Sunday, July 24, 2005

Blair's legacy...

Image hosted by flickr.com

This is a quote from John Pilger's article in the New Statesman:

"Blair brought home to this country his and George W Bush's illegal, unprovoked and blood-soaked adventure in the Middle East. Were it not for his epic irresponsibility, the Londoners who died in the Tube and on the No 30 bus almost certainly would be alive today... To paraphrase perhaps the only challenging question put to Blair on the eve of the invasion (by John Humphrys), it is now surely beyond all doubt that the man is unfit to be Prime Minister."

The reality is that any President or Prime Minister who serves for eight years in power will become a publicly divisive figure. But, in the aftermath of the London bombings something deeper is behind the animosity directed towards Tony Blair. John Pilger's sentiments have been echoed by Alex Sammond of the Scottish National Party, and, to some degree, the London Mayor, Ken Livingstone. In the press conference immediately following the second failed attack last Thursday, the questions that were posed to the Prime Minister were forceful and direct: "Do you feel any responsibility for putting Londoners on the front line of the war on terror?" One particular journalist asked.

The war in Iraq is one method by which the anxiety in this country can be purged, and perhaps, an element of blame can be apportioned.

It is such a frustrating, disheartening part of the emerging discourse. The idea that the terrorists who blew up innocent people on 7/7 were possessed with some kind of humanitarian concern for the innocent dead in Iraq, or were waging a political campaign like the IRA for the removal of the the US from Iraq, is clearly wrong. These are men devoted to the violent supremacy of their warped dochtrine.

Blair's domestic legacy isn't difficult to discern at this time (although I'm sure many will disagree with my assessments). We know that his stewardship will be defined by an uninterupted period of economic stability and growth, as he is predicted to leave the government at the end of next year. We know that the policies that have been the bedrock of securing that success were fought for and won by his courageous attempt to bring the Labour party into the mainstream of British politics. The Labour party's current viability in government, (three successive election victories, and predictions of a fourth)
as a result of his youth, charisma, moderate vision, and appeal to middle England, are where Tony Blair's legacy begins.

In addition to low interests rates, low inflation, and all time record low levels of unemployment, he has been able to combine a secure economy with increased investment in public services. The hospitals, schools, police and emergency services, all have greater resources at their disposal, and the common consensus at the last election was that, while maybe not to the desired degree, they had all improved.

The next point is a difficult one to make in the light of the fact we've learned the terrorists of 7/7 were British born. But, I believe it to be true, in spite of this. We live in a more inclusive society than that under 18 years of Conservative rule. The eightees are defined by many things, but part of that retrospective equation is the social unrest of the time. The poll tax riots, the miners strikes, and a general sense of exclusion are my memories of being one of "Thatcher's children." The real domestic legacy of Tony Blair, in my opinion, is that we are not as divided as we once were. People in most of the country comfortably feel part of where the nation is heading, and what it stands for, with the possible exception of elements of the countryside.

Blair's approach to international affairs has been bold. I think no one would disagree with me on that. He has taken a leadership role in the military action in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and also the peace negotiations in N.Ireland. The accusations levelled against him of electioneering, and popularism, at least in this instance, do not seem to be fair.

There was nothing popular about stading up to Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with 16 successive security council resolutions. There was nothing popular about backing the United States when the French refused on any basis to agree to a second resolution directly threatening military action for another breach and continued non-compliance.

I supported the war in Iraq. And, I continue to support it. I continue to believe that the free world should be active in trying to manage the threats posed by facistic, dangerous regimes. But, there have have been some awful mistakes in securing and rebuilding Iraq after the war.

One of Paul Bremmer's first actions was to create a more liberalized economy than arguably any other on the face of the planet, by removing all barriers, trade borders, or protectionist measures. Traders streamed across the Iraqi border with goods to sell. Iraq's comparitively well developed economy, in the drama of Saddam's removal was suddenly exposed to a whole host of new trading variables. In stead of a rebuilding effort lead by economists, international institutions, and humanitarian agencies, secured by the US military presence... we had instead a rebuilding effort lead by the US military pursuing the naive Bush economic dochtrine of less government is always for the best.

Was this even Democratic? Was it not up to the Iraqi people to determine their economic future when elections could be held? Was it not incumbent upon us as self-perceived liberators to safeguard the big decisions that the Iraqi people would face, and might in turn be united by... like the direction of their economic policy? Wasn't there some other way of managing the requisite private investment other than opening up Iraq's borders to everyone? Has this not aggrevated the perceived notion of the US being occupyers and not liberators?

Post war Iraq, has been, in my opinion a mismanaged failure. The British Empire invaded arab nations centuries ago under no professed intension to liberate their inhabitants... without any pretense that they were anything other than invaders and occupiers, and yet, miraculously, they managed the economic growth and security of those nations with a great deal more efficiency than has taken place in Iraq.

The insurgency, terrorism, beheadings, social fragmentation IS the epitaph of the Iraq war. And, unfortunately, it will be the legacy of what I still believe to be a brave confrontation with a malevolent dictator capable of committing mass murder and destablising the entire region.

It doesn't matter if I, and others who thought like me were right to support the war. The reality is it has failed thus far because the primary objectives have not been achieved.

The region is not more stabile.
The integrity of the U.N. has been undermined, and not upheld.

It was very sad for me to see Tony Blair sail into a healthy 9-12 point lead during the build up to the British general election as the public debate focused upon domestic issues, only for Iraq to rear its head in the last two weeks, and for that lead to be consequently eroded to three points of an embarrisingly limp opposition Conservative party.

The terrorism on September 11th, in Bali, Madrid, London, and now Egypt has nothing to do with the operation of Iraq. Two of those attacks took place before the war in Iraq had even begun. Like I said, in my opinion, this terrorism is the last throes of a failing theocratic facistic ideal. These terrorists cannot stand the incompatibility of their pre-eminence with free societies, and the way freedom spreads throughout all nations over time.

John Pilger is so wrong. He doesn't understand the nature of the threat posed to us, and further, why inaction, and passivity in the face of this violent threat is the worst way of securing our safety.

But, Blair's legacy, so sadly spoiled by the failure of Iraqi reconstruction, is now a very easy place for anxious ideologues to lay blame.

Tags:
, , , ,

19 comments:

Dean (Team Greshes) said...

Hi and thank you for the comments. You make some very pertinent points in this analysis. We hope more well-informed bloggers like yourself will continue to visit.

MrV said...

What people like John Pilger don't get is that the whole war on terrorism goes way beyond Iraq and that if both Britain and the US where to pull out tomorrow nothing would change.

Bin Laden and others like him declared war on not only the US but western society as a whole way before Iraq or even 911. In fact in more ways than one he probably knew what would become of Iraq in the aftermath of 911 and some may say that played right into his hand. But it is not so much of western society occupying Iraq in as much as western society occupying Muslim society via our freedoms, commercialization, and our over all way of live.

Howard said...

Your country was sttacked because you allowed it to become infested with militant muslims and clerics who have a real hate for folks that aren't muslims..

Graham said...

I don't believe the country is "infested" with militant muslims and militant clerics. Just from my experience being here and all :).

Keith said...

Graham,

As usual, first rate work. I enjoy reading your blog because I find our problems, and the responses to them, so similar to our own here in the US. I found your analysis in today's post applicable to the situation in the US today. The world keeps getting smaller.

NYgirl said...

Ditto Keith's comments. While I too wish that the situation in Iraq were better, one must take into account that this was a society that had been under a brutal dictator for many decades.

As we have seen from the example of Russia, totalitarianism has a tendancy to destroy the structures of civil society so vital to a functional democracy. Unfortunalty, democracy is a thing which must be learned, & doing so is hardly easy. I do not beleive that it would be reasonable to expect this region to become democratic for at least the next ten years.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Graham, for the kind words you posted on my blog site!

I've visited here a few times - have your site in my favorites! Excellent writing on your part and I like your take on things.

Thank you again. Mickey_Finn

Enigma America said...

Very cool blog...BTW, I love London.

Sophia said...

Hey Graham,

I've actually been reading your blog as well and I'm not sure that I've commented yet...If not, here I go! You are a very thoughtful and articulate writer, and I enjoy reading your entries.

Thanks for visiting my blog as well; I look forward to continuing to read yours!

Eban Crawford said...

Top notch Graham. What Pilger, Livingstone, and their equivalents on the other side of the pond do not realize is that the politics of division, as have been practiced of late, are on the way out. In other words, extreme partisan mudslinging is no longer the new black, lol.

The people are wising up and are tired of unsubstantiated retoric and divisive slander, from both ends of the political spectrum.

Pilger's comments are not only wrong, but will backfire against him with all but the most ardent followers of political prejudice.

Great, thought provoking post.

Skarr said...

Thanks for your comments on my blog. I really liked the work of this artist and plan to use him for designing the covers to my other novels, when they are published.

Graham said...

I hope you're right Eban. However, it will require politicians to stand up and embody this refreshed public mood. The worry is if the attacks continue then these kinds of ideas really thrive on fear, regardless of what side, left or right, they come from.

P.S. don't stop ur blog!!!

Thanks, also, for all of the comments, NY Girl, Sophia, Skarr, Enigma A, and thanks also to Keith again for taking an interest in my 'anti-anti-american' post. U all have great blogs, and I'll be adding u to my blogroll if I haven't already.

Neovo said...

Hey cool blog graham.

Iraqi situation is partly messed up because it was only geared towards violence. Even now there are no plans to pull out. U.N has been made redundant imho.

insanehippie said...

The UN only has itself to blame, the world collectively let Saddam get bigger and stronger, Rebuilding takes time, Germany and Japan took a decade, as did the UK and others, If arabs / muslims want peace they will fight for it.

Universal Soldier said...

Thanks for articulating what I believe but don't have the vocabulary to express.

Gert said...

Graham,

Posting my lengthy comment here would be impossible, so I've created a blog post dedicated to my response to your rambling text. See link below.

Neo-conservative nonsense

Graham said...

Gert's rebuttal of my "ramble" on his blog is just a tad mean spirited (cough, cough), but an interesting, provocative read all the same regardless of your viewpoint.

I just wanted to post it here because I enjoy the discourse, and I think if this blog serves any purpose at all it should welcomingly account for all perspectives and points of view... even those on my abilities, or lack there of as a writer. I'll post my counterpoints on Gert's blog, and then here, later on:

GERT WROTE:

Neo-conservative nonsense

The nonsense that keeps being spouted in the wake of the London bombings and in the name of Mr Blair’s “legacy” continues to amaze me. This revisionist troll called Graham calls himself “centre-left” whilst singing from the same hymn sheet as both Neo-conservative gangs of four on either side of the Atlantic.

Graham’s essay does actually raise a few decent points but on the whole is hopelessly confused and badly written.

Graham said:

It is such a frustrating, disheartening part of the emerging discourse. The idea that the terrorists who blew up innocent people on 7/7 were possessed with some kind of humanitarian concern for the innocent dead in Iraq, or were waging a political campaign like the IRA for the removal of the the US [sic] from Iraq, is clearly wrong. These are men devoted to the violent supremacy of their warped dochtrine [sic].

My response:

No one is condoning terrorism and no one (including the terrorists themselves) considers terrorists to be “were possessed with some kind of humanitarian concern for the innocent dead in Iraq”. But if you can’t see that 50 years of failed foreign policy by the US, the UK and the rest of Europe, has created an entire army of young Muslims vying for our blood, you must have been living on a different planet altogether.

See also “Suicide bombers without a cause” and
“How Jihadis really feel about us and the US”

Graham said:

Blair's domestic legacy isn't difficult to discern at this time (although I'm sure many will disagree with my assessments). We know that his stewardship will be defined by an uninterupted [sic] period of economic stability and growth, as he is predicted to leave the government at the end of next year. We know that the policies that have been the bedrock of securing that success were fought for and won by his courageous attempt to bring the Labour party into the mainstream of British politics. The Labour party's current viability in government, (three successive election victories, and predictions of a fourth)
as a result of his youth, charisma, moderate vision, and appeal to middle England, are where Tony Blair's legacy begins.

My response:

Mr Blair is a pathological liar who misled the British people over the link between 9/11 and Iraq and the WMD dossier. Mr Blair led the British people into a war against which a clear majority existed, and still exists today. As the head of Government, he is expected to carry out the will of the people, that’s called democracy. Instead, Mr Blair systematically does what HE FEELS is right, regardless of the people who so stupidly, and once too often, placed their trust in this manipulating intellectual nitwit.

Graham said:

There was nothing popular about stading [sic] up to Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with 16 successive security council resolutions. There was nothing popular about backing the United States when the French refused on any basis to agree to a second resolution directly threatening military action for another breach and continued non-compliance.

My response:

You’re a revisionist. Your historical knowledge of the Middle East goes back to about last Tuesday. Saddam Hussein was a Western creation. The US and UK (as well as Europe) supported Saddam unreservedly and armed him to the teeth, to provide a barrier against the fundamentalist Muslim revolution in Iran. The US also supported Saddam in an eight year war against Iran. The US and UK governments make political mint out of the geo-political and historical ignorance (“Cognocenti”? Ignoranti, more like) of people like you. See also this post.

Graham said:

I supported the war in Iraq. And, I continue to support it. I continue to believe that the free world should be active in trying to manage the threats posed by fascistic, dangerous regimes. But, there have have [sic] been some awful mistakes in securing and rebuilding Iraq after the war.

My response:

Nothing has been secured at all. But we’re pretty sure this little sortie cost about 100,000 civilian lives, at least we can take comfort from that? Is it surprising there is so much vitriolic hatred emanating from the Middle East towards the unholy "US-UK" alliance. Besides, with the US as an ally, who needs enemies?

Graham said:

Was this even Democratic? Was it not up to the Iraqi people to determine their economic future when elections could be held? Was it not incumbent upon us as self-perceived liberators to safeguard the big decisions that the Iraqi people would face, and might in turn be united by... like the direction of their economic policy? Wasn't there some other way of managing the requisite private investment other than opening up Iraq's borders to everyone? Has this not aggrevated [sic] the perceived notion of the US being occupiers and not liberators?

My response:

You’re almost making sense now. The US and UK aren’t liberators at all.

Graham said:

Post war Iraq, has been, in my opinion a mismanaged failure [sic]. The British Empire invaded arab [sic] nations centuries ago under no professed intension to liberate their inhabitants... without any pretense [sic] that they were anything other than invaders and occupiers, and yet, miraculously, they managed the economic growth and security of those nations with a great deal more efficiency than has taken place in Iraq.

My response:

A “mismanaged failure”… Could you point out a few examples of “well-managed failures”? Just curious…
"miraculously"... What's the magic word? Abracadabra! You twit!



Graham said:

It doesn't matter if I, and others who thought like me were right to support the war. The reality is it has failed thus far because the primary objectives have not been achieved.

My response:

So, now it doesn’t really matter anymore whether you were right or wrong about supporting the war? Dear me. You twitch and slither until you don’t understand yourself what on Earth you’re talking about.

Graham said:

It was very sad for me to see Tony Blair sail into a healthy 9-12 point lead during the build up to the British general election as the public debate focused upon domestic issues, only for Iraq to rear its head in the last two weeks, and for that lead to be consequently eroded to three points of an embarrisingly [sic] limp opposition Conservative party.

My response:

“It was very sad for me… [blah, blah, blah]: I think you’re simply a sad reactionary knee jerker.

Graham said:

The terrorism on September 11th, in Bali, Madrid, London, and now Egypt has nothing to do with the operation of Iraq. Two of those attacks took place before the war in Iraq had even begun. Like I said, in my opinion, this terrorism is the last throes of a failing theocratic facistic [sic] ideal. These terrorists cannot stand the incompatibility of their pre-eminence with free societies, and the way freedom spreads throughout all nations over time.

My response:

If you’re going to call people “fascists” (a grave allegation), at least have the courtesy to spell the word correctly.

Oh, yes, the American Neo-cons are only in it to “spread a little freedom”. You’re extremely naïve.

Do read up on the “anti anti-terrorism bill bill”: a fine example of Mr Blair’s “legacy” and New Labour’s idea of “freedom”.

Graham said:

But, Blair's legacy, so sadly spoiled by the failure of Iraqi reconstruction, is now a very easy place for anxious ideologues to lay blame.

My response:

“so sadly spoiled by the failure of Iraqi reconstruction”. So sadly, so sadly, can you hear those words in your head? If I had my way, Mr Blair’s legacy would be spoiled rather by being indicted as the first British Criminal of War.

Finally…

You, Sir, are very, very confused… Also, do try and use a spell checker, it makes you look less like a troll.

Graham said...

This was my reply to Gert on his blog:

Well, to begin I should make it clear that any labels that you ascribe to my position on the Iraq war don’t really concern me. What I attempt to do on my blog is express my opinion on a variety of issues regardless of where that opinion falls on the political spectrum. I am quite baffled by your need to attribute labels and political stereotypes as a means to assert your disagreement with me. What possible purpose is served by pigeonholing me as a “neo-conservative,” and a “troll,” when my views on Iraq are typically shared by the vast majority of Democrats in the US, including the platform John Kerry articulated at the 04 Election. Aren’t these labels somewhat subjective? Is John Kerry a Neo-Conservative? Is Bill Clinton? Consequently, isn’t the name calling somewhat redundant if it is your intention to demonstrate how confused and outlandish my views are?

The second thing is that I apologize if the bravado of my blog title rankles with you. I don’t claim to be a great thinker, or a great writer for that matter. I don’t claim to be educated, or well informed, and I always welcome debate and competing points of view. + I always try to keep an open mind. I simply enjoy exploring (rambling to you :P) my thoughts and ideas on a variety of issues. Those ideas stand on their own merits, right or wrong… but they are mine (my judgment) regardless of your attempts to categorize or demean them.

You wrote:

No one is condoning terrorism and no one (including the terrorists themselves) considers terrorists to be “were possessed with some kind of humanitarian concern for the innocent dead in Iraq”. But if you can’t see that 50 years of failed foreign policy by the US, the UK and the rest of Europe, has created an entire army of young Muslims vying for our blood, you must have been living on a different planet altogether.

My Reply:

I do disagree with you, and yes, I do believe we are living on different planets, lol. To argue that 50 years of a failed foreign policy by the US and the UK has, in isolation, been the cause for the rise of Islamic terror is frankly naïve. To quote another one of my posts:
“While to many, the innocent loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan is offensive, they would be wrong to ascribe a similar humanistic value system to the murderers in London… these terrorists are not motivated by the loss of life in Iraq, they are motivated by the fact that the West would intervene in Iraq at all, and via its actions, threaten their supremacy. It is their wounded ego, and not wounded innocents that inspire their violence.
Osama Bin Laden does not weep out of empathy for the young that have been callously murdered in Palestine by the Jewish military (in fact I think he finds the U.S. military presence in his homeland Saudi Arabia much more offensive)… he weeps because the mere existence of Israel is a blight on the supremacy of his world view. I hope people of all denominations and creeds might slowly begin to see that the violence we saw in London, and the violence we saw in Madrid and New York was the brutal throes of a failing supremacistic and fascistic ideal.”

I don’t dismiss that the issues you raise have been contributory factors… that have exacerbated the polarization between the Arab world and the West, but there are larger issues involved that I don’t think you grasp.

You wrote:

Mr Blair is a pathological liar who misled the British people over the link between 9/11 and Iraq and the WMD dossier. Mr Blair led the British people into a war against which a clear majority existed, and still exists today. As the head of Government, he is expected to carry out the will of the people, that’s called democracy. Instead, Mr Blair systematically does what HE FEELS is right, regardless of the people who so stupidly, and once too often, placed their trust in this manipulating intellectual nitwit.

My reply:

You are incorrect. The majority of the British people supported the Iraq war when it began. I was in the United Kingdom during the entire lead up to the war, and in spite of the protests, and constant public dissection of the arguments, pros and cons, 50+% of the British people agreed with the action in the aftermath of the failure to acquire a second resolution at the United Nations. These polls are widely available on the ICM, You Gov, and Mori website. I also don’t think you grasp that we live in a “representative democracy,” and the way that system functions is that every four/five years we elect officials to act on our behalf. Even in the event that public opinion polls were in opposition to the war it would not be an undemocratic action for Tony Blair to act on the mandate given to him by the House of Commons and House of Lords. The implications of what you consider Democracy to mean would probably require referendums on every major government action and, as a result, the immediate re-instatement of Capital Punishment alongside some pretty draconian legislation against homo-sexuality…

Tony Blair does not simply do what he feels is right. He has a chamber of elected members of parliament upon whose support he relies. The political make up of that chamber is ultimately our responsibility as voters, and it slightly contradicts your viewpoint that the two parties which accrued the most votes at the last election both supported the Iraq war. Would this have been the case if the action in Iraq was such a grave offense against Democracy? If this process is insufficient for you then your issue is a constitutional one, and certainly not the sole responsibility of Tony Blair.

You Wrote:

You’re a revisionist. Your historical knowledge of the Middle East goes back to about last Tuesday. Saddam Hussein was a Western creation. The US and UK (as well as Europe) supported Saddam unreservedly and armed him to the teeth, to provide a barrier against the fundamentalist Muslim revolution in Iran. The US also supported Saddam in an eight year war against Iran. The US and UK governments make political mint out of the geo-political and historical ignorance (“Cognocenti”? Ignoranti, more like) of people like you. See also this post.

My reply:

Just because I have a different interpretation of events to you does not make me a revisionist, lol. Since when did you write history? Where did anything I state negate the role the West played in consolidating Saddam’s position, and worse, arming him? Your comprehension of my argument seems to be constrained by your personal perspective. Even though I say absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with your accounting of history, you presume I am ignorant and call me names.

Do you need an explanation?:
The reality of the threat that Saddam posed to his own people, the security of the region, and to the wider world didn’t cease to exist because of our complicity in his ascendence. He was still a problem that needed to be dealt with. Even those who disagreed with the war recognized this.

You wrote:

Nothing has been secured at all. But we’re pretty sure this little sortie cost about 100,000 civilian lives, at least we can take comfort from that? Is it surprising there is so much vitriolic hatred emanating from the Middle East towards the unholy "US-UK" alliance. Besides, with the US as an ally, who needs enemies?

My reply:

I agree with you a great deal. But, the facts you recite don’t necessarily negate the validity of taking action to remove Saddam. The war itself was one of the most expedient and efficient military campaigns in the history of modern warfare. There are costs associated with any such military intervention… and the costs incurred by the initial invasion and toppling of Saddam’s regime were considerably less than most Anti-war protesters suggested they would be. The vast majority of loss to civilian life, and British and American soldiers has been during the post war rebuilding effort… that I contend has been mismanaged.

Are you a pacifist? Did you agree with military intervention in Serbia? Would you have supported military intervention in Rwanda to halt the genocide in the 90’s as Clinton has retrospectively stated he should have pursued? Upon what basis do you expect diplomacy to mitigate the problems the world faces when 16 successive Security Council resolutions against Saddam, in the aftermath of the gulf war, which was fought to liberate the Kurds from Saddam’s invasion… were completely ignored. Does your far superior grasp of history stretch back to the League of Nations and the cause of its demise?

And the hatred emanating from the Middle East… the concern for the loss of life and the Human Rights abuses by US and UK troops that have been widely publicized are not the basis upon which an Islamic Terrorist decides to murder innocent people in a maniacal act of suicide/homicide. Yes, it is most certainly the means by which terrorism has thrived, and acquired the political masquerade of “liberating Iraq from US occupation,” … and that is why I am so staunchly in favor of attempts to internationalize the military presence that is currently in Iraq, a policy eloquently proposed by “neo-con,” John Kerry at the last US election.

You wrote:

A “mismanaged failure”… Could you point out a few examples of “well-managed failures”? Just curious…
"miraculously"... What's the magic word? Abracadabra! You twit!

My reply:

You do know this is my blog, right? My own personal space to ramble, whinge, proselatyze, and yes, make grammatical mistakes too. It’s my place to explore issues from my own perspective and, in spite of your enormously high opinion of yourself, you are not the only judge of whether what I write is worthy.

I should have said “a failure as a result of mismanagement.” Damn, you really undermined my whole argument right there.

If you’re attacking me for having poor grammar and spelling you should be aware that out there in the blogosphere it does get much worse than “mismanaged failure.” You should also know that you’re not always coherent yourself. I think anyone willing to consider my opinions with an open mind could easily grasp what I was trying to say.

You wrote:

Graham said:

It doesn't matter if I, and others who thought like me were right to support the war. The reality is it has failed thus far because the primary objectives have not been achieved.

You wrote:
So, now it doesn’t really matter anymore whether you were right or wrong about supporting the war? Dear me. You twitch and slither until you don’t understand yourself what on Earth you’re talking about.

My response:

You’re not really paying attention. I’m saying that, even if getting rid of Saddam Hussein was right, as I contend it to be, it doesn’t change the reality of the situation currently in Iraq, which is screwed up. I’m not saying at all that the question of whether the war in Iraq was right or wrong doesn’t matter. Of course it does. I wouldn’t be here discussing it with you if I thought that. I wouldn’t have had innumerable debates littered all over my blog with people on the left, and also on the right, if that was what I believed.

Your implications about me “slithering” are disienguous and not worthy my response

You wrote:
Graham said:

It was very sad for me to see Tony Blair sail into a healthy 9-12 point lead during the build up to the British general election as the public debate focused upon domestic issues, only for Iraq to rear its head in the last two weeks, and for that lead to be consequently eroded to three points of an embarrisingly [sic] limp opposition Conservative party.

My response:

“It was very sad for me… [blah, blah, blah]: I think you’re simply a sad reactionary knee jerker.

My reply:

There you go being all mature again. It’s when you make statements like this that I really open my mind, take your points seriously, and examine my perspective ;). You are a very impressive communicator.

And the big climax... You wrote:

You, Sir, are very, very confused… Also, do try and use a spell checker, it makes you look less like a troll.

My reply:
Like I said, I don’t know or care about what a troll is. My opinions are mine, and informed by own faculties and judgment. I’m not surprised you find the notion of supporting the Iraq War, but disagreeing with the way rebuilding effort has been waged, “confusing,” because your world view and perspective seems fairly narrow... in keeping with your ability to grasp viewpoints in opposition to your own.

In regards to my ability as a writer, regardless of my errors, regardless of your twenty year seniority, regardless of your supposed superior wisdom and knowledge… my writing, in terms substance, ideas, and readability is considerably better than your own.

My apologies for any spelling errors :).

Gert said...

Hi Graham,

Just a quick note to tell you the post I mentioned is now ready:

How the West was wrong