Government | |
Hillary Clinton lobbied by Cherie Blair to meet Qatari royal, emails reveal | |
2015-07-02 | |
[The Guardian] Lobbying activities of Clintons and Blairs under scrutiny after emails show wife of former British PM sought 'women to women' meeting for US secretary of state. Cherie Blair repeatedly pressured Hillary Clinton to meet a leading Qatari royal when Clinton was US secretary of state, according to newly released emails that raise fresh questions about the lobbying activities of all three political families.
"Sheika Moser [sic] has approached me privately saying they are keen to get their relationship with the USA onto a more positive footing and she was hoping for a 'women to women' one to one private meeting with you," Blair wrote in the first of a series of emails addressed to Hilary [sic] and released by the US State Department after a legal battle to recover correspondence Clinton had stored on a private server. After initially suggesting they shared a philanthropic interest in disability charities, Blair added: "I am sure the conversation would not be confined to these issues but would be about the US/Qatar relationship generally." A protracted series of follow-up emails then detail Blair's attempts to seek a mutually convenient date in both women's diaries, some cryptically only referring to "my friend from Q". "Great," Blair replied to Clinton when the meeting was confirmed in principle. "When I see what a difference you are making it reminds me why politics is too important to be left to the bad people." | |
Link |
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
Was 'Lady Macbeth' behind Barack Obama's snub of Gordon Brown? |
2009-03-05 |
Was 'Lady Macbeth' behind Barack Obama's snub of Gordon Brown? Posted By: James Delingpole at Mar 5, 2009 at 12:58:55 [General] Posted in: Foreign Correspondents , Politics , Eagle Eye On US radio's Garrison show today, I was asked for my reaction as a true born Englishman to President Obama's double insult - first the sending back of the Winston Churchill bust, then his snub to Gordon Brown. "Tough one. Really tough one," I said, torn - as most of surely are - between delight at seeing Brown roundly humiliated, and dismay at having the special relationship so peremptorily, cruelly and bafflingly ruptured. Iain Martin is quite right here: no matter how utterly rubbish we have become as a nation in the Blair/Brown years, Britain's friendship is something Obama will come to regret having dispensed with so lightly. This was not the act of a global statesman, but of a hormonal teenager dismissing her bestest of best BFs for no other reason than that she felt like it and she can, so there. What was the guy thinking? In researching my new book Welcome to Obamaland, I discovered that Obama's judgment is pretty dreadful - but this? My favourite theory so far - suggested by presenter Greg Garrison - was that it was a move calculated to please his Lady Macbeth. At the moment in Britain, we're still in the "Doesn't she look fabulous in a designer frock" stage of understanding of Michelle Obama. Gradually, though, we'll begin to realise that she is every bit the terrifying executive's wife that Hillary Clinton was. Or, shudder, Cherie Blair. We may just LURVE Michelle's fashion sense. But Michelle doesn't reciprocate our affection, one bit. Her broad-brush view of history associates Brits with the wicked white global hegemony responsible for the slave trade. Never mind that a white, Tory Englishman - William Wilberforce - brought the slave trade to an end. Judging by her record, Michelle does not make room for such subtle nuance. Consider her notorious statement that: "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country." Consider her (till-recently suppressed) Princeton thesis, "Princeton Educated Blacks And The Black Community." In it she writes: "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second." Here we see that she has mastered the authentic voice of grievance culture. She also - the thesis was written in 1985 - pre-empts the Macpherson report's ludicrous, catch-all definition of racism: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person." No matter how hard young Michelle's white undergraduate contemporaries try to be nice, it's not their behaviour that counts, but how Michelle feels. More worrying, though, and dangerous, than young Michelle's desperate quest for validation through victimhood is the other strain within her thesis. "As I enter my final year at Princeton," she writes. "I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates - acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation. Thus, my goals at Princeton are not as clear as before." "Yes, exactly, you silly girl" you want to shriek at young Michelle as you give her a good shake. "It's called 'opening your mind', 'broadening your experience', 'allowing youthful dogma to be shaped by reality.' It's why people go to university, don't you know?" |
Link |
Britain |
Brown taking tips from Blair: Cherie |
2008-05-11 |
![]() In interviews with two newspapers published on Saturday, Cherie Blair said Brown was rattling the keys over her husbands head when he suffered a crisis of confidence in April 2004 over his decision to take Britain to war with Iraq. I thought he was putting too much pressure on Tony to quit when Tony wasnt ready, she told the Sun. Brown took over in June 2007 after a tempestuous 10-year relationship with Blair during which he ran Britains finances as Chancellor of the Exchequer. But unpopular income tax reform, rising fuel and food prices, a downturn in the housing market and an image problem led to big losses in local elections that have cast doubt on Browns leadership. |
Link |
-Short Attention Span Theater- |
"Regret the Error" presents: the year 2007 in corrcetions |
2007-12-13 |
Mainstream media quality control at its finest. Correction of the Year One of the surest ways to produce a great correction is to write a scandalous article filled with salacious, untrue allegations. This years winner is a correction to an April article in the Independent Saturday (UK) magazine: Following the portrait of Tony and Cherie Blair published on 21 April in the Independent Saturday magazine, Ms Blairs representatives have told us that she was friendly with but never had a relationship with Carole Caplin of the type suggested in the article. They want to make it clear, which we are happy to do, that Ms Blair has never shared a shower with Ms Caplin, was not introduced to spirit guides or primal wrestling by Ms Caplin (or anyone else), and did not have her diary masterminded by Ms Caplin. Runner Up The Sentinel-Review (Woodstock, Ontario): In an article in Mondays newspaper, there may have been a misperception about why a Woodstock man is going to Afghanistan on a voluntary mission. Kevin DeClark is going to Afghanistan to gain life experience to become a police officer when he returns, not to shoot guns and blow things up. . . . Best Recipe Error The Observer (UK): We should clarify that the stir-fried morning glory recipe featured in Observer Food Monthly last week uses an edible morning glory Ipomoea aquatica, found in south east Asia and also known as water spinach. This should not to be confused with the UK Ipomoea, also known as morning glory, which is poisonous. . . . Best Numerical Error The Hindu: A report From Bombay to Rajasthan (Newscape page, January 8, 2007) stated that actor Elizabeth Hurley will wear a 4,000-pound sari by designer Tarun Tahiliani during her wedding in March. While one reader wondered how she would be able to lift the 1,800 kg sari, another reader said there are possible fears about the bride being reduced to pulp by its weight. It was an error. The word pound was used instead of the currency symbol for pound sterling (£). Many, many more at the link. |
Link |
Britain |
Tony Blair 'concerned' over wife's book |
2007-10-01 |
![]() Cherie Blairs publisher said earlier this month that she had struck a deal to publish a warm, intimate and often very funny portrait of a family living in extraordinary circumstances. Citing a friend of the ex-prime minister, though, the Sunday Telegraph reported that Tony Blair was concerned over the impact the book, set to hit shelves in about a year, would have on his improving relationship with Prime Minister Brown. Tony is extremely concerned about the book, the Telegraphs unnamed source was quoted as saying. He is getting on really well with Gordon at the moment and the last thing he wants is for damaging revelations to wreck things again. He cant stop Cherie from writing it, though. Blair and Brown have had an often divisive relationship in their 10 years together in power, when Brown was finance minister, and tensions were often close to the surface. Cherie Blair is said to have disliked Brown and at last years Labour Party conference was alleged to have dismissed as a lie that her husband and his number two had a close working relationship. |
Link |
Britain |
Blair proposed to Cherie while she was scrubbing loo |
2007-07-02 |
![]() |
Link |
-Lurid Crime Tales- |
The Independent: Journalists have no morality, PM's wife tells students |
2006-11-26 |
Cherie Blair has launched an extraordinary attack on the media claiming there is "no professional morality in journalism". She's right, and I'll bet a dollar to a dog turd journalists are upset because they don't understand the difference. The Prime Minister's wife took her revenge on a profession that has bedevilled her for years when invited to address students at Roehampton University on Wednesday. Ma! Popcorn! Now! She told a stunned audience that it was "not a noble calling" and journalists "have no ethics". Then, Mrs Blair - who was at the university in south-west London to open its Human Rights Centre - turned her attention to the Daily Mail and the Press Complaints Commission. Probably stunned for the wrong reason. Since the latter has repeatedly failed to uphold the Blairs' complaints about the former, Mrs Blair's words - "the pathetic PCC dominated by the Daily Mail - are not, perhaps, surprising. I'll try to figure that out later. Munch munch munch . . . Her spokeswoman yesterday sought to play down the incident. "Mrs Blair was merely playing devil's advocate to stimulate discussion amongst the students." No she wasn't. Wuss. But the students say the PM's wife delivered a "rant" and they weren't given an opportunity to defend their putative trade. She's ranting? You mean "saying what she feels"? Mrs Blair had been invited to join the university chancellor, John Simpson, as the BBC's world affairs editor addressed a small group of journalism students. One student, Lya Pfaffli, said: "I think we were all quite taken aback at her complete lack of tact and diplomacy... she was in a room with at least three, reputedly ethical, journalists. At least we were told they had ethics, so we believe it. "Her unabashed accusations of 'no professional morality or adjudication of the truth' clearly rattled a few of us." Hadn't given it much thought, eh? Fortunately for the "adjudication of the truth", another student, Cat McGovern, took detailed notes of Mrs Blair's harangue. Wasn't stunned, apparently. Probably heard it before. John Simpson declined to comment. "It was a private meeting," he said. Translation: Pi$$ off for now. We're re-jigging what was said to make it more tactful and diplomatic. |
Link |
Britain |
Furious George |
2006-05-31 |
Galloway preapproves the murder of the British prime minister. By Christopher Hitchens In the current issue of British Gentleman's Quarterly, there appears an interview with somebody who could by no leap of the imagination be characterized as a gentleman. George Galloway is a man whose Catholic beliefs have not prevented him from expressing nostalgia for Stalinism and offering open support for the dictatorships of Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad. Evidence that this support has not gone unrequited has been presented by two investigations into the prostitution of the U.N. oil-for-food racket, one of them conducted by Paul Volcker for the United Nations itself and another conducted by a U.S. Senate investigations subcommittee. Scotland Yard's Serious Fraud Office is currently reviewing these reports, and I would be the last to prejudge the outcome of their inquiries. Galloway himself is not so averse to a rush to judgment. Asked by GQ if he would justify the suicide-murder of Tony Blair (with the tender GQ proviso that only the prime minister would be killed in this putative assassination) Galloway responded as follows: Yes it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it, but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq as Blair did. The allusion to "the events of 7/7" is to the suicide-murderers who killed themselves and many others in an attack on the London transportation system on July 7, 2005. On that occasion, Galloway told the British House of Commons that Londoners had "paid the price" not of suicide-bombing but of British involvement in Iraq. Much of the commentary that I read about this amazing statement seemed to conclude that Galloway had provided himself with enough "wiggle room" to avoid the charge of incitement or advocacy. And it is true that suicide-murderers do not require his warrant in advance to go about their work. (They tend to get his approval, or his defense, only after they have blown themselves up.) But if you examine his statement, and the statements that he has made subsequently, you will have an idea of the complete mental chaos that has overtaken a whole section of the "left" who regard Galloway as an anti-war champion. If the killing of Blair would be "morally equivalent" to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, then obviously it would be equivalent to something of which Galloway presumably strongly disapproves. In other words, it could not be "morally justified" at all, except by an utter moral cretin. And this is to say nothing of the unmentioned question: How right can it be to remove a thrice-elected head of government by any means other than an election? Galloway is a member of Parliament by the grace of an electorate in the East End of London but is widely regarded as a corrupt scumbag, an egomaniac, an apologist for tyranny, and a supporter of jihad. How would he phrase his complaint if someone were now to propose overruling his voters and offing him as the insult to humanity that he has become? I think I can hear the squeals of self-pity already. The fascinated GQ interviewer then asked Galloway what he would do if he actually came to know about such a plot against Blair. Once again, Galloway appeared to have an evasion ready to go along with his endorsement. Would he alert the forces of law and order? "Yes. Such an operation would be counter-productive because it would just generate a new wave of anti-Arab sentiment [and] new draconian anti-terror laws." I have to say I admire his cool use of the term "operation," which is the word that he and his admired "insurgents" in Iraq have long used for their beheadings, car bombs, mosque detonations, and school burnings. And I further note the firm way in which he condemns the possible murder of an elected prime ministerlest it increase "anti-Arab sentiment." I thought Galloway objected to the association of Arabs with terrorism. Who said anything about an Arab doing this hypothetical deed? Apparently not much liking the publicity he got for this (and apparently being unable to claim that he hadn't said any of it), Galloway made another shift on the night of May 26 and invoked a remark made by Cherie Blair, the prime minister's wife, in 2002. Like her, he grandly announced, "I understand why such desperate acts take place and why those involved might believe such actions to be morally justifiable." Cherie Blair had not said anything of the sort. What she said was, "As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress." So, here is what it comes down to. George Galloway says that the murder of an elected prime minister would be "morally justifiable." He is not brave enough to call for it, but he does preapprove it. He finds room for criticism of the murder only because it might occasion a backlash. And he then tries to hide behind the skirts of a woman who he has just told us ought in all justice to be a widow! That he does this by deliberately misquoting her is a mere coda to an almost incredible catalog of indecency. It was a busy week for Galloway. He went to Cuba and publicly embraced Fidel Castro on television, saying that the aging caudillo was a "lion" in a political world populated by "monkeys." The main distinction between Castro and his neighbors, however simian some of them might be, is that he is the only one left in Latin America and the Caribbean who does not submit himself for election. This seems to be the difference that appeals most to Galloway. In both Britain and America, this fawning and cowardly and sinister jerk is considered a hero of the "anti-war" movement. He is, in fact, an excuse-maker for totalitarianism and an apologist for nihilistic religious violence. How long before the democratic left starts to refuse him a platform and make him stand on his own? Some of us will be watching. |
Link |
Britain |
Cherie Blair says she never admits mistakes |
2006-05-28 |
![]() |
Link |
Afghanistan | |
Cherie Visits Afghanistan for Judicial Reform Talks | |
2006-04-10 | |
![]()
| |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
More British memos on the run-up to the Iraq war |
2006-03-27 |
In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war. But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times. "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides. "The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin." The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons. Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq which they failed to obtain the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion. Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo. Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident. The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment. The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein. Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan. Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process." On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said. "The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent." The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war. The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. "As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying. "Bush agreed," Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported. Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo. By late January 2003, United Nations inspectors had spent six weeks in Iraq hunting for weapons under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq voluntarily failed to disarm. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors had reported little cooperation from Mr. Hussein, and no success finding any unconventional weapons. At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war. Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them. "The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach." It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction. A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea. Mr. Sands first reported the proposals in his book, although he did not use any direct quotations from the memo. He is a professor of international law at University College of London and the founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where the prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair, is a partner. Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, declined to discuss the proposals, saying, "We are not going to get into discussing private discussions of the two leaders." At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected." The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, "If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs." Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying. The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway." The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion. Summarizing statements by the president, the memo says: "The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians. Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam's regime. Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix's next report to the Security Council in mid-February." Mr. Blair was described as responding that both countries would make clear that a second resolution amounted to "Saddam's final opportunity." The memo described Mr. Blair as saying: "We had been very patient. Now we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months." It reported: "Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions assuming we did we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go." Mr. Bush devoted much of the meeting to outlining the military strategy. The president, the memo says, said the planned air campaign "would destroy Saddam's command and control quickly." It also said that he expected Iraq's army to "fold very quickly." He also is reported as telling the prime minister that the Republican Guard would be "decimated by the bombing." Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that "there were uncertainties and risks," the memo says, and it goes on, "As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north." The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. "The prime minister asked about aftermath planning," the memo says. "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand. Referring to the Defense Department, it said: "A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine." The leaders then looked beyond the war, imagining the transition from Mr. Hussein's rule to a new government. Immediately after the war, a military occupation would be put in place for an unknown period of time, the president was described as saying. He spoke of the "dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration," the memo says. The document concludes with Mr. Manning still holding out a last-minute hope of inspectors finding weapons in Iraq, or even Mr. Hussein voluntarily leaving Iraq. But Mr. Manning wrote that he was concerned this could not be accomplished by Mr. Bush's timeline for war. "This makes the timing very tight," he wrote. "We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find, and work hard on the other members of the Security Council to accept the noncooperation case so that we can secure the minimum nine votes when we need them, probably the end of February." At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said "the crisis" had to be resolved in a timely manner. "Saddam Hussein is not disarming," the president told reporters. "He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said and the prime minister has constantly said this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months." Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House. |
Link |
Fifth Column |
Leftist Brag About Leftists Politicizing The Olympics |
2006-02-13 |
No one who was paying attention to the opening of the 20th Winter Olympics could have missed the none-too-subtle message that was sent with regard to the Bush administration's foreign policy. While first lady Laura Bush sat in the stands giggling with Cherie Blair, the wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair the Olympic flag was carried into Stadio Olympico on Friday evening by actress Susan Sarandon, one of the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq. Joining Sarandon to lift the corners of the flag were a group of prominent women that included Chilean writer and activist Isabel Allende, Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai and Cambodian human rights activist Somaly Mam. The neoconservatives who guide public policy in the United States, and their apologists in the media, may have been offended by the showcasing of Sarandon and other women who have challenged this president's misrule of the United States and misguided approach to the world. But American citizens need not be. The global rejection of the Bush administration's military misadventures abroad, its opposition to environmental protection initiatives, its corporations-first approach to global trade, and its disdain for democracy in the United States and abroad is not a rejection of America or Americans. It is a rejection of a president who has insulted American values and ideals as well as the broader spirit of international cooperation that defines the Olympic tradition. As Marco Balich, the creative director for Friday night's opening program for the Olympics, explained, "We wanted to make a strong statement of peace tonight." And so they did, with their choice of flagbearers, and with the surprise appearance of Yoko Ono. The artist and widow of John Lennon opened the Winter Olympics with a soft-spoken, yet stirring plea for peace. "Remember, each one of us has the power to change the world," Ono told the crowd of about 35,000. "Just start thinking peace, and the message will spread quicker than you think." Ono was joined by British singer Peter Gabriel, who sang an inspired version of Lennon's "Imagine." The lyrics of that remarkable song speak to the spirit of the Olympics "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one; I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one" but they also speak for the great mass of Americans who want very much to be part of the world community. The United States is a good country badly led. Those who recognize that fact, and who act to change the circumstance, are the truest patriots. And just as we look forward to cheering for our Olympians in the days to come, so we look forward to the day when this country will have leaders who recognize that America can and must be an honest player in world affairs. How far off is that day? Let us hope that, when Olympians meet next, in Beijing in the summer of 2008, this country will be well on its way to rejoining a world community in which it really is possible to "Imagine all the people, living life in peace." "Feces in their tea." |
Link |