How about abandoning appeasement? That'll make us safer.

Our leaders were discussing how many boatloads of money to give to Africa, and how to stop global warming, while terorrists were strapping on bombs and carefully placing explosives.

Once again, they play hardball, we play badminton.

I'd say Mr. Churhhill has already been represented in this comment I found in the Thursday Open Post on Little Green Footballs:

Comment by a British reader (Comment #61):

"Just a word. My sister was at Tavistock Square at the time of the explosions, and my daughter and nephew were also in central London. We had some anxious moments, the more so because the cell-phone system was down (probably due to overloading), but we've all spoken now by land-line and email and they're all safe and well.

For those of you who are anxious to know how the UK will react, we've been bombed for years by the IRA, and no-one spoke of quitting. Half of London and much of Coventry was flattened by the Luftwaffe a generation or two back, and no-one ran. Before that, in my grandparents' time, we were bombed by Zeppelins and didn't give in. We gave up appeasing after Czechoslovakia. There's no panic today, and there won't be, but we, all of us, are bloody angry. Al quaeda may think we're going to run up the white flag, but I promise you nobody else does. "

Churchill is surely watching and it is my hope and belief that the British will live up to his expectations.

Oh, and the Spanish owe the Brits an apology. Had they not bowed to these murdering cowards when they were attacked, I have no doubt that the British would not be suffering this attack today.

Jordan,

Before the swarm of angry comments arrives from Malaysia, let me inform you that badminton is indeed devilishly hard.

What's a suitable French sport?

Might I humbly suggest to the ghost of Churchill that while in London he perhaps helps George Galloway to choke to death on his breakfast in the morning. Provided, of course, that the ghost of Chamberlain isn't there to administer the Heimlich.

>What's a suitable French sport?

Croquet, obviously.

Somewhere in the Borough of Brooklyn, New York, I hear there's a successor artwork to Serrano's choice of a clinical sample to encompass Jesus the Christ.

This latest artifact (so I am told) is an equal-opportunity interpretation of a certain Dark Age prophet, patron of camel-drivers and rug-merchants, whose heirs infest various poli-spheres even today. It consists of this man's graven image surmounting Mecca and Medina, smeared with what looks like recent swine excretions, the whole entitled "PS: Muhammed".

Dear me! If Serrano's brethren are "reaching out" to Islam in terms of blasphemy and sacrilege, can Castro or Kim Jong-il be far behind? We await bumper stickers proclaiming, "Kerry for Commissar" or perhaps "MzBill for Gauleiter" because, PS: Armbands fit the sleeve.

>What's a suitable French sport?

May I suggest surrendering? The French made it into a sport, atleast in the 20th century.

"What's a suitable French sport?"

This is a family blog.

In defense of Chamberlain. Once he realized his error, he changed his ways and fully supported war against Germany.

Im an old lady. When I was young and wars were going on I knew that in years to come, 50 or 60yrs, the world would be civilized and humans would be intelligent enough to settle disputes without killing people. No more wars! What are these people trying to prove? They can't kill us all. Welcome back Mr. Churchill, and bring your friends.

One of the many 800# gorillas in this story is Spain.

They owe the British an apology for their dhimmitude in their response to the Madrid attacks and showing the Jihadi a new template to attack the West.

Shame.

By God I've had enough. I've stood by GWB and his war and now I'm going to ENLIST.

The country needs us like never before. I call on all of you to pledge on this blog that you too will enlist.

America needs more than our words. It's time for us to stand behind what we believe and serve in the armed forces.

Yes, commenter Ted is right. Let's lighten up on Neville C. After he realized that his prewar diplomatic program led to little more than disastrous failure (in August 1939 - better late than never), he reversed direction and served wartime Britain loyally until his death in late 1940.

The modern poster boy for British appeasment, surrender and despair is obviously George Galloway.

The G8 agenda was supposed to be trivia like Kyoto and Africa. That agenda is now out the window.

Now the G8 agenda has suddenly and forcibly been changed to important stuff like WW4.

God, AQ are stupid. Really, what worse time to attack than when the leaders of the civilized world (uh, plus Russia) are all meeting right there, feeling the impact and pledging their solidarity.

...Which would of course make our Loser Of The Day Bob Geldof.

No, no. Even croquet requires that you have a set of balls.

Lamont

That was a low blow, Lamont. Speakng of low blows, is there any truth to the rumor that Chirac's mother was midget?

The French sport which comes to mind is Boule.
(Croquet without the mallet of course)

Sorry, didn't mean to badmouth badminton.

They blow up innocents, we wear gloves to handle the Koran. They attack civilians and children, we give our police sensitivity training.

This is going to be a long, long war.

Curt,

But the British did surrender to the IRA. All of their murderers are now back on the streets. Gerry Adams and his fellow terrorists are distinguished public citizens now. They did it quietly and step by step, but in the face of a long series of terrorist attacks, the Brits folded up like a lawn chair.

Im a Brit and the British response are along the lines of "its not that bad" or "it could have been worse" mixed with quiet anger. This has not effected our resolve and certainly wont effect British policy on terror.

Africa is NOT "trivia", Africans go threw ordeals in what passes for piece time on that dysfunctional continent that makes death by terror attack look positively cushy, and more Africans die every day from preventable problems than the total death toll the west has suffered fighting the war on terror. To call fixing Africa's many problems "trivial" compared to the war on terror is basically valuing the lives of a few white westerners above the droves of black Africans who die every day and is sickening in my view. I’m angry about the London attacks, but the death of 60 people and the shutting down of parts of London’s transport system for a day doesn’t warrant more attention than an entire continent that, to be perfectly frank, has problems that make the war on terror look like a mild annoyance in terms of both death toll and as a possible cause of future global instability.

As for climate change, well America’s attitude to it baffles me. You took a huge leap of faith with the invasion of Iraq, an invasion that has also damaged your economy, and all over a single country, yet when it comes to an issue that could change the entire world for the worst if not acted upon, you are not prepared to make a leap of faith, or risk your economy:
Situation 1: pretty shaky possibility of Iraq WMD and Links to terror – Firm action, the sacrifice of US lives and money.
Situation 2: very possible destruction of world as we know it? – America, apparently, is prepared to risk it
You sense of priorities seem dangerously unbalanced.