The Euston Alliance - Bunkering Down *UPDATED*
The Euston Manifesto appears to be doing the rounds to a mixed response, I say mixed, because the signatories are all behind it, but much of the comment elswhere has been pretty disparaging, for similar reasons to those Quarsan and I outlined earlier.
The Guardian's Comment is Free blog has been busy, with this from Mike Marqusee, and this from John Kampfner who are not convinced, though John Lloyd is loving the idea of the neocon left rejecting all those who aren't signed up to the programme, and Nick Cohen is convinced he is single handedly saving the left from itself!
David Osler isn't sold, nor is Guido, but Gauche is right up for it, with a handy short version of the manifesto. Also worth reading is Actually Existing, where where there is a Fisking of the Manifesto point by point, and Matthew Turner has done a handy cut-out and keep guide to British decency, with the muscular liberals arranged on a Venn Diagram. Needless to say Lenin isn't coming out of his tomb either. Then there is the new blog - 'muscular liberals watch'...
More from Crooked Timber, Blood and treasure and Mike Power.
Bloggers4Labour, [sensitive souls] perhaps enboldened by John Lloyd, are pulling up the drawbridge, and suggesting that those of us who think that our actions abroad, and at home might have something to do with acts of terrorism committed against us, are no longer welcome in the Labour party, or indeed on the left!
I guess, For the Euston Alliance and it's supporters, it's a case of 'you are either with them, or against them'. It's all so simple in neocon fantasy land...
At least they have got themselves a theme song.
UPDATE:
Johnny Void has a copy of the "real" Euston Manifesto...
The PNAC have been busy yet
The PNAC have been busy yet again. There is a piece by Reuel Marc Gerecht, ex CIA, currently a senior fellow at PNAC, published in the Washington Street Journal. It advocates a Fallujah style indiscriminate cleansing of Baghdad of all militias. This is not the EM but that document is essentially an apologia for the PNAC doctrine of pre-emptive aggression for power phrased in very Nu Labour Orwellian language.
In an earlier comment I
In an earlier comment I reffered to an article by Gerecht of PNAC fame that appeared in the Washington Street Journal. Duh...my bad.....that was a careless typo. The piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal as an editorial.
Any idea when this was from
Any idea when this was from or what it is called?
The important question that
The important question that the framers of the euston thingie need to answer is-
just what does Tony Blair's arse taste of, is it (as many suspect) George Bush's cock?
don't worry, these Blair
don't worry, these Blair apologists and authors of the Euston Circle Jerk arne't of any note. they didn't even read this before unleashing their self important drivel on us.
they're just a front for Blairism and of no import. In ten years time they'll be cringing with embarrassment about this.
re the query from
re the query from Anonymous
it appeared in the Wall Street Journal in the following article at http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008178
There has been some follow up interviews with Gerecht, one by Gigot aired on Fox News, to clarify what Gerecht has to say, particularly re the following passage from Gerecht's Wall Street Journal editorial:
"The Bush administration would be wise not to postpone any longer what it should have already undertaken - securing Baghdad. This will be an enormously difficult task: Both Sunnis and Shiites will have to be confronted.............Pacifying Baghdad will be politically convulsive and provide horrific film footage and skyrocketing body counts. But Iraq cannot heal itself so long as Baghdad remains a deadly place."
It's number 10, that makes
It's number 10, that makes me puke.
Number 10.....
wot no tracks back
OK
http://tinyurl.com/obksf
Cheers
t
number 10 is just an
number 10 is just an affirmation of charles clarke's stated desire to rip up the geneva convention.
I wonder if this discussion
I wonder if this discussion is reflective of the Left; it certainly reflects my experience. The argument is trite and abusive, devoid of any actual engagement with another point of view. This reflects the intolerance and philistinism that has infected the Left since the 1930's. Uncle Joe is as alive today in the dumbing down of the Left as he was when Orwell ploughed his lonely furrow back then. I am sure comments about Blair licking arse are very funny to all you guys. I suggest you look in the mirror and reflect on the colour of your own noses sometime.
Is there a Left out there that isn't a nasty, politically correct, self-congratulatory, democratic centralist cabal? Is there a Left that actually wants to face up to the reality of globalization and theocratic extremists without yearing for...well actually what does the Left yearn for? It is an entirely oppositionist rag tag of public sector chatterers whose vision can only be guessed at.
In the lack of a clear vision from anywhere else, I'll take this Euston manifesto for now. I am sure the Left will tell me where the vison goes wrong, but it is seventy years and more since they actually articulated a vision for themselves.
As soon as this pub closes...