The British tabloids once derided Prince Charles for allegedly talking to plants. His eccentricities continue. On November 18 he spoke to a Bush. It appears, however, that the prince had to be careful what he said to this particular shrub. According to the Guardian, the British Foreign Office has been keeping the heir-apparent away from the United States because his… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (14)Page 1 of 1 pagesPrince Charles will be further raked over the coals in the coming year. He openly opposes GM crops and supports organic farming. He is being portrayed as a fool in some parts of the press. He is not heard or taken seriously because the public find it so easy to disregard his voice because he is a royal, for starters.
Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone is reported to have refused to have anything to do with President Bush. I hope this reporting is true. What the hell is going on with the American public?
Posted by Kim on Nov 22, 2003 at 12:17 PM It should be noted that on top of the 100,000-200,000 marchers in London, many thousands more protested in cities and towns throughout the UK.
I watched live the Bush/Blair speeches/press conference at lunchtime just after news of the atrocities in Istanbul had broken. After initially taking their words at face value my reaction became “wait a minute!...”. I remembered that even before the invasion of Iraq that Chomsky, and many others, had reported that both US and UK security services had warned that any invasion would be likely to increase, not decrease the threat of terrorist attacks.
Even a former CONSERVATIVE UK Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd had warned that invading Iraq ran “the risk of turning the Middle East into an inexhaustible recruiting ground for anti-western terrorism”. (Financial Times, January 3, 2003)
Much was made in the UK media , after the news from Istanbul, should the marches have been cancelled, should there have been a minute silence, etc. As many of the protestors later reported, they had no idea what had happened until they had returned home and seen the evening news. And as anyone who has attended such demonstrations will know their rather ramshackle nature precludes a quick response to such events.
Bush and Blair have created an un-necessary, horrible, bloody mess, which unknown numbers of innocent people, both military and civillian, will pay for with their lives.
Posted by Alan Ferns on Nov 22, 2003 at 4:57 PM I am disgusted at what Blair has done in recent times, commiting british troops to appease the playground bully makes my stomach churn.
The article is correct inasmuch that the protests were not anti-american, there are good and bad people in all countries. The marchers marched to show their opposition to the way we were coerced into the Iraq invasion, with spin and lies, but eventually the truth will surface. We must demand a public enquiry
Posted by chris hogan on Nov 22, 2003 at 9:13 PM Ken Livingstone, on the day Bush arrived, described him in a press conference as “the greatest threat to life on this planet that we’ve most probably ever seen”. Go Ken. And I thought he was going soft because he was talking about rejoining the Labour party.
I was on the march. It was my first such protest - I would have been on the February march, but couldn’t manage to get there - there were about thousands of people ahead of me trying to squeeze onto trains at Cambridge station.
I certainly didn’t know about the Turkish bombings until after the march. And when I found out, and saw Bush & Blair spouting the same “no surrender” nonsense at the press conference, it just made me even more glad that I’d been there to protest.
The two of them just seem intent on sustaining the cycle of violence. They’re in a symbiotic relationship with Al Qaeda et al - each of them helping the other depict their enemy as “evil”. It’ll just end up with our religious lunatics leading us against their religious lunatics. Kind of like Israel vs Palestine on a global scale.
Listen to this quote from Blair. He’s getting scarier by the day:
“And let me make it absolutely clear for our position as well. We stay until the job gets done. And what this latest terrorist outrage shows us is that this is a war, its main battleground is Iraq. We have got to make sure that we defeat these terrorists - the former Saddam people - in Iraq and we must do that because that is an essential part of defeating this fanaticism and extremism that is killing innocent people all over our world today. And I can assure you of one thing, that when something like this happens today, our response is not to flinch, or give way or concede one inch. We stand absolutely firm until this job is done, done in Iraq, done elsewhere in the world.”
I could visualise Saddam Hussein or Usama Bin Laden making almost exactly the same speech.
Posted by Kevin Bracey on Nov 23, 2003 at 7:35 AM Did Livingstone really call Bush “the greatest threat to life on this planet that we’ve most probably ever seen?” What an idiot. That’s one the most assinine remarks I’ve heard in a long time.
Posted by James on Nov 23, 2003 at 6:31 PM Yeah I agree, that is an asinine remark. IĄd extend that honour to whoever is puppeting Bush.
Posted by Owen on Nov 26, 2003 at 3:21 PM I sincerely hope that the British understand that a lot of Americans think that Bush is arrogant and ignorant too. And try to remember that we didn’t elect him, his father’s appointees on the Supreme Court appointed him.
Posted by Cathy on Nov 28, 2003 at 8:34 PM Cathy, you liberals sound so stupid when you say things like that. George H.W. Bush only appointed two judges to the Court, so do the math. Two out of nine is probably not enough to “appoint” a president. And we’ll see how many Americans think President Bush is ignorant and arrogant when he’s re-elected next year. What will you blame it on then? I guess you liberals will just have to spend another four years bitching and moaning about having a president who cares more about protecting Americans than pleasing the Europeans.
Posted by Al on Nov 29, 2003 at 1:47 PM Al, instead of worrying about Bush appeasing the Europeans (which he is definately not doing) you should worry about the fascist policies which are eroding the US constitution. Besides, your argument is flawed, just because Pappy didn’t appoint the other members doesn’t mean they are not Bush-friendly. Frankly I’m amazed that anyone, other than greedy rich people would support Bush’s policies. It’s encouraging that there are people in the US like Cathy.
Posted by Alec on Dec 2, 2003 at 11:09 AM Alec,
First of all, my argument is not flawed. Cathy spat out the tired-ass “Bush’s dad’s appointees on the court appointed him” and I corrected her. Even if you want to claim that the Supreme Court appointed President Bush (which is a stretch), you can’t say that it was to repay a favor to his dad because his father only appointed two of the judges on the bench. If you want to say Thomas and Souter owed old man Bush a favor, fine, but you sound like an idiot claiming that the whole Supreme Court was beholden to George H.W. Bush.Secondly, I’d like you to cite some examples of Bush’s “fascist policies which are eroding the US Constitution.” I know you liberals love to harp on the Patriot Act, but that would have been passed regardless of who was in office. Just look at how widely it was supported in Congress. Come on, Alec, just name me one fascist policy of Bush’s and give me your expert opinion on its degradation of the Constitution.
Posted by Al on Dec 2, 2003 at 1:10 PM Al, how about Guantanamo? This flys in the face of human rights legislation. If you don’t regard the Patriot act as fascist then we have very different ideas of what fascism is. When government has the power to do anything it wants to the public, do you think that is in the public interest? Besides when the Bill was passed it was not possible for all concerned to have actually read it, let alone understand the contents. Finally, do you think it was right for Bush to declare war, something Congress is supposed to do, based on dubious information. In other words Bush lied in order to rip off Iraqi oil.
Posted by Alec on Dec 3, 2003 at 4:42 AM Alec, Guantanamo is neither unconstitutional nor anything new. And to say that it flies in the face of “human rights legislation” doesn’t mean anything. What exactly are you talking about? It’s better to be a little heavy-handed with terrorists than to pussyfoot around so we don’t hurt any illegal aliens’ feelings. And the ones who don’t like it--feel free to go back your own country.
As for the Patriot Act, you can’t blame that one on Bush or even the Republicans. It passed with overwhelming support in both houses. I don’t where you heard that it was impossible for Congress to have read the whole thing, but if you believe that then your understanding of American government is more lacking than I thought. Congress can’t pass laws that it does not have access to. Stick to complaining about British policy because you clearly don’t know enough about what’s going on over here to have an opinion.
As for the invasion of Iraq, Congress voted to authorize an invasion and that “dubious information” convinced a majority of them, not just Bush. And yes, I do think it was right for Bush to invade (after he was authorized to do so by Congress) because that information was convincing enough to quit giving Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt. And the fact of the matter is, most Americans agree with me, which is why Bush is going to be re-elected.
Posted by Al on Dec 3, 2003 at 11:12 AM “Most Americans agree with me.”
Speak for yourself, mister.
Posted by Owen on Dec 3, 2003 at 4:42 PM Hey this Limey tells it like it is man. The reasons for invading Iraq were based on Al quida suposedly attacking the twin towers. Where’s the sense in occupying Iraq when our boys are getting killed. What would you do if a foreign power started raidin your homes and stealing your guns? If it aint for oil or Bin Laden, what is it for?
Posted by Denzil on Dec 4, 2003 at 5:16 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Ian Williams
- Bolton vs. United Nations
Bush's mad cop–bad cop ruse - Bushs War Against the Military
- Deserter at the Helm!
- The Sorrows of Dogma
- Re-United Nations
U.S. admits U.N. role necessary for laying the electoral groundwork in Iraq - Not So Special
Protests question Bush-Blair lovefest
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
