Clinton Backs Blair's Labour Party in British Election--

[Gloria]

From the new World Media Watch up now at http://zianet.com/insightanalytical
Tomorrow at Buzzflash.com


1//The Daily Times, Pakistan Monday, April 25, 2005

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_25-4-2005_pg7_43



CLINTON BACKS BLAIR’S LABOUR PARTY IN BRITISH ELECTION

LONDON (AFP): Former US president Bill Clinton on Sunday rallied in support of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labour Party, urging British voters to turn out in force for a May 5 general election.

Appearing on a giant screen at a Labour Party meeting in London, the former Democrat leader warned that when a country has “a progressive government in power, our people get a little easily disillusioned”. “They don’t like this policy or that policy. They sometimes fall into the trap of thinking it doesn’t matter and there are no consequences. But if you believe that, look at the difference in the US between now and four years ago,” he said, in a reference to the election of President George W Bush, a Republican, in the US.

Clinton’s remarks were made after Blair gave a speech outlining his party’s ambition to combat poverty in the developing world.

(SNIP)

“We just need leadership and Tony Blair, (Chancellor of the Exchequer) Gordon Brown and New Labour are providing that leadership,” he said. “I’m just here to say thank you, amen and go get ‘em,” he concluded.

MORE

[lancdem]

1. I'm still pissed at Blair for backing Bush on the war

but Labor is light years better than the Conservatives.

[Imagevision]

38. I hope Blair loses next month with Iraq to blame (wmd's?)

Tony at least apologized to his people for making the mistakes about the wmd's
One thig that's certain, Brits are able to put on better protests then here in the US.

[Massacure]

2. Too bad labour didn't toss Bliar on his ass and pick up Gordon Brown.

[CubsFan1982]

3. Like he was going to endorse the Tories.

And let's face it, the Lib Dems haven't the slightest chance, not for a while yet. This is hardly surprising.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. He certainly could have endorsed no one

But he chose to to endorse Blair and Labour.

[springhill]

10. Not really surprising at all......

I'm sure the whole time Blair was backing Bush on Iraq, Clinton was was right behind Blair backing him all the way.

By the way, where is Clinton on this war? Why hasn't he come out and said what we all know, that this war is illegal and immoral? Don't have much trust in him anymore.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Perhaps he doesn't believe that it is illegal or immoral

Even Kerry didn't go that far in condemning the war.

[springhill]

29. But it most obviously is.................

And that is my point. Many prominent politicians who should be acknowledging this are staying quiet, and that leads me to wonder why.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. It is entirely possible that they do not agree with on this point

[Fenris]

4. Not really much of a choice in this election.

But a Blair is still better than a Howard.

[AP]

5. Bet a lot of people said that about Gore and Bush too. Stupid then...

...stupid now.

[DerekG]

6. "They don't like this policy or that policy."

Well, the problem, Bill, is that this niggling "policy" is the G-DAMN IRAQ WAR! But then, I'm not surprised that a butcher like Clinton--preserver of the Iraqi sanctions, advocate of Plan Columbia--would stump for a comrade-in-arms (and "arms" is to be taken literally).

British voters: Don't let "lesser-evilism" impede your efforts to oust a war criminal.

[AndyTiedye]

7. Labor Must Really Be In Trouble

Clinton would not be doing this if there were not a real chance of
the Tories coming back into power for another generation.

[w4rma]

8. Vote strategically. LibDem whenever possible. Labor where LibDem has

no chance. The goal is to make Britian a fight between Labour and LibDems with the Tories in the minor 3rd Party position.

[leftchick]

12. Clinton endorses Blair for re-election

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/11483094.htm

LONDON - Former President Clinton told Britons he supports Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election bid.

Clinton made the endorsement during a satellite linkup to a Labour Party rally in London Sunday.

"We just need leadership, and Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and new Labour are providing that leadership," Clinton said live from New York.

<snip>

"If you do value the progress you are making in Britain. If you value the idea you can end world poverty, you have to vote for value," Clinton said, echoing Blair's Labour Party campaign slogan "If you value it, vote for it."

[dbt]

13. Damn. SOMEBODY's getting desperate here.

But is it Clinton or Blair?

:freak:

[katinmn]

14. Hmm. I heard Bill is up for the UN Sec. Gen'l position

might have something to do with it.

Sorry, no link. But I read it on DU.

[SHRED]

15. Like Mike Malloy says,

"Clinton was the best Republican president this country has ever had".
http://www.mikemalloy.com/
:thumbsup:

[TyeDye75]

18. Tony Blair could be

the best Tory Primeminister weve ever had

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. If Bill Clinton was a Republican President

Why did Republican in so much time and energy, much to their detriment, investigating and attacking him? :shrug:

[SHRED]

41. Covered here a bit more

http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=20345

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. That does not answer the question as to why

the Republicans attacked him so much.

[SHRED]

43. Well...

I think it is because they are so far to the right that a moderate looks leftwing to them.

[still_one]

17. both

clinton wants a legacy, and blair wants to win

blair will probably win anyway, but is is not because he is so popular

[still_one]

16. our party is in the position it is in because of clinton

he was warned that the repukes were out to get him, and not to screw around, but did he listen?

he obviously thought more about himself then he did for the party, and he still does

for all the good he did, and it was significant, he actions allowed the right wing to consolidate their power over the media, and thus control agenda

because of this our very democracy is threatened

[superconnected]

19. Dear Bill, at the next carlyle meeting please tell them they could make

more money from investing in building the world than tearing it apart. It takes more time but then you guys wouldn't have to do all the hangable offenses and crimes to humanity. You'd be able to sleep at night.

Oh, and no matter how much you brownnose- I doubt you're going to make CEO over G Bush the 1st. Sure you guys are currently only advisors, but you know the job will eventually open up. Get over it, you're just not the cold ruthless murderer on a world genocide scale, that is required for the job.

[WI_DEM]

20. I don't feel our leaders or ex-leaders should get involved in foreign

elections and make endorsements. Having said that it is not surprising that Clinton endorsed Tony Blair. They had an excellent relationship when Clinton was in the WH. They are known to be friends. Blair is the GB version of Bill Clinton in that where Clinton moved the Democratic Party towards the middle--Blair has done the same thing with Labour. Finally, despite everything, the conservative candidate would probably be just as much of an ally to the US in Iraq as Blair has been, but even more conservative with his domestic policy.

[moondust]

24. I'd bet a bundle that Clinton advised Blair

to join Bush in the Iraq invasion.

[0007]

21. Why say anything? This certainly depressing.

[Delphinus]

22. Why?

Why? Sometimes just keeping yer yap shut is the better thing to do.

[Montauk6]

23. Prediction: Bill joins Carlysle

I can see it coming...

[Imagevision]

39. Lately Bill hangin with Bush Sr. it seems a given

I used to like Clinton until I saw thru the act -- Until the flow of oil is "properly contained & managed" even Hillary will continue the beat of the Iraq war drum while citing it was Bush who caused this mess if she manages to get herself elected.

We're running out of oil, a free gas supplier is up for grabs, who better then the US. to call the shots and to be in control of who rebuilds what we destroy.

All this as more americans head to the poor house and Bush says to tighten up bankrupsty laws to keep a leash on these free americans.

[allemand]

25. Clinton did the right thing.

The sad truth is that there is no alternative. It's an illusion to believe that the Tories (or the Lib Dems, for that matter) would have broken with that long standing tradition of always being a staunch ally of the US.

I hope that the Labour party gets rid of Tony Blair, but not that the British electorate gets rid of the Labour government.

[onehandle]

26. Yep.

The Tories would fully aligned with our fascist leaders and the world would have gotten much worse.

[Itsthetruth]

27. Anybody But Tories

So what should we call Blair's election campaign? Perhaps "Anybody But Tories". That has a familiar ring to it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. But the Lib Dems did vote against going to war

so why is it an illusion?

Remember, the UK did decide not to go to war in Vietnam. It has resisted the automatic support of the USA in the past. That was back when we had a Prime Minister with his own foreign policy, of course.

[allemand]

31. One of the advantages of sitting on the opposition benches.

I doubt that they would have done so being in government, and even more so taking into account the historical context and the political pressures at the time.
I also don't think that you can compare the Vietnam War with the situation after the 9/11 attacks.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Even Blair didn't try to link 9/11 and Iraq

He knew he'd be laughed out of power if he tried that. No, I think Vietnam and Iraq are comparable - both involved a supposed threat to countries in the region, with the USA enthusiastic about imposing its own will. The political pressures on going to war from the British electorate weren't great - that's why Blair had to publish a couple of 'intelligence' dossiers (even if one was an out of date graduate thesis) in an attempt to get the public worried. Enough were convinced that his decision (taken in March 2002, but offically taken in March 2003) wasn't electoral suicide. But without the propaganda push from Blair and Alistair Campbell, there'd have been little internal support for the war. The pressure all came from Bush - and I think the Lib Dems would have resisted it (seeing as that would put them in the France/Germany camp - and they are enthusiastic Europeans).

[allemand]

37. Please, I also didn't try to link 9/11 and Iraq.

What I meant to say was that in the context of the 9/11 attacks it was highly unlikely that the British government (any British government) would revise a long standing tradition of always being the staunchest ally of the US. That tradition has nothing to do with direct electoral pressures and more with a certain degree of autonomy of the political sphere.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. I didn't mean to suggest that you were trying to make a link

Sorry if you got that impression. I was just saying that Blair hadn't tried it - because the British people, like most of the rest of Europe, didn't get paranoid about all Muslim countries after 9/11, and any attempt to claim Saddam and al Qaeda were linked would have been disproved more easily. Instead, Blair went with the steady ramping up of rumour about WMD - which, since Saddam had used chemical weapons in the 80s, was more believable.

Blair's fundamental outlook is "Britain is the bridge between Europe and the USA", so he won't stand up to the US on any military matter, but is keen on persuading the rest of Europe to his side if he can. The Conservatives tend to mistrust the rest of Europe, and admire the US, so I think they probably would have acted in much the same way as Blair (though they haven't been proved guilty of that yet). The Lib Dems are the keenest party in Britain on European cooperation, and generally less keen on war than the other 2 (they even talk about working for elimination of nuclear weapons in their manifesto, though it is probably just talk - they still say they'd keep British nuclear weapons until global progress is made). We can't tell for sure, but I think the primary evidence (their votes in Parliament) is that the Lib Dems would have opposed the war even if they were in power.

[Zynx]

30. I want Labor to win, I just want Blair weakened horribly

We don't need the UK encouraging the idiots in the Bush Administration.

[Writer]

32. I heard this rumor right after the invasion

that some type of secret Anglo-American alliance was forged after WW2 that any time England or America started a war, the other would always join (although Britian didn't join in Vietnam... although that never was declared a "war" was it?)

Clinton and Blair always have been friends and political counterparts, so this article is no surprise to me. I have always seen Blair as somewhat a victim. I think if Blair had made the decision on his own, he would have stayed the hell away from Iraq.

[Imagevision]

36. Clinton has been sounding flaky lately - wants back "in" the WH.

Nothing wrong with preparing the setup to install Hillary in 08 in my view saying to neocons that " Hey Hillary can accomplish and continue what George has been doing -- hell, anyone can do that when Rove is calling the shots.

"we'll just install Hillary, roll back the gas prices a quarter and continue on "resolving the mess" the previous administration caused and we'll even give the expanded troops (by then) in Iraq better armored vehicles -- "it's a slamdunk"

He was the first one to call the people who so supported Kerry "whinners" and to just "move on already" as voting investigations into Ohio-Florida we're still on going.

Bill? good con -- tells you so eloquently just what you want to hear.

[MontageOfFreedom]

44. I'm not surprised at all, it just continues to rescind.

Clinton is pandering to the religious right like always for whatever special interests he has to go with now. Tony Blair is a stooge who should be long forgotten, if only there was someone else to look to.

[Deja Q]

45. Quite. We all know * can't endorse Blair, and let's face it,

Clinton's bipartisanship - none of which he seems apologetic for yet (NAFTA, DOMA, DMCA, others!) - did little to help laborers.

Clinton seems to be chummy with the * family as well. Which seems strange, just about every pic I've seen has one or more * family members looking at him in disgust.

Let's just say I'm confused.

[Solly Mack]

46. so Blair needed Clinton to boost his votes?

He needed to remind people of the time it was Blair stands with Clinton instead of Blair stands with Bush?

Yeah, sure...Blair is supporting a war you don't agree with and a war that was based on lies...but it could be worse.

What a pathetic state the world has come to...