Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

24 Hours and counting...

Page: 1(2)

07:57 / 18.03.03

she's a liar and a backtracker and if she thinks bush gives a fuck about palestine then she's a fucking fool as well

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:45 / 18.03.03

isn't it better to have Claire short exerting an influence over Iraqi reconstruction than a less idealistic MP

Given her track record of back-tracking and compromise, *is* there a less idealistic MP? The word from the Whitehall rumour mill is that she's been "seriously advised" to think of her career by "friends and colleagues"... And 'oh, I've reconsidered now because George and Tony say they're in favour of a Palestinian state!' has to be the most transparent excuse I've seen in a long time.

Anyway, I still haven't forgiven Short for caling anti-war protestors "hysterical" circa Afghanistan. She's got more access to the info international agencies have than most of us - she knew the projected casualties from war and famine then, she knows now. She gets no amnesty from me.

09:04 / 18.03.03

Well technically she hasn't back tracked on this - she never threatened to quit if there was no new UN resolution, only if the US and her allies abandoned the UN route, which by their justification they have not done (they outline their case as derriving authority from the last three chapter 7 resolutions concerning Iraq.)

Hair splitting? well, yes - but that IS politics for you.

My question is would you rather have a 'back tracker' like claire Short, who seems to have got more progress towards a middle east peace process out of Bush than anyone else so far, (although i don't think its all solely down to her, she is playing an important role on keeping it on the agenda) involved in the reconstruction of Iraq or would you rather leave all that to other people ?

I'm not saying the Claire short is not flawed, but I for one would rather have her in the government exerting what little flawed influence she has than see other members of the cabinet get her portfolio.

09:23 / 18.03.03

So Short is just doing what Blair does with Bush? Wow, look where that got us. International isolation and domestic public opinion against the war.

Blair will no more be swayed by what he sees as the irrelevance that is Clare Short, than Bush is swayed by the irrelevance that he sees Blair as.

Getting slightly off track as well, I heard John Howard say that he was supporting the action against Iraq as they represented a threat to Australia. Really.

Now that is stretching things, even by the low standard of lies we've had since this whole thing started.

09:28 / 18.03.03

The Palestine plan is a joke. The "prime minister," whoever he or she turns out to be, had better have a bigger gang of thugs than Hamas and the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade. The locals won't buy it because the deal doesn't cost Israel anything--no halt to settlements, or even a little cash for reconstruction. Good riddance to Arafat, though. He slurped up the money, settled political scores, and tried to act as if he could do anything about the suicide bombings; when the aforementioned terrorist orgs didn't need him anymore for political cover, his days were numbered.

France was for enforcement of UN 1441 until Bush interpreted that to mean deposing Hussein and nothing else. Going after a dictator holed up in a large modern city is a recipe for disaster. Waco comes to mind.

The US might still open a northern front, but the Kurds will probably grab what they can and head for the hills. The Turks would probably like to try a little ethnic cleansing while nobody's looking, and the Kurds would be crazy to trust anybody named Bush (1974/5, 1991).

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:38 / 18.03.03

So Short is just doing what Blair does with Bush? Wow, look where that got us.

Bingo. Remember just after 9/11 when Blair was pledging to support Bush regardless - memorably refusing to *deny* that this was a "blank cheque" deal? There were people who said "oh, he's just staying close to Bush so that he can act as a moderating influence" then. There have been people saying that ever since, and yeah, exactly, look at the result. If Blair was ever concerned with anything, it was attempting to gain the illusion of legitimacy for war...

09:40 / 18.03.03

I think the Blair/Bush axis, however unpalatable is far better than Bush on his own.

So do other people see any practical alternatives?

10:11 / 18.03.03

Blair/Bush is far worse than Bush on his own - becuase that's what it would be - the US isolated from the rest of the world, and maybe the rest of the world would be forced to look again at the US and its behaviour.

Blair adds a veneer of international legitimacy to Bush's plans, and that stinks. If we weren't in there balls deep and willing to say 'No' upon occasion, Bush could (would?) be forced to re-think as along with the rest of the world, his 'closest ally' disagreed with him. As it is, as we are so 'on-side' he can claim to be acting multi-laterally.

Damn you, hanging chads!

10:12 / 18.03.03

Re: Short. Look, people have been systematically lied too, patronised and ignored. Short's actions just add to this feeling, whatever her reasons. It doesn't encourage me to think postively of our politcians. God bless Robin Cook though.

Tryphena Absent

13:22 / 18.03.03

Short is a rotten, smirking fool. We are without a UN resolution, we are going to war and she has not resigned. Hypocritical cow. If I saw her in the street I'd bitch slap her in to next Sunday. She hasn't played the media particularly well because she's made an empty threat. What the hell is wrong with these people, it can't be that difficult to say you're going to do something and bloody get on with it or to keep your mouth shut?!

Yes- God bless Robin Cook because he didn't play it up, he just made the right move at the right time. This has the varnish of a real action, not simply media related but actually genuine and it's made me about as politically happy as I can be right now.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

14:25 / 18.03.03

Very surprised to find myself defending Short, since I was utterly appalled to discover she was staying on.

But come on: the head of the Red Cross (for example) calls you up and says 'Don't go', what are you going to do? Slam the phone down? Iraq is not the whole world, and Short is responsible for aid to other countries, other projects which need pushing through. I think she should have resigned. But I can see how it could be made an incredibly difficult choice.

14:40 / 18.03.03

I agree with Nick. Perhaps she should have quit, but I wouldn't like to weigh up a consistent, principled resignation against the possibility of doing some good after the war.

That said, I find it moderately difficult to believe that her replacement would have been a such a complete disaster as to make resignation unthinkable.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

14:44 / 18.03.03

It's the same old story with Short, though, isn't it? Pretend your principles are important, then backtrack. I could go with your "glass half-full" idea, Lurid, if it wasn't for the fact that she's done this before.

I mean- a couple of days ago, who would actually have put money on her going through with the resignation thing? Not me, and I'm gullible.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:46 / 18.03.03

Oct 2001: Short calls those who demand a pause in the bombing of Afghanistan 'emotional'.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

14:57 / 18.03.03

I thought she'd go through with it, because I thought that it was utterly impossible to make a stand like that and then have anyone take you seriously ever again if you didn't go through with it. I still think that's the case.

To be honest, I think all we're seeing here is evidence of what makes Short a character worth having in politics: she's not very good at image and she takes positions based on a gut perception of what's right, or at least, right-er.

I wasn't surprised that Short wanted the Taliban 'bombed from power', as the article Fly's link goes to says. Much of her initial fire and fury on the UK political scene was centred on Women's Rights, after all; she campaigned for the abolition of Page 3 and made a name for herself facing down a male, guffawing House on that and other equality issues. It would make sense that she'd loathe the Taliban. I'm not convinced that she's a very sophisticated person - in fact, I suspect she'd almost have not to be to survive. I think she goes after what she sees as the Bad, and that's pretty much it. So if she was offered the chance to make a real difference after the war, and was told by NGOs that they needed her to take it, she'd be likely to take it. It's not like she's unused to political and public opprobium.

Page: 1(2)