Ah, who could want more to lively-up politics than the 2004
WWWF Campionships Presidental Race.
With the launch of commisons to investigate the claims made regarding WoMD on both sides of the Atlantic, I am waiting for the USA to blame UK intelligence and the UK to blame US intelligence; that would make my joy complete...
... oh, and now the US President and UK Prime Minister have launched commision because no WoMD have been found or are likely to be found, can us pinko commie Europeans would like to say;
WE TOLD YOU SO!
... make that factualy correct pinko-commie Europeans... and yes, I know that members of the cult of American Republicanism have swallowed the new light from the White House hook-line-and-sinker, and actually believe the USA went in publically stating their first concerns were human rights... but the credulous and their opinions are never easily seperated, and why bother?
What I and many others have been saying is pretty much vindicated; that either government officials lied, or they were incompetent in their assesment of threat. In either case voting for those in power during that debacle would seem to be in the "well, you screwed me once, and I kind liked it, so please screw me again" catagory.
I also have a significant number of friends in abroad, before the US was viewed as an arrogant greedy hypocritical wimp. We'll do better being seen as a country that doesn't take shit.
Is abroad a country like Africa? I don't see how one can live in abroad. What is it with American Republicans and language refering to the rest of the world?
As for your suggestion that it is better to appear a arrogant greedy hypocritical country that doesn't take shit than a arrogant greedy hypocritical wimp country, well, it made me laugh but I don't think it's something to base foreign policy on. If anything the accusations of greed and arrogance have grown during the reign of George II.
Again, it's simple; the US and UK governments sold their voters a crock of shit, vastly exagerating the risk to the USA and UK so as to garner enough support to launch an invasion of Iraq, as if they had tried to make it for other reasons, like human rights or vauge threats of problems, then they wouldn't have got enough public backing to go ahead.
The invasion has had beneficial results; human rights now have a hope in the future of Iraq. Several countries are now being far more cautious in their attitude; Lybia has basically rolled over, blown the gaff on North Korean arms proliferation, and the North Koreans, although being an utterly mad dictatorship that makes very bold public statements, are allowing access to their nuclear facilities. Pakistan has also had their gaff well-and-truely blown. Gain, gain, gain, gain in terms of geopolitical safety.
But the loss loss has been that of respect and trust for the governments of the USA and the UK, who were either deceitful, or incompetetant. The very actions they have undertaken that increase the safety of other countries has, because it was undertaken on a pretext, resulted in a loss of faith.
John Kerry? It seems that the people who don't want Bushy back in want a candidate with lots of support. Kerry is winning because he started out winning, there's at least two better Democratic candidates but Kerry has the vox populi and that's what's attracting all the support. The last thing the Democrats want is to have a more marginal candidate squeak through and end up losing to Bush by a small margin.