Rant:
"They", whoever that is, but generally the folks that run the show, hate any realistic images of what war is really like. Thats why the US govt. tries to stop images of dead soldiers coming home. That's why there was an outcry in the 1st Gulf War when "The Observer" printed pictures of the carnge of the road to Basra, charred dead bodies etc.
Doesn't do morale any good.

So now there are pictures of British soldiers abusing prisoners.
As I asked earlier, what exactly do people think happens in a war?

The Bob Woodward book is starting to get some attention, and the bit about Colin Powell's warnings about getting involved in Iraq are being highlighted. In my 10th April post I talked about his misgivings, but missed the soundbite. He said to Dubya that it's like being in a china shop, "you break it, you own it". Watch out for this phrase over the next few weeks.

On the subject of the abuses at Abu Ghraith, apart from the fact that the pictures got published, why is anyone surprised? This kind of stuff happens in wars, abuse of prisoners, mutilating dead bodies, that's why anyone with 1/2 ounce of sense doesn't undertake military action unless it is completely unavoidable.

The real scandal of the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Graith is that some of the perpetrators appear to be those "private contractors" we keep being told about, and are therefore not subject to military law. This whole thing is becoming surreal. Is anyone in charge here?

Here is an article by Frank Gaffney. Read it you have the time, the guy is unbelievable (in both senses, firstly it's amazing anyone would have the gall to write such tosh, and second what he writes is literally unbelievable, ie you don't believe it).
http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200404300909.asp

How bizarre is this "Oil for food" scandal? The guy leading the witch hunt as appointed by the IGC (Iraqi governing council) is a close friend of the discredited fraudster Ahmed Chalabi. It seems to me that the whole thing is a smokescreen to attack the UN. the really wierd thing is that you'd have thought that Bush etc. would be trying to build bridges rather than blow them up. Doh!

I'm just listening to "Biko" by Peter Gabriel, both Steve Biko and Peter Gabriel are OK in my book. Thanks Si.

My candidate fo the "fuck of the week" award, Frank Gaffney. he's some kind of Republican spokesman for how it's all going well in Iraq. OK so someone has to do it, but his latest tactic is to attack Lakhdar Brahimi (UN special envoy on Iraq). Brahimi is seen by most impartial observers as a real force for good. When the Bush camp start to attack people like him, they really are desparate.

Michael Howard announces Tory party manifesto for European elections.
Who gives a shit?

It's not all bad, there are some good guys out there as well. To balance the negative posts, I'll also shout about the good guys. Bill Hicks was a good guy.

I need to keep repeating this.
just came accross an article from December 2003 where David Aaronovitch (one of the Iraq war supporters from the left of the political spectrum - see saturday April 10th post)
says "If Iraq becomes a democracy, the consequences for the rest of the Middle East would be profound. If it becomes a basket case, then people like me will owe the world an apology.
David"
I wonder what his timescale is?

The big story in the USA currently is that a famous young sports guy has been killed in the war. No, not that war, one of the other ones. So Americans are still being killed in Afghanistan. Where exactly is this all supposed to end?

Syria and Thailand.
Not good.

Jarvis, the company which maintains (?) the UK railways has been judged responsible for the Potters bar train crash, which killed several people. They tried for as long as possible to claim the crash was caused by sabateurs (very similar to the Ex govt. of Spain under Aznar desperately and irresponsibly trying to say the Madrid bomb was ETA)) but have finally been brought to book. The Conservative candidate in the upcoming election for Mayor of London, Steven Norris, has recently accepted the Chairmanship of Jarvis. How stupid is that. Does he think that nobody will notice?

"The letter urged him to influence the "doomed" US policy or stop backing it.

Just a day after reports that the UK was considering sending more troops, Mr Blair said there were "sufficient troops to do the job".

Sounds like impending equivocation to me.

Jack Straw defending the government against the Diplomats' letter was almost too candid. His defence was that we have no choice but to side with Bush, whatever ideological contortions are required. Now this is in the open, I cannot see the Blair/Bush axis lasting too much longer.

Blair and Berlusconi have just announced that they will not be sending more troops to Iraq. they say the situation there does not warrant it. Are they totally daft, or are they starting to distance themselves from Bush?

"Afghanistan has carried out its first execution since the fall of Taleban hardliners more than two years ago.
A former military commander convicted of murder was killed at a jail outside Kabul last week, it emerged on Tuesday.

Abdullah Shah received a single shot to the head after President Karzai gave his approval, the attorney general's office told the Associated Press.

Amnesty International, the human rights group, says Abdullah Shah was denied even basic standards of fairness. "

Just like Texas then.

Good article which seems to be a coded warning to Blair to ease away from Bush.
Read the article at www.guardian.co.uk
"Dear Sir,
The article in today's Guardian about the referendum on the European draft constitution was reasoned and well argued. I wonder however whether the article is intended to be solely about the constitution, or whether there is a sub-text about much broader policy issues. The authors castigate the opponents of the European project as "neo-liberal Thatcherite ideologues whose world view is seen through a neo-con lens", who have "a vision of foreign policy whose only leg is the US alliance". On the basis that the current US administration is widely seen as "neo-con" and that Tony Blair's current troubles over Iraq are widely perceived to be due to his complete acceptance of Bush's increasingly isolated position, I wonder whether this is actually a warning to Blair that he needs to rethink his entire foreign policy or risk losing any support from within the Labour party.
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Wills."
27/4/04

Here is a letter I sent to David Aaronovitch. No reply as yet.

"Dear David,
I have written a few letters to "The Guardian" about your reporting of the Iraq issue. None have been published, so you probably haven't seen them. I would really like to understand your position on the situation, so wondered whether a direct approach may achieve more. I was very much against the invasion of Iraq and was surprised at your strong suppport for it. Up until the invasion, your worldview (liberal, Internationalist, secular - civilized) coincided with mine completely. The stance you adopt in your piece in "The Observer" today is very much at odds, not only with Charles Kennedy and Henry Porter, but also it seems to me, with much informed opinion worldwide. You are not alone in this; Christopher Hitchens and Anne MacElvoy, both of whom I would normally feel close to politically, also beat the drum for Bush's policies. I am quite prepared to accept that my understanding of the Middle East is ill-informed, I just need to understand what it is that you know or percieve that I don't.
I hope you can find the time to reply, if you can't, no problem
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Wills."
18/4/04

It appears that Poland is thinking about pulling out of Iraq. where does that leave Rumsfeld's idiotic "New Europe" vs "old Europe" analysis?

I thought to keep the blog complete I would post my previous letters to the press.

"Dear Sir,
I was wondering when can we expect David Aaronovitch's analysis of Richard Clarke's testimony?
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Wills."
28/3/04

"Dear Sir,
David Aaronovitch's article in today's "Observer" (not entitled "was I right on Iraq?" as were his previous two articles) had me scratching my head. I had to re-read it twice to establish exactly what he was trying to say. He castigates Malcolm Rifkind (he's on your side Dave) for his, admittedly, opportunistic and disingenuous attack on Blair. He ridicules those who would have liked Blair to use his "influence" to change Dubya's stance on Iraq and Palestine, and he scoffs at the idea of Blair building a relationship with John Kerry (who he describes as "not even formally the Democratic Presidential nominee" - rearrange these words Dave "hostage" and "fortune"). Then we are told about how Blair is using his "influence" to steer Dubya towards involving the UN. Dave, if the USA has to keep on paying for this "nation building" in Iraq, it will bankrupt them. If they can find a way to get someone else to pay to clean up the unholy mess they've created, they aren't going to need much persuasion. Dave then addresses the June "handover of sovereignty". What does "sovereignty" mean ? According to Sun Yu and Niccolo Machiavelli the defining element of a "state" is the ability to defend the integrity of that state. Which army and police force will the nascent New Iraq be relying on? Will it be their own security apparatus? No, of course it won't,l such a thing doesn't exist. The ultimate authority (the threat of violence) will still be the US military. Dave then goes on to say that of course Bush and Sharon are wrong about Yassim (no-one thought he was Santa Claus Dave, don't mistake pragmatism for naivity) and the West Bank, and finishes back with Rifkind again for not doing anything about Srebrenica. Dave, what is your point exactly?
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Wills.
18/4/04

"Dear Sir,
I found the article about British Muslims in Today's "Observer" very interesting, and somewhat disturbing. Osama Saeed of the Muslim Association of Britain is quoted as saying that some British Muslims "carry the burden of struggles elsewhere - Palestine, Iraq and Kashmir". As we all know, Kashmir and Palestine have been at the heart of immense suffering (including 9/11) for 50 years now. So the effect of the Iraq fiasco is to that Muslims have another reason to resent Europe and America. What does David Aaronovitch think?
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Wills."
4/4/04

"Dear Sir,
Have the apologists for Aznar's frankly bizarre and politically cynical attempts to deny the obvious, and blame ETA for Thursday's outrage (Melanie Phillips, Tony Blair, David Aaronovitch - sorry Dave but I find your feeble attempts at justifying your ludicrous position on the "war" increasingly comical) considered that the time wasted trying pathetically to implicate the Basques, may have hindered not only the investigation into that atrocity, but also any attempt to use information on the real suspects in preventing further carnage - possibly in London.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Wills."
16/3/04

"Dear Sir,
The prompt dispatch of the Aznar government (Aznar's father was apparently a close friend of Franco - some pedigree!) is a refreshing sign of where ultimate political power lies. This should give Mr Blair paues for thought. However he should be more concerned that his only European ally in the absurd Iraq venture is Silvio Berlusconni. What does David Aaronovitch think?
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Wills."
15/3/04

"Dear Sir,
I see that a number of Oil Companies have pulled out of a conference on reconstucting the Iraqi oil industry, which is supposed to happen later this month in Basra. Understandably they will not to expose their employees to potential events like the Fallujah atrocity of last week. What does David Aaronovitch think?
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Wills."
4/4/04

Killing two birds with one stone, I've decided to post my the content of the e mails I send out to the press etc. That means I don't have to do the same rant twice. Here is one to "The Guardian".
"Dear Sir,
I was wondering what David Aaronovitch thinks of the 50 British ex-diplomats' (all served in the Middle East) letter to Tony Blair, a letter which expressed robustly, their views on the current situations in Iraq and Israel? I'm sure he's read about it.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Wills.

I haven't read Bob Woodwards book, but reading a review by Peter Preston in the Guardian, it appears that Colin Powell always strongly advised against the war with Iraq. The book quotes him as saying to Dubya that if the US invades Iraq they would be taking on the resonsibility for the everyday lives of 25 million people.
I think that's well put. Shame nobody listened.

Frank Skinner is a fuck.

This is the kind of thing that makes me really angry.

"The Pentagon has reacted angrily to the publication on US websites of photos of America's war dead arriving home.
Defence officials had banned publicity of the return of bodies from Iraq, but were forced to release images after a freedom-of-information court action."

What are you frightened of you liars, people realizing that wars kill people?

the new theme on the US right is that all this trouble with terrorism results from the Iranian revolution of 1979. Do these people not understand the Sunni/Shia divide? the Salafis hate the Shia. They are not connected. The West encouraged the Sunni Salafis to become ever more extreme in the proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan. Nothing to do with Iran (apart from the fact that as virulent anti-Shia they could fight a proxy war with Iran also.)

The New York Times today reports that "sovereignty in Iraq could be limited".
You don't say.

"Mr Straw argued that June 30 would be a "seminal" moment, when legal authority would move from the occupying forces to the transitional government, representing the Iraqi people."
See earlier blog regarding "sovereignty"

Saw this in a letter on the BBC website.
"Once the Americans have secured the future of the country (Iraq) then the pathetic UN will roll in and try and take the credit for themselves.
Phillip, expat France"
What a fuckwit.

The cost of the Iraq campaign is costing the USA US$4.7 billion per month. That's US$56.4 billion per year. That's a lot of schools and hospitals.

I just found an amazing webpage on some idiot site called CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) where Pat Robertson (remember Pat?) debates with 2 retired Army guys the "war on terror". What is stunning is the level of ignorance these guys have about everything they discuss. I hope these Christian right fools don't have any input into Dubya's worldview, but I suspect that they might. Check it out and laugh and cry.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/040419a.asp

Any Iranian involvement would risk not just a Sunni/Shia civil war in Iraq, but potentially a regional religious war. Saudi Arabia has virulently anti Shia militants in abundance, part of the Salafi creed of the extreme Wahhabis is to kill Shia as apostates. As regards Pakistan, Ramzi Yousseff (1993 WTC bomber) and Khaled (supposed Al Qaeda operations head) both come from Baluchistan in Pakistan, and honed their fanaticism on Pakistani Shia and attacks on Shia over the border in Iran. There are therefore many potential recruits for a jihad against the Shia. The Blair bush needs to tread very carefully here in my view.

It seems that Iran is threatening intervention in Iraq if the "coalition" attacks Najaf or Kerbala. That is not good news at all.

I just came accross an article from December 2003 where David Aaronovitch (one of the Iraq war supporters from the left of the political spectrum - see saturday April 10th post)
says "If Iraq becomes a democracy, the consequences for the rest of the Middle East would be profound. If it becomes a basket case, then people like me will owe the world an apology.
David"
I wonder what his timescale is?

Mordechai Vanunu, good guy or bad guy?
In my view, a good guy. Anyone that puts themselves at risk attempting to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction deserves our thanks. however I wonder what GWB thinks? I imagine that stopping Israel getting such weapons is not the same to him as stopping Iraq, Iran, Syria etc. etc.

This is what I said about Kurds the other day.
"Reading an article by some fuck from the "Heritage Foundation" (see earlier blog) about how our (ie the "coalition") only friends in Iraq are the Kurds, it suddenly struck me that, (coincidentally) we seem to be allying ourselves with the group that will end up with all the oil.(Look at the location of the major oilfields in Iraq)."
- posted by Stephen @ 5:42 PM

Once again I'm confused. I just heard that the 10 people arrested in Manchester on suspicion of terrorist acts are North Africans and Iraqi Kurds. Referring back to my posting a couple of days ago, aren't the Kurds in Iraq the only ones that are on our side? Don't tell me we've picked the wrong friends again. (Afghan Mujahadin freedom fighters, plucky Chechens, courageous Uzbek people boilers)

Does anyone else think that Blair's decision to hold a referendum on the European Constitution now may be connected to the fact that the public perception is currently that the USA is letting us down? (Sheikh Yassim, West Bank etc.) If you want to get people in a European friendly mindset, now would be the time.

I just saw on the BBC news website, that 10 US servicemen have been killed "this weekend". It doesn't appear on the CNN website. 10 young people killed and that isn't news?

I'm not sure how this 30th June "transfer of sovereignty" in Iraq works.
There is no Iraqi army or police force, so obviously the "coalition" forces can't leave otherwise there would be anarchy (remember Afghanistan in the 1990's) Therefore the ultimate power is in the hands of the "coalition" forces. So if the "sovereign" authority wants to do something which the US disagrees with, what happens?

I'm not sure how this 30th June "transfer of sovereignty" in Iraq works.
There is no Iraqi army or police force, so obviously the "coalition" forces can't leave otherwise there would be anarchy (remember Afghanistan in the 1990's) Therefore the ultimate power is in the hands of the "coalition" forces. So if the "sovereign" authority wants to do something which the US disagrees with, what happens?

I'm not sure how this 30th June "transfer of sovereignty" in Iraq works.
There is no Iraqi army or police force, so obviously the "coalition" forces can't leave otherwise there would be anarchy (remember Afghanistan in the 1990's) Therefore the ultimate power is in the hands of the "coalition" forces. So if the "sovereign" authority wants to do something which the US disagrees with, what happens?

I'm not sure how this 30th June "transfer of sovereignty" in Iraq works.
There is no Iraqi army or police force, so obviously the "coalition" forces can't leave otherwise there would be anarchy (remember Afghanistan in the 1990's) Therefore the ultimate power is in the hands of the "coalition" forces. So if the "sovereign" authority wants to do something which the US disagrees with, what happens?

I'm not sure how this 30th June "transfer of sovereignty" in Iraq works.
There is no Iraqi army or police force, so obviously the "coalition" forces can't leave otherwise there would be anarchy (remember Afghanistan in the 1990's) Therefore the ultimate power is in the hands of the "coalition" forces. So if the "sovereign" authority wants to do something which the US disagrees with, what happens?

I'm not sure how this 30th June "transfer of sovereignty" in Iraq works.
There is no Iraqi army or police force, so obviously the "coalition" forces can't leave otherwise there would be anarchy (remember Afghanistan in the 1990's) Therefore the ultimate power is in the hands of the "coalition" forces. So if the "sovereign" authority wants to do something which the US disagrees with, what happens?

Reading an article by some fuck from the "Heritage Foundation" (see earlier blog) about how our (ie the "coalition") only friends in Iraq are the Kurds, it suddenly struck me that, (coincidentally) we seem to be allying ourselves with the group that will end up with all the oil.(Look at the location of the major oilfields in Iraq).

What does Tony Blair do now? the rest of Europe (probably excluding Berlusconi) is unimpressed by Bush's acceptance of Sharon's new initiative. Will Tone bring it up with Dubya in NYC? Will he support Europe or Bush?

Regarding Bush's pre 911 priorities, the way I see it, a "Star Wars" type missile defence system isn't much use when people fly airlplanes into buildings. Iraq was never going to be involved in an attack on the USA (about as likely as ETA killing 200 people in Madrid) because it would result in the annahilation of Saddam's regime. The London evening Standard tonight has an article by Tom Mangold (friend of David Kelly - therefore commie fuck) suggesting that a soon to be published book about 911 might say that the scrambled fighters (to intercept hi-jacked aircraft) wouldn't have had live munitions anyway.

John Negroponte as US Ambassador to Iraq.

Hi,
I see that not only are the Americans blaming each other (CIA/FBI Bush/Clinton) for 911, but now the US are saying it's the Brits fault for not sending the information about Moussaoui (the so called 20th hijacker). That's the guy arrested in August 2001in the USA for learning to fly without wanting to take off or land. On september 12th 2001 they checked his computer and guess who was all over it?

The theme for today in the press seems to be about the civilian "heroes" being killed by the enemy in Iraq. Now I don't know any of these people, and they are probably decent human beings. However, they are going to Iraq as "security consultants" which as far as I can make out, means private soldiers, paid by the corporations working in Iraq because there aren't enough real (ie Armed forces personnel) soldiers to protect their operations. The pay for such a job (only ex-services with combat training need apply - this is dangerous work) is apperently £1,000 per day (US$ 1,800). Now as I said, I have nothing against these guys, but let's be honest, they aren't innocent do-gooders, there is a war going on, and to portray "our side" as social workers and the other side as devils is daft. As for the Japanese aid workers, words can't describe what they and their families must be going through. This disgusting mess should not have happened.

Oh and by the way, I see that Colin Powell has now said that the biological WMD trucks that were somewhere in Iraq and were proof that we needed to do something about Saddam, didn't actually exist. Nice one Colin, I knew that when I watched your speech to the UN, where you used some line drawings of purported mobile laboratories to justify killing thousands of people.

Of course that bit about Condi's appearance before the 9/11 commission, and the key PDB should have read "August 6th 2001" and not "April" - we all make mistakes. (although in my defence, I would say that my mistake hasn't destabilised the world) The August 6th PDB was entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States", the Bush administration is saying that this document was merely an anaysis of Al Qaeda's historical antipathy fo the USA. Sorry? Read those words again BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE (note the word "inside") THE UNITED STATES. I don't think anyone would be so unreasonable as to claim that the US administration should have known the when and where of the WTC attack, however, upon reciept of a document with that title, if I were in the driving seat, Iwould have put the missile defense system (Reagan's pet project, and incidentally one which would involve defence contractors making a fortune) and the vendetta against Saddam on the back burner.

Something that's puzzled me is the support for the Iraq war from people normally considered to be "of the left". David Aaronovitch who writes for "The Guardian" and "The Observer" is a good example. He claims that this position is based on his meetings with Iraqi students whilst at University, and the stories they told him about repression in Iraq. Grow up David.

This is my brother Simon, say Hi.

Jack Straw on the anniversary of the Saddam statue being pulled down, said nobody expected that the situation would deteriorate to the extent it has done 12 months later. He is either a liar or an idiot. One of the the reasons that so many people were anti-war was that the Sunni/Shia/Kurd dynamic made war very foolhardy and dangerous. Who was advising Jack? The Teletubbies?

So Condi did quite well. Loved her comment about democracy, "when the founding fathers talked about the people, they didn't mean me" (So how come you became a Republican?)
Looks like the April 6th memo is going to become the issue.

Big day for Condoleezza Rice (crazy name, crazy gal) can't wait to see what she has to say. Also, I see that Musharraf (Pakistani President) is saying that Iraq has diverted funds and time from the search for Al Qaeda in the Northwest Frontier Province.

Saw an ex US army guy on TV last night, sayiong that any reinforcements in Iraq (not needed so they said a couple of days ago) should be UN provided. the cheek of these people is staggering.

So it's only the Kurds who are still onside then. Let's hope they don't see their opportunity and start agitating for secession. After all they would own most of the oilfields (around Mosul) and could therefore afford to export any nationalist aspirations to the Kurdish minority in Turkey, Iran and Syria.

I almost forgot two premium quality liars, Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel. What a pair!

Another classic dissembler is Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail. What a loon.

Further to yesterday's idea of a ridiculous lie (Al Qaeda supporting the Shia) apparently the Sunnis in Iraq (who are not Shia-hating salafi jihadists, yet have often been in conflict with the Iraqi Shia) today pledged their support for the Shia against the occupying forces. As Robert Fisk said, in 1923 it took 3 years for the Shia and Sunni to join forces against the occupiers (then the British) it's taken under a year this time. "Liberate the Iraqi people"?

Just a quick addition to the supreme liars list, "The Heritage Foundation" a right wing US think tank. www.heritage.org Check it out.

Hi,
Check out this link:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/03/1080941715525.html
It is a link to a fascinating article by a US intelligence analyst about the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

Hey, I've just invented a ridiculous lie! The Shia in Southern Iraq are being aided by Al Qaeda. let's see if any of the liars try and pull that one.

Another thing really pisses me off is when the Blair bush drones on about Saddam "killing his own people" in 1988 as justification for the current war. He was our friend then you silly bastards, we probably sold him the gas.

"Who is Going to Pay for the Bush $6 Trillion Spending Spree?

Widening the White House’s growing credibility gap, a new report released today by John Kerry for President reveals that President Bush has proposed or passed $6 trillion in new, unpaid initiatives during the first three years of his administration. The report shows that while the President and administration officials have publicly touted their commitment to fiscal discipline, they were quietly pushing trillions of dollars in unpaid proposals that have resulted in skyrocketing deficits and contributed to state budget deficits across the country."

This is all "war on terror" spending.
See what I mean, liars and cheats is what these people are.

Hi there. this is my first blog. I get angrier and angrier about the lies we are told everyday by those in power. what really inflames me is that some of the lies require such suspension of disbelief, its insulting that they think we might fall for it. For example, an avowedly secular Arab state (Iraq) joining forces with Sunni fundamentalists, one of whose grievences was that they we not allowed to fight against Saddam in the first Gulf War. (Al Qaeda) Or how about Gaddafy's WMD programme? 6 or seven steel tubes as far as I could see, but it made the Blair bush look good. And Lockerbie, they tell us that Libya did it. No they fucking didn't! Or how about the improving situation in Iraq? The US will be out of there at the end of June? I don't think so you liars, you're there for some time yet Dubya. Mind you we all told him that in the first place. Ahmed Chalabi the Iraqi "businessman" who gave the Blair bush all their information about WMD, Al Qaeda etc. Plausible witness? no in fact a fraudster. More when I get pissed off again.