April 26, 2005
WHOSE SIDE WERE YOU ON IN THE WAR, DADDY?:
The prime minister is a war criminal: Like Chamberlain in the 30s, Blair is an appeaser of a dangerous global power. He should be in prison, not standing for election (Richard Gott, April 26, 2005, The Guardian)
Tony Blair has been the worst prime minister since Neville Chamberlain, a figure with whom he shares a number of significant characteristics. Chamberlain was a supremely confident and arrogant politician, an excellent speaker and a deeply religious man with a hotline to God. He had an unassailable majority in parliament, was popular in the country and presided over a cabinet stuffed with nonentities.Unfamiliar with the outside world, he conducted his own disastrous foreign policy with the help of backroom advisers as ignorant as himself. By seeking to appease the German government, the principal threat to world peace at the time, he onlysucceeded in encouraging that country's appetite for aggression and expansionism. His egregious errors played a not insignificant role in the outbreak of the second world war, the principal tragedy of the 20th century.
Blair has followed in his footsteps, and is destined for the same place in history's hall of infamy. Like Chamberlain, he is an arrogant and God-fuelled appeaser, the unseemly ally of an unbridled country that presents a global threat similar to Germany in the 1930s.
Instead of seeking a grand alliance to confront this new danger - "a coalition of the unwilling" that would include the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese - Blair has sided with the evil empire.
Then why do the Iraqi people want to try and execute Saddam Hussein, not Tony Blair? Posted by Orrin Judd at April 26, 2005 12:08 PM
Did anyone else read "grand new alliance" and "Chinese, Europeans, and Russians" then laugh out loud?
Posted by: BJW at April 26, 2005 12:58 PM"Like Chamberlain in the 30s, Blair is an appeaser of a dangerous global power."
Oh, for Christ's sake! I just had lunch, man. And of course, if this Richard Mott mutt had been around in the 30's he would have been one of the appeasers calling Churchill a warmonger.
Posted by: Governor Breck at April 26, 2005 1:20 PMSo is Galloway supposed to be the modern Churchill?
Posted by: Pat H at April 26, 2005 1:23 PMWouldn't Jaques Chriac fit the Neville Chamberlain role a lot better when it came to trying to appease Saddam and just getting more beligerence from the dictator in response?
Posted by: John at April 26, 2005 1:38 PMMr. Judd;
Because of the occupation, you faith crazed jingoistic oppressor! If the Amerikkkans weren't shooting people in the street for looking cross eyed at the omnipresent posters of George McBushitler, you can bet the Iraqis would be screaming for Blair's blood. After all, if it weren't for Blair they'd be able to speak freely and fly kites in an atmosphere of peace and harmony, just as they did before the the oil-looting army of brain washed tools of the neo-con war pigs invaded.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 26, 2005 1:39 PM"War pigs invaded."
AOG: That's a phrase I'm going to have to remember.
Posted by: Mikey at April 26, 2005 3:15 PMSatan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Posted by: OO at April 26, 2005 4:45 PMThere are times I almost (almost) start to feel sorry for idealistic lefties watching their world crumble, much as Easter Islanders saw their stone Gods fail.
Then a charmer like Richard Gott comes along, and I want to see him and his ilk react much as I saw those snails react to salt when I was a little kid.
"A global threat similar to Germany in the 1930s".
Yeah, kiss my global threatening rear end, Gott, ya putz.
"Khan. I'm laughing at the superior intellect."
James T. Kirk
The Guardian is not worth wrapping rotten fish in.
Posted by: LC at April 26, 2005 6:16 PMGott is a nom de plume for Chirac.
Posted by: Genecis at April 26, 2005 9:10 PMAnyone know if this guy's sometime co-author, the great historian Martin Gilbert, is as politically loopy as he is?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at April 26, 2005 10:57 PM