It's July 5th and I can leave the country with a clear conscience today. Is Blair wavering yet?

Blair just preached a sermon to the Muslim community telling them it's time they stoppped believing "fallacies" about Western (meaning Blairite) policy.

The man's an embarrassment.

Heh. I agree: they shouldn't believe in fallacies. It would be nice if Blair explained what those fallacies were....

I guess the fallacy is refusing to believe that Blair is the bestest friend the Muslims have ever had.

Blair needs Bush. With Bush in office, Blair could send all the Muslims to the gas chambers and the relative humanity of this fate would make Blair the better man....

Everything that this article says. It is slightly comforting to have the validation... but then again there's that the dose of reality in that those more savvy and powerful than I... had evidence and still... did nothing. It all just makes me feel very unsafe!

Thanks for the input anyway. *rolls eyes*

Bush and bi-Laden both want war and the rest of us have been suckered into it

I still cannot shake the feeling that Bush doesn't want anything.

My sense is the Bush is the puppet. Maybe Halliburton wants war? And Cheney knows how to intimidate men like Bush?

People who've met Bush say he's smarter than his public image suggests, so, I don't know. I guess we'll have to wait for the history books to be written to find out who's been the brains behind this administration.

Is that a little like Hitler
needs Churchill?
not much of a riposte but in this
sort of politcial writing does one not
see how everything
bent to a purpose, take the "one poll" showing
a sudden swing of 6 points whih is related to
the release of ben Laden's tape...perhaps one
poll showed that sort of swing though I dont
remember it , but another might have showed
a Kerry gain. I do think that in the last days
the polls showed on average a movement to the
President but if you were to look at a
graph of the poll averages over the whole
campaign ,not an exceptional one as the thing
had fluctuated back and forth a number of times.
Nor was this tape perhaps the principal factor
in the final swing(if there was one)...etc

It's more like Hitler needed the Jews. :(

eh? oh well...go to it guys...

I did think of writing "like Churchill needed Hitler". Churchill would have been one of history's also-rans if Hitler hadn't given him his big chance.

bin-Laden wants Holy War and he did what he could to get Bush re-elected because Bush wants Holy War too.

Whether his intervention had a measurable effect on the election is another matter.

well you know I think the demonization
of President Bush is mistaken. If this
makes me "a Bush worshipper" an expression
I saw on someone's post today in another
(but similarly contemtuous) context then I
would say the perception is symptom of
a very schematic view of the world with
each thing assignes a punch and judy type
of meaning.
But enough on this, people think of current
affairs in various ways...
anyway there should be not much trouble more
from over here as I see the First Lord of
the Admiralty assures His Majesty that
though the colonials are numerous "they
are raw, undisciplined and cowardley men."

The two Georges were obviously both misled by poor intelligence.

I think Bush is an incompetent and blinkered politician and that most of his foreign policy decisions have been disastrously wrong. I don't think that's demonization.

well I would like to move off of any
direct disagreement since first for what
end? if for any end it would be because
it is a rainy day and I am allowing myself
to have started up a discussion for what
purpose?
no good answer to that so... sorry.
I think perhaps I could say that it may be
more that I do not easily see things as being
assessable as 'right' or 'wrong' so maybe
have a broader sense of ilegitimate 'demonizing'
than those who more easily determine what
was right or wrong...? this resistance on
my part to that could be a limitation for
a clergyman... perhaps ,if it be any excuse,
it has been reinforced by listening to
a good many confessions and thinking what can
one say about this? who knows etc what is the
person really trying to say etc where does
this come from etc

in my case it comes from being at desk of an
empty library with ,I started to say effin'-A,
but I mean to say with little to do. it is
raining. I could write a live journal entry.
about what? brain empty ...

hope things are happier over there?

It's very hot here, but we're promised rain later. I'm looking forward to it.

We disagree about Bush. That's fine. I've found that profound disagreement needn't preclude friendship. In fact it sometimes acts as a spice.

My old mentor G.K. Chesterton, for example, remained all his life on very good terms with ideological adversaries like Wells and Shaw.

in this sort of pairing it becomes
a little like quixote and sancho doesnt
it? friendship completing what is only
partial in each... or more subtley
perhaps in a frinedship like that of
Waite and Machen (in a sense sparring on
some things, but not apparant
opposites)...
sometimes opposites are more apparant
than actual arent they and the one finds
license in the other to be a side of himself
(or maybe it was so for wells and chesterton
too) I am thinking of General Thomas Jackson
(Stonewall) and J.E,B.Stuart the cavalry man
with the black plume in his slouched hat
and the red cape... a cavalier and a puritan
one might say but Jackson was observed to tap
his foot as the young officers danced with their
belles and his bright blue eyes to close and
head to nod during sermons at his Presbyterian
church.

I don't trust anything I read from that source. They are so blatantly biased that I don't think they can do straight reporting.

Is there any such thing as an unbiased news source?

I'm assuming that this is a rhetorical question.

There are lots of kinds of bias--one of the more subtle is, of course, the kind of stories you choose to put in your publication. A less subtle form is frothing at the mouth, and frankly, that taints all of truthout for me. (And I'm a liberal--these should be my people.)

Truthout is a bit of a rag-bag. They bring together liberal and left-wing op-ed pieces from all sorts of sources and some are strident and frothy and others are closely argued and based on solid investigative journalism. You have to pick and choose.

Weren't they the ones that broke the story that a Rove indictment was imminent?

Probably. QED.

They may well have done.

They reprint stories from all kinds of sources; one has to pick and choose. Their best stuff is very, very good, their worst stuff is windy and strident.

I already had my rant in my other blog, Notes from underground: Winning the hearts and minds, prompted by a British opinion poll (which seems to have gone largely unremarked) indicating that most Brits think US foreign policy stinks.

If the Daily Telegraph poll hasn't had much coverage over here it's because it's not telling us anything we don't already know. The only Brit who has any time for George Bush is Tony Blair. Most of us are deeply ashamed that Blair, who was elected to do something very different, has tied our fortunes so closely to those of a right-wing, war-mongering president.

Two right-wing war-mongering presidents in a row, in fact.