The Guardian article today regarding Rumsfelds feebleminded and derogatory comments towards Britain's role in the looming global spectacular Gulf Wars: Clone of the Attack makes hilarious critical reading.

Rumsfeld is reported to have said, "Their situation is distinctive to their country and they have a government that deals with the parliament in their distinctive way and what will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role."

What is this supposed to mean? That our government has not resolved parliamentary rifts and as a result Britain has not agreed a clear role in the impending epic. Why could he not just say that? The sentiment implies that such a government position is natural and normal, even customary, for us and betrays the notion of a middle england bickering between sips of tea, like tweedle dumb and tweedle dee, until a critical overload of stupidity will make us follow up the rear. Absolute buffoonery!

If the US were serious about the moral justifications for war etc why would they risk the solidarity of their 'closest' allies and issue such a demoralizing statement. Whether you agree with war or not most people of Britain can sympathise with the troops going out to Iraq at the moment bracing for a war with highly unpredictable consequences. The last thing any pledged supporter needs are comments which undermine and underestimate the value of their commitment. Rumsfeld's comments were detrimental to their cause and hope the cradle bites them back.