Monday, May 23, 2005

Please watch this BBC PANORAMA presentation

With US Congressman John Conyers Jr. having presented his letter with 89 signatures of Congressmen and women to pResident Bush demanding explanation as to the British memo which appeared in The Sunday Times, the PANORAMA programme Iraq, Tony & the Truth, BBC 1, on Sunday, 20 March 2005, 22:15 GMT had already presented this information in their programme.

This shows that Tony Blair is a bare-faced liar, however much Robin Cook tries to give Blair the benefit of the doubt.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

George Galloway - 3 CHEERS

I listened with rapt attention as Respect Member of the British Parliament, George Galloway, tore apart American politicians as he answered charges that he had received money in the Oil for Food Scandal. Only two members of the Senate Committee turned up to interview George Galloway - the rest ran scared as they knew that George would not let them get away unscathed.

The full transcript of his opening statement is available on the Times Online Galloway v the US Senate: transcript of statement

If you want to listen to the full audio of his testimony you can do so with this BBC LINK

Here are some gems from his opening statement:

"On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.

"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.

"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his."

"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.

"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.

"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.

"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.

"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.

"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.

"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime."

Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.

“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.

"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.

"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."

And if you want to listen to a great liberal talk show host on George Galloway's performance as he chastises the US spineless Democrats, you can listen to it in the archives of Benburch's White Rose Society for the Mike Malloy Show for Tuesday May 17th 2005.

Thank you Mike, Thank you George.

Sunday, May 15, 2005

Closing US bases and savings?

The Pentagon has announced that it's closing 33 military bases, realigning 29, in the US, resulting in a saving of sdome US $49 billion over the next decade.

On the other hand the US is building and will open 14 new bases in Iraq.


Saturday, May 14, 2005

Hypocrisy on "War on Terror"

Cuba 'bomber' sought by Venezuela

BBC reports how a terrorist is being given sanctuary by the US Administration.

Declassified FBI documents say Mr Posada Carriles spent time working for the CIA during the 1960s, and blame him for the bombing.

The 1976 explosion on a flight from Caracas to Havana killed 73 people.

The Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, has been campaigning for the US to hand over Mr Posada Carriles.

He claims that the US war on terror will lose credibility if its government refuses to act against an alleged terrorist on its own soil.

Now you understand the meaning of the word "HYPOCRISY".

What if the Cubans exercise their right to pursue and kill suspected terrorists - just as the US is doing with untried Muslims?

US pResident rides his bicycle

Washington D. C., the capital of the US, was under threat by a small plane that wandered into its air space, fighter jets were scrambled, a Blackhawk helicopter was scrambled, the wife of the pResident was taken to secure facilities, 35,000 people were evacuted,...,. and the Commander-in-Chief of the American forces was out riding his bicycle through the rural wildlands of Maryland, and no one bothered to inform him of the situation!?!

There was a question and answer session with Press Secretary Scott McClellan at his daily briefing the day after the event. There was one question which sums up that even his own staff think that the US pResident is an imbecile.

Q: Right, but there seems to be so many disconnects here. You've got a plane that was assessed as not being a threat, you've got 35,000 people evacuated, you've got a person who you claim is a hands-on commander in chief who is left to go ride his bicycle through the rural wildlands of Maryland while his wife is in some secure location somewhere, it's just not adding up.

Great country - the US!!

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

A simpler way to rid us of Blair

The headlines in BBC said Blair backers reject quit calls ended with this:

A bid to oust Mr Blair as party leader would require a challenger to have the backing of 20% of Labour MPs - 71 out of the 355 elected on Thursday.

A vote would then take place at Labour conference involving an electoral college divided into three - MPs, constituency parties and unions.

I do not think this would be the wisest route knowing the Blair supporters moves to ensure that they would win this.

A simpler and quicker method is to cause the collapse of a couple of contentious bills in Parliament, making it abundantly clear that Blair is a lame duck Prime Minister unable to control the Whip.

With just 34 MPs (instead of the 71) required to do this along with a co-ordinated Opposition - Blair will have to tail it to high heaven "yesterday".

Sunday, May 08, 2005

No 10 in shambles. Utter cock-up...

UK politics is predictably in total chaos. This was the most predictable result of a Labour win with Blair still at the helm. Already Blair is trying desperately to hang on to power despite him being a liability on the Labour front bench, let alone as the Prime Minister, where he will be a disasater.

As a Leopard cannot change its spots, it is not possible for a liar and schemer to change them - other than do some window dressing.

Cabinet defies Blair in power struggle
By Andy McSmith and Francis Elliott
The Independent
08 May 2005

(Emphasis mine)
"But the most furious arguments behind the scenes were over the role of David Blunkett, whom the Prime Minister was determined to bring back to the Cabinet just six months after his resignation. Mr Blair wanted Mr Blunkett to take charge of local government, part of the remit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

"Blunkett basically wanted John Prescott's job, and John assigned to a role of Deputy Prime Minister without departmental responsibility," a senior minister said. "John would have found it very hard to work with 'Blunks'."

The former Home Secretary was briefly considered for the job of health secretary before being made Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. "It was a typical No 10 shambles. Utter cock-up," one senior figure said last night."

Father, Son and Holy Ghost

Father, Son and Holy Ghost

Father, Son and Holy Ghost

Blair's survival chances

Many of you who remember my previous blog presentations will know how I advised Charles Kennedy of the Liberal Democrats not to stand candidates against Labour and Conservative candidates who were Anti War.

If Charles Kennedy had listened to that advice, the Liberal Democrats would have been in total ascendency at this moment.

Here is an imporetant quote from an analysis today in the BBC website

Labour rebels target Blair
By Steve Schifferes
BBC News website reporter

"That analysis suggests that there 37 hard-core rebels (who rebelled on all four key issues in the last Parliament, including student tuition fees, foundation hospitals, Iraq, and the prevention of terrorism act), and another 29 soft rebels, who voted against the government on at least two of those four issues.

Only two hard-core Labour rebels were among the 47 Labour MPs who lost their seats - John Cryer in Hornchurch and Phil Sawford in Kettering, although several more (such as Brian Sedgemore, who defected to the Lib Dems) stood down at the last election.

Without this group Blair is paralyzed as the Prime Minister and Charles Kennedy would have been calling the shots on almost every issue that came up in Parliament and also who was the next Prime Mnister of the UK.

Here is a case of a leader without a far enough vision. It would be prudent for Charles Kennedy to now give up his position as the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Saturday, May 07, 2005

Progressive Democrats of America

Progressive Democrats of America Make National Call of Support for Congressional Letter Demanding Investigation of British Intelligence Leak on Iraq Invasion Strategy

(WASHINGTON, DC) — Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, has released a letter signed by 88 fellow Representatives. The letter demands an investigation into the revelation that the American and British governments colluded secretly to manipulate intelligence as a means of justifying a decision to invade Iraq that had already been made.

The Conyers letter and names of the House signatories

The revelations came on Monday, May 2nd by way of a report published in the London Telegraph, which described a leaked British intelligence memo from July of 2002. The memo, stamped “Secret,” described concerted efforts by both British and American officials to “fix intelligence and facts around the policy.” The policy in question was the invasion of Iraq. The memo noted specifically that the invasion would be illegal if a justification were not found or created.

The London Times report can be read here:
The Sunday Times - Britain
May 01, 2005
Blair planned Iraq war from start
by Michael Smith

The British memo in question can be read here:

The Sunday Times - Britain
May 01, 2005
The secret Downing Street memo

Rep. Conyers’ letter specifically notes that the secret British memo includes revelations that:

· Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush’s plans for invading Iraq.

· British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was “thin” as “Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran.”

· A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to “create” conditions to justify a war.

· A British official “reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

The information revealed by this memo, which has not been denied by either the American or British governments, confirms accusations by a wide variety of ‘whistleblowers’ who have accused the Bush administration of manufacturing evidence for war against Iraq. Among these are:

· Richard Clarke, former White House Counter-Terrorism Czar, who accused the administration of using the September 11 attacks to justify an Iraq invasion, thus creating the political cover described in the British memo.

· Tom Maertens, National Security Council director for nuclear non-proliferation for both the Clinton and Bush White House, backed up Clarke's story with his own eyewitness testimony.

· Roger Cressey, Clarke's former deputy, who witnessed one of the most damning charges that has been leveled against the administration by Clarke: They blew past al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks, focusing instead on Iraq.

· Donald Kerrick, a three-star General who served as deputy National Security Advisor under Clinton and stayed for several months in the Bush White House, likewise saw this happening.

· Paul O'Neill, former Treasury Secretary for George W. Bush, was afforded a position on the National Security Council because of his job as Treasury Secretary, and sat in on the Iraq invasion planning sessions which were taking place months before the attacks of September 11. Those planning sessions kicked into high gear when the Towers came down.

· Greg Thielmann, former Director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Issues in the State Department, who was stunned to see the White House use the 'uranium from Niger' war justifications that had been so thoroughly debunked.

· Joseph Wilson, former ambassador and career diplomat, who personally debunked the uranium story after traveling to Niger to investigate the claims.

The most damning testimony regarding "fixing intelligence and facts around the policy" came from Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski in a 2004 interview with Salon magazine.

The Kwiakatowski interview with Salon can be read here:

The new Pentagon papers
By Karen Kwiatkowski

Kwiatkowski worked in the office of Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, and worked specifically with a secretive Pentagon organization run by Feith called the Office of Special Plans. Kwiatkowski reported: "From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq."

"I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy," continued Kwiatkowski, "favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies. I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president."

Progressive Democrats of America stands with Rep. Conyers and the 88 House members who are signatories to his letter and demands that a full and complete investigation be immediately undertaken into this matter.

# # #

Progressive Democrats of America is one of the fastest growing political organizations in the country. PDA is currently active in all 50 states. PDA was formed to provide a counter-balance inside the Democratic Party to the Democratic Leadership Council. PDA has a national policy board of noteworthy thought leaders who are formulating the true Progressive position on issues of national security, economic progress, shared prosperity, sustainable ecology, equality for all and a peaceful, just future. Learn more about Progressive Democrats of America by visiting: PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS OF AMERICA.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Tanking of US economy snowballing

The recent headline in Yahoo Strict US visa policy scares away students, investors just shows that the US is becoming the pariah nation of this planet.

The US economy depends on the regular flow of people - tourists, industrialists, students, families - and the present administration with its "Bolton-like" behaviour is ensuring that any sensible thinking person does not want to come to the US unless absolutely necessary.

Who wants to be denigrated because of US Administration paranoia?

Best advice - stay away from the US if you can.

Let them stew in their own juices!!

Monday, May 02, 2005

Would you trust your secrets with this organisation?

First para from redacted document

First para from redacted US Military document (Click to see it clearly)

The picture above is taken from the document I just downloaded - the Unclassified version of the document released by the US Military about
"all the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident at a Traffic Control Point (TCP) in Baghdad, Iraq on 4 March 2005 that resulted in the death of Mr. Nicola Calipari and the wounding of Ms. Giuliana Sgrena and Mr. Andrea Carpani. Lieutenant Colonel Richard Thelin,..."

The words within the inverted commas are copied and pasted directly from the pdf document. If you look at the document which was released the words in bold were redacted by the US Military.

All I had to do was copy the redacted words and paste them in this document - and hey presto, I have the names showing up here.

Would you trust your nations secrets with this set of goons!!

Will any heads roll for this goof up?

This is the American miltiary - a bunch of GOONS as can be seen by how their ass is being whipped by a bunch of insurgents in Iraq.