But first, some zen propaganda:
US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq’s towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.
Eventually, we all withdraw. In the light of the eventual heat death of the universe, nothing is permanent. There is only the way. That alone remainsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
A lot of our post election discourse has been based around two proposals: that there will be a Ã¢â‚¬Å“post-Blair ageÃ¢â‚¬Â and that Ã¢â‚¬Å“Iraq wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be an issueÃ¢â‚¬Â by the time the next election rolls around. The above is evidence that Iraq may very well be an issue, unless the British forces are planning on doing a bunk.
I also donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see much evidence that the first proposal is true, though there are plenty of signs that people within the Labour Party believe it to be true. But whereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the evidence? The only reason for him to go is if he canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get his programme through. Getting his programme through on the understanding that he might go soon is a nifty trick, but it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t commit him to anything. During the election he was Toxic Tony. Now weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re given to understand that only Tony can save the Labour Party and that the silent majority will not be silenced.
LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s get something straight. Tony Blair changed the Labour party to the extent that it seems to be in permanent crisis because he wanted power. He got power and has shown every sign of liking power, of enjoying it for its on sweet sake. He wants to change the way we live, then point at the changes and say: Ã¢â‚¬ËœI did that.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ To paraphrase the gun rights people, the only way youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll get power out of Tony is if you prize it from his cold, politically-dead fingers.
Look at it another way. Can you imagine him getting a job?
My predictions: at the next election, Iraq will be an issue. And our saviour and shepherd Tony Blair will still be leading us through an endless twilight of new dawns.