Blair snubs Bush?

[Deuterium]

DON'T MEDAL

Aug 22 2004


Blair snubs Bush's war honour invite

Exclusive by Paul Gilfeather Political Editor


TONY Blair has snubbed George Bush's pleas to fly to the US and pick up his "war medal" ahead of the Presidential elections.

The US President knows the PM, who is massively popular in the States, would provide his flagging re-election campaign with a much-needed boost.

And he is putting huge pressure on Mr Blair to pick up the Congressional Medal of Honor, awarded by America for his unswerving support in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But Mr Blair's closest aides have warned him to resist the plan, insisting that a meeting with President Bush would torpedo Democrat rival John Kerry's bid for the White House.

A senior Government source said: "There has been a lot of telephone traffic between the White House and Downing Street over the medal in recent weeks. George Bush wants the Prime Minister to come to Washington and pick up the medal, which is the highest honour America can bestow on a foreigner.

"But he has refused for more than a year now and for good reason. He cannot possibly accept an award for the Iraq War when British and American troops continue to risk their lives there.

"The Democrats are watching the situation very carefully and there would be uproar if Tony travelled to Washington to meet Bush so close to the Presidential elections.

"But Bush isn't letting up. The White House has already let it be known that they feel slighted because of this and believe they can use this to put pressure on Blair to get him out there."

Number 10 is desperate to finally end Mr Blair's Iraq nightmare - which saw his personal poll rating plunge to all-time low.

Labour also suffered heavily at the ballot box over the conflict taking massive hits in the local and European elections.

One attempt to turn the crisis round was inviting the new Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi to be the keynote speaker at this year's Labour conference. But that appeared to fall through this week amid massive protests.

Mark Seddon, a member of the party's ruling National Executive Committee, said there would be a walk-out if Mr Allawi was invited to speak. He added: "A lot of us said at our last meeting we wanted John Kerry to win the Presidential election. We should be inviting the Democrats to our conference, not Allawi."

Mr Blair has deliberately kept out of the Presidential race to the fury of Labour backbenchers. They are desperate to get a Democrat back in the White House. Democrats, Labour's political bedfellows across the Atlantic, are also bewildered at Mr Blair's attitude.

Bush and Kerry are currently neck-and-neck in the US Presidential race. Mr Blair has been dodging the Congressional Medal since it was awarded a year ago.

He was due to receive it in Washington but following intense negotiations the ceremony was scrapped. He is now not expected to pick up the award until he leaves Downing Street.



It's from The Mirror so take it for what it's worth. I also don't think it's the CMO but probably the Medal of Freedom, anyone want to pipe in with some accurate info?

[scott]

I would imagine this article is referring to the Congressional Gold Medal, all too often mistaken for the CMOH.

Congress voted to award it to him last year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3008777.stm

[chauncy republicans]

I would imagine this article is referring to the Congressional Gold Medal, all too often mistaken for the CMOH.

Congress voted to award it to him last year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3008777.stm
Yeah, I'm sure Bush will award himself the M.O.H.

[scm77]

I would imagine this article is referring to the Congressional Gold Medal, all too often mistaken for the CMOH.

Congress voted to award it to him last year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3008777.stm
Yeah, I'm sure Bush will award himself the M.O.H.

Yeah... :roll:

The US President knows the PM, who is massively popular in the States, would provide his flagging re-election campaign with a much-needed boost.

Since when was TB massively popular in the states?

[Midtown]

Im a big blair fan.

[OB Kenobi]

Yeah, I'm sure Bush will award himself the M.O.H.

Bush = all hat no cattle.

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/

http://victoryshirt.com/catalog/images/cowboy-sm.jpg

[Gringo]

Blair's popular?

The only thing I find popular with Blair is when they take the piss in 2DTV, Dead Ringers, and Bremner Bird & Fortune. :lol:

[oldsoak]

He could not recive the war honour, because it would just play into the hands of the "Blair is Bush's poodle" crowd. Nice gesture, but not a good move to accept.

[Trigger]

Yeah, I'm sure Bush will award himself the M.O.H.

Bush = all hat no cattle.
OB Kenobi: All bull****, no beef.

[Old300]

Yeah, I'm sure Bush will award himself the M.O.H.

Bush = all hat no cattle.

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/

http://victoryshirt.com/catalog/images/cowboy-sm.jpg

he has cattle, actually.

[Geezah]

Mr Blair has deliberately kept out of the Presidential race to the fury of Labour backbenchers. They are desperate to get a Democrat back in the White House. Democrats, Labour's political bedfellows across the Atlantic

I've always thought this was the case now I'm convinced that the Dems are Labours evil twin.

[obd]

Of course Blair is going to snub Bush. Who would be arrogant and stupid enough to go on a medal ceremony while real hero's are still being killed on the field of battle. Frankly, Bush is insulting every soldier that has died in Iraq so far. Blair is clearly too intelligent to make such a mistake as to accept any such thing from Bush

Bush is literally his own worst enemy.........and he is also Osama Bin Ladens new best freind.........

In fact, the only thing Osama Bin Laden needs to continue to grow support for his views within the 1.3 billion member Muslum world is for Bush to get re-elected.........In fact, Al Queda has already published in its numerous online journals such as Al Neda and others that is fervently wished all the best to George W. Bush in the next election!!!!!!

Even in his wildest dreams Bin Laden did not dare to hope the United States would do something as strategically idiotic and wasteful as launch a war in Iraq and create a failed state situation............But at that time Bin Laden did not yet fully understand the idiocy of Bush........Truly, Bin Laden must feel that Bush is a gift from Allah in accomplishing his self stated goal of " inspiring the mujahid of the Umah to take up resistance of all kinds against the Crusaders and Jews"........

Thanks to Bush, we have taken 1 step forward and 5 steps back in the war on terror..........One can only hope America is great enough to survuve such a horrid leader......We have so far for 4 long painful years..........one can only hope we dont have to endure him for another 4.......

[Trigger]

Frankly, Bush is insulting every soldier that has died in Iraq so far.
That's funny, the troops don't seem to feel that way. Nice try though.

[Secret Squirrel]

Frankly, Bush is insulting every soldier that has died in Iraq so far.
That's funny, the troops don't seem to feel that way. Nice try though.

I'm glad you alone can speak for the troops. Maybe with your omniponent ability you can explain Sgt Robert Ferriol's opinion? After that maybe you'll realize that some of them cant voice their opinion without facing certain possible consequences (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/7/174243/712). I hope you at least realize that you responded to obd's blanket statement with one of your own. ;)

[jedisponge]

Frankly, Bush is insulting every soldier that has died in Iraq so far.
That's funny, the troops don't seem to feel that way. Nice try though.

I'm glad you alone can speak for the troops. Maybe with your omniponent ability you can explain Sgt Robert Ferriol's opinion? After that maybe you'll realize that some of them cant voice their opinion without facing certain possible consequences (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/7/174243/712). I hope you at least realize that you responded to obd's blanket statement with one of your own. ;)

well then in that case, obd is in the know and can speak for all soldiers too.

Trigger: "OB Kenobi: all bull****, no beef"
funniest thing i've heard all day.

[Trigger]

Frankly, Bush is insulting every soldier that has died in Iraq so far.
That's funny, the troops don't seem to feel that way. Nice try though.

I'm glad you alone can speak for the troops. Maybe with your omniponent ability you can explain Sgt Robert Ferriol's opinion? After that maybe you'll realize that some of them cant voice their opinion without facing certain possible consequences (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/7/174243/712). I hope you at least realize that you responded to obd's blanket statement with one of your own. ;)
Yes it was a blanket statement. However, I feel justified in making it based on what I've seen and read. You've presented a single disgruntled Marine as evidence against countless photos, videos and letters from troops fighting the war, many of whom believe they are there performing a righteous mission.

[Secret Squirrel]

Frankly, Bush is insulting every soldier that has died in Iraq so far.
That's funny, the troops don't seem to feel that way. Nice try though.

I'm glad you alone can speak for the troops. Maybe with your omniponent ability you can explain Sgt Robert Ferriol's opinion? After that maybe you'll realize that some of them cant voice their opinion without facing certain possible consequences (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/7/174243/712). I hope you at least realize that you responded to obd's blanket statement with one of your own. ;)
Yes it was a blanket statement. However, I feel justified in making it based on what I've seen and read. You've presented a single disgruntled Marine as evidence against countless photos, videos and letters from troops fighting the war, many of whom believe they are there performing a righteous mission.

Yes I presented what happened when a single marine publically presented his political views. And what was the result (you did read to the end of the article right)? You do realize that under the UCMJ-article 134 that military personnel can be charged with "disloyal statements". Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration. Obviously you know that even if someone in the military wanted to, they cant exactly openly show their dissapproval. As for your "righteous mission" statement; that almost sounds like it came from Bush himself after God told him what to do. Please lets leave the theatrics where they belong. The military is a group of professionals, not apostles, performing a job that's been placed before them. They're the physical embodiment of foreign policy.

[obd]

Often Trigger you see only what you want to see. This applies to everyone, including myself. If people support a war or a leader strongly in the beginning, they tend to ignore anything and everything that might change thier views. If people are against a leader or a particular war, then they tend to ignore anything positive that is done.

For me, I began with support for Bush and support for Afghanistan on principle. I still support the Afghan war to this day although I worry about how it is being waged and what will ultimately by accomplished over the long term in A-stan. (as in, where will A-stan be 50 years from now) My support for Bush slowly faltered over the months and months as I saw him take what were, in my opinion, multiple wrong moves with regard to domestic and foriegn policy, culminating in what I feel is one of the worst strategic blunders of US foreign policy in recent times: the pre-emptive war in Iraq.

I see it as a needles and even dangerour war that has taken focus off the true war on terror, alienated more Muslums to Osama bin Laden, and created a new Afghanistan like situation of a failed state.......while draining billions in treasure from the United States and putting a drain on our economy. Im also angered by all the reported corruption of companies serving in Iraq. Truly, they are robbing the American people but also they are responsible for the deaths of American soldiers because every dollar those bastards at Haliburton and KBR steal is a dollar that should have gone to ending the war ASAP and protecting our soldiers......All those greedy "buisnessmen" should be hung in the streets or put in jail for contributing to the deaths of almost 1,000 US servicemen and women...........just my two sense on that.......

Trust me one this: 50 years from now, Bush's Iraq war will be on the Histroy Channel show "Great Blunders in History".

Trigger, if you look hard enough you can find plenty of evidence of soldiers begin disgruntled by the war in principle, or at the very least feeling deep misgivings about how the war is being cinducted from a tactical and strategic standpoint. I watch the news every single day and I try to watch as many different channels as possible to get different perspectives. I also use the internet to read news articles from foreign countries as well.........I have personally seen many Army officers give interviews where they complained about the war........I have also seen many grunts smiling for the camera and have read brave letters written to mothers. I have freinds serving in Iraq and believe me when I say: They write me far different letters than they write to their mothers. They tell me the truth of whats going on. Thier mothers get the bull**** so they wont worry too much!!!!!

In fact, I just went to a buddies wedding over the weekend and had to read the letter for the best man because he was mobilized for Iraq.......and he sure as hell didnt want to go. He felt a duty to go, but he sure as hell wished he hadnt been called to serve for Iraq. In his own opinion, he signed up to defend the nation, and he doesnt believe thats what Bush's Iraq war is all about. But thats just one soldiers view. Im sure there are many young 18-21 year old kids who are more than happy to go, like my friend who dropped out of high school and joined the army after 9/11.........Why did he want to go? Adventure, danger, excitment, travel, money........thats about it. Yeah, he would say "to serve my country and all" when in the presence of people he wanted to impress, but privately in the presence of his close buds, he would tell the truth.

[Trigger]

Frankly, Bush is insulting every soldier that has died in Iraq so far.
That's funny, the troops don't seem to feel that way. Nice try though.

I'm glad you alone can speak for the troops. Maybe with your omniponent ability you can explain Sgt Robert Ferriol's opinion? After that maybe you'll realize that some of them cant voice their opinion without facing certain possible consequences (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/7/174243/712). I hope you at least realize that you responded to obd's blanket statement with one of your own. ;)
Yes it was a blanket statement. However, I feel justified in making it based on what I've seen and read. You've presented a single disgruntled Marine as evidence against countless photos, videos and letters from troops fighting the war, many of whom believe they are there performing a righteous mission.

Yes I presented what happened when a single marine publically presented his political views. And what was the result (you did read to the end of the article right)? You do realize that under the UCMJ-article 134 that military personnel can be charged with "disloyal statements". Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration. Obviously you know that even if someone in the military wanted to, they cant exactly openly show their dissapproval.
That's right. The Marine you cited knows this as well, yet he decided to speak out against the administration during a time of war, but when he got dinged for it, he went crying to the papers.

As for your "righteous mission" statement; that almost sounds like it came from Bush himself after God told him what to do. Please lets leave the theatrics where they belong. The military is a group of professionals, not apostles, performing a job that's been placed before them. They're the physical embodiment of foreign policy.
Funny, you make this kind of statement, but finish with 'let's leave the theatrics where they belong'. Apparently they belong right here.
What part did you not understand? Is English a second language to you? I said (IMHO) the soldiers feel that the mission is righteous. That's it. Of course I realize you wanted to use it to poke fun at Bush for his prayer references.
Yes the military is a group of professionals. Tell us something we don't know. But to the subject of your post, that particular Marine acted unprofessionally.

[Secret Squirrel]

Frankly, Bush is insulting every soldier that has died in Iraq so far.
That's funny, the troops don't seem to feel that way. Nice try though.

I'm glad you alone can speak for the troops. Maybe with your omniponent ability you can explain Sgt Robert Ferriol's opinion? After that maybe you'll realize that some of them cant voice their opinion without facing certain possible consequences (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/7/174243/712). I hope you at least realize that you responded to obd's blanket statement with one of your own. ;)
Yes it was a blanket statement. However, I feel justified in making it based on what I've seen and read. You've presented a single disgruntled Marine as evidence against countless photos, videos and letters from troops fighting the war, many of whom believe they are there performing a righteous mission.

Yes I presented what happened when a single marine publically presented his political views. And what was the result (you did read to the end of the article right)? You do realize that under the UCMJ-article 134 that military personnel can be charged with "disloyal statements". Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration. Obviously you know that even if someone in the military wanted to, they cant exactly openly show their dissapproval.
That's right. The Marine you cited knows this as well, yet he decided to speak out against the administration during a time of war, but when he got dinged for it, he went crying to the papers.

As for your "righteous mission" statement; that almost sounds like it came from Bush himself after God told him what to do. Please lets leave the theatrics where they belong. The military is a group of professionals, not apostles, performing a job that's been placed before them. They're the physical embodiment of foreign policy.
Funny, you make this kind of statement, but finish with 'let's leave the theatrics where they belong'. Apparently they belong right here.
What part did you not understand? Is English a second language to you? I said (IMHO) the soldiers feel that the mission is righteous. That's it. Of course I realize you wanted to use it to poke fun at Bush for his prayer references.
Yes the military is a group of professionals. Tell us something we don't know. But to the subject of your post, that particular Marine acted unprofessionally.

Ok, so first you speak for all the troops. Then when I inform you of something you clearly didnt know, you ramble on with "uh well gee der boss, da man knew what he was doing". Do you always lack the ability to see the bigger picture? And do you always try to dodge points to save a little face? ;)

[Trigger]

Secret Squirrel wrote:
Ok, so first you speak for all the troops. Then when I inform you of something you clearly didnt know, you ramble on with "uh well gee der boss, da man knew what he was doing". Do you always lack the ability to see the bigger picture? And do you always try to dodge points to save a little face?
I said 'the troops', not 'every single soldier'. A blanket statement that was justified by what I have personally seen. You can't dispute it, so you try to re-word it.
I hadn't heard about the one particular Marine that you seem fixated on. However, he was aware of the UCMJ articles that he violated. Again, you can't dispute it so you try to play the 'bigger picture' card, as if it has any value.
I'm not here to 'save face', I have no illusions that any of this will sway anyone's opinions.
As far as 'dodging' goes, you didn't effectively counter a single thing I said. You simply threw your usual catch phrases into the mix.

[Secret Squirrel]

Secret Squirrel wrote:
Ok, so first you speak for all the troops. Then when I inform you of something you clearly didnt know, you ramble on with "uh well gee der boss, da man knew what he was doing". Do you always lack the ability to see the bigger picture? And do you always try to dodge points to save a little face?
I said 'the troops', not 'every single soldier'. A blanket statement that was justified by what I have personally seen. You can't dispute it, so you try to re-word it.
I hadn't heard about the one particular Marine that you seem fixated on. However, he was aware of the UCMJ articles that he violated. Again, you can't dispute it so you try to play the 'bigger picture' card, as if it has any value.
I'm not here to 'save face', I have no illusions that any of this will sway anyone's opinions.
As far as 'dodging' goes, you didn't effectively counter a single thing I said. You simply threw your usual catch phrases into the mix.

Ok, so which percentage of the military does "the troops" refer to exactly? You must know because obviously you just said the troops do not represent every soldier. ;) You justified your blanket statement by everything you've seen and I've enlightened you (or at least I tried to) that you wont see any pretty pictures or letters that are openly critical simply because of UCMJ-article 134. So I'm not fixated on a particular marine but rather I'm fixated on what happened when someone from the military choose to air their views that did not conform to the Bush administration's views. Do you see the point now? Or do I need to explain it again? ;)

[Trigger]

I'm fixated on what happened when someone from the military choose to air their views that did not conform to the Bush administration's views.

Ah, there's the rub...
Newsflash: The UCMJ doesn't give a rat's ass who's administration it operates under.
...and yes I see the point. The point is that you would like people to believe that this is somehow exclusive to George W. Bush's administration. ;)

[Secret Squirrel]

I'm fixated on what happened when someone from the military choose to air their views that did not conform to the Bush administration's views.

Ah, there's the rub...
Newsflash: The UCMJ doesn't give a rat's ass who's administration it operates under.
...and yes I see the point. The point is that you would like people to believe that this is somehow exclusive to George W. Bush's administration. ;)

Guess i'll dumb it down for you. It's policy not to critize the U.S's war aims. Bush just happens to be the current C-in-C. All better? ;)

[Trigger]

I'm fixated on what happened when someone from the military choose to air their views that did not conform to the Bush administration's views.

Ah, there's the rub...
Newsflash: The UCMJ doesn't give a rat's ass who's administration it operates under.
...and yes I see the point. The point is that you would like people to believe that this is somehow exclusive to George W. Bush's administration. ;)

Guess i'll dumb it down for you. It's policy not to critize the U.S's war aims. Bush just happens to be the current C-in-C. All better? ;)
No **** Sherlock. That's what I said.
Oh, I'm sorry. You were trying to have the last word. How inconsiderate of me. p-)

[Secret Squirrel]

I'm fixated on what happened when someone from the military choose to air their views that did not conform to the Bush administration's views.

Ah, there's the rub...
Newsflash: The UCMJ doesn't give a rat's ass who's administration it operates under.
...and yes I see the point. The point is that you would like people to believe that this is somehow exclusive to George W. Bush's administration. ;)

Guess i'll dumb it down for you. It's policy not to critize the U.S's war aims. Bush just happens to be the current C-in-C. All better? ;)
No **** Sherlock. That's what I said.
Oh, I'm sorry. You were trying to have the last word. How inconsiderate of me. p-)

seriously man, throughout this whole discussion your "points" have been countered. If you said the same thing as I did, then you wouldnt have mentioned "The point is that you would like people to believe that this is somehow exclusive to George W. Bush's administration." Could you point out where I've "exclusively" argued that? By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain what percentage of the military "the troops" represent because you've said "the troops" dont represent all the soldiers. ;)

[Trigger]

seriously man, throughout this whole discussion your "points" have been countered. If you said the same thing as I did, then you wouldnt have mentioned "The point is that you would like people to believe that this is somehow exclusive to George W. Bush's administration." Could you point out where I've "exclusively" argued that? By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain what percentage of the military "the troops" represent because you've said "the troops" dont represent all the soldiers.

Guess i'll dumb it down for you. It's policy not to critize the U.S's war aims. Bush just happens to be the current C-in-C. All better? ;)

I'm fixated on what happened when someone from the military choose to air their views that did not conform to the Bush administration's views.

You can keep waiting or you can go back and read where I said it was a blanket statement (which I still stand by). No further explanation will follow.

I'm finished here, it's like you're arguing with yourself anyway. ;)

[Beowulf]

this thread is done.