Posted on 07/20/2005 7:07:56 AM PDT by voletti
Nope, Bush fault!!!!
2/3rds of the three "randomly" picked samole group..... Yeah, right.
No, its simply a preview of things to come when we are hit here in the U.S. again. The MSM and dems will hop on the "its Bush's fault" wagon faster than the dead can be counted.
England , I am sorry to say , has gone soft in the outhouse ...USA holding the toilet paper ...
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
You are not kidding, it will be horrible. I pray every night for our safety and for our president.
2/3's of Brits are idiots. Is this what the Guardian is saying with their selective poll?
Lets try another quick poll, how many here think "The Guardian" is a pro terrorist, anti Jew, anti western society, pro islam rag?
How in the Hell is this 2/3rds? At best it is around %50.
"Two-thirds of Britons believe Prime Minister Tony Blair bears a share of the responsibility for the suicide bombings in London"
- How about blaming the stupid mohammedans who actually did the bnombings? How about blaming the ideology of hate that bred their fanaticism? How about reading the koran & hadith and finding out where the ideology is spawned from? I guess Forest Gump is right. Stupid is as stupid does.
tv.
promotes this stupidity.
Hmmm...
In the Brave New World of these enlightened ones, you're to blame for murder if you are willing to stand and fight the murderers.
God forbid the West attempt to give Arabs a better life vis a vis democracy. This is a slam against 8 million brave Iraqi's who walked miles under the threat of death for the privilege of casting a vote. The Guardian and every Brit who thinks like this should be ashamed of themselves.
"31 percent thought he had a little responsibility, and 28 percent thought he was blameless."
Gee, a more honest way to look at this commie newspaper's biased push poll is that "Most(59%) Britons believe Blair deserves little or no blame for the bombings."
But it is inevitable. We could spend every penny of our budget on "homeland security" and we would still get hit. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks that was a point that the administration made repeatedly. They stopped making that point, and I don't know why. It is honest.
Isn't is reasonable to hold the leader of your country at least "partly" to blame if the country is attacked by terrorists?
To say the leader is completely blameless, is to say that there is absolutely nothing a country can do to protect itself from terrorist attacks. But we obviously believe there ARE things we can do, or else we wouldn't spend billions of dollars trying.
A large majority in the poll found Blair either blameless, or only marginally to blame. That looks like a reasonable and good thing.
I guess I'm taking a different definition of "blame".
BTW, I am close to being of the opinion that there ISN'T much the leadership can do to stop things like this, so I would have been part of the 1/3 who said he was blameless.
This is silly. The PM doesn't even use the Tube.
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.
Or maybe you would have said he was blameless, taking this as more of a political poll than a question of your true feelings.
Because your post certainly suggested that Blair does have a "fault" in this case, which means you think there are actions he should have taken which might have prevented the bombings.
"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?
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.