Most Britons blame Blair for the Bombings

Daily Times ^ | 7/20/05 | AP

[voletti]

Two-thirds of Britons believe Prime Minister Tony Blair bears a share of the responsibility for the suicide bombings in London, according to a poll published on Tuesday. The ICM poll for The Guardian newspaper asked people to what extent Blair’s decision to join the invasion of Iraq was responsible for the July 7 bombings that killed 56 people. Thirty-three percent said the prime minister bore a lot of responsibility, 31 percent thought he had a little responsibility, and 28 percent thought he was blameless. ICM interviewed 1,005 adults by telephone between July 15 and 17. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

[Grig]

Do they blame Churchill for the Blitz as well?

[reelfoot]

Yes, Blair deserves blame for the bombings, but not for joining in the Iraqi invasion. Blair is to be blamed for not ending Muslim immigration and for not deporting those already in Britain when he took office.

[Steve_Seattle]

I wonder if they put out a poll asking the public if the four bombers were responsible.

[Steve_Seattle]

A fair, unbiased poll wpuld have asked something like this: Who do you think bears primary responsibility for the London bombings?

(a) The bombers themselves.

(b) Islamic religious leaders.

(c) British law enforcement.

(d) Al Quaeda

(e) The British government/Tony Blair.

If the poll had been phrased in this manner, do you think Blair would have gotten even 10% of the votes? Blair was blamed because the poll was limited to Blair!

[Dilbert56]

Only possible alternative: A preemptive veto for terrorists over British foreign policy. BTW, the terrorists reserve the right to cite the Crusades as justification for their attacks. Staying on their "good" side may be a bit tricky.

[Antoninus]

So if you were asked if he had any blame, you would answer "yes", because you think he should have done more ahead of time which might have prevented the attack.

Exactly. That's why this poll is stupid. People who think the government should take a HARDER line are having their opinions spun to support the leftist/dhimmi position.

[CharlesWayneCT]

"there are actions he should have taken which might have prevented the bombings."

Would immigration control be considered actions he could have taken which might have prevented the bombings, in your mind?

I don't know. That is why I would make a bad Prime Minister. I don't know what he could have done, really. I frankly don't think there is a lot we can do. Or I should say that there are things we could do but I value my freedom more.

[B4Ranch]

So do I but when we have Muslim leaders saying, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Omar M. Ahmad, CAIR chairman, July, 1998, and then we expect them to be the Religion of Peace because a political leader says they are, we are the ones who are stupid.

You cannot sleep with wild dogs and not get bittten by the fleas.

[CharlesWayneCT]

But, these are words. And they could form a political movement, espousing these views. And they could seek election. And, if they get elected, they could push for constitutional amendments to enact their beliefs. And, if a majority of people agree, our government could be changed into such a system.

It will never happen, but it is this ability to peacefully change any aspect of our government by the will of the people that makes us strong. And it is the ability to SAY almost whatever you want that gives people the outlet they need to vent or rave or whatever without resorting to physical violence.

Or something like that. I'd have to really work to make that a cogent argument.