Monday, November 06, 2006

If you're in the mood for some utterly fatuous drivel, look no further. Yes, documents relating to work done before the first Gulf War prove that Saddam was "as little as a year away" from building an atomic bomb in 2003, despite the fact that all of his nuclear facilities had been destroyed. Wibble...

Oh, I could be at it all day but here's just one point from many possibilities. You can't make atomic bombs out of yellowcake. You need a substantial quantity of large scale specialised manufacturing equipment to turn yellowcake into uranium suitable for making atomic weapons. These are not easily hidden facilities; they're bloody great industrial complexes.

Many people have looked very hard and have come to the inescapable conclusion that Saddam's Iraq did not have these facilities in 2003. (Iran, however, does.)

The article linked above is just one of many such articles. Media Matters has more on the way Fox News presenters helped to create, promote and maintain the lie.

Digby has some thoughts on the subject of the shameless liars who cheer for the Republicons (via).

Tags: , , , , ,

The Ace in the Hole

Today, I listened to Tony Blair's monthly press conference. It was, as always, a tour de force in evasion, misrepresentation and irrationality. You would expect nothing less.

In his opening remarks, astonishingly, he made no mention of the death sentence handed down to Saddam Hussein yesterday. Under particularly robust and persistent questioning (from Adam Bolton of Sky News, would you believe?) he repeatedly refused to say whether he was opposed to the execution of Saddam. Finally, when other journalists refused to let it lie, and with evident exasperation, he said that he was "against the death penalty, whether it is Saddam Hussein or anybody else". It was clear that he absolutely did not want to express this view. It is equally clear that our government will not be in any hurry to express this view to the Iraqi government.

At one point, Blair launched into another long rebuttal of the view that his policies have caused an increase in support for terrorism. Strip away the verbiage and it appears that our great leader is unable to understand the difference between the words "justify" and "explain". This from a man who once said "Education! Education! Education!". Perhaps he should have started by buying himself a dictionary.

He also tried out a new version of his description of the results of the elections in Iraq. He used to say that 70% of Iraqis voted for a "government of national unity", a claim which is easily disproved by anyone with only a passing acquaintance with the facts. His new version is apparently an attempt to describe the results in a way which is consistent with his fantastical view of the situation but which isn't quite so blatantly ridiculous. He failed. (I'll probably write a bit more detail on this when the transcript is posted. If I heard him correctly, it really was a pearler.)

The main reason why I watched the press conference though, was to find out what he was going to say about Lord Goldsmith's involvement in the cash for peerages investigation. Lord Goldsmith has declined to step aside from the process; it appears that any prosecution would be dependent on his consent. He has insisted that his involvement, if necessary, would be "independent and apolitical".

Lord Goldsmith, it should be remembered, is known to have donated money to the Labour Party. In 1999, Blair made him a life peer. In 2001, Blair appointed him as the Attorney General.
And he may now be allowed to make the final decision as to whether the Prime Minister should be prosecuted over improper links between donations and peerages during his tenure at Number 10.

The Ministerial code, introduced by Blair, says that "Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests". Blair and Goldsmith are both Ministers (assuming this list is correct - I'm no expert on the Attorney General's constitutional position). At the very least, absolutely undeniably, Goldsmith's involvement in this case appears to create a significant conflict of interest.

If the Ministerial Code means anything at all, if even a passing association with credibility is to be maintained, Goldsmith absolutely must step aside from any involvement in this process. Should he be involved? No, he should not. It isn't a difficult question to answer.

But what did Blair say when asked? He point blank refused to comment on it in any way whatsoever. "I've just got absolutely nothing to say on this at all" he told Gary Gibbon. Martha Kearney was likewise rebuffed as was a third enquirer. Nothing.

Blair, given three clear chances, refused to rule out the possibility that the man he appointed as Attorney General will be able to veto any prosecution against him which the CPS might wish to bring to the courts. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Blair intends and expects Goldsmith to do exactly that if the need arises.

We have become used to the Blair's government displaying all the integrity of a particularly shady Banana Republic but this is spectacular even for them. It simply is not acceptable.

Tags: , , ,
Indeed.

Everything you ever wanted to know about Donny's visit to Saddam's Iraq, and much else about the Reagan administration's friendliness towards the tyrant, is available here.

Tags: , , ,
As I was feeling like death not warmed up yesterday, Doctorvee complied
the Scottish Blogging Roundup. It's all good stuff.

Tags:

Saturday, November 04, 2006

A Lack of Intelligence

Hello and welcome to today's edition of "You Couldn't Make It Up!"

The New York Times has the story.
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”
The salient documents were posted on 12th and 20th September this year so they've been available for over a month. To anyone with an internet connection.

Now I can think of a government which would be paying very close attention to all of the documents from Saddam's Iraq. You might say they pertain to issues which are rather close to home. It's a country with its own well organised intelligence agencies and they will have been studying these documents from the moment they became available. This government has Arabic translators aplenty, almost certainly far more than the U.S. intelligence agencies. And they may or may not be looking to build nuclear weapons. They would definitely be interested in acquiring "detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs".

Have you guessed who it is yet?

These documents, just think about this for a second, were available to download. I've got a couple of PDF documents from a previous release on my hard drive right now. Iran's SAMAVA unquestionably has copies of every single one of those documents. Shutting down the website now is like locking the stable door after the horse has been turned into glue.

This website was set up at the insistence of Republicans in order to try to take the heat of the political difficulties they were facing as their rationale for war unravelled. The documents were made available so that the Bush supporting internet army could comb through them and find the proof that Saddam was indeed in league with al Qaeda and really did have weapons of mass destruction. The documents, unsurprisingly, provided no such proof.

(As Juan Cole and others have noted, one of the under-reported documents, dated August 2002, was an instruction to Saddam's intelligence apparatus to try to establish whether Zarqawi actually was in Iraq as a matter of "top priority". The U.S. government at the time claimed that Zarqawi's presence was proof of the link between Saddam and al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam was none the wiser.)

What has happened here is clear but I'm going to spell it out anyway. This is all about political self interest. The documents were made available to the public because Republicans were starting to take flak for the war. Rather than allowing the U.S. intelligence agencies the time to analyse these documents properly to make sure that no potentially dangerous material was made available, they forced the release in the hope that it would get them out of a hole. There was no national security rationale for these releases, quite the opposite as we can now see all to clearly. This decision was taken purely on what was thought best for the President and his party. That is what caused the government of George W. Bush to publish on the internet detailed information on the construction of atomic bombs.

It just doesn't get any worse.

(Just one note of caution. As one of the NYT experts points out, you need a lot more than information to build these things. The idea that an al Qaeda terrorist might get hold of these documents and build a bomb in his cellar is beyond ridiculous. For a country like Iran, or indeed North Korea, with access to the money, materials and equipment, the documents could be useful. In a cave on the Afghan/Pakistan border, they would only be useful as toilet paper.)

It is faintly ironic that this story was broken by the New York Times. They are famously the newspaper that the Bush supporting right loves to hate. The staff at the NYT have this aggravating habit of actually acting like journalists and refusing to be cowed utterly into submission by their government. We all know how Bush hates that sort of thing so his cheerleaders have been systematically smearing the NYT for years now. The NYT is, apparently, awash with dangerous freedom hating traitors (that irony really gets about the place).

Michelle Malkin, for example, seems to believe that releasing information which is in the public interest but embarrassing to President Bush is a far more heinous crime than making the atomic bomb "cookbook" available to the Iranians or whoever else might be interested. Now, I'm no expert in potential risk assessment but I don't think that many people die of political embarrassment. Atomic bombs just seem more dangerous to me somehow. (Yes, I'm being facetious but if you can't be facetious about Michelle Malkin's view of the world, then something has gone horribly wrong.)

Michelle also seems to think that these documents are a new proof of the dangers posed by Saddam.

To be clear, these documents contain information we already knew Saddam possessed. They relate to work done in Iraq in the 80's and early 90's when Saddam really was trying to build a bomb. That he was attempting to do so then isn't a secret or in any way controversial. U.N. weapons inspectors did dismantle an actually existing nuclear weapons programme after the first Gulf War. As ElBaradei told the Security Council in January 2003:
By December 1998 — when the inspections were brought to a halt with a military strike imminent — we were confident that we had not missed any significant component of Iraq’s nuclear programme.

While we did not claim absolute certainty, our conclusion at that time was that we had neutralized Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and that there were no indications that Iraq retained any physical capability to produce weapon usable nuclear material.
ElBaradei, it should be remembered, concluded then that "we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s".

Some of the documents, from 1995, were drawn up specifically for the "Full, Final, Complete Disclosure" which Iraq was required to provide to the U.N. after the first Gulf War. Again, it is no secret that Iraq had this information.

But you don't need to be a nuclear physicist to understand that without any means to put these plans into action, these documents are just pieces of paper. And the idea that the intensely paranoid Saddam would be prepared to provide this information to others outside Iraq while he himself couldn't build nuclear bombs is plainly absurd. Saddam understood how quickly your friends could become your enemies better than most people.

Nevertheless, as Michelle notes, it is clear that these documents prove that, er, the evil traitorous moonbats who control the media are despicable untrustworthy weasels. Quite.

Whatever Saddam's intentions were at some hypothetical future point, he had not reconstituted his nuclear weapons programme in any meaningful way before the invasion. As Colin Powell rightly said in February 2001,"[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction". He did not pose an imminent threat to the world as was later claimed.

And one thing is crystal clear; Saddam, unlike the Republican government of the United States of America, would absolutely never have allowed this information to fall into the hands of the Iranians.

Tags: , , , , ,

Whiter than white

Guardian: Blair's top lawyer to advise on cash for honours charges
The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, a close political ally of the prime minister, is preparing to advise prosecutors on whether to bring charges in the cash for peerages inquiry, the Guardian has learned. He will be consulted by the Crown Prosecution Service, and is expected to give his views on whether charging Tony Blair, or anyone else, is in the public interest.

Though he will not take the final decision, Lord Goldsmith's involvement has angered MPs who made the complaint.

It has also caused anxiety among officers at Scotland Yard, who privately wonder whether he will have the courage to endorse the prosecution of the man who appointed him. They cite Ken MacDonald, the director of public prosecutions, who has declared he will take no part in the case because he is a former colleague of the prime minister's wife.
Whiter than white.

Maybe he was talking about the thoroughness of his whitewashing techniques.

Tags: , , ,

Friday, November 03, 2006

The Bush administration wants to appoint a U.S. general as head of all U.N. peacekeeping operations.

And so, the long dead corpse that once was satire is again exhumed in order that a few more shots may be fired at its putrid remains.

Update

The point doesn't need laboured but that doesn't mean it won't be. According to the Guardian/ICM, 75% of Brits consider Dubya to be a great or moderate danger to peace. Only bin Laden, according to the poll, is less qualified to appoint the world's top peacekeeper.

Also in the news this week:
Bear to head Woodland Defecation Prevention Unit
Tags: , ,

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Now that the media furore surrounding the the Israeli war on Lebanon has died down, it's just a memory of images on the TV for most of us. We, thankfully, don't live there.

Meanwhile, as Israel yet again sends tanks and helicopter gunships into the densely populated Gaza Strip, no-one really gives a fuck. Well, they're only Palestinians. They're used to it...

Tags: , , , ,

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Fighting For Freedom

The Ministry of Defence has banned ITV News from its official facilities and refused to allow them to embed journalists with British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, I'm no fan of ITV News but that's not really the point. The point is what this says about the way the government "supports our troops".

First, they send them to extremely dangerous places without supplying them with the proper equipment. Then they fail to provide adequate medical facilities for those who are physically or mentally injured in the course of their duties. And finally, if a news organisation has the temerity to report on these failures, that news organisation is summarily punished.

These are the very same people who last night argued that a demand for independent scrutiny of their own performance somehow equated to a lack of support for our troops. They really are beneath contempt.

Oh, and welcome to the land of censorship of uncomfortable truths. When Blair first started his campaign to export freedom to the rest of the world, I didn't quite grasp the full implications of the "export" part of the process.

Tags: , , ,
The Commons has become little more than an electoral college for the prime minister.
- Simon Jenkins
One sentence which perfectly encapsulates Blair's Britain.

If you don't understand why this is a very bad thing, you probably don't understand the potential pitfalls of parliamentary democracy. In short, the system can give one individual an enormous degree of unchecked power. And if you don't understand why that is a very bad thing, you're probably not a democrat in any real sense of the term. Almost all of the current crop of Labour MPs would appear to share that troubling characteristic.

Tags: , ,

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

The Hypocrites

Well folks, the toadies and fools will have to wait but here are the worst of the hypocrites. These Labour MPs signed EDM 1088 but did not vote for it when offered the opportunity.
  1. Diane Abbott
  2. John Austin
  3. Lyn Brown
  4. Ronnie Campbell
  5. Martin Caton
  6. Colin Challen
  7. Michael Clapham
  8. Jim Cousins
  9. Ann Cryer
  10. Jim Devine
  11. Bill Etherington
  12. Paul Flynn
  13. Neil Gerrard
  14. Ian Gibson
  15. Kate Hoey
  16. Kelvin Hopkins
  17. Lynne Jones
  18. Peter Kilfoyle [see update]
  19. Jim McGovern
  20. Austin Mitchell
  21. Linda Riordan
  22. Jon Trickett
It remains to be seen whether any of these people actually voted against something they had previously explicitly supported or whether they merely abstained from voting for something they had previously explicitly supported. Either way, they all appear to be guilty of empty political posturing of the worst kind. Some on that list, I had actually thought could rightly be called honourable members. Apparently not.

Anyway, if your MP is on the list and you thought their signature on a motion calling for an inquiry meant that they actually supported an inquiry, why not write to them and ask them to explain why this wasn't the case (politely, need I add).

On a related note, I watched some of the debate and one of the standard lines regurgitated by the government's supporters was that this inquiry wasn't what the people of the country wanted, that Iraq wasn't an issue in the "constituencies". And yet, in a recent poll, 72% of respondents in British constituencies said they believe the Iraq war is "unwinnable". When 72% believe that we are involved in an unwinnable war, it clearly is an issue in the constituencies. How to square this circle? How, ultimately, can democracy function when the ruling party simply denies obviously uncontroversial truths?

My MP, Anne Begg, did not vote for the invasion in March 2003 but she is also not on the list of Labour rebels. If she's prepared to support the government now but wasn't then, I can only conclude that she believes things have gone better than expected in Iraq. Either that or she voted against the war only because she knew the government weren't going to be defeated that day. I'm going to (politely) write to her about that.

One other thing. What I said over at Blairwatch (give me a break, I've got the the devil's own cold here). For any other PM, this would be a very bad result indeed. 273 MPs voted against him on a matter his government proclaims to be absolutely vital. An honourable man would be considering his position. I won't be holding my breath.

Update

Peter Kilfolye had a quadruple heart bypass operation in June and has not been back to the Commons since. That seems to be a reasonable explanation for his absence. For that reason, he should not have been included on the above list.

Here's the list of those who signed the EDM but actively voted against yesterday's motion (via). Almost unbelievably, twelve Labour MPs decided to vote against. To be fair, those twelve are clearly hypocrites, toadies and fools.

Tags: , , ,

Don't Mention the War

It's the moment of truth for Dave "Tony tricked me" Cameron and his gang. Is he as shallow and opportunistic as he appears or will he put his money where his mouth is? We'll know shortly.

In the meantime, the government is insisting that the "temporary" closure of the British consulate in Basra is not a bad sign. Because after three years and eight months, it is perfectly acceptable that British troops cannot properly protect one building in Basra. Why on earth would anyone think that was a bad sign?

Got a nasty shivery cold. On the plus side, this means I'll probably sit watching the debate on BBC parliament so I can spot the hypocrites, toadies and fools.

Tags: , ,

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Party Political Broadcasts

Wednesday 25th October 2006
Q You talk about the U.S. government and the Iraqi government working closely together on benchmarks. I'm wondering, sir, why was Prime Minister Maliki not at the news conference yesterday with General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad? Would that not have sent a strong message about there being a very close level of cooperation between the two governments?

THE PRESIDENT: Elaine, I have no idea why he wasn't there.

Q Was he invited, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea. I'm not the scheduler of news conferences. I do know they work very closely together, and they've got a very close working relationship, and that's important.
Friday 27th October 2006
After a tense week in Iraqi-U.S. relations over the way forward, the U.S. ambassador and Iraqi prime minister issued a rare joint statement Friday in which Iraq reaffirmed its commitment to a "good and strong" relationship with the United States.
Saturday 28th October 2006
President Bush has held talks by video link with Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki.

The link-up follows several days of public disagreement between US and Iraqi officials, who blamed each other for Iraq's deepening crisis.
[...]
In a joint statement issued after the 50-minute video conference, the two leaders said they were "committed to the partnership" and would work in every way possible for a stable, democratic Iraq.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said there were no strains in the US-Iraq relationship.
I wonder how Mr Maliki's arm feels today? A bit bruised perhaps? Maybe he's still not managed to get it untwisted?

I haven't actually seen either of the joint statements on the tellybox but I presume they both contained the caption:
Paid for by the Republican National Committee
© 2006 Republican National Committee
In their defence, they Republicans did say they were going to export democracy to Iraq. What better way than to very generously allow Mr Maliki to be part of their mid-term election campaign team?

Tags: , , ,
Blogger 1-0 BBC.

A rather delayed reaction from dear old Auntie there. Still, it's good that the BBC finally picked this up.

Also, this week's Scottish Blog Roundup is out.

Tags: , ,

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Innocent Until Smeared Guilty

Here's a genuine conversation I had yesterday evening.

Me: Remember the Forest Gate raid?

Not me: No, which one was that again?

Me: You know, the one where they shot that guy and it turned out that he wasn't a terrorist?

Not me: Ah yes. But he was charged with something else, wasn't he?

Me: No, he was not.
The Crown Prosecution Service has advised police not to bring child pornography charges against a man shot during a terror raid in Forest Gate.
Yes, I know. I'm a barrel of laughs to be around on a Friday evening. Oh, a Friday evening, the government's favourite time to release news they'd rather we didn't hear. How interesting.

The CPS is an independent organisation, of course. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they decided to release this (potentially very embarrassing) information late on a Friday afternoon. Google News suggests that the first appearance of this news on the interwebs was the BBC report at 6.20pm. Yes, definitely a coincidence.

Anyway, what chance there'll be a proper investigation into the smear leak which caused the media to fatuously proclaim that this man was involved in child pornography?

By the way, this raid cost £2.2 million.

Also by the way, I wondered if there were any other stories brewing around the same time as the raid which the government would rather we didn't pay too much attention to. That same morning, 2nd June, the BBC released this report on a new video which appeared to confirm that U.S. soldiers had deliberately killed a number of Iraqi women and children. The video strongly supported the claim, made by the Iraqi authorities, that that the official U.S. military version of events contained a number of glaring inaccuracies.

The BBC would undoubtedly have given the government some advance warning of the fact that they were going to air with this story (as I understand it, this is S.O.P. for stories like these). And our government would undoubtedly have understood that substantial coverage of this new evidence in the British media would have been a problem for them and for the U.S. administration. By mid-afternoon, the Forest Gate raid was dominating the news to the exclusion of almost everything else. Handy.

That might be a genuine coincidence but I would put very little past the unscrupulous B'Stards who currently run this country. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that they made the whole thing up. I'm suggesting that the police had dubious intelligence from one source which suggested that these chaps might have had some involvement in terrorism. Rather than investigating this in a sensible manner, it is quite possible that political pressure on the police, pressure for a particular course of action within a particular time-scale, then turned that into the farcical, and almost fatal, raid which tool place that morning. Would you rule out the possibility that this government is capable of such things?

Tags: , ,

Friday, October 27, 2006

If Iran or Syria detained an American, Cheney is saying that it would be perfectly fine for them to hold that American's head under water until he nearly drowns, if that's what they think they need to do to save Iranian or Syrian lives.
Dick "no-brainer" Cheney has spoken.

Tags: , , ,
New post from me over at The Sharpener.

Tags:
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki gave an interview to Reuters yesterday. Here are a couple of extracts.

On who controls Iraq's security forces:
They [the Americans] think building Iraqi forces will need 12 to 18 months for us to be in control of security. We agree our forces need work but think that if, as we are asking, the rebuilding of our forces was in our own hands, then it would take not 12-18 months but six might be enough.
And:
If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition. I am now prime minister and overall commander of the armed forces yet I cannot move a single company without Coalition approval because of the U.N. mandate.
On the recent raid on Sadr city:
There is also the way they go after people. The first time they tried to get Abu Deraa they killed and wounded 17 people and demolished two houses (and) they did not arrest him in either operation. I said we agree on arresting wanted criminals and we do not care whether they are Sunnis or Shi'ites, but that was not an arrest operation. Do you send in planes to arrest one person? There is no problem with the principle of arresting criminals but you should not harm people in the way you go to arrest people, spreading horror and at the risk of sabotaging political actions we have worked on.
I wonder how the people of the U.S. would feel if "arrest operations" of that sort were carried out in their own communities? How would you feel?

Tags: , ,

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Guardian: CIA tried to silence EU on torture flights
The CIA tried to persuade Germany to silence EU protests about the human rights record of one of America's key allies in its clandestine torture flights programme, the Guardian can reveal.

According to a secret intelligence report, the CIA offered to let Germany have access to one of its citizens, an al-Qaida suspect being held in a Moroccan cell. But the US secret agents demanded that in return, Berlin should cooperate and "avert pressure from EU" over human rights abuses in the north African country. The report describes Morocco as a "valuable partner in the fight against terrorism".
These are the good guys apparently.

As usual, our government has issued a non-denial denial.
The Foreign Office said yesterday that the government had "not approved and will not approve a policy of facilitating transfer of individuals through the UK to places where there are substantial grounds to believe they face a real risk of torture".
That is clearly not the same as saying "this has not happened and will not happen". In fact, this comment, just like every other one they make on the subject, is entirely consistent with the sort of "no questions asked" attitude which would allow the government to maintain a degree of plausible deniability.

Of course, you can only take plausible deniability so far before you start to sound unhelpful and evasive.

Tags: , ,
An outstanding, thought provoking article over at The Ministry of Truth. A trademark long post but so very worth the time it'll take to read. Even if you're thoroughly fed up of reading about Iraq, this one is worth it.

Tags: , ,