Reflecting on: Beautiful

Spread the love

There is a tradition of denoting something by it’s opposite. Marilyn Manson’s ‘Beautiful People’ for all those that died on 7 July 2005 from many different religions and belief systems ~ indeed actually more than that ~ the day after Dubya’s bicycle accident on his birthday. Robin Cooke wrote about 7/7 shortly before he died on Ben Stack.

Then there’s kaleidoscope.  the word “kaleidoscope” is derived from the Ancient Greek καλ(ός) (beauty, beautiful), είδο(ς) (form, shape) and -σκόπιο (tool for examination)—hence “observer of beautiful forms.” Who was it that mentioned “kaleidoscope” (and “tea and biscuits”)?

Continue ReadingReflecting on: Beautiful

Coming soon

Spread the love

I will be looking at one of the victims of  7/7

Helena Katherine Jones

Almost as if she was a chosen victim, isn’t it? … a successful human rights lawyer … active in opposition to Blair & Co’s Iraq war

… but how is that possible … if they were attacks by suicide bombers?

 

 

Continue ReadingComing soon

Past, Present and Future, etc # living document revision 0.0.0.1

Spread the love

A living document which will have many revisions and is expected to grow very large. To consider the London explosions of 7 July 2005, the official response – particularly the actions of Ian Blair, the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, the relationship to the wider war on terror and both Iraq wars instigated by the Bushes – Gog and Magog, role of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, etc.

Continue ReadingPast, Present and Future, etc # living document revision 0.0.0.1

Yet more confirmation that Tony Blair is a lying, divorced-from-reality war-mongering little shit

Spread the love

The Independent confirms that the interests of UK’s oil companies was central to Bliar & Co while they were publically lying and promoting some bullshit smokescreen about weapons of mass destruction, killing his own people – as if USUK wouldn’t do that – morality, etc.

Bliar denounced the cliams that oil was a major issue as an “oil conspiracy theory”. Who would believe that slimy, lying politicians conspire to promote corporate interests and their own wealth, eh?

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

By Paul Bignell

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq’s reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.

Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington’s main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.

Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on Fire is published next week, said: “Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq’s oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.

“We see that oil was in fact one of the Government’s most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize.”

Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya’s National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment.

Not about oil? what they said before the invasion

* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous…”

* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: “Let me just deal with the oil thing because… the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It’s not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons…”

* BP, 12 March 2003: “We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement.”

* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: “It is not in my or BP’s opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil.”

* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were ‘highly inaccurate’, adding: “We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials… We have never asked for ‘contracts’.”

 

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingYet more confirmation that Tony Blair is a lying, divorced-from-reality war-mongering little shit

Tony Bliar recalled to the Chilcot inquiry

Spread the love

Tony – the apostate to Israel – Bliar is to reappear before the Chilcot Inquiry later today to clarify some issues arising from his former testimony. In the past, on this blog I have satirised the Chilcot Inquiry as the inquiry pretending to investigate the Iraq war. I am pleased that at least the inquiry is pretending not to pretend to investigate the Iraq war.

In all things related to Tony “I’m a pretty straight kinda guy” Bliar we have more pretending. We have pretending that the conversations between Blair and Dubya Bush are something other than they actually were.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/details-from-blairs-iraq-calls-were-deleted-2189275.html

The questions facing Tony Blair at tomorrow’s Iraq inquiry hearing are piling up. It emerged last night that parts of Mr Blair’s conversations with the United States President George Bush in the build-up to war were expunged from Whitehall records.

Sir John Chilcot’s team also heard yesterday from a senior civil servant that Downing Street ignored Foreign Office warnings over publishing the infamously exaggerated dossiers on the threat from Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons arsenal.

Mr Blair’s private secretary at No 10 routinely deleted any mention of his correspondence with Mr Bush from the Government minutes, the inquiry has found out. The disclosure will fuel anger over the failure to release the memos between the two leaders in the run-up to war, which could fill in gaps for when Mr Blair took key decisions over the war. David Cameron, challenged over the refusal to publish the memos, said that he was powerless to order their release.

Mr Blair’s then private secretary, Matthew Rycroft, has recalled that Mr Bush often began telephones calls or video conferences in 2002 and 2003 by thanking the former prime minister for his letters.

Mr Rycroft said that he drew up two accounts of the conversations, omitting any reference to them in the Whitehall record because Mr Blair viewed them as “personal dialogue”. He told the inquiry: “I do recall doing it on a number of occasions. I would have thought possibly about five occasions and each time for a particular reason.

“I recall the choice I had was either only doing an expurgated version or doing two versions, and so on these occasions I decided it was better to do two versions.” Mr Rycroft said Mr Blair had always been clear that Britain would support US military action.
[independent article continues]

Furthermore, the head of the UK Civil Service has refused to publish correspondence between Tony Bliar and Dubya Bush.

I’ve quoted this article fully because it is impotant. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-inquiry-cannot-publish-blairbush-exchanges-2187588.html

The head of the civil service has refused to allow the official inquiry into the Iraq War to publish notes sent by Tony Blair to former US president George Bush.

Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell denied requests for exchanges between the former prime minister and Mr Bush about Iraq to be declassified and released.

Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot said: “The inquiry is disappointed that the Cabinet Secretary was not willing to accede to its request.

“This means that in a narrow but important area the inquiry may not always be able to publish as fully as it would wish the evidential basis for some of its comments and conclusions.”

Sir John wrote to Sir Gus last month asking him to authorise the declassification of extracts from notes sent by Mr Blair to Mr Bush and records of discussions between the two leaders.

He highlighted the fact that Mr Bush and Mr Blair – as well as the former prime minister’s chief of staff Jonathan Powell and communications chief Alastair Campbell – had revealed details of some of their talks in their recent memoirs, and said the inquiry’s protocol on releasing documents supported disclosure.

Sir John said in his letter: “The inquiry regards it essential in order to fulfil its terms of reference, to be able to chronicle the sequencing of discussions on Iraq between the UK prime minister and the president of the United States.

“It seems to us that it is both contrary to the terms of the protocol and, in light of the disclosures in recent memoirs, unnecessary to prevent the inquiry from being able to do this.”

He added: “In the inquiry’s view it is essential, if it is to produce a reliable account, that it is able to quote extracts from the records of what the prime minister said to president Bush in their discussions on Iraq.”

Sir Gus replied just before Christmas, writing: “My view is that the public interest is not best served by their release.

“I judge that their release would, or would be likely to, damage the UK’s international relations.”

He said the Cabinet Office attached “particular importance” to protecting the channel of communications between the British prime minister and the US president.

In a further letter to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir John said Mr Blair would face firm questioning about the content of his discussions with Mr Bush when he gives evidence to the inquiry for a second time on Friday.

He wrote: “Given Mr Blair’s decision to disclose some of the content in (his memoirs) A Journey, the committee is likely to be disappointed if he is less forthcoming in his evidence to us.

“This approach is also likely to increase the length of the hearing.”

Sir John added in a third letter to Sir Gus that the question of when and how Mr Blair made commitments to the US about Britain’s involvement in military action against Iraq was “central” to the inquiry’s considerations.

The inquiry chairman also revealed today that the committee recently took evidence in a closed session from David Pepper, the former head of the UK’s signals intelligence agency GCHQ.

A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said: “All HMG (HM Government) documents have been made available to the inquiry.

“The issue is one of publication. Exchanges between the UK prime minister and the US president are particularly privileged channels of communication.

“The Cabinet Secretary is of the firm view that the public interest in publishing these letters is not outweighed by the harm to the UK’s international relations that would likely be caused by his authorising their disclosure.

“This is in line with the published protocol.

“The majority of the inquiry’s declassification requests have been met. But there are important public interest principles at stake. These are recognised in the protocol.”

David Cameron was not consulted over whether to authorise publication of the documents, according to the Prime Minister’s spokesman.

The Cabinet Secretary took the decision in line with a protocol set out at the beginning of the inquiry, he added.

“(Mr Cameron) had no role in that process,” the spokesman said. “There is a protocol. That protocol sets out that in particular circumstances the Cabinet Secretary will make these judgments.”

Long-standing procedures also prevented serving ministers from seeing documents relating to the work of previous administrations, he said.

Asked whether the Prime Minister was minded to change the protocol so that the documents could be published, the spokesman replied: “No.”

Comment by L.G.K. Bufu the Max (a former title of the author of this article circa 1998 – 2000). Gus O’Donnell appears to be a civil servant i.e. subservient to the authority of government. If he is a civil servant – which he obviousl is – he answers to government and does what the government says. Nick Clegg – what can we say? Useless bastard? Total asshole? Rich useless twat? He seems to have the powerful position but instead seems determined to abandon his proclaimed ‘principles’ and utterly destroy his party. Nick Clegg ‘appears’ as Tory as Cameron destroying further and higher education, the Post Office and the National Health Service. The elecorate will recognise that the Lib Dems are Tories destroying everything that they held important.

Back to Tony – when I say “emphatically not” I mean “yes” – Bliar. His first comuppance was the “I’m a fairly straight kinda guy” lie. He’s a lying, little useless shit. He doesn’t understand what truth is. He believes that the words coming from his lips create truth. Years ago Mandy said something along the lines of New Labour create reality. No, reality is going to punch you in the face.

 

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingTony Bliar recalled to the Chilcot inquiry