Silent Majority Speaks
Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary people are dangerous. Ordinary
people might ask a question which throws a politician 'off message';
the Cabinet member might reveal himself or herself to be a human being
like us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might
tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair wants to leave his
mark on history - looks more like a stain to me.
Peter Thorndyke, Diss,
Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I know I'm me - why do I
need an ID card?
"Sorry, officers, I
don't have an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep
at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence and my
London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph. I have my NHS
medical card, with its lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF
service book with my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to
wear a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya bar,
for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they
told me.
"I've also got various credit
cards and store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally
good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well as the odd
luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be
photographed and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm afraid I haven't got a
pension book; it was taken away."
"By thieves, sir?"
"No ... well, not exactly. By the
Government. By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh dear, they've disappeared. E.
Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO means NO
When does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants.
With the
courageous French NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic
self-interested leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their
precious constitution that requires ratification by all members and
continuing without one of the biggest founder members to prevent
derailing the gravy train.
As in Ireland,
they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people,
and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly,
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a
string. With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe the
EU has our interests at heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily
Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on a
treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant. Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail,
June1, 2005
|
May 31, 2005 (761 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK - >6,164?
Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media
June 17, 2005 (779 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,716 US - 89 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
June 26, 2005 (788 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,737 US - 89 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
July 6, 2005 (798 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,751 US - 90 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
August 24, 2005 (847 days since
war ended)
Death Toll: 1,869 US - 93 UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
September
29, 2005 (883 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 1,928 US - 96 UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
October
11, 2005 (895 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 1,956 US - 96UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
October
20, 2005 (904 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 1,986 US - 97UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
October
25, 2005 (909 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 2,001US - 97UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
Britain has
traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU
because we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm and
regional subsidies as our rivals.
According to
Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution
taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion, or £43.55
per head of population.
The French -
the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion a
year or £16.08 per head of their population.
|
Conspiracy
of Silence
Mr
Bush fights for his political life over lies that took the U.S.
to war. The bitter irony is that those lies were forged here,
yet the men behind them have flourished. What does this say about
British democracy?
by
Stephen Glover - Daily Mail, November 1, 2005
The
greatest mystery of British politics is how a prime minister who
misled the nation over weapons of mass destruction should be ensconced
happily in No 10 while his wife counts up the number of expensive
designer watches given her by Silvio Berlusconi, Prime Minister
of Italy.
A
reasonable person would have to conclude that British people are
not over-bothered about having been misled - or shall we say lied
to? On balance, they may believe that however false the prospectus
for the invasion of Iraq turned out to be, Saddam Hussein and
his murderous regime have at any rate been removed, and that cannot
be a bad thing.
Across
the Atlantic, Tony Blair's senior partner in crime, George W.
Bush, is not having such an easy time. A senior White House aide
has been charged with perjury. In the way of these things, Mr
Bush or his deputy, Dick Cheney, may become directly involved
in the investigations. More and more, Mr Bush's distinctly dodgy
prospectus for war is coming under critical examination.
MI6
fears exposure in Bush spy scandal
By
Tim Shipman, Political Correspondent, Daily Mail, November
1, 2005
British
intelligence chiefs risk being sucked into the US spy
scandal that has damaged President Bush, senior MPs warned
yesterday. MI6's intelligence gathering on Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction could become a key point in
the trial of one of Mr Bush's most senior aides.
Lewis
'Scooter' Libby, the chief of staff to vice-president
Dick Cheney, has been indicted over the leaking of CIA
spy Valerie Plame's name. He is alleged to have done this
in revenge for her husband rubbishing claims that Saddam
tried to buy uranium oxide - which can be refined to make
nuclear warheads - from Niger.
The
claims, which were originally passed to the CIA by British
spies, were later used by Tony Blair in his 'dodgy dossier'
on Saddam's weapons and quoted by President bush in his
State of the Union address before the war.
Valerie
Plane's husband Joseph Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger
in 2002 to investigate claims made by British intelligence
that Iraq had attempted to buy 500 tons of Uranium oxide
from Niger. Forged documents on the issue, which were
passed to British intelligence via a North African country
and then Italian intelligence, were rubbished by Mr Wilson
and the French government.
They
were also denounced by Mohammed El Baradei, director-general
of the International Atomic Energy Agency. One paper purporting
to feature the signature of Niger's foreign minister named
a man who had not held the post for 12 years.
Now
Mr Libby is accused of leading Valerie Plame's name as
a smear to get back at Wilson for publicly undermining
the President's case for war. MI6 and the Foreign Office
still stand by the claim that Iraq was seeking to do a
deal with Niger, saying they had other sources.
Last
night, Sir Menzies Campbell, Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman,
and senior Tory John Maples warned that Mr Libby's lawyers
might try to uncover the MI6 sources in a bid to prove
that Mr Wilson was wrong. Sir Menzies said: "The
British Government will watch the legal proceedings against
Mr Libby with more than usual interest. There is every
chance that Libby's case for the defence may try to uncover
the additional sources."
He
warned that such a move could have grave consequences
for MI6 because it might betray its sources and uncover
how 'thin' their information was.
Mr
Maples said: "The investigation will get a lot wider
if they want to look at British intelligence. It might
become a problem for us if an American court subpoenaed
documents from the CIA."
Seven
US soldiers were killed by bombs near Baghdad yesterday,
bringing American losses in October to 92, the highest
monthly toll since January, when 107 were killed.
'Cover
up' plunged U.S. into Vietnam
From
Barry Wigmore in Washington
Daily
Mail, November 1, 2005
America's
super-secret National Security Agency hushed up a report
which showed that distorted intelligence catapulted the
US into the Vietnam war, it was revealed yesterday.
The
report, by one of the NSA's own historians, has been under
wraps to avoid comparison with the flawed intelligence
used to justify the war in Iraq, claimed the man who finally
made it public. Matthew Aid said the original mis-interpretation
of communist Nth. Vietnamese intelligence intercepts was
probably an honest mistake that was spotted almost immediately.
But
instead of admitting to the blunder, mid-level NSA officials
launched a cover-up and doctored documents to back up
the first analysis and so avoid the intelligence agency
being criticised for getting things wrong.
Mr
Aid said: "Rather than come clean about their mistake,
they helped launch the US into a bloody war that would
last for ten years."
The
intelligence blunders centre on the Gulf of Tonkin incident
- an alleged 'attack' by North Vietnam on two US destroyers
in 1964 after a skirmish two days earlier. President Lyndon
Johnson ordered retaliatory air strikes, then used the
incident to persuade Congress to escalate US involvement.
In
recent years historians concluded there was no second
attack and the US ships were only responding to false
images on their radar.
|
Outrage
The
ins and outs of the American case may seem bewildering, but the
core is very simple. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the senior White House
aide in question, is alleged to have outed a CIA agent - a federal
offence - by way of revenge on her husband, Joseph Wilson, a retired
diplomat, who has convincingly debunked the Bush administration's
case for war.
Mr
Wilson is no starry-eyed leftie. In February 2002 - 12 months
before the invasion of Iraq - he was asked by the Central Intelligence
Agency to travel to Niger to investigate claims that the African
country had exported uranium yellowcake to Iraq in the Nineties
so Saddam Hussein could manufacture nuclear bombs. These reports
had originated with the Italian Intelligence service, who later
disowned them.
Mr
Wilson came to the conclusion that Niger had never exported uranium
yellow cake to Iraq, and his findings were disseminated throughout
the Bush administration. He later said that it was 'almost certain'
that they had also been passed onto the British Government, as
America's most important ally. Imagine his surprise then, when
in its famous September 2002 dossier the British government, among
various other assertions later proved to be untrue, suggested
that Saddam Hussein had approached Niger for uranium. His surprise
must have turned to some-thing closer to outrage when in his state
of the Union address in January 2003 President Bush said: "The
British Government has learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'
All
reputable authorities now accept that no such transaction ever
took place. Like other claims about weapons of mass destruction,
it was pure and unadulterated baloney. Yet it was repeated by
British and American governments as justification for war when
it was known to be baloney. In my book that amounts to an
outrageous lie.
It
would be wrong to say that the net is closing in on Mr Bush. He
has survived two official inquiries into the Iraq war. But he
and Mr Cheney could be caught up in the investigation that has
already snagged Scooter Libby. The special prosecutor Patrick
Fitzgerald has so far spent 22 months trying to find out whether
there was a government conspiracy to discredit Mr Wilson and his
mission, and, if so, who was involved in it.
Mr
Fitzgerald is in a tradition of tough, independent investigators
in American life ready to take on the powers that be. It was the
special prosecutor Kenneth Starr who brought President Bill Clinton
to impeachment in 1998 for lying under oath about his two year
affair with Monica Lewinsky. During the Watergate scandal a special
prosecutor hounded President Richard Nixon, who was finally forced
to resign in 1974.
More
and more Americans are wondering whether they were told lies about
weapons of mass destruction. Mr Bush's political opponents are
scenting blood. And yet, as I say, the same issue creates fewer
waves among the British general public than the latest plot twist
in The Archers.
Submission
Most
of the Press, having been pro-war, is simply not interested in
the lies we may have been told. After a brief show of independence,
the BBC has been cudgelled into submission, and will no longer
dare even to raise the subject of whether the British Government
misled us into war.
Politically,
Mr Blair has few worries. The Tories, have supported the war,
evidently feel (but why?) that they cannot complain about being
bamboozled with lies. The Lib Dems, though they honourably opposed
the war, lack the nous or political ruthlessness to strike against
New Labour and shy away like frightened stags from the - to them
- horrible imputation that Tony Blair lied to us.
Nowhere,
it seems, is there a British equivalent of the special prosecutor
Patrick Fitzgerald, who will worry away at the facts until he
arrives at the truth. Our own legal champion, Lord Hutton, produced
a report that was naively trusting of everything government told
him. Lord Butler's later separate findings were more critical,
though they were largely deflected by expert New Labour spin,
or submerged in government-friendly newspaper coverage.
Mr
Blair is fond of saying that there have been four full reports
into the Iraq war. Of course, there has been none. Each report
has had a narrow scope of a limited brief. Mr Blair dare not set
up a fully independent investigation with a wide remit because
he knows that he has so much to hide and so much of which he should
be ashamed.
In
America, for all its corruption, a man like Patrick Fitzgerald
can break through the kind of cosy and protective consensus that
exists in this country. Neither ancient political institutions
of which we are so proud, nor our judiciary, nor our free Press,
is able or prepared to mount any kind of investigation into thisessentially
very simple question.
How
many lies did the Government tell us in making its case for war?
Myths
Perhaps
even more depressing is widespread public indifference. Most people
seem to believe they were lied to, but appear not to care. All
we get is the occasional not especially well-attended march. The
universities, once the hotbed of radical dissent, seemingly contain
students more preoccupied with future job prospects or rising
fees than complaining about a government that sends British troops
into a war on the basis of false information.
And
yet surely, if Mr Bush and Mr Cheney and their advisers are finally
shown to have misled the American people, even our comatose nation
will pay some attention. The irony is that many of the myths peddled
by the Bush administration either originated with, or were given
a helping hand by, the British Government. Thus Mr Bush quoted
British intelligence over the uranium nonsense. A few weeks later
Colin Powell, the then US Secretary of State, admiringly cited
the February 2003 dossier, a farrago of falsehoods cooked up by
Alastair Campbell. And then we went to war.
If
members of the Bush administration are one day to pay the penalty
for repeating untruths that were dreamt up in No 10, it seems
hardly credible, even in our defective democracy, that those who
made the case for war in Britain, using many of the same mendacious
arguments, should survive unscathed. The wheels of justice more
slowly in America, but they move - look at Watergate. One day
they may still move here too.
If you have
suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the
pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
|
