Only two of the three musketeers remain out of the original grand 'Coalition' which invaded Iraq.
Ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair is to become special envoy of the Quartet (US, Russia, UN, EU) for Arab-Israeli peace-making. This is Bush's work, but is it intended as a joke or insult?
Blair cannot be even-handed in Palestine, because his hands are too bloody.
He has been an enthusiastic cheerleader and collaborator to Bush's Iraq-Nam. He has robotically repeated NeoCon lies and mistaken assumptions which have caused immense suffering and waste in the entire region, and has badly expanded the cycle of terror and brutal counter-violence in the name of fighting terror. He has been a champion of misdiagnosis of the problem of terrorism. His subservience to the United States in Iraq and Palestine-Israel has been a shameless and humiliating example of obsequious spinelessness. He was also a conspicuous opponent to a 'premature' cease-fire in Israel's attack on Lebanon last summer.Blair's appointment is a popular one in Israel, where he is considered a "true friend". However, the EU's foreign policy chief Javier Solana is said to be opposed to the move, because it would detract from his own efforts in the Middle East. Reaction from the Arab press has so far eluded me. Perhaps Robert Fisk anticipates the Arab reaction:
That this ex-prime minister, this man who took his country into the sands of Iraq, should actually believe that he has a role in the region . . . . Not once--ever--has he apologized. Not once has he said he was sorry for what he did in our name. Yet Lord Blair actually believes--in what must be a record act of self-indulgence for a man who cooked up the fake evidence of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction"--that he can do good in the Middle East. . . . For here is a man who is totally discredited in the region--a politician who has signally failed in everything he ever tried to do in the Middle East--now believing that he is the right man to lead the Quartet to patch up "Palestine".So is Blair ditching complicity in one occupation and hitching himself up to another?
No. It's much beside the point. Bush has pushed Blair into this position. Because, to Bush, loyalty is the supreme political value and needs to be rewarded. Like Wolfowitz before him, Blair needs an international imprimatur and diplomatic immunity from persecution and prosecution. Bush, left behind, senses that's what every ex-war criminal seeks.
Out of the Troika, into the Quartet.
ReplyDeleteThank God for small mercies ! It has been embarrasing all day watching this drawn out long goodbye for months. Brown has literally weeks to pull us out of Iraqbefore a constitutional crisis hits us. A scottish PM and a scottish Chancellor will be too much for the English when we have no vote in Scotland
ReplyDeleteOne problem with the celebration. Blair the lapdog will be Bush's Mideast lapdog on policy, and that means the entire Mideast will be even more enraged for war.
ReplyDeleteThe uniquely unsuitable man for the presidency, G.W.Bush, nominates the uniquely unsuitable man, Tony Blair, to become the peace envoy to the Middle East. I don't know why I keep thinking that Bush cannot possibly surprise me any more, and he always does.
ReplyDeleteOnce a lapdog, always a lapdog..
ReplyDeleteTwo out of three ... is still bad.
ReplyDeleteSuzie-q, I wish not to come across as a sexist jerk, but I must ask if those breasts of yours are real?
ReplyDelete{groan}
ReplyDeleteWho do you think you are fooling, Vigil? You are just not man enough to state the obvious. Instead of this false groan of yours, you should be glad that I had gumption to do what you yourself have wanted to do for a longest time. Instead of holier than thou, pretentious and dishonest reaction from you, you, and the other cats, should thank me! ;)
ReplyDeleteGood riddance to that bastard Phoney Bliar.
ReplyDeleteThe end.
Blair may be passionate about Middle East issues, but I do not detect any passion for him by the people of the Middle East. His nomination to be a Mideast envoy makes about as much sense as President Bush seeking the same position in 2009.
ReplyDeleteLOL, Pekka!
ReplyDeletePekka, Susie-Q can flaunt her headlights. How about you? Let's see what you got!
ReplyDeleteOoops! The truth slipped out in Sydney, when Bush's junior ally John Howard was embarrassed by his Defence minister's candid remarks. Brendan Nelson’s remarks suggested the invasion and occuptation was motivated by a grab for oil, rather than an attempt to destroy alleged weapons of mass destruction or an exercise in building democracy:
ReplyDelete"The Middle East itself not only Iraq is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world, and Australians ... need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq. We need to ensure, notwithstanding the significant natural resources that our country has been blessed with, that we are able to access the energy requirements in our region and throughout the world."
I am forever curious why it doesn't occur to these charlatans that they might acquire their oil the old fashioned way: purchase.
ReplyDeleteJackie, It appears that Blair will have a narrowly constrained job description. Even if allowed to seek to promote the rule of law as among Palestinians, he will have no ability to rock the boat by speaking truth to power on the far more significant issue of promoting the rule of law as between Israel and the Palestinians.
ReplyDeleteThe most grievous breach of law between Israel and Palestine is not the terrorism of some Palestinians but Israel's recent building of a wall inside the occupied territories, called illegal by the International Court of Justice in July 2004, and Israel's long-standing permitting and encouraging of Israeli civilian settlers to live on confiscated Palestinian lands inside the territories Israel occupied in 1967, also declared illegal by the court.
The thumb of the U.S. has long been on the scale of justice, preventing anyone from compelling Israel to comply with international humanitarian law. Who can expect that a just and lasting peace can result from a peace process so blatantly biased in favor of the stronger party?