91热爆

Goldsmith is doing a good covering job and nobody seems to be pressing on why when all of the other lawyers seemed clear they needed a second resolution - as he had - he changed his mind when his old mate Blair came for a chat.

Whether you are for or against the war I would have thought everybody would have preferred a transparent legal and governmental process as opposed to the uncertainty caused by a dysfunctional cabinet not living up to its collegiate responsibilities and "sofa politics".

Why is nobody clarifying, as we approach an election, why this could not happen again in the future? What Parliamentary and legal changes can be made so that one man cannot determine a war would be legal whilst the significant bulk of appropriate lawyers dispute that?

Is the Aaronovitch notion that legality doesn't really matter that much valid even if it becomes clear our security was not in imminent threat?

Could the media be fed future 45 minutes claims whilst those that fed them the tripe do nothing whatever to clarify their "mistake"?

Obama has had the most difficult introduction to a Presidency ... probably ever.

He hasn't dropped the ball though it must be hard to focus on one problem for long enough.

But there is a significant prejudice against him in the big-business media like Fox with their own Presidential candidate Palin demonstrating the intellectual grasp of the Republican movement.

Attempts for instance to describe Haiti as Obama's New Orleans is nonsense as its a UN responsibility for a sovereign country.

Iraq is inherited from those Pax-Americana Republicans and there never was a clear exit strategy. Afghanistan never had the resources and corruption was built in no doubt because that suited the mindsets of the Republicans and the CIA.

Iran is and was an ongoing issue.

Relations with Russia were soured by Georgia not being constrained from shelling civilians that included Russian passport holders. They have improved with the new attitude to the insane (strategically and economically) missile defence.

Can you really judge an administration this early?

As a reminder on this Holocaust Day I ask again why those that have their "evidence" that there never was a Holocaust don't show up at trials like that of the alleged Nazi death camp guard Djemjanjuk?

Why doesn't Griffin of the BNP make clear his position rather than the incoherent Question Time waffle?

Why do people seek the safety of anonymous web i.d.'s to try and leak their poison into the blogosphere?

Would the far right of today behave any differently to those Nazi's of yester-year?

I propose that they would be just the same and worse could not plead ignorance for their crimes as some might have in 1945.

You don't have to go far to find them in the blogosphere.

I hope that judges and the prosecutors will be paying attention the next time they get some far right would-be bomber in their dock.

:p well UN Resolution 1441



was vague, and can be open to interpretation. Have a look for yourself!

Often decision are taken behind closed door. No amounts of enquiry will change anything for the lives lost. It is part of larger strategy of foreign policy which may be something like this

1.Democracy had to established in IRAQ

2.Setting up a puppet government and remove the threat of Saddam Hussain.

3.Securing Oil reserves and routes to the different countries.

4.All don't know what not.

ALL THE WORLD IS BUT A STAGE.

Some interesting Questions

1. Why this enquiry before the election?

2. Why has america setup one of the biggest embassy in IRAQ?

ALL OF TRUTH CAN NEVER GET BURIED. THE UNHEARD VOICE OF OPPRESSION WILL COME OUT ONE DAY.

HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN?

For several months, Bishop Goldsmith could not decide: 1441 or some other number. Then suddenly he was delivered of the answer.

1441 was REVEALED TRUTH. Also known as the 'better choice'.

The odd thing is that Pope Tony has not declared Bishop Goldsmith a saint. Odd that . . .

#4

Mistress76uk

I have in mind one interpretation for what 1441 might stand for but as it is only based on speculation, there is not point disclosing what is only a supposition

mim

SURREAL SHOCK AND AWE OF GOLDSMITH AT THE CHILCOTT

It might have been illegal to target Sadam and Sons, unless they were military heads. (Collateral damage OK by default it seems.)

A second resolution would have put legality of war 'BEYOND DOUBT' (Goldsmith). By inference, his 'Better View' gifted to the military as a legal basis for war was open to question!

Goldsmith's EAGERNESS to make a final JUSTIFYING statement spoke volumes of this arid man, who can 'do law' to the end of the earth (literally).

....Is the Aaronovitch notion that legality doesn't really matter...

law based on sound principles does give an insight into direction of policy. it is there to protect people from doing the wrong things by pointing out it is wrong. This bending law to suit political will is described in Shakespeare's Henry V where by a devious interpretation of Salic's law by the Archbishop allows for the invasion of France.


some say the credit crunch, the constant defeats, the demoralisation etc is divine punishment for the never ending war on muslims.

it seems pretty clear to me this was a crime of aggression for which Blair has openly said he would have used any excuse that worked. Which is a confession?

salic law

Asset Stripping?



and on the local news it also said the Dartford crossing and the high speed rail link were going to be sold off as well. Goodness what will we be charged to travel soon.

POO BIRDS OVER THE FLOGGED PORT OF DOVER (#11)

"P&O Ferries, the largest single customer of the port, said: "We believe companies exposed to normal market forces are more effective and efficient."

Wasn't that what we used to think with regard to banking? I reckon we should put Dover under Sharia Law.

# I reckon we should put Dover under Sharia Law.

Ah it will Barrie it will, it's arab countries that have shown an interest in buying it.

THE LAD MAGS AND THE BAD FAGS.....



Today, Scottish MSP鈥檚 have agreed a law to ban cigarettes from being on obvious display in shops.

I don鈥檛 smoke and am generally in favour of reducing the appeal of the habit generally. But it raises many many questions about control, censorship and double standards.

There may be job losses in Tobacco industry. Should we be worried? Or have they had plenty of years warning to downsize, diversify (nicotine patches?????) or change their business model? Supermarkets, local stores, newsagents etc may have a downturn in income. Should they be expected to use the significant lead in time to consider what other products they can highlight in the usual tobacco site?

But, here鈥檚 a dichotomy I became aware of today. At MY eye level (at 5鈥�4鈥� there are quite a few primary age pupils 鈥� 11+ my height and above) in a small local supermarket were all the titillating lads mags. One of them showed a scantily clad female in hand cuffs.

DOUBLE STANDARDSD?????

#14

Nothing new, BYT. Double standards all over the place.

mim

Brightyanthing

Have you noticed how many photo shots produced by 'keen'/?/ Newsnight photographers concentrate on either bottoms or crutches?

Just have a look at NN's webpage today. Not only do we see a serviceman crutch, but he looks like a cowboy ready to pull out his gun, bend his knees a little and 'fire'.

Double standards or what?

On one hand we have young lads dying on the fieles of Afghanistan and leaving their families in despair, etc and then on the other NN's photographers are having fun with crutches. Who is it that is supposed to be turned on? Themselves, desired females or males, as the case may be?

mim

Goldsmith claims that his change of heart was because of his meeting with Americans and that the Americans said that they had agreed with the French in private unminuted conversations that the use of force would not require another UN resolution, yet he did not ask the French about it, this is regarded in any court as hearsay and not evidence. On that basis Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939 was legal because the German government said it was. This is not just dangerous legal nonsense, this is an excuse for any henious crime and cannot be allowed to stand as a defence if we wish to live in a land of Laws and common concepts of justice.

He also talked about Tony Blair having to decide if a material breach had occured which would make the case legal, if no breach had occurred then the war was still unlawful, yet the argument put forward by Blair was that material breach because Iraq had not been disarmed of it's WMDs, yet as we know Iraq had disarmed and there were no WMDs. The implication, though not stated was that the war was illegal because there were no WMDs, this was not even touched upon.

He went on to talk about the original Gulf War I UN Resolution 678 which allowed the use of force to restore international peace and security in the area, but what he failed to mention was as Iraq did not have the WMDs or any intention to attack anyone in the area even with conventional forces there was no threat to peace and security, so that did not hold as a legal basis for war despite the governments black propaganda campaign.

He also kept mentioning that it was all his 'interpretation', even though no other law officers in the government interpreted the UN resolutions that way, in fact it was only the Americans who hold that interpretation. Though we still do not know who said what in those meetings with the Americans and there was no mention of any minutes taken. He did say that if the war was illegal the government, civil cervice and military could face charges of murder. Is it plausable that an eminent lawyer could base such a case on hearsay from the Americans only? It seems highly unlikely, so the question becomes what really happened?

He went on to talk about how he was persuaded by the 'intelligence' that John Scarlett provided that Iraq did have WMDs and he even said that he had no way to check this, even though the dodgy dossier had been discredited. Can he really be that ignorant of the facts?

He said that the consequences would be detrimental to the UN if the UN resolutions were not upheld, but failed mention that Israel has more UN Resolutions against it than Iraq has ever had, I wonder why that was not brought up by the panel? Also one of the questioners was actually awake and pointed out that the wording of 1441 was the same as used in Resolutions against Iran and that could be used to justify an attack, Goldsmith dismissed that, though he never said why there was a difference between identical uses of language, that was the only notable question asked in the whole session and was not followed up.

He also said he vetoed an attack on a city, but then there was another incident that he would not go into regarding the same city, the city was Fallujah and he was not pressed on the matter even thought the attack on Fallujah was a violation of the Geneva Conventions and as it involved UK forces in a support capacity even though it was the Americans who went in still means that there was command responsibility by the UK chain of command.

He disagreed with the Dutch legal finding that the war was illegal only because of what the Americans had told him about French agreement that the use of force was revived in 1441, again putting hearsay as opposed to evidence as the legal justification and said that the direct opinions of other UN security council members were not open to him, in other words he did not bother to ask because he did not want to know, and went on to say that the US said that not needing a second UN security council resolution was a "red line" for the US, even though a 2nd resolution was a necessary "red line" for the French, again he did merely parroted this hearsay without any attempt to clarify this with the French.


What was not asked were any questions about domestic crimes such as violations of the Geneva Conventions that took place in Iraq such as the attack on Fallujah or the indiscriminate use of weapons like cluster munitions. The duties of occupying powers was only touched on briefly where he said he was consulted on what changes the occupiers could make to the society and there was no mention that they have duties to ensure law and order which when questioned on Donald Rumsfeld famously said 鈥淔reedom鈥檚 untidy. Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." which shows a complete and total disregard for those duties.

There was no mention of the fact that as Iraq was of no danger to peace and security that there could be charges under the Terrorism Act 2000 for planning the attack on Iraq, there was also no mention that the consequences of the attack were to incite acts of murder and war against the Crown in Britain which are also crimes.



Personally I am reminded that before the Nazis committed their atrocities they made it all legal in German law, I am sure Goldsmith would have made an excellent advocate for the invasion of Poland or "The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour".

The question is are we going to accept this wanton criminality, if we do we become no better than the Germans of 1939.

WHEN IS A STANDARD NOT A STANDARD - WHEN ITS LOWERED TO THE GROUND (#14)

With Baron Clarke of Tobacco Road, a senior figure in UK governance, it's a wonder we haven't got TREBLE standards (all round) BYT.

And if Goldsmith is the ethical Gold Standard - we soon will have.

why did goldsmith feel the need to bring up that iraq 'wmd' could attack israel as a reason for the uk to go to war? in that case iraq 'could' attack russia or turkey or even africa. is the uk in a defence pact with israel?

Did anyone else listen to Nick Cohen (Guardian journalist) arguing with Guy Goodwin-Gill QC (Queen's Counsel, specialising in international law) arguing with each other over the legality of the Iraq war (and of course Blair's innocence, or not) on Eddie Mair's Radio 4 programme this afternoon?

If it's possible to listen to it on a podcast, I recommend that you do.

Nick Cohen was staunchly defending Tony Blair's final decision.

In light of the many posts by JadedJean on this blogsite in the past...what I listed to on the radio this afternoon tended to reinforce all of the opinions and thoughts that JadedJean made as being true and accurate!

For reference, one of JJ's pertinent posts is linked below...
/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/01/goldmans_100_uk_partners_make.html

SOMEBODY TELL ME THAT WAS THE TWO RONNIES!

The Brown and Karsai Show was about as edgy as it gets. They had at least four faces between them.

And when Brown brought out the old chestnut of the local fighters not 'meeting us face to face' (implying cowardice) I could not help being reminded of the drone attacks, CONTROLLED FROM AMERICA. Brown really is a fathead. Is the word 'land-mine' not found in Scottish dictionaries?

#20 Yes free I did listen to that, I also thought Cohen was rooting for Blair very markedly so.

And yes I would also agree JJs thoughts were very pertinent! Rather a surprise after he's stopped blogging!!!!

Brilliant debate by Jeremy with Price & Ross on the justification of the Iraq war by Goldsmith, and outstanding interview with Richard Holbrooke too :o)

I see that Jeremy was not allowed to hold the debate between Brown & Karzai today. It is pathetic that Brown still refuses to be interviewed by him.

Well who would have thought it to be such an important anniversary today? Thomas Crapper no less......
Loved the flush at the end ha ha ha ha ha!

Look what I've found, an article by Charles Moore with his comments on the 30th Annieversay edition of Newsnight to which I've responded in the following fashion /ignoring, however, the salary question as negotiated with Jeremy by the 91热爆 itself/:

Mr Moore
As far as I gather, the journalists working for Newsnight are not, unfortunately, allowed to work according to their own conscience. One of the reasons for it you seem quite aptly to specify in your question 'Is there a sharp "uptick" when Newsnight is on air?', as promoted I should imagine by the DG and co. They are having 'fun', you see, and what I would call cheap excitement, debasing just about everything that's transmitted from the White City.

As far as bullying of elected politicians by this or that Newsnight presenter is concerned, it seems to me that more often than not the bullying may in fact be a self-defence reaction.

And one last comment, I think you are absolutely right about Jeremy's patriotic heart.

Should you wish to browse through some of my posts, including 'dittied' ones, I can be found on the 91热爆 Blog Network and flickr under the name of 'mimpromptu'.

So Thomas Crapper's death anniversary was mentioned but Mozart's birth's wasn't, I wonder why?

Is there some kind of obsession with loos running around?

mim

#25 addendum

On waking up I thought I'd write to Charles Moore again with the following:

Mr Moore
Re: thieving, sex and Newsnight
If you'd like to find out more or even perhaps help the Newsnight journalists, you don't have go go far and simply have a proper look at some of the comments made in response to your own article, like for example, comments made by 'Jon Cane' posted on the 26th at 4:51 am. The rest you might want to find out from the Newsnight Team, including Jeremy and Michael Crick.
Monika

Haiti my heart goes out

cesspit tony in town tomorrow 250 k 2 look after it glad i am not paying for it, i wouldnt pay 拢2.50 just heard that hedge funds given him a wedge dozy tax payers money, why cant he pay for his/its own protection. he will weasel out of it. every inquiry under nulabour has been a white wash.
2 Me he is a war criminal and that will remain so.

MY CHUM BARACK SAYS: "SPOIL PARTY GAMES"

But only because Democrats lack a working majority, I guess.

When I say SPOIL PARTY GAMES,I mean it as a fundamental shift towards viable management of Britain.

One thing my new chum and I can agree on: he referred to the 'dull weight of politics' - amen to that.

And didn't he do well! The 'O' in 'BO' DEFINITELY stands for 'oratory' - oratory with zero worthwhile content. If he keeps giving forth with the Sermon on the Mount, the mount will become a molehill. In my youth we had a standing joke about English colonial types in foreign lands believing that, to be understood, one just had to shout. I get the feeling Obama thinks The Force lies in oratory - the more boom the better.

Oh well - there's always Chilcott.

Not long ago after the earthquake in Haiti, I was wondering why the media didn't go back to countries after a disaster.

Low and behold there was a programme on last night about the 2004 tsunami, five years later. I was very surprised at that. I would have liked to have heard more about how they rebuilt their infrastructure, and the economic affect a little more. But it was all filmed as the human interest story, although that was very interesting in itself.

I do wish religion would keep it's nose out though, Islam immediately moved into the Indonesian area of the worst hit area, and told the local people that it was all their fault because of their loose living, and sharia has been implemented quite severely again. Talk about knock someone when they're down, sounded just like christian missionarys to me.

You could see these people had been truamatised, they had a dead look to their faces, they were haunted by the disaster. It doesn't appear they had any counselling, but then would it have helped.

Oh and big business was in there quick as a flash in Thailand, taking a village from the local people. But one woman with a lot of courage stood up to them, and started to rebuild, unfortunately she didn't succeed. But by her actions the village people did get paid for their land, well done her.

Barrie a little excercise for you. ; ) You made up Manglish, please now think of an appropriate name for the nation.

UK, is dead in the water we're now devolved

GB, well we're definitely not great anymore

How about MC for Multi Culturism? It would fit in with your M, or perhaps Mangla? What do you think? ; )

INCAPABILITY BROWN BECOMES 'AFGHANIZER BROWN'

Just how arrogant and insensitive do you have to be, to speak openly of AFGHANIZATION? How does 'afghanization' sound in translation? What might the dictionary definition look like?

"AFGHANIZATION: A process comprising an inept mix of military action and cultural annihilation, leading to permanent destabilisation, associated with Big-Mac-and-CocaCola-ization."

How ironic that, as Afghanizer-Brown lays out his stall, all around him, WE are being DE-BRITAINIZED. Did Al-Qaida win - while we weren't looking? That Bin Laden always looked a bit too smart for my liking.

WHAT A DISMALLY ENGAGING CHALLENGE (#32)

Of course Oliver James gave us 'Blatcherism' - the destruction of all that was warm and congenial. Further, I have pointed out we are progressively more juvenile by the birth. That would make us Blatchlings.

However - your 'Mangla' has a more menacing feel - fits well with the worship of Mammon. I think H G Wells would approve. It also incorporates 'MAN' which might be a celebration of the Harman final nail in feminiinity. We mangled much of the world and now are reaping as we sowed. Hail MANGLA! Failed mongrel tribe, returning, beaten, to your own vomit!

2nd resolution was 'going the extra mile'?

given the uk had no nation building plan thus neither the resources nor equipment to fulfil the plan its clear the govt didn't go the 'extra mile'.

given tony has said he would have used any verbal trick to go to war its just a crime of aggression.This 'any verbal trick' will do 9s why week by week we getr a different reason why we are in afghanistan. This week its women's rights, last weeks its was bringing democracy etc. This is a failure of statecraft and duty of care that is consistent with the absence of a nation building plan and the resources to do it and why the same failed thinking in iraq was used in afghanistan.

As the iraq inquiry as made clear for the uk to go 'nation building' without the billions and skills needed was/is sheer delusional no matter how much the wormentounges say its a 'good thing'.

STRANGER AND STRANGER

Further to my post #20...did anyone else listen to the piece about Sir Martin Gilbert (Iraq Inquiry Panel Member) on the Today programme on Radio 4 earlier this morning? (if not you can listen to it below)


Apparently Sir Gilbert (who is Jewish btw) threw a bit of a hissy-fit on an Israeli radio show, on air (via internet), whilst talking about the perception of Jews in the UK. Apparently he bitterly complained about a recent article that Richard Ingrams had written in the Indepenant criticising the fact that he (Gilbert) and Sir Lawrence Freedman are committed Zionists and are therefore biased.
'Richard Ingrams鈥檚 Week: Will Zionists' links to Iraq invasion be brushed aside?'


He (Gilbert) went on to complain about growing anti-semitism in the UK in general and in particular on the blogosphere, demanding that the British Govt take steps to clamp down on the rise of Jewish/Israeli anti-sentiment.


Two of the five panel members are Jewish. For the record, The Inquiry committee members are Sir John Chilcot (Chairman), Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Usha Prashar.


BTW...I did some digging into the background of one of the other panal members...Sir Roderic Lyne on Wiki...on here it states...
'He is an advisor to JPMorgan Chase, who have been chosen to operate the Trade Bank of Iraq, which will give banks access to the financial system of Iraq. He was a special adviser to BP, which currently has major interests in Iraq.'


Impartial...or what!!!....so not only does he have significant current interests in Iraq, through the oil company he works for, but one of his co-workers at JPMorgan Chase bank (The new Bank of Iraq) happens to be a Mr. T. Blair!

You just can't make this stuff up!...it would all be a complete joke, if it wasn't so serious.

36

its a common claim that anyone who promotes the pro british interest or human rights for all is name called with anti-semitism. its a bearing false witness tactic described in the Hasbara handbook and one used by the israeli internet warfare team that has openly said the uk and the bbc in particular is a high priority target. Which isn't what a 'friend' would do?

to be pro british is not identical with being pro israel?
to call those who campaign for human rights for all as anti-semitic puts the israeli cause in a curious light? the logic would be that to be pro israel you have to be anti human rights for all?

in some cases merely stating facts is called antisemtic. because the uk states facts a lot its often said there is a rising tide of antisemitism. which reminds me of the climate scam how people stating facts are called 'deniers'.

the current battle over the soul of israel is between those who want human rights for all and those who do not. there are constant reports like this



jews promoting human rights for all get physically attacked on uk streets by those who wish to extend the discrimination.

given the number of those who in the political class have taken benefit of israeli gold it is no surprise the uk foreign policy relating to the middle east seems to have very little to do with uk national interest. Goldsmith even mentioned yesterday the defence of israel as a reason for uk invading iraq? look at the history of who have been the middle east advisers.

given brown, blair and cameron are patrons of the jnf that has discrimination polices that would be illegal in the uk one must say the fact is in the uk political class there is a bias against human rights for all. yet no one ever asks them about how they justify it. which is just part of the establishment curfew on the truth.

the whole point of the pro israeli rhetoric is to try, through jedi mindtrick sentence structures, to make people terrified of supporting human rights for all because they know their current govt polices could not survive in that atmosphere?

there are plenty of interests in the uk opposing human rights for all [e.g the monarchists] either through activism or merely remaining silent.

so if we wanted a just foreign policy we should be supporting human rights for all in all countries including firstly the uk. its just a fact that if you stand up for human rights for all you will be attacked by those who interests do not fit that 'nation building model'.

1984 IS DAILY MORE RELEVANT (#36)

They say the best place to hide something is in full view. We are also familiar with the double - even treble - agent, and 'sleepers'. Is the world so riddled with multi-layered agents - awake and sleeping - that it is impossible to deduce who is behind what? And, as in 1984, whether the words 'friend' 'confidant' 'independent' etc, now have no meaning?

I wonder if those who THINK they are manipulating us towards world governance, and subjugation, are REALLY being manipulated themselves?

#37 & 38...interesting comments!

An interesting rant!

RE: Watchers of the Iraq inquiry

What do you predict the outcome to be?

And do you think any prosecutions will take place?

#36 Thanks for your post and links Free they make very interesting reading, and point out facts I wasn't aware of.

To help put some of the #thirties posts in context those that can endure the far right for long enough to care should note that they have all at some point praised the damaged Jaded_jean.

As a hint that poster regularly ranted on about the Jewish hegemony and praised the actions of Hitler against an "internal political and economic threat" whilst denying that there was a Holocaust.

The statistics offered to support the ludicrous claims were so convincing that no court, such as the alleged Nazi war criminal Djemjanjuk, have ever cited them and Irving lost his case in Austria. The Holocaust was "made up to put people off statism" and this was done by leaders that that poster described as .... "statist". Crazy people!

So whilst nobody believes everything that the Israelis say they certainly won't believe a bunch of people who are too confused to even cite what their beliefs and philosophies are called.

Do you know the BNP, for all of its national Socialist supporters, is "not a Nazi party" it is a "modern and progressive party". So they days of the Nazi salutes in public are over.

Meanwhile nasty would be bombers lurk the streets like the ex-BNP guy who was caught will of the bombs and guns and terrorist literature and got eleven years.

I believe we still have the would-be "ricin" bomber to go, in the North East, in the current batch.

The courts should be really heavy handed with the far right crazy people.

Channel 4 had a piece on the Chilcott Inquiry where a QC pointed out that Dubya Bush had in fact said there WAS a deal at Crawford.

So why haven't the Chilcott white wash brigade stayed awake long enough to query Campbell and the other pillars of integrity?

In fairness I had forgotten myself but then I am not running an inquiry.

Will Chilcott seek any US documents that may shed light or are they intent on not finding any discrepancies.

#34 barriesingelton

"We mangled much of the world and now are reaping as we sowed. Hail MANGLA! Failed mongrel tribe, returning, beaten, to your own vomit!"

There is no shame in getting help.

#20 freemarketanarchy

"In light of the many posts by JadedJean on this blogsite in the past...what I listed to on the radio this afternoon tended to reinforce all of the opinions and thoughts that JadedJean made as being true and accurate!"

So as that poster suggested Hitler was a good guy and the Jews in 30's Germany were an "internal economic and political threat" and the nonsense science of race "realism" shows that there is a difference between the races in intelligence and National Socialism is more desirable than democracy. The "de-Nazification" of post WWII Britian was a bad thing?

That poster was not a Nazi but was a National Socialist? The Holocaust was made up by statists to put people off statism?
Those views are all tripe of course. It all makes you want to wash your hands thoroughly and be glad that the blows we all suffer in life have not twisted the soul so far that you could always focus your mind to banish such stupidity as opposed to promoting it.

I can't remember getting a response on Lord Haw Haw but I suppose that is sensitive ground what with the hanging n'all.

But overall you merit pity for your obviously servile devotion to one so blatantly flawed. But then think of Hitler in the thirties!

Sorry to rain on your parade.

THE BLAIR PHENOMENON - WHY IS IT ALWAYS FOOLS OR KNAVES? (#41)

Anyone who has lived a life of awareness, can see that Blair has been led, by desperate need, to his current caricature-life. That various high-flown organisations still seek him out - and pay him money - can mean one of two things: fools or knaves. This does not bode well for the future fortunes of the planet.

This is the Blair who will present himself at Chilcott. How can he possibly 'fail'? Only one event will galvanise this enquiry, such that Blair (et al) come under REAL threat - the emergence of a viable 'Wilmshurst' for the 9/11, smoke-and-mirrors, fiction.

The evidence taken by Chilcott, revealing to those who stayed awake a Blair-led den of dishonour (with appropriate denizens) is miniscule compared to the evidence available that 9/11 was contrived. When we remember that 'righteous' fury at the 9/11 'affront', led to the wars of aggression now being indulged in, the point is made.

Sadly, the obfuscation applied to 9/11 is prevailing - so far - and as decades pass, protestors can look more and more incongruous. One thing is sure: that 9/11 has still not exploded, shows the reach and penetration of WHATEVER FORCES want it so. Now there's a thought.

NB There has been NO Chilcott equivalent into 9/11, though the demand for one still rises. In the end, we will all come to love big Brother.

23 Ecolizzy

"#20 Yes free I did listen to that, I also thought Cohen was rooting for Blair very markedly so."

Lizzy, it's the PROPOSITIONS (sentences with logical truth-functionality) which matter and not the author.

NEVER MIND THE WIDTH - FEEL THE QUALITY (or lack of) (#47)

To broaden that out a bit: Never mind the APPARENT truth-functionality, assess the source for evidence of past lying venality. I know nothing of Cohen's track record in that area, or any other, my comment is a general one. To support it, I can assert that my study of Blair has shown me one must ALWAYS look behind the arras of 'his' words (whoever wrote them). I would go so far as to say this is also true of politicians in general.

To summarise: The AUTHOR (and the author's character/personality) exists prior to any generated sentences, whatever their content. Even arch knaves will speak truth - if it suits their purpose!

I was keen on an iPad, but found it wouldn't fit in my pocket.

Then I found there was yet more space. Seems I'm buying some more stuff; this time a few misunderstood souls some trinkets so they love me and mine more.

Sure they're good for it and have not popped back too far on British history.

If they did I fear 10th to 12th century codes of practice may yet appeal.

the attorney general should be in the Hague along with the rest of them..