I disagree with Galloway's conclusions and think his comments were poorly-timed besides. But the proposition that "Britain was targeted for these attacks primarily because of its involvement in Iraq" (my edit) is obviously true. I don't see how pretending that it's not so serves any useful purpose.

The claim that "[t]he apparent purpose was to hold all these [G-8] nations accountable for the manifold grievances of Islamists towards the rest of the world" is tenuous at best. Where were the bombs in Ottawa this morning? In Tokyo? In Berlin? The summit's in Scotland; where were the bombs in Scotland? I can certainly believe that the timing of the terrorist attack had something to do with the the timing of the summit, but the notion that Britain wasn't being singled out makes no sense.

It may perhaps be cheap and exploitative for George Galloway to score a couple of political points in the immediate aftermath of this horror.

It may also be cheap and exploitative to similarly score cheap points against George Galloway with a similarly unseemly haste.

If I was looking to castigate someone for getting their talking points in while the blood is still warm on the London streets, I'd probably pick someone other than George Galloway.  Maybe his namesake Bush or George Pataki or John McCain - someone who might actually be able to do some damage with their misconceived spin.

But hey - I guess it's not every day you get a chance to put a boot in against the great satan - George Galloway - so you've got to take what opportunities you can.  Right?

< /sarcasm >

To add some logical rebuttal to my earlier sarcasm - I wonder did it occur to the author that  the attacks may have been timed for today simply because GW Bush would be in the UK?  And that the reason for his being there - the G8 summit - is of minimal consequence to the bombers?

Boy I am getting tired of this line of reasoning:  we must show our resolve against the terrorists, and stay united in the War on Terror, and this means, if the terrorists want Spain, or U.K., or anyone else, out of Iraq, therefore, they have to stay in Iraq.  Shouldn't they be allowed to make up their own minds on Iraq, even if that means doing something that it may just so happen coincides with the terrorists' demands?  As in:  going into Iraq had nothing to do with the WOT, all we are doing is making ourselves targets and creating further anti-Western hatred, let's get the hell out of there. 

More DLC'er bulls**t!

"Aside from the remarkable fact that "Gorgeous George" didn't have the decency to express solidarity with his own countrymen and wait a week or two to blame the attacks on Blair while counseling surrender to the aims of the terrorists..."

Hmm. While rolodexing your gorgeous epithets, did you even bother to read Galloway's official statement? Regardless of how one stands on his proposition that the Brits' presence in Iraq and Afghanistan bears a direct relation to these attacks, there is no way that one can argue that he parted ways with his countrymen in his comments. Read for yourself:

"We extend our condolences to those who have lost their lives today and our heartfelt sympathy to all those who have been injured by the bombs in London.

"No one can condone acts of violence aimed at working people going about their daily lives. They have not been a party to, nor are they responsible for, the decisions of their government. They are entirely innocent and we condemn those who have killed or injured them.

"The loss of innocent lives, whether in this country or Iraq, is precisely the result of a world that has become a less safe and peaceful place in recent years."

Your post displays all the facile and vindictive opportunism that we've come to expect from tetchy howlers like David Horowitz, who exploit the most shocking of tragedies to fence with their favorite bugbears. Naturally, the caricature only stands through selective editing and false lighting. That you butterball your conclusion with a sniffy and rhetorical ecumenicalism makes it no finer.

What a scummy response. 

It hasn't taken long for the DLC to indicate how they want to unite Democrats. Bush's old pal, Kilgore, spells it out. Unite with Bush. Crack down on the left. We the DLC are the loyal, very loyal, opposition. We hate the left as much as you do. Elect us.

<span class="469491716-07072005">There will always be terror attacks as long as our country and countries like ours refuse to address the real problems we're facing - energy dependence, more specifically, a dependence on oil from the middle east.
 
If our governments invested the billions of dollars that have been wasted in the "global war on terror" on alternative energy research, technology and development we wouldn't be in this mess. This whole thing would disappear if we had no vested interest in the middle east. If we don't need oil, we don't care about Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and what's more they don't care about us.
 
It's only going to get worse and more violent as our economy and population demands continue to grow. Oil is a scarce resource which thousands of scientists worldwide estimate will run into serious shortages within our lifetime. At this rate, we will have no choice but to invade and control middle eastern countries by force to acquire more oil and continue our way of life.
 
The whole reason why this is happening is clear as day, yet no politician will address it. If another country decided to invade the US or England.. both physically or using political pressure to shape our governments policies, the people would not stand for it. There would be resistance. Just as the colonialists resisted England's heavy taxation, laws, religious persecution using gorilla tactics... citizens of these middle east countries are too. The only tool strong enough to change another countries position is to shape the publics opinion.. the ones who elect the people who create our government policies.
 
It is horrible what happens, but is it any worse than the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's killed by the US and English army in the past few years? They weren't expecting to die either. Blame for all of these atrocities lay on many, but the solution is not more war as Bush, Blair and Ed Kilgore would have us all believe.
</span&gt

The IRA wanted the British out of Northern Ireland to create a communist independent Ireland. What does Al Qaeda want?

Now one should certainly be cautious in trying to ascribe motives to the bombers. This seems not to have slowed down Mr. Kilgore who seems to have it figured all out. The communique which was posted on an al Qaeda web site (a source of both accurate and inaccurate news in the past) was translated by Der Spiegel as follows:

    "Rejoice, community of Muslims," the letter states. "The heroic mujahedeens today conducted an attack in London," it continues. All of Great Britain is now shaken and shocked, "in the north, the south, west and east." "We've warned the British government and the British people time and again," the letter adds. "We've kept our promise and have carried out a blessed military operation."

"We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all other crusader governments." We demand that all countries pull their troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, states the letter, which has been signed by the "Secret Organization -- al Qaida in Europe."

    If this is accurate, and I guess we will learn soon, then Mr.Kilgore would be incorrect (to put it mildly). It might have been a little wiser for him to wait until he knew something before he told us what it was all about and the proper etiquette of  genuflecting before the failed policies of Bush and Blair (an area of specialization for Mr. Kilgore and the DLC)

I alredy know that I'll be ripped as a "knuckle-dragger," but someone's got to break up the chorus.  Sure, Galloway's comments are less reprehenisible in context, but they're still an embarrassment - more of the "we had it coming" crap that reallly misunderstands the Islamist mind.
This has less to do with the Iraq invasion - 9/11 predated that, guys...think about it - than it does with simple jihadi rage at the West and the arrested development in the Middle East.  It's one thing to argue that Iraq put us at greater risk - that's arguably true - but it's quite another to pretend all of this wouldn't be happening, or that the United Kingdom would have been spared all forms of terrorism, had they sat on their hands during our invasion.  There's no disputing that the U.S. is a favored target, but there are other issues in European politics that - immigration for one - that hold real potential to drag them into the wider <i>jihad.</i>
But what I'm truly sick of reading out of the Left - of which I'm part, by the way - is the rampant moaning about Bush's sins.  Don't like what he's doing?  Fix it.  Don't piss and moan about Bushie thug tactics; come up with something better.  The Democrats failed, utterly, to offer anything that wasn't Bush's policies minus the Bush.  So how 'bout it?  Where do we go in Iraq?  HOW do we actually get to the terrorists?  these questions demand solutions a hell of a lot more than a litany against Bush and Rove. 
No matter what that twit Galloway says, ignoring the Islamists is not an option - especially for Americans.  If you think venting on a blog and loathing will somehow exclude you from the carnage if and when it again reaches our shores, you're pathetically mistaken.  They hate you by virtue of your citizenship.  Now, how do you deal with that?

Ed, this post is unworthy of what I know of you.  If these words of Galloway are not an expression of solidarity with his own people, then what are they?

We extend our condolences to those who have lost their lives today and our heartfelt sympathy to all those who have been injured by the bombs in London.

No one can condone acts of violence aimed at working people going about their daily lives. They have not been a party to, nor are they responsible for, the decisions of their government. They are entirely innocent and we condemn those who have killed or injured them.

All on my own this morning, without having read Galloway's words, I thought to myself that what the terrorists might be trying to do is peel away allied support for the war in Iraq for the purpose of isolating the US there.  All on my own, in my little backwater town down south, I thought this up.

I supported the war in Afghanistan, in which the situation is now turning bad because we pretty much abandoned that country to go to war in Iraq for reasons I still cannot fathom.  Osama is still on the loose.  We took our eyes off the ball to turn to the war in Iraq, which I didn't ever support, and that war has turned into a disaster from which we have no plan for extricating ourselves.

Don't forget that Galloway is a citizen of Britain.  Is he really the one you should be attacking?  For shame, Ed. 

I disagree with your interpretation of Galloway's remarks.  I think it's not a case of "we had it coming," but rather "Bush and Blair continue to misunderstand the motives and modus operandi of this particular brand of terrorist."

As to your reasonable criticism of those on the left who complain about Bush, but offer no reasonable alternatives, how about this:

Take the $1 billion difference between the $4 billion Halliburton contract to provide support services in Iraq in the current year and the $5 billion contract just approved to provide the same services next year, and use it to finance an international police-based effort to hunt down al Qaida cells?

It is a sad sad day when the discourse of so-called progressives is to respond to an act of mass murder with vitriol aimed at anyone other than the perpetrators of the crime.  There can be no justification, no "understanding" of the attacks on the innocent commuters of London.  I think some perspective is seriously in order.     

 I do think there are moments, and today is one of them, when it's helpful to make it clear we understand there are worse people in the world than W.

I'd really like to think you're referring to Al Qaeda here.  But I'm seriously unsure if you're talking about George Galloway again.

Ed, let me say that you are basically right. It's not just about Iraq. Just don't tell us it's about Andalusia. There are plenty of things that the USA has done in the past 40 years to get some bombs thrown back at us and our allies.

It's good that you are ready to take a critical look at certain sections of the left, like the peace people. That's fine, I'm sure they can benefit from it. But I can think of other people who aren't getting any of your attention, people who perpetuated this war between the USA and Islam, people who want to have this clash of civilizations.  Not all Republicans by any measure. Why don't you go after them? -- for a change.

"Yes, I criticized Galloway, whom I despise, and I could care less if he couched his "blame Blair" statement in a preface that disclaimed any sympathy with the perpetrators."

That's obvious, but unfortunate. More unfortunate still is that youdo not credit Galloway with expressing "solidarity with his countrymen". In fact, you deliberately avoid it. It's beyond small.

That you hedged your bets by triangulating Livingstone does not prove your discretion or discrimination...but merely a sort of musical chairs circumspection you'd like to imagine as diplomatic. You're not about to hang with George, too risky, so Stanley is off to reserve two dinner theatre seats at Victoria Falls for a more populist and agreeable peer, I presume.

No, Kilgore, you did not express sympathy and solidarity with the victims of these awful bombings. Moreover, you ascribed your own sin of omission to one of your enemies, who in no uncertain terms, did express sympathy and solidarity with his countrymen. That makes you a cheat.

EB Farnum, meet your mate.

Please.....the Jihadists are evil because you set the terms of the debate.  You say it is less evil to shoot missles into civilian neighborhoods IF there is a possibility you might kill possible terrorists.  Do you really believe that?  Do you really believe that a civilized people gets to kill civilians with impunity?  I think it is an abomination.  I think it is an abomination whenever people willing to kill and die choose to kill those who have no role in the fighting.  It makes a less humane to argue that the tkaing of innocent palestinean lives is an acceptable outcome of the Isreali war on terror.  You think we would stand for the fire bombing of cerain housing projects in the US where we know gangs (terrorists) hang out and cetralize their brutal activities?  Nonsense.  Or, what if the terrorists blew up US leaders and got some civilians in the process?  okay with you?  Sure because for you WE cannot be the terrorists.

The people that did this today -- monsters. And, they are monsters becuase of who they chose to target and where they chose to target.  It is an abomination.

I don't know about Rove but I understand from you that now an attack on the DLC mentality of the "Republicans-in-our-midst" (aka, the DLC) is tantamount to treason. It is hard not to see where these guys stand.

The Jihadists evilness neccessitates no debate rigging; I can't say the same for a relativist stance that paints them as heroes.

There is no shooting missiles into civilian neighborhoods in hopes of killing terrorists, they are shooting those missiles AT the terrorists!  There is little justification for taking innocent life without alot of apologetics and mental gymnastics, but there is no ambivalance in defending a country's right to defend itself against the orchestrators of serial homicide bombings to take out school children and small business owners.

At least we can agree that the blame for this mass bloodletting rests with the subhuman creatures that carried it out, as opposed to blaming everyone else as some choose to do.  

"Saddam's old buddy" might be unfortunate red meat, but that doesen't make it any less true. And If Rumsfeld counts as a buddy of Saddam for metting eith him, then what does that make the man all but fellated him upon meeting?

Of course characterising George as "Saddam's buddy" gives him more credit than he deserves. Gorgeous George has never met a fascist tyrant he didn't like, provided said tyrant was opposed to the United States and used his power to make sure Georgie still dressed in the finest suits and toked onthe finest cigars.

Ed, for what it's worth, I'm a longtime Democrat, and I endorse with everything you wrote.

" Just WTF is so smart about that?"

Well, the obvious answer is that to the extent Al Qaeda is motivated by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Spain is now less of a target. That is very smart. You may not like it, because it shifts the risk to countries that are still in there, but that's my point-- everyone who supports the Iraq war needs to be able to argue that the ends justify the uptick in terrorism that results from the policy. The Spanish voters rationallly decided that a right wing government that sucked up to Bush and involved itself in an unjustified war, and then attempted to lie and cover-up the causes of a resulting terrorist attack, had to go.

You are way too caught up with the concept of "giving the terrorists a victory". We give the terrorists lots of victories. I have to take my shoes off at the airport because of the terrorists. It's harder to watch birds near military bases because of the terrorists. We can't build Freedom Tower as contemplated by its architect because of the terrorists. We can't have bases in Saudi Arabia because of the terrorists. All of these things, and countless other things, are behavioral changes we have instigated because of the terrorists. What the "giving the terrorists a victory" line ignores is that they are also all very good ideas. Sure, it is emotionally satisfying to say that we shouldn't do anything different just because some terrorist wants us to change our policy. It will also get us killed.

Spain figured that out. Perhaps Britain will too. Too many Americans, however, are more than willing to paint a big target on our chests (and ensure that many innocent Iraqis and American soldiers will die) just so that we can say that we are macho and tough and won't "give in".

The Spanish people threw out their Government not because of the Madrid attacks but because their Government LIED to them about who caused the attack.

A Government which lies to the People on vital matters of national security does not deserve the respect of the People and certainly does not deserve to be reelected. 

A 'dodgy fellow?' That's putting it politely

There is nothing moderate about defending your lives from terrorism. What exactly would be the proper 'moderate' response extemist terrorism? Does the fact that someone holds moderate-centrist views mean he approaches  every subject in this vein? Is there a 'moderate' response cannibalism? What position on the mandatory mass murder of infants would surmount the most 'moderate' brownie points?

And If I may be so bold as to speculate; judging from the esteem Mr. Kilgore feels for Mr. Galloway, I seriously doubt he's much worried about  offending him or getting called juvenile names in return. I'm sure he considers being insulted by fascists a compliment. You certainly don't earn any moderate points from me in your half disguised support for your Stalinist buddy Galloway.

Sorry. If you want to muster up sympathy for your favorite homicide bombers, you'll have to cough up a more credible source than B'tselem. If I want to study the Holocaust, I don't consult the Institute for Historical Review.

To conclude using some of B'tselem's own methodology; one sure way to stop Palestenian deaths is to not willingly blow themselves up just for the sacred chance to murder a pack of third graders.   

I find it more than slightly spooky to see the number of folks running to defend George Galloway's honor.

In a modern democracy, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.  You have to be a bit more careful in who you ally yourself with, or it came come back and bite you on the ass.

While Galloway opposed the Iraq war, it's worth re-iterating that he opposed the war for rather different and less honorable reasons than most American lefties did.

It's also worth noting that Galloway opposed the Afghan operation that most American lefties supported.

It's important in politics to be willing to separate yourself from folks who lie beyond the pale, even if they are with you on some important issue.  (Note how righties separated themselves from Ed Klein, for example.)  And George Galloway is most definitely beyond the pale.