Labour's candidate for London Mayor Ken Livingstone has put his foot in it again today - saying the assassination of Osama bin Laden made President Obama look like "some kind of mobster".
Labour’s candidate for London Mayor Ken Livingstone has put his foot in it again today – saying the assassination of Osama bin Laden made President Obama look like “some kind of mobster”. The ill-judged attack on Obama, whose leadership over the operation has been praised round the world, risks hardening public perception of Livingstone as being in league with Islamists, and soft on Islamist extremism.
He told today’s Standard:
“I just looked at [the scenes of jubilation in the US] and realised that it would increase the likelihood of a terror attack on London… That’s very much the American style but I don’t think I’ve ever felt pleased at the death of anybody.
“The real problem for London is that after America we’re a big target so it’s a very dangerous time at the moment…
“We should have captured him and put him on trial. It’s a simple point – are we gangsters or a Western democracy based on the rule of law? This undermines any commitment to democracy and trial by jury and makes Obama look like some sort of mobster.”
Last night on Left Foot Forward, a year out from the elections for London Mayor, Daniel Elton made the case for Livingstone to renounce some of his allies with questionable views:
“…as the challenger best placed to unseat Boris Johnson – all progressives in the capital should vote Ken for first or second choice. However, as even many on Ken’s campaign would admit, he has had a chequered past. Among the most unfortunate aspects of his career to date has been to walk hand in hand with some frankly unsavoury political ‘friends’.
“This behaviour probably will not affect his chances of election – the biggest single factor in that will be the unpopularity of the Tories and how much of that sticks to the current Mayor. But for the sake of good governance, it is time to throw these sometime ‘comrades’ under the bus.”
Those named were Socialist Action, Hugo Chavez, Lutfur Rahman and Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Of the latter, he wrote:
“Livingstone’s repeated inviations to one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leaders was shameful to all self-respecting liberal supporters of ‘Red Ken’.
“Maybe Livingstone is right when he says Qadarawi “preaches moderation and tolerance to all faiths throughout the world”. He also preaches homophobia, and defends suicide bombing.
“Qaradawi cares so much about women’s rights, he argues that husbands should only be allowed to hit their wives “as a last resort”, and then only “lightly”. He should never step back into City Hall. Ever.”
And as a commenter adds:
“A cursory stroll through Google quickly shows anyone who’s interested that Qadarawi is an aggressive, inciteful, unremitting antisemite… For those who are interested/concerned, here’s a starter-pack: http://hurryupharry.org/2011/02/24/qaradawi-on-muslims-and-jews/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS_5aIv3sHQ.”
Though there is a case to be made for taking bin Laden alive – indeed Kevin Meagher will make that case on Left Foot Forward later today – to go against the grain so spectacularly, and to criticise the statesmanlike leadership of Obama and imply he hadn’t thought through the attack, will not go down at all well with Londoners and will play into the hands of those who wish to paint Livingstone as some kind of apologist.
As Tory MP Greg Hands said:
“Calling President Obama a mobster is yet another example of Ken Livingstone’s extreme views which threaten to damage London. What American business will want to invest in our city if it is run by a man who repeatedly attacks their leader?”
80 Responses to “The madness of Ken’s attack on Obama”
LYANNE WIILLIAMS
RT @leftfootfwd: The madness of Ken's attack on Obama http://bit.ly/mtkLSA
Bill
It’s not really a question of public “perception”, is it? Ken Livingstone *is* in league with Islamists and he *is* soft on Islamic extremism. His natural home would be in bed with Galloway.
SteveH
What a nasty and divisive piece this is. Look at what Ken said, how can anyone disagree? I’m a great Obama fan but the American celebrations were inappropriate. Of course this action increases risk for Londoners. Ken’s speeches after 7/7 bombings were real political leadership, this comment is just cheap. The fact you quote Greg hands to support your point says it all.
Chas
Perhaps Ken would have liked to have gone into Bin Ladin’s compound and invited him to surrender to arrest. Or perhaps not.
Jan Cosgrove
Ken has a point about trials etc. In an ideal world …..
After seeing the initial news stories I asked myself Why didn’t they take him alive and spirit him away – information he would have held etc. I would assume that would have been a major objective, for no matter what they already had, surely he would be a major prize of intelligence.
As the various stories emerge, there is one answer that suggests itself, and it would answer Ken’s question. Suppose you have mission objectives which include ‘take him alive if you can and bring him out’. Suppose they do take him alive, and hold him. But as the fire-fight continues, the chances for that to happen diminish seriously. You not only have his men there to contend with, but also the proximity of the Pakistani military academy, and the questions there are very apposite in this case – would they intervene in effect to save Osama? So, as time ticks by, the chances of getting him out alive drop sharply. The quandary is that you cannot leave him there alive. Hence an order to kill in that eventuality. This would perhaps lend credence to the story of his daughter that he was held then killed. But Ken and others need also to take on board that he was being sought as the head of a quasi-military force, these guys were not out to serve an arrest warrant. This was combat. Here is the enemy commander-in-chief, this is combat. The rules are clear enough in that situation – if you can’t get him away alive, execution is the alternative.
So Ken can forget the rule of law argument, this is about rules of engagement, pure and simple.
Many Americans, by the way, also are not celebrating, especially victim families. Perhaps ‘grim satisfaction’ might be appropriate?