Monday, December 04, 2006

Bringing it home

"We therefore reject completely the idea that government actions are breeding resentment and alienating Muslim communities." - Local Government Minister Phil Woolas, today.

Today: 'UK policies aid Muslim extremism' ( BBC) Read the report Bringing It Home' in full. It is extremely readable and I applaud it.

  • ''British Muslims are being driven into the arms of violent extremists by official attempts to engage with them after the 7 July bombs, a study claims. Policies since the attacks in London have "driven a wedge" between Muslims and the wider community rather than isolate extremists, the report says. The study, by think tank Demos, accused ministers of failing to engage Muslims over British foreign policy in Iraq. It called for "community relations to be at the heart of security policy". ( from BBC summary)

    June 2005: A month before the July 7 bombings, security and intelligence officials working from inside M15 HQ warned that in the June JTAC report that "events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK". The report's findings were published in the New York Times but not the UK.

    2004: A year before the July 7 bombings, a link between the government's foreign policy and disillusion among young Muslims - strenuously denied by ministers - was also made in a paper prepared for Tony Blair on the orders of the home and foreign secretaries.
    The paper,
    Young Muslims and Extremism, ( please read, is is so prescient, it makes me sad) which included input from the security services, said British foreign policy "seems a particularly strong cause of disillusionment amongst young Muslims". The war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan were all seen by a section of British Muslims as being acts against Islam. "This disillusionment may contribute to a sense of helplessness with regard to the situation of Muslims in the world, with a lack of any tangible 'pressure valves', in order to vent frustrations, anger or dissent," said the paper.

    Reapeating things at least three times is meant to be the optimum way of ensuring your audience really understand and remember your points.

    Blair was told a year before the attacks that his foreign policy was a recruiting seargeant for home grown terrorism. He was told the same thing a month before the attacks. The ISC report published after the bombings stated the development of a home-grown threat and radicalisation of British citizens were "not fully understood or applied to strategic thinking". Well, after July 7th they damn well should have been grasped.

    But it seems the Government STILL won't listen. It only pretends to listen and it will only talk on its own terms. It absolutely won't talk about the effect its own policies are having in increasing resentment and the growth of extremism. So the ''debate'' it pretends to be having is not honest, nor helpful. It is in fact, counter productive. It is not a debate at all. It is a sham, a trick, and a lie, and lying to people makes them more angry and more distrustful. And easy prey for extremist messages.

    As we see today in the report from Demos today.

    If the Government is too frightened to face up to an uncomfortable debate on whether its own policies have contributed to the growth of extremism - indeed, still denies it outright after having been told at least three times that yes, there is a link - then the Government is comprised of craven cowards who do not even have the guts to stand up for the policies they make.

    Why so scared, Mr Blair, Mr Woolas and co? It's not you who gets blown up. Here or anywhere else.

    To criticise foreign policy isn't to suggest that the terrorists have just cause or that the Government is somehow complicit. But the fact is, the policies HAVE bred resentment, and some - horrible minority - have taken that resentment and made it murderous. And many more are angry at the inconsistent and panicky official responses to the murderous few, which alientates many and are often unfair and ill-informed and which also feeds resentment, continuing the cycle.

    You still want to have those policies, okay, then defend them. You were told the were risks, you were told that

  • they would likely contribute to the rise of extremism ( a year before 7/7)
  • that they were contributing to the rise of extremism ( a month before 7/7)
  • and that they did contribute to the rise of extremism ( official reports after 7/7)
  • (Oh, and Mr Blair was also told that invading Iraq would raise the risk of terrorist activity a month BEFORE he invaded Iraq)

If you still think they are still good policies, that they make us safer, and the overall benefit to the public is worth the unfortunate side-effect of the rise of extremism, and the anger and alientation of large swathes of the population ( and I don't mean only Muslims) , can you please come out and say that? Then we might be able to have a debate about whether your belief in your policies is reasonable and justified.

Can you please, however, stop denying the link between Government policies and the growth - not the cause - the growth - of extremism, because we are not stupid. Thank you.

UPDATE: More from Not Saussure and novelist Dave Hill whose book ''The Adoption'' is OUT NOW.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a reasonable debate"!

The non-stop yadda-yadda has gone on and on and on from since before the start of Iraq 2. Just because HMG does not agree with *your* policy, or the policy of Muslims whose short-term memory loss includes Kosovo and Bosnia in which US/UK servicemen risked their lives in aid of Muslims, does not mean that there hasn't been a debate. If you don't like it, tough, that's what living in a democracy entails - grinding your teeth and waiting for an election - but don't say there has been no debate. That would be a fib!

December 04, 2006 8:31 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

There has not been a debate on how, as the Government's policies have contributed to a rise in extremism, whether the policies can be judged as having been successful.

The Govt. says it is having a debate but it is not. It is refusing to debate certain subjects whilst claiming it IS having a debate on all the subjects. So it is lying.

December 04, 2006 8:38 pm  
Blogger kris said...

Dear Rachel

Of course there is some connection, but I think it is over played. We will never be "perfect", is that carte blanche to blow yoursef and other up?

The key for me is what turns a radical into an exploding jihadi. Surely it must be more than international politics.

December 04, 2006 9:00 pm  
Blogger PbPhil said...

I agree with Rachel, the level of debate is shallow thus far. I've worked in local government and my experience there says to me that the public in general are not really that interested, at least not in sufficient volume.

I feel that today we (the western world) are a slave to the cornucopia of media that is rammed at us. We don't know what to believe and generally we are too jaded to concentrate in detail on what is put before us.

The politicans don't help, for many its a career and not a vocation. Truly it should be a vocation...shouldn't it? after all they are elected by us for our benefit.

It takes something pretty significant to get people involved these days. What was the most recent event that got people out on the street in mas to show solidarity and share collective emotion? Probably the death of Princess Diana......

Did we see a similar mass collective expressing our feelings as a result of being attacked on our own doorstep? Not really, not like Diana's death. (why didn't we, were't the bombings of 7/7 the most significant attach on Britain for years, and from a new threat?

I'd say currently we've lost the spirit of protest and it's now a battle through a web of rubbish and spin to find the truth if it actually still exists.

Devils Advocate time. The answer to Kris's question is perhaps the jihadi are people who feel their voice is no longer their shoes would we actually be any different? But then again, people are vulnerable and can be manipulated by the power of religion.....

In our world the blunt "religions" of New Labour and the Conservatives can no longer survive on loyal or genetic affinity. Whats the next step? where will we be in 20 or 30 years time?

December 04, 2006 9:45 pm  
Blogger Gavin said...

Well, my take on it is this:
It seems pretty certain that some of our foreign policies and military interventions have indeed contributed to the radicalisation of a minority of UK Muslims.

An obvious question (well, in my mind at any rate) is, just because those policies have angered some Muslims, does that fact, in itself, automatically make those policies wrong, and to blame? What should the aims of our foreign policy be - to "do the thing which we think is right in the long-term", or to do the thing which results in us having a quiet life?

At first glance, you see, I would have thought that freeing Afghanistan from the clutches of the Taleban, and freeing Iraq from Hussein would be very good things, which would have the effect of making UK Muslims thankful to the US/UK? But obviously not. So what's gone wrong? Have we fundamentally misunderstood what Muslims want for their countries? Do they not want freedom? Perhaps not the way we see it.
Also, I suspect that another factor in their anger and deep distrust of the West, is that there are some radical Imams in our mosques, preaching hatred of the West, no matter what it does or does not do.
For such people, the concept of waging jihad against us is simply a religious duty, and if it wasn't Iraq, it would be something else they would use as an excuse.

I just think that, even if we fully accept that our foreign policies have had the effect of angering/radicalising some Muslims, it goes nowhere near the heart of the debate to argue that therefore our policies were bad and we need to reverse them. That is missing the point, in the same sort of way as (for example) the argument that prostitution should be legalised on the grounds that otherwise it forces sex workers onto the "underground" market where they are more vulnerable to assault & disease misses the point, if you see what I mean. It's a fair enough argument in pragmatics, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go to the heart of the issue, in my opinion.

Hope you're feeling better, btw.

December 05, 2006 1:12 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, Lebanon, Darfur, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Dagestan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Algeria, Libya … the list of conflicts involving Muslims is long and by no means limited to Iraq. Extremists Muslim groups have attempted to use each of the above (and more) conflicts to recruit and radicalise Muslims around the world and in this country. Iraq is one in a long line of conflicts that gets Muslims angry. British Muslims were fighting and dying in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Chechnya long before 9/11 and yes they were angry at British foreign policy not because of what we were doing but because of what we were not doing about those conflicts. The reports you list mention Iraq in this broader context of extremist Muslim anger. Iraq did not start this phenomenon and nor will its end stop it. The anger that fuels Al Qaida has deep roots with elements of religious superiority and racism thrown in. Their world view condemns them to see every conflict as a western conspiracy to suppress them whether the west has an interventionist agenda (Iraq, Afghanistan now), is purely humanitarian (Somalia, Darfur) or seems not to care (Algeria, Uzbekistan, Chechnya). Completely satisfying this kind of paranoia is a Sisyphean task.

The debate on how to counter Islamist extremism has been running longer than the current Iraq war. If you reduce this debate to ‘What foreign policy radicalises the least British Muslims and so carries least risk for the UK’ then what you are asking is not how can this murderous nihilist philosophy be defeated but how can the UK get out of the firing line and let other countries take the flak. That is a less noble and more cowardly position than the one currently adopted. It’s also chasing an illusion of security because no foreign policy can remove you from risk. Put simply any country in Europe with a Muslim minority faces a risk of terrorism whether it was involved in Iraq or not. How else would you explain attacks thwarted in Germany, the UK and France before the Afghan or Iraq wars? Especially when you consider what NATO and the EU did to support Bosnia and Kosovo.

December 05, 2006 11:51 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent post, Rachel. I'm sure my fellow Hackneyite Kris is right that there's more to Islamist nastiness than international politics but if such comments as those made by Phil Useless MP make ME want to spit with disbelief what effect are they likely to have on an angry young Muslim man? I certainly don't belief that our foreign policy follies "justify" suicide bombings here, but the government's pig-headed denial that it makes no difference can only be counter-productive in terms of challenging home-grown extremism. Are they really so stupid that they can't see this? Discuss...

December 05, 2006 12:28 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Islamic extremism is nasty and has its roots in geo-politics as well as a big debate within Islam about adapting a faith that governs social behaviour and social justice and community living as well as religious observance. I'm not saying Iraq caused terrorism in the UK: that would be daft. What I am saying though, is that to engage with the debate and with Mulims generally -actually, with UK citizens generally since we all have to live with increased surveillance and changes to the constitution and the laws - you need to acknowledge the blindingly obvious fact that foreign policy does have an impact on the growth of extremism. It does make people angry. It is something that needs to be discussed and even if the debate is challenging and difficult for the Government, especially Blair personally, it needs to be had.

The stupid denials and wriggles and refusal to face the debate or accept criticism and protest - legitimate, reasonable criticism and protest - is deeply damaging. It disconnects people from Government. It leads to mistrust between communities and Government. It fails us all and it is dangerous.That was what I was trying to say.

Comment moderator is now off, as an experiment, hooray, because the random trolling, spamming and personal insults have stopped recently. If they start up again, I will have to put comment moderator back on. I am not stifling debate and censoring different points of view but I do have a no spam/trolling/personal insults/race-hate/faith-hate-without-debate policy on this personal blog so please keep it tidy. ta.

December 05, 2006 12:47 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What you nice multi-culti types don't get is that militant Islam is centred on and funded (through a whole network of intermediary "charities") by the ruling Wahhabi sect in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Their worldview/governing principles/culture (properly Weltanschauung) is therefore Arab. To an Arab, any concession is interpreted as a sign of weakness. That is why trying to accommodate an Arab is like appeasing Hitler. It doesn't work - it just results in more unreasonable demands that you cannot meet without seriously undermining and compromising your own values.

As for British Muslims "being driven into the arms of violent extremists", no-one is driven to anything. Each of us acts the way we do because we choose to do so. All human beings are agents, not just victims. Every one of us has a choice as to how we react to situations or behaviour that are not to our liking (and as a Christian I assert that we are individually accountable to God for our actions, our words and attitudes).

For the State to accommodate wrong behaviour of any kind is wrong because it encourages more of the same. In this case, you have suffered, and other Britons continue to suffer, precisely because our Establishment has given 'victim' status to British Muslims as a group, and has encouraged them to think that they can get away with murder (literally).

It is high time that our Government (of whatever complexion) chose to re-assert the rule of law for all who reside in this country, and punish without fear or favour any person or group that breaks our laws or seeks to destroy our society.

December 05, 2006 1:02 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

And that is exactly what they do. There are laws against murder, laws against mnassacre, laws against planning to destroy and maim and kill and commit fraud. Wherever have I said Muslims or anyome else is exempt from the law of the land?

This is the problem with the debate: it gets hysterical very easily. I can criticise toreture, detention without trial, war crimes, without condoning terrorism. So can anyone else.
The labelling of anyone - especially Muslims - as 'extremist' for criticising, say, the foreign policy of Bush and Blair and from there jumping to 'terrorist-sympathiser' or 'lawless dissident' is ridiculous. If you stifle debate heavy-handedly, you create anger and you push people into the arms of extremists. How stupid is that? It seems to be an unwritten law that nobody can criticise the Bush/Blair foreign policy or point out that it has inflamed large swathes of the population. That is not only stupid, but dangerously counter-productive. Baby, bathwater.

December 05, 2006 1:09 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

The refusal to listen to reasonable criticism gives credibility to the' we're victims, nobody listens to us' argument. Have the debate,admit mistakes where they have been made, clear the air, explain the reasoning rather than saying 'God/History is my judge'
( God/History doesn't pay the PM's salary, or elect him: we do)

- and then nobody can say they are victims and nobody listens to them, can they?

December 05, 2006 1:13 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I am not accusing you of saying that anyone is exempt from the law of the land.

The problem is that either (i) the law has not been enforced at all, or (ii) it has not been enforced even-handedly.

Case in point. Nick Griffin (a nasty person who leads a nasty, albeit legal, organisation whose members have violent tendencies and/or shady pasts) is caught by a BBC sting operation stating that "Islam is a wicked and vicious faith". Result: the Police and CPS spend vast amounts of time and resources mounting a prosecution. When the juries fail to bring in the "correct" verdict on each of the charges, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no less (which law officer he?), talks of changing the law to ensure that this cannot happen again.

Meanwhile, for years Abu Hamza al-Masri was freely allowed to preach his message of hate from inside and outside Finsbury Park mosque. He is not prosecuted until at least one of his disciples is implicated in terrorist acts(because he, and those of like mind preach and write in Arabic, Urdu or whatever).

Is this double standards, or just my perception?

The effect of the New Labour policy of political correctness has been that for the last 9 years, behaviour by certain individuals and groups has been treated with unbelievable leniency, whilst that of others has been prosecuted with a zeal approaching religious fervour.

It is this double standard, which I posit to be more real than perceived, which has both given radical Muslims the belief that they are untouchable, and has had the various organs of the state going into all kinds of contortions to justify why they cannot do anything about what is a "clear and present danger"!

Yes, our leaders do need to listen to reasoned criticism, but to cave in to the implied threat "align your forein policy with our wishes or your people will suffer" would be a disaster of the first magnitude.

December 05, 2006 3:49 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry. Last sentence shoud read "foreign".

December 05, 2006 3:54 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


That is a very reasonable argument to make but you should consider the flip side when analysing the response of Government.

That is that we should never let the potential for Muslim anger dissuade us from pursuing a policy that we believe to be right or in the UK national interest. Saying that our policy in Afghanistan or Lebanon is wrong simply because it incites a UK minority to violence is to allow your policy to be dominated by that minority. This is both undemocratic (Muslims make up less than 2.7% of the population, more people live in Glasgow) and dangerous because it encourages more minority groups to make themselves heard through violence. Any expression of regret by the government on Iraq because of 7/7, any perception that terrorism could influence future decisions would do more to encourage future terrorism than any failure to open up foreign policy (as the demos report advocates). I’m sure it is acknowledged privately but it would be politically foolish to do so publicly.

Incidentally opening up foreign / security policy as argued by Demos is a terrible idea and would also see Muslim views even more sidelined if democratic principles were followed.

December 05, 2006 4:36 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rk: "we should never let the potential for Muslim anger dissuade us from pursuing a policy that we believe to be right ... "

Who are the "we" you refer to in "we believe to be right"?

I am not Muslim. I find our foreign policy grotesque, to say the least.

December 05, 2006 7:26 pm  
Blogger kris said...

Dear PBphil

You lost me when you said you work in local government. I did and offer my testimony that there IS life on the other side!

But seriously, if "foreign policy" compells people to blow themselves and other up- surely more than just a miniscule amount of the Muslim population would be doing it.

The "Foreigh Policy" theory over-predicts exploding jihadis; the same way poverty as an excuse for crime over-predicts.

The answer is in existentialism: specifically, Nietzche's "Of the Pale Criminal".

Thus spoke Kris

December 05, 2006 9:23 pm  
Blogger PbPhil said...


Yup I'm new to this, need more practice at making my point simply!. I was referring to the general public's apathy for engaging with politicians. I found this to be the case in local government where it was often difficult to generate any interest in getting people to stand as candidates for election.

Rachel says there should be debate, she's right, I was questioning the public's general appetite for debate...

Its current perceptions that count, muslims are under the microscope, and as ever the majority of muslims are seeing their reputution as a people suffer at the hands of a few....

When I first came to the UK (18 years ago) , being Irish there was the perception among many English people that the whole of Ireland was a war zone where terrorism was rife. I used to get asked about it regularly. This couldn't have been farther from the truth.....for me and my family Northern Ireland was viewed as a foreign country that was a war zone, again an incorrect perception. Clearly the media and I guess television in particular used to have a lot to answer for in shaping people's perceptions of reality.

I wonder if the Internet is changing the balance at all?

Sorry I've digressed again!

December 05, 2006 11:27 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The ‘we’ was meant in the broadest sense, the majority view. I’ll rephrase the line you quote then to this.

The Government of the day, with the support of a majority of MPs should not be dissuaded from any course of action they believe to be right or in the UK national interest by a tiny but violent minority of British or foreign citizens. The expected reaction of such a minority should be considered as part of the cost / benefit considerations of the policy but it should not dominate disproportionately. Foreign policy or domestic policy should never be designed to appease such a small proportion of people.

My belief is that if you find our foreign policy abhorrent then you use the normal democratic channels to bring about the change you desire. Protest, campaign, vote, encourage others to vote, lobby your MP. If they won’t support you then campaign against them for a prospective candidate who will. If none of the parties support your line then stand as an independent.

If your stand on the issue has sufficient backing amongst the population then such a campaign would make a difference. (Part of the problem of the STW coalition / Respect party is that it has been dominated by far-left rabble rousers that are unpalatable to the majority of voters. George Galloway is not a politician that enjoys wide support. A more mainstream movement that stayed clear of wilder rhetoric and discredited economics could have made a real impact in the last general election, especially in Labour marginals).

This is the way a democracy should work. If you find foreign policy so bad then you should vote for a party with a policy you can support.

December 06, 2006 10:08 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

RK, you said...The ‘we’ was meant in the broadest sense, the majority view...

'Our' present foreign policy is not supported by the majority. Blair's party was not even elected by the majority.

December 06, 2006 11:21 am  
Blogger Rachel said...


'we should never let the potential for Muslim anger dissuade us from pursuing a policy that we believe to be right or in the UK national interest. Saying that our policy in Afghanistan or Lebanon is wrong simply because it incites a UK minority to violence is to allow your policy to be dominated by that minority. This is both undemocratic...*snip*'

Aha - this is the Blair fallacy. Just because ' Muslims criticise the FP', and just because 'some Muslims who blew themselves up criticised the FP' doesn't make the FP automatically right and Balir automatically right for pursuing it and stamping on all debate about it .

Actually, our foreign policy is a mess and the actions of Bush supported by Blair have made the workd a more dangerous place.

Muslims are not the only ones who think so.

Vast numbers of voters think so. Vast swathes of reasonable people all over the world of many religions and none think so. The drubbing Bush's party took in the mid terms indicates that thinking Iraq is a bloody mess is not a minority view.

Blair knows this and his increasingly pathetic attempots to say 'we will never bow to terrorists demands' is missing the point entirely.

I criticise the foreign policy of Bush and Blair. I point to 650,000 dead in Iraq, to the civil war, the sectarian hate, the profiteering of the contracters, the ruins of Babylon, the treatment of prisoners, the torture, the abuses of war, the despair of women and children and to the collapsing narco-state of Afghanistan where hoped for changes have not come - and I cry foul.

Doesn't make me a terrorist nor a terrorist sympathiser. Doesn't make me a minority either ,these days

December 06, 2006 11:32 am  
Blogger Rachel said...


as to the exploding jihadis, anybody making the point that violence and killing people is wrong by...erm, violence and killing a shit in my book.

And that covers everything from the corporal punishment to the death penalty to violent resistance and terrorism.

The death cult of jihadism is hideous. Best fought by educating people as to the real message and meaning of the qu'ran rather than this ignorant political violence. Appropriate fatwas and leadership might be helpful here.

December 06, 2006 11:37 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


On your first post. The current foreign policy – in strategic terms - is supported by a majority of MPs. The Tories voted for the war and none of the three major parties are advocating any kind of withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan. Even the LibDems advocate a line that is very similar to the current policy of building up the Iraqi forces and handing over power as soon as is practical. The unity is even more pronounced on Afghanistan. On other issues where the UK has no direct influence (thinking Darfur, Lebanon here) then there are differences but given the negligible impact of the UK here these are less important.

On your second post you said “… this is the Blair fallacy. Just because ' Muslims criticise the FP', and just because 'some Muslims who blew themselves up criticised the FP' doesn't make the FP automatically right and Balir automatically right for pursuing it and stamping on all debate about it .”

No it doesn’t but it doesn’t make it automatically wrong either. That is my point. If you disagree with the policy that’s fine, argue your case as you have done. What I’m saying is that because the policy can be seen as a motivation for terrorists does not automatically make the policy wrong and changing a policy on these grounds alone would be undemocratic and dangerous. So any report or letter that says this or that policy must be changed because it has incited violence should be criticised for this reason. Changing the policy because a majority of the population agrees, as you assert, or that it is no longer right / in the UK national interest would be a completely different matter.

The thing is this debate you’re asking for is fighting yesterday’s battle. You’re arguing against the policies and decisions of 2003 not the policy of 2006. I understand your objection to the war but so what? Winning that debate will not change history nor will it remove the terrorist’s motivation. The debate should be what do we do now? Not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but the next challenges of Darfur, Iran and North Korea. If you look there then you will perhaps be pleased to see that the lesson of Iraq has been learned and bullish interventionist schemes and forced regime change have long since left the agenda.

December 06, 2006 12:33 pm  
Blogger kris said...

This war was framed as a "holy war", not by the US or the UK- but by the WTC bombers and Osama Bin laden.

And our response? We wince when the enemy are called "islamofascists", yet that is what they are, they've said it themselves. They will not rest until there is a green flag over parliament.

Yet anytime a leader speaks about this issue, they are labelled "islamophobic". Give me a bona fide break!

Do people REALLY believe if we hand over the keys to Iraq and Afganistan it will be all peace and love? Maybe on our part, until the next passenger plane or tube train is blown up by a sad inadequate looking to add a bit of meaning to his pathetic little life.

Vandals don't give a shit about foreign policy.

December 06, 2006 1:20 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

IO still contend that anyone planning to murder or maim or defraud anyone is a criminal and should be treated as such: all this talk of 'warriors' and 'the enemy' gives the violent and murderous delusionals and inadequates a status they do not deserve. There is nothing holy about suicide or murder. Bush's hysterical rhetoric does the job for the terrorists.

As to 'rogue' states, that is a matter for diplomacy.

December 06, 2006 1:23 pm  
Blogger J Bonington Jagworth said...

"We therefore reject completely ..."

Says it all, really. In other words, we're not listening, whatever you say you're wrong, etc.

That's what really annoys me about Blair and NL. They don't care about dissent or consider for a moment that they might be wrong about anything, even when all the wheels have fallen off and the last horse has died.

Blair is floundering about ever more madly in search of a big idea to be remembered by (although I'm not sure how consolidating A&E departments is going to help!) when even he must realise that the only thing anyone is ever going to associate him with is Iraq and 'Yo Blair' Bush.

If I was him, I'd end it now. With a revolver.

December 06, 2006 2:36 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Rachel. One lovely Christmas card heading your way!

December 06, 2006 10:29 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home