I posted recently that the pressure on Blair to resign as Prime Minister has been mounting in the last twelve months

It has now came to a head. Last Sunday, Mr Blair gave an interview to one of the Sunday Paper's and was extroadinarily candid about his position. As a result, members of the Parliamentary Labour Party issued a letter on Monday telling Blair to resign. Today as of 18:00 GMT, seven goviernment officials have resigned in protest at Blair refusing to announce a leaving date.

Tonight the Labour Party is on the verge of revolt, not a single member of the cabinet have spoken on recent events, all unavailable- waiting to see the direction of the prevailing wind before committing themselves. It has long been an open secret that the Prime Minister had an agreement with the chancellor on a handover, which the PM went back on, it was well known that the two heavyweights in the British Government cannot even look each other, let alone run the Country. He has been biding his time waiting for the oppertunity, and now one is showing himself.


Of course Blair has ridden crises before, though this is receiving huge momentum. There is a chance that it may just blow off. At the same time there is an equal chance that Anthony will not see out this month as Prime Minister. On 26th September is the annual Party Conference- at the rate we are going there will be someone else in the hotseat.



In the next 48 hours It is Match Point. Blair will have to hold his own. Or Blair will fall.

all Blair needs is a handy terrorist attack or supposed plot...

all Blair needs is a handy terrorist attack or supposed plot...

This isn't the United States. If something happened, Blair's support would worsen- not get better.

This isn't the United States. If something happened, Blair's support would worsen- not get better.

That really makes no sense as far as the United States today. Now, if you're going back to 9-11, then I kind of see your point.

I'd add that Bush's approval rating wouldn't go up because we were attacked again.

The same people that were against the NSA wire tapping program, among other programs, would then shout out "Bush didn't do enough to protect us, so we were hit again," and blah-fucking-blah.

The dude's fucked really no matter what happens. It's a lose/lose situation for the guy. I'll be damn curious to see how the next president handles the flames.

The same people that were against the NSA wire tapping program, among other programs, would then shout out "Bush didn't do enough to protect us, so we were hit again," and blah-fucking-blah.

i'm calling bullshit. you don't get to speak for us. most people who are "against the NSA wire tapping program" support the wiretapping of potential terrorist communications 100%. we're just against the president making up the law as he goes along. the constitution grants that power to the congress. if it's really true that the FISA system is insufficient to deal with current threats, then (1) show congress some evidence that the current system falls short of our security needs, then (2) let them change the law to accomodate these purported needs.

we are a country of laws, not men. that's what the revolution was about in the first place.

but you'll be delighted to hear that if there were another attack, i would still say bush (and congress) didn't do enough to protect us. many of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission have been ignored, and we remain unnecessarily vulnerable.

i'm calling bullshit. you don't get to speak for us. most people who are "against the NSA wire tapping program" support the wiretapping of potential terrorist communications 100%. we're just against the president making up the law as he goes along. the constitution grants that power to the congress. if it's really true that the FISA system is insufficient to deal with current threats, then (1) show congress some evidence that the current system falls short of our security needs, then (2) let them change the law to accomodate these purported needs.

we are a country of laws, not men. that's what the revolution was about in the first place.

but you'll be delighted to hear that if there were another attack, i would still say bush (and congress) didn't do enough to protect us. many of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission have been ignored, and we remain unnecessarily vulnerable.

Can I get a 'Hell ya!' That post is pure truth.

Its not the wire-tapping or prisons in foreign countries that bother most people. Its the fact that the president thinks he can just do these things without any kind of oversight. If these programs are as righteous and beneficial as he claims, then why can't he prove it through the proper channels?

Right now he seems like a whiney little kid who wont do his homework because he thinks its 'too hard', like thats an excuse...

i'm calling bullshit. you don't get to speak for us. most people who are "against the NSA wire tapping program" support the wiretapping of potential terrorist communications 100%. we're just against the president making up the law as he goes along. the constitution grants that power to the congress. if it's really true that the FISA system is insufficient to deal with current threats, then (1) show congress some evidence that the current system falls short of our security needs, then (2) let them change the law to accomodate these purported needs.

we are a country of laws, not men. that's what the revolution was about in the first place.

but you'll be delighted to hear that if there were another attack, i would still say bush (and congress) didn't do enough to protect us. many of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission have been ignored, and we remain unnecessarily vulnerable.

They can't show that it is insufficient though. It worked great and then they just stopped using it how they should. But I think you already knew that. Oh and +rep

i'm calling bullshit. you don't get to speak for us. most people who are "against the NSA wire tapping program" support the wiretapping of potential terrorist communications 100%. we're just against the president making up the law as he goes along. the constitution grants that power to the congress. if it's really true that the FISA system is insufficient to deal with current threats, then (1) show congress some evidence that the current system falls short of our security needs, then (2) let them change the law to accomodate these purported needs.

we are a country of laws, not men. that's what the revolution was about in the first place.

but you'll be delighted to hear that if there were another attack, i would still say bush (and congress) didn't do enough to protect us. many of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission have been ignored, and we remain unnecessarily vulnerable.

Son of a bitch. Wrote a reply, my computer locked up, and I lost it. So, I'll summarize what I spent some time writing. Fucking sucks.

We've already agreed we don't know if FISA is what it should be to stop terrorist attacks and that it should be modified by law if it's not up to par as far as it relates to the technological issues we've seen discussed before.

The only person claiming FISA is perfect "as-is" is Outsider. Though, we never got any articles showing how FISA doesn't slow down the process. He claims to know it doesn't, but I choose to take the position of "I don't fucking know. Show me some evidence. If it's broke, fix it."

Hopefully the politicians will hash this out, if FISA isn't up to handling the threat we face now, and it will be modified so legally their means of gathering information won't be hampered. If that's truly the case now, as was stated in the article I posted up and I've heard before.

But my post to Brian really was what I believe to be the case. No matter what Bush does people will burn him at the stake. If no attack happens, he won't get credit. If one does occur, it's his fault because we didn't do enough, when maybe, just maybe, he was trying to do enough to protect people with things like the wiretapping program, among other things.

So, I'll ask you, Gred, if your Canadian ass wants to bust my chops: Do you think if we're attacked Bush's approval rating will go up? I see it as doubtful, and it's why I questioned Team's post. That looked like the correlation he was making.

Now, this fucker better go through.

Son of a bitch. Wrote a reply, my computer locked up, and I lost it. So, I'll summarize what I spent some time writing. Fucking sucks.

We've already agreed we don't know if FISA is what it should be to stop terrorist attacks and that it should be modified by law if it's not up to par as far as it relates to the technological issues we've seen discussed before.

The only person claiming FISA is perfect "as-is" is Outsider. Though, we never got any articles showing how FISA doesn't slow down the process. He claims to know it doesn't, but I choose to take the position of "I don't fucking know. Show me some evidence. If it's broke, fix it."

Hopefully the politicians will hash this out, if FISA isn't up to handling the threat we face now, and it will be modified so legally their means of gathering information won't be hampered. If that's truly the case now, as was stated in the article I posted up and I've heard before.

But my post to Brian really was what I believe to be the case. No matter what Bush does people will burn him at the stake. If no attack happens, he won't get credit. If one does occur, it's his fault because we didn't do enough, when maybe, just maybe, he was trying to do enough to protect people with things like the wiretapping program, among other things.

So, I'll ask you, Gred, if your Canadian ass wants to bust my chops: Do you think if we're attacked Bush's approval rating will go up? I see it as doubtful, and it's why I questioned Team's post. That looked like the correlation he was making.

Now, this fucker better go through.

I'm American.

:laugh: Okay. That still doesn't answer my question, though; but that's all right. I believe I know the answer anyway.

And excuse me on calling you a Canadian. Would American/Canadian work better, Canadian/American, or just use "moose fucker"?

Responding mostly to the questions in bold. Kept the original paragraphs for context

The only person claiming FISA is perfect "as-is" is Outsider. Though, we never got any articles showing how FISA doesn't slow down the process. He claims to know it doesn't, but I choose to say "I don't fucking know. Show me some evidence. If it's broke, fix it." Hopefully the politicians will hash this out, if FISA isn't up to handling the technological advances that have been cited before.

Going through courts to get a warrant will definately slow things down. The question is, to what degree will the process be slowed?

Is FISA such a hindrance that the administration is unable to protect us without subverting our rights? Well, honestly, I'm not sure. The solution should be reform within the court system, not avoidance of the court system, though. Even something as simple as just hiring more employees to keep the paperwork flowing would be a help.

I think we're in agreement here.

But my post to Brian really was what I believe to be the case. No matter what Bush does people will burn him at the stake. If no attack happens, he won't get credit. If one does occur, it's his fault because we didn't do enough, when maybe, just maybe, he was trying to do enough to protect people with things like the wiretapping program, among other things.

George Bush will be burned at the stake of history because he deserves it. It wasn't one thing like the wire tapping, or not doing enough, or the war with Iraq. It is the grand sum of all these things put together.

When you look back, theres a near infinate supply of stupidity to draw evidence from. Telling terrorists to bring it on, labeling countries as 'evil', completely screwing up the deficit, huge cuts in education, etc etc. I could literally fill pages with the amount of stupid shit to come out of this administration. Nothing can save them. Recorded history will NOT be kind to these people...

So, I'll ask you, Gred, if your Canadian ass wants to bust my chops: Do you think if we're attacked Bush's approval rating will go up? I see it as doubtful, and it's why I questioned Team's post. That looked like the correlation he was making.
Now, this fucker better go through.

I think that a terror attack would cause a jump in the polls. Surely nothing dramatic, but there would be a jump. It would probably increase by 2-10% for a week or two before dropping back to the same general level its at now, but maybe a point or 2 higher.

Going through courts to get a warrant will definately slow things down. The question is, to what degree will the process be slowed?

Is FISA such a hindrance that the administration is unable to protect us without subverting our rights? Well, honestly, I'm not sure. The solution should be reform within the court system, not avoidance of the court system, though. Even something as simple as just hiring more employees to keep the paperwork flowing would be a help.

I think we're in agreement here.

FISA grants after the fact warrants. By that I mean the NSA, FBI, CIA can wiretap before getting a warrant and even act on it before getting a warrant. The fact that they can get a warrant makes the evidence admissible in a court as evidence and also allows judicial oversight of abuses.



George Bush will be burned at the stake of history because he deserves it. It wasn't one thing like the wire tapping, or not doing enough, or the war with Iraq. It is the grand sum of all these things put together.

When you look back, theres a near infinate supply of stupidity to draw evidence from. Telling terrorists to bring it on, labeling countries as 'evil', completely screwing up the deficit, huge cuts in education, etc etc. I could literally fill pages with the amount of stupid shit to come out of this administration. Nothing can save them. Recorded history will NOT be kind to these people...

Word

I think that a terror attack would cause a jump in the polls. Surely nothing dramatic, but there would be a jump. It would probably increase by 2-10% for a week or two before dropping back to the same general level its at now, but maybe a point or 2 higher.

The largest spikes in Bush's ratings were after attacks like 9-11, the London bombing, and so on.

I think that a terror attack would cause a jump in the polls. Surely nothing dramatic, but there would be a jump. It would probably increase by 2-10% for a week or two before dropping back to the same general level its at now, but maybe a point or 2 higher.

Well, we're in 100 percent agreement, then, except for this quote. I think if we were attacked again his numbers would drop dramatically. Can I prove it? Hell, no.

But I feel strongly enough about it, that if we were buddies in real life, I'd bet you $10,000 I'm right.

September 11, 2001 we were already attacked on Bush's watch. Though, most people in America are ignorant to the role Clinton played in the events leading up to 9-11.

Another attack, I believe, would make Bush hugely unpopular with the masses. I couldn't ever fathom why he'd get a jump in the polls. Time will tell. We'll see.

Another attack, I believe, would make Bush hugely unpopular with the masses. I couldn't ever fathom why he'd get a jump in the polls. Time will tell. We'll see.

In the long run I think it WOULD hurt him. In the short run, people will panic and run around like idiots, yelling to the rooftops about how they should have been more permissive of abusing detainees in secret prisons or wiretapping every muslim in america.

Most Americans are fickle reactionaries. They stop thinking when something big happens, they go with the herd for a little while, and then they go back to casual indifference(the wonder that is american apathy).

I'd be willing to bet you money that his polls would jump in the short term, then tank even harder in the long term. Seriously, though, I hope we never have to find out what another terrorist attack would do for his polls...

In the long run I think it WOULD hurt him. In the short run, people will panic and run around like idiots, yelling to the rooftops about how they should have been more permissive of abusing detainees in secret prisons or wiretapping every muslim in america.

Most Americans are fickle reactionaries. They stop thinking when something big happens, they go with the herd for a little while, and then they go back to casual indifference(the wonder that is american apathy).

I'd be willing to bet you money that his polls would jump in the short term, then tank even harder in the long term. Seriously, though, I hope we never have to find out what another terrorist attack would do for his polls...

Hell, I hope we don't have to find out either. But the reason his numbers went up after 9-11 was because it was an event that unified the country and something that had never happened before. People rallied around Bush as our commander in chief.

But now his approval rating is already dropping, and another attack wouldn't be such a unifying event if it was to occur. It would be "number 2" of a horrific event similar to what we've already gone through.

Anyway, like some of these conversations go, you think you're right, I think I'm right. When we're attacked again if Bush is in office we'll see. Also, notice I said "when." I don't think it's a matter of "if." I hope there's no plans for another attack on the 11th, but it has crossed my mind.

In the short run, people will panic and run around like idiots, yelling to the rooftops about how they should have been more permissive of abusing detainees in secret prisons or wiretapping every muslim in america.


Correct answer.

Hell, I hope we don't have to find out either. But the reason his numbers went up after 9-11 was because it was an event that unified the country and something that had never happened before. People rallied around Bush as our commander in chief.
But now his approval rating is already dropping, and another attack wouldn't be such a unifying event if it was to occur. It would be "number 2" of a horrific event similar to what we've already gone through.
Anyway, like some of these conversations go, you think you're right, I think I'm right. When we're attacked again if Bush is in office we'll see. Also, notice I said "when." I don't think it's a matter of "if." I hope there's no plans for another attack on the 11th, but it has crossed my mind.

I'm sure we'll probably get attacked at some point by somebody. Thats the nice thing about time. It goes on long enough that we get to repeat the same mistakes over and over. Shit happens. I'm really not much safer than I was before 9/11. Any random nutjob, terrorist or not, could kill me tomorrow and it wouldn't have anything to do with the president and his job performance.

'Safety' is a matter of perspective. I've always been more concerned with quality of life...

It would be "number 2" of a horrific event similar to what we've already gone through.

We're not counting the presidents inept handling of Hurricane Katrina? Saying that another terrorist attack would be the second horrific event of this administration would be giving them too much credit IMO.

We're not counting the presidents inept handling of Hurricane Katrina? Saying that another terrorist attack would be the second horrific event of this administration would be giving them too much credit IMO.

Second terrorist attack, GCD. And Katrina is probably another reason Bush's approval rating is so low. So many things are against Bush I just can't see thousands more of our citizens being slaughtered in another attack getting the country to rally around the stooge.

But, hey, maybe people are just idiots. We'll see what happens.