British PM Backs Bush on Iraq

[red states rule]

Som much for the liberal media's hope the new PM would not be a "lap dog" like Tony Blair



New British leader backs Bush on Iraq
By Joseph Curl

CAMP DAVID, Md. — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday strongly backed the U.S.-led war in Iraq and said the global war against terror looms as a "generation-long battle."

Despite news reports that the new prime minister quietly was looking to withdraw about 5,500 British troops from Iraq, Mr. Brown said he remains committed to seeing the war to its end.

"In Iraq, we have duties to discharge and responsibilities to keep, in support of the democratically elected government, and in support of the explicit will of the international community," Mr. Brown said at a joint Camp David press conference with Mr. Bush during his first official trip to the United States.

While the prime minister also has labeled the recent car-bomb attacks in London as merely "criminal" — not terrorist — and appeared to downplay what Mr. Bush calls the "global war against terror," Mr. Brown said he shares the view of former Prime Minister Tony Blair that the Western world is locked in an ideological battle.

"So we are at one in fighting the battle against terrorism, and that struggle is one that we will fight with determination and with resilience, and right across the world," he said. "We're in a generation-long battle against terrorism, against al Qaeda-inspired terrorism, and this is a battle for which we can give no quarter. It's a battle that's got to be fought in military, diplomatic, intelligence, security, policing and ideological terms."

Mr. Bush sought to show he supports the new prime minister, despite talk over the last few weeks from some junior British ministers that Mr. Brown was seeking a more distant relationship with the president.

"He gets it," Mr. Bush said of Mr. Brown. "There's no doubt in my mind that Gordon Brown understands that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the security of our own countries. He understands that violence could spill out across the region, that a country like Iran would become emboldened."

The personal chemistry between the two leaders, however, is unlike the warm relationship Mr. Bush enjoyed with Mr. Blair, who stepped down last month. Mr. Brown, the son of a Scottish preacher, stood with his hands clasped throughout the press conference and offered few smiles.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070731/NATION/107310085/1001

[red states rule]

I guess libs have a new enemy and his name is Gordon Brown

[red states rule]

Well, one agin I am proven right. the liberal media is turing on Mr Brown


Bush's New Poodle?

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, July 30, 2007; 2:56 PM

Anyone who expected the new British prime minister to distance himself from President Bush today -- at least in public -- would have been sorely disappointed.

"The United Kingdom and the United States work in a partnership that I believe will strengthen in the years to come," Gordon Brown said today as he stood alongside Bush at a brief press conference at Camp David.

I would describe Gordon Brown as a principled man who really wants to get something done," Bush said.

It was almost as if, for Bush, Tony Blair was still there singing backup.

Asked whether he could trust Brown as much as he trusted Blair, Bush responded: "There's no doubt in my mind that Gordon Brown understands that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the security of our own countries; that failure in Iraq would embolden extremist movements throughout the Middle East; that failure in Iraq would basically say to people sitting on the fence around the region that al Qaeda is powerful enough to drive great countries like Great Britain and America out of Iraq before the mission is done. He understands that violence could spill out across the region, that a country like Iran would become emboldened.

"So there's no doubt in my mind he understands the stakes of the struggle."

New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg tried to explore any differences between the two leaders, noting in his question to Bush that "the prime minister has referred to terrorism as, quote, 'a crime,' and he's referred to it in part as a law enforcement issue. So for you, I'm wondering, does that underscore any sort of philosophical difference when your 2004 campaign took issue with somewhat similar descriptions from John Kerry?"

Bush brushed the question away. "Look, people who kill innocent men, women and children to achieve political objectives are evil, that's what I think," Bush said. "And what's interesting about this struggle -- and this is what I was paying very careful attention to when Gordon was speaking -- is, does he understand it's an ideological struggle? And he does."

Rutenberg asked Brown: "Do you have the same philosophy as the President, in terms of terrorism?"

Brown: "Absolutely."

Bush: "What do you expect the answer to be, Rutenberg? Come on, man."

Brown: "Absolutely."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/30/BL2007073000950.html

[red states rule]

August 02, 2007
Gordon Brown, Blairite?
By James Lewis

Tony Blair's successor as British prime minister has now signaled very clearly that he intends to follow Blair's dual foreign policy: First, pursue the alliance with America in the war on terror, and at the same time surrender more British sovereignty to the European Union.

Gordon Brown just praised President Bush for his vigorous actions against the terror threat. Fox News reported that:
"the new British leader said the world is indebted to the United States for taking the lead in the fight against terrorism. Brown said he would use his visit to strengthen what Britain considers its 'most important bilateral relationship'

"London and Washington are focused on 'the biggest single and immediate challenge the world has to defeat: global terrorism,' Brown told reporters traveling with him."
That is positive news for the Atlantic alliance, which has been in deep trouble because of the past Franco-German effort to drive a wedge between America and Britain under Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, surely the most treacherous "allies" America has ever had.

The British PM just signalled that he would not walk out on the alliance with America. A politician's words are not deeds, and it is still possible that Brown will order a British retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan, as his own left wing has been madly urging him to do. But it is less likely.

Yet as Eureferendum points out, Brown is promoting the same lie (let's be frank) that Tony Blair left office with: Namely, that Britain isn't really surrendering sovereignty to Paris and Berlin in executive, foreign and military affairs. In fact, the EU elite has now re-packaged the Glorious European Constitution, which voters defeated in France and the Netherlands, and called it something else. Coca Cola is now the Un-Cola, but the ingredients are the same. That act of deception in plain light of day, with various politicians and Eurocrats actually celebrating how well they are lying, is a clear lesson in how the EU works. Democratic legitimacy is their last worry. Only centralized control drives their actions. And they get away with it.

This is astonishing by American political standards, since the US actually has a Constitution that is a constitution: That is, it is a set of legislative ground rules that, once adopted, are difficult to change. It is deliberately simple, understandable, and brief. Courts of law constantly refer to it in making their decisions.

That's not true for most of the world (except for Switzerland and Japan, perhaps). In Europe, constitutions are made to be broken or changed, as the French do every few decades. Britain has no constitution as Americans understand it. Rather, the "British Constitution" is a set of historical decisions that together provide broad guidance. But the prime minister of a majority party is so powerful in practice that he or she could literally sell out the nation's sovereignty, and if no one really objects, simply get away with it. Concerted national suicide is a practical possibility, because there are no inviolable ground rules to prevent it.

That is also why Gordon Brown and Tony Blair can practice a self-contradictory foreign policy. All Brown has to do is to define the EU Constitution as a "treaty". Treaties require no wide public consent, and perhaps not even a Parliamentary vote. So Mr. Brown is hoping to get away with daylight robbery, by American standards.

There is a movement afoot to require a referendum on the EU Un-Constitution, but no one knows if it will succeed. Chances are that the Brits will vote the fake Constitution down once they slough off their habitual intellectual torpor and are asked to actually pay attention to what's going on. (Don't ask). So the Labour strategy is to avoid a referendum at all.

Given the total fuzziness of the British constitutional system, Gordon Brown could even argue that none of it means anything at all. After all, even five or ten years from now, when the British military is slated to become part of the EU Army and British foreign policy becomes subordinate to the EU Foreign Ministry, and all the bureaucracies are thoroughly integrated, it would still be possible, in theory, for a British PM to pronounce EU integration dead and buried. After all, Britain never agreed to change its Constitution... it just signed a treaty. It could walk away, any time it wants to.

So if you still think Europolitics are a model for America, just ponder those facts.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/gordon_brown_blairite.html