Yes, Tony Blair as a peace envoy!

Sure, Tony Blair would make a worthy PEACE envoy. The man who joined Bush in an unprovoked, preemptive and arguably imperialistic war. What would Tony's methods entail? Where there is something to gain financially or politically, peace would be waived? His tow the line alliance with Bush on a vague and ambiguous war with a nondescript enemy shows his weeknesses in advancing peace. He appears too willing to engage in the use of military force for specious reasons.

It appears this "peace envoy" position is a make job reward for his alliance with Bush in a war for oil and territorial expansion. Oh, and surprise, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert supports this reward position...I never would have guessed. As though the quid pro quo of politics isn't apparent to us. We can certainly expect Blair to advance the Fatah government and work toward usurping the "democratically" elected Hamas. It is not my desire here to argue who is right in the war of differences in Palestien and Israel, it is my position that Bush and Blair are obviously using "advancing democracy" as a propaganda tool to further their agenda of financial and political influence globally.

Too desire democracy and to use expanding democracy and advancing the principles of deomcracy as a justification for the use of military force, and then to ignore the realities of the exercise of democracy, as in the case of the Hamas government in Palestien is very revealing. In addition to being revealing, it is disturbing. The only government acceptable in a democratic process is one other Democracy's agree with? What about sovereignty? Is this again a concept that only exists if the most powerful and militarily supreme say so? This perversion of principles in the interest of minority domination by unscrupulous leaders should disturb us all.