Message For Tony

I would add... There is a BIG difference between being Anti-American and being Anti-Bush. I believe Blair ment that latter, but he can't say that can he.

There's a strong argument that if you're pro-America (that is, pro-constitution, rule of law, separation of church and state, free speech, individual freedom etc.) you can't be pro-Bush, the two are mutually exclusive. Iraq, Guantanamo, rendition, Biblically inspired Administration policies and extra-legal wiretaps are all un-American activities, historically speaking. Joe McCarthy was looking in the wrong direction, the muddle headed loon.

What's happening here, humorously, is that Blair (and Bush, really) are attempting to suggest that 'L'etat, c'est moi'; that the President *is* America, and therefore to be anti-President is inherently anti-American. This is a dangerous, muddle-headed and profoundly un-American thinking, since it echoes the European divinely appointed monarchies that the USA was set up to get away from. The sound you hear is Founding Fathers revolving in their graves.

That Blair's view of America is historically ignorant and fundamentally wrong is hardly surprising, since he has a Year Zero view of history that is profoundly revisionist in character and always has been - it's a trait that explains a lot. He's not interested in learning from the past, merely manipulating it to support him.

Biblically-inspired Administration policies? Name one.

Extra-legal wiretaps? They aren't extra-legal, until a court declares them as such.

What would you do Tom, when you're (legally, under United States law) monitoring phone calls from a gentleman in Amman who is an Al Qaeda suspect, and he dials another gentleman in Manhattan? Hang up?

Your position is at best confused, and at worst based upon nothing more than Bush-hatred. If these extra-legal wiretaps are such a bad idea, why hasn't a SINGLE Democrat proposed the ending of the program?

The answer is, of course, obvious.

I should like to remind Tony that he is not American, nor does he hold office in America. He does not represent American people and in fact has a constituency somewhere here in this little island (if he can remember where it is).

I also wonder if he'd give speeches attacking people who are 'anti' other nations? Is he worried about people being anti-French for example, which seems to be quite a common view among some sections of the population? Has he taken the tabloids to task for being anti-German? No I don't think so.

His indignation is transparently self-serving and would be better directed at the people who have greatly contributed to the mess he now finds himself in. Hint: Some of them are in America and are called George.

Martin

In a sense, being anti-Bush *does* imply being anti-American, as their president is head of state as well as head of government. That's why they often get re-elected despite being plonkers: voting against the incumbent is perceived as being unpatriotic. I've got a lot of respect for their system on the whole, but this is quite a big design flaw.

How about the Global Gag Rule - cutting off aid to any organisation which counsels abortion?
Classic "Biblically-inspired" twisted religious zealotry, straight out of the Whitehouse.

As for the Democrats not opposing the illegal wiretaps programme, they appear to be as ineffectual and supine as our opposition here Martin. Do you accept the impotence of the British political opposition as justification for Blair's policies?

Just to clear up any confusion there are two people posting here with the same name. I didn't post both of those comments.

One of the Martins

It's OK Martin, Martin Hague's comments are pretty unmistakable...;)

Find a magic lamp. Ask of the genie one wish. That Tony Blair will spend a week or two at your house. Then my friend all the wishes of you and your friends will come true.
And you can save the other two wishes for Bush and ...

What would you do Tom, when you're (legally, under United States law) monitoring phone calls from a gentleman in Amman who is an Al Qaeda suspect, and he dials another gentleman in Manhattan? Hang up?

Under US law such wiretaps are legal so long as an application is made to a special secret court retrospectively after the monitoring commences. As I understand it this court invariably approves the wire tap and it may continue.

Bush however has chosen to sidestep this court and has declared he can tap anyone he likes whenever he likes.

Since it is so easy to get a courts approval to (retrospectively) tap phones, then the obvious conclusion is that Bush is conducting wiretaps that even the US justice system would not approve of.