I'm surprised this hasnt been posted yet...if it has, then just let it die, but I didn't see another thread about it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/07/world/main1980581.shtml

Quote :

"Blair To Step Down Next Year British PM Say's He'll Resign In 2007 But Won't Set Precise Departure Date LONDON, Sept. 7, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prime Minister Tony Blair has been under growing pressure from within the Labour Party to announce a time frame for his departure. (AP) (CBS/AP) Prime Minister Tony Blair promised Thursday to resign within a year, hoping to appease critics in his governing Labour Party who are calling for his departure by revealing a time frame he had badly wanted to keep private. "I would have preferred to do this in my own way," Blair said, but conceded that he'd been forced to act by a week of public turmoil in the party. He refused to set a specific departure date, but said the annual Labour Party conference this month would be his last. Next year's conference is scheduled for September 2007. "The precise timetable has to be left to me and has to be done in the proper way," said Blair, who took office in 1997. CBS News' Vicki Barker reports the media feeding frenzy in London had been escalating all day, with live helicopter images showing Blair's motorcade puttering up to a north London school, where he made the announcement. The prime minister, who once commanded Labour with an unassailable authority, now appears to be at the mercy of demands from its restive lawmakers. It was not immediately clear whether his new exit strategy will be detailed and speedy enough to satisfy them. Labour loyalists urging Blair to leave office soon — or at least announce a departure date — have grown more vocal in recent weeks. Their protests have been fueled by widespread anger at his handling of the recent fighting in the Middle East and anxiety over Labour's slide in the polls. Blair has also faced strong opposition within his party because of his steadfast support for President Bush in the Iraq war. Eight junior officials quit Wednesday to insist on Blair's resignation and news reports said Blair and Treasury chief Gordon Brown, who is considered likely to be the next prime minister, had shouting arguments in Blair's office about a handover date. But the two may ultimately have reached an understanding. Brown, opening a children's sports tournament in Glasgow, Scotland, said shortly before the prime minister's announcement that while he like others had had questions about Blair's plans, he would support his decisions. "When I met the prime minister yesterday I said to him ... it is for him to make the decision," said Brown, who looked relaxed and cheerful. "I will support him in the decisions he makes." "This cannot and should not be about private arrangements but of what is in the best interests of our party ... and the best interests of our country," Brown said. CBS News asked Philip Stephens, chief political editor of the Financial Times, what a change at the top of the British government would mean for U.S.-British relations. "Well I think if Tony Blair leaves there'll never be another prime minister quite as close as he's been to an American president," Stephens said. "I don't think in any way that Gordon Brown, the most likely although not the certain successor, is anti-American. … But I think the politics of Iraq means that it would be politically difficult for any prime minister to be quite as close as Blair has been. And I think Gordon Brown instinctively isn't as, if you like, convinced of the necessity of the alliance with Washington as Blair has been," Stephens said. "

In a nutshell, Blair has said he will step down as PM sometime next year, due to presure from his party (Labour) about the war and the party's sliding popularity.

What do you think the repricutions of this will be? Since he is our biggest foreign supporter, do you think it will furthur isolate our cause? While I'm not in favor of the war, I'm also not in favor of straight out abandoning the cause...I fear that with the lack of support from other countries, we may be forced to do that. It's looking more and more evident that this eventually will be us against everybody else. Do you think we may one day have the same disdain for Britain that so many of us have towards France?

9/8/2006 2:27:14 PM

I think Britain will go Torie in the next election, so the conservatives will still have an ally over there in some ways.

9/8/2006 2:57:09 PM

thank president bush

9/8/2006 3:13:09 PM

Political consequences. How quaint.

9/8/2006 3:16:24 PM

President Bush isnt in the Labour Party of England

9/8/2006 3:19:21 PM

<--------- Aware.

9/8/2006 3:19:55 PM

^^^^not aware

9/8/2006 3:22:09 PM

Zombie Churchill '07

9/8/2006 3:25:05 PM

If I were Blair, and my own party did that to me, I'd be giving serious thought to making them man up and take me to a vote.

9/8/2006 3:28:29 PM

eh, but why tie up the government with bs like that?

9/8/2006 3:29:38 PM

eh, why step down

9/8/2006 3:31:49 PM

read the article.

9/8/2006 3:32:32 PM

Quote :

""I would have preferred to do this in my own way," Blair said"

read the article

9/8/2006 3:34:13 PM

I bet Lieberman would've, too. Piece of shit.

9/8/2006 3:35:04 PM

you can't always get what you want. while it may not have been his prefered way of doing, its clear that he sees some benefit from doing so, in this case, pleasing the party that he is a part of. sometimes you need to swallow your pride for the good of the country.....he obviously feels this is the best way to go right now given the circumstances.

american politicians of both parties could learn something from this. not the "backing down when you're being criticized", but looking at the big picture, and not just focusing on you own personal gain. its something thats missing from politics these days. accountability.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 3:39 PM. Reason : fd]

9/8/2006 3:38:21 PM

accountability is definitely lacking from politics

but the blame game is a perfect example of "tying up the governemtn with bs" instead of looking to the future

9/8/2006 3:39:46 PM

i never said it wasnt, but if he tried to fight it more, as theduke suggested, it would only contribute to tying it up even longer.

in this case, he didnt delay the inevitable.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 3:42 PM. Reason : df]

9/8/2006 3:41:38 PM

How exactly, aside from participating in or creating anything that can be construed as a "blame game," do you go about injecting accountability into our political system?

9/8/2006 3:42:39 PM

yo blair.

9/8/2006 3:44:13 PM

i'm not completely against accountability or the "blame game"

but sometimes, ie reasons for iraq war...the blame game doesnt help the fact that we are at war in iraq...doesnt help the plan to get the democracy setup and withdraw troops

9/8/2006 3:45:55 PM

of course it doesnt, but hopefully it creates some kind of accountability so that we don't make similar mistakes in the future.

9/8/2006 3:47:10 PM

Perhaps a more fervent blame game played in the past might've prevented a lot of the fuckups we're seeing in Iraq today...

9/8/2006 3:55:20 PM

perhaps...i know...lets spend lots more time and energy arguing about the past!!

9/8/2006 4:13:43 PM

when you dont have a plan for the future...

9/8/2006 4:15:12 PM

i was going to post about how Clinton was the devil but im not

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 4:17 PM. Reason : and my plan for the future is....for Iraq's future....fuck]

9/8/2006 4:17:22 PM

Quote :

"trikk311: perhaps...i know...lets spend lots more time and energy arguing about the past!!"

Because the past can't affect the future!

Ban History Class. / trikk311 '08

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: when you dont have a plan for the future..."

No matter how often you repeat it, it doesn't get any less false.

The plan for the future is to get the fuck out of Iraq.

9/8/2006 4:25:57 PM

DOING WHAT I DONT WANT MEANS YOU HAVE NO PLAN!!!!!!!!

9/8/2006 4:28:41 PM

YES!!!....bitching about the past can change past events...

everyone...on 3!!....1....2....

bitching about the past is fine if you have somethign to offer for the future....so come on...offer something constructive...

9/8/2006 4:32:38 PM

how about getting out of Iraq.........BECAUSE ITS A SHITSHOW!

or did you not read that

its like hanging out in a room after some dude shit his pants.

9/8/2006 4:33:49 PM

fine...thats somethign to offer....

do you see how thats different than saying "bush lied"..and leaving it at that??

9/8/2006 4:34:44 PM

i dont think anyone has ever left it at that.

i guess you just stopped listening after that point.

9/8/2006 4:36:55 PM

i guess you have not been paying attention for the last few ... uhh...years...

get real dude

9/8/2006 4:37:54 PM

Quote :

"The plan for the future is to get the fuck out of Iraq."

and then what

9/8/2006 4:38:04 PM

for real...what kind of plan is...."lets just leave"

come with something legit

9/8/2006 4:38:57 PM

^ save billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

maintain a small force to oversee survival of a stable government

9/8/2006 4:39:35 PM

trikk311: You're still arguing that there's no poing in engaging in dialogue about the past, despite the fact that doing so invariably affects the future. You're either naive, grossly misinformed about physics, or both.

What do you mean, then what? That's a plan.

For 17 ways to effect said plan written by analysts and experts (which evidently don't exist), go to the link below and READ:

http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html

Quote :

"Plans by Analysts and Experts How to Get Out of Iraq Peter W. Galbraith. New York Review of Books, 26 April 2004. Radical Departure: Toward A Practical Peace in Iraq Carl Conetta. PDA Briefing Report #16, July 2004. Iraq: The Logic of Disengagement Edward N. Luttwak. Foreign Affairs, January/February 2005. Posted on the Commonwealth Institute website (.pdf file) How to Exit Iraq Christopher Preble. The National Post, 12 January 2005. Posted on the CATO Institute website on 17 January 2005. Timetable to Freedom: A Plan for Iraqi Stability and Sovereignty David Cortright. Fourth Freedom Forum, 22 February 2005. Posted on the Commonwealth Institute website. (PowerPoint slideshow). Remarks to the Security Policy Working Group Forum on Iraq James K. Galbraith. Economists for Peace and Security, 22 February 2005 (.pdf file). An Effective U.S. Exit Strategy from Iraq Helena Cobban. Just World News, 15 July 2005. Posted on the Global Policy Forum website. 400 Days and Out: A Strategy for Resolving the Iraq Impasse Carl Conetta. PDA Briefing Memo #34, 19 July 2005. Appendix: The Iraqi Insurgency & Iraq Security Force Development: Selected Bibliography (.pdf file). Also see: Insurgent Iraq: links to full-text online articles and reports about the Iraqi insurgency March 2006. The Third Option in Iraq: A Responsible Exit Strategy Gareth Porter, Middle East Policy, Fall 2005 (.pdf file). Operation Homecoming: How to End the Iraq War Erik Leaver. Yes Magazine, Fall 2005. Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists Lawrence J. Korb and Brian Katulis. Center for American Progress, 29 September 2005 (.pdf file). Exit Strategy William S. Lind. Defense and the National Interest, 04 November 2005. Getting Out: Our Strategic Interest Charles V. Pena. TomPaine.com, 22 November 2005. Plan a Moderate Iraq Exit Strategy Michael E. O'Hanlon and Bill Danvers. The Christian Science Monitor, 22 November 2005. Posted on the Brooking Institution website. A Way Out of Iraq Richard A. Clarke. USA Today, 28 November 2005. Exit Strategy: How to Disengage From Iraq in 18 Months Barry R. Posen. Boston Review, January/February 2006. With comments by Barbara Bodine, Joseph Biden, Vivek Chibber, Russell Feingold, Randall Forsberg, Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis, Helena Cobban, Christopher Preble, Eliot Weinberger, Nir Rosen and with response by Barry R. Posen. Strategic Redeployment 2.0: A Progressive Strategy for Iraq Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis. Center for American Progress, May 2006 (.pdf file)."

If you don't like any of those, I can think of at least two other plans in existence in Congress: Murtha's and Biden's.

Why don't you go read any of the 19 plans I've mentioned instead of playing a perpetual game of ostrich and pretending they don't exist just because that's what the echo chamber's been screaming for the last few years?

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 4:47 PM. Reason : ...]

9/8/2006 4:39:38 PM

theres a difference in learning about the things that have gone wrong in iraq and using those to make better decisions in the future

and just blaming bush for an unjust war

9/8/2006 4:41:41 PM

^^^what??...dude...come on

^^no one will argue that the past affects the future. Stop with the strawman. But sitting around and bitching about the past does absolutely ZERO to the future. Unless you relate it to the future somehow. Being pissed at bush all day cause you dont like him and sitting around saying "bush lied people died!! vote for us!!!" is not going to get us anywhere



[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 4:44 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/8/2006 4:43:10 PM

^^^at least you finally listed some plans which nobody had done on TWW up until this point

9/8/2006 4:49:17 PM

Bitching about the past is pretty much the only way to affect the future.

For the future: 1) Don't invade a country without a plan to occupy or an exit strategy already in place, (2) Have the patience to consider diplomatic or at least covert alternatives to invasion when your available intelligence is incomplete, (3) Consider the implications of the power vacuum your invasion will create and have a rational, complete plan for credibly filling it before invading, and (4) Consider the likelihood and strength of any insurgency that may arise as well as the most effective means of preventing or mollifying it before it materializes.

That's just off the top of my head.

Do I have your permission--which I don't need--to bitch about Iraq now?

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ...]

9/8/2006 4:54:15 PM

what about Have the patience to let us keep doing what we're doing because its working, albeit slowly

Quote :

"do i have your permission..."

sure...but it wont do anybody any good

9/8/2006 4:55:20 PM

ALL HAIL THE RIGHT HONOURABLE ZOMBIE LLOYD GEORGE

9/8/2006 5:02:00 PM

Clearly because I do not think it's working. My qualm was originally with our rush to get in, which I found highly suspicious and unstately. But, like the administration's justifications for invasion, my qualms have shifted as the conditions on the ground have changed.

Based on efficacy alone, I think we ought to either: 1) get the fuck out of there, or (2) send enough troops to Iraq to end the sectarian violence that is snowballing into a civil war. What we're doing right now makes absolutely no sense.

9/8/2006 5:06:18 PM

we are doing exactly the right thing now...

Quote :

"send enough troops to Iraq to end the sectarian violence that is snowballing into a civil war. What we're doing right now makes absolutely no sense."

i have this crazy idea. what if civil war is inevitable. but what if after the two sides of the civil war are done fighting. and one side has won. what if they begin a reconstruction process. and then one day. the two sides get along!! and are a democratic country!!

9/8/2006 5:32:31 PM

Great plan. Which side do you support arming?

OH! Both. Hmm...

9/8/2006 5:33:14 PM

nope...let them fight!!

9/8/2006 5:33:57 PM

I'd rather not pay the troops to endanger themselves in a police action...

9/8/2006 5:35:55 PM

that has to be the worst idea ever.

1)invade country

2)remove despot

3)civil war starts

4)let them fight

5)......everything will be ok?

9/8/2006 6:11:58 PM