No Shame From Britain's Left.

I used to read the New Statesman, an old Fabian publication with a long pedigree, for some provocative outlook. In recent years, however, it has become what the Guardian and the Nation have each turned into: a sewer of leftist paranoia perpetrated by deranged, unbalanced socio-fascists.

John Pilger, a rather minor debased leftist and poor writer, goes all the way to blaming Tony Blair for the London bombings. That's right:

(This is where TNS inserted insidious pop-up. I removed the cover picture; you'll have to go see the black backpack on the cover story).

This is the cover story for this week's edition. Blair's bombs.

The bombs of 7 July were Blair's bombs.

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. This is what Livingstone ought to have said. 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.

So now the New Statesman has joined the Islamists, along with George Galloway and Red Ken Livingstone, in drawing a line directly from the terrorists to their fevered minds. Yes, the bombs were planted by Tony Blair. Not Islamic radicals; Tony Blair.

Pilger is a man who has no shame, no sense of morality.

UPDATE: Oliver Kamm says the same thing, only better of course.

Pilger is Pilger: a man who identifies in the Bush administration "the Third Reich of our times", and whose career as an investigative journalist has encompassed such triumphs as 'buying' a five-year old girl in Thailand to illustrate a documentary on child labour only to find he'd been duped by a hoaxer. The responsibility for a cover describing the bombs that killed 56 people in London a fortnight ago as "Blair's" lies not with Pilger but with his editor. As a friend and broadsheet political columnist observed to me this afternoon, that cover alone requires Kampfner's resignation.

UPDATE II: The link to the New Statesman was busted, so I have linked to the home page. I also understand that there is a popup issue which I am trying to remedy. I may have to delete the picture in order to do this, but you get the gist of the article by the quote.

Comments

[johncorn]

I gather you are writing from a long-term insane assylum.

[Daniel]

I gather you have no relationship with reality.

[Jabba the Tutt]

"Blair brought home to this country his and George W Bush's illegal, unprovoked and blood-soaked adventure in the Middle East."

It's amazing, to write an entire sentence, where everything is wrong.
Blair brought home nothing, they were there already. It's not Blair and Bush's war, Bin Laden declared war back in the 90's and Iraq was a ceasefire. I don't know, if he means both Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal. The Taliban harbored al Qaeda, which declared war and launched attacks on the US. Responding to an attack is illegal?

As noted, Iraq signed a ceasefire at the end of the Gulf War. Hostilities would end, if Iraq did what it agreed to do. Not surprisingly, Iraq violated the agreement, which makes the resumption of hostilities legal. Now, I guess you could argue that the first Gulf War was illegal, making the second illegal. Go ahead and try.

Therefore neither the Iraq nor the Afghanistan battles were unprovoked. Finally to the word blood-soaked. The US and British are doing everything they can to stop the terrorists from murdering people. The US and British are and have done everything they can to limit casualties. So, I don't know exactly what the complaint here is. Do they want a war with no blood? Do they ever complain about the enemy murdering innocent people? This concern about 'blood-soaking' is transparently simply a club to beat up on the coalition. I never heard a word of concern for Saddam's or Bin Laden's victims. I guess they had it coming.

[Henry]

Must be the fish and chips, or maybe the scones that create this madness.

[tomw]

I certainly don't agree with Pilger, but I must take issue with several of Tutt's assertions. Iraq violated terms of an agreement made with the U.N. The U.N. voted against war with Iraq. How do you square that? The U.S. and Britain are doing everything they can to prevent terror? Saudi Arabia is the principle breeding ground for terrorists and President Bush is holding hands with one their leaders. Pakistan is one of best allies in the region, but Bin Laden is most likely in that country at this very moment. Meanwhile, we chose to invade Iraq and we can't get out!

[Tino]

1. "Iraq violated terms of an agreement made with the U.N. The U.N. voted against war with Iraq. How do you square that?"

You separate legal(istic) from political. Iraq broke the agreement; legally the US had a right to strike back, the UN politically choice not to use its legal right and the US choice otherwise.

Having said that the "laws" of sovereignty in present format are simply immoral and irrelevant, even without Saddam violating the agreements the US would have been morally right to remove him from power. That the UN considers it illegal to remove a tyrant who murdered 1 million innocent civilians said more of them than the US.

2. “Saudi Arabia is the principle breeding ground for terrorists and President Bush is holding hands with one their leaders.”

Your point being? A nation is not a homogenous entity. Many private individuals, often with ties to the royal family, finance terror or the ideology of terror. The solution of this is not to bomb Saudi Arabia or to spit in the face of Abdullah, who is our best hope of reducing the Wahhabi problem. The same goes for Musharaf, a solid ally.

If you are unhappy with current US actions towards Saudi or Pakistan articulate your criticism and give specific suggestion of alternative policy, Just naming those two countries with an insinuating tone is not an argument against the liberation of Iraq to anyone except Michel Moore.

Blaiming Blair for the Bombings rather than the terrorists is like blaiming Churchill for the Blitz rather than Hitler.

[Sean P]

"Iraq violated terms of an agreement made with the U.N."

Tutt is not, as I read him, referring to UN Resolution 1441. He is referring to the cease fire the US and UK signed with Iraq back in 1991, that would have ended the 91 Gulf War had Saddam complied with the required terms. When one party violates the terms of a cease fire, hostilities resume. Period.

[tomw]

Sean: The ceasefire was a U.N. agreement. Iraq violated terms of the agreement almost immediately. If resuming hostilities is such a given, why didn't the U.S. strike then? Many of the principle players are the same.
Tino: You merely restated the position that the U.S. had the legal right to invade. How and why did we have that right when the U.N. chose otherwise with an agreement that was made with that body? On Saudi Arabia and Pakistan my point is we are NOT doing everthing we can to stop terrorists as the Tutt stated. I would insist that the Saudis move dramatically toward democracy and the royal family gets to keep it's wealth. Otherwise, we move the country toward democracy and they lose everything. Pakistan needs to rid itself of terrorists that hide within it's borders or we will do it for them. These measures are of course made difficult to accomplish because we are stuck in Iraq.