The Iranians are starting to flex their muscles, Saudi Arabia is going down the pan, who could have foreseen such an outcome?

I didn't know until this week that Ahmad Chalabi is a Shia. Shouldn't that have made the Pentagon wary of his "intelligence" about the Sunni Ba'athist regime?

The rift widens. It is not legally possible for the US govt. to guarantee that they won't execute Abu Hamza, and it's not legally possible for the UK govt. to extradite him to the US without absolute certainty that the death penalty won't be applied. should be interesting.

I bet Tony Blair is delighted that the Israeilis have arrested a British journalist, the guy who originally broke the Vanunu story.
Just what he needs.

So we are going to hand over (sorry about the "hand" pun) Abu Hamza to the US? He seems a bit of a wanker, however as Jason Burke said,to suggest that he is anything other than a rabble rousing fool is to massively overstate his importance. Do we have enough confidence in the current US human rights regime to extradite a British citizen to the US on these kind of charges?

Another of my letters to The Guardian. David Aaronovitch actually sent me a reply to this. Which was nice.

"Dear Sir,
I notice that life in Iraq appears to be worsening daily. Is it fair then, that David Aaronovitch only has one column per week in which to enlighten us as to the reality of the situation? Do we have to wait until next week to get the real story behind Chalabi? After his masterful dissection of Susan Sontag's article, I'm not sure that I can wait that long.
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Wills,"

David's reply was:

"I don't, Stephen. You can read me in the Observer as well. There, I bet
that made your day.
Best wishes,
David A"

I then wrote back saying this.

"Thanks for replying David. I do read you every week in "The Observer" but
thought the point was better made by reference to your Guardian column only.
What would make my day would be to understand how a highly educated,
liberal, European journalist ends up siding with George W. Bush against
Susan Sontag.
Once again, thanks for taking the trouble to reply.
Kind regards,
Stephen.

With all respect to Tony Blair, is he really saying that an order from the Iraqi "government" that placed British soldiers at risk would be obeyed. Where do you draw the line Tony? That's the question.

Contributors to Rush (big fat junkie idiot) Limbaugh's nazi hour radio show were opining on the Abu Ghraib photos. The general consensus was that what whas happening was just some frat-boy skull and bones type fun. Oh dear oh dear.

More from the "you couldn't make it up" section. The theory now in the CIA and the State Department is that Iran employed Ahmad Chalabi (see earlier posts)to dupe the US neo-cons into getting rid of Saddam so that Iraq would become part of a greater Shia power bloc giving Iran a vast amount of regional influence. Nice one Dubya!

Apologies to my readers ((mainly my Dad and Brother), for lack of posts I've been in France enjoying the sun. Once again, it has to be said that however cynical you are, however bad you thought things were, those pictures of the US woman soldier grinning with the thumbs-up next to the Iraqi who'd been beaten to death were far beyond my worst nightmares. It's like someone taking pleasure from decapitating a hostage.

I wonder about Aaronovitch and the other "liberal interventionists". Did they succumb to that American style "if we say it it will be so"? Nothing else can explain their inability to foresee the mess they have helped to create.

What will be the effect of the beheading of Nicholas Berg on the US forces? More revenge leading to more abuse leading to more atrocities against civilians leading to more revenge etc. etc. etc.

So Jack Straw is now privately briefing against the US administration for the abuses, and against Blair for being a tosser.
Not long now eh Tony?

Todays letter to "The Guardian"

Dear Sir,
Can David Aaronovitch explain what exactly the "liberal interventionists" as he describes himself, (and presumably Anne Clwyd and Anne McElvoy) expected from an alliance with a US administration widely held to be the most right wing of recent years, which administration seems to be run by the religious right and ne-con idealogues? Did he not foresee problems from such an alliance? More to the point, should not Tony Blair have had the political nous to realise that his blind support for Bush would result in a situation where we become tarred with the same brush as the US by world, and more importantly, Middle Eastern opinion?
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Wills.

It had to happen. A US Republican senator has condemned the "liberal do-gooders" interfering in the good work of "our heroes". Oh dear.

David Aaronovitch has coined an expression for supporters of the war from the left of the political spectrum such as him and presumably Anne Clwyd and Tony Blair (left?), "liberal interventionists". OK but what did "liberals" think they would gain from an alliance with the "most right wing US administrations for generations", run by the religious right and by nea-con ideologues?

I've been doing some background reading on Islamist militants and have been surprised to find that the only "Al Qaeda" type organisation (Salafi Jihadists) in pre-invasion Iraq was Ansar ul-Islam. They are based in Iraqi Kurdistan and seem to be a Kurdish group. Aren't the Kurds supposed to be on our side?

Couldn't resist this.

"Dear Sir,
How refreshing to see a column (David Aaronovitch "The Observer" Sunday May 9th) where the writer is able to avoid the situation in Iraq, and cheer us all up with a witty and highly relevant article about the last episode of "Friends" the feelgood American TV sitcom. There is too much bad news these days! Well done David.
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Wills."

David Aaronovitch's weekly column in "The Observer" yesterday was all about "Friends", the TV show. You'd have thought that David would have more pressing matters to write about.

Geoff Hoon now claims not to have seen the ICRC report.
So the Defence minister didn't foresee, and have some contingency plan in place for a public relations fuck-up of this magnitude? Fool or liar Geoff. Which is it?

Barbara Amiel, judging global opinion as incisively as ever, says of the Iraq abuse issue that you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Apparently Conrad Black turns out to be a "racketeer".

Apparently Conrad Black turns out to be a "racketeer".

Iknow it's an old concept, but either Bush and Blair really didn't know about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq - in which case they're incompetent, or they did know and are now telling lies. You can't have it both ways guys. Either way I'd suggest that they are unfit for the offices they hold.

Lynndie England. (where do they get these names). She comes from the same town as Jessica Lynch. How ironic is that.

Isolated incidents or routine policy?

Robert Kilroy-Silk.
Why?

My partner Debbie likes the travel section of the Saturday edition of "The Daily Telegraph". It always gives me a chortle when I read the paper. Todays edition is almost entirely taken up with articles saying that Rumsfeld is a good guy, or relating stopries about the writer's friendship with ""Debo" and Andrew Devonshire.
Anne Robinson's fawning deferential drivel is a classic.

Bearing in mind the Iranian government's position on any military action in Najaf and Kerbala,(see earlier post) does the UK really want to become the occupying authority there?

So it's all down to a 21 year old girl from a trailer park in West Virginia.
That's a relief.

And again.

"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 (Aaronovitch)

The split widens. Can Blair reposition himself and hook up with Colin Powell, allowing both to regain some credibility?

I mocked Jack Straw in a previous post for saying "we didn't know it would get this bad". I now have to admit the same thing. This current situation is beyond anything I contemplated. The "bad apple" theory is being seriously questioned by the smart money (Robert Fisk) and the appalling prospect is that the US will be shown to routinely use these tactics to "soften up" prisoners. That will not be good. Whilst the more cynical among us will say "and..?" most people honestly don't know what goes on in a war against an enemy that you can't identify, and will be shocked by the reality.

I'm starting to get very angry with the "it would be worse if Saddam was still in power" idiots.

Just to remind David Aaronovitch again:

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"

Dave?

Looks like the rift between Colin Powell and the neo-cons is getting bigger. Powell's pals are starting to go public over his unease about Iraq (see previous posts). Apparently he is embarrased by the absurd presentation he had to give to the UN ( line drawings of possible biological weapons trucks which may or may not exist - "we don't know exactly where they are there are a lot of roads in Iraq"). So he should. Rumsfeld is seriously damaged by the Abu Ghraib issue and looks vulnerable. Is Dubya starrting to look isolated?

So what is really going on? Is the abuse of Iraqi prisoners simply a few "bad apples" or is it, as is being suggested in some quarters, standard interrogation procedure to soften up suspects for interrogation? If the latter is the case, then admit it. An article in the Guardian by Henry Porter makes disturbing reading. His book "Empire State" gives chilling examples of the methods used in interrogation, and the vile newspeak used to descibe these methods, an order to military police to "set favourable conditions for subsequent interviews" or to "facilitate interrogation by setting conditions" meant that they should beat up the prisoner to make him maleable in interrogation. Liberate the Iraqi people?

The Aaronovitch/Clwyd/etc. axis is arguing that the abuses happening at Abu Ghraib are better than things were there under Saddam. Difference is, Saddam was an Iraqi so it was an internal problem. now it has become very external.

Anne Clwyd. what a dupe.

So Tony Blair is now apeing Thatcher's speeches (discord/harmony etc.). he is obviously now mad.

If the pictures of UK forces abusing prisoners are fakes, and I'm quite prepared to accept that it's a possibility, who on earth stands to gain? The only possible beneficiary is the Salafi's. Is it possible that they've infiltrated the British army and used sleepers to concoct the pictures and get them published in "The Mirror" newspaper?

Following Dave's ridiculous article in today's Observer, I felt I had to write.
"Dear Sir,
The article in today's Observer "The horrors we don't see" by David Aaronovitch continues his increasingly petulant defence of his stance on the Iraq war. Apparently we should balance our feelings of revulsion about the posssible mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US and British forces by remembering that some Arab governments routinely torture suspects. He further enlightens us by asserting that had we not invaded Iraq, worse things would be being done at Abu Ghraib by Saddam. This may or may not be the case. However, even if it is, the outrages would not be being commited by my government, ostensibly in my name. That is my problem David.
Kind regards,
Stephen Wills."

Regarding Blairs statement about the soldiers who abused prisoners not being representitive of the armed services as a whole. I agree, these people are barbarians, and not all forces personnel are barbarians. However it is a well known fact that you don't go to certain pubs in Colchester or Aldershot on a Saturday night.

How about all these "polls" that keep being publicised saying the Iraqis are dancing in the streets every day at their good fortune in being occupied? Really?