Bush is visiting Britain today. I must say despite my biases Queen Liz looks none-too-pleased showing the despot around. Honestly, in the live footage she hasn't smiled once as she is prone to do. They play a fun game here where they look and see what The American Papers are saying.
Ralph Peters
New York Post, November 18
"All we'll hear from the streets is that Bush is bad. No protesters will chant about the Iraqi families sundered, the fathers tortured and shot, the daughters and wives raped, the use of poison gas against the Kurds or the million- and-a-half Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis who died in Saddam Hussein's wars."
"American wars of liberation humiliate the complainers on the left. We've seized their professed ideals and made them a reality. Their protests are the result of wounded egos."
I can't believe journalists pull these lines. Personally my favourite is the doublespeak of "war of liberation". The Dalai Lama isn't that altruistic, let alone the President of the USA. Then there's the unqualified statistics of "million-and-a-half Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis who died in Saddam Hussein's wars" of which I wonder how many were killed by American troops.
Christian Science Monitor
Editorial, November 18
"The visit will serve to reinforce Mr Blair's conviction that Britain can't afford to damage its close alliance with the US, as France and Germany did by their actions before the war. Despite being snubbed by President George Bush on a few prewar and postwar tactics, Mr Blair hung in there."
"Mr Blair's pro-US policy reflects a historic need for Britain, as an island nation off Europe, to keep a balance of power with the continent. Only the US can help it deal with any rising power in Europe. So, beyond the protests or displays of disdain for Mr Bush, the visit acknowledges an alliance that can withstand the slings and arrows of temporary differences."
Leave it to somebody who writes for a paper called "The Christian Science Mirror" to be so flailing-ly ignorant. I love how the readership has to be reminded that "Britain [is] an island nation off Europe". All this time I thought it was in Eurasia... or maybe it was Oceania. Oh, I get those two confused so easily!
Really what's being said here is that Britain needs to trade more with the USA than Europe. It's really too bad that most of the established trade is done with Europe already. But, damn, American money does smell real good don't it? I mean really all these "wars of liberation" come down to "abilities to market and trade". So if Britain chooses the USA "over" Europe, as is implied here, one can only imagine extensibly how long it could be until there is a "war of liberation" fought to "liberate" Europe.
I'm just extending the ideas (which are trash) written by this journalist. I'm sure lots of Good Chrisitans swallow this, however. Then again Christianity has been really awesome at war mongering in the past...
Mark Steyn
New York Sun, November 17
"When the crazies jumping up and down in the street yelling 'Death to the Great Satan!' are the citizenry of your closest ally, you can bet there'll be at least a few Democratic presidential candidates ready to make hay and demanding to know, 'Who lost Britain?' The argument will be that these scenes demonstrate just how total American isolation is. Rumour already has it that certain elements in the rogue state department set Mr Bush up for this debacle."
"Perhaps they did. Or perhaps it's just their usual incompetence that they failed to understand just how much more complicated Iraq's political dynamic is in Britain. The many anglospherist romantics on the American right ought to note not the loonies in the street but the lack of any really spirited rebuttal [of them] from much of the British establishment."
Yes, because many of them agree with those "loonies". But most importantly they allow those "loonies" to be and their citizens to have a voice.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
