bush

One gets the impression that New Labour are waking up, very slowly and reluctantly from a bad dream. Of course the nightmare was real, they did sell their soul for a place in Bush's War on Terror. Now they have to scrub the decks for the new administration, hence the boy Miliband got approval to say that 'The War on Terror' was wrong.

Seven years too late. If they had any balls, they would have said this seven long years ago. No, this road to Damascus conversion doesn't convince. All we can hope for is that Obama's instructions will be more humane.

Still, lets save the best for last:

The call for a "war on terror" was a call to arms, an attempt to build solidarity for a fight against a single shared enemy. But the foundation for solidarity between peoples and nations should be based not on who we are against, but on the idea of who we are and the values we share. Terrorists succeed when they render countries fearful and vindictive; when they sow division and animosity; when they force countries to respond with violence and repression. The best response is to refuse to be cowed.

So, that's that. Seven years of Labour foreign and domestic policy thrown in the bin. If these are anything other than weasel words the Boy Miliband will put a stop to ID cards and the repressive legislation they instigated in an atmosphere of fear and loathing.

Seven years of policies that New Labour instigated. Where was Miliband's conscience then? It was in the Aye lobby.

As Bush packs his bag and heads to the barren wastes of rural Texas, he hasn't forgotten Tony, with a cry of "Here Boy! Fetch" he tosses a the equivalent of a good boy biscuit to his faithful companion.

Tony still hasn't got the balls to collect his Congressional Gold Medal of Honour for services to the President's rectal hygene yet. To the bafflement of many, he hasn't had the time to collect it. The latest excuse is that he hasn't actually designed the medal yet.

So what image should Tony put on his hard earned gong? David Kelly? Abu Ghraib? Gitmo?

How about a confused looking searcher for WMD.

There seems to be an outbreak of delusional thinking including the Bush family: George Bush Snr wants Jeb for President

You may scream now.

Vanith Fair has an enlightening history of the Bush administration from the mouths of people who were present. It paints a horrifying picture of hubris. There are many quotes and the piece should be read in full, but here's the genesis of Iraq

Richard Clarke: That night, on 9/11, Rumsfeld came over and the others, and the president finally got back, and we had a meeting. And Rumsfeld said, You know, we’ve got to do Iraq, and everyone looked at him—at least I looked at him and Powell looked at him—like, What the hell are you talking about? And he said—I’ll never forget this—There just aren’t enough targets in Afghanistan. We need to bomb something else to prove that we’re, you know, big and strong and not going to be pushed around by these kind of attacks.

And I made the point certainly that night, and I think Powell acknowledged it, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That didn’t seem to faze Rumsfeld in the least.

It shouldn’t have come as a surprise. It really didn’t, because from the first weeks of the administration they were talking about Iraq. I just found it a little disgusting that they were talking about it while the bodies were still burning in the Pentagon and at the World Trade Center.

... June 1, 2002 In a graduation speech at West Point, Bush advances a new strategic doctrine of pre-emption, stating that the United States reserves the right to use force to deal with threats before they “fully materialize.” Preparations for war with Iraq are not yet publicly acknowledged, but earlier in the spring, as Condoleezza Rice discusses diplomatic initiatives involving Iraq with several senators, Bush pokes his head into the room and says, “Fuck Saddam. We’re taking him out.”

The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has issued it's Final Phase II Report on Prewar Iraq Intelligence and it's conclusions are damning.

George Bush never ceases to amaze.  Being the most irrelevant and least popular President in living memory is clearly not enough for this admirable polymath; he's now become the first person in history to genuinely provably exist at 180 degrees to reality.  What else can one conclude from this gem: after months of praising himself and his buddies for reducing violence in Iraq, he's now praising himself and his buddies for increasing violence in Iraq.

“It was a very positive moment in the development of a sovereign nation that is willing to take on elements that believe they are beyond the law,”

After all, there's nothing that speaks louder of a strong, united democracy than its ability to start a civil war.

On the subject of the British troops still sitting at the airport with their collective thumbs up their arses waiting for Mr. Brown to do the decent thing (don't hold your breath, lads), the Decider has these words of comfort:

Mr Bush said that the pullback had been “based upon success” in quelling violence

Yes, our success in quelling violence has created the room for a successful transition to violence.  Meretricious, George!  Even better, the British strategy of pullback and pullout as soon as decently possible has created the perfect conditions for our own surge right back into Basra!:

"Three big militias are currently engaged in a particularly bloody battle in southern Iraq.

"U.S. and Iraqi forces are involved in a huge operation to attack an Al-Qaeda stronghold in Mosul.

"But after that, the plan is to turn the coalition's attention on to Basra and we will be urging the British to surge into the city."

So, to sum up, the Blairwatch understanding of things is:

Some Iraqis (A), acting entirely on their own after a visit from Dick Cheney have offensively gone on the defensive by sending thousands of troops against some other Iraqis (B) who are viciously staying exactly where they have been for months under a ceasefire.  Iraqis A, deeply unpopular in their own country, backed by the even more unpopular US military machine and whose political origins lie mainly with Iran, are going to reduce malevolent Iranian influence and strengthen Iraqi democracy by destroying Iraqis B, a nationalist resistance movement led by a hugely popular home-grown avowedly anti-Saddam, anti-Iranian, pro-Iraqi figurehead.  This policy will if necessary be supported by a significant surge in troops from a key ally that doesn't actually have any troops to send and won't send any of the ones it does have in a million years.

You've got to hand it to Dubya, when it comes to taking the biscuit he goes right out there and buys the McVities factory.

Curious how these things work.  In the week the Leader of the Free World threatens us (implicitly) with more 7/7s if we don't follow the lead of the Japanese Empire, the Spanish Inquisition and the Republican Party and sign up to torture, we learn that our Saudi friends were in the habit of threatening the British Prime Minister with 'another 7/7' if we continued with the SFO fraud investigation, leading to the withdrawal of Saudi intelligence co-operation (something jamie is of the opinion would be more a problem for them than us, particularly given that our homegrown bad boys are more likely to come from Rotherham than Riyadh).  As far as I know, the mere victims of 7/7 haven't been asked what they think about being used as an excuse for advocating torture and protecting the corrupt, but Rachel has let us know anyway:

I divine that she's not happy.

Prince Bandar, who amazingly turned up for a private meeting with Tony Blair in London shortly before the SFO dropped the case, is known as 'Bandar Bush' for his close personal friendship with the Decider.  The rest of the story is as inevitable as it is outrageous, but keep an eye on the court case - the judges include Mr. Justice Sullivan, more commonly found acting as Judge Dredd opposite the perpetual perps at the Home Office.

Tony Blair, eh?  Tony Bloody Blair.  In the middle of a banking crisis prompted by greed and chicanery, the master of greed and chicanery picks up not one but two jobs with big financial organisations.  Amazing.  Anyone would think they'd picked him for who he knows rather than what he knows - after all, banks need all the friends they can get just now (right, Darling?).

On the other hand, the Telegraph reports that JP Morgan don't actually expect him to turn up.  I don't know about you, but paying £2m a year to keep Tony out of the office sounds like a good investment for almost anybody.  Think of it as protection money - if only Saddam had paid up, presumably, Tony would have invaded someone else.  Watch out for him in your neighbourhood if you haven't got the requisite finance.

Talking of Iraq, TYR has a typically incisive analysis of why and how the 'surge' failed, based on sound military principles of deployment of reserves.  George and the neocons, true to their principles, basically gambled the US Army away for a short-term boost in domestic ratings, while blathering on about the desirability of a strong USA capable of imposing its will on the world.  The key thing is to ask your local tiresome neocon apologist is why, if the surge is such a wise all-conquering strategy, they've got themselves into a position where it's the only weapon they can't use any more, any where but the fire is still burning.  That's before we even get round to mentioning Afghanistan.

More from the Independent/Times snippeting of Andrew Seldon's book on Blair.  OK, obviously we're getting the tasty bits, but indulge us:

Quite right too.  After all, the one adjective we never use about Tony Blair's foreign policy record is 'pathetic'.  We usually don't have enough space after running through murderous, larcenous, imperialistic, neo-colonial, neo-conservative, kleptocratic, illegal, ill-judged, dodgy, wasteful, detrimental, deceitful dishonest, two-faced, insincere, untruthful, mendacious, double-dealing...

Any more?

Interesting story, about Air New Zealand secretly flying trooping missions for the US in Iraq and how much the NZ Government knew.  It's interesting for what it reveals about the Coalition of the Willing and how Bush works internationally, as well as an interesting insight into Aussie-NZ relations (which as anyone whose met a couple of them, aren't always the best):

Ladies!  Please!
[via]

A good set of comments on yesterday's Sy Hersh thread lead me to write a comment of my own, which rather grew, so it's a post.

I'm still not convinced that Brown's going to back an attack on Iran:

 * Brown the Atlanticist - he's much more of an Atlanticist than Blair ever was - Blair's meeting of minds with Bush had nothing to do with admiration for the American Way Of Life, since Bush has shown complete disregard for that, merely using the US for its power and wealth to meet his own ends (which are varied, but seem to boil down to both cheap oil , enriching cronies and imperial ambition at home and abroad).  I'm using 'Bush' here as neat shorthand for the whole AEI/AIPAC/Cheney nexus that seems to be at the bottom of what's been fucking things up, no one can argue that Bush came up with them himself, after all.  Brown strikes me as more of a classic conservative Republican - the morality is the ice-cold what's-good-enough-for-my-father-is-good-enough-for-me Presbyterian, not the hot-blooded blood-and-thunder Baptist.  Conservative v. Year Zero radical, in fact.  People like Brown grew up admiring an America that's ceased to exist post-Reagan, that legitimised the chase after wealth and power by means of religion.  Post-1980 the chase become all that mattered.

 * the Daily Mail.  Most read anti-war newspaper, publicised Craig Murray's pure-bred filleting of the Iranian hostage claims (which would themselves make using it as a casus belli trickier), editor great mates with Brown.  Brown's election strategy is definitely to appeal to Daily Mail Reading Woman, rather than Sun Reading Man, who isn't going to be tempted by Cameron and doesn't live in middle England marginals anyway.  If the Mail approves of Our Boys marching on Tehran I'll eat a copy.  No, make that two copies.  Of the Sunday edition.  The Sun and Times have started being openly hostile, which suggest that Murdoch doesn't feel Gordon is 'on board' to his satisfaction.

 * Economic rewards - as the NYT reports, the part of the US business community (who are indeed friends with Gordon) who backed the war for cheap oil, a quick win and new markets are now backing away.  Tom Friedman is their spokesman, and he's run out of his famous Friedman Units ('it'll get better in six months').  The Iraq War supporters shrink ever closer to the rabid triumph-of-the-will dead-enders.  So Gordon can't rationalise support as good for the economy - the Iraq experience suggests the complete opposite

  * Political rewards - 'hey, I've stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the worst-ever US President, a man deeply unpopular with all our other allies, a year before he leaves office with his bloody legacy plain to see and his movement decimated'.  What's in it for Gordon?

Indeed 'what's in it for Gordon' should be the question we all ask when we see claims that Gordon is backing Bush/is backing a new multipolar foreign policy/is backing whatever.  In the case of Blair and Iraq the Bliar got to suck up to George Bush at the height of his power, have the huge ego boost of ordering men into battle and satisfied his own warped sense of liberal values by persuading himself he was doing good.  None of those quite seem to fit the bill if Gordon goes for war - there's not enough Army to order into battle, Bush looks and smells like a dead duck and he doesn't have any pretend liberal values anyway, only genuine conservative ones.

Question for all of us - who would Brown like to deal with in the White House from January 2009?  Tricky one.  I say Hillary Clinton - she'll bring Bill, who the Labour Party always got on with, but she isn't going to embarrass Gordon by being more left-wing that him.

Other bloggage (British reaction to Hersh has been fairly sparse, perhaps like me it's taken a while to read all six pages):

Lenin's Tomb
Blood & Treasure (who understands very well what Mr. Brown is and isn't)
Booman Tribute on Hillary and Iran
D-Notice pointing out that even Blair didn't manage to get creationist ideology into science curriculums
Crooks and Liars on the US Iran War propaganda campaign - would it work here?
Sic Semper Tyrannis on Hillary and Iran
Think Progress with a couple of links to UK papers, including the Guardian on John 'Bombs Away' Bolton at the Tory Party conference, which is a good guide for you as to where the maddest neo-con around goes for support when in the UK these days.  He got interviewed on Sky, too.
The Green Ribbon making the point about the timing of the UK election and Gordon's support for war or otherwise

Department of Blowing Shit Up, Summer 2007:

Hang on, early summer?  Blair went end of June, we're fairly confident he would have been 'on board', the sacking of Jack Straw as Foreign Sec. is generally taken to be a slap down to suggestions that attacking Iran was off the agenda.  I sincerely hope that any risk of the British being 'on board' with another engineered, illegal Middle East war died with the late Premiership.  Did it?

Of course, if Blair promised Bush British support *again* without bothering to consult Parliament, can the Labour Government please stop pretending we've learnt from Iraq and prosecute the bastard?  How *is* that Middle East peace mission going, Tony?  Anyone trust you yet?

Hey there, it's blogenfreude from across the pond.  Gordon Ramsay was on Larry King last night (it was ugly), but we've no time for that now.  Spain has done what your government won't.  Behold - the Spanish Downing Street memo:

A war with Iran; Will he or won't he? This question has been occupying analysts minds for some time and we'll soon find out the answer. There are two strands of opinion; Cheney says that a major strike on Iran, including nuclear weapons, has to happen before Bush leaves the White House. The State department are more cautious, fearing the inevitable consequences and hoping for diplomacy to triumph.

Will bush play double or quits with the Middle East? The signs are confusing, certainly plans have been drawn up and material is being put in the theatre in preparation, but so far, nobody knows and it is believed that no decision has been made. Part of the preparation is in persuading people that they've got it right this time and Iran is a real threat, hence the breathless warnings about Iran's meddling in Iraq.

Although the US is prepared to go it alone, there are other factors that may provide signals of US intentions. The positions of China and, to a lesser extent, Russia could affect the decision, but we have out own clue to watch. The US is asking Brown to move British forces to the Iranian border. Will he do it? Has he got the stomach to turn down the US? Will he do a Blair or a Wilson?

General Sir Mike Jackson tells it like it is:

Yes, that about sums it up. And Dubya still has the gall to tell us to "stay the course". Only a fool would do so. Over to you Gordon.