Saturday, May 06, 2006

Wanted for Genocide

Question: What's the difference between Blair and a Nazi?

Answer: Not much.

Following the predictable debacle of the Labour Party in yesterday's local elections Blair has re-shuffled his Cabinet. Not in order to provide a leadership more acceptable to the electorate but to ensure that his key ministers are faithful toadies who will guarantee his political survival for a while longer.

We say goodbye to Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who has been a lone voice of caution against UK military involvement in a US-led attack on Iran. Some believe this means that an attack is inevitable but we cannot know that until the rogues in the White House make their final decision. Unlike Straw, who despite his name appears to have had an independent mind, Blair will happily endorse anything his US handlers decide upon.

Behind a mask of false friendliness and reason dwells a ruthless killer so addicted by power that the prospect of millions of innocent deaths brought about by a gang of murderous hijackers headed by a usurper calling himself the President of the USA has not the slightest effect. Both men, now increasingly despised by those they duped, believe they talk to God. Having the blood of mass-murder on their hands, they pant and thirst for more killing.

Again, I have to ask the question, what kind of a world is this where human values have become so degraded that we allow ourselves to be coerced and terrorised by cowards such as these? It's easy enough to focus the blame on those in power but much more a challenge to recall that it is we ourselves who are collectively responsible for allowing them to remain there.

They kill only because we allow them in our name. The power to change that remains with us whether or not we choose to use it.

So does their genocide.


  1. Anonymous11:25 am

    I agree with most of what you say apart from the common failing that Bliar does as his 'handlers' say, which is very similar to the 'poodle' stuff.
    Bliar is not a poodle to the US. Bliar's politics are neo-conservative, he embraced the ideology a long time ago, trying to call it the 'Third Way'. Brown is from the same ideology.
    The only reason he won a third term was the contempt the neo-cons had for Michael Howard, hence Murdoch's media was, though less than in previous times, for Bliar.(he was still required for Iran)
    Howard resigned, the choice for the neo-cons was 1. Liam Fox 2. David Davies. For the future Cameron was to be blooded and Frank Luntz was given the speechwriting and training job on Cameron. Then Blackpool happened and within 24 hours the decision was made Cameron would be leader if possible. Murdoch's media went into overdrive on Cameron. Cameron won but has Fox, Davies and other neo-cons in his gang. Think about the recent revelations re 'New' Labour, most are old stories suddenly seeing daylight, pre local elections. This allowed for a cabinet reshuffle to get rid of the doubters. Beckett at the FO, with Daniel Bethlehem QC the newly appointed chief legal officer and Geoff Hoon (another long term neo-con) second in command. Getting another lawyer, Des Browne, to head defense. Think back to the illegal attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq and Goldsmith.
    Bliar is no 'poodle' he is and was a willing WAR CRIMINAL.

  2. I agree with your comments above. Blair doesn't need to be told about neo-con ideology. He's a natch. I would think, though, that on everyday tactical issues he does get directives from Washington as eg. in the case of firing Robin Cooke and Jack Straw.

    He certainly is a war criminal and most likely an undiagnosed psychopath. The fact that the British establishment allows him to, literally, get away with murder makes him even more dangerous.