Blame Blair or Bush, not the bombers

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 7/22/5 | Debra J. Saunders

[SmithL]

LONDON MAYOR Ken Livingstone was positively Churchillian in his response to the July 7 bombings. Rather than blaming British or Israeli policies for terrorist attacks on innocent civilians -- his usual M.O. -- Livingstone condemned the bombings as "mass murder" aimed "at ordinary working- class Londoners" on the day of the attacks.

This week, even before Thursday's attempted bombings, Livingstone was back to his old nasty self. On Wednesday, he told BBC where he placed blame for the bombings: "We have just had 80 years of Western intervention in predominantly Arab lands, because of the Western need for oil."

Red Ken -- as British papers call him -- also blamed "those governments which use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy, as we have occasionally seen with the Israeli government." Oh, and he blamed the United States for helping the Afghans fight off a Soviet occupation -- which makes Americans the "creators" of Osama bin Laden.

That is, at first Livingstone blamed the bombers. Then, he blamed everyone but the bombers.

In response, the Daily Telegraph ran Livingstone's mug next to those of Islamic radicals Sheik Omar Bakri Mohamed and Anjem Choudary under the heading "The men who blame Britain." Mohamed blamed British voters and mainstream British Muslims for the bombings while Choudary, the New York Times reported, predicted another attack.

Sounds familiar. Livingstone typifies a certain stripe of lefty who so hates President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair that he or she makes excuses for murderers.

[Fred Hayek]

"Red Ken" has to be really bad if the SF Chronicle considers him to be a barking moonbat.

[wardaddy]

Livingstone should blame Tancredo.....why not?

Some idiots here will.

[SF Republican]

How is it that sfgate sometimes appears sane? - Debra is the token conservative; I assure you from reading it daily she is the only one.

[followerofchrist]

If the true reason for this was Iraq (though I don't believe that), I do blame Bush, the senior first and the junior too. When we originally attacked, there was zero national interest. They had done nothing to us.
I am actually surprised Serbs didn't retaliate, because likewise, they hadn't messed with us when Clinton decided to attack them.

[Eagles Talon IV]

"Londoners deserve far better than this bonehead."

Maybe, but I hear you get the government you deserve. The Londoners voted for him and now they have to live with him. Perhaps if the citizenry gets fed up they will recall him, if that's even possible over there.

[Pride in the USA]

So the acceptable and appropriate response to "Western intervention into Arab lands" is to blow up 3,000 civilians in the World Trade Centers and 52 in the London bombings for a start. According to the mayor's convoluted logic, oil would have to be the reason for the Bali bombings, for example. Yet Bali is not a western country, nor has it intervened into Arab lands. There is example after example of non-western countries being attacked by Islamic terrorists; I wonder on what the mayor blames these attacks?

[Wolfstar]

Livingstone typifies a certain stripe of lefty who so hates President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair that he or she makes excuses for murderers.

This line of thinking is a big mistake. It's way too limited and misses the real reason the Left makes common cause with Islamic jihadists. The Left -- lets call them what it really are, Marxist-Leninist communists and comunist-lite (i.e., socialist) -- hates western civilization every bit as much as the Islamofreaks do.

Leftist ideology is rooted in a hatred of capitalism, a mistrust of the individual, and a belief that government knows best. The Islamofreaks are motivated by an ideology that is one part religious, one part Marxist-Leninist, and one part Islamic nationalism.

Today they make common cause. Should they ever win this war, tomorrow they would turn on each other.

[Polyxene]

One, some or all of these libs/islamofascist sympathizers need to have something bad happen to either them or their families by these friends of theirs. Maybe then they will see the light -- or (sigh) maybe not.

[Personal Responsibility]

I'm getting sick of this argument. It is all about supply and demand. If we didn't buy oil from these people, what else would they supply to be able to buy food for their people? Our buying oil gives all these middle eastern countries a higher quality of life than if we pulled out.

Say, for example, we discovered a new energy source and had no more need for oil tomorrow. The middle east would plunge into abject poverty. The psychos over there would then start blaming us for the poverty.

Yesterday's reason was oil. Today's reason is Iraq. Tomorrow it will be something else. They can't help it. They *HAVE* to blame someone else. It can't *POSSIBLY* be their own fault that the people who speak loudest for their "civilization" are death cultists who want to export their vision to every corner of the globe.

[Personal Responsibility]

He is always Churchillian. Occasionally it's Winston, but more often it's Ward.

That's a GREAT line!