Downing Street has set up a new online petition system so Tony can pretend to listen to us plebs. Head on over to Chicken Yoghurt for further info.

Here are some petitions which might be of interest.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to scrap the proposed introduction of ID cards.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop using the threat of terror to pass laws that are illiberal and ineffective.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Launch an independant public enquiry into the decision making process which lead to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to champion the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, by not replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system.

That last one might be controversial for some but here's my view of it for anyone who's interested. When Blair calls for other nations to "abide by, not flout, their international obligations" he might have more clout if he applied the same principle at home.

I'm afraid I have to advise against signing the petition to replace the national anthem with 'Gold' by Spandau Ballet before the 2012 Olympics but I do have some sympathy for the idea. On your feet people - "Gold! Always believe in your soul, You've got the power to know, You're indestructable..." It might just work, you know.

Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair

The Fourth Estate

The Telegraph is notorious for its willingness to spout drivel on foreign policy matters but it's really excelling itself today (via).

Iran 'is training the next al-Qa'eda leaders'

Iran is seeking to take control of Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terror network by encouraging it to promote officials known to be friendly to Teheran, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

According to recent reports received by Western intelligence agencies, the Iranians are training senior al-Qa'eda operatives in Teheran to take over the organisation when bin Laden is no longer leader.

Sigh.

Sunni fundamentalist Al-Qaeda members do not consider Shiites to be "proper" Muslims. They may or may not occasionally cooperate in minor matters when it is in their joint interest (there is very little, if any, evidence that they do) but the idea that Shiite Iran could have that sort of influence over al Qaeda is palpably absurd. It'd be like Ian Paisley agreeing to allow Martin McGuinness to succeed him as leader of the Democratic Unionist Party only even more ridiculous.

So what's going on? Well, a google of Con Coughlin brings up this:

[In 1995], readers of the Sunday Telegraph were regaled with a dramatic story about the son of Col Gadafy of Libya and his alleged connection to a currency counterfeiting plan. The story was written by Con Coughlin, the paper’s then chief foreign correspondent, and it was falsely attributed to a “British banking official”. In fact, it had been given to him by officers of MI6, who, it transpired, had been supplying Coughlin with material for years.

It seems that Mr Coughlin has previous when it comes to disseminating unfounded government propaganda. This article appears to belong with the utterly fallacious yellow badges for Jews story instigated by neo-con stooge Amir Taheri.

This may simply be a matter of the government trying to pressure the Iranians into being more amenable to helping bail us out of Iraq. Or it may be an attempt to prepare the way for possible military action. Either way, it is a worrying state of affairs when such nonsense is being disseminated by "Western intelligence agencies".

Tags: News, Politics, Iran, Media

Tony wants you to send him a question. He'll be answering a select few on Thursday.

I was tempted to go with this:

Dear Tony,

Can you advise me of the current price for an honour as I am considering taking up this once in a lifetime opportunity before you leave office.

Somehow, however, I feel it is unlikely that it'd make it onto the short-list. (And I don't actually have a few thousand pounds going spare so it wouldn't be entirely honest.)

Instead, I went with this:

Would you consider extending "summary justice", the principle that a suspect is assumed to be guilty based only on the allegations of the police, to cases involving the selling of peerages?

I doubt that'll make it either but you never know.

Get your questions in to Tony via the Downing Street website.

Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair

Other People's Rights

The always worthwhile Not Saussure has picked out a particularly noteworthy quotation from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust report which was in the news the other day:

Tony Blair talks of ‘rebalancing between the rights of the suspect and the rights of the law-abiding majority’. John Reid declared to the Labour party conference, ‘It cannot be right that the rights of an individual suspected terrorist be placed above the rights, the life and limb of the rest of the British people. It cannot be right – it is wrong, no ifs, no buts, it’s just plain wrong.’ But these are false dichotomies: ‘suspects’ are members of the ‘majority’. They are innocent until proved guilty, their rights and those of the majority hang together. (It is a miserable fact, however, that thanks to its constant use, the word ‘suspect’ is now charged with the presumption of guilt – so much that the Guardian recently wrote of ‘alleged terrorist suspects’.) (p 42)

Authoritarians are hijacking the English language. Sorry, but that clearly calls for another Orwell reference. This is a "doubleplusungood" state of affairs. Some sort of campaign to try to restore the correct meaning and usage of the word "suspect" is perhaps in order.

The fallacious distinction between a "suspect" and "the majority" appears credible to many non-Muslims simply because they cannot imagine a situation in which they themselves might be wrongly accused of being a terrorist. Of course, the very politicians who deliberately exploit this situation in an attempt to remove certain rights from a specific section of the population are the same politicians who call for that same section to display greater social integration. Yes, "integrate better while we simultaneously treat you differently from everyone else" is the call of the stupid, morally bankrupt scumbags who currently run this country.

Unsurprisingly, as a means to tackle the problem it ostensibly purports to address, it is an approach which does not work well. It is, however, an approach which may well win votes and that, ultimately, is what government is all about in Blair's Britain.

Tags: News, Politics, Authoritarianism, Civil Liberty

"What is happening in the Middle East today is not complex. It is simple."

- Tony Blair, 13th November 2006

"Wibble. Wibble."

- Tony Blair, 14th November 2006

And the really bad news is, I don't think he's pretending.



Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair

The Party Comes First

The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has just produced a new report. They say:

The government's counter-terrorism campaign is often driven by party-political and electoral motives that are 'submerging' its own 'sensible' counter-terrorism strategy.

The actions of ministers, particularly Home Secretary John Reid, could have a 'boomerang effect' by alienating the Muslim communities whose trust and co-operation are vital.

Hear hear (apart from a query over their use of the word "sensible").

The Blair government has consistently prioritised party political and electoral motives above public safety, the national interest or any other concern. Blair and his acolytes are far more interested in "playing to the tabloid gallery" than they are in good governance.

Last week, Sir Ian Blair and Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller launched what is obviously another coordinated attempt "prepare public opinion" for yet another round of authoritarian tabloid pleasing measures. Neither of these people is an elected politician but our great leader has no qualms about destroying the barrier which has historically existed between politician and civil servant and co-opting them into participating in his political strategies. This dangerous dismantling of a crucial long standing distinction serves no-one but Blair and is likely to do long term damage to the British political process. He really is an unscrupulous self-serving git.

So, ninety days detention without charge will soon be back on the cards along with who knows what else. When it comes to destroying our freedoms, the terrorists have an awfully long way to go before they're even in the same league as Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.

This government is, to borrow a phrase, not fit for purpose.

Tags: News, Politics, WonT, Tony Blair

Sunday Times: British to quit Iraq ‘in a year’

THE Democrats’ clean sweep in last week’s American congressional elections has prepared the way for a British exit from Iraq, with troop numbers more than halved by next spring.

A staged withdrawal of all 7,500 British troops now in southern Iraq could come by the end of next year, defence sources said.
[...]
Senior sources have been suggesting for some time that the reason British troops remained in such numbers was that Blair was reluctant to embarrass Bush with any withdrawals before last week’s elections.

Is that worth dying for?

In April, Blair said "I yield to nobody in my support and admiration for the work that the soldiers do in Iraq". How does he sleep at night?

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Tony Blair

This week's Scottish Blog Roundup is out now.

Tags: Blog

His Master's Voice

Wasn't going to blog today but an open goal is an open goal. Blair will talk to George's buddies about Iraq but he refuses to discuss it in any meaningful way in the House of Commons. Sir Menzies has, quite understandably, pointed out that the British Prime Minister is supposed to be accountable to the British parliament.

Downing Street however accused Sir Menzies of being out of touch with the public.

"Most people in this country will welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is contributing to the deliberations of the Iraq Study Group. It is a shame that Sir Menzies is not one of them," a spokesman said.

Presumably, the reason you only ever read or hear what the PMOS has said and never actually see film of him saying anything is because his blush at having to read out these absurdities is of such a magnitude as to cause all cameras within a one mile radius to explode. Having learned from costly experience, film crews must now reverse scramble out of Downing Street as soon as they hear that he's going to make a statement. "Hurry man, this camera cost a hundred grand. It's getting warm, he must be starting. Quick, get in the van. GET IN THE VAN!"

While we're on the subject of shameless lickspittles, Buff was on the Question Time panel the other night. After a lengthy period of consideration, I've come to the surprising conclusion that he does actually have one use. His unwavering commitment to the official line coupled with his absolute inability to entertain even a hint of an independent thought mean that his statements demonstrate the government's "communication" strategies in painfully stark relief.

On Iraq, the government line has been obvious for a good while but in summary:

1. What is important now is the future, not the past
2. Those who dwell on the past are more interested in petty political point scoring than in the welfare of the Iraqi people.

This is the spin Blair is relying on to eke out just a few more months of that gloriously intoxicating power. Buff's QT responses were all basically reheated versions of those same two points (the first openly stated, the second strongly implied).

The second point is so outrageous, so obviously designed to stifle any attempt to examine this government's many failures, so, when it comes right down to it, undemocratic, as to be unworthy of any sort of serious response. This strategy can be clearly seen in the PMOS's response to Sir Menzies above. For "It is a shame that Sir Menzies is not one of them" read "he doesn't care about the future of Iraq". This is a reminder, as if one were needed, that Blair is ultimately a deeply unscrupulous bastard. He wouldn't recognise an honest debate if it was knee deep in oil.

The first point, much laboured by Buff on QT, is that we should now spend our time discussing how we should precede rather than endlessly going over the past. There are a number of problems with this. For a start, Buff himself spent the entire time telling people to "look to the future" without actually doing so himself. He had nothing to say on the future he so wanted us to look to. As a means to tackle the bloody chaos of Iraq, repeatedly and robotically telling people to "look to the future" is way down on my list of priorities.

And, of course, if you were trying to devise strategies for Iraq, what you wouldn't do is start from here. If you absolutely had too, the first thing you'd do is find out who it was who had got you here, locate that person and tell them to piss right off. Right off. I don't have any opinion polls to hand but I think I can say with some certainty that a majority of the British people have no faith in Blair's ability to deal with the aftermath of the mess he did so much to help create.

The main point however, is that as long as Blair is in charge, there is no British input into the future of Iraq. We can talk about new approaches all we want but our strategy will only change when U.S. strategy changes. End of. And Blair's contribution to the proposals put forward by the I.S.G. will be nil. Likewise, his influence on Bush's decision as to whether to adopt these proposals will be nil. He's been asked to take part out of a sense of politeness; he has to be seen to have been consulted. But how long will this consultation really last? An afternoon? Less maybe? It's window dressing. Under Blair, looking to the future of British foreign means looking to see what the Bush administration is going to do next.

So here's my suggestion for the future. Why don't we have a British government with its own independent foreign policy? I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure we've tried it before and it seemed to work out sort of alright. It might not have been perfect but at least it was ours.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Tony Blair

Can you spot the sore loser? Is they all picking on poor little Donny?

His resignation speech, by the way, was something else.

The great respect that I have for your leadership, Mr. President, in this little understood, unfamiliar war, the first war of the 21st century -- it is not well-known, it was not well-understood, it is complex for people to comprehend. And I know, with certainty, that over time the contributions you've made will be recorded by history.

Yes folks, it's not Donny or Dubya's fault. It's just that the American people and the rest of the world are too stupid to understand how splendidly things are going in Iraq. When, on February 7th 2003, he said the war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," we foolishly believed that he was an ignorant, dogmatic ideologue who didn't understand the first thing about the actual consequences of the actions he was advocating. Now that this prediction can be tested against recorded history however...

Also, I can't imagine you don't already read Justin's outstanding Friday Thing contributions with a quasi-religious devotion but just in case you don't, you really should. This week, the fallout from the mid terms come under the excoriating spotlight.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld

Ha ha! Another cowboy bites the dust.

Rarely, if ever, has a man been less qualified for his job.

Tags: News, Politics, John Bolton, Republicons

Tony, do you think they'll drop the bomb?

With Dubya's party getting a whipping in the elections over there and Blair struggling to maintain his authority here, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller's intervention today comes as no great surprise. The government clearly believes that we're not currently scared enough and that it's their job to put this right.

Not for the first time, I'm reminded of a song.

Tony's gonna make all of your nightmares come true.

Tony's gonna put all of his fears into you.

Tony's gonna keep you right here under his wing.

He won't let you fly, but he might let you sing.

Tony's gonna keep Baby cozy and warm.

Ooo Babe, of course Tony's gonna help build a wall.

It's the nanny state gone mad...

Anyway, as usual when Blair resorts to the politics of fear, he's now stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, he wants us to believe that the threat of terrorism is greater than ever. On this, unfortunately, I believe he's probably right. But he also wants us to believe that this increased threat has nothing to do with Iraq and that the very government which has presided over this dramatic increase can now be trusted to deal with it. Duh!?

Perhaps most worrying is the fact that he appears to seriously and genuinely believe that this is a convincing argument. Joking aside, it is increasingly clear that he is not a well man.

Tags: News, Politics, WonT, Tony Blair

Lying For Votes

I'm sure you've already seen these snippets on the news but I just wanted to preserve them here for posterity. Here's Bush's reaction to the "thumping" his party got at the mid-terms.

I thought we were going to do fine yesterday. Shows what I know.

He really is one in a million.

And why did he lie last week when he said Rumsfeld would stay on as Defense Secretary?

Right. No, you and Hunt and Keil came in the Oval Office, and Hunt asked me the question one week before the campaign, and basically it was, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? And my answer was, they're going to stay on. And the reason why is I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer.

That's right, he lied to reporters and to the American people because there were elections on the way and he was worried that the truth might lose his party votes (you might have spotted that he almost certainly got that wrong too). This, from the free world's self appointed guardian of democracy. There comes a point when you just can't come up with any new ways to express the ironies which surround Bush and Blair. I may have to start using "You Couldn't Make It Up" as a sort of running slogan.

And now that the Republicans have lost both Houses, the most partisan President of the most partisan party in living memory has called for members of Congress to "rise above partisan differences" and said that his administration will do the same. This, while simultaneously issuing Congress with a series of instructions, the most obvious (and controversial) example being this:

Another important priority in the war on terror is for the Congress to pass the Terrorist Surveillance Act.

Yes, Bush wants the Democrats to put aside partisan differences and do what they're bloody well told.

You really couldn't. What else is there to say?

Tags: News, Politics, President Bush, Pepublicons

A Fresh Perspective

Sorry to rain on the parade but Billmon thinks that Robert Gates - the man Bush has proposed as Rumseld's replacement - "should fit right in". Iran-Contra you say? Not good.

He's not just connected to the Iran-Contra scandal though. On 31 January 1995, former National Security Council official Howard Teicher gave a sworn statement to a Florida district court (via Gates' Wiki talk page). He said:

I personally attended meetings in which CIA Director Casey or CIA Deputy Director Gates [that's our guy] noted the need for Iraq to have certain weapons such as cluster bombs and anti-armor penetrators in order to stave off the Iranian attacks.
[...]

The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq.
[...]

One of the reasons that the United States refused to license or sell U.S. origin weapons to Iraq was that the supply of non-U.S. origin weapons to Iraq was sufficient to meet Iraq's needs. Under CIA DIrector Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA made sure that non-U.S. manufacturers manufactured and sold to Iraq the weapons needed by Iraq. [That's one especially for all those people who endlessly note that that Saddam had no U.S. weapons so that proves that Reagan didn't supply blah blah blah.]
[...]

Under CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA authorized, approved and assisted Cardoen [a Chilean arms supplier] in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq. My NSC files will contain documents that show or tend to show the CIA's authorization, approval and assistance of Cardoen's manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other muntions to Iraq.

This testimony was essentially suppressed by the Clinton administration. (There are many reasons why the Clinton administration would block knowledge of secret CIA activities instigated by a previous Republican administration. Rather than go into that here, let's just say that Bill was not the angel some people think he was.)

So Gates may well have authorised, approved and assisted in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs to Saddam Hussein. And he's going to replace Rumsfeld and turn things around in Iraq with his "fresh eyes".

That concludes today's episode of "You Couldn't Make It Up!"

Update

It gets worse (via a long chain but ultimately Michael. Good spot, that man).

The dust from Iran-Contra had settled sufficiently by 1991, when President George H. W. Bush nominated Gates to head the CIA. Then all hell broke loose... [A] former senior Soviet analyst and CIA division chief, Mel Goodman, stepped forward and gave the Senate intelligence committee chapter and verse on how Gates had shaped intelligence analysis to suit his masters and his career [my emphasis]. Goodman was joined at once by several other analysts who put their own careers at risk by testifying against Gates’ nomination. They were so many and so persuasive that, for a time, it appeared they had won the day. But the fix was in.

With a powerful assist from George Tenet, then staff director of the senate intelligence committee, members approved the nomination.

The article, written by ex-CIA analysis Ray McGovern, is worth reading in full. Gates was apparently the person "most responsible for institutionalizing political corruption of intelligence analysis". This institutionalised politicisation led directly to the point where the CIA (then headed by "slam dunk" Tenet) willingly produced the "faulty" intelligence used to justify Bush's war of choice.

And later today, we'll be interviewing the pigeon who's just been appointed head of Statue Cleansing Operations at Trafalgar Square. He's assured us that he'll be able to tell us what he plans to do without crapping on our hair. As we've no reason not to trust him, we won't be wearing hats...

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Robert Gates

Huzzah! It really is a tipping point.

One grossly incompetent warmonger down, many still to go.

Unfortunately, it won't be a tipping point for Iraqis; it is impossible to see what the Democrats, or indeed a new Defense Secretary, could do to improve the situation in Iraq at this late stage.

Holding the architects of this bloody disaster to account, however, may at least make similar tragedies less likely in the future.

Tags: News, Politics, Rumsfeld

We've heard a lot about "tipping points" over the last three years or so. Last night, we reached one which actually exists in the real world, one which is completely independent of fevered imaginings of Bush and Blair.

It is strange to think that the Labour Prime Minister of this country will be deeply concerned that the Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives from the Republicans (and may also gain the Senate) but that is undoubtedly the reality of the situation.

While Blair remains protected by fools, toadies and hypocrites, Bush no longer has that luxury. The Democrats will now launch a series of investigation into exactly how Bush and Blair managed to turn Iraq into the bloody quagmire it is today.

Accountability may be about to make a welcome reappearance and not before time. Thank you America.

Tags: News, Politics, Republicons, Tony Blair

Davide has been GIYUSed.

Those brave cyber-soldiers never tire in their courageously effort to expose the blind, underdeveloped, disgusting, moronic useful idiots who question the morality of the IDF. They are, after all, the most moral army in the world. Dissent from that position is unacceptable.

In truth, the difference between the Israeli military and the terrorists is clear for all to see. After the Israeli military has perpetrated an act of indiscriminate collective punishment on the Palestinian people, the IDF, unlike the terrorists, apologises and orders an investigation (to be carried out by the same IDF of course). And then they do the same thing again. And again. And again...

These apologies would perhaps be of some value if they were an indication of a desire to ensure that similar events will be less likely in future. But even the people at GIYUS must know deep down that they are not.

Tags: News, Politics, Israel

Don't worry, we still have the people's hearts and minds.



(via)

Tags: News, Politics, WonT, Iraq

I'll wait till I hear an undeniable official announcement on the subject before I fully believe it but on the face of it, it looks like the ace in the hole has turned into a busted flush. Read 'em and weep, Tony.

And that's where my knowledge of playing card based idioms runs out. Thankfully.

Tags: News, Politics, Sleaze, Tony Blair

Blair's Ficton

I've given up waiting for the transcript from Blair's press conference so I've transcribed some of his words of wisdom for your reading pleasure from the BBC News Player. (Via this page but you need to click through to the player then click again to view the full conference.)

As I've said before, Blair habitually misrepresents the results of the Iraqi elections. His claim that 70% of Iraqis "voted for a non-sectarian government in which the Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds all work together" is just so much naive wishful thinking. It is, in fact, just the sort of naive wishful thinking which has contributed so much to the coalition's disastrous handling of the occupation. That description of the results is clearly not true in any meaningful sense.

Someone must have brought this fact to his attention (possibly the Guardian editorial team) because he tried a new version today.

The one thing you cannot dispute, after the turnout at the Iraqi elections, with people voting for what they knew was going to be a cross-party government, you can't dispute the majority of Iraqis want a different type of future.

What an utter git. I suppose I voted for the Blair government to be given absolute power on a 22% mandate and I fully support the FPTP system because I voted for the Liberal Democrats at the last general election... Actually, he probably does believe that. The git.

Something like 80% of Iraqis who voted, voted for parties which represent narrow sectarian interests. These are the clear facts. They might be spinnable in some pathetic clutching at straws exercise at a press conference but that won't change the reality of the situation where it matters. Yes, Iraqis want a different type of future but the problem is that they can't agree on what different type of future it should be. Shiites want one future, Sunnis another and Kurds another again. And that's leaving aside the factional disputes inside these three main groups or the views of Iraq's minority communities. This isn't actually hard to understand. Not unless you're an utter git anyway.

He also said something else which caught my attention. Here's a little bit of context.

Blair is again going through his mantra on why he believes Iraq has not caused an increase in support for Islamist terrorism. In short, Blair believes that the terrorists’ beliefs and ideology are wrong and it is therefore “utterly irrational” to suggest that Iraq is having the effect which pretty much every sensible observer says it is. Ironically, he doesn’t appear to appreciate that human beings are often rather susceptible to ideologies and beliefs which are wrong. He of all people should know better.

In fact, it is obviously quite possible to give added credibility to an ideology which is wrong. Invading Iraq on a false prospectus gave enormous added credibility to the belief that the American and British governments are intent on waging war on all Muslims. Like Blair, I don’t actually think they are* but that is beside the point. What matters is what potential terrorists believe and all the evidence suggest that the catastrophic invasion of Iraq has caused ever increasing numbers to believe that Bush and Blair really are on a crusade against Muslims. The effect is undoubtedly real even though the belief it is based on is false. Blair is apparently not able to understand this.

Anyway, here’s what Blair said when defending his decisions on Iraq.

We removed Saddam. Again, if Saddam’s party wanted to stand in the Iraqi election, they could have stood and been voted in.

And the two word reply to that claim is this; utter bollocks.

It simply isn’t true. Suspected ex-baathists were barred from standing at the elections as candidates for other parties. There was certainly no possibility that the Baath Party would be allowed to put forward candidates of its own.

So what is Blair on about? Why does he make these fatuous claims? And what point is there to this one?

If we look at all of these statements, the intelligence picture they paint is one accumulated over the past nine years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Blair has lied, that he has continued to produce lies, that he has existing and active plans for the use of lies, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own population; and that he is actively trying to acquire new lies.

And that he's an utter git.

(By the way, if anyone wondered, the title isn't a typo. Ficton. Perfectly normal word round our way. Should be used more often.)

* I do believe that Bush and Blair have been criminally negligent in their failure to fulfil their responsibilities to the Iraqi people. These failures have been caused by their indifference, their carelessness, their incompetence, their unwillingness to listen to expert warnings and their lack of intelligence (no pun intended exactly). They did not want to preside over the slaughter now unfolding in Iraq but that is what they have done. Just as a reckless driver is held to account for unintentionally killing a pedestrian, Blair and Bush should be held to account for their lethally reckless attitude towards the people of Iraq.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Tony Blair