Posted on 07/07/2005 7:39:43 PM PDT by kristinn
Edited on 07/08/2005 4:45:38 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
LONDON, July 7 - It is said, usually as a kind of joke, that a day is a long time in politics. Rarely has that been so true - and so bloodily so - as in the past 24 hours of Prime Minister Tony's Blair's roller coaster ride from triumph to tragedy.
SNIP
Then, toward midday, the doubts were over: London had been struck by terrorists. Mr. Blair flew back to London, somber and shaken.
Perhaps the crudest lesson to be drawn was that, in adopting the stance he took after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Blair had finally reaped the bitter harvest of the war on terrorism - so often forecast but never quite seeming real until the explosions boomed across London.
The war in Iraq has been increasingly unpopular here, with taunts that Mr. Blair had become President Bush's poodle. The anger about Iraq led to Mr. Blair's shaky showing in the May elections: a third term with a severely reduced majority. Now, as long predicted and feared, his support of the war appears to have cost British lives at home. Thursday was a day of rallying behind the leader, but there were indications that the bombing could take a political toll.
No mainstream politician would say so out loud, but George Galloway, the maverick, onetime Labor legislator who had met with Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war, had no hesitation. "We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain," he said. "Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings."
SNIP
In other words, has Iraq and his alliance with President Bush returned yet again to haunt him, as it did in the elections?
***Mod note: The New York Times has changed the title of this article to Blair's Rising Star Runs Into a Treacherous Future.
Gimme a break, they killed the Egyptian diplomat.
The New York Times is evil.
Anybody have a link to the editor a**holes at the NY Times, and another link to Tony Blair to lend him our support?
Galloway and people that think like him are the whale turds on the bottom of the ocean. They are the dumbest bunch of SOB's I have ever witnessed. 100% pure intellectuall idiots. And that is just assuming they are just stupid.
Why? This author isn't the PM, Blair is.
They can run al Quida's talking points but Blair doesn't given a damn. G.W.B. doesn't give a damn what this terrorist propaganda states. Each are in their last terms and govern as they see fit to the fuming rage of the simpletons given space in papers with ever decreasing circulation.
The people, our soldiers and our hand picked representatives will determine the outcome of the war. Not the NYT's.
This was the line of drivel that was laid out in the pre dawn hours by the Daily Kos. I have heard it repeated over and over by idiots on the tv news. I knew that it was meant to be the daily talking points for the Democrats.
Using NYTimes logic, after 8 years of Bill Clinton when everything was Honky Dory, for what reason did the US reap 9-11? Shouldn't the world still have been loving us since President Bush hadn't yet become a war-mongering, blood-for-oil, lying, cowboy yet? /disgusted sarc
They have done this to Israel for decades, and I'm sick of it.
They have rationalized these Islamic cults roaming the globe for decades, murdering innocents, as Israeli "occupation".
How long will we let an American newspaper go on defending terrorism, making excuses for them, and encouraging them?
This reporter, yuk. He's so obscenely full of himself. I wonder how many writers perform actual "research".
Such as the Brits had know of a tube-targeted attack (previously thwarted twice) since 19-friggin' 90!
Has a lot to do with current world leader and Iraq war/sarcasm.
Wish I could find this wretch's email...I'd like to give him some of my opinion to counter his.
I wonder if the NY Times did a LexisNexus search of their stories on "IRA" and "bombings" before suggesting that England is reaping the rewards of fighting back against terrorism.
Exactly....we hadn't even *invaded* Afghanistan or Iraq yet...using their logic then, why were we attacked?.....
No, you are not wrong. My son is in London.
To Alan bin Cowell:
Nuts.
That's what makes stories like this one so aggravating to read. The bodies aren't cool and yet the left is crawling over them to gain political advantage.
Sadly, that is a very accurate cartoon. Thanks for posting it.
yes, that's the expected initial reaction. the media, the BBC, the Guardian and the other leftist newspapers there - they will begin the drumbeat. then we will see what the Brits are made of. The US was strongly united after 9-11, the media bled away alot of that.
the organized left - their politicians, their media outlets - are as much an enemy in this war as the terrorists.
It's just the pure evil of the left. I honestly can't think of a better description. It's just evil.
The fact that Britian willingly allowed Muslims into their country is far more devastating that the War in Iraq. What fools they are! Britian allowed the enemies of their people right into the country, building mosques. Such idiots, and the USA is looking for the same kind of trouble ahead.
We are going to have so many Muslims in the USA that we will have no place to hide from them. There will be no such thing as protecting our buildings, bridges, road ways, ports or ships. Our government has made us all vulnerable by our immigration policies, and we are a bit too late to worry about our infrastructure. What else do they have to blow up to wake up the USA Governments and other Western
Governments, who have done the same as we have. Our government must be totally blinded.
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.