Skip to main content

Yo Blair!

Although watching Galloway and the Hizbollah fascists that he supports does significantly raise my blood pressure, am I alone in thinking that the British government have been "a bit crap" on the Middle East?

The utterly craven relationship between Blair and Bush that was revealed in their open mic session last week makes my blood boil too. Yo Bush - the worst President since Warren G Harding and Yo Blair- an unprincipled failure.

It is simply not good enough- Israel are in the wrong: punishing the innocent as vengeance against the guilty can not work. The UK, as a critical friend of Israel, has a duty to speak out. However as the "Yo Blair stuff" showed- the UK is regarded by everyone, the USA included, as a poodle.

The totally spineless way that this government has reacted to the Middle East crisis is not acceptable. For sure, with the history that Britain has in the region, we should be slow to make any comment. However the only reason that we do not criticise Israel now is because Blair is psychologically dependent on this tenth rate American President.

Yo Blair- "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, GO!"

Comments

Tristan said…
You've managed to articulate what I've been trying to say.

The situation between Blair and Bush seems like the way that to criticise the government in the US is portrayed as unpatriotic, whereas surely the patriot should criticise where they see mistakes being made.
The same goes for the friend. It can be hard, but a real friend would do speak up.

The other thing is that refusing to speak out and following the US lead is putting British people at risk, from terrorism and the increasing support for the fascist left in the form of Galloway and the fascist right in the form of the BNP and their ilk.

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and ...

The Will of the People

Many of the most criminal political minds of the past generations have claimed to be an expression of the "will of the people"... The will of the people, that is, as interpreted by themselves. Most authoritarian rulers: Napoleon III, Mussolini, Hitler, have called referendums in order to claim some spurious popular support for the actions they had already determined upon. The problem with the June 2016 European Union was that the question was actually insufficiently clear. To leave the EU was actually a vast set of choices, not one specific choice. Danial Hannan, once of faces of Vote Leave was quite clear that leaving the EU did NOT mean leaving the Single Market:    “There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave.” He declared: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” The problem was that this relatively moderate position was almost immediately ...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...