Speaking from France, where he is on holiday, Blair said, ``Terrorists the world over must know that democratic governments will act decisively to prevent their evil crimes''. He added, ``The atrocities this month in Nairobi, Dar-e-Salaam and Omagh have shown the pain and suffering terrorism can bring to innocent people''.

The two main opposition parties in Britain also backed the government's position. The Conservative shadow Foreign Affairs spokesperson Michael Howard told BBC's Today programme, ``These terrorists are enemies of humanity. I do not think they should be given a free run''. The Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said that the US attacks on camps in Afghanistan and the chemical plant in Sudan were regrettable but unavoidable.

Within the Labour party, however, there are those who have been outraged by the US action. Labour backbenchers said that the United Nations should have been consulted before any assault was launched. Veteran backbencher Tony Benn has written to Foreign Secretary Robin Cook asking whether the American troops involved could be brought before the proposed International War Crimes Tribunal, which is backed by the British Government. Benn said, ``It is a totally cynical and unprincipled move because it is a defiance of international law. It's the law of the jungle, what we used to call gun boat diplomacy in the days of the British empire''.

The British press was mixed in its response. The Times was one of only two papers which unequivocally endorsed the attacks saying that they represented ``the beginning of America's fight back against terrorism''. The paper said, ``This was a legitimate and necessary response... There is good reason to credit President Clinton's claim that this was a pre-emptive assault on operational terrorist bases preparing to carry out further attacks on American targets''.

The pro-Labour tabloid Mirror under the headline `Bomber Bill Blasts Back' said ``whatever his personal problems'' in the scandal involving his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton ``will not let them stop him doing his duty''. The Sun took a more sceptical line. Its headline read ``Hillary, I'm just nipping out to bomb somebody'' and the paper asked if the attacks were conducted ``to make Clinton look tough after a week of humiliation''.

The Daily Express said that if the raids were meant as a distraction from Monicagate, ``it will be the most cynical diversion in history and he will surely have to resign''. The paper said the bombing raids showed ``pariah states'' that ``difficulties at home are not going to paralyse American foreign policy''. But, the Telegraph added, ``The swiftness of this response certainly raises eyebrows''.

The Guardian in an editorial titled `Diversionary Action' said that ``After a weekend of sexual revelations and lies, which have taken a severe toll on his reputation, the President with the help of Defence Secretary William Cohen, has found a means of rallying the country behind the presidency and the stars and stripes''. It added that the US action was ``a clear way of demonstrating that the institution of the US presidency is about much more than the DNA test taken at the White House''.

The Financial Times said that the US attacks raised more questions than answers. The paper said, ``There is bound to be some unease... among America's western allies about this unilateral action. Not least of their worries will be the almost surreal fact that it coincides with a period of intense difficulty for the President''. It said that to set its allies' concerns at rest, ``Washington needs to move fast to share with its allies the evidence it has collected concerning... the Bin Laden terrorist network.. and Clinton needs to show that yesterday's actions were not a military one-off, but part of coherent strategy to work with other western countries to combat terrorism and other pressing threats to international order''.