NYT: Blair's Rising Star Runs Into a Treacherous Future

[DeepModem Mom]

Blair's Rising Star Runs Into a Treacherous Future
By ALAN COWELL
Published: July 8, 2005


....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."

That was not the general political line, of course. The leaders of opposition parties expressed revulsion at the bombings. "This country is united as one in our determination to defeat terrorism and to deal with those who are responsible for the dreadful acts that have taken place in London," said Michael Howard, the leader of the Conservative Party....

***

At Gleneagles, where Mr. Blair returned Thursday night to close the summit meeting, world leaders including President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia lined up to offer solidarity. But for Mr. Blair, the challenge now is how the solidarity can be maintained against arguments such as those advanced by Mr. Galloway. In other words, has Iraq and his alliance with President Bush returned yet again to haunt him, as it did in the elections?...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/international/europe/08blair.html?hp&ex=1120795200&en=b1cec030d6ffa7ae&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[leesa]

1. Good. I hope it destroys him.

[forintegrity]

2. Isn't this what others have been saying all along, also

That none of us are any safer because of this war in Iraq. And in fact, are LESS safe because of all our money and military are focused in Iraq!

And in the meantime, back at the ranch...."Homeland Security" is a damn joke; our borders, airlines, etc. are not being protected any better...probably even worse with all the recent budget cuts!

But of course the London attack will be used as an excuse to "stay the course."

This is bad...

[eaprez]

3. Blairs Rising Star? What rising star are they talking about? He

barely won re-election is popular thought is he won't be in power after 18 months.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Robert Fisk: The reality of this barbaric bombing

Typical NY Times prowar propaganda, even with Judith Miller in jail! Once again, Robert Fisk calls it as he sees it:

Robert Fisk: The reality of this barbaric bombing

If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us think insurgency won't come to us?

By Robert Fisk
Published: 08 July 2005

"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.

(you have to pay for rest of article)...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article297623.ece