Reply #127: Iraq and terrorism are not related

[TolstoyAndy]

AP: "Had he not participated, Labour probably would have lost the last election in a mood dominated by (SNIP) the idea that he wasn't committed to fighting terrorism (what if there had been a terrorist attack in the UK? What if Richard Reid succeeded?)"

CNN.com - Shoe bomb suspect to remain in custody - December 25, 2001
The attempted shoe bombing was in late 2001. Blair committed to fellating the pretzeldent and following him into an unwinnable war by April 2002, as we now know, and of course the push for the unwinnable war began in fall 2002, because you don't roll out a new product before Labor Day.

Due to the order of these events, the Brits would never have had the chance to see a) Bliar refuse to be Bush's fig leaf and b) the shoe bomber succeed.

With respect, I don't buy your defense of Bliar, because no terrorist attack had occurred in the UK for him to be responding to. His argument was always the same as Bush's: if we don't attack Iraq, there will be terrorist attacks. Bliar couldn't even say "we've been attacked and have to hit back". The Brits didn't even get a chance to reject such an argument.

Reid and Iraq are 2 different things, as are terrorism and Iraq.