Kim Howells talking absolute shit

Picked up on this yesterday - there are some real gems in there that make me itch to poke around through his record (I've been aware of him as a clown of the first order for a while). While I'm waiting, this stuck out too:

"I would never take my guidance from swivel-eyed right-wing Americans and I'm surprised that anybody ever did."

That's not going to get him very far in a Blair government now? Actually, there's a new category of Labour MP here that needs to be noted - Blair loyalists who think they're still red-blooded red-flag waving left-wingers. There's probably a medical name for it.

If you're interested in Howell's record the Miners Strike is a good place to start. He was probably a right-wing entryist/agent provocateur. There were a number of these co-operating with the Thatcher government. Or possibly he was just very, very stupid.

Oh my word. How he can say that these people suffered the worst atrocities of Saddam, and leave out the fact that we were supporting Saddam at the time is a gross misrepresentation of our role in the region. To follow it up with the statement that we oughtn't rewrite history is priceless.

That this man is a government minister is depressing beyond words.

He's correct. When were you last in Baghdad, again?

300,000 in mass graves, before we got there.

And it is not relevant that the US supported Saddam before the invasion of Kuwait. They were picking to provide minimal, mostly tacit, support to a country at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran (you know, the boys who invaded the US embassy - an act of war by the way - kidnapped a bunch of Americans and held them captive for 444 days, and now want a nuke so their madman of a President can, and I quote, 'wipe Israel off the map').

Grow up. The coalition are not then enemy, Islamist fundamentalists are, and we're getting to kill rather a lot of them in Iraq at this time. Dealing with the Seventh Century Savagesâ„¢ in their own backyard is clearly preferable to waiting for another 9/11 or 7/7.

my! Howell throws mud with such quintessential dumb fluency – it takes my breath away……… is he competing with rumsfeld to be the principal actor in the theatre of the absurd? rewriting history? rumsfeld recently mused ‘………people don't study history any more. People who go to school in high schools and colleges, they tend to study current events and call it history..........’ although re current events he reflected ‘That is not to say that what is being reported doesn't happen. It does………… [the media] dramatises things. But that's not to say it's inaccurate."

Oo, good

Islamic fundamentalists are the enemy, are they? What connection did Saddam have to Islamic fundamentalists of the al-Qaeda variety before we invaded Iraq? None - he was on their hit-list after all.

What is Iraq now? A training ground (partly) for Islamic fundamentalists. What has invading Iraq done for the fight against what you call 'the enemy'? Made them stronger, given them another cause, given them a battleground, given them new recruits, led to terrorist attacks at home, diverted our attention and resources away from what we should be doing which is stopping the next generation of radical terrorists (which can only be achieved by non-military means, of course).

So you can't logically support the invasion of Iraq and claim that we should be concentrating on Islamic fundamentalists are the enemy, now can you? Pick one, they're mutually exclusive.

As for 'acts of war' - piffle. If invading someone's embassy (someone who of course propped up the Iranian Shah, who was a tyrant) is an act of war, what the hell is invading someone's country on a lie then? A Women's Institute outing? Last time I looked the President of Iran was democratically elected, but by that special type of democracy called 'a result the US doesn't like', which doesn't count (see Hamas, Chile 1973, Haiti etc.).

Sadly, Mr. Hague, you appear to be stuck in the 1970s Vietnam era where overwhelming force and bodycount is the measure of success. And you call other people savages - I'd polish that particular part of your pot's bottom before calling that particular kettle black. Or are you a fellow-traveller of the 86% of US soldiers in Iraq who think they're there for revenge for 9/11? Iraq is, partly, a giant treatment centre for the PTSD suffered by the US nation on 9/11 - personally I think this should be done by competent psychiatrists rather than letting people loose on innocent civilians with machine guns, but I always was a softie.

I haven't been in Iraq but this man has

source

mmm, "untermenchen" - "seventh centuty savages". Martin Haque underlines Ben Griffin's points very well. Unless people start having some more regard for human life, including muslims, then there will be more terrorism.

Bombing a country into submission and then claiming that the people are acting as savages shows a distinct lack of self awareness.

WTF? Unbelievable that anybody could be so stupid and spout such arrant crap. Those rose-tinted specs he was issued with by Millbank must be pretty damn powerful if he can still see though them with his head rammed so far up his own arse.

Puhleez.

Iraq was of course dealing with AQ before 9/11. They didn't assist with 9/11 specifically, but Atta met Iraq secret service in Prague in july of 2000, as the Czechs have never waivered in confirming (unless you know better than the guys on the ground).

Ahmadinejad is of course elected (did I suggest he wasn't?), and is entitled to say anything he sees fit. What he cannot legally DO, as a signatory to the NPT is develop nuclear weapons. Which he's now doing.

As you confirmed, when the choice was between Saddam and Khomeini, it wasn't a choice.

Seventh Century Savagesâ„¢ refers to Islamist terrorists, not Muslims. Deliberately misconstruing people's words isn't big or clever, although not entirely surprising.

Bombing them into submission? When was the last US bomb dropped in Iraq, I forget, was it 2003?

Having regard for human life??? Like Zarqawi? Bin Laden? These Seventh Century Savagesâ„¢ have no regard for any human life, they direct their own congregationists to kill and kill themselves in the name of religion. They're total barbarians, as is anyone who does nopt recognize the fact, they must be destroyed like the cancer that they are.

You're nuts my son.

Martin... you are the one who is deluded! (nuts is too vague).

The US military have been bombing up to present day. Whenever their soldiers get attacked by the resistance, in fact. Sometimes (e.g. Fallujah, but there are plenty of other examples) they have committed crimes against civilians on a biblical scale. There is so much documented evidence to refute your bombing claims that I must seriously doubt your ability to take in any information that does not support your mindset that "US military = good guys"

That Blair still supports such people is just beyond my comprehension. The only rational explanation is that he is one of them.

Iraq was of course dealing with AQ before 9/11.
not true

Atta met Iraq secret service in Prague in july of 2000, as the Czechs have never waivered in confirming
not true

When was the last US bomb dropped in Iraq, I forget, was it 2003?
how about yesterday?

The terrorists, if anything, are remarkably 21st century in their methods and motivations - find the weak points in the enemy's defences (mass transit, airline security) and exploit it. Since skyscrapers, Boeing airliners and commuter trains didn't exist in the seventh century saying they're 'seventh century' is still bollocks and doesn't help one iota in understanding how to defeat them.

Other things that didn't exist in the seventh century that just might aid in understanding how to defeat them are the Crusades, oil-dependent societies, cluster bombs, .50 calibre machine guns and torture using electricity. Seventh century minds, 21st century methods. On both sides.

its very likely that many war veterans get nuked by depleted uranium warheads - less than a third of the the 1991 gulf war veterans remain alive today and more than 75% still alive are unable to lead normal lives - they were mostly in their twenties 15 years ago

That was a truly amazing 8 minutes. I would advise Mr. Howell to leave the "green zone" and talk with Iraqis, instead of the exiles who populate the so-called government.

Obviously Howell, like the neo-cons who dictate US policy at the moment, could benefit by submitting himself to psychological counselling. And the "painful process" he describes for the Iraqis, isn't hurting him nearly as much.

His rhetoric is killing Iraqis and assisting in allowing this illegal and immoral occupation to continue.

If there is justice, Howell, along with other UK/UK government cronies, will be tried for war crimes.

"less than a third of the the 1991 gulf war veterans remain alive today"

Any source for this? Seems extremely unlikely, when you add in that servicemen on ships and in aircraft count as veterans to me and wouldn't have been anywhere near expended DU munitions. I'd stick my neck out and posit that more than 33% of the 1982 Falklands veterans are still alive, despite the passage of a quarter of a century and higher than normal levels of mental illness and suicide, which is an example of the hidden damage war does to society.