> It is *part of something which is right.
Yes, I'll buy that - and this:
> So many other things in the same set remain undone.
>
> Russia is condemned for its opposition, but not for what it does in
> Chechnia. That is not right. USA plans to liberate Iraqis but not Kurds,
> despite his promise to bring Democracy.
> It is more of the wrong thing dressed up as the right thing. Some of the
> results will be good, but they do not justify the damage done and they do
> not balance it and they will not last
But you already know yourself that this is beneath you:
> - though when thousands of iraqis
> have died I expect that some fool will say at least they can eat a
> hamburger in Bagdad now
(I should say something youthful and flippant, like "Oh, get a room you two!",
just to be annoying).
I am not sure about this:
> What Britain does is what the powerful unelected decide it does
- I was more immediately concerned about the powerful elected, Blair himself,
saying that the difference between
* what he'd already decided he was going to do, and
* what a percentage of the British public that in a general election could get
you quite a large parliamentary majority thought he should do
was the difference between "leadership and commentary". That and the "history
will be my judge" line - as if it were all to be decided in a privy
conference between Clio and the Blair Conscience, with the rest of us as a
mute audience holding up scorecards.
Dominic
|