Tony Blair and his Iraq notions!

So Tony Blair only had a "notion" that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the Middle East region and to the rest of the world. Well I have a "notion" that Blair is a dissembler, a deceiving spinner and a man whose politics were mainly built on the "notion" that all the people he met whilst gallivanting around the world would help him become a multi-millionaire. The bonused bankers achieve wealth through making money out of thin air. He has made money out of hot air.

These are "notions" but what the hell. We all have them these days. Nobody has much to say for politicians mainly because they have too many "notions". I'm glad Blair's gone. He was always on the make with his "well, yeah, so" type of approach to it all.

The fact that he sleeps at night is because he believes his own bullshit. I doubt if he ever will get round to thinking in any other way. What a life, eh?

Read More

Iraq War nonsense - today's ramblings!

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK's ambassador to the UN in 2003, said the invasion of Iraq did not have the backing of most UN members or even the UK public. It was of "questionable legitimacy" even though it is unlikely to be ever proved illegal. He said he believed the US and UK had "established" its legality in that it had never been challenged in court.

So that's alright, then?

It's a bit like saying an inveterate thief, one who habitually steals things willy-nilly, is doing nothing illegal because his activities have never been challenged in court. Lots of people do some very bad things. Some MPs have been up to no good. What about the banks selling each other dodgy "financial instruments"? It's OK folks, none of it is illegal because it has never been challenged in court.

It's all very legally-challenged, of that there's no doubt!

Peter Cook, or should I say E.L.Wisty, had something to say about judges in this sketch about whether to be a miner or a judge.

Read More

Blair, the bloody-handed one!

When a young Tony Blair knocked on his housemaster's study door and enquired - "Anything I can do for you, sir?" - it's a crying shame that the teacher couldn't show him the future. But maybe if he had been able to it would have made no difference. Blair has a stubborn streak of arrogant self-certainty about him. He was certain that Gordon Brown was not the face of New Labour for the general election of 1997.

He was also certain he had to twist and spin in order to come up with a reason for the Iraq War. Yesterday he got a verbal smacking in the face from an angry father of a deceased soldier. The father told Blair he had blood on his hands. 59 year-old Peter Brierly said, "As far as I am concerned that man is a war criminal. I can’t bear to be in the same room as him. I cannot believe he’s been allowed to come to this reception. I sat through that service listening to people preaching to me about tolerance but I don’t think anyone should be forced to tolerate being in the same room as him. He has made £14million on the back of taking us to war and they are now talking about making him president of the EU. But I believe I believe he’s got the blood of my son – and all of the other men and women who died in that war – on his hands."

That's three diabolical things in one remark. Blair fiddled the war, he's making dosh by the bucketload now, and he's cheesily knocking on the EU door asking "Anything I can do for you?" I know the answer to that one, but I don't run a rude-worded blog!

Blair is some character. Any vestige of socialism went with the pixies. Now it's hard to fathom out how much he's absorbed of catholicism. He's basically keen to milk the system which is a red flag to me that the man is driven by a desire not to be a failure and to be liked. The problem is that he has driven himself into exactly the opposite camp - distrusted and despised, dare I say.

However, the cheesiest thing Blair did was signing autographs on the programmes of yesterday's event. What a man!

Read More

Iraqi shoe-tosser to get hero's welcome!

So much for George Bush's abilities in the Middle East as a bringer of peace and democracy. The Iraqi people seem to be far more taken with the political stance taken by Muntazer al-Zaidi, shoe tosser extraordinaire. His day job is being a journalist. He's going to be hailed from Baghdad to the rest of the world. Offerings of a new house, a herd of goats, even a new wife are coming his way.

The Americans still have their work cut out. This episode just about sums up how wrong Bush was and how little he knew about Arabs!

Read More

Tony Blair fears being exposed in Iraq "show trial"!

So, the scheming still goes on. Tony Blair is conniving behind the scenes to make sure his plots and furtive planning do not come out. As I say, before he meets his Maker the truth will out. He will find that there is a whole phalanx of people, from high to low, demanding that this enquiry is in public as far as it can be.

Why is he so concerned? Because he fears that he would be subjected to a "show trial" if it were opened to the public. Show trial? Does that tell us something? I think it does. Blair has a reputation for mangling the truth and behaving like a three-card trickster. No wonder Gordon Brown had shouting fits with him. But this will be no show trial. It will be a simple case of telling the truth. Blair may be able to gild the lily in private, but a public spectacle of shiftiness will be noted by the people.

It is said in the Guardian that Blair is believed to have been alarmed by the prospect of giving evidence in public and under oath about the use of intelligence and about his numerous private discussions with US President George Bush over plans for war. Again, that only reflects the number of red flags shooting up the pole.

The clamour for a public enquiry has started. Gordon Brown, in his usual gulping way, failed to offer any sincerity in the House of Commons over the need for secrecy. Nick Clegg puts it rather well. "If this is true about Blair demanding secrecy, it is outrageous that an inquiry into the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez is being muzzled to suit the individual needs of the man who took us to war." If the public mood has anything to do with it, Blair will be giving evidence in public. Then he will have to decide once and for all whether he is a truthful man or an inveterate dissembler.

Read More

Shoe-shine goes mad in Baghdad!

George Bush got a parting shot in Baghdad. Some reporter thre his shoes at the outgoing president. I have to say he was pretty nifty with the shoulder dodge. "So what if the guy threw a shoe at me?"

However, this democratic expression of free speech (or free shoe throwing) should not be taken as a right to clamp down on people. At most the journalist should get no more than a similar punishment meted out in London or Washington.

Now the Iraqi regime has the prospect of thousands of people out on the streets. Maybe they can swap notes with the Greeks?

Read More

Sarah Palin takes the Scottish Nationalist line!

So living in Alaska gives you some form of political independence? Sarah Palin is sounding ever so much like Alex Salmond used to do. He's now First Minister in a devolved Scottish Parliament making sure he's not far from Scotland's oil. Palin thinks the oil under the ground and the seas around Alaska is for her to control. "It's Alaskan oil!", she purrs. She would like to "sell" Alaskan oil to the US. She claims that Alaska struck a deal 50 years ago (on entry into the Union) with the Federal Government to exploit the resources of Alaska. If Alaska can't do that, will she think it best to go it alone?

She now has a stark choice. It's either going to be Alaskan oil or American oil. It can't be both. As VP will she have to eat her words? This little offering is on the Glenn Beck show (before she got the VP ticket place) and she seems to be on good form (she comes in at 4.18 on the clock!). On Iraq, she says "We're fighting, in some sense, over energy supplies". Well, she said it!

Watch this space, I say!

Read More

Ron Paul Republicans on the rise in NC

An interesting post from Conservative Heritage Times. If you thought that Ron Paul's campaign had bitten the dust think again. All over the USA little pockets of Pauline political power are stirring the loins of Americans who want change. The CHT says "Kudos last night to North Carolina voters for nominating B.J. Lawson, a bonified Ron Paul Republican to the nomination for the 4th Congressional District and re-electing Walter Jones Jr. to the sixth CD. Jones was the only GOP member of Congress to endorse Paul for President".

Jones’ election is important as it shows Republicans that oppose the war in Iraq, even in a district filled with military bases, do not have to face a political death sentence. Something that John McCain could well reflect on.

Lawson says "Big government inevitably becomes a tool for corporate and special interests instead of a guardian of individual liberty. Today, big government has given us significant problems: rising food prices, jobs going overseas, illegal immigration, porous borders, failing education, war and occupation, foreign oil addiction, unsustainable entitlement spending, and a crushing debt burden. It's time for us to come together as free Americans and restore prosperity and liberty." Isn't it funny that when Americans here this message they vote for it. How come the media and powers-that-be try to stop it? Simple! Because they are the problem and have a vested interest in stifling the message.

Good on you B J! As you put it so well "Freedom isn't free — it requires a lot of hard work. But liberty is priceless." I bet the people of Burma would wish they could vote for such freedom!

Read More

Rumsfeld in the frame

I always had a feeling that Donald Rumsfeld was a dodgy character. To men like Rumsfeld, the political skullduggery comes easily. Ken Livingstone, the defeated Labour candidate for London mayor, said that he preferred political intrigue and committee "work" to the actual managerial activity his post required. Rumsfeld's certainly no Livingstone, but in this they have a certain kinship.

Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq in 2003-2004, has written a new memoir, Wiser in Battle - A Soldier's Story, an account of his life and his service in Iraq. Sanchez basically blows the lid off Rumsfeld's rotten barrel of political poison. Remember, Rumsfeld was the man who gladhanded it with Saddam Hussein. That was before Saddam fell out with the Americans and started selling Iraqi oil in euros.

Sanchez had a run-in with the devious Rumsfeld. Interestingly, in this excerpt from Time Magazine, it is Sanchez's wife who gets the point, commenting on the "offer" Sanchez was given by Rumsfeld. "Ricardo, they are just trying to buy you off and keep you silent," said Maria Elena. "I don't think we should mess with them anymore."

But for me the telling piece is this. From that, my belief was that Rumsfeld's intent appeared to be to minimize and control further exposure within the Pentagon and to specifically keep this information from the American public. The very things I detest most in political hierarchies - spin and deception. Rumsfeld had both in bucketloads.

The Time extract ends with this -

That decision set up the United States for a failed first year in Iraq. There is no question about it. And I was supposed to believe that neither the Secretary of Defense nor anybody above him knew anything about it? Impossible! Rumsfeld knew about it. Everybody on the NSC knew about it, including Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Colin Powell. Vice President Cheney knew about it. And President Bush knew about it.

There's not a doubt in my mind that they all embraced this decision to some degree. And if it had not been for the moral courage of Gen. John Abizaid to stand up to them all and reverse Franks's troop drawdown order, there's no telling how much more damage would have been done.

In the meantime, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were unnecessarily spent, and worse yet, too many of our most precious military resource, our American soldiers, were unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed as a result. In my mind, this action by the Bush administration amounts to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.

Those that blindly follow the Bush administration and praise "our boys out there" should sit back and think that it is American soldiers being unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed as a result of lies and deception. Such action as described by Sanchez that the Bush administration was involved in does amount to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty. It borders on the unforgiveable!

Read More

Porkies from Petraeus? No! Revelations on Iraq!

When General Petraeus leaves the US Army and gets a job in civvy street, he'll do well to keep away from selling sub-prime loans or second-hand cars! Any savvy buyer will spot him a mile off.

His Capitol Hill showing displayed all the body language of a man trying to please his masters, whilst desperately keeping his intellect in check. John McCain and his 100 Years War pysche were well satisfied. Others were less sure. I'm very much a conservative opposed to this pantomime of trying to suggest that al-Queda is the enemy in Iraq. Thankfully, one senator, Joe Biden, got Ryan Crocker, the US Ambassador to admit that Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq, was the central front in the battle against al-Qaeda. Is Mr.Crocker spending too much time in a fantasy world?

Then General Petraeus stated that the US had not "turned any corners" nor "seen any lights at the end of the tunnel," in contrast to statements last summer in which he claimed corners had been turned. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the surge. Here again, John McCain is talking up stuff without a scintilla of common sense attached to it. Petraeus will be out to grass come the New Year!

Petraeus also confirmed that the Iraqi government is failing to take the necessary steps to ensure sufficient progress in the areas of politics and security responsibility. All very makeshift and tenuous. And to add insult to injury, he said that the United States, whilst accusing Iran of destructive and destabilising machinations in the country, is favouring with the very Shiite faction most closely linked to Iran! What on earth is the man thinking of? I thought George Bush was apopletic about Iran. How come his generals are cosying up to the enemy within?

Americans (and the British) should be asking more questions. This whole Iraq invasion is fuelled by spin, deceit, and subterfuge. People are dying. If Mr.Bush wants to hold back the tears, let him do it AFTER he has come clean about this war. Otherwise it all looks a bit false.

Read More

The Iraq culprits!

The Conservatives have lost the Commons vote concerning the application of an inquiry into the Iraq War. With a shifty Miliband in charge, no inquiry will be held for some time. There were some excellent speeches, but I thought Robert Marshall-Andrews was an exceptionally well spoken advocate of such an inquiry. He said during the debate -

"The first is what was revealed in the Downing street memo of July 2002, reported by The Sunday Times in an unusual contribution to the debate. It was recorded that at that meeting in Downing street in July 2002 Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of secret intelligence, or “C”, as he was known, had reported from America to the War Cabinet, which included Jonathan Powell, that: “There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
In the same minute, it is recorded that the then Foreign Secretary, now the Lord Chancellor said that it was clear that “Bush had made up his mind to take military action…But the case was thin.”

The then Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, to whom I shall return in just a moment, is recorded as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult. That secret memorandum, of limited circulation and ordered to be destroyed thereafter, will become, I predict, one of the seminal documents when the history of warfare comes to be discussed. Not one single word of that document reached this House; not one single word reached the British people. Indeed, this House was told precisely the opposite: until the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003, the case was made that there was still time to avert war and catastrophe. That was a lie, and a black deception to this House and to the British people.

I do not entirely agree with the palliative statements in the excellent speech made by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in opening the debate. The real point of the debate, and of any inquiry that may be held, is not to learn lessons so that we do not make mistakes again. That is one reason, but I want an inquiry to be held into the Iraq war because I want those responsible to be brought to book and to justice. If necessary, they should be brought to international justice, but I want us to be the ones who bring them to it."

It will happen one day that Blair, Hoon, and Straw will be lumped together in a dock pleading ignorance to such a terrible connivance. Maybe not tomorrow, next year or in the next decade, but it will happen. Of that, Marshall-Andrews is correct, I believe.

More here

Read More

A martyr from Mosul

Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho of Mosul in Northern Iraq, the highest-ranking Chaldean Catholic clergyman, has been killed after being kidnapped. In all the violence in Iraq, the one thing that never entered the heads of those who perpetrated the so-called "War on Terror", was what would happen if the lid came off Saddam Hussein's political kettle. When the lid was blown off, it allowed all the mayhem that follows when a plan is only on the back of an envelop.

I doubt if the Bush administration ever bothered to ask if there were minorities in Iraq. Why, they're all Muslims, aren't they? So the Christians of Iraq fell into the category of easy prey. Five years on and going to church in Iraq is still a dangerous activity. The only thing that kept us in church today in Sparkbrook, Birmingham was a chill wind, so no Palm Sunday procession. Such a procession in Mosul or Baghdad would be a different activity. We are not persecuted. They are!

May the Archbishop rest in peace. His life was certainly more productive than mine, and led in far more hair-raising, sensitive and scary surroundings. We must not forget, we must forgive, and we should always be thankful for such people.

BBC News report.

Read More

Romney sees good business deal in McCain endorsement

Mitt Romney has eventually decided to endorse John McCain. It's not exactly brotherly love, more a decision taken by a businessman looking at a bad set of accounts. This makes it more than likely that McCain will get the nomination, but he won't get the hearts and minds so easily.

Romney declared that there was "no doubt in my mind that this individual should be the next President of the United States. I am officially endorsing his candidacy and today I'm asking my delegates to vote for Senator McCain at the convention. This is a man capable of leading our country at a dangerous hour. Senator McCain understands the war we're in, the necessity of victory, and the consequences of surrender. For him national security is not just another agenda item, it is the abiding concern and responsibility of the nation."

This is the whole thing, isn't it? Why are so many American politicians (and British ones for that matter!) Jekyll and Hyde characters. McCain talks of 100 years if necessary to win the war. Romney's just burbled a load of nonsense. How can he talk of victory if he doesn't know what the war is intended to do? This will go on for a 100 years if they cannot get two brains to think of a remedy.

And linking national security with the mayhem in Iraq is less than edifying. National security in America can only be assured in this context if the warmongers see sense and PLAN for a reconstruction rather than hope for a "victory". No Arab is ever going to believe the Western coalition if it all sounds like a one-sided walkover.

Read More

New Year - New Promises?

Gordon Brown is getting off to a head start in the New Year promises department. How about some resolutions instead? Like not being a job-sharing MP with an MSP in Edinburgh? Mr. Brown's constituents get two to tango with! The English have to make do, as usual!

He's promising "For Britain, 2008 will be a year of real and serious changes.
With important legislation making long-term changes in energy, climate change, health, pensions, planning, housing, education and transport, 2008 will be a year of measurable changes in public services." It'll make 2007 look like a bad history lesson, no doubt. His affable, but lamentable attempt to solve the Surrey foot-and-mouth outbreak (has he given those farmers their compensation yet?) was a poor example of his previous promises. The Northern Rock fiasco will be with him all through 2008, for what banker in his/her right mind could swear on a stack of bibles that they could repay the government coffers?

How on earth is he going to make "long-term changes in energy, climate change, health, pensions, planning, housing, education and transport", all of which require public money, when a downturn in the economy is likely in 2008. A lower tax take means more money to spend, does it? Have we got Mr. Bean or Mr. Micawber before us? It's a mystery, to be sure!

However, if he makes one change only in 2008, it will be for the poor benighted souls of Iraq. I was horrified to see tonight on BBC Parliament Gordon Brown's indifference to the point raised by Vincent Cable in the last PMQ's of the year (Dec 12th). This is the bit -

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): When the Prime Minister tucks into his Brussels sprouts on his one day off at Christmas, which of the various disasters of the last six months will haunt him most: his indecision over the election, his inaction over Northern Rock, or the gross incompetence of the loss of 25 million people’s personal data?
The Prime Minister: It is nice to have the hon. Gentleman here, and I thank him for his appearances over the last few weeks. Given the history of the Liberal party, it may not be long before he is back in that place again, representing his party. As for the issues of the last few months, we have made long-term decisions on energy, the environment, transport, infrastructure, planning, skills and the economy, and that is what governing is all about.
Dr. Cable: Given the Prime Minister’s own position, he might not be wise to speculate about leadership elections. Is not the real disaster, for which he has personal responsibility, the continuing tragedy in Iraq? When he was in Basra this week, was he told that at least 40 women have been executed for personal immorality? Is that why 173 British troops have died—transferring power from the fascist regime of Saddam Hussein to the terror of the fascist militia who run the streets of Basra?
The Prime Minister: Iraq is now a democracy. Millions of people have voted. When I went to Basra, only two days ago, I found that there had been a 90 per cent fall in violence over the last few months. We are now able to hand over Basra to provincial Iraqi control. So instead of the British forces having to engage in a combat role, we will, over time, be engaged in training role, supporting the Iraqi forces. Over these last few months, 50,000 people have been trained up as
police and security forces. This is Iraqis taking control of their own security. I would have thought that, even with the differences over the war, the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the progress that is being made.

So no concerns there for Mr.Brown. Not a mention about the wretched women brought before these seedy "courts". Not even a desire to find out about it all. Just a glib answer. I hope his New Year's resolution will be for helping the minorities in Iraq, the beleagured Christians, the limbless, the unemployable, etc, etc. But let's have no more waffle and piffle about democracy.

Mr.Brown, we have democracy in Britain. It allows you to be where you are, as a job-sharing MP, leading a government on 20% of the electorate's support. Thankfully we haven't executed 40 women for "personal immorality". After all, if it were that sort of democracy, you'd have half your front bench with their heads off!!

Read More

Galloway suspended

The House of Commons has voted to suspend George Galloway for 18 days. His suspension was the result of him "concealing the true source of Iraqi funding" and "calling into question" the integrity of standards watchdogs. During an hour long defence of his position, Galloway had a number of run-ins with the Speaker.

Hansard reveals some of the flavour of the debate. My take is that Galloway, although one to embroider his words, has got something on the hypocrisy of it all. Andrew Robathan, Conservative MP for Blaby, iniated the suspension proceedings by complaining about Galloway. Robathan is something of an Iraq enthusiast too!

Reading the Hansard report, certain characters having a go at Galloway have murky pasts themselves. If Galloway is a bit lively with the truth, what does it say of Tony Blair, erstwhile member for Sedgefield. Dodgy dossiers, cash for peerages, and tennis with Tony come to mind.

When it comes to taking on members as with the Committee on Standards and Privileges, it is a strong-minded person that defies their authority. George Galloway was probably the only member who thought it worth a try.

I wonder if they are going to investigate the leak? The one the Commissioner appeared so vague about!

Do read Hansard. It's every bit as riveting as the spectacle on Capitol Hill. (Video)

Read More

"On policy, we win"

Tony Blair is moving into the Twilight Zone. After 10 years of subterfuge, spinning, and the sexing-up of dossiers and documents, we are gradually moving to the end game. David Cameron thinks Blair is leading a "government of the living dead" and Blair retorts not to get "cocky". It seems they have a lot in common, although I would suggest that Cameron is not a natural truth-bender. Blair's achievements (Northern Ireland is the main one!) pale into the shadows of his failures (Iraq, NHS, Crime, Schools, etc) where vast sums of money have been placed on some kind of fantastical merry-go-round, where shining new hospitals sit side by side with bankrupt medical facilities.

Blair says it is "on policy, we win". I say to that, bring it on. We all know where his policies have got us. We are living on borrowed time. The two time-bombs in the Downing Street garden are house inflation and pension misery. I saw Sir Alan Budd, a former Monetary Policy Committee member, on BBC's Working Lunch and he said that the MPC had not realised house inflation would be so great. So you don't need much in the way of financial insight to advise the Chancellor, then?

It amazes me how much the people at the top get away with arrant nonsense. I think Gordon Brown should step aside for Alan Sugar. Sugar should bring the members of the Cabinet together and give them a grilling. "What was you all thinking about? As far as I can see you're all a complete mess. Unless something really radical happens, you're ALL FIRED!"

Read More

The Benefits of Lie Detectors!

Lie detectors will be used to help root out benefit cheats, Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton has said. Should make some nervous types worried, though. Just think, you're out of work, feeling down, and some heavyweight clerk leans over the desk. What if you fail? Any redress? It will be tested on housing and council tax benefit claims first, before being rolled out to job centres later in the year. Announcing the pilot, Mr Hutton said, "This technology aims to tackle fraudsters while speeding up claims and improving customer service for the honest majority." So another faultless machine brought to us by the wonders of New Labour!

Now then, has he thought of its benefits elsewhere? What about at Prime Minister's Questions? Up gets the PM. First question, "Has the PM done a deal with Iran?" Machine splutters. "Has the PM ever told a lie to the House, such as there being WMD and a 45-minute strike danger from Iraq?" Machine blows up - Speaker suspends sitting.

Well, if we are going to get lie detectors let's all have them, or are some people going to be allowed to carry on telling porkies?

Read More

Been Here Before?

Iran, whilst not causing problems over seizing marines and sailors, is encouraging oil importers to pay for their crude in currencies other than the US dollar, such as euros. I've mentioned before that the US administration fell out with Saddam Hussein because he became troublesome over the euro vis-a-vis oil. Are we heading for a similar showdown with Iran?

Probably not is the answer. The US is in a bind over this. They could get Saddam because he was depicted as a monster with WMD. Iran is a different kettle of fish. They are not so easy to portray as the bad boys. The US only just got backing for this struggle in Iraq, and then the UN vote was seen as being something for everyone to believe in - either it was legal or it wasn't - that was the end result.

This new euro-for-oil enterprise will see the Americans watching from the sidelines. The French and Germans will have little or no interest in protecting the dollar. China and India will see the euro as being vaguely similar to the dollar. It may lead to the US negotiating with Iran, but the US is not going to see the dominance of the petro-dollar continue in the 21st Century as much as it did in the last.

And it may usher in a new thinking in the world, where oil is just another fuel alongside others, and our reliance on it is no longer as crucial. But that will mean the USA standing on its own and not relying on the rest of the world spending dollars only!

Read More