Oh, Maggie
Maggie, what have we done?----Pink Floyd

Wake up Maggie- Rod Stewart

Wake up Maggie- Rod Stewart

In July 2002...." Saddam must go...It is clear to anyone willing to face reality that the only reason Saddam took the risk of refusing to submit his activities to U.N. inspectors was that he is exerting every muscle to build WMD."

WHY is it that LIES are believed readily when FACTS are available easily ( but not believed or doubted strongly )??

I finally got hold of the WSJ 2002 article and two paras are interesting..... one from where Jon has written his quote and the last para.....

Saddam must go. His continued survival after comprehensively losing the Gulf War has done untold damage to the West's standing in a region where the only unforgivable sin is weakness. His flouting of the terms on which hostilities ceased has made a laughingstock of the international community. His appalling mistreatment of his own countrymen continues unabated. It is clear to anyone willing to face reality that the only reason Saddam took the risk of refusing to submit his activities to U.N. inspectors was that he is exerting every muscle to build WMD. We do not know exactly what stage that has reached. But to allow this process to continue because the risks of action to arrest it seem too great would be foolish in the extreme."

Finally, a warning: We should not try now to predetermine the final outcome for a post-Saddam Iraq. One of the errors in 1991 was an exaggerated fear of the possible breakup of Iraq if the measures required to topple Saddam were taken. The Kurds and Shiites have since endured years of murderous repression as a result. In great strategic questions it is possible to be too clever. We need to concentrate on what we can achieve with the instruments at hand, and then press ahead boldly with the task before us. That will be quite taxing enough.

I wonder what she thought about her own writing in the last para after what has happened in Iraq after the invasion!!!

---Bush's circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches."

Uh, maybe because The Falkland Islands is a British Overseas Territory? Populated by British citizens? How the hell we survived the Dubya Dark Age I'll never know.

Thanks.

Usually I don't care much about British politics, (unless WE are invading them, then its a different story), but it seems Jolly Old England is in quite a tizzy over Maggie's leadership legacy.

I've noticed British Musicians get deep into British politics, though. They invaded US---so???

@ Mike Meyer

Here is what some are saying in the UK about Maggie.....

here

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/10/margaret-thatcher-funeral_n_3053015.html

AND, this is what many went through, not only in Maggie's land but also across the Atlantic in her BEST FRIEND'S, Ronald Reagan's country........ though I do not know if there were parties to mark his passing!!

here

http://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/04/09/thatcher-a-wound-reopens/

On the other hand, one of my patients with severe Rheumatoid Arthritis who could barely walk a few feet with a walker and was eligible for a home wheelchair under medicaid, lost her eligibility to have wheelchair under Reagan's administration and had a hard time keeping her clinic appointments.
He also eliminated WIC programme and our Paediatrics dept started seeing patients with "MARASMUS" which had not been seen for I do not even know how long.
Individuals like my patient and mothers of those babies never had the money to have enough to eat, leave aside partying but if they were relieved when their govt assistance for their health care needs and nutritional needs were restored and they said, "ALLELUIA", I would not be surprised.

Rupa Shah: OUCH! Looks like "Ding, Dong The Witch Is Dead"

Ron just loved hanging out with his rich friends, ya know, 'cause they gots money. Can't blame him, I guess, it was probably all they got. I liked him in "Death Valley Days" but he sucked at governance.

Now that the subject of "Ding, Dong, the Witch Is Dead" has been broached, here's a little story reported to me by one of my fellow musicians.

Seems he was told this by one of his church organist friends, who for many years has served in that capacity in a Catholic parish. The parish priest was a particularly unpleasant man, and odious in his interpersonal dealings with the parish personnel, the organist included.

One day, the offending priest finally died. Ironically enough, as parish organist, it was the duty of the musician to play for the funeral service for his long-time nemesis. But he had his revenge: subtly, oh so subtly, hidden in the texture of the music that he played during this service, he insinuated the tune "Ding, Dong, the Witch Is Dead". By his account, no one noticed; but HE knew.

But, concerning Maggie, TRAMP THE DIRT DOWN.

Here's a link that others among you may find satisfying if you are of like mind:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/blog/2013/04/george-galloways-brutal-tweet-and-the-truth-about-thatchers-policies/

Do take the time to listen to the embedded Elvis Costello song.

Cheers,
JerseyJeffersonian

I have always noted that when a Conservative (Corporate) politician is elected, they are always described as being "Storng", "Decisive" and "Determined" and most importantly, a Conservative has a "Mandate".

When a "Leftie" gets elected it is sort of said to be a "fluke" and that there will need to be compromise and negotiations in order to decide what the mandate really is.

Calm

At least Thatcher's critics are getting some attention (though the article in the NYT emphasized the vitriol rather than the substance. Given that one of the authors, John Burns, was also an enthusiastic proponent of invading Iraq, which he hardly bothered to conceal in his news stories, that isn't surprising.)

When Reagan died I don't recall much criticism of his legacy in the press. A friend of mine told me the other day that it was like the country's grandfather had died. That's about right--so much for the Salvadorans and Guatemalans and Nicaraguans and Angolans and Timorese who were murdered by people he supported. Lots of women, children and unarmed men, probably including some grandfathers.

I think you see a lot less visceral hatred of Reagan partly because the economy was good through most of his terms (according to a Krugman book I read once, this is because, unlike, Thatcher, he didn't control the Fed), plus his personal style was softer. The criticisms of him that can be made seem abstract to Americans.

That doesn't excuse the press, of course, but I think it partly explains their behavior.

I think you see less hatred of Reagan among average Americans because most wouldn't know (or in some cases wouldn't care) how many people overseas Reagan's policies killed. I started reading a book about this the other day (I'm going blank on the title)--"this" being the way Americans seem blind to the terror our government inflicts on others. I don't know where the blame should be placed, but at any rate, if you see a liberal like Mark Shields (I saw this recently) talking about why the Iraq War was a disaster, he will invariably talk about the thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded. In the majority of cases there won't be a word said about the Iraqis. It's almost as if it would be in bad taste to bring it up, as though it might be seen as a criticism of the troops, perhaps.

And if Iraqi deaths are mentioned, the figure is always going to be a lowball one--perhaps the Iraq Body Count figure of "at least 100,000 dead" or worse, the US count of "tens of thousands". I even saw a guest columnist in the NYT talk about tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed or wounded, which is just obscene, as though one spoke of the hundreds killed or wounded on 9/11.

With that in mind, it would have been seen as being in extremely bad taste to mention the hundreds of thousands killed by Reagan's allies. Nobody held back on criticism when Chavez died, but he was a critic of the US and therefore evil.

ONLY in America is life worth living. Any where else, why, they are better off dead.
The only pain in America is in the wallet.

I don't think English people, or anyone anywhere, is different in that way, though. People hated Thatcher because of their own suffering, or at least the suffering around them, not because of Pinochet.

I guess that should be "are." Not sure, though.

"Is," apparently.

And Dubya did not go wobbly indeed.......
Maggie said,"We need to concentrate on what "we" can achieve with the instruments at hand, and then press ahead boldly with the task before us."
I do not know what "they" achieved but Iraqis know, what havoc they wreaked on them and their country.
Girl of RIVERBEND blog is back and it is heartbreaking.

here

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com.au/2013_04_01_archive.html#3554538807908354245%233554538807908354245

Rupa Shah:"The occupiers don't have the Iraqis best interest at heart." Easy point to make---THE occupiers don't have anyone's best interest at heart, not even their own nations'. Put a gun to The Iraqis heads and steal the shirt off America's back.
As they say on the innertubes, "nothing new to see here, Folks, move along."
Until Deadeye and his pet goat, Codpiece, Condi, Rummy, & Colin face charges then it really is nothing new, just as well "look forward" like the Prez sez.

I'd been wondering whatever happened to Riverbend. Looks like that new post will be that last though.

Donald Johnson

Reagan was amiable, which is personally appealing, and his idiocy was always mostly concealed. Plus most of the US has been depoliticized in most real ways very successfully over the last couple of generations. Almost nobody understands politics, and given that there's no sensible instruction to anyone in schools, in university, or in the media, what the US does and has done is pretty baffling and impossible to evaluate in most ways for most people, except very superficially, as in "we good they evil." Plus plus, we're a very violent bunch of savages really.

Anyway, we're going to just keep cruising along like this until external forces like global warming or global economic collapse brought on by our unstable finance capitalism system precipitate a major adjustment, as in mass destruction and collapse. That won't be fun at all, though i'm sure some will figure out how to make money off it.

ciao

Fun read for the weekend.....

here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2013/apr/13/grantham-fairytale-posy-simmonds-interactive

Another reason for the different reaction to Reagan's death was the political atmosphere at the time. Reagan set the template for Bush, and Bush's popularity was peaking.

This has got me thinking a bit about why Nixon was so hated, and I think a lot of this came from the anti-war movement, which existed largely because of the draft, and personal style came into it as well. Although even Nixon had managed to redeem his image to some extent because his successors were worse in some ways.

But anyway I want to call BS again on the idea that Americans are unusual in caring more for there own. That's universal.

And it's a bit surprising coming from NE immediately after "taking Hemmingway's side," or whatever he said, on the rich.

"But anyway I want to call BS again on the idea that Americans are unusual in caring more for there own. "

Who said It wasn't a universal human tendency?

I think it's a universal tendency, but the particular form it takes in America is what you expect in the citizens of a superpower. Our government can impose draconian sanctions or support tyrants or terrorist organizations and inflict vast amounts of suffering on others without suffering much of anything in return, except for the casualties American soldiers suffer when do our intervening more directly. The exception to this comes from the occasional terrorist attack, especially an enormous one like 9/11, but then the reaction is always going to be "this happened solely and exclusively because there are bad people in the world who hate us for our goodness."

So yeah, that's how people tend to be, but power without accountability brings out the worst in everyone.

As for the Brits criticizing Thatcher, I'm guessing that many or most of those who bash her for her domestic policies would probably also bash her for supporting Pinochet, but I don't know.
I do think that in America for some reason the Mark Shields type of liberal stays pretty far away from criticizing American Presidents for human rights violations. But then Mark Shields last night was praising Obama for his willingness to cut Social Security and anger his base, so maybe he's not the best example of a liberal even on domestic issues. (I thought he was a little more liberal than he was last night on the PBS Newshour.)

Donald Johnson: Its T.V.

DJ: I think part of what's happening is that each of us happens to have on his mind something he read recently; in my case some stuff about what psychologists (unfortunately) call "othering." I'd never heard of Mark Shields before, but the emphasis on "American dead" has always bothered me. One anecdote that comes to mind was when I went to traffic school some years ago, and the teacher was a guy who mentioned that he'd been in some sort of special forces in Vietnam, and received training that had included learning to speak fluent Vietnamese, and yet he kept repeating that "more people die in traffic accidents every year than have died in all the wars," to which I finally replied from the back of the room, "It's a hell of a lot less than we killed." It's still striking to me that somebody with that kind of background could say such a thing with apparent sincerity. But I know that most Americans would be astonished if they were presented with the actual numbers. I know I was.

Anyway, the main reason I was emphasizing the relative lack of "visceral hatred" of Reagan was that you yourself mentioned that most press coverage had focused dancing in the street and the like.