Evidence points to breakdown in US / UK Relations

[Revolt426]

I am starting a thread because there is a steady flow of articles from numerous London newspapers and other think tanks saying US UK Relations are not well , amongst other complaints about Hillary Clintons Trip to Asia and the Japanese Prime Minster being the first foreign minster to visit the President.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5780614.ece

From The Sunday TimesFebruary 22, 2009

Gordon Brown pips rivals to the White House to meet Barack
Obama

Jonathan Oliver and Sarah Baxter GORDON BROWN will meet Barack Obama next week, the first European leader to do so. Any joy among his aides, however, is tempered by frustration: they are concerned that the US president’s policy of “America first” could threaten Brown’s chances of securing an international deal to rescue the global economy.

The prime minister will press his case in person to Obama on March 3 when he flies to Washington for his first talks with the president.

A statement by the White House referred to the “special partnership” with Britain and said the two leaders would discuss the G20 economic summit in London on April 2, a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and the spring Nato summit.

No 10’s delight that Brown has beaten European rivals, particularly Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, to the first meeting with Obama is coloured by Britain’s battle to get the US president to focus on the global dimensions of the crisis. Lord Malloch-Brown, the Foreign Office minister, admitted that Brown was struggling to persuade Obama to “pay attention” to his ambitious plans for the G20 summit.

'Cronyism' claim over Obama’s man in UK

A British official added: “The new US regime is like an echo chamber. We are struggling to get people even to return our calls. They are totally focused on domestic issues and have not lifted their heads to look at the international perspective.”

Last week Brown said the G20 meeting should lead to a “grand bargain” to help lift the world out of recession. Privately No 10 officials are hoping the summit will also revive the prime minister’s plunging poll ratings by re-establishing his position as a dynamic world statesman. But without the active engagement of the world’s biggest economy, any agreement at the meeting of industrial and developing countries would be dismissed by critics as worthless.

The concerns over the G20 summit come amid doubts over the future of the historic “special relationship” between Britain and the US. Unlike his many Anglophile predecessors, Obama has made it clear that America’s future lies in building links with the emerging Asian economies.

Malloch-Brown, who acts as Brown’s special envoy to the G20, acknowledged that the new US administration had been distracted by domestic crises. “US commitment is vital to the summit’s success but we have to get their attention and input at a time when many of the senior officials are not yet appointed and when those who are already behind their desks have their hands full with a full-blown domestic economic crisis and the teething problems of a new administration,” he said.

“We have to persuade them that the London summit offers solutions to urgent ‘downhome’ American economic problems. We have to join those dots in Washington as we do for British voters.”

Last week Brown launched an ambitious manifesto for the summit, which will take place at the Grove, a hotel near Watford. Entitled The Road to the G20, the dossier calls for world leaders to “stimulate the global economy”, bump-start bank lending and reform the international system of financial regulation. However, Brown’s aides cannot rule out a scenario in which the Obama regime retreats into isolationism, with the president attending the summit out of “polite interest”.

Already the new president has been accused of “protectionism” after calling for a “buy American” clause to be inserted into his £600 billion fiscal stimulus package, passed by Congress nine days ago.

British diplomats are warning that the summit must not be a repeat of a previous London meeting in 1933, called to agree a response to the Great Depression. Franklin D Roosevelt, the US president, failed to attend, instead sending a radio message in which he berated the other world leaders for having the wrong policies to deal with the downturn.

William Gale, economics expert at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, said that while Obama’s team understood the international dimension to the economic crisis, they were under intense pressure to focus on the domestic agenda.

“They can only do one ‘biggest policy of the decade’ a week,” Gale said. “Obama needs to convince the American people he is looking after their needs first and once he has done that, he can turn to things like international co-operation and open markets.”








http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4797626/The-special-relationship-is-finished-according-to-a-former-Clinton-adviser.html

The special relationship is ‘finished’ according to a former Clinton adviser
The much-vaunted special relationship between Britain and the United States is ‘finished’ according to a former senior White House official.
 
By Robert Miller
Last Updated: 12:03PM GMT 24 Feb 2009

In an exclusive interview with Telegraph TV, ahead of a speech at Chatham House on Wednesday, Morris Reid, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, said: “The special relationship (with the UK) is over and dead. It’s a different day.”

Reid’s speech entitled “Europe must show leadership and stop waiting on the United States” will make the point that “it is not smart for European politicians to think the American President needs to care about their concerns. And it is also not smart for Gordon Brown to expect Barack Obama to do the things he needs to do at home.”

He will add: “This is not about special relationships. It’s about rolling up our sleeves and working together – all of us.”

The speech will be a blow to Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister. He set great store by the fact that he will be the first European leader to meet President Obama at the White House. His officials have stressed that the meeting is proof the ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the US is as strong as ever.

And, as US authorities set out plans that could lead to the American Government taking an even bigger stake in the leading banks, such as Citigroup, Reid told Telegraph TV that the authorities needed to take even more drastic steps to kick-start the world’s largest economy. He said: “We need to nationalise some of these banks. We are continuing to waste time and money. If we nationalise banks we have time to fix them.”

[Revolt426]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/4863041/Asian-power-on-the-rise-amid-global-downturn.html

Malloch Brown: Asian power on the rise amid global downturn
Gordon Brown's special envoy on the economic crisis has said the international downturn is accelerating Asia's rise to global power.

Lord Malloch-Brown, the foreign office minister, said the emerging economies were more important than ever in tackling the world's problems.

He spoke in Thailand as he lobbied a meeting of south east Asian leaders on Mr Brown's vision for free trade and financial reform.

"[Asian countries] want to know that we are not just going to ask Asia to help with the recovery then go back to our bad old transatlantic ways," he said.

"There has to be a real sense that there's been a real change to reflect the shifting economic sands."

His comments echo remarks by the former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, who this week warned that the global crisis "will transform global reality in a similar way as the collapse of the Soviet Union". Earlier this month Hillary Clinton also broke with tradition when she chose to make her first foreign trip as secretary of state to Asia.

Lord Malloch-Brown said there needed to be a "rebalancing of the global economy and rebalancing of the power in it".

He said that meant giving a greater say in institutions like the International Monetary Fund to Asian countries, many of whom have bitter recent memories of IMF interventions.

According to Lord Malloch-Brown it also meant a greater role for groups such as the G20 leading world economies rather than the more exclusive G8, whose share of the world economy is in decline.

Although Asian economies have been hit hard by the global crisis the region will continue to grow this year while the economies of the West shrink.

Japan, China and South Korea have announced packages worth hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the IMF and support Asian currencies – taking on a traditional American role.

"We are asking a lot from them [Asian countries] in the short term, a lot from them in the long term," said Lord Malloch-Brown. "If they play a role in helping the world back to recovery they will expect a greater say in the way the world is governed. There will be a recalibration if you like. That has been on the cards since before this crisis but of anything it has accelerated the process."

It came as south east Asian leaders promised to work together to shield their region from the global economic crisis yesterday.

[Revolt426]

This is an article written by a Senior Fellow in the "Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom"

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm2315.cfm



February 27, 2009
Barack Obama and Gordon Brown Must Strengthen U.S.–U.K. Defense Cooperation
by Ted R. Bromund
WebMemo #2315

When President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown meet on Tuesday, they must begin by recognizing the truth that in defense, as in other areas of policy, the United States and Great Britain are far stronger together than apart. For each state, the other is the indispensable ally.

Absent American support, Britain cannot hope to play a leading role in the world. Without British support, the U.S. not only would lose the ally that since 1941 has been its most enduring, stable, and valuable friend, but would also see its position in NATO gravely weakened. Obama and Brown have substantive work to do on defense, but none of this work is as valuable as—or will be accomplished without—a firm recommitment by both leaders to the U.S.-U.K. Special Relationship.

Acknowledge British Support in Afghanistan

Obama should also gratefully acknowledge, publicly and privately, the support and sacrifices of British forces in the campaign against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Britain is second only to the U.S. in the size of its commitment to that war, for which the President has repeatedly expressed support. Britain's resolve to fight and win stands in stark contrast to most of the NATO allies, who have brought little to the war except excuses and evasions. Britain's commitment, and the sacrifices it has required, deserve the public thanks that was notably lacking from the President's address to Congress on February 24.

Increase British Defense Spending

When the discussion turns to substantive issues, both leaders must speak frankly. President Obama should begin by expressing grave reservations about the decline of British defense spending and the extent to which British defense capabilities are being mortgaged by the spend-now-pay-later system imposed by the Treasury.

According to NATO's most recent report, in 2008 Britain's defense spending slumped to only 2.2 percent of GDP. That is the lowest level since 2004, when it was also 2.2 percent, and is far lower than the 1990-1994 post-Cold War average of 3.8 percent.[1] Britain today is on the knife-edge of a collapse of its defenses: The overstretch and underfunding of its forces is widely acknowledged.[2] This peril is exacerbated by the hand-to-mouth existence of the Ministry of Defence, which has been forced by the Treasury to assume budgetary responsibility for most of its urgent operational requirements. This arrangement will either deprive forces in the field of vital equipment or result in even deeper cuts in capabilities in the years to come.[3]

The President cannot leave the Prime Minister in any doubt that these policies, if continued, will have a serious and enduring effect on the ability of the U.S. and Britain to collaborate meaningfully in the defense of their interests and those of the world's democracies. Obama should call on Brown to commit to halting the decline in defense spending as a percentage of GDP and to raising it gradually to 4 percent within 10 years.

Reconsider Support for the ESDP

This meeting also offers an opportunity for both sides to reconsider the support they have shown for the gradual Europeanization of the defense of the West. Since 1998, successive Labour governments have committed themselves gradually but steadily to increased defense cooperation within Europe through the EU's European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). This is a serious error. All European-based defense plans are intended to achieve political objectives unrelated to defense. The ESDP's goal is to create a defense organization that does not include the U.S. and to slowly supplant NATO. It will be more intent on elevating Brussels' influence and on preventing action by Britain in alliance with the U.S. than on achieving any substantive aim. Both Obama and Brown should return to the tradition that NATO is the sole military component in Europe's security architecture.[4]



Obama must also offer to help rebuild Britain's forces. On a policy level, he should ask Brown to work with his Administration to carry out a full review of opportunities for joint Anglo-American training programs. The President should also continue and expand sharing of information on recruiting policies, thus leveraging U.S. expertise in maintaining an all-volunteer force that represents a cross-section of the nation. Brown should take this opportunity to announce a full review of Britain's recruiting and retention policies to be conducted on the assumption of slow but steady increases in defense spending.



Obama should recognize that the U.S. has a vital interest in promoting interoperability with U.S. forces within NATO. The U.S. must act responsibly by continuing to develop and fund new weapons systems that close allies such as Britain have budgeted for and are relying upon. In particular, Obama should commit to fully funding the short take-off vertical landing variant of the F-35—without which Britain's new aircraft carriers will have no planes—and support Britain's participation in the Trident II D-5 life extension program. Brown should press Obama to declare this support, as both programs are essential to British defense planning in the coming decade.[5]

Reform Procurement and Expand Trade

Finally, both leaders must act to reform their procurement systems. Here, Brown should take the lead. He should both emphasize his desire to expand competition in the defense market, and urge the Senate to pass the U.S.-U.K. Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty. This treaty enjoys strong support from both major parties in Britain. Obama should reciprocate by pledging to promote future joint development, manufacturing, and purchasing agreements with Britain, and by promising to ask the Senate to give the treaty early consideration. If adopted, the treaty will secure the position of both countries as defense industrial partners. The treaty is a fulfillment of the President's rejection of protectionism in his February address to Congress, and it will boost U.S. industry, save U.S. jobs, and promote military interoperability between these closest of allies.[6]

An Opportunity for Renewed Partnership

Prime Minister Brown's visit comes at an important moment in the long-standing Anglo-American defense partnership. The start of a new U.S. Administration offers a vital and necessary opportunity to reaffirm that partnership and to take the measures necessary to strengthen and renew it. Both President Obama and Prime Minister Brown should acknowledge the shared values and interests that are at stake and act to continue this indispensable collaboration.

Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

[Revolt426]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html

Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain
Barack Obama has sent Sir Winston Churchill packing and pulse rates soaring among anxious British diplomats.
 
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 5:41PM GMT 14 Feb 2009


Mr Obama declined an offer to hang on onto the bust for a further four years

The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein

A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.

The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.

But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

Diplomats were at first reluctant to discuss the whereabouts of the Churchill bronze, after its ejection from the seat of American power. But the British Embassy in Washington has now confirmed that it sits in the palatial residence of ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald, just down the road from Vice President Joe Biden's official residence. It is not clear whether the ambassador plans to keep it in Washington or send it back to London.

American politicians have made quoting Churchill, whose mother was American, something of an art form, but not Mr Obama, who prefers to cite the words and works of his hero Abraham Lincoln. Indeed a bust of Mr Lincoln now sits in the Oval Office where Epstein's Churchill once ruled the roost.

Churchill has less happy connotations for Mr Obama than those American politicians who celebrate his wartime leadership. It was during Churchill's second premiership that Britain suppressed Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President's grandfather.

The rejection of the bust has left some British officials nervously reading the runes to see how much influence the UK can wield with the new regime in Washington.

Now it is likely that Gordon Brown will offer a alternative symbol of Anglo-American fealty when he visits Washington to meet Mr Obama for the first time since he became President. Diplomats are still working to finalise a date for the visit which is expected in the final week of this month or early in March.

One suggestion, given Mr Obama's interest in the Lincoln era, is that Mr Brown should offer an artefact relating to the career of John Bright, the 19th Century MP and political reformer who became the most prominent British supporter of Lincoln's Union forces during the American Civil War.

A British Embassy spokesman said: "The bust of Sir Winston Churchill by Sir Jacob Epstein was uniquely lent to a foreign head of state, President George W Bush, from the Government Art Collection in the wake of 9/11 as a signal of the strong transatlantic relationship.

"It was lent for the first term of office of President Bush. When the President was elected for his second and final term, the loan was extended until January 2009.

"The new President has decided not to continue this loan and the bust has now been returned. It is on display at the Ambassador's Residence."

[Revolt426]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/4781849/US-turns-to-the-Far-East.html

US turns to the Far East Telegraph View: President Barack Obama's first visitor confirms the new administration's world view.   
Telegraph View
Last Updated: 5:52PM GMT 22 Feb 2009


Before Downing Street gets too smug over its coup in ensuring that Gordon Brown will, early next month, become the first EU leader to meet President Barack Obama, it should note two things. First, President Obama's first foreign visitor will actually be Taro Aso, the Japanese prime minister, who arrives in Washington tomorrow. This serves to confirm that the new administration's world view will focus across the Pacific rather than the Atlantic.

Hillary Clinton used her inaugural trip as Secretary of State not to visit Europe, the Middle East, or the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan, but to take a swing through South Korea, Indonesia, Japan and China. The Far East will be Mr Obama's foreign policy priority. Second, when Mr Brown and Mr Obama do meet, we are unlikely to witness the communion of outlook that characterised the relationship of Mr Brown's predecessor with both of Mr Obama's. The President's economic stimulus package has strong protectionist elements that are anathema to the Prime Minister. There is also the potential for tensions on the security front, with some American commanders less than enthusiastic about the effectiveness of the British military both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That said, the March 3 visit by the Prime Minister offers an opportunity for him to establish a constructive partnership with the new President: his relationship with George W Bush never quite recovered from that frosty start in Camp David. There is every reason to expect a good personal rapport; Mr Brown is, after all, a keen student of American history. Our relationship with the US is special not only because we share history, culture, language and tradition but also, more practically, because we share intelligence. For it to flourish, it is not crucial that the two men at the top hit it off – but it certainly helps.

[Revolt426]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5799183.ece

Gordon Brown makes history as he beats his rivals to Washington

Philip Webster in Political Editor, Tom Baldwin in Washington and Charles Bremner in Paris Gordon Brown is to address both Houses of Congress when he visits Washington next week for talks with President Obama. He will be only the fifth British prime minister to be accorded the honour of addressing both houses of the US legislature, following Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

The invitation from Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, is a boost for Mr Brown. Ministers believe that Britain's position as America's main combat ally in Afghanistan was a crucial factor in Mr Brown beating European rivals, notably President Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, the German Chanellor, to Washington.

The White House referred last week to the “special partnership” with Britain as it announced the talks, which will focus on the G20 economic summit in London on April 2, Afghanistan and the spring Nato summit. Mr Obama and Mr Brown are urging other Nato countries to do more in Afghanistan. Mr Brown will not be the first elected head of government to visit Mr Obama in Washington, an honour that went to Taro Aso, the Japanese Prime Minister, yesterday. The Prime Minister has, however, maintained Britain's position ahead of France and Germany in the diplomatic scramble to get close to the US President.

Mr Sarkozy is reportedly piqued at having failed to edge in front of Britain as the “go-to country” for Washington in Europe. But he began with a blunder, sending a handwritten congratulatory note on election night in which he incorrectly spelt Mr Obama's first name as “Barak”.


Mr Sarkozy may now have to make do with a meeting on the sidelines of the Nato summit in the French city of Strasbourg on April 3 where he is expected to announce his country's return to full membership of the alliance after a 33-year absence. Washington has been irritated by Mr Sarkozy's refusal to send more troops to Afghanistan as well as recent attacks on the economic packages being implemented in both Britain and America. Mr Sarkozy has at least addressed Congress before Mr Brown — in November 2007.

As he welcomed Mr Aso yesterday, Mr Obama underlined how he was looking for reliable allies in his effort to address economic and security crises facing the world. “Obviously the friendship between the United States and Japan is extraordinarily important to our country,” he said, before describing Japan as “a cornerstone of security as well as one of our strongest economic partners”. He added: “It is for that reason that the Prime Minister is the first foreign dignitary to visit me here in the Oval Office.”

Mr Aso, who is even more unpopular at home than Mr Brown is in the UK, said that Japan and the US — the two biggest economies in the world — must “work together, hand in hand”.
 

[Revolt426]

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=232688

CIA: British Terrorists Biggest Threat For USA The CIA has started spying operations in Britain to prevent activities of Pakistani-British extremists and 9/11 happening all over again.

Former American vice president Dick Cheney recently warned that America was threatened by a new terrorist attack. The CIA fears such a scenario, while their head believes the biggest threat comes from Great Britain.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the CIA has started spying operations in Britain to prevent activities of Pakistani-British extremists and 9/11 happening all over again. They believe that British extremists, rooted in Pakistan, might legally enter the USA with visas. They also claim that intelligence services have notified Barack Obama of their new spying operation. According to the DailyTelegraph, the MI5 has identified 2,000 suspects for terrorism in Britain, while the CIA has initiated 10 operations to control their movements.

Former CIA official who was Obama`s advisor, told the Daily Telegraph that their operation was increased after the terrorist attack on Mumbai. Furthermore, the CIA has been developing an agent network in Britain for 18 months.

British-Pakistani terrorists are al-qaeda`s best mechanism


CIA starts 10 operations in Britain

British intelligence agency MI5 has identified 2,000 suspects for terrorism in Britain, while the CIA has initiated 10 operations to control their movements. - The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaeda's best mechanism for launching an attack against North America. – said former CIA official Bruce Riedel.

It is claimed that the CIA is working closely with the British MI% intelligence service.

- President Obama's national security team are well aware that this is a serious threat. Around 40 per cent of CIA activity on homeland threats is now in the UK. This is quite unprecedented – Riedel said, who was the White House National Security Council expert for the Middle East.

MI5 operations are not enough

Although the MI5 is planning on doubling its membership until 2011, when the number should be 4,100 members, many within the American intelligence believe that this is not enough and that Brotons cannot stop the activities of potential terrorists on their own, the Daily Telegraph writes.

Otherwise, American-British relations became a bit strenuous when the British Supreme Court accused the USA of threats last week. It claimed that the USA was planning on withdrawing intelligence information if the documents on the abuse of Guantanamo prisoner Binyam Mohamed were published. Experts of intelligence services believe that such information remaining secret was the key to national security.

[Revolt426]

In reference to the CIA increasing operations in Britain right after Mumbai and delcaring British Terrorists the greatest threat to the U.S.

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/mumbaiterrorstrike/Story.aspx?ID=NEWEN20090084654&type=News

Mumbai attack could be replicated: FBI chief

Press Trust of India

Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:31 PM (Washington)

Terming Mumbai terror attacks as "successful" from the perspective of terrorists, America's top intelligence official has warned that such strikes could be replicated in the US and other parts of the world.

Warning such attacks could be viewed by terrorists as a possible way of proceeding in the future, FBI Director Robert Muller said intelligence and other security agencies would have to reinvigorate efforts to make certain that we've done everything we can to prevent such type of attacks.

Delivering a speech on 'Global Terrorism: The FBI's Role', Muller said the Mumbai attack, which killed more than 170 people and wounded over 300 was an attack both highly coordinated and deceptively simple in its execution.

Muller, who took over the FBI just days before September 11, 2001, said the Mumbai attack had displayed the "terrorists with large agendas and little money can use rudimentary weapons to maximize their impact."

"It again raises the question of whether a similar attack could happen in Seattle, San Diego, Miami or Manhattan," he said.

Muller said although Al-Qaida remains a threat to the US and worldwide, security planners "must also focus on less well known terrorists groups as well as home grown terrorists".

[Revolt426]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/feb/27/bbc-palestinian-territories

'Not enough proof' for Panorama allegations linking charity to terrorismLeigh Holmwood
guardian.co.uk, Friday 27 February 2009 16.19 GMT
Article history

A Charity Commission inquiry has said there is not enough evidence to back a central allegation made in a Panorama programme linking a British charity operating in the Palestinian territories with terrorism.

A July 2006 edition of the BBC1 current affairs show by investigative reporter John Ware, called Faith, Hate and Charity, alleged that the Interpal charity gave money to Palestinian charities linked to terrorist group Hamas.

The Panorama documentary also claimed that a trustee of the charity, vice-chairman Dr Essam Mustafa, had links with Hamas and that Interpal was a key member of the Union for Good, a coalition of charities operating in the Palestinian territories which the BBC show alleged directed funding at militant preaching.

But in a report published today, the Charity Commission said that material handed to it by the BBC suggesting that certain partner organisations funded by Interpal may be promoting terrorist ideology or activities "was of insufficient evidential value" to support the allegation.

The Charity Commission added that Interpal, which provides humanitarian assistance to Palestinians, had maintained "clear financial audit trails in their delivery of aid for humanitarian purposes".

However, the commission did conclude that Interpal trustees had "not taken sufficiently rigorous steps to investigate allegations about some of their partner organisations" and had not put in place "adequate due diligence and monitoring procedures to be satisfied that these organisations were not promoting terrorist ideologies or activities". Where procedures were in place, "they were not sufficient nor fully implemented", the commission said.

Interpal had also "not adequately managed" its relationship with the Union for Good and its "continued membership of the Union for Good was not appropriate", the inquiry concluded.

"As a result of the inquiry, the commission has used its statutory powers to direct Interpal's trustees to review their due diligence and monitoring procedures relating to their partner organisations, end the charity's relationship with the Union for Good and ensure that no trustee holds office or has a role within the Union for Good," the report said.

Despite rejecting a central claim made by Panorama, a spokeswoman for the Charity Commission said it was not its role to "prove or disprove the allegations" made in the programme.

"The purpose of the inquiry was not to look at all the allegations made in the programme, but to look at the material supplied by the BBC to identify the specific regulatory issues for the commission," she said.

"We looked at these specific issues and set out what our findings were and what, if any, action was required from the charity in response."

A BBC spokesman said: "We are pleased to see that the Charity Commission agrees with important points raised by Panorama regarding the running of Interpal."

The commission launched its inquiry into Interpal in December 2006 after requesting material from the BBC that appeared in the Panorama broadcast. It had also previously investigated the charity in 1996 and 2003.

Ibrahim Hewitt, chairman of Interpal, said the charity had been "vindicated" by the Charity Commission inquiry. "The inquiry was triggered by a BBC Panorama programme in July 2006 which claimed that we had links with organisations promoting terrorism. The broadcast was totally irresponsible. Now, after a most rigorous process, these accusations have been refuted by the inquiry," Hewitt added.

"Interpal has collaborated fully with the Charity Commission during the inquiry. We note that the commission has also made suggestions to improve some of our procedures. We are, and always have been, ready to implement Charity Commission guidance."

However, the charity said it took issue with the commission's comments on its relationship with the Union for Good, asking it to revisit the issue

[jesqueal]

Hmmm sounds like Brown & Darling are not being kept up to speed on the REAL global events
Do you think this is just a nonsense story or is it significant? You'd think anything they might want to know, they could just ring Nathan Rothschild.

[Revolt426]

Hmmm sounds like Brown & Darling are not being kept up to speed on the REAL global events
Do you think this is just a nonsense story or is it significant? You'd think anything they might want to know, they could just ring Nathan Rothschild.

I don't see nonsense when that many different sources confirms the obvious. That doesn't mean it's not being done intentionally.

[jesqueal]

By nonsense, I mean a red herring story. Unless Obama & cronies hail from different Elite groups than Brown (possibly), the only way this breakdown in relations could happen is either intentionally or as a red herring

[Dig]

By nonsense, I mean a red herring story. Unless Obama & cronies hail from different Elite groups than Brown (possibly), the only way this breakdown in relations could happen is either intentionally or as a red herring

This thread is dedicated to providing information/evidence concerning a possible rift in US/UK relations.  It may be too early to speculate the full impact of this information (red herring, intentional, etc.).  But for now, this thread should be dedicated to the plethora of non-front page news stories about a possible rift.  The information seems to be somewhat hidden or scattered among all of the muck and nonsense in the MSM.  By dedicating one thread to this topic, perhaps we can see if there is a pattern and then begin a discourse on what the pattern means.  But for right now (presidency is less than 40 days old), this is a dumping ground to expose the information that is not really in our face, yet. If you find additional information/articles/evidence, please post it here.  Thanks

[Revolt426]

Nile Gardiner is the Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4884219/Barack-Obama-must-preserve-the-special-relationship.html

Barack Obama must preserve the special relationship
Great Britain is America’s most reliable friend, argues Nile Gardiner.

Nile Gardiner
Last Updated: 10:10AM GMT 28 Feb 2009

Gordon Brown arrives in Washington this week as the first European leader to meet with President Obama at the White House. He has pipped his closest rivals President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel in the race to the Oval Office, and will be only the fifth Prime Minister to be accorded the honour of addressing a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.

The visit is being spun by Downing Street as a coup for the Prime Minister, and evidence of the enduring strength of the ties between the United States and Great Britain. However, Brown’s triumphal entry to the capital of the free world masks a long-term decline in the Special Relationship, which could be dramatically accelerated under the presidency of Barack Obama.

The Anglo-American alliance is being weakened on several fronts, from falling levels of UK defence spending and the gutting of Britain’s armed forces by the Labour government, to the gradual erosion of British sovereignty in Europe and the rise of a European Union defence identity, now being backed by Washington. It is also threatened by apathy and indifference towards the UK on the part of the new U.S. administration, as well as by mounting American protectionism. Brown will struggle to establish a close relationship with Obama and there will be no repeat of the close-knit Bush/Blair dynamic.

President Obama’s surprise decision earlier this month to remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and return it to the British government sent an early signal to London that the Obama administration will have a far less robust approach towards the Anglo-American alliance. The White House is already recalibrating it as a “special partnership” not a “special relationship”, a subtle play on words which indicates a shift away from a decades-long policy of according Britain a unique status as America’s most important ally. Obama himself has seemingly little attachment to the alliance, and has never even mentioned it in a major policy speech.

Despite Brown getting his foot through the door first, there can be little doubt that the White House is keen to significantly strengthen America’s relationship with both France and Germany, the biggest powers in continental Europe, as well as with Brussels, the institutional heart of the European Union. This is partly the product of a more pro-European outlook post-Bush, but is also based on a misguided belief that European allies will send more combat troops to Afghanistan, increase defence spending, and play a more supportive role alongside the United States on the world stage.

Washington is already making major concessions to France in the NATO alliance, with French officers reportedly in line to take two senior Alliance command positions. This would give Paris an extraordinary degree of power and influence within NATO, out of all proportion to its actual military role in Alliance operations, which is minimal.

The new administration is also sending clear signals that it supports a greater military and defense role for the European Union, with key appointments in both the State Department and the Pentagon being given to prominent supporters of European integration. To underscore the message, in his speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Joe Biden made it clear that the United States will “support the further strengthening of European defense, an increased role for the European Union in preserving peace and security, (and) a fundamentally stronger NATO-EU partnership.”

It would be a huge mistake for the new U.S. administration to look away from Britain for its most important strategic partnership. There has scarcely been a more important period since the Second World War for joint U.S.-British leadership, with a major war in Afghanistan, a global battle against al-Qaeda, an increasingly aggressive Russia, and the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.

There is no evidence to suggest that Europe is capable of shouldering the burden of global leadership with America. The European Union is a grandiose emperor with no clothes, and its track record in confronting dictatorial regimes such as Iran has been a dismal failure. The EU is obsessed with challenging American global pre-eminence rather than working with the United States, and the European Project is ultimately all about building a counter-weight to American world leadership.

The Special Relationship is vital to American and British interests on many levels, from military, diplomatic, and intelligence cooperation to transatlantic trading ties. If President Obama does not invest in its preservation, the end result will be a weaker United States that is less able to stand up to terrorism and tyranny, and project power and influence across the globe.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger famously spoke of Washington needing a single telephone number to call in Europe in a crisis. In practice that number has for decades been in London, and if President Obama decides to switch it to Brussels or another European capital the world will be a far more dangerous place.

Great Britain is America’s most reliable friend. Whether waging war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, standing up to the Russian bear, or halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, President Obama should maintain the Anglo-American Special Relationship as the centerpiece of the transatlantic alliance. As nearly every post-war president has found, there is simply no alternative to U.S.-British leadership in securing the free world.

[Revolt426]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4885887/Will-Barack-Obama-end-Britains-special-relationship-with-America.html

Will Barack Obama end Britain's special relationship with America?
When Gordon Brown walks through the door of the Oval Office on Tuesday, he will be the first European leader welcomed by Barack Obama to the White House since he became president.

In the marbled halls of the British ambassador's residence in Washington, there is modest satisfaction that the prime minister has beaten his European counterparts - Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor - to Mr Obama's door.

But there is no undiplomatic crowing, and champagne corks have certainly not been popping. Instead, a quiet fear is calcifying. Hints from the White House machine suggest that the Age of Obama means a dramatic makeover not just for America, but for that old symbol of Anglo-American fealty, the Special Relationship.

To adapt Mark Twain, reports of its death are common and usually exaggerated. But word is spreading through political Washington that the new president wants to shake up the way the US government relates to its allies, which will leave little space for the sentiment of old ties.

There was a concrete clue when the White House announcement of Mr Brown's trip was made last Saturday. Mr Obama's mouthpiece Robert Gibbs declared: "The United States and the United Kingdom share a special partnership." Those familiar with the thinking of Mr Obama's top team say that use of the word "partnership" rather than "relationship" is an important distinction - it illuminates Mr Obama's belief in practical measures that work, not the old way of doing things.

A Washington official who is close to several members of Mr Obama's inner circle said: "They craft every word for the stone tablets. Words are what they do. It is not a mistake.

"A partnership is a business arrangement based on what you can do for Obama, not a relationship like a marriage that thrives through thick and thin until death do us part. He'll judge the specialness of a partnership with Britain on what he gets out of it." In return for concrete support, Mr Obama is expected to offer to listen more closely to British advice than George W. Bush did. But insiders say he will be ruthless in cutting adrift countries who do not cooperate with his global agenda, whatever their historic relationships.

A British official said: "I don't think Obama is steeped in the tradition of the special relationship going back to Churchill and Roosevelt. Of course someone of his generation is going to look at it differently. I think what he looks at are the assets that are brought to the table and the expertise you have. This is a definite change of emphasis."

In the six decades since in which Winston Churchill first coined the phrase special relationship, successive American presidents have paid ritual obeisance to the notion that Britain should assume a place at the White House top table.

Now even allies of Mr Obama believe he intends to extract a higher price for access to the corridors of his power.

Steve Clemons, of the New America Foundation think tank, who has links with the higher echelons of the Obama administration, said that Britain would be expected to make sacrifices in return for influence.

Mr Obama's approach was "all about putting a price on access and a price on the relationship," he said. "I think Obama does believe that this is a time of historical change. He wants to push reset on a lot of things. He thinks old patterns, old framings can get you into trouble, particularly when you're trying to encourage different parts of the world."

Mr Clemons praises Mr Obama's "respectful" attention to "legacy relationships" by inviting Mr Brown just a few days after the Japanese premier became the first foreign visitor to the Obama White House. But he added: "I was joking recently with the Japanese ambassador when they got the first visit. I said: 'This is going to be fun for you guys, but the price is going to be huge.'"

For Mr Brown this is a big moment. He flies to Washington on Monday night and will have his audience with Mr Obama before lunch on Tuesday, but it promises to be a fairly brief affair with no White House dinner. It a far cry from the chummy golf cart romp around Camp David that George W. Bush laid on for Tony Blair.

The prime minister comes seeking substantive agreements on economic matters ahead of the G20 summit in London next month, and hopes also for a whiff of Mr Obama's stardust to revive his poll prospects at home. His wife Sarah will have a separate audience with First Lady Michelle Obama later on Tuesday afternoon.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has invited Mr Brown to address a joint session of congress on Wednesday, before a lunch with legislators. The 30 minute address will allow Mr Brown to lay out his conception of the special relationship and boost his leadership credentials at home.

But his own parlous political prospects may be a drag on Britain's influence with President Obama, who is said to take an "unsentimental view" of the prime minister's plight. That view is also coloured by the knowledge he might be dealing with Conservative leader David Cameron in 12 months time.

"Obama can read the polls the same as everyone else," said a political adviser who has worked on both Democrat and Labour campaigns. "He wants partners for the next four years and Brown may not be one of those." The conventional wisdom, which Mr Obama has done little to dispel, is that he is less anglophile than his predecessors. He hailed the resilience of America's founding fathers against the British "enemy" in his inauguration speech and devoted 35 pages of his memoir, Dreams From My Father, to his grandfather's torture under British colonial rule during Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion.

This was seen by some as the motive force for his recent decision to return a loaned bust of Winston Churchill, prime minister during the insurgency, which George W. Bush had given pride of place in the Oval Office. Mr Obama has also admitted feeling "edgy, defensive and hesitant" when travelling in Europe.

Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the British ambassador in Washington has told colleagues he thinks the attention given to these remarks is "overdone" and that he has seen no evidence of reserve towards Britain during the half dozen meetings he has had with the president so far.

But there is growing anger among conservative supporters of the special relationship at what they say is Mr Obama's determination to treat Britain the same as other Nato allies when it comes to demanding extra troops for Afghanistan. Britain's participation in the war in Iraq, at the cost of 179 soldiers' lives, cuts little ice with Mr Obama since he opposed the war in the first place.

Dr Nile Gardiner, of the conservative Heritage foundation and a former aide to Margaret Thatcher, said: "President Obama has never acknowledged the sacrifice of British soldiers alongside their U.S. allies in a major policy speech. The new administration seems to care little for what the British have contributed in Afghanistan or Iraq in the past; what matters now is simply how many more troops Brown is willing to pledge for the surge in Afghanistan. It's a very hardnosed, short-term approach rather than one rooted in a sense of enduring alliance. My sense is that the special relationship is being significantly downgraded."

Mr Brown will indicate that he hopes to find another 1,800 troops for Afghanistan, but there is resentment that the president has not focused his requests more on other NATO nations, who have been criticised for only sending troops to parts of Afghanistan that are considered relatively safe.

The senior British official said: "The UK has the second largest contribution militarily to Afghanistan by far, but more importantly we are taking a very high proportion of the casualties. So I wouldn't expect the United States to look to the UK first when it comes to the issue of burden sharing. There are many other allies who need to do more."

Nevertheless, there is a realisation among British diplomats that they will have to fight to earn their influence at Mr Obama's side. In conversations with his senior aides they stress what they believe is strong British expertise on the president's foreign policy priorities and a "very significant degree of convergence" on Afghanistan, Iran and climate change, all areas where there was an Atlantic of clear blue water between Labour and the Bush administration.

The British official added: "If you look across the issues where this administration wants to be active and successful then the UK has a very strong position as a global partner for the United States; primarily the international economy, but also Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and the middle east peace process." David Miliband, the foreign secretary and Sir Nigel, both of whom have negotiated with Syria and Iran have been quick to offer their insights into the leadership in Tehran and Damascus.

If this charm offensive does not work, others counsel that Mr Obama will eventually learn that Britain is America's only reliable military ally.

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution said: "He's enough of a pragmatist to understand the importance of getting this relationship right. It helps that Britain is so committed to being successful in Afghanistan. Unlike all of our other European partners, who all say they love Obama but don't really want to help him very much, you do want to help."

In the meantime, British officials are committed to winning their place at his table - for the first time - on merit as well as history

[Godfather77]

UK attacks American grip on World Bank
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/uk-attacks-american-grip-on-world-bank-1630416.html

The United States’ stewardship of the World Bank should be ended and the institution given a major overhaul, Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, will say today.

The bank has had a US president throughout its 50-year history. But in a speech highly critical of the World Bank’s reaction to past economic downturns, Mr Alexander will say that the American stranglehold has stopped it from having the best candidate at the helm. “The Bank must recognise the changing economic balance of power and be more representative and accountable in the future,” he will say at the Chatham House think-tank.

“By the World Bank’s own admission, it did not do enough in previous crises to help and protect the poorest.” Mr Alexander will criticise the World Bank for being slow to react and hampered by bureaucracy. He will demand that it go beyond its pledge to triple its lending to $35bn this year.

[Revolt426]

Brown Vows To Forge Global Deal With Obama

2:04am UK, Sunday March 01, 2009

Gordon Brown has pledged to forge a "global new deal" with Barack Obama when he meets the new US President in Washington next week.
 
Mr Brown leaves Downing Street for Washington next week

The Prime Minister said the two countries' historic "partnership of purpose" should be directed at fighting the downturn as well as terrorism, poverty and disease.

Mr Brown will be the first European leader to meet with Mr Obama since he came to office.

The PM wrote in the Sunday Times: "I believe there is no challenge so great or so difficult that it cannot be overcome by America, Britain and the world working together.

Britain and America may be separated by the thousands of miles of the Atlantic, but we are united by shared values that can never be broken.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown
"That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal, whose impact can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York - and giving security to the hard-working families in every country."

It would require all continents to make cash injections to boost economies, all countries to adopt green policies, universal banking reforms and changes to international bodies, he suggested.

 
Barack Obama

Mr Brown stressed his fondness for America ahead of the visit - regarded as a coup for the British leader following speculation his French or German counterparts would get the first invite.

"I have always been an Atlanticist and a great admirer of the American spirit of enterprise and national purpose.

"I have visited America many times and have many friends there, and as Prime Minister I want to do more to strengthen even further our relationship with America."

He quoted Winston Churchill, one of the handful of British leaders to have addressed both Houses of Congress - a list Mr Brown will be added to this week.

"Winston Churchill described the joint inheritance of Britain and America as not just a shared history but a shared belief in the great principles of freedom and the rights of man - what Barack Obama has described as the enduring power of our ideals - democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.

"Britain and America may be separated by the thousands of miles of the Atlantic, but we are united by shared values that can never be broken.

"And as America stands at its own dawn of hope, I want that hope to be fulfilled through us all coming together to shape the 21st century as the first century of a truly global society."

[Dig]

""That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal, whose impact can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York - and giving security to the hard-working families in every country."

It would require all continents to make cash injections to boost economies, all countries to adopt green policies, universal banking reforms and changes to international bodies, he suggested."

nice highlight!

[TahoeBlue]

It is a strained relationship when you give your top money launderer the job of ambassador to England. Which also (generally) gets an honorary membership in The Pilgrim's Society btw.

Obama and his bad_ss Bilderberg Crew

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/02/24/obama-to-make-mega-bundler-louis-susman-ambassador-to-england/

Obama to make mega-bundler Louis Susman Ambassador to England?
Come, I will hide nothing from you: it would be blatantly unfair for me to mock the President for choosing Chicago bundler Louis Susman to be the ambassador to the Court of Saint James. You see, unlike a certain subset of the population I know how the game is actually played; certain ambassadorships are considered prestigious, and some aren’t. The ones that are prestigious - and I don’t think that they get much more prestigious than the one for Great Britain - are going to be filled for political reasons, which means that generally they will not be filled by a professional diplomat. The last four were, in fact: a retired admiral, a senior government official/financial guy; a financial/oil guy; and a senior government official/car dealership owner.  An investment banker who raised 500 grand for the President is not particularly surprising, in other words… unless you happened to be one of those people who actually believed that line of Obama’s about how he was going to do things differently.

[Revolt426]

I would see the appointment of a clown as a consiquence rather than a cause of this appearent ruffle in relations with the UK

[zigzagzen]

.... Unless Obama & cronies hail from different Elite groups than Brown (possibly), the only way this breakdown in relations could happen is either intentionally or as a red herring ....

Brown is not part of the top layer of the hierarchy - neither was George W. Bush for that matter - both were/are kept in the dark. Why did Bush look so shocked on 9/11? Why was he so inept in his reactions? Why did Cheney keep him away from Washington until 9/11 was a "done deal"? Answer: His dad and Cheney had not told him what they were up to.

This is why Bush insisted that Blair be made "Middle East Peace Envoy" - because Blair is and always was at the top layer of the hierarchy and could be relied upon to do the "right" thing (i.e. what he is told to do) whereas Brown can not be relied upon as he is not as high an initiate and is not regarded as a trustworthy pair of hands. Blair is probably the hierarchy's top man in the UK still - at least in the "behind the lines" communication lines.

The current "safe hands" at the top of the British power Elite is Peter Mandelson who has been there aside Blair/Bush since the early 1980's when Blair and Mandelson spent summer at a NWO training camp in America with, amongst others, George W. Bush.

However, Mandelson is not really a safe pair of hands because of his personal sexual preferences - which were revealed by the operation Ore investigation. However, Blair placed a D-notice (security black out) classifying this information about his friend as a national security risk.

So the Americans have no one they can trust in British politics is the real truth. Brown will not go the way of the NWO because it is against his genuine Christian principles (which is why he is not at the high table) whereas the man they can "trust" is a law unto himself. And Blair is busy making hay while the sun shines and doing **** all for Middle East peace (that is his job).

I wrote a few weeks ago on my website that Brown needed to de-couple from America and American policy because Britain will be dragged down with the US and spat out when we are done with:

"Gordon Brown: Please stop pussying around and get on with it. You may be under threat from America if you don’t toe the line (this was written six days before the US threat to stop sharing security information was leaked): stop being stupid because once they have emptied our government’s coffers you will be dropped so drop them first. Let America sink, reprice Oil in Euros’s: start the trend by passing an immediate law that say Brent Crude must be priced in Euro’s. That will help us get into the Euro within the year at a decent exchange rate and help us decouple from America before the end of 2009.

You promised to close down tax loopholes for the rich when Blair was elected instead you have been clinging to their coat-tails. Stop it now you stupid child and tax these people - because they are behind the trouble, have made billions from war and now are laughing at your small minded attempts to prop things up. They are counting on you being stupid and inactive in this way and you … you are delivering for them."

Gordon Brown promised before Blair's first election to close down the tax loopholes and offshore havens the rich were using to avoid tax (this is a form of wealth redistribution from the POOR TO THE WEALTHY). It is also where much of the TARP money has gone - straight into Cayman Island bank accounts.

The US/UK special relationship will break down. But behind the scenes, the real motive for this is a divide amongst the NWO elite. The European faction headed by the Windsors do not like the American way of doing things. Or to put it another way: THEY want to be the top dogs, not let the US based wealth class take the lot.

At least the infighting will be advantageous to truth and peace in the long run.

[Revolt426]

Brown will not go the way of the NWO because it is against his genuine Christian principles (which is why he is not at the high table) whereas the man they can "trust" is a law unto himself. And Blair is busy making hay while the sun shines and doing **** all for Middle East peace (that is his job).

I wrote a few weeks ago on my website that Brown needed to de-couple from America and American policy because Britain will be dragged down with the US and spat out when we are done with:

Bullshit alert!

Prime Minister Gordon Brown
"That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal, whose impact can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York - and giving security to the hard-working families in every country."

It would require all continents to make cash injections to boost economies, all countries to adopt green policies, universal banking reforms and changes to international bodies, he suggested.

[Dig]

Brown is not part of the top layer of the hierarchy - neither was George W. Bush for that matter - both were/are kept in the dark. Why did Bush look so shocked on 9/11? Why was he so inept in his reactions? Why did Cheney keep him away from Washington until 9/11 was a "done deal"? Answer: His dad and Cheney had not told him what they were up to.

This is why Bush insisted that Blair be made "Middle East Peace Envoy" - because Blair is and always was at the top layer of the hierarchy and could be relied upon to do the "right" thing (i.e. what he is told to do) whereas Brown can not be relied upon as he is not as high an initiate and is not regarded as a trustworthy pair of hands. Blair is probably the hierarchy's top man in the UK still - at least in the "behind the lines" communication lines.

The current "safe hands" at the top of the British power Elite is Peter Mandelson who has been there aside Blair/Bush since the early 1980's when Blair and Mandelson spent summer at a NWO training camp in America with, amongst others, George W. Bush.

However, Mandelson is not really a safe pair of hands because of his personal sexual preferences - which were revealed by the operation Ore investigation. However, Blair placed a D-notice (security black out) classifying this information about his friend as a national security risk.

So the Americans have no one they can trust in British politics is the real truth. Brown will not go the way of the NWO because it is against his genuine Christian principles (which is why he is not at the high table) whereas the man they can "trust" is a law unto himself. And Blair is busy making hay while the sun shines and doing **** all for Middle East peace (that is his job).

I wrote a few weeks ago on my website that Brown needed to de-couple from America and American policy because Britain will be dragged down with the US and spat out when we are done with:

"Gordon Brown: Please stop pussying around and get on with it. You may be under threat from America if you don’t toe the line (this was written six days before the US threat to stop sharing security information was leaked): stop being stupid because once they have emptied our government’s coffers you will be dropped so drop them first. Let America sink, reprice Oil in Euros’s: start the trend by passing an immediate law that say Brent Crude must be priced in Euro’s. That will help us get into the Euro within the year at a decent exchange rate and help us decouple from America before the end of 2009.

You promised to close down tax loopholes for the rich when Blair was elected instead you have been clinging to their coat-tails. Stop it now you stupid child and tax these people - because they are behind the trouble, have made billions from war and now are laughing at your small minded attempts to prop things up. They are counting on you being stupid and inactive in this way and you … you are delivering for them."

Gordon Brown promised before Blair's first election to close down the tax loopholes and offshore havens the rich were using to avoid tax (this is a form of wealth redistribution from the POOR TO THE WEALTHY). It is also where much of the TARP money has gone - straight into Cayman Island bank accounts.

The US/UK special relationship will break down. But behind the scenes, the real motive for this is a divide amongst the NWO elite. The European faction headed by the Windsors do not like the American way of doing things. Or to put it another way: THEY want to be the top dogs, not let the US based wealth class take the lot.

At least the infighting will be advantageous to truth and peace in the long run.

Blair seems to have been one of the weakest PM puppets in a long time.  I wish he was at the highest level, but he is not.  He cannot even stand up to an interview with Jon Stewart.  Now he is trying to find a spot in some heiarchy if they will accept him (Vatican, Skull and Bones, Zionism, etc.)

[TheGoodFight1984]

Blair is about to become first ever president of the EU

not good

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138757/President-Blair-Former-PM-set-EU-chief-Sarkozy-battles-win-post.html

[zigzagzen]

Bullshit alert!

Wonderfully crafted genuine argument alert!

Brown may think he is at the top table and therefore says things which appear to sound right coming from the top table. He is not however and never has been.

And the fact that Blair is being promoted to be Europe's first President is contrary to your suggestion, Sane - I think he is very involved.

[Revolt426]

Wonderfully crafted genuine argument alert!

I have no need to argue, i simply posted a quote that destroyed your hypothesis that Gordon Brown is a good christian, so i'll post it again to make sure you see it this time:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown
"That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal, whose impact can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York - and giving security to the hard-working families in every country."

It would require all continents to make cash injections to boost economies, all countries to adopt green policies, universal banking reforms and changes to international bodies, he suggested

[zigzagzen]

I have no need to argue, i simply posted a quote that destroyed your hypothesis that Gordon Brown is a good christian, so i'll post it again to make sure you see it this time:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown
"That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal, whose impact can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York - and giving security to the hard-working families in every country."

It would require all continents to make cash injections to boost economies, all countries to adopt green policies, universal banking reforms and changes to international bodies, he suggested

WOW you really are full of yourself. But then anyone who posts more than 40 posts a day on a forum often is.

As you posted this piece of egotistic rubbish I was posting a simple explanation as to why you were incorrect in your analysis:

"Brown may think he is at the top table and therefore says things which appear to sound right coming from the top table. He is not however and never has been."

I assure you he has never even seen the dining room it is in. You think the Illuminati don't tell lies to each other?

[Revolt426]

Not sure what you are getting at, but his quote is pretty self explainitory.

[Dig]

Blair is about to become first ever president of the EU

not good

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138757/President-Blair-Former-PM-set-EU-chief-Sarkozy-battles-win-post.html

That really shows what a fraud the EU is.  After assisting in the genocide of over 1 million Iraqis and increasing world debt, he definitely is the right puppet for the job.  I wonder if Sarkozy will follow then Brown.

[David Rothscum]

Brown Vows To Forge Global Deal With Obama

2:04am UK, Sunday March 01, 2009

Gordon Brown has pledged to forge a "global new deal" with Barack Obama when he meets the new US President in Washington next week.
 
Mr Brown leaves Downing Street for Washington next week

The Prime Minister said the two countries' historic "partnership of purpose" should be directed at fighting the downturn as well as terrorism, poverty and disease.

Mr Brown will be the first European leader to meet with Mr Obama since he came to office.

The PM wrote in the Sunday Times: "I believe there is no challenge so great or so difficult that it cannot be overcome by America, Britain and the world working together.

Britain and America may be separated by the thousands of miles of the Atlantic, but we are united by shared values that can never be broken.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown
"That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal, whose impact can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York - and giving security to the hard-working families in every country."

It would require all continents to make cash injections to boost economies, all countries to adopt green policies, universal banking reforms and changes to international bodies, he suggested.

 
Barack Obama

Mr Brown stressed his fondness for America ahead of the visit - regarded as a coup for the British leader following speculation his French or German counterparts would get the first invite.

"I have always been an Atlanticist and a great admirer of the American spirit of enterprise and national purpose.

"I have visited America many times and have many friends there, and as Prime Minister I want to do more to strengthen even further our relationship with America."

He quoted Winston Churchill, one of the handful of British leaders to have addressed both Houses of Congress - a list Mr Brown will be added to this week.

"Winston Churchill described the joint inheritance of Britain and America as not just a shared history but a shared belief in the great principles of freedom and the rights of man - what Barack Obama has described as the enduring power of our ideals - democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.

"Britain and America may be separated by the thousands of miles of the Atlantic, but we are united by shared values that can never be broken.

"And as America stands at its own dawn of hope, I want that hope to be fulfilled through us all coming together to shape the 21st century as the first century of a truly global society."

If you ask me this article shows any existing breakdown can never be that big. We had a split in Europe around 2003 between so called "old Europe" and the nations that supported the invasion of Iraq, and this split was reportedly also seen at Bilderberg, but now that France has an Israeli puppet, Sarkozy, as President and Germany this other right winger there are little traces left of a split. If you want to see a clear and definite split between NWO countries, take a look at the Chinese-Russian alliance and the evil empire of NATO. Last time I checked the Russians were threathening to point nuclear missiles at Europe. Now that's what I call a breakdown in relations. That's just my 2 cents, perhaps I'm wrong and there's a serious detoriation in relations (which is good, the more divided our enemy is, the better), but I doubt it.

[Revolt426]

I am avoiding any opinions here and posting articles. The articles are suggesting a breakdown, not me.

As for Russia - they appeared to have backed down for the time being (in regards to pointing nukes at Europe) due to "possible" retraction of the "missile shield" - I am not sure what is going on there.

[David Rothscum]

I am avoiding any opinions here and posting articles. The articles are suggesting a breakdown, not me.

As for Russia - they appeared to have backed down for the time being (in regards to pointing nukes at Europe) due to "possible" retraction of the "missile shield" - I am not sure what is going on there.

Part of me believes the Russians are buying into the idea that Obama wants peace with Russia. If the US manages to keep this illusion intact until they have the (at it's current state absolutely worthless) missile shield ready, and the Russians have destroyed their nuclear stockpile like the US recently suggested, the US can destroy Russia. But then again the Russians should know better, even Chavez can see right through the illusion.

[Zed]

Relations between the USA and UK started to degrade long before 9/11/01, when or why exactly it started I have no clue.

But immediately after 9/11/01 (within 3 days) it was as if someone flipped a switch and the mindless masses were suddenly "In-Your-Face" Racist against Americans.

When I left in 05 you could tell when news broadcasts switched to or from international broadcasting when discussing anything USA related,
it was like a schizophrenic flipping from one personality to another, on international they were sympathetic etc, on national they were the exact opposite.

[zigzagzen]

Not sure what you are getting at, but his quote is pretty self explainitory.

Well here  it is in big letters:

HE IS NOT ON THE INSIDE

HE THINKS HE IS

BUT HE IS NOT

THEY DO NOT TRUST HIM

AND THEY ARE RIGHT NOT TO

IF HE KNEW THE TRUTH HE WOULD BE DEAD BY NOW

JUST LIKE THE OTHER HIGH LABOUR REFUSENIK ROBIN COOK

THE INSIDERS FIGHT AMONGST THEMSELVES TOO - THEY ARE ALL PSYCHOPATHS - BROWN IS NOT

[Dig]

Well here  it is in big letters:

HE IS NOT ON THE INSIDE

HE THINKS HE IS

BUT HE IS NOT

THEY DO NOT TRUST HIM

AND THEY ARE RIGHT NOT TO

IF HE KNEW THE TRUTH HE WOULD BE DEAD BY NOW

JUST LIKE THE OTHER HIGH LABOUR REFUSENIK ROBIN COOK

THE INSIDERS FIGHT AMONGST THEMSELVES TOO - THEY ARE ALL PSYCHOPATHS - BROWN IS NOT

I do not understand your love for Gordon Brown.  We all know he is not at the top of the pyramid, but he is powerful concerning US/UK relations nonetheless.  This thread is for high level discourse rather than defending sub-elite psycopaths (Gordon Brown's cover up of the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the Plans for Iran, Bali, 7/7, 9/11, Africa, Gaza, and other genocides is evidence of his psycopathic behaviour).

[Revolt426]

This one is from of Director the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Nile Gardiner, AGAIN.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/WM2317.cfm

The Obama–Brown White House Talks: The U.S.–U.K. Special Relationship Must Be Maintainedby Nile Gardiner, Ph.D.
WebMemo #2317
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will be the first European leader to meet with President Barack Obama when he visits the White House on March 3. The two world leaders are expected to discuss a range of issues, including the war in Afghanistan, the Iranian nuclear threat, and the global financial crisis, as well as the upcoming G-20 talks in London and the NATO 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg/Kehl.

In addition to meeting with the President, Brown will address a joint session of Congress on March 4, making him only the fifth British prime minister to be given the honor.

A Shift Away from Britain?

The Brown–Obama meeting will be overshadowed by growing concerns about a possible weakening of the U.S.–U.K. Special Relationship, tensions over strategy in the war in Afghanistan, and the threat of a renewed American protectionism.

The Anglo-American alliance is being eroded on several fronts, from falling levels of U.K. defense spending and the gutting of Britain's armed forces by the Labour government to the gradual erosion of British sovereignty in Europe and the rise of a European Union defense identity now being backed by Washington. It is also threatened by the new U.S. Administration's apathy and indifference toward the U.K.

President Obama's surprise decision to remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and return it to the British government sent an early signal to London that the new Administration will adopt a far less robust approach toward the historic Anglo-American alliance. The White House is already recalibrating the alliance as a "special partnership," —not a "special relationship"—a subtle play on words indicating a potential shift away from a decades-long policy of according Britain a unique status as America's most important ally.

U.S. Overtures to Europe

The Obama White House is keen to significantly strengthen America's relationship with both France and Germany, continental Europe's biggest powers, as well as with Brussels, the institutional heart of the European Union. This approach is partly the product of a distinctly pro-European outlook on the part of the new Administration following transatlantic tensions during the Bush Administration. It is also based on a naive belief that major European allies will actually increase defense spending and reduce the burden on America and that the EU will play a more supportive role in world affairs alongside the United States.

Washington is already making major concessions to France in the NATO alliance, with French officers reportedly in line to take two senior NATO command positions: Allied Command Transformation (one of NATO's two supreme commands, based in Norfolk, Virginia) and Joint Command Lisbon (one of NATO's three main operations headquarters, which also commands the NATO Rapid Reaction Force).

The White House is also sending clear signals that it supports a greater military and defense role for the European Union. In his speech at the Munich Security Conference in early February, Vice President Joe Biden made it clear that the United States will "support the further strengthening of European defense, an increased role for the European Union in preserving peace and security, [and] a fundamentally stronger NATO–EU partnership."

Anglo-American Leadership Is Needed
Since the Second World War, there has scarcely been a more important period for joint U.S.–British leadership. The Anglo-American Special Relationship would be imperiled if the new U.S. Administration looks to Brussels instead of London for its most important strategic partnership. Jeopardizing this relationship would be a huge mistake. The EU is obsessed with challenging American global leadership rather than working with it, and the European Project is ultimately all about building a counterweight to American power.

The Obama–Brown White House meeting will be an important opportunity for the President and the Prime Minister to establish a stronger framework for Anglo-American cooperation on the world stage, particularly in regard to key issues such as Afghanistan, the future of NATO, and the Iranian nuclear crisis.

The War in Afghanistan
Despite all the fashionable rhetoric in European capitals about Iraq being a distraction from the war against the Taliban, on the battlefields of Afghanistan almost two-thirds of the 47,000 troops currently serving as part of the 40-nation NATO-led International Security Assistance Force are from the English-speaking countries of the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and Australia. These nations have also taken roughly 85 percent of the casualties. Britain has nearly as many troops in the country as all the other major European Union powers combined, some of whom, like Germany, cower under dozens of "caveats" aimed at keeping their troops out of harm's way. The United States has pledged to send an additional 17,000 troops, and the U.K. is also considering the deployment of further forces to boost the nearly 9,000 British soldiers already serving in Helmand province.

President Obama and Prime Minister Brown should directly challenge European complacency and indifference over Afghanistan and issue a strong statement calling on European allies to pull their weight in the conflict by sending more combat troops to the south of the country. NATO is a war-fighting alliance, not a peacekeeping organization. The stakes are extremely high, and there is a danger that the brutal Taliban, backed by al-Qaeda, will reassert control over vast swathes of the country.

Europe's NATO members must make a no-strings attached commitment to step up to the plate and bear a bigger part of the burden. If this does not happen, the consequences for the future of the alliance will be dire. European apathy over Afghanistan threatens to tear NATO apart, and an institution that has for decades succeeded as the most effective international organization of its time could become irrelevant. It is time for French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and other European leaders to roll up their sleeves and commit their troops and resources to winning the war against the Taliban.

The Future of NATO

In the lead-up to the NATO 60th anniversary summit, both the United States and Great Britain must take a step back and launch a fundamental, wide-ranging review of the long-term implications of French demands for the future of the alliance.

It would be a huge strategic error of judgment by the new U.S. Administration and the British government to support French ambitions for restructuring Europe's security architecture. This would ultimately weaken the Anglo-American Special Relationship as the engine of the transatlantic alliance and pave the way for the development of a separate European Union defense identity, which will ultimately undermine NATO.

Washington and London must also commit to advancing the expansion of the NATO alliance—specifically the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in the Membership Action Plan. The new U.S. Administration, together with Britain, should send a clear signal to Moscow that NATO expansion is an internal matter for the alliance and not open to Russian veto. A firm commitment must also be made by the Obama Administration to establish a third site missile defense system in Eastern and Central Europe, a vital part of a global defense shield that is needed to protect the West from rogue regimes such as Iran.

The Iranian Nuclear Threat

President Obama and Prime Minister Brown should issue a strong statement calling for the strengthening of both U.N. Security Council and European sanctions against Tehran. The U.S. and British leaders must push for European countries to support a complete investment freeze—including a ban on investment in Iranian liquefied natural gas operations—and the possible use of military force as a last resort against Iran's nuclear facilities. They should reject the idea of direct negotiations with a tyranny that has threatened to wipe a key ally, Israel, off the face of the earth. This is a time for tough resolve in the face of an extremely dangerous foe—a rogue state close to nuclear capability ruled by fanatical Islamists that will have no qualms about using their power to dominate the Middle East or to arm a wide array of proxy international terrorist groups.

The EU has tried to negotiate with Tehran for several years under the guise of "constructive engagement," an approach that has resulted in an emboldened Iran that grows closer by the day to building a nuclear weapon. The EU's policy toward Iran has been all carrot and no stick—a futile exercise that has achieved nothing but failure.

Great Britain Is America's Most Reliable Friend

The Special Relationship is vital to American and British interests on many levels, from military, diplomatic, and intelligence cooperation to transatlantic trading ties. If President Obama does not invest in its preservation, the end result will be a weaker United States that is less able to stand up to terrorism and tyranny, and project power and influence on the world stage.

Whether waging war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, standing up to the Russian bear, or halting Iran's nuclear ambitions, President Obama should maintain the Anglo-American Special Relationship as the centerpiece of the transatlantic alliance. As nearly every post-war President has found, when it comes to securing the free world, there is simply no alternative to U.S.–British leadership
 

[Revolt426]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article5827547.ece?openComment=true

The Need to Impress

Gordon Brown has a chance to persuade the new US Administration that Britain can still be America's closest ally in tackling global recovery and challenges abroad

A month ago Gordon Brown told the World Economic Forum at Davos that he was confident about the future. Despite the recession, it was still vital to build a sustainable, equitable and global future, the Prime Minister insisted. The economic problems now facing the world were man-made, and their solution would also be man-made. Tomorrow he will repeat that message in person to President Obama at their first official meeting in Washington. It is a message that the President will be happy to hear, and it is one intended to show the new Administration that, just as Britain stood by America in Iraq, so it remains Washington's closest ally in the present fight against global recession.

For Mr Brown, the Washington visit is as crucial as it is welcome. Having won his ambition to be the first EU leader to call on the White House, he must now make the most of this chance, enhanced by the honour of an address to a joint session of Congress. Not only must he swiftly make his mark with Mr Obama and dispel a perceived indifference to the US relationship with Britain; he must also convince Washington that his policies in confronting the crisis with state-funded stimulus packages are so closely aligned with Mr Obama's ideas that they form a united front against the “forces of global conservatism”. If he succeeds, he can invoke American support in his domestic struggle to salvage Britain's economy and maybe halt the renewed slide in his popularity ratings. If he leaves Mr Obama and Congress unimpressed, he will find that, both here and in America, there is little interest in rekindling the kind of special relationship his predecessor enjoyed with George Bush.

Mr Brown will be seeking not just that electorally valuable personal chemistry; he will be looking for US backing for Britain's proposals to be put to the G20 summit in London next month. And although these were floated in Berlin last week, and in Brussels yesterday, and endorsed by Britain's European partners, there is enough resentment, protectionist sentiment and mistrust among them still to make April's meeting tricky.

The economy will dominate all talks. But Mr Brown needs also to lay out his position clearly on two other issues: Afghanistan and the transatlantic relationship. On the first, he has an awkward hand to play. Britain has not the money, the men or the will to respond adequately to Mr Obama's call for more troops in Afghanistan. At the same time, the US military is nowadays less than enthusiastic about Britain's capabilities, both in Iraq and in Helmand. The Prime Minister must ask the President what he really wants from Britain. But while endorsing the US view that a reassessment of the Nato mission and of President Karzai of Afghanistan is overdue, he must renew, if not extend, Britain's commitment in Afghanistan and press other Nato allies to pay more than lip service to the fight against the Taleban.

This also muddies the second issue: the call for America to rebuild its frayed relations with its European allies and Nato. Mr Obama was eloquent on the campaign trail in urging a return to multilateral diplomacy and a new respect for America abroad. In office, he may find that Europe's respect does not go much farther than verbal acclaim. He will have little time for European hectoring on the Middle East, Iran and repairing relations with Russia (issues he has made his own priorities) if he cannot count on Europe to bear some of the cost and offer supporting initiatives. Mr Brown must show himself a friend in need. For in truth, he needs Mr Obama's friendship to have any hope of achieving Britain's goals in Afghanistan, securing an international response to the global economic crisis and reviving his own political fortunes at home.

[Mike Philbin]

why is Brown panicking, one might ask? Hasn't he pledged his allegiance to One World Governance aka N.W.O.?

Maybe I'm reading the whole Illuminatie/Global Elite (call them what you will) thing wrong but aren't there private states in each political territory? Vatican City, City of London and City of Columbia?  Or are these fly-by-night pirate banking cities? What I'm asking is, "Won't these cities bail out their regions?"

Or will they move on?

Will The Cayman Islands (for example) become the New Vatican City as Italy crumbles? I guess we should keep our eyes on where the Pope moves to. Or the ex-Presidents.

[zigzagzen]

I do not understand your love for Gordon Brown.  We all know he is not at the top of the pyramid, but he is powerful concerning US/UK relations nonetheless.  This thread is for high level discourse rather than defending sub-elite psycopaths (Gordon Brown's cover up of the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the Plans for Iran, Bali, 7/7, 9/11, Africa, Gaza, and other genocides is evidence of his psycopathic behaviour).

I do not love Gordon Brown. That statement is an ad-hominem attack on me. I have never stated or implied I love Gordon Brown. I have never voted in a political election because I realised by the time I was eleven years old I did not live in a democracy.

You say he "covered up" various events - but you seem to miss the point I am making totally: People lower down the hierarchy are not told the truth and believe the lies they are told - and then sell.

There is a SIMPLISTIC approach being taken which makes the people taking it as ignorant as the heads of the power elite. They think we are lower beings than them: they are wrong. We are neither lower nor higher. If you start thinking you are better than them you have lost the plot completely.

Their behaviours may be horrendous and disgusting but they are not lower humans than us. They think what they are doing is right because they were raised to do so.

However you can not tar all with the same brush: You must realise there are fools being used even in very high places. If you are going to hate all fools life will be a bitch, NWO or not.

[Revolt426]

I would argue the one pushing Global Governmnet ( Brown)  although he may be a lackey who is being told to do so, he still represents the enemy since he is the one pushing the "Grand Bargain" , translated into english that is : Global Regulatory Agencies, World government, All economies must infuse cash to save the banks, All economies must have Green job quotas...........

So, obviously brown didn't come up with this idea, but he is the one trying to puersade Obama to go along with it, and i sincerely hope Obama is not that insane.