Two novelty grenades filled with gunpowder exploded outside the British Consulate in Midtown early Thursday morning, causing minor damage but no injuries. Police do not have any suspects or a motive but say there is no evidence linking the blasts to national elections underway in Britain.
Yesterday, I saw that Dave Winer had posted :
Sure we led the war effort in Iraq, but Blair was right there providing political cover for Bush, the whole way. If he hadn’t maybe Bush wouldn’t have gotten re-elected. So why wasn’t there (or was there?) an effective campaign to deny Blair re-election for what he did in the war, the lies he told? Or do the British think somehow that Bush was lying and Blair wasn’t, because if you do, I got a bridge I want to tell you about. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
So Dave is clearly angry with Bush and Blair. I’d like a better sense of what lies he thinks they told and whether or not the outcome was worth it e.g. freedom and elections in Iraq. I am curious because later on in the same set of posts he says:
Hats off to the Internet for bringing us the girl band from Afghanistan, they’re hip, they’re girls, and they wear Burkas! Wow.
So I wonder if he is willing to express any actual gratitude to Bush and Blair for toppling the Taliban and making this girl band possible. Or is it all just churlishness?
The reason why I connect the manhattan “terrorism” with Dave Winer is that the blinding anger at Bush and Blair is a characteristic feature of the left. This type of action, novelty grenades, seems less like the work of sophisticated international terrorists and more like the work of someone local with an ax to grind who wants to make a statement. Given all the left paraphenalia advocating assasinating Bush, this is perhaps an obvious next step.
Note, I am not making an accusation here. Just stating an alternative to the Al Queada theory that appears to be floating around elsewhere.