<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: "I want to end with 'God Bless You'," says the PM.
Review: "It's all very well being a pacifist, but to be a pacifist after september 11, that's something different." So says Tony Blair early in this behind-the-scenes look at the office of the British Prime Minister during 4 crucial weeks in march & april of 2003. During this time journalist Peter Stothard follows Mr. Blair to several important summit venues: Brussels for the EU, the Azores for the coalition-of-the-willing vis-a-vis Iraq, Camp David, & Belfast. We are also treated to some of what went on behind closed doors as Mr. Blair submitted his Iraq policy to an up-or-down vote in the House of Commons; which, had he lost, would have necessitated his resignation. That said, this journalistic book is more an agglomeration of snapshots than an accomplished whole. We learn what everyone already knew: that Blair was standing shoulder to shoulder with President Bush over Iraq on principle---Blair's religious side apparent here as well; & because it was in Britain's interest to do so; that the British were far more keen on the UN than Washington; that Mr. Blair relied heavily on his advisor Alastair Campbell, etc. In short, most of this book should already be known to anyone who followed British politics avidly on television and in serious newspapers either at the time and/or since. The value of this book, thus, lies more in the not-so-noteworthy incidental happenings obscured from public view that provide "color"---ie., personalize the individuals herein. Hence, we are treated to numerous occurrences the likes of this: Blair's convoy outside of his Downing Street residence starts off & then abruptly stops. "'He's forgotten his glasses.' 'Where are they?'" an aide in Number 10 asks another aide in the motorcade. "'Somewhere in the den,' she repeats the reply. She pushes open the door, but Jack Straw is already back on the Number 10 front step. Before there is time to ponder whether Lord Carrington would ever have left his car to fetch Margaret Thatcher's glasses, or whether Douglas Hurd would have made the same leap for John Major, Tony Blair's Foreign Secretary is back in the street with the trophy in his hand." Yes, such asides are interesting to characterize personalities and such, but when too numerous to count, can become as satisfying as several appetizers in lieu of dinner. Mind you, I didn't dislike this book. It is a very short read and has its moments. I'm just stating that it isn't as substancial as the above editorials make it out to be. I read its 234 pages in something over 6 hours over two days & enjoyed it. The most interesting thing about the book, I think, was that Mr. Blair wanted to end an important address to the British people---as he committed British forces into combat---with "God Bless You" but his advisors dissuaded him from doing so. I present to you the exchange: "'That's not a good idea.' 'Oh no?' says the Prime Minister, raising his voice. To which they respond, 'You're talking to lots of people who don't want chaplains pushing stuff down their throats.' 'You are the most ungodly lot I have ever...' Tony Blair's words fade away into the make-up artist's flannel. 'Ungodly? Count me out,' complains speechwriter Peter Hyman, who is Jewish and whose plum-coloured neck wound is throbbing hard. 'That's not the same God,' the protesters insist. 'It is the same God,' says the Prime Minister, scribbling fiercely on his text" (pp. 106-107). The author ends the book by saying of Mr. Blair, "but he has changed in the past 30 days"---ie., since the author began to observe him in close quarters, but he is rather vague throughout this book exactly how. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the read & can recommend this book as part of a multi-volume study of Mr. Blair and/or the Iraq War. Cheers!
Rating: 
Summary: British politics in all its fun and seriousness
Review: Here Peter Stothard outlines how Tony Blair worked hard ("all out" is a constantly recurring phrase) to create a world-or at least the conditions for a world-in which the "UN frees itself from helpless torpor, [in which the Allies send] a lesson to extremist nations that terrorism will be met by massive force, [and to Israelis and Palestinians and the Irish] that America will not tolerate conditions of permanent instability."And it tells of the many frustrations Tony Blair met while trying to achieve that objective. For example, after George Bush published the roadmap for peace (something Tony Blair worked very hard to achieve) the Prime Minister received a call from Yasser Arafat. He spent a bit of time on the phone with him (and got a chance to say a brief hello and congratulations to Abu Mazen before Arafat snatched the phone away) and when he replaced the receiver, he looked up at a television screen to see "a Palestinian representative damning Bush's motives." He says nothing but his aid says it for him, "They've got to be told [that] this is their chance. If they don't use it, they'll lose it." And then there is the never-ending frustration with the BBC which John Reid may or may not have called the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation. But "even if he didn't say it," Peter Stothard assures us, "it's ___ well true." The Secretary of Defense (and his porcelain cup which nearly suffered a terrible fate thanks to the BBC) would most likely agree. And then there are the conspiracy theories out on the street, just outside No. 10. Conspiracy theories propagated not by the "ignorant masses" but by elderly Arab professors, sipping coffee at the Churchill café and assuring their students that "oil companies and Israeli spies and Russians whose names have not been heard since the Communist days" are all working together to manipulate current events. But above all, this is about the British political culture. Where else would talk of football/soccer dominate even at the height of the war? In what other country would the French President's comment that the British had "made a deformation of his view on the veto" be met with "Does he mean we got the translation wrong?" And in what other country would a three-year old pick up a telephone call from the President of the United States and pass the phone to the Prime Minister with the cry, "Dad, pick up the phone." This is a book about Tony Blair vision and of how he tries to educate his American counterparts on what it takes to "get to where they all eventually want to go." (You want peace in the Middle East, great; but it will be neither fast nor easy. Here, look how hard it is to achieve peace in Northern Ireland-and compared to the Middle East this is a walk in the park.) It is about the vagaries of British political culture. It is about how one man acquires an unshakeable certainty that what he is doing is the right thing. But perhaps more than all that, it is a beautifully written book (not something one can often say of books on current events) that is filled with humor and irony and is, quite simply, a very good read. I highly recommend it.
Rating: 
Summary: Big Let Down
Review: Peter Stothard's task (or prize) is to tail Tony Blair for the 30 most crucial days of his prime ministership. But I feel like he never connects with Blair during that time. Either TB is holding back during this period or Stothard never gets the total access he touts. Either way, Blair seems like he's simply part of the woodwork in the story. But not that the book is totally without merit or interest. Where it does excel is in depicting Blair's inner circle. Stothard points out that Blair's governing model - to an upprecedented extent in British history - more resembles an American presidency than a typical Prime Ministry. "Unelected advisors" dominate the space closest to Blair. We're used to that here. But in the UK, TB's total absorbtion of his role model Bill Clinton's approach to governing is seen as an alarming trend. Dominating the scene is media advisor Alastair Campbell. Perhaps that's because as an ex-journalist, he connects best with Stothard. Or maybe it's because Campbell is undoubtedly Stothard's patron in this endeavour. [Like Blair would suggest that a journalist tag along with him for 30 days?] But, it's more than that. Campbell dominates the book because Stothard has got it right. Campbell is *the* dominating presence in Blair inner circle. In the whole aftermath of the Iraqi conflict - the WMD debate, the row with the BBC, the suicide of Dr. Kelly - Campbell's fingerprints are everywhere. He's a constant presence here on almost every page. He has the best jokes (Blair asks him for help in drafting the start of a speech...Campbell suggests "My fellow Americans..."), is connected to the best information (all via text messaging it seems), sees around all the corners. All while training for the London Marathon (which the 43-year-old finished in 3:53 shortly after the 30 Days were up...a great achievement considering all he was going through during training). It's tough to imagine how the Prime Minister is going to survive without this guy by his side everyday.
Rating:
Summary: There's always be an excuse in England
Review: There will always be an England, according to the refrain of the song I learned in the first grade of school; it's just that we never dreamed Britain would one day be a poodle trembling under the wings of the American eagle. Tony Blair, as this book abundantly makes clear, is England's "Cleopatra" to the mighty George "Caesar" Bush. When you think of how Caesar used Cleopatra, for his own personal pleasure and the benefit of Rome, you get an idea of how this book portrays Blair. It is an incisive book in many ways, and because of that it is also very sad. The goal seems to be one of fawning obsequiousness to Blair's decision to support Bush's war on Iraq. Sadly, little details seep through to thoroughly undermine the decisive image sought by Blair. Stothard writes of Blair's visit to Camp David, "The hosts' first view of their British guests is of the cleverest men in Whitehall, without a raincoat between them, muttering nervous words about having 'only one suit' while rain lashes in horizontal lines over the tarmac." Geeeee. These Brits, who think they can advise and guide an American oil-patch president, didn't think to phone ahead and ask about the weather? Okay, another example. Near the end of the war, President Bush flew to "Merry Old Ireland" to meet Blair at Hillsborough Castle, just outside Belfast. Once again, Stothard is at his unwitting best, "The Prime Minister is not having his normal cooked breakfast; there's just bananas, melon, croissants, because that's what the Americans want." Geeeee. Even McDonalds is sometimes able to come up with a more varied menu. Who runs Britain? Not Blair, that's for sure. Stothard writes of a Scots Member of Parliament who "has several thousand Catholic constituents who put the Pope's views before their Prime Minister." Blair's Foreign Secretary has problems of his own because, "Muslim voters are well represented in Blackburn, Lancashire. They dislike the idea of their elected representative helping the American takeover of a Muslim country." Very early, he mentions plans to curb anti-social behaviour in Britain by "schemes to punish graffiti-writers and car-burners." Graffiti is a problem? It can be solved very simply, quickly, easily and cheaply by having a few blokes with paint sprayers who simply paint out any graffiti within 24-hours of it being reported. It works. The whole book is written in this manner, expressing the idea "wouldn't life be nice if only somebody would do something." In describing a speech that was pivotal to Blair's political survival, Stothard writes, "He has written most of them alone, in longhand in blue ink, high in the small sitting room of the flat . . . ." Geeeeee. Doesn't Blair have any speechwriters or aides to whom he can think out loud and get back several written draughts of a speech? It's little wonder Britain is so leaderless. If you can't organize a staff to put together a speech, how can you get trains to run on time or clean up graffiti? Perhaps, as Cleopatra realized one night while lying flat on her back, it's time to accept a pro-consul as the real ruler of the country. Cleopatra had the guts to fight back. Her mistake was seducing Marc Antony, the wrong Caesar in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead of independent thinking, Stothard tells of a brilliant, principled, idealistic prime minister surrounded by fawning toadies who are afraid to visit the "Gent's" without prior permission from Tony. It's not that Stothard is unobservant. He sparkles in descriptions of the visit to Camp David. He contrasts the flock of puppies bouncing along after the Blair Poodle to American presidential aides who are as independent as a bunch of posse riders gathering at the campfire after having strung up a few rustlers. The great weakness of this book is it's lack of revealing detail. He never came up with a typical daily schedule for Blair, and he omitted the full text of Blair's "pivotal" speech to the House of Commons. Readers deserve to have that text, and possibly texts of some of the other crucial statements or debates. Ignoring the text of Blair's significant speeches is like writing a history of World War II and ignoring the speeches of Churchill, Hitler and Roosevelt. Perhaps, though, that is Stothard's final message -- Blair is far from being a Churchill, or even a Thatcher. Nonetheless, it's a fascinating look at Blair. Stothard cites President Clinton and "the absurdities of the Monica Lewinsky affair" for not taking greater military action. Maybe, in five or ten years time, Brits will look at the turmoil and terror in the Middle East and ask plaintively, "Why can't we find our own Monica Lewinsky when we need her the most?" On the other hand, if the "Mother of All Wars" which toppled Saddam Hussein proved to be the catalyst that set the Muslim world onto the path of a docile, Allah-fearing, oil-pumping and trouble-free region and thank Blair as the "God-Father of all Peace." Which do you think is more likely?
Rating: 
Summary: Its About The Man's Activities - Not What He Thinks
Review: This is a short 200 plus page book and it is a one evening read. Once you start it is hard to put the book down. I just read until I was finished. The cast of characters include Blair (mainly), his son Leo Blair and Cherie Blair (only briefly), his staff Campbell, Morgan and Powell, fellow politicians Jack Straw, Clare Short, Robin Cook, John Reid of the Labour Party and other British politicians and civil servants, George Bush, Colin Powel, and Condoleezza Rice. Chirac, Aznar, and Schroeder are at meetings or involved. Miller the Polish Prime Minister and Arafat make telephone appearances. The press is lurking in the background. My quick view of the book is that the author and former Times editor Peter Stothard acts like he is not in the room but rather he is a quiet observer just recording the events without comments and editorial comments. A "fly on the wall" so to speak for 30 days. The book starts on Monday March 10 and ends Wednesday April 9. The war starts March 20 2003. At the beginning or near the beginning of the book Blair acknowledges that Bush will proceed with or without Britain. The war seems set and there will be no consensus at the UN. What I found odd about the book is that there is very little mention of the WMD's, or the other reasons for going to war. There is no mention of intelligence briefings, or satellite pictures or similar. By March 10 his mind has been made up. It is more about damage control, politics, speeches, and not having ministers resigning and similar. His image in the press and on TV share a high priority along with with diplomacy. By March 10 the decision has been made. The question on everyone's mind is why does Blair back George Bush - the "poodle principle". Blair is almost alone, and the other leaders in the "coalition" do so with great reluctance. They make a minimal contribution to the Iraqi war effort and they seem poised to not want to cooperate or back out at any moment. So why does Blair do it? The only strong point we learn or hear is that by that date (March 10) Blair is determined to proceed seemingly at any cost to maintain US ties with Europe. He has decided to let "history" judge him for how the situation ends rather than trying to further explain his actions privately. He thinks that the UN should be involved, but barring no UN consensus his main point (among his 6 talking points to parliament) is that he does not want the US to become more isolated than it already is through complete 100% unilateral action. So at least Britain will help. We get a feel for his compressed and overstressed life, a political juggling act, his lack of sleep, his battle to survive as the Labour leader in a parliamentary system where he must face his opposition daily in question period and his caucus weekly. They all seem to be after his job and Iraq is as good as an excuse as any to oppose Blair. Unlike Bush he can be voted out by his own party on a whim - like Thatcher - so he is not secure for the term elected in parliament (5 years). One thing that comes out is that Blair acts like a lightening rod for many parties that no longer have access to Bush. This includes various Muslim messengers and diplomats visiting him and his talks with Arafat and others by telephone. Since we already knew most of that - the book seems a bit anti-climatic and deals a lot with the logistics of his day-to-day life, the trivial details, his meals, his assistants, and travel. It gives us an intimate feel for the life of the PM in the confined space of 10 Downing. It covers his meetings with other leaders, and various other dignitaries, his telephone calls to Bush etc. The logistics do not tell us a lot new, although there are some details on Robin Cook's resignation and similar tidbits. He comes across as an energetic and very focused man, with a strong inner compass and lots of self confidence, and a strong determined leader with an ability to take and absorb a lot of domestic criticism. So the book is all very very interesting but short on any new insights. But still a great book. Jack in Toronto.
Rating:
Summary: Snapshot of a critical month
Review: Though they are very different in style, this book shares some important similarities with Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" (2002), in that both provide insider looks at political leaders in the weeks before they lead (or send) their nations into battle. But while the ubiquitous Woodward writes big, portentous books that themselves often end up affecting the debate, "Thirty Days" is a quick, journalistic snapshot that doesn't pretend to be a lot more than that. That made this a refreshing and sometimes enlightening read. I recently finished another title on the British PM ("Tony Blair: The Making of a World Leader" by Philip Stephens [2004]), so I felt relatively familiar with the central players in this book. Peter Stothard's quick, journalistic style introduces names and titles quickly, and while the players become clearer to us in the course of the narrative, Americans who don't have much contextual familiarity with British politicians may find themselves playing a bit of catch-up here. Since 9/11, of course, Tony Blair himself has become more familiar to American news-watchers than any British politician since Churchill -- with the possible exception of Baroness Thatcher. Therefore, even Americans who may not be up-to-date on the Who's Who of Whitehall will probably find a lot of interest and instruction here. Not least, they will see the influence -- for good or ill -- that American politics and political pressures have in the counsels of our allies. Peter Stothard's book isn't a biography of Blair or a political analysis of his policies and his decisions. Instead, it's a look inside the highest reaches of British politics during one of the more eventful months in recent British history. American as well as British readers can gain a lot from the unique access Stothard enjoyed, and the useful work that came out of those thirty days.
Rating:
Summary: Snapshot of a critical month
Review: Though they are very different in style, this book shares some important similarities with Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" (2002), in that both provide insider looks at political leaders in the weeks before they lead (or send) their nations into battle. But while the ubiquitous Woodward writes big, portentous books that themselves often end up affecting the debate, "Thirty Days" is a quick, journalistic snapshot that doesn't pretend to be a lot more than that. That made this a refreshing and sometimes enlightening read. I recently finished another title on the British PM ("Tony Blair: The Making of a World Leader" by Philip Stephens [2004]), so I felt relatively familiar with the central players in this book. Peter Stothard's quick, journalistic style introduces names and titles quickly, and while the players become clearer to us in the course of the narrative, Americans who don't have much contextual familiarity with British politicians may find themselves playing a bit of catch-up here. Since 9/11, of course, Tony Blair himself has become more familiar to American news-watchers than any British politician since Churchill -- with the possible exception of Baroness Thatcher. Therefore, even Americans who may not be up-to-date on the Who's Who of Whitehall will probably find a lot of interest and instruction here. Not least, they will see the influence -- for good or ill -- that American politics and political pressures have in the counsels of our allies. Peter Stothard's book isn't a biography of Blair or a political analysis of his policies and his decisions. Instead, it's a look inside the highest reaches of British politics during one of the more eventful months in recent British history. American as well as British readers can gain a lot from the unique access Stothard enjoyed, and the useful work that came out of those thirty days.
<< 1 >>
| 
