There have been a good number of reporting pieces and op-eds published lately (such as in this week's Weekly Standard) about the London bombings and their aftermath. Unfortunately, Candida Crewe's column in the Washington Post is not one of them. The author expresses no surprise that the attacks occurred: "I mean, why should our country, with Blair so much in Bush's pocket, and so much a part of the Iraq fray, have continued to get off scot-free?" Crewe panics when she thinks her au pair might have been on that double-decker bus. Thankfully she wasn't and Crewe considers her experience "piffling." But she goes on to say that "I suspect that Blair's co-dependent love affair with George Bush and our repellent involvement in Iraq is largely responsible for today's 'inevitable.'" Repellent indeed.
Crewe admits that "our 'stiff upper lip' is quivering a little. With full-blown anger as well as low-burn fear for the future." I think it's clear where she directs her "full-blown anger," and it's not at the Finsbury mosque.
Incidentally, the title of Crewe's memoir is Eating Myself, which I am fairly certain is banned in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The book, that is.
12 hours ago
I share your disdain for Crewe. Almost as soon as my eyes encountered the word "au pair" I knew where this story was going--beyond parody (almost). I fail to see how this trite navel-gazing provides anything other than an illuminating look into the self-absorbed and utterly useless experience of some foppish writer. Her stiff upper lip may be quivering, but mine is most definitely curled in derision. Sad that the Post saw fit to publish this, on the Outlook section front page no less.
"I suspect that Blair's co-dependent love affair with George Bush and our repellent involvement in Iraq is largely responsible for today's 'inevitable.'" - Candida Crewe.
I know this suggestion is gonna make me sound like some sort of right-wing, warmongering kook, but here goes anyway:
Instead of saying the bombing was the fault of Tony Blair or George W. Bush, why don't we all agree to lay the blame on the person or persons who actually built the bombs and placed them in the subways and on the bus?
Why don't we blame the person or persons who knew full well that when those bombs went off they were unlikely to kill any high official in the Blair government responsible for setting policy but would rather kill whatever innocent bystander just happened to standing there at that moment?
Can we agree that no matter what this person's or persons' complaint against the Blair government may be that it is not and CAN NEVER BE a sufficient reason for randomly murdering 52 (at last count) Londoners?
In short, would it be too much for Crewe (and those who think like her) to blame the bombing on, you know, the bombers?
Just a thought ...
Post a Comment