More confirmation, if ever it was needed, on the “poodlehood” of Tony Blair, courtesy of this morning’s Financial Times:
Blair kept quiet on Wolfowitz candidacy
Tony Blair was sounded out on the candidacy of Paul Wolfowitz to lead the World Bank before the White House announced his nomination but did not share the controversial proposal with cabinet colleagues or fellow European leaders.
The British prime minister was informed about Mr Wolfowitz’s possible candidacy and relayed to Washington that he would not oppose him.
Blair does not care about Europe. Don’t ever believe that myth. All he cares about is his personal access to the White House, and that dream that he can be the sole go-between between Europe and the USA.
But by honouring Mr Bush’s wishes, Mr Blair chose to keep the candidacy from Gordon Brown, the UK chancellor, who is chairman of the International Monetary Fund’s governing body and the European finance minister most closely identified with the development agenda.
Yep, he does not even care that this access be to the UK Prime Minister. No, it’s just Tony Blair.
A Downing Street official said: “We had a number of discussions with a number of different countries over possible candidates over a period of time. Like others, we were first notified of the decision to nominate Paul Wolfowitz on the day of the president’s announcement.” Treasury officials declined to comment.
While the details of Ms Rice’s private conversations with Mr Blair remain tightly held, officials and diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic have said they were aware of Mr Bush’s effort to secure the support of his chief European ally. The UK Treasury, the British foreign office and officials in other European capitals remained in the dark, according to UK officials.
Following a report in the Financial Times on March 1 that Mr Wolfowitz was a leading candidate for the US nomination, a senior UK Treasury official telephoned his US counterpart.
The US Treasury dismissed the story, according to British officials. A British diplomat, who contacted the administration, was told Mr Wolfowitz was not in the running.
So this was intentional. This is an even bigger “fuck you” from Bush, and the story makes it explicit that Blair knew about the “fuck you” and endorsed it.
The World Bank presidential nomination is seen by Washington as a White House decision and it chose to garner support for Mr Bush’s choice by contacting European leaders directly rather than lobbying finance ministries and development agencies.
Unlike Mr Blair, some European leaders were not given advance warning. Jacques Chirac, the French president, and Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, only spoke to Mr Bush after the announcement. But European leaders have made clear they will not stand in the way of the Wolfowitz candidacy.
Blair is a traitor. To Europe, which may not be so important, but to his country and his party. What a pathetic fool.
One of the biggest reasons why I hope that France votes Yes in the coming referendum on Europe is that a “No” would save Blair from actually having to make a stand on Europe, which he has never done. He has pretended to be pro-European, but has never behaved that way and has never argued the case to the British electorate.
Slimy fucker.
At the Azores press-conference just before the war, Blair was unusually frank: “I believe that on the great issues of the day, Great Britain must stand with America.” Your country, right or wrong, no ands, ifs or buts.
Never has a Prime Minister given so much for so little. He could not even get Bush to support his call for debt relief for the very poorest African countries.
Some days I wish England would just bugger off and join the United States as the 51st state.
Heartland (1986).
Quite controversial back then, just as relevant today.
You write “Some days I wish England would just bugger off and join the United States as the 51st state.”
Which is why I am so emphatic that I am a WELSHMAN!! 🙂
specific my dear Welshman! : )
It stays in course with the Bush mode of operation, which is mostly under the wire.
Do your deals in secret, then detonate the bomb, making sure your people, are in the safe, and willing to spin anyhthing for denial of blame.
If Bush continues to mess around using his strong arm tactics in Europe, it will consume him, and those affiliated, probably a good thing for the whole world to witness.
The BushCo regime has been afforded the grace to weld it’s tyrany here in the US pretty much unabated. However, I beleive their ego will exceed their value in Europe. The European community will not cowtow to this sort of strong arm tactics, and that will be the undoing of the Ego Trip.
This administration done more damage to the American people, and it’s Allies, than any enemy in history.
If only Blair had the courage to spend the half of the amount of the political capital he spend on Iraq on European Integration! He is a huge disappointment for me.
OK, I never liked the 3rd way compromise. I was more of a Jospin guy in the 90’s. But Blair had a stable huge majority and the trust of his nation. He could have used some of this to heal Britains strange relationship with the EU.
Now, as his political career approaches an end, it is too late. He has lost most of his credibility and is just a shadow of what he used to be. He will pull another victory. But it will only be of a hugely undemocratic voting system which allows him to win a majority with ca.60 percent voting against him.
It is a tragedy.
He has claimed repeatedly that he would do it, but he never actually do it.
It would be really sad if it weren’t also tragic.
Jerome,
I’m English by birth, have lived in the States most of my life. My parents are dyed-in-the-wool Labourites and when Clinton was president, my father thought Blair was fabulous. (Especially after the disaster that was Maggie.) Do you have any idea what happened to the man? You would think that he and GWB are the best of friends, and yet, when Bill was prez, I thought the same thing then.
Is he just a poodle?
Sign me,
Puzzled.
It is difficult for a Frenchman to explain why Blair acted the way he did. To France and Germany it betrayed the European Union. Sorry it betrayed their EU, which they hoped to control.
You can have a vast list of reasons why he acted the way he did:
1- There is always a sense of special relationship in the UK in regard to the United States. They have aided us in the past. We have a strong sense of history. We do not automatically reject a plea to support your country when it comes. Other Europeans countries like France are committed to breaking away from American influence, which they do not see as requiring any historically earned mutuality of support.
2- Blair believes that with Europe set on the Franco/German path, he is the only European able to bridge the divide between Europe and the United States. He is probably right in this regard. In playing this role, it gives the UK a continuing strong influence on world affairs that France and Germany would like to see diminished.
3- Blair always believed that the big safeguard was the need for UN approval. His insistence on a second vote came too late to save him. George Bush issued him with an ultimatum and Blair suddenly found himself without reasonable alternatives other than to provide continued support despite his own reservations.
4- Blair genuinely bought into the fact that this adventure would remove a real threat to world stability.
5- You will not understand Blair if you do not understand that there is a real argument that securing the oil supplies for the US and UK could benefit future generations in both countries and that the act of securing these is one of enormous patriotism (I only ask that you accept there is a rational argument that can be made out to this effect – not, of course, that you accept it or believe that I do).
6- Blair admired Thatcher and her place in history. He believed that when called upon to act decisively he should do so – indeed, Margaret Thatcher praised him when he supported Bush.
None of these arguments – and there are many more – are to do with “Blair is a poodle”, which is really just our rhetoric on the left to describe the effect of what he did.
Of course, Blair was horribly wrong in supporting your country in this adventure and he appears to have engaged in all sorts of devious (a polite word) acts to achieve his goals. We should not, however, believe the simplicity of our own protest placards in trying to understand the complexity of such a decision.
what is the status of European R & D into alternative energy and hybid cars etc.
I would like to think that as the price of gasoline rises here that it will spur innovation, but it seems to only to spur conservation in Europe.
I believe you are right about our primary concern over here being that of conservation.
A few anecdotal answers I can give:
1- I recently had the cavity walls of my home filled with special insulator, the loft insulation relaid to a much higher specification and hot water tanks completely re-lagged with new energy saving material. All free. All done by the electricity utility to conserve energy
2- Wind farms continue to be built but against increasing opposition from conservationists who object to their effect on the landscape. Meanwhile, the efficiency/cost ratio of this type of production of electricity is coming under increasing criticism.
3- Higher standards of heat conservation in newly built homes are being introduced
4- More filling stations are equipping themselves for hybrid vehicles but the take-up appears minimal
5- Public transport continues to have a poor infrastructure and there is little evidence outside London of inner city schemes to reduce private transport and motivation appears to be congestion, not energy conservation. Public vehicles continue to be powered by gasoline and there appears to have been no major inroads made by alternative energy vehicles other than small experimental schemes.
As a Welshman, I would suggest that a non-farting horse seems the answer to all our problems in this area of human endeavour.
Thing is Europe is used to high fuel prices and we don’t seem to do innovation quite as well as the Yanks.
Though the Finns are getting really good with wind power and the coming EU-wide legal framework for selling back to the grid may begin to change things.
lies in the quote I provided from the Azores press-conference just before the war: “I believe that on the great issues of the day, Great Britain must stand with America.”
My jaw fell when I heard those words. Blair had bluntly told the whole world that the truth did not matter, that who was in the White House did not matter, that the law of Great Britain and of the United Nations did not matter, that nothing mattered so long as the Brits stuck with their wayward but powerful offspring.
I was amazed that this bald statement did not really attract attention. For me at least, that was the money quote.
It is not necessarily a wrong sentiment but I found astonishing that it was left at that. I could easily argue that Tony was right but the fact that the argument, on those terms (we must support America, right or wrong) never took place, is telling.