Oh, Spare Me!
Brit pols upset by cowboy Rumsfeld. Gee, we must be doing something right. From the article:

At a Pentagon briefing on Tuesday, Rumsfeld said it was easy for critics to carp from a "comfortable distance". "It's amazing the insight that parliamentarians can gain from 5,000 miles away," he said in singling Britain out.

British lawmakers, notably from Prime Minister Tony Blair's own party, said they deserved better than sarcasm having stood unflinchingly by the United States when it attacked Afghanistan.

Yes, and we deserve better than being constantly hounded by British lawmakers from Tony Blair's own party about living conditions which are being monitored by both the Red Cross and the British government. Unflinchingly? Well, they're certainly flinching now, it seems.

"We've supported the United States. It seems rather crass to dismiss legitimate concerns out of hand," Ann Clwyd, Labour MP, said. "We don't want to be insulted by Donald Rumsfeld."

What is crass is to spout twaddlewash about things you have no knowledge of, and to jump upon the "evil American oppressors" bandwagon, then expect our government to keep silent. If you don't want to be insulted by Donald Rumsfeld, refrain from opening your mouth, unless it is to buy a vowel.

Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said the "war on terror" was not just about military action in Afghanistan but winning hearts and minds in the Middle East and Arab world. "We here in Britain may be 5,000 miles from Cuba. But we are much closer to the Middle East than (Rumsfeld) is in Washington," he said."

And you are much closer to being an ass than 5,000 miles. Anyway, since you are so close, are you willing to take over the "war on terror"? No matter how close you are, we still have to come all the way over there and do the heavy lifting.

Human rights groups say the United States has no right to refuse to categorise the detainees as prisoners of war, a designation that would give them extensive rights under the Geneva Convention. "It really isn't up to Rumsfeld to decide whether they are prisoners of war," Clwyd said.

Oh crap, not you again. No, Mr. Rumsfeld is acting on my behalf. And I am the one who decides their status. Who am I? An American citizen.

Clwyd, who heads the cross-party parliamentary Human Rights Group, met the number two at the U.S. embassy in London on Wednesday to raise her concerns along with eight other MPs. "There was really a lot of outrage about Mr Rumsfeld's comments," she said.

There was much outrage by Terry Oglesby to the comments made by Ms. Clwyd and her turdherding band of 8 other MPs .

But Donald Anderson, Labour chairman of parliament's Foreign Affairs Select Committee -- the watchdog of government foreign policy -- said MPs had been right to ask questions. "Some of those (concerns)...may have been allayed. Others remain," he told Sky Television. "It is not for the captor to decide unilaterally whether they are prisoners of war or not."

Well, these people do not fit any defined term found in the Geneva Convention, and are therefore relatively lucky to be alive and able to plead their case. They could have simply been shot.

He said the images of the detainees in cages could hamstring potential allies and act as perfect recruiting material for militants in the Arab world. "Countries who may want to cooperate may find it more difficult because their own populations may be made angry."

Gosh, an actual reason to hate us rather than making something up out of thin air. Actually, it just might be a deterrent to pitching fully loaded airliners at Twin Tower wickets.

Chris Patten, European Commissioner and former chairman of the Conservative Party, also warned the Americans they risked alienating allies around the globe. "Having won the (military) campaign it would be a huge error if the international coalition were to lose the peace," he said

Uh-huh. It's "we" in victory. How very quaint, eh wot.

posted by Terry at 5:02:00 PM