
Who are these terrorist we are fighting again?
Long live the US-UK alliance, as long as we are looking after our own interets & keeping our own people safe then I really do not care for anybody else.
Just a few thoughts from a Yank watching things from near and far...
It's rather disconcerting to see the tack that global politics have taken. No one seems to bother to take current events in historical context anymore, why find out what really happened when we can just blame America for everything.
In essence that is what the vast majority of the world has come to see America as, its punching bag.
Any leader these days who isn't constantly spewing anti-American rhetoric must be by default America's lap-dog or so the prevailing world view seems to be. Like it or not, President Bush is not the devil. I don't like a great many things he's done, but since when has a President got everything right? Hindsight is always 20/20. There used to be a time when cooler heads prevailed. Where plausible alternatives were used as responses instead of meaningless accusations. I agree very much so with the previous post, America and Britain truly have been spoiled by what was, until the rise of Al-Qaeda, relative peace. It is nothing short of ignorant to believe that if we pull out now, terrorists are simply going to leave us alone. The truth of the matter is, Al-Qaeda fights to the death because they have too. Their own number two in command has said that a stable democratic Iraq would be disastrous for them.
I find it sadly not-surprising that past Presidents have gotten a relatively free pass. In WWII FDR ordered the forced internments of thousands of Japanese, despite the fact there were only two direct assaults on American Soil. One at Pearl Harbor, and the other an attempted Japanese attack in Alaska. These actions were called justified because we were a nation at war, are we really so ignorant to believe that Al-Qaeda does not want to defeat us with the same conviction the Japanese Military did then? Al-Qaeda is more than just a few nut-jobs plotting some small deeds. They are armed, well financed, and the most determined enemy we have ever faced.
This is not to say we should bow down and take what our governments say for granted, quite the contrary. However, the freedom to say what you wish, comes the responsibility to make it rise above the background hum of meaningless accusations.
I think CS Lewis can offer some words of wisdom here.
"I think the art of life consists in tackling each immediate evil as well as we can. To avert or postpone one particular war by wise policy, or to render one particular campaign shorter by strength and skill or less terrible by mercy to the conquered and the civilians is more useful than all the proposals for universal peace that have ever been made" (Weight of Glory, 79).
The War on Terrorism was postponed as long as it could be, we have run out of time to sit and wait.
Freedom must conquer terrorism, because terrorism is equally determined to conquer us.
PM Gordon Brown may not have realized that he would have faced Bully Bush so early, and out of earshot spoke mightily against Bully Bush.
However, having realized that the bully bush has heard him, like a coward, Gordon Brown now seem to be trying to appease the bully's wrath that is expected.
We all know that politicians speaks from both corners of their mouth. One side for their constituency and the other for their counterpart.
Gordon brown should have spoken humbly in his initial statements.
It's nice to see some independence from the British, but it really doesn't make any difference to our King George.
Yes, I believe it was a statement of Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair upon his entry to Downing Street that it is the first job of British Prime Minister to get on with the United States.
Robert MacKenzie
Toronto, Canada
Nick,
We went to war on a dodgy dossier. WMDs that did not exist. Gordon Brown was a very senior member of that cabinet. He is as responsible as Blair was, after all he financed the war, so that any amount of posturing and cries of "change" will not alter history, and any sudden change of position must be questioned. If he disagreed with the decision he should have resigned. If he disagreed with the conduct of the war, he should have resigned. He did not, for reasons that we can only surmise.
Funny thing the US political system. I seem to be getting the idea from this blog, and others here, that you folks seem to think that the democrats will win in the next election. i should warn you all that the demos are shooting themselves in the foot at every turn in the campaign process. It will be Romney or Thompson (my pick) who will be next in the WH. and they are more conservative and supportive of the war effort than the guy who is in office now. so don't get yer hopes up about any kind of change in US policy towards Iraq, Iran Afghanistan, Terror in general. We do not run from a fight, they started this by attacking us out of the blue, policies or no. if they had a beef there are better ways to express it then killing 2900 folks at work in NYC. And that wasn't ttheir first attempt, mind? They are cowards. Car bombings, women and children being used to carry out these attrocities, sneaky and disgusting tactics if you ask me.
simply put, you folks who are thinking about a change in policy with the new demo led government, take a look at the congress' approval rating, lower than bush's. and it is led by the demos. wake up and smell the reality, the US will stay in the fight until iraq can stand on it's own and we are asked to leave. that hasn't happened. allies be damned, if you thikn the best way to handle the current situation is to run, then the UK is next to be attacked, it WILL strengthen the enemy seeing the only other major player leaving the field in defeat. nuff said.