http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6916012 an interesting opinion: " Mr Blair loses authority at home�and even more when he eventually leaves office�Mr Bush is bound to feel the loss not just of a strong ally but also of a kindred spirit. Growing friendlessness at home will be compounded by increasing loneliness abroad. Lately the president has found a new European friend in Angela Merkel. Germany's chancellor is much closer to Mr Bush's way of thinking than was her predecessor, Gerhard Schr�der. She is commendably outspoken, for example, on Iran's nuclear programme and its threats against Israel (though also somewhat feeble in her attitude towards Vladimir Putin's increasingly pushy Russia). But many of Mr Bush's other foreign allies, such as Spain's Jos� Mar�a Aznar and Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, have lost their jobs. And none of these allies formed a bond as strong as the one with Mr Blair. When the time comes for Mr Bush to soldier on without his one foreign soul-mate and confidant, it may not be Britain's troops, intelligence advice or Security Council votes he will miss most but the psychological pattern of mutual encouragement: each man's reinforcement of the other's belief in the rightness of his gut convictions.
The long shadow of the 1930s:
The fact that the prime minister and president hail from opposite ends of politics has made this pattern all the stronger. What they shared was the same instinctive responses to the attack on the twin towers and all that followed. Both have a strong Christian morality. Both see jihadist terrorism and nuclear proliferation as dangers akin to those posed by Hitler in the 1930s. Both consider it their calling to rise Churchill-like to the challenge. Mr Blair may not have gone so far as Mr Bush in defining his as a wartime administration. But part of the Blairite worldview is that desperate times require desperate measures. Even before September 11th, Mr Blair was citing Rwanda and Kosovo as justifications for a doctrine of liberal interventionism under which great powers had a duty to use force for virtuous ends even without the say-so of the United Nations. On September 12th the prime minister sent the president a five-page memo promising to help with the invasion of Afghanistan. This prime minister is as close as any British Labour leader can come to being an American neo-conservative.
With Mr Blair weakened and his own political capital trickling away, Mr Bush will find it harder to trust his own instincts, let alone rise Churchill-like to the challenges in the remaining two and a half years of his presidency. Critics of the improbable partnership�those who think Mr Bush and Mr Blair overreacted to September 11th, lied their way into Iraq, trampled over law and liberties and inflamed the very clash of religions that Osama bin Laden was so keen to ignite�will rejoice. In a world of one superpower, some say, people are safer when its president is too weak for foreign adventures.
They are wrong. That Mr Bush has made big mistakes in foreign policy is not in doubt. He oversold the pre-war intelligence on Iraq, bungled the aftermath, betrayed America's own principles in Guant�namo and Abu Ghraib, ignored Mr Blair's pleas to restart peace diplomacy in Palestine. But America cannot fix any of these mistakes by folding its tents and slinking home to a grumpy isolation. On the contrary. In his belief that America needed to respond resolutely to the dangers of terrorism, tyranny and proliferation, Mr Bush was mainly right. His chief failures stem from incompetent execution.
We really should have responded fully after it was found out that Saddam tried to assasinate Pres. Bush 41. That shows a clear disregard for himself and a desire to attack America (negating the oft cited argument that he would have never attacked America out of fear of reprisal). The man had sponsored other forms of terrorism and at the very least could have financed and arranged minor attacks in the homeland. The fact that wmd documented in UN reports dating back years was unaccounted for and was clearly not destroyed (as all destruction of missiles, uranium, etc was done with the knowledge of UN officials) and the failure to enforce numerous near unanimous UN resolutions are only parts of the equation.
We didn't invade them because a) their current government did not repeatedly threaten mass destruction b) we did not warn them for 12 years - to a point where inaction would have lost us all credibility in dealing with other threats c) their king is at least not an unpredictable madman who once tried to assasinate a US President and most of his family and who has sponsored terrorist attacks in other countries
A great example of this is the stupid debate going on in congress right now. The "windfall profit tax", how much will this stupid tax raise gas prices?
If they really want to lower gas prices, why don't they start buy removing the .19 Federal Tax, and the additional .30 to .50 state and local taxes.
The entire profit for the oil companies is only .09 a gallon.
<<Only corporations get entitlements (chyrsler , LTCM etc.) >>
A great example of public school education at it's best!
He actual thinks corporations pay taxes, what an idiot. When you tax corporations they just pass that expense on to you, they just raise the prices of their products to compensate the additional expense. You the consumer pay the corporate taxes when you purchase their products.
One word "Parking Lot" that is what we should make Iraq & Iran. Lets show the full power of this country once and for all. Make the world be afraid of just thinking about the harm to American, like our grandfathers did after WWII. Before all the 60's liberal weakened this country to where we are today.