Historically, British Prime Ministers are just as likely to be tossed from office for splitting their parties as they are for losing elections. Blair has never been much loved by the party faithful; if a war were to go badly, his position would become untenable. Remember what happened to Margaret Thatcher?

 

If Britain is tethered to the U.S. in an unpopular, messy war, it is France and Germany, not Britain, that will shape the future of the E.U.; and don't you think France knows it? Is this why France has taken such an adversary position against whatever Blair tries to do? Without even so much as a glance at Blair's tabling of a second resolution France declared it would veto it no matter what the terms are if it included any use of force against Iraq at any time.

President Bush was shocked at Jacque Chirac's brash attitude, and called it "disturbing".

 

President Bush hasn't so much as said boo about the fact that it is France and Russia who have oil at stake in Russia, not the U.S.; although it may be possible that part of the U.S. position on Iraq stems from Bush's desire that France and Russia not gain a monopoly on oil in Iraq. The shift of economic power may occur in such an event. This could also create an eventual shift in military dominance to the benefit of those countries, weakening the U.S. on the world stage.

 

Tony Blair is so committed to supporting the U.S., even in the face of dire political consequences for himself; that one has to ask the question, does he know more about weapons in Iraq than he or anyone else has admiited? is it possible that Saddam has shipped his biological weapons to Al Queda and is Botulinum toxin hiding somewhere in our food supply? Is this the reason for the announcement today that the U.S. is closely monitoring food processing and shipping ports? How much good can this monitoring be when a mere 1% of all imported foods are inspected, at best?

 

c. Arlene Longson March 18/2003