> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507100342jul10,1,5329060.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
LONDON -- And now, the political fallout.
"George Galloway, the sharp-tongued member of Parliament who
flummoxed a U.S. Senate panel at a hearing in May on the Iraq
oil-for-food scandal, struck first.
"We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the
attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, would increase the threat of
terrorist attack in Britain," he told Parliament on Thursday.
"Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the government
ignoring such warnings."
Galloway, who was drummed out of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor
Party for his opposition to the Iraq war, drew sharp criticism from
both sides of the aisle for his comments, with Conservatives calling
him a "disgrace" and Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram accusing him
of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood."
But Galloway, who represents a heavily Muslim district in East
London, was undeterred. He urged the government "to remove people in
this country from harm's way, as the Spanish government acted to
remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq." (...)
The Independent newspaper, a fierce critic of Bush and the war in
Iraq, said in a Friday editorial that "whatever one's feelings about
the invasion of Iraq" it would be wrong "for Britain to take its
decision about the future of its troops there on the basis of this
attack on its citizens back home."
"The invasion of Iraq was a mistake. It has helped to radicalize the
Middle East and much of the Islamic world against us. But the policy
toward that country now cannot be determined by fear of the bomb."
Many commentators and analysts were more concerned that in the wake
of Thursday's terrorist attacks Britain would follow the example of
the U.S. and curtail civil liberties by adopting its own version of
the Patriot Act. New measures giving police more powers to arrest and
detain people who support terrorism are expected to be rushed through
Parliament, and a controversial proposal by the government to
introduce national identity cards will be harder for Conservatives
and Liberal Democrats to oppose."
LONDON -- And now, the political fallout.
"George Galloway, the sharp-tongued member of Parliament who
flummoxed a U.S. Senate panel at a hearing in May on the Iraq
oil-for-food scandal, struck first.
"We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the
attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, would increase the threat of
terrorist attack in Britain," he told Parliament on Thursday.
"Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the government
ignoring such warnings."
Galloway, who was drummed out of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor
Party for his opposition to the Iraq war, drew sharp criticism from
both sides of the aisle for his comments, with Conservatives calling
him a "disgrace" and Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram accusing him
of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood."
But Galloway, who represents a heavily Muslim district in East
London, was undeterred. He urged the government "to remove people in
this country from harm's way, as the Spanish government acted to
remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq." (...)
The Independent newspaper, a fierce critic of Bush and the war in
Iraq, said in a Friday editorial that "whatever one's feelings about
the invasion of Iraq" it would be wrong "for Britain to take its
decision about the future of its troops there on the basis of this
attack on its citizens back home."
"The invasion of Iraq was a mistake. It has helped to radicalize the
Middle East and much of the Islamic world against us. But the policy
toward that country now cannot be determined by fear of the bomb."
Many commentators and analysts were more concerned that in the wake
of Thursday's terrorist attacks Britain would follow the example of
the U.S. and curtail civil liberties by adopting its own version of
the Patriot Act. New measures giving police more powers to arrest and
detain people who support terrorism are expected to be rushed through
Parliament, and a controversial proposal by the government to
introduce national identity cards will be harder for Conservatives
and Liberal Democrats to oppose."