The Times of London has an amazing editorial today

[kpete]

The Sunday Times February 19, 2006


Bush and Blair have brilliantly done Bin Laden's work for him
Simon Jenkins



Is Osama Bin Laden winning after all? Until recently I would have derided such a thought. How could a tinpot fanatic who is either dead or shut in some mountain hideout hold the world to ransom for five years? It would stretch the imagination of an Ian Fleming.

Now I am beginning to wonder. Not a day passes without some new sign of Bin Laden’s mesmeric grip on the governments of Britain and America. His deeds lie behind half the world’s headlines. British policy seems obsessed with one word: terrorism. The West is equivocating, writhing, slithering in precisely the direction most desired by its enemy. He must be roaring with delight

.................

For George Bush and Blair to demand a “long war” against Bin Laden and, by implication, a long suppression of civil liberty is ludicrous. Western civilisation is not some simpering weakling that cowers before a fanatic’s might, pleading for leaders to protect it by all means, however illegal. It has been proof against Islamic expansionism since the 17th century. It is not at risk.

The American president and the British prime minister have spent half a decade exploiting Bin Laden for political ends, in thrall to their security/industrial complex. They have relied on terrifying their electorates with new and bloodcurdling threats, with what Runciman calls “spook politics”. But they will pass. The half-baked “message” laws passed by Britain’s limp parliament last week will fall in disuse. The vitality of British and American democracy has always been its ability to produce antibodies when truly challenged by an internal or external menace. The West will rediscover its self-belief and restore the liberalism, properly defined as freedom, that it once exemplified to the world.

Bin Laden is not going to win and never was. But Bush and Blair are giving him an astonishing run for his money.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2047134,00.html

[otohara]

1. Hope They Are Right

about restoring liberalism....

[Mme. Defarge]

2. Brilliant!

Thanks for the post.

[izzie]

33. I do not think Bush could have helped him better if he had done this

Giving him a place at the Cabinet table.

[Metta]

3. Here, here.

"... antibodies when challenged by an internal menace," ... wonderful. :thumbsup:

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. Also Sprach Murdoch...

...who owns the London Times.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

27. Or "Thus Sprach Jenkins in spite of Murdoch"...

... that such a critical piece of political writing would be published in a Murdoch rag is an interesting piece of news in itself.

Wow!

Is the current U.S./U.K. regime that far gone that even Murdoch is turning against them, or has the Times editorial staff suddenly grown a pair? Did they recently hear the phrase "Man up, Nancy"?

[Wilms]

5. K&R n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

6. I've said the SAME THINGS for months!

They are letting the terrorists win! They want them to win! 9/11 was Bush's "trifecta!"

[Gregorian]

7. When Hitler was killing jews, the Bushes profited.

They are a wartime crime family.

And now that Bin Laden is worthy of massing armies against, the Bushes profit. It's a formula. And like their friend Hitler, the Bushes have a friend in the Bin Laden family.

The worst thing that will happen from this terrible period is the lingering effects of Bush. Not Bin Laden.

Sleeping Americans know not that this is their doing.

[bvar22]

8. K&R

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. The TIMES, of all places! This is hugh!

about time, too.

[Radio_Lady]

13. It's HUGE! Not Hugh Grant, Hugh Jackman, Hugh Downs -- or any other

folks with that common male first name.

You want to keyboard HUGE. Remember it, 'cause it's a HUGE red flag to those of us who value correct spelling!

Thanks a bunch! :)

In peace,

Radio_Lady

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. OK, This is larrge! Very Larrge! is that betterer?

:)

[Radio_Lady]

37. I'm outta here -- apparently, you don't take mild criticism very well.

No problem.

And I see your screen name is sort of misspelled, too. Maybe you like doing your spelling your own way. It's really OK with me, but if you were my sibling or my child, I would work to get you to what I believe is a better place. People judge you by how you write, how you spell and how you speak. Remember, I'm from a background that stressed these values, which I incorporate in my life both professionally and personally.

I prefer people like this fellow -- Charles Harrington Elster -- who has written several books, including his new one, “What in the Word?” He spent more than a half an hour with me on a recent radio show.

Check out Charles' web site if you wish. It's http://members.authorsguild.net/chelster/

Good night and good luck.

Radio_Lady

[oblivious]

41. Just for the record, 'hugh' for 'huge' is an inside joke here...

...mocking a certain right-wing spelling-challenged group.

[Radio_Lady]

43. Really! I've missed being on the inside of this one. Thanks, oblivious.

I wondered why it kept coming up over and over again. An inside joke, indeed -- that explanation makes sense.

OT: Saw a wonderful bumper sticker today.

"For the record, I'm against the NEXT war, too!"

In peace,

Radio_Lady in Oregon

[ChairmanAgnostic]

45. by the by, I, too have written several books.

I must admit that even with a spell checker, the editors and proofers still manage to find some doozies. But, these were intentional, humorous, and sorry that I did not explain it earlier.

You will see another insider joke - "moran" for moron. That first came, if I recall, from a Free Press web posting. Caused a great deal of laughter and entertainment - until we saw the same spelling on TV when some protesters were complaining about liberals, moderates and similar devil worshipers. Seeing it again made it even more precious.

[Radio_Lady]

46. Thanks again. What are the names of your books?

What subjects do you cover? PM me if you can. Perhaps we can discuss them on my audio show, recorded each Friday at 8 AM Pacific Time.

Yes, I know about "moran." Funny thing is, we hired a Mr. Jerry Moran for a roofing job in Massachusetts years ago. My husband came home from work early one afternoon and found his crew on the roof, lapping each layer of the underlayment (tarpaper) in the wrong direction. We fired the guy on the spot and now remember him as Jerry Moran, the moron!

Then, there's this politician named MORAN from Kansas. (It must be a big burden to have that last name!!)

http://www.house.gov/moranks01/visitdc.htm

In peace,

Radio_Lady

[jasmeel]

10. This is the BEST way to respond to those who talk about

giving up civil liberties to "fight terrorism". It shows them how weak it makes us look and shows Bin Laden IS winning.

[burythehatchet]

11. If you work under the assumption

that Bin Laden and Bush are still business partners, everything makes sense.

[glitch]

12. Yep. And if you watch what they do and ignore what they say, it's blatant.

The idea that this administration has the USA's interests at heart is laughable.

Edit: Blair is more of an enigma. Was he always a 5th columnist, or was he bought or blackmailed into it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. "New Labour" is the equivalent of the DLC. 5th columnists both.

[disndat]

24. Blair was a tool of Rupert Murdoch

Blair is no Labourite. Murdoch helped put him into his PM job and Murdoch wants to control communications in the Middle East. That is the Bush/Blair connection. Of course Blair was all too happy to obliged. Now I read the Blair will become a member of the Carlyle Group, following the footsteps of Thatcher and John Major. Blair is really a Tory in Labourite clothing.

[glitch]

26. Not so much an engima after all. Just another greedhead. Thanks and

Welcome to DU!

[oscarguy]

25. Also, Bush`s Grandfather Was very active Hitler supporter,put nothing...

beyond what this Bush family is up to or has been up to for at least the last century. They are the biggest traitors ever known anywhere. ...Oscar

[lostnfound]

15. Somewhere binLaden is saying "if only I could get access to US ports..."

assuming, of course, that at least some small part of the binLaden-as-boogeyman explanation is true.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Its nice to see this in the media, but we've been saying this for years

[Child_Of_Isis]

18. Bin Laden is not going to win and never was

Wrong! He has acomplished more than even he dreamed possible.

[oblivious]

19. I have a cartoon in mind. Two muscle-bound, weapon-toting tough guys...

...swaggering down the street (faces of Bush and Blair), threatening everyone who looks at them wrong with their massive, high-tech super-destructive weapons. A little kid comes up to them with a water pistol and the two monsters break down, whimpering, trembling, begging everyone on the street for help to deal with this odious threat.

[Burried News]

20. Trash the tinfoil hats - whaddaya know, we're mainstream.

And they wonder why they can't sell a newspaper. They boldly follow where millions of us have gone before.

[ourbluenation]

21. Love it! Bush - the internal menace...kinda like a gall stone! eom

[madmark]

22. bingo

[HootieMcBoob]

23. Right on the mark n/t

:kick:

[autorank]

28. Big signal here folks. Murdoch doesn't buy the "long war" con.

He's not in defense. It doesn't work for him. He requires advertising revenue and that means companies that sell and people who can buy. This, of course, requires an economy not a slave camp. It's threatened by the Bush-Blair 1984 vision, Power of Nightmares play book policies and propaganda.

Maybe this is a signal that Murdoch is throwing in the towel with the neocons. If so they should have known it, "Murdoch has no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests."

This editorial appeared for a reason. It's no accident. Lets see how it plays out. I'm betting that there will be some amazingly devastating stories about Blair in the British press soon, the type that will require his resignation. Gordon Brown isn't a strong personality but at least he'll take orders and the orders now are, "stand the fuck down and stop with the 'long war' talk."

[aquart]

32. Does this mean Fox News will cease to be a Bush-friendly network?

Anyone seen any signs of that?

[autorank]

35. I don't watch bu t they did hop on the Dubai port security story early.

In fact, tuning into Fox by mistake is where I heard about it initially...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2454971

We'll see what they do. Getting Blair is a better move initially. They can damage * seriously just by forcing the truth out about "little Tony the Poodle."

[file83]

29. I consider "Osama Bin Laden" simply the title of a very infrequent TV show

carefully scheduled by Bush/Blair for "sweeps weeks" (read: political agendas) when needed most.

Osama is just a TV show.

[autorank]

36. ...and it's on the "Power of Nightmares" Global Network

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=461187809452836609

[redqueen]

30. Let's hope the author is right.

:kick:

[Vexatious Ape]

31. If the author isn't right....

We are about 1 presidental election away from chaos. If the fascist bastards win again in 08 then it's time to grab the torches and pitchforks.

[redqueen]

34. You mean if they steal enough again?

In many cases, the 'elected' repukes have not legitimately won.

[dogindia]

38. K&R.

[triguy46]

39. They realized a victory when we became so obsessed with 'terra'

that making 80 year olds take off their shoes before getting on airliner 'made sense.' It never made sense, nor did the "Orange Alert" crap, the duct taping of windows. All this is distraction to insulate *. If we get attacked again, he can say, "but look at what we did, we need to do more" as a means to control the electorate and insure a one party system.

[Uncle Joe]

40. The author of this column is right on. n/t

[Road Scholar]

42. Absolutely correct!! nt

[drduffy]

44. still believe in the war on terra?

ever seen "Loose Change"? Ask Mike Malloy.