The difference between Bush & Blair

Blair didn't wake up today and declare war on half the world because London was attacked.

The Brits are handling this has a criminal matter, which it is. Bu$h would be gearing up to attack Syria or Iran or whoever else he might decide to blame if the attack had happened here.

Funny how it was the US News Media that instantly assumed this was an al Qaeda attack. While in the meantime the Brits are picking up the pieces and early indications are that this was a 'home grown' group. That's what happens when cooler heads prevail.

using their resources to go after 'home grown' type groups instead of invading countries that had nothing to do with the terror.

What may be less clear is that it was playing into the terrorists' strategic purposes from the first.

Terrorism is a strategy, and it has a strategic objective: to establish the terrorists' leardership as a state structure on a par with the state that is attacked. They do this by two means: first, by undermining confidence that the state that is attacked can protect its own people, and second, by provoking the victim state to treat the terrorists as it would treat another state. In a rebellion or civil war, when the rebels are recognized as belligerents, entitled to protection under the rules of war, their state-like status is established. That is a major objective of terrorism.

Thus, when Bush "declared war on terrorism," he recognized them as belligerents -- did half their job for them. Treating terrorism as criminal enforcement has the opposite effect. However much it may resemble war, criminal law enforcement efforts deny the belligerence of the terrorists, asserting instead that they are mere criminals.

It helps to think these things through. In Europe, where they sadly have more experience of terrorism, they have thought it fhrough. Even here in the states, we were wise enough to treat the Weathermen, Symbionese Liberation Army, and the antiabortion terrorist network as criminal matters. But that was Before Bush -- BB.

For saying that. I think its high time we recognize the simbiosis between Bush and Bin Laden, even as sworn enemies. They feed each others agendas whenever they act. When Al Queda strikes, Bush's numbers go up and his agenda is made relevant. When Bush strikes, OBL's message of extremism against the West is made more relevant. This is no conspiracy theory, its just a bad situation being fed by bad policies. Get him out!

convenient for * -- but I think he is past the time that AQ strikes will help him. If it is a "war" then he needs to start winning the "war." Since he can't -- it's a phony war -- I think we will see the shrub in deep trouble.

But we do need a Democratic congress -- landslide -- and I'm not sure the old donkey has it in her.

...thing that comes to mind. Birds of a feather flock together.

or a homegrown group mixed with some foreign members. London has a large Muslim population, with a radical fundie fringe. The radical clerics have been at the forefront of recruiting people to go to Iraq and fight. The Brits are looking at it from a smart POV, Bush looked at 9-11 as a way to exploit a preconceived conceit. Bush and Co. had fixed ideas what they wanted to do with terrorism. They wanted to end up in Iraq, no matter what. Blair is much smarter. His big problem is he got involved and became Bush's lap dog. Tony dug himself a hole that he won't ever get out. But, he can get some redempion now.

I don't know why you think that. All I see on the news in the UK from journalists and politicians is posturing for more military action and a resolve to reduce our civil liberties. Sure, the man in the street might be a little more rational but the people who make the decisions are as loopy as their American counterparts.