BBC: Anger over Kennedy Iraq war links

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4675613.stm

Anger over Kennedy Iraq war links
Charles Kennedy has sparked fury over his claims that Tony Blair should not be surprised if links are drawn between the Iraq war and the London bombings.
He said there was no "causal link" between UK military action and last week's attacks on the capital.

But British involvement in the invasion could be used by terrorists to increase violent fundamentalism, he said.

Downing Street branded his comments as "naive". Shadow minister Julian Lewis said they were "deeply irresponsible".

Mr Kennedy made the assertions during a speech on internationalism at London's Institute of Contemporary Arts.

<</SNIP>>

[quiet.american]

1. The truth hurts. n/t

[Barrett808]

2. Osama recently said, "If you bomb our cities, we will bomb your cities."

The connection couldn't be clearer. Interesting that pointing it out draws so much criticism.

[Cha]

24. Yeah, "interesting"..it's like

they're taking the offensive so they won't have to be on the defensive.

Well, we can just go on the Bigger Offensive!

[indepat]

3. There is never cause and effect or causal link: the bad guys always do bad

things and the good guys always do good things. Moreover absolutely everything the good guys do is legal, just, necessary, ethical and humanitarian: it's a black (brown) and white world, folks.

[Frederik]

4. Kennedy is a realist

It's not irresponsible to state the obvious.

[Gregorian]

5. Naive?

Sorry, but Kennedy rules! It was naive to follow a chimp into an illegal war. That is naive, and stupid.

I would go so far as to say that if we had simply followed Kennedy's advice all along, there would not have been any bombing in London.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Pot calls kettle...Other examples of naiveté

•People wouldn't notice they'd been lied to about WMD.
•People wouldn't notice when you pulled a bait-and-switch about the justification for the war.
•The war would make us safer.
•The war and an occupation characterized by ineptitude would lead to representative democracy in a country with deep ethnic and religious divisions that has only known dictatorship.
•We'd be greeted as liberators.

Etc., etc.

[Straight Shooter]

6. Self-serving outrage over "sun rises in east, sets in west" comments. eom

[goforit]

13. LOL!!!........yes the obvious hurts!

And God forbid that they be reminded the earth is round.

[lovuian]

7. Go Kennedy!!! He is going to be the Next Prime Minister

Blair is just got to be dying!!!

[Mr Creosote]

11. I have to tell you

that you have not got even the slightest clue about British politics if you really think Kennedy is going to be the next Prime Minister.

[lovuian]

12. Well when he is Prime Minister we will see!!!

Cause Blair is destroying the Labour Party every day!!!

and it certainly not going to be a conservative!!!

So we will see!!!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

17. Do you believe the Green Party is going to sweep the House in 2006 too?

[lovuian]

20. Who would have think last year an obscure party Lib Dems

would have gathered 31% of the vote and now the Labour party only has 35% and quickly going down hill!!!

[Mr Creosote]

23. Are you a wind-up?

1. The Liberal Democrats aren't an obscure party.
2. They gathered 22% of the vote not 31%
3. Blair has stated that he will stand down before the next election, so the next PM will be another Labour MP, almost certainly Brown.
4. But even if you are right about that and Blair still leads Labour at the next election - how do you think the Liberal Democrats will win it? For Kennedy to be the leader of even a minority government they need to more than quadruple their representation in Parliament. Which 200 + seats are they going to win.

[lovuian]

27. I guess I have to put up the Election results of Britain

Blair wins historic third term with slashed majority
By James Blitz, Political Editor
Published: May 6 2005 00:59 | Last updated: May 6 2005 08:46

Tony Blair secured a historic third term in government early on Friday morning but with Labour's Commons majority set to be slashed by more than half.

With 618 of the 646 seats declared, Mr Blair appeared to be on course for a Commons majority of between 60 and 70 seats, down from the 161 that Labour enjoyed at the end of the last parliament.


http://news.ft.com/indepth/ukelection

So Blair went from a majority of 161 seats to between 60 and 70 and which party got those seats???

Hmmm 70 seats and the Lib Dems got 76 of them that election!!! Wake up Kennedy is coming on!!!


http://news.ft.com/cms/s/41e5b850-be1d-11d9-9473-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=543e48fa-8727-11d9-9e3c-00000e2511c8.html

Lib Dems gains fall short of breakthrough
By Pan Kwan Yuk and Jon Boone
Published: May 6 2005 12:01 | Last updated: May 6 2005 17:23

The Liberal Democrats are on course to win their largest parliamentary representation in 76 years but it is not the breakthrough that some party members had hoped it would be, said political analysts.

“It is not a moment of euphoria for the Lib Dems,” said Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at Oxford University.


Ok they didn't win but they took those seats that vacated from the Labour Party and just give them a few more elections and we will see how long this Labour Party is the Majority!!!

[Mr Creosote]

28. Don't let the facts intrude eh?

You said:
1. "Who would have think last year an obscure party Lib Dems would have gathered 31% of the vote?"

Well no-one would have thought it - because they didn't did they?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm

2. "So Blair went from a majority of 161 seats to between 60 and 70 and which party got those seats???

Hmmm 70 seats and the Lib Dems got 76 of them that election!!! Wake up Kennedy is coming on!!!"


Where do we start with this? Did the Lib Dems get 76 seats. No they didn't they got 62.

And the answer to your question "and which party got those seats" is that it was split - but the big gainers were the Tories who gained 33. The Lib Dems gained 11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stm


I do actually find it quite offensive that you make claims in argument that are so demonstrably false. What your motivation for doing so is I cannot imagine.

[goforit]

15. Their Kennedy and our Dean......Now those guys are real world leaders!

Whooo Hoooo!!!

:toast: :bounce: :toast:

[julianer]

8. Typical lib dem pussyfooting

They were against the war...until it started.

How do these people get their special powers? Kennedy asserts as a certainty that there was no 'causal link' between the war and the bombs. But as yet there is no official culprit, so how could he possibly know what their motivations are? If, as most suspect, it is some sort of metastatised node of Al Qa'idists then the link is nearly undeniable.

On the other hand if the lib dems are responding to the public mood, it is a good sign. If the public weren't making the link Kennedy would line up directly and noisily behind Blair, which the whole parliament did initially, except for George Galloway.

Here is a transcript of Galloway's speech to parliament that earned him the condemnation of having his mouth 'dripping with blood' by the Armed Forces Minister, Adam Ingram.

http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=821

[CJCRANE]

10. Very good speech

Just need a few more like Galloway

[CJCRANE]

9. I'm sick of Blair's jumped up hypocrisy

it's as bad as Condi Rice's "we never could have imagined.." speech.

[goforit]

14. Blair/Bush Inc.? War games? or Osama? = Public mistrust of Gov't

No matter how ya look at it Blair Brits ......

Actions speak louder than words and karma never fails.

[warrens]

16. Stating the obvious is now irresponsible

These neocon maniacs are hastening their own destruction. Unfortunately, they're taking thousands of innocent people with them.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Neither Bush nor Blair want to take responsibility for the blowback

The truth is that the terrorist attacks in London are a direct result of Blair being joined at the hip with Bush in the criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[Cha]

25. They try to get away with

anything if we let them..our job is NOT to let them.

blair had the chutzpah to declare Iraq a clear and present danger..oh yeah, he'll try to save his ass by compounding LIES!

[daleo]

18. Of course there is no causal link

The one wouldn't invariably cause the other. But there is obviously a correlation - countries that participated in the coalition of the willing have suffered more attacks than those that didn't. That's probably not a coincidence.

[AlCzervik]

21. of course there is a link and to deny it would be foolish

[Miss Chybil]

26. Yes, it's naive to think people need a reason to blow themselves, and

everybody around them, up. Reason is not justification, but all people think they are good, just and right. Even Hitler felt he was doing the "right" thing. Suiciders believe they are doing the right thing in fighting against real, or imagined, unjustice. It's not a far stretch to think they might be upset over an illegal war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people in order to enrich a few. I suppose, had the war never happened, they would have blown themselves, and everybody around them, up anyway? Perhaps because they were bored and were looking for something to do? Who's really naive in this situation and is the inability to face all possibilities naivety, or willful ignorance?