Whilst stopping short of suggesting that "they got what was coming to them", Cameron isn't too far from it:
"As the death toll of the London bombings continues to rise, I can't help thinking about the Downing Street Memo and wonder if, deep down inside, Tony Blair, George W Bush and John Howard, are starting to realize what they have started. Are they connecting the dots? Was this part of a collateral damage assessment when they made the decisions in 2002/2003 to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? When they were carefully duping the public about the justifications for attacking these countries, did they genuinely believe they could prevent the fight being brought to our streets indefinitely?
And Tony agrees;
"It's almost crocodile tears to listen to Tony Blair sombrely express his condolences. He knew the consequences of his actions in Iraq. What did he expect, defeat Saddam and it would all be over, and we'd live happily ever after?"
It is a dangerous and simplistic bow to pull, gentlmen.
Is it really relevent to debate this issue along the lines of "who hit who first"? Of course not. But since you started it, what did come first? The bombings of American military in Africa, Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, the relentless suicide attacks in Israel, Bosnia, September 11 or the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Join the dots now...