Those two are unreal. After a full and lengthy congressional enquiry found that there was no link between Al-Qaida and Iraq, how does Bush respond? He's on TV shortly afterwards saying "The reason we said there was a link between Al-Qaida and Iraq is because there was." Oh, OK then. Are we expected to swallow that? Does he really think that world trusts his word over a fully enquiry interview literally hundred of witnesses and costing millions of dollars?
As for Blair, some of things he's been doing on the home front in Britain are appalling. The worrying thing is that little of it makes the Media. He's currently reviewing plans to extend or possibly abolish the retirement age in Britain which will mean millions of Britains will never retire and will continue working until death.
There is also the current debate in the UK about endorsing the EU Constitution. The reason Blair won't enter into a full and frank debate about that is because he'd have to come clen about also the opt-outs that his government has made under EU treaties and legislation. Whilst the rest of Europe endorsed laws which meant workers could only work a maximum 48 hour week, the Blair government opted out of that. There are numerous other opt outs more of which are extremely good for business and bad for ordinary workers.
There are also numerous other examples of terrible things that the Blair government has done. For example, the contracted out the running of a prison in County Durham in the North East of England to Wackenhut Corporation in 1997. Just prior to this, Wackenhut had it's contracts revoked in Texas by George Bush (then Governor) and in Florida by Jeb Bush (George W's brother) because of reports of physical and sexual abuse of prisoners. Given that execution happy Texas and Florida are hardly soft on criminals and prisoners, if even they think that this Corporation are not fit to run prisons in their States, why are they allowed to run prisons in the UK? For more information on this and other rather scary things Blair and Bush have done whilst in office see "The Best Democracy Money can buy" by Greg Palast.
Also, if Britain and the US were really concerned about liberating Iraqs, how come it is only recently that they have started counting Iraqi deaths and casualtys? Because now, the majority of deaths are as the result of insurgents its ok to count. It simply wouldn't do to count and release the numbers who have died in the preceding months from "Shock and Awe", cluster bombs and as a result of being "collatoral damage."
Both Britain and the US say they are in favour of democracy, however, why is it that in both Countrys, come election time the media tells us that in both Countries we have a choice between two political parties, Labour and Conservative in the UK and the Republicans and Democrats in the US. Increasingly, we see that the differences between the so-called left and right wing parties are becoming increasingly minimal and the media assists both in proffering the idea that voting for anyone other than the two main parties would be a "wasted vote."
Both the so-called left and right wing main parties in both the US and UK have one thing in common. They are both interested in serving Business and the Powerful and not particularly interested in serving the people who elected them. This is the reason why voter turnouts in the UK and the US rarely get over about 35%. Is that what we mean by Democracy?
Created By: Brian Dempsey