…Bush exploited the lingering patriotic fervor of a country attacked… He played on fears… Countless Americans [made the] odd choice [of voting] for an administration that has been a relentless friend of the rich… like George W. Bush, [Tony Blair] took his people to war with a case that proved empty… The sunny energy and idealism of his landslide victory in 1997 and his convincing return to power in 2001 now seem a distant memory, replaced, or at least overshadowed, by the reputation for untrustworthiness that has formed as a result of the case he made for war.Such are but some of the phrases and expressions to be found in Roger Cohen's article on the UK's "remarkable survivor", which starts thus:
It is now a startling fact, and one that will be studied by political historians for many years, that the two men chiefly responsible for a war in Iraq undertaken with false and misleading arguments have been reelected.And to no one's surprise, the International Herald Tribune article uses a condescending term for Blair's belonging to the coalition of the willing ("tied at the hip to the United States").
Prime Minister Tony Blair's victory in Britain, ushering in a record-setting third consecutive term for his Labour Party, came despite virulent domestic opposition to the war and anger over Blair's "sexed-up" pre-war depiction of an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction that posed a pressing threat.
Those weapons, of course, were never found.
As noted before, of all the coalition allies in Iraq who have faced elections or weathered similar storms — Spain's Aznar, Australia's Howard, Bush himself, Denmark's Rasmussen, Italy's Berlusconi, and Britain's Blair — all were expected to prevail, and all have survived (unless a bomb strategically placed three days before a given election upset the political order). Bruised and battered, perhaps, in some cases, but they still emerged the winners.
And yes, this is too hard for the MSM to understand.