I've Seen This Play Before

You may have noticed that over recent weeks and months both Tony Blair and George Bush have come in for an increasing amount of public criticism. This criticism has come mostly from military figures, political figures and the "intelligence community". What is interesting about this is the type of criticism being reported and that it is being reported in the mass media.

The type of criticism is very much of the ilk "the Iraq/Afghanistan/terrorism policy is flawed/needs changing/isn't working". The finger is then usually pointed at Blair or Bush according to whether the UK or US is concerned. The finger pointing may not be done by the person making the criticism, often its the media. These criticisms are in fact quite mild considering that many hold that Bush and Blair should be tried for war crimes and breaches of human rights. Indeed it is hard to see how they would escape conviction on such charges if ever they were brought to trial. So why do we only hear these lesser criticisms?

And why are the mass media now reporting such criticisms? Those of us who take the trouble to look beyond the mass media reporting know that such criticisms and the much more serious charges have been being made for some time. Consider for instance Scott Ritter or John Pilger.

It looks rather as though Blair and Bush are being set up for a fall. Despite the inadequate reporting of the mass media it is no longer possible to convince the public that everything is ok, so a goat or two must be sacrificed. Bush and Blair it would appear have outlived their usefulness. Sadly removing them will change nothing. Do you think a change of leadership or a change of leading party will change our governments' policies? Will we pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan? Will the terror laws be repealed? Will we stop defending the Israeli government's genocidal attacks on the Palestinians? At home, will our health and education services be revived? I think not.

Blair and Bush are not the root of the problem. Removing them is merely a face transplant, a procedure which is far from new in the political arena. They would never have been able to do the things they have if our political systems, our mass media and we ourselves hadn't allowed it. Which is exactly why our mass media are not airing the more serious charges which could be leveled against our leaders. If they did then it would become obvious that our political systems are far from democratic; that the main political parties do not, on the whole, have the best interests of the populace at heart; that the mass media are complicit in this by not seriously questioning their actions and that we share in that guilt by allowing ourselves to be distracted from the suffering of others. It would become obvious that we need more than just a change of Prime Minister or President.

But how can such changes be effected? Well you could start by voting for a party which actually has policies you agree with. Don't be fooled into thinking that those smaller, untried political parties aren't an option. Why aren't they? You know the bigger parties will carry on just as before and that this is not acceptable. It's only they and the mass media that tell you other options can't be considered. I'd rather vote for an untested party who's policies agree with mine that vote for a party whom I know will enact the same heinous policies as before.