October 27, 2005

REMIND US AGAIN WHO'S WHOSE LAP DOG:

Blair hints at military action after Iran's 'disgraceful' taunt to Israel (Philip Webster, 10/28/05, Times of London)

TONY BLAIR served warning last night that the West might have to take military action against Iran after worldwide condemnation of its President’s call for Israel to be “wiped off the map”. [...]

“If they carry on like this the question people will be asking us is — when are you going to do something about Iran? Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having nuclear weapons?”

It was the first time Mr Blair had even hinted at military action and his words are likely to alarm Labour MPs.


"Why should I always have to play the good cop?"

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 27, 2005 6:35 PM
Comments

These stories today about Iran have really pissed me off, the West better do something more concrete that summoning ambassadors and ratcheting up their rhetoric. I think the only country whose leadership I hate more is China.

Posted by: Scof at October 27, 2005 7:14 PM

Go Tony!

May as well give them some warning.

Posted by: ZF at October 27, 2005 8:50 PM

I find your headline refreshing: "Remind Us Again Who's Whose Lap Dog"
IMHO, Tony 'Bomb 'em to bits' Blair has been the real force behind the bombings of at least Serbia and Iraq.
Blair rushed over to use his convincing (frantic? manic?) oratory when the U.S. Congress appeared to be wavering in its resolution to bomb Iraq. Much as he rushed over to persuade Wesley Clark that whatever they had to bomb, they had to win in Serbia/Kosovo.
I believe Blair is far from being a 'poodle' or a 'lap dog' of the U.S. but rather views the U.S. as a handy tool (perhaps colonial tool) to prosecute his desire to bomb, bomb, bomb.

Posted by: Gwynne Sykes at October 28, 2005 7:29 PM

Gwynne:

But he doesn't target random buses, now does he?

Posted by: jim hamlen at October 29, 2005 6:41 PM
« MAYBE THE RIGHT CAN RUN PAT TOOMEY AGAINST HIM (via Luciferous): | Main | DON'T YOU HATE WHEN NATIONS ACT UNILATERALLY IN THEIR PERCEIVED SELF-INTEREST? (via Luciferous): »