[Comrade Ogilvy]

http://www.slate.com/id/2117328/

Arguing about the war in Britain is quite different, in point of tone and alignment, from debating it in the United States. True, there is in both countries a huge mass of media and showbiz and academic liberals who take the very name "George Bush" as permission to bid adieu to common sense. But in the press there is quite a determined posse of staunch left-wingers (John Lloyd, Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch) who support regime change. The same is true on the benches of Parliament, where Ann Clwyd, a veteran Welsh radical, has for years been campaigning for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Several old friends of mine from the Sixties Left hold positions in Blair's government and never let an anti-war argument go unchallenged.

Meanwhile, most of the groaning and sniping about the missing WMDs comes from the hard right, which has a hold on the Tory party and more than a hold on the tabloid press. Anti-Americanism in Britain has long been a conservative rather than a radical trope, and dislike for George Bush is very common among the aristocratic remnant, as well as among those who are nostalgic for the British empire that America supplanted after the war. That especial form of British anti-Semitism ("You catch it on the edge of a remark," as Harold Abrahams puts it so well in Chariots of Fire) is beautifully ventriloquized in the way that certain BBC announcers pronounce the name "Wolfowitz."

The commonest liberal and Tory jeer against Tony Blair—that he is George Bush's "poodle"—is self-evidently false. Far from being a ditto to Washington, it was Blair who leaned on Clinton and Albright to intervene in the Balkans, putting an end to the long and disgusting Tory appeasement of Slobodan Milosevic. Without asking for any American approval, Blair also decided to stand by Britain's treaty with Sierra Leone and to send troops to put down the barbaric invasion of the hand-loppers and diamond-dealers, based in Charles Taylor's Liberia, who were among other things the regional allies of al-Qaida. In 1999, when Bush was still an isolationist governor of Texas, Blair made a speech in Chicago pointing out that Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law made a future confrontation with him inevitable. After Sept. 11, 2001, Blair told Bush that he would send ground troops to Afghanistan even if the United States would not.

Other considerations inflect the picture, altering the misleading liberal-vs.-conservative divide that our media have imposed on the argument. Blair's Britain is a sort of post-Keynesian full-employment and welfarist society. Its government makes at least the right noises about Kyoto, the U.N., Palestine, and the International Criminal Court. Thus there are fewer opportunities for anti-war voices to change the subject. And the anti-Bush/Blair "left" has, to its credit, been perfectly honest in identifying itself both with Saddam Hussein and with Islamic fundamentalism.

The most interesting local campaign of this election is being fought in East London, in the constituency of Bethnal Green, where the sitting Labor member is being challenged by the veteran Stalinist George Galloway. Oona King, the incumbent, is a woman of mixed African and Jewish descent who is attacked by the local Nazi party—itself anti-war—on both grounds. She has also been pelted with eggs and stones by Muslim thugs who stress the Jewish element of her heritage. Mr. Galloway's bloc is made up of the renegade pseudo-Bolsheviks of the Socialist Workers Party, its arms newly linked with the Muslim Association of Britain. He himself was a personal friend of Saddam Hussein's and a loud advocate of Ba'ath Party rule. He was expelled from the Labor Party when he called for jihad against British soldiers. Thus, the most reactionary forces in British society are fused in their admiration of the one-party state and the one-god movement. Or they nearly are: Last week a gang of supporters of the Hizb ut-Tahrir fundamentalist movement invaded the offices of the Muslim Association of Britain and ambushed George Galloway in the street, promising eternal hellfire to anyone so un-Islamic as to take part in an election at all. This of course is the doctrine preached by Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq. How satisfying that those who support the Iraqi "insurgency" from a safe distance have now received a taste of its real character.

[repr0bate]

That especial form of British anti-Semitism is beautifully ventriloquized in the way that certain BBC announcers pronounce the name "Wolfowitz."

Gold.

[UrbanGuerilla]

Respect may be misguided, and the S.W.P. may be idiots on many counts, but they are not Nazis. Additionaly, Oona King is horribly Blairite, and in fact rather arrogant. George Galloway gets quite a bad press, and while he may often lean towards dogmatism and have a tendency to arrogance himself, dare I say careerism, he is actually pretty badly misunderstood.

[N^G]

Arguing about the war in Britain is quite different, in point of tone and alignment, from debating it in the United States.

True. We have an ability to question decisions and not accept them blindly. A talent which, in general, Americans do not seem to have.

True, there is in both countries a huge mass of media and showbiz and academic liberals who take the very name "George Bush" as permission to bid adieu to common sense.

Thinly veiled attack on British who are anti-Bush by calling them stupid and trying to marginalise them into categories.

But in the press there is quite a determined posse of staunch left-wingers (John Lloyd, Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch) who support regime change. The same is true on the benches of Parliament, where Ann Clwyd, a veteran Welsh radical, has for years been campaigning for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Several old friends of mine from the Sixties Left hold positions in Blair's government and never let an anti-war argument go unchallenged.

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! A small handful of people are pro-war, big deal.

Meanwhile, most of the groaning and sniping about the missing WMDs comes from the hard right, which has a hold on the Tory party and more than a hold on the tabloid press.

False. Ask anyone in the town I live, or anywhere in the uk for that matter, if they support the war in Iraq. I've yet to find one single person who does. That does not mean that there arent pro-war people, but they are few and far between. Again this is a pathetic attempt by the author to somehow marginalise the anti-war minded.

Anti-Americanism in Britain has long been a conservative rather than a radical trope.

False. In the uk conservative and liberal alike are anti war. There is no support for the war here in most quarters.

and dislike for George Bush is very common among the aristocratic remnant

The aristocracy numbers what, a few hundred people at most? Get real. They dont even matter in the scheme of things. Yet another stunningly obvious attempt by the author of the article to marginalise the anti-war minded. Does the author have any other tactics or is he a single ability writer?

as well as among those who are nostalgic for the British empire that America supplanted after the war.

Blatant attack on the British people implying that we are jealous of the US, to which I first laugh at the author and secondly tell him to pull his head out of his arse.

That especial form of British anti-Semitism ("You catch it on the edge of a remark," as Harold Abrahams puts it so well in Chariots of Fire) is beautifully ventriloquized in the way that certain BBC announcers pronounce the name "Wolfowitz."

LOL. We do not like Wolfowitz as he is a war mongering racist, it has nothing to do with any connection he may have with Jews. Pathetically thinly veiled attack on the British people by implying that we are all racists, and also a libel one.

The commonest liberal and Tory jeer against Tony Blair—that he is George Bush's "poodle"—is self-evidently false.

I disagree, in fact I feel that its evidently true. If he werent a lapdog he would tell Bush to go back to the fairyland in his head and stop bothering everyone else.

Far from being a ditto to Washington, it was Blair who leaned on Clinton and Albright to intervene in the Balkans, putting an end to the long and disgusting Tory appeasement of Slobodan Milosevic. Without asking for any American approval, Blair also decided to stand by Britain's treaty with Sierra Leone and to send troops to put down the barbaric invasion of the hand-loppers and diamond-dealers, based in Charles Taylor's Liberia, who were among other things the regional allies of al-Qaida. In 1999, when Bush was still an isolationist governor of Texas, Blair made a speech in Chicago pointing out that Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law made a future confrontation with him inevitable. After Sept. 11, 2001, Blair told Bush that he would send ground troops to Afghanistan even if the United States would not.

Blair has lied to the British people and sent some of our troops to their deaths, while his instructions have contributed to the 100'000 Iraqi deaths. That is unacceptable and nothing will change that.

bunch of uninteresting rhetoric and gibberish

Perhaps the author was trying to up his word count for the article, hmmm?

Or they nearly are: Last week a gang of supporters of the Hizb ut-Tahrir fundamentalist movement invaded the offices of the Muslim Association of Britain and ambushed George Galloway in the street, promising eternal hellfire to anyone so un-Islamic as to take part in an election at all. This of course is the doctrine preached by Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq. How satisfying that those who support the Iraqi "insurgency" from a safe distance have now received a taste of its real character.

Very racist statement at the end there, to generalise all muslims in such a way. There are bad elements in every society and religion, example paedophile priests, or genocidal presidents for example. To generalise in such a way is not just silly and racist but it shows that he fails to recognise problems with his own ehtnicity and religion. But then what do you expect from a Blair/Bush supporter anyway?