Michael Jackson TalkRadio Content

hat if... just supposing that Prime Minister Tony Blair gave truth to the rumors that have been floating around to the effect that he'd prefer to see a change at the top in the United States presidency. To be frank, thus far, the Prime Minister himself has made no significant comment and I would be amazed if he ever did, and when journalists throw questions at him he's very simply responding that the choice of president belongs solely to the voters of the United States. I don't agree with that. We, in this country, are voting for not just the leader of the United States, but of the entire world. They are entitled to have concerns. We are the world's hyperpower and whatever is decided, from the standpoint of wars, trade agreement, the environment, nuclear proliferation, almost everything, the decisions of our chief executive influence the whole world. It's somewhat akin to the definition of the Chaos Theory; if a butterfly flaps its wings in Bombay, does it make a difference to the tides in the Gulf of Mexico. The answer is yes, and we are the 800 lb butterfly!
What if ...just supposing; I mean Blair surely wants to keep his left-of-center Labor Party in office and Lord knows the British public, which was never supportive of the war in Iraq, is even less so now.
Contacts claim that there have been meetings already between Democratic leaders and an envoy from Mr. Blair's party. Or maybe that's what always happens prior to an election; contact is made to reassure the opposition that whatever the outcome, they are anxious to continue the so-called "special relationship" between our two great countries.
A tough editorial in Progress Magazine in Britain included the following, "those who recognize that American leadership is both vital, and a force for good in uncertain times, will wish John Kerry well on November 2nd." From the United States standpoint, let's be frank, whoever wins, either the incumbent or the challenger, Mr. Blair's will still be the chief executive's best friend in the world of international policy. Can there be any doubt that the politics and policies of a President Kerry would be far closer to the beliefs of the British public and their leader, than the actions and proposals for the future of our President Bush. John Daniszewski, writing for the Los Angeles Times, included the following comment from a Labor member of parliament who wished to remain anonymous, "Everyone around here is praying that Bush loses - not least because we lose loads of votes every time he opens his mouth about his close friend Tony Blair. And I should say that I supported the military action in Iraq."The same journalist said that when President Clinton left office in 2001, Blair - reportedly at Clinton's advice - shifted his friendship to Bush.
If anyone understands the simple accuracy of LBJ's definition of politics..."Politics is the art of the possible," it would be the likes of Clinton and Blair.
Iraq: This is not in any way intended to make light of the situation, but simply to point out what many would consider a blunder on the part of the administration. Gen.John Abizaid, head of the US central command, said that there were no more than 5000 insurgents causing the death and destruction.
Last week the Sec.of Defense, Dom Rumsfeld said that 2500 of the enemy were killed during the month of August. Then, logically, it would appear that just one more month and there'd be no more enemy left to fight ...and we could pack up and go home!
I found it strange that the Secretary would fall into that trap ...resorting to body count. I thought we had learned the lessons of body counts in Vietnam. It is no way to measure success.
The success we seek, the resolution, call it victory in the Iraq war, cannot be achieved without a real political solution.