Blair's survival baffles the soldiers

[Robbien]

By Stephen Grey

I watched a DVD of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (a rather poor-quality pirate copy) in a tent in southern Iraq with the British army. It's all the rage among the troops. "You've got to come and see this," they said.

You may think of soldiers as gung-ho types who strained at the leash last year to invade Iraq. Not so. Above all, like millions back home, many are baffled by one political fact. As a senior officer put it: "How, in God's name, can a prime minister survive after leading a country to war based on false intelligence?" Or as another said: "Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but that was never how Blair justified sending us here. Surely, there is no more serious political crime?"

. . .

The soldiers also complain about the British government. Its fears over accident liability, they say, have prevented the reopening of Basra International Airport. They are also annoyed with the Foreign Office for advising all Britons to stay out of Iraq. "We're here trying to get the NGOs and companies in to get cracking on reconstruction," said one, "and London is telling them it's all too dangerous."

To cap it all, the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, failed to impress when he flew to Basra in June to hear a briefing about some intense fighting involving 300 attacks on British troops in al-Amarah, north of Basra. He promptly fell asleep.

http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_World&newDisplayURN=200407260003

[MaineDem]

1. Baffles me, too

Wouldn't you love to see this in the US media?

[underpants]

2. Hoon fell asleep? and other questions

The newstatesman? I have never seen anything from this source, any information on who or what they are?

It isn't surprising that once again those outside the umbrella of the American media have a completely different take on how things actually are.

I think I can understand that they feel that the anti-war movement is highlighting the negatives and there should be much more coverage of the day to day lives of soldiers, Brit/American or otherwise.

[Robbien]

3. I am so glad you asked

because it made me click their "about" link

The New Statesman was created in 1913 with the aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas. Its founders were Sidney and Beatrice Webb (later Lord and Lady Passfield), along with Bernard Shaw, and a small but influential group of Fabians. The Webbs’ previous publication, The Crusade, had existed to gain support for the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, and for Beatrice Webb's National Committee for the Prevention of Destitution. However, it had died after less than two years, when it became obvious that no government would swallow the Minority Report whole, with all its socialist implications. The New Statesman was created to fill the gap.

. . .

"We did not merely profess to have no political affiliations, we had none. We were soon to discover, however, that a great many people who profess to admire independent political thought are apt to be both puzzled and shocked when they come across it."



the link describes the detailed history of the magazine from 1913 to the present day.
http://www.newstatesman.com/nsabout.htm

[IndianaGreen]

4. The New Statement is a highly respected publication

I believe it is a weekly. A UK-based DUer, Thankfully_in_Britain, had her on her list of British publications she posted in DU. This is what she said:

http://www.newstatesman.co.uk// This is a very liberal weekly magazine. I post tons from this and I strongly reccomend that you lot check out this site. You will like it I assure you.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. I think it's New Statesman. eom

[IndianaGreen]

8. You are right, thanks

My morning medication has yet to kick in.

[Stockholm]

5. Cook got kicked out thats how....

Blair is freaking bullet proof, they should send him to Basra patrolling.

[AP]

7. The sleeping this is bad, but the airport and civilian thing: sounds like

the right thing to do.

If the airport is dangerous, they shouldn't be flying people in, and that the UK isn't using NGOs as an excuse to shift a lot of money to private companies is actuallly one of the things that suggest Blair is trying to do the right thing.

Does this article have an argument for why the airport isn't open to civilian traffic? Is there a reason not to believe it's for the sake of safety?

If I were Blair, I'd sit back until November and wait for an American president who doesn't want Iraq to be chaotic.

Bush is looking for every chance to make Iraq work against Blair, and it just seems like Blair isn't giving him the chance right now. Fine.