Posted on 11/17/2003 4:16:54 PM PST by Pokey78
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen".
His provocatively timed comments, on the eve of Mr Bush's arrival in London tonight, threaten to create severe embarrassment for the Prime Minister. They also come with talks under way on whether to readmit Mr Livingstone to the Labour Party before his five-year exile ends.
Although he made his many differences with the Government on a range of issues clear, he reserved his strongest comments in an interview with The Ecologist magazine for the American President.
Mr Livingstone recalled a visit at Easter to California, where he was denounced for an attack he had made on what he called "the most corrupt and racist American administration in over 80 years".
The mayor said: "Some US journalist came up to me and said: 'How can you say this about President Bush?' Well, I think what I said then was quite mild. I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will doom us to extinction."
Mr Livingstone, who is holding a "peace party" for anti-war groups in City Hall tomorrow, added: "I don't formally recognise George Bush because he was not officially elected. So we are organising an alternative reception for everybody who is not George Bush."
He said he supported stronger links between European Union countries only because he wanted to see a powerful bloc emerge to rival the United States. "The American agenda is sweeping everything before it, and although it's not perfect, the EU is better on environmental issues. It's a less rapacious form of capitalism."
The mayor said he had viewed Labour's 1997 election manifesto as a "load of old guff they'd come out with because they didn't want to upset the Daily Mail" that would rapidly be ditched.
"I was amazed when it transpired that Blair had been serious," he said.
Accusing the Prime Minister of suffering from a "background problem", he said: "There is nothing in his past that was radicalising. He wasn't interested in all the great student activities, the radical campaigns.
"He did not get involved in politics until the 1970s, when the high point was passed. So you have someone of the summer of '68 generation who actually wasn't part of it."
On genetically-modified foods, he said: "If the Government ignores public opinion, then civil disobedience on this issue is legitimate, as long as it's not violent.
"But the most important thing that affects a government is not peaceful protest, but fear of the ballot box.
The comments will infuriate Downing Street at a time when it is examining ways of bringing Mr Livingstone, who was expelled for standing as an independent in the London mayoral elections of 2000, back into the Labour fold.
Tony Blair's spokesman said last night: "His views are for Ken Livingstone. They are a matter for him. The Prime Minister has made his views well-known in this respect and looks forward to meeting the President."
AS THE PRESIDENT PREPARES TO VISIT SEDGEFIELD, TONY BLAIR'S CONSTITUENCY, WILL HE BE WELCOME?
Chris Lloyd, political editor of The Northern Echo: "The paper is Bush neutral and he has a right to visit but equally, the people here have a right to demonstrate. I hope he gets to see all, or at least some of those protests and I hope Mr Blair will explain what they are about because that's what friends are for. Despite Mr Bush's unpopularity, there is a frisson of excitement because nothing of this magnitude has ever happened there."
Lucy Hovvels, vice-chairwoman of Sedgefield constituency and Labour councillor in Trimdon: "I've had local people asking where they can get Union Jacks and American flags because they think it's an exciting and historic visit. I really believe Bush will get a warm welcome in Trimdon and the mood is one of excitement. We have the two most important people in the world coming to us - no one would otherwise know where Trimdon is."
Richard Wanless, co-ordinator of the 'Sedgefield Against War' protest: "The visit is a massive security risk and for those living in the area, it jeopardises our safety. No matter where he goes, there will be protests from London to the North-east to make sure he knows he is not welcome. To me, he is a war criminal that has illegal occupation of Iraq. To add to the insult, there are families here who lost their children to the war."
The Rev Martin King, rector of Sedgefield: "A lot of people here are very angry with the way the US administration is putting itself above the law. One person in my congregation said if President Bush wanted to look around the church, he would be welcome because it is a place for sinners, but he hoped his henchmen would leave their ironware at the door. His policies are very unwelcome in the region - I have not heard anyone voicing support for him."
Martin Callanan, Conservative MEP for Sedgefield: "The visit is hugely beneficial for the area. Most of the security threat to the people in Sedgefield will be represented by left-wing demonstrators. And how would we feel if our Prime Minister, whatever his political party, was treated similarly in another part of the world? It was Blair's decision to send our troops to Iraq, so those who are anti-war should not take it out on Bush."
Martin McTague, former chairman of the North-east Regional Federation of Small Businesses: "It will put Sedgefield on the map and benefit the image of the North-east. Our business community is often viewed as a backwater and this will redress some of the old stereotypes. Because this is Blair's constituency, a security risk is always there. The fact that Bush will be with him increases that risk but it is a notional increase."
Love your descriptive picture! Thank God for America's warriors who have, do and will continue to save the pantywastes from their ownselves.
I wonder if Mr Wanless was as upset or protested over the hundreds of thousands Saddam murdered. Ot if he reserves his criticism for Britain's longest and greatest ally.
Yes! I don't know why but it seems like things always go better if us and the English tackle problems together.
<Sir (I use the term loosely), perhaps you are unaware of the way the American electoral system works and that would account for your erroneous remark about the way our President was elected. It might account for it, but certainly does not excuse it. Do you and your fellow brits really have the gall to criticize the most effective, most ethical President America has had in decades? Perhaps you are right in one sense. Perhaps President Bush should have let you deal with the Osamas and Saddams of your world, and pretend not to hear you when you started screaming for help. Look around you, you nut. Europe is being overrun by Muslims. Do you honestly believe that they will always allow you to live in peace? When their numbers grow large enough you brits and frenchys will become second and third class citizens of Muslim nations. Their intent on controlling the world is certainly no secret. You Chamberlain types are very annoying. You bury your head in the sand and expose your backside to every murderous dictator who pops up, then cry for America to rescue you when the going gets tough. If it were not for the U.S. you would be speaking German now. Get over yourself. You really don't deserve the attention of our wonderful, compassionate, Christian, ethical, courageous President. And he doesn't deserve the ill treatment he is getting from ingrates like you.
One paragraph is devoted to the good folks while the bulk of the article is devoted to a single leftwing kook. This is normal press reporting. Rest assured not all Britons are kooks, any more than most Americans are represented by Pol-Pot sympathizing idiots like Noam Chomsky.
The same exact nonsense was said (mostly by Euros) about Reagan in the mid-80's, when he was in the process of winning the Cold War. The moronic Euros never learn.
Labor Party? How about readmiting him to the looney bin.
The word "racist" to many leftists means "any policy I don't like." ....and often the policies have NOTHING to do with race (as in this case).
If London suffered a 9/11-type event, I honestly don't think that this Livingstone nut would be awakened. In fact, I'm sure he'd blame it on Bush's policies. .....and perhaps Israel.
Funny you should ask. This guy's outburst is so incredible - considering that if he has any intelligence *at all*, he would couch his hatred in more appealing terms, from the standpoint of how it would play in the media.
But when I read it, I suddenly remembered something that occurred to me back when Bush was about to whack Iraq, and the Eurofags were all howling like abandoned dogs: They just can't stand somebody that takes a determined position and sticks to it. Anyone who appears to be bounded by unwavering moral conviction, and unwilling to compromise principles, makes them viscerally uneasy. Bush's entire personality is a threat to them, because it points up their own spinelessness and moral vacuity. They just can't *stand* it.
Not true. My English-born fiancee is an excellent cook. She may be in a minority, but she can cook!
So it's all our fault? :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.