 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
Bush has declared Tory leader Howard "personna no grata" because he has declared war on Blair over Iraq.
I wonder if this will cost Howard his job?
"TORY leader Michael Howard has been barred from the White House and told he will never meet President George Bush, it emerged last night.
The bombshell ban was slapped on Mr Howard after he called for Tony Blair to quit over the Iraq War.
And it was reinforced last month when he said he would have vetoed military action if he had known the full facts about Iraq’s WMD arsenal.
Last night, a spokesman for Mr Howard did not even try to deny the Tory leader had been banned from meeting the President.
He said: “I don’t want to comment on that.”
The wrath of the President was transmitted to Mr Howard’s office in a furious phone call from White House political chief Karl Rove in February.
It followed Mr Howard’s call for Mr Blair to step down as PM.
What particularly upset the White House was Mr Howard’s comment: “If I were Prime Minister I would seriously be considering my position.”
They were also angered when the Tory leader accused the PM of “serious dereliction of duty”.
Mr Rove, who speaks with the President’s full authority, said: “You can forget about meeting the President full stop. Don’t bother coming, you are not meeting him.”
The conversation was relayed to Mr Howard who was unmoved.
Far from backing down, a defiant Mr Howard stepped up his attack over the so-called “dodgy dossier” and the 45-minute warning of attack by Iraqi WMD.
Referring to Tory support for the Commons vote which led to war, he said: “If I knew then what I know now, I could not have voted for the resolution.”
His comment to the Sunday Times was widely seen as an unforced error.
But it now emerges that Mr Howard was accurately reflecting his criticism not just of Mr Blair but of Mr Bush as well.
His stand shook top Tories, including party chairman Liam Fox who is flying to New York in a bid to patch up the rift at the Republican convention.
And it has deeply damaged the decades-long alliance between the Republicans and the Conservative Party.
Senior US Right-wingers blame Mr Howard for undermining the coalition in Iraq and say they are privately rooting for a Labour victory in the next election.
A Tory source said: “They see Tony Blair as a true ally against terror and the Tories as a bunch of w*****s.”
The stand-off is particularly surprising in view of Mr Howard’s long standing admiration for America.
He set up the Atlantic Partnership, a think-tank which welcomes regular visits from Republican figures.
Senior Tories are amazed that the White House fury has remained a secret for so long.
One said: “I am astonished it hasn’t come out before.”
But Mr Howard’s spokesman insisted he had not been barred from the Republican Convention.
He added: “He never intended to attend the convention.”
The revelations could not have come at a worse time for the Tories.
A new poll showed them still scoring only 34 per cent, the same as Labour, with little prospect of a breakthrough."
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004400599,00.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
All this shows is that bashing a leader over Iraq is pure politics.
It's also pure bullshit. |
i dont know if its pure bullshit. there are legitimate reasons to not support the whole iraq debacle.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
This isn't pettiness. It's sending a message to leaders all over the globe, ie. that the War On Terror is the most important thing to the Bush Adminstration and that if you **** with them on this issue, you will pay the consequences, whether you're a conservative like Howard and Chirac or a liberal like Schroeder. |
So it isn't pettiness, it's saying that if you don't agree with us on this one issue we won't talk to you, nyah, nyah. So it's isn't pettiness... it's pettiness.
Besides, just because Howard is right that Iraq really doesn't have jack to do with a 'War on Terror' (especially now that we know that the WMDs really aren't there) doesn't mean Bush has to get all steamed over being called on it. Some people don't like going to war for humanitarian purposes; that's reason to ban them from the WH?
quote:
You think this kind of **** from Howard would've flown during the Cold War? Hell no, and this is a similar situation. |
One, it isn't similar (at least not with Iraq) and second, we still talked to and were friendly with the French, even though they consistently disagreed with numerous positions we took (remember when they partially pulled out of NATO?).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-08-2004 05:02
.
.
|