I've heard some cowardly speeches in my time, but David Miliband's crass outpourings at the Taj Mahal Hotel today take some beating. He has criticised the use of the term 'War on Terror'. First of all, I suspect all those affected by the Bombay bombings relate very well to the term, but secondly, isn't it an act of extreme cowardice to make this speech five days before George Bush, who coined the phrase, leaves office? I'd have had more respect if I had heard him or his predecessors make such criticisms before now.
Or is it just an attempt to suck up to Obama?
25 comments:
Disgusting stuff. If Miliband actually possessed a spine, he would have made these comments a few months back when George Bush would have had a chance to respond.
This is political cowardice of the highest order.
Another of Brown's pygmies. How he ever considered himself a candidate for PM is beyond me. Then again, the standard is pretty low.
I'm not sure I follow the logic. It was cowardly not to say it earlier, but insensitive to say it in Mumbai?
Surely that was the courageous bit?
I was just thinking exactly that. I have never agreed with the easy criticism of Georges Bush who for me , got the basics right.
Milliband of course has his own agenda and its an easy clap
I'd say it was designed to be a suck up comment to Obama, as we all know that to be their strategy for the foreseeable.
It would be amusing to see if Obama cocked up big time at some point, and subsequently to watch the UK slimeballs backtracking at warp speed.
Good to see him being clobbered on CiF.
He is a quisling.
The phrase "War on Terror" has been used to justify a whole raft of anti-libertarian legislation by a bankrupt, falsehood peddling government and as such it is overdue for condemnation. The fact that such condemnation has come from a senior member of said government is ironic to say the least. Perhaps he feels they've got all the value they can out of it and it's time to find another way to deceive and manipulate the GBP.
The Times is running a story that suggests that the Israelis have hit a UN aid compound in Gaza with (banned) white phosphorous bombs. Any comment, Iain? Surely even you must now agree that the Israelis, for all their legitimate right to defend themselves from Hamas-supported terrorism, have gone too far?
I should imagine a lot of Israelis would find his comments questionable. But then apparently if you're Jewish you just have to sit there and let terrorists fire rockets and mortars at you without being allowed to in any way defend yourself.
You can make war on other nations, or even against different groups in the same nation, but terror is an emotion, not a nation, and war creates terror and hatred, which reflexively brings it back onto your side.
What Bush meant to say was "War on Terrorism", terrorism being the killing of civilians for political purposes, but the same applies: the more you kill terrorists (and innocent civilian as "collateral damage"), the more people flock to the terrorist cause.
It is the police and security services who are our proper and effective defence against terrorists. The military response is just pouring oil on burning waters.
Iain, it is everything you said. Do not be forced into a false choice!
Inappropriate, cowardly and a suck up. Pure Miliband.
You are spot on with all three.
Where's a link to the actual words used by the boy wonder Iain? The phrase has been bonkers from day one and plenty have said so from LP POV. The New Internationalist Twin Terrors press advert of 2001 with OBL and GWB as the eponymous terrors certainly got this one early doors.
Iain,
Just count the number of times Brown refers to Obama. He mentioned the Almighty's name a number of times at PMQ's yesterday. I believe he is trying to establish, within the ionds of the people, a direct link between himself and Obama. So taken in that context the speech by Milliband is understandable.
Brown is desperate to be seen as Obama's best mate and will do anything to achieve that. So sending more of our troops to their deaths in Afghanistan is "a price worth paying"???
When will the Conservatives wake up and become an opposition ready for government. Cameron should be calling for our troops to be brought home. It is time for our Nato colleagues to take over the role given to us. We are tired of being put upon by our Nato 'friends' and Cameron should make a statement saying that within twelve months of him becoming Prime Minister our troops will be home guarding our borders and not fighting a war we cannot win.
Still touchy about David Miliband then? haha.
David Miliband is right to criticise the phrase 'war on terror'. He's right to criticise George Bush who I think will be up on some war crime charges soon?
Miliband will be working closely with Hillary Clinton. He's not stupid. In fact, I quite like him. Get rid of Brown and let Miliband have a pop.
Sucking up to Obama, is he? He's some ground to make up after he, his untruthful master and all of his colleqgues have spent the last 4 months blaming American for all of our economic woes.
Obama may well want to hammer the republicans over the disastrous state of things but I doubt his sympathy will extend to blaming his countrymen for our disaster.
Gordon and co really are terrible fools if they think a bit of limp anti-Bushism will make Obama forget our blaming America for our economy and then claiming credit for Obama's rescue plan.
Do you know, I believe they really are that stupid. Yes, that stupid.
He might just have one eye on his constituency too.
(Not that his position is under any real threat there.)
Useless fool.
Milibrain might wish that there wasn't a war on terror, but the fact is Bush used the term and the world went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some might say that may not have been the best approach or that the invasion of Iraq might have been avoided, but that is irrelevant now because we are where we are and Milibrain was a member of the government that took us to war.
War on terror has never been a good phrase. It was always a euphemism for War on Islamists. But of course when Bush tried saying this out loud (referring I think to Islamist fascists) he was roundly condemned. This is the problem with adapting language because of political pressures. It would be much healthier if we had a climate where politicans could actually say what they mean. Now wouldn't that be something?
Milliband’s speech and article in today’s Guardian are the most significant contribution to the debate on terrorism and our response to it for years. The arguments could have been put by Robin Cook who I suspect would have agreed with every word – and there is no higher praise than that. Only the terminally prejudiced could call the speech “cowardly” but then I suppose those who throw the epithet “Appeaser” around so carelessly aren’t very used to choosing their words carefully. The dangerous soundbite (another one!) “War on Terror”, as Milliband says, suggested that there was one enemy which is clearly not the case.
It is to be hoped that Milliband is signalling the return to an ethical foreign policy. Robin Cook showed the way on taking officer in 1997:
“Britain will once again be a force for good in the world. Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension ... Ethics will be at the heart of our policy ... The Labour government will put human rights at the heart of our foreign policy.”
Maybe Milliband will be the man who implements Cook’s dream.
Be nice if Foreign Sec was a real Brit instead of a Marxist import like Robert Maxwell et al.
It would be amusing to see if Obama cocked up big time at some point
Not if, but when.
His arrogance guarantees it.
Word verif: lit urea !
Oh really Yak40? Do you think Obama might get us into an illegal war - no wait, do you think he might get us into two wars?
Do you think he might destroy the economy? Do you think he might promote torture? Do you think he might turn world opinion against the USA?
There is a reason why George Bush is considered the worst President in history. Because he is.
Barack Obama has inherited a nightmare from George Bush and his evil accomplice Dick Cheney.
I believe Barack Obama has more good will directed towards him than any other politician in the world. I wish him well. He is human - he will make mistakes. But he is sensible and he will make this world a better place.
And the Labour Party think that this idiot is capable of being a future PM?
I'm honestly starting to think that civil servants have been putting something very strong into these people's tea for the past decade. What else could explain their stupidity?
If you want to make David Miliband laugh on Friday afternoon, then tell him a joke on Monday morning.
But even he seems to be waking up.
Mind you, he has form. When first appointed, he put it about that he had never really supported either the Iraq War or the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon. Funny how, particularly in the former case, he never resigned in order to oppose it.
And now, with only days to go before Bush is out and Obama is in, he comes out with this.
Does nobody here read Coffeehouse?
Specifically, at: http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3236896/milibands-argument-is-bananas.thtml
'First, it is hardly ground-breaking to observe that ‘war on terror’ is an inadequate and misleading phrase. Back in August 2004, President Bush conceded this point:
“We actually misnamed the war on terror; it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies, who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.”'
Post a Comment