OK, I give in. Blair really is a stupid lying bastard.

[mr blur]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1530817,00.html

<snip>
Britain's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the terrorist attacks in London, a respected independent thinktank on foreign affairs, the Chatham House organisation, says today.

According to the body, which includes leading academics and former civil servants among its members, the key problem in the UK for preventing terrorism is that the country is "riding as a pillion passenger with the United States in the war against terror".

Article continues
It says Britain's ability to carry out counter-terrorism measures has also been hampered because the US is always in the driving seat in deciding policy.

<snip>

This finding runs counter to the line from Downing Street, which has sought to detach Iraq from the London attacks.

On Saturday, Tony Blair said the fanatics who struck in London and launched other attacks around the world were driven by an "evil ideology" rather than opposition to any policy, and that it would be a "misunderstanding of a catastrophic order" to think that if we changed our behaviour they would change theirs.

</snip>

and some perspective in the UK press:

[madeline_con]

1. "evil ideology" rather than opposition to any policy

Actions in Iraq speak louder than words in Washington or London.

[wli]

2. Abu Ghraib II will reveal precisely which ideology is evil

No one will be able to stomach it.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

7. The Admin has remedied the problems of Abu Graib...

by banning digital cameras.
No sequel to that; problem solved.

[wli]

8. more is coming out on the 22nd

And what's coming is so sickeningly evil any moral person will cry and vomit upon seeing them. There are few questions left. If we do not eject these traitors from office ourselves with proper criminal investigation, war will be declared upon our mainland by foreign powers so gravely offended by these things they will eject them on our behalfs, or at least it appears to me so evil the rest of the world would unite against the US in order to bring it to justice.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

22. Some part of me wants paste the photos on SUVs that have W stickers

captioned Moral Issues, Culture of Life, Freedom, I Voted for This.

[punpirate]

3. Mr. Blair has shown himself to be...

... a vainly sycophantic, profoundly weak and desperately cynical man. This is just more evidence of same. Anyone who follows the lead of George Bush as blindly as has Tony Blair cannot then claim independence of mind and action.

[AlwaysQuestion]

11. I think he's an inveterate liar and likely as psychopathic as Junior

.....but a sycophant and weak? I just don't know. I'll not so grudgingly give you that he APPEARS to be sychophanic and weak--but in reality? I'm inclined to disagree. I believe Blair was quite calculating.

Bush truly doesn't have two brains to rub together but Blair most emphatically does and that is precisely why I find the pathway he's chosen to go is downright puzzling (in addition to heinous, evil, etc.).

Blair is NOT an uneducated man; i.e., he actually mastered what he was meant to master (not like Junior who USES initials to signal an education....but c'mon we all know better) and lord knows he's a brilliant speaker--which is why in the past when I've heard the two men speak side-by-side, I've shaken my head and tried to recall which of these two dudes is head honcho. Oh, yeah, now I remember... it's Bush and his merry gang of thugs. But wait, it SOUNDS like it's Blair. (Bush has to be the most inept political public speaker in all of history.) But I digress.

From the get-go when Blair allowed that he'd go along with Bush's madness; send in his troops and personally take on the roll as Bush's cheerleader, it gave me grave pause to wonder, W H Y? And I've "heard" others here ask the same thing. I have no doubt that there are those among us who think they might have some of the right answers. Well, I wish they'd share their thoughts.

Does anyone think PR-wise Bush could have pulled this madness off all by his lonesome? I sometimes think that he needed Blair to get the horrific operation off the ground. What did Bush promise Blair for his efforts? There has to have been a humungous payout promised--but just to Blair personally? What do you think was Blair's price?

Anyway, this question isn't a new one and if there have been some neat answers I've missed I wish someone would point me to them.

[punpirate]

13. I also said...

... desperately cynical. Don't leave that out of the overall equation. :) That explains much of what you say.

Cheers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Definitely syncophantic

Tony Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, told Britain's incoming ambassador to the US to "get up the arse of the White House and stay there," according to the now-retired ambassador, Sir Christopher Meyer's forthcoming memoirs.
...
To some observers the significance of the incident, which came during Bill Clinton's presidency, long before 9/11 or the Bush-Blair love-in, may be proof that New Labour has become Washington's poodle. But to be accurate the poodle would need to be on the receiving end of the White House's affections rather than as stated.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1517901,00.html

Blair has consistently genuflected to power. He is probably the biggest sycophant in the world. His foreign policy has consisted of "stay in America's good books".

[mrfrapp]

18. "Stay in America's good books"

Robin Cook gives us some insight into Blair's thinking on this subject in a recent Guardian article:

Just after George Bush was awarded the presidency for the first time by the US courts, I was invited to Downing Street for a chat on the sofa with the prime minister to work out an approach to the new administration. I was struck by how troubled Tony Blair was that the Conservatives would make their pitch that only a Tory prime minister could do business with a Republican president. He was therefore determined to stick even more closely to the new White House incumbent than he had to Bill Clinton.

So there we have it. Blair's foreign policy revolves around the fear that the Tories will exploit their historical close-relations with the Republicans. I say historical because it now seems that any relations the two parties may have enjoyed have since been rescinded.

[AlwaysQuestion]

25. Unbelievable

I sure do appreciate your thoughts and the article, which definitely do provide a reason. I'm looking for more--it's just that it's difficult for me to think he'd sell out (exploiting the youth of the U.K.'s military) just to prove a point and stave off Conservative criticism--there's just got to be more. But then again, maybe that's it. How God awful! How ironic that Howard is now distancing himself from the WH.

[LynnTheDem]

4. Ain't a new thang; Tony the bLiar has ALWAYS been a lying stupid bastard.

Never met a lie or a war he didn't like. Eh, bLiar?

[mr blur]

5. Well, not strictly true,

his version of the Labour Party has done some good things in this country. But, seduced by the Chimp (a man he apparently can't stand), he has completely lost his mind. In place of an intelligent man we now have a bumbling, desperate, lying, arrogant Bush puppet. The first Labour leader I have ever hated.

[LynnTheDem]

6. Yes actually strictly true.

The Labour Party has done many good things. And over 1/3 of his own Labour Party were vehemently opposed to his bullshit invasion.

But fact is, Tony the bLiar has ALWAYS been a dishonest slimeball. Take a look at why he even joined Labour in the first place. Dishonest lying scumbag; always was, always will be.

[mr blur]

10. OK, let's agree to differ on that one?

[pengu1n]

9. Bliar Bliar - pants on fire!

I reckon that Bu$hco have video tape of the entire British cabinet shagging goats at Bohemian Grove.

Underage goats.

Kiddie Porn (as it is widely known) is how these guys blackmail others to do whatever they want.

You may laugh - but there has to be something like this going on. The cabal is psychotic, utterly ruthless, and kinky enough to like it too.

The US "reds" will wake up eventually to the realization that they have "elected" a low IQ, cocaine addled, alcoholic, gay cheer-leader as president.

Sorry for rant, too early - not enough caffeine yet.

[Swamp Rat]

12. Hyvää huomenta!

Tervetuloa DU! :hi:

[pengu1n]

24. Kiitos

Mita Kuulluu,
Hauska tavata sinua.


Moi Moi Swamp Rat!

[KG]

14. as long as western leaders spew such inanities as

--fanatics who struck in London and launched other attacks around the world were driven by an "evil ideology" rather than opposition to any policy, and that it would be a "misunderstanding of a catastrophic order" to think that if we changed our behaviour they would change theirs.--

they are wrecklessly putting their citizens in danger, and are enabling the continued bloodshed on both sides.

[CJCRANE]

15. The only thing

he has in common with Bush is the "touched by God" mentality, which makes them do things which reason and the world are against.

[Tsiyu]

16. Fuck you, Blair

and the Bush you rode in on.

You are the one driven by evil and greed.

[leesa]

19. How sad! He states the EXACT and ONLY solution to terrorism and says it

would be a mistake to implement it. What a foul and sad man.

[abdul_alhazre42]

20. Shock and Awe” in London

normally I don't approve of this type of email, but it does give a certain point of view ...

ZAKARIA: “Shock and Awe” in London
Jul 09, 2005
Copyright © 2005 By Yamin Zakaria.

“God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war ... We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world.” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

First, it (“Shock and Awe”) was displayed in Baghdad, and in response it was seen in Madrid and Istanbul; now it has come to London but on a far smaller scale. It seems we live in a world where the Anglo-Saxon civilisation, assumes the right to unleash their military forces on anyone, but expects everyone to howl terrorism, give minutes of silence, and stand shoulder-to-shoulder, when they face retaliation.

As expected everyone is howling and describing it as barbaric, an act of terrorism, attack on humanity etc. because the bombs were detonated in London not in Baghdad or Kabul! Otherwise I would have expected the same response for the 54 people killed in the wedding party in Iraq and many similar incidences throughout Iraq and Afghanistan by trigger happy US pilots and soldiers.

The US could not identify a wedding party of men, women and children despite being equipped with most sophisticated equipment and training. So, they are either trained monkeys short of brain cells or they were high on alcohol and drugs prior to engaging in combat missions, or they are terrorists that deliberately killed civilians. The latter is more likely, given that they have been following a policy of shoot first and ask questions later, so they bombed the civilians from a high altitude, then apologised for their ‘mistake’. That gets packaged and marketed by the media terrorists as collateral damage, a small price for the war on terror.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[Moderator]

23. abdul_alhazre42

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.



Thank you.


DU Moderator

[Taxloss]

21. I'm finding it hard to judge the public mood.

There's a lot of anger about the bombings, but I think little surprise (shock is a different matter) over tham after Iraq, and I think they aren't translating into refreshed support for Blair. I don't know. If anything I would say it has made people more cynical about the "war on terror". But Blair isn't helping himself with idiotic, lying pronouncements like this. One can imagine other spins.