 |
 |
> 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