Try as I might, I just cannot fathom the odd person parading as a long deceased Anglican archbishop. He criticises anything to do with Labour (usually using the blatant lies coming out of the right), particularly related to religious matters, yet gives the Conservative party a ridiculously wide berth, justifying the worst of their liberal tendencies against Christians.
In the linked article he goes on about Libya, and how we need to intervene. But I don't understand it. He criticised to the hilt Blair and his "ethical foreign policy", yet it seems that a Blairite foreign policy is exactly what he is arguing for here?! He talks about the similarities with allowing Saddam to surpress an uprising in the early 1990s yet I'm sure he's well aware that his beloved Conservatives were in power back then. Nonetheless, he unwaveringly backs David Cameron in his bleatings in recent weeks regarding Libya - yet as far as I can see, Cameron has done nothing other than talk. He's cut back the military meaning we couldn't intervene there anyway (he'd say we can't afford it when actually we can). Cameron is powerlessly waiting for others to do something as a humanitarian disaster unfolds, yet the person Cranmer can't stop criticising, Blair, for right or wrong, went to war in Iraq without waiting for UN approval.
The man seems seriously confused...
No comments:
Post a Comment