"Woof", says Blair.

I call to your attention two interesting and complementary posts on a major speech by Tony Blair on January 12. Paul Rogers explores the policy implications of Blair's speech, in short, Bush's favorite poodle is pushing for a long term commitment to the GWOT, to be implemented by massive increases in 'defense' spending, including:

The first is familiar: the decision to replace the Trident nuclear force with a new system, setting Britain as a nuclear-armed power for thirty-five years or more (see "Nuclear weapons: the oxygen of debate", 29 December 2006).

The second is the extraordinary plan to build two massive new aircraft-carriers. These, each weighing 65,000 tons and deploying the new and hugely expansive US F-35 joint strike fighter, will be far larger than any other warship ever deployed in the Royal Navy's history - three times the size of the current Invincible-class and much larger even than the battleships of the global 1939-45 war (see "British sea power: a 21st-century question", 13 July 2006).

It's hard for me to believe that Blair is really that insane, to bankrupt one's country to be the number two policeman on the global beat is beyond stupid. Does Cheney have some kind of evil hold over Blair?

The second article is at UNSPEAK, and explores his use (or misuse) of language in the speech. Blair is once again shown to have become the child of the Cheneyites, their disdain of logic, clarity and their audience is the hallmark of their speech. Another example from today, here's our own Attorney General, Abu Gonzales:

Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.