Awesome covers from "The Economist" Bush and Blair

[MSgt213]

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/

[seemslikeadream]

1. A world-bestriding partnership is drawing to a close

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=6916012

May 11th 2006
From The Economist print edition

A world-bestriding partnership is drawing to a close

THEY have been improbable soul-mates, the silver-tongued British barrister and the drawling Republican from Texas. But the partnership between Tony Blair and George Bush has shaped world events in the nearly five years since the attacks of September 11th. Over the past year, however, the debacle in Iraq and problems at home have turned both leaders from soaring hawks into the lamest of ducks.

This week Mr Bush's popularity drooped to 31% in the polls; his party faces a beating and the possible loss of one or both houses of Congress in November's mid-term elections (see article). In Britain meanwhile, much of the Labour Party, which Mr Blair reinvented and led through three consecutive election victories, wants to bundle its saviour into retirement and replace him with Gordon Brown (see article and article).

Neither man is going right away. Mr Blair may hang on for another year. Unpopular lame duck though he may be, Mr Bush will stay in office until January 2009. And the path may not be all downhill: the dysfunctionality of the Democrats may yet let the Republicans limp home in the mid-terms. But an era is plainly drawing to an end. No matter how long they remain in office, the self-confident and often self-righteous political partnership that shaped the West's military response to al-Qaeda and led the march into Afghanistan and Iraq is now faltering. What does this mean for the wider world?

Remember first that this is no pairing of equals. Britain's contribution to the war on terror has been smaller in substance than in symbolism. After September 11th Mr Bush did not need Mr Blair in order to mobilise the domestic support and military power he required for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. But in Mr Blair the president found a supreme political salesman and a dependable ally with a respected voice inside both the UN Security Council and the European Union. Better still, Mr Blair was a true believer, exuding conviction. He attached himself to Mr Bush out of principle, not some British instinct to hold the coat-tails of the superpower. From the start, he believed in a forceful response to terrorism and the need to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. As a “progressive” politician from the centre-left, who had got on just as well with Bill Clinton, Mr Blair reached audiences in parts of the world, and of America, that Mr Bush could not reach.

[blondeatlast]

2. The BAL household is made up of The Economist readers.

It's really quite a shock to see the news covered from a truly objective viewpoint.

I highly recommend The Economist to DUers--or at least ask your public library to carry it.

[StellaBlue]

3. Yep

I'm not even into Economics, but I used to read it in the UK, it's so good!

[Telly Savalas]

4. Objective?

The Economist has a pretty right-wing editorial bias. They may not be neanderthals about it like FOX News, but it's still there.

Nevertheless it's worth reading most of the time. Their coverage of world events is more comprehensive than any other news weekly and their analysis can be pretty thought-provoking if you can get past the ever-present "Free Markets Rule!" subtext. Pretty interesting business content too. Last week's piece about Goldman Sachs was fascinating as was this week's bit on IKEA.