A run of sickening events

In an eventful couple of days of news affecting the Middle East and Islam, three political subjects have come to the fore, as well as news of a ferry sinking in the Red Sea between Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

• On 1st February 2006, George Bush made his "State of the Union address" which played down the idea of taking military action against Iraq


• On 2nd February 2006, A record of a White House meeting emerges, which shows Bush and Blair fully intended to go to war with or without the "second UN resolution"


• Also on 2nd February, Muslims take great offence at a series of cartoons which appeared in a Danish newspaper.

And yes, I have something to say about each of those...

Bush's State of the Union Address

There was a distinct note of desperation in the speech of a president who's out of favour with even his own dim-witted electorate. Brush seemed to back away from aggression against Iran... he seemed to be almost pleading with the Iranian people to rise up against their leaders. I don't suppose it will last.

Bush and Blair intended war against Iraq, whatever the UN decided

A leaked memorandum from a White House meeting between Blair, Bush and their respective advisors in the run-up to the war on Iraq. This memo will be fresh content in the new edition of the book "Lawless World" by the international lawyer, Philippe Sands. Strongly as I feel about this issue, I don't have a lot of time just now to disgorge it, so by way of record, quotes from various other sources:
The Channel 4 news effectively summed up the meeting:

"The whole tone of the White House meeting seems to be two leaders who don't feel they have enough evidence of a breach to convince the world, but their own position is that Sadam is already in breach because of lack of cooperation with inspectors."

Sands himself said, on C4 news:

"His note seems to indicate that in his opinion, as of January 2003, Sadam Hussein's Iraq was not in material breach. And of course if Sadam Hussein's Iraq was not in breach at the beginning of January 2003, nothing happened after that date to bring him into material breach, and it means that the entire argument about material breach unravels."

I completely agree with John Snow's question:

"Isn't the most serious challenge from this conversation that they kind of knew, before we did, that there was absolutely no evidence against Sadam Hussein at that stage, and yet people like Colin Powell, people like - well, even the Prime Minister himself, were still talking about Weapons of Mass destruction, 45 minutes and all the rest of it?"

And as for demands for Western countries to show due "respect" for Islam; Islamic countries may ponder that the rest of us wish they'd have respect for women, homosexuals, secularity and a thousand freedoms they suppress and oppress.
... and with Menzies Campbell's reply:

"Absolutely right, that conversation suggested that they knew and had accepted that they weren't going to get WMD evidence that was going to support the argument that Sadam Hussein was in breach. And there's another date that we haven't mentioned so far, is that on 5th of February Colin Powell went to the security council of the United Nations, and he delivered that extraordinary attack, as it were, on Sadam Hussein, on based on intelligence: an event that he's since described as the most uncomfortable occasion in his life."

Here are some of Channel 4 News' summary extracts from the minutes

"The US was thinking of flying U2 reconaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
"It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation of Sadam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Sadam would be assassinated."
"A second Security Council Resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected and international cover."
"The US would put its weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and even 'threaten'."
"But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway."
"Tony Blair said he was "Solidly with the President ready to do whatever it took to disarm Sadam"

So, as if we didn't know it before, we have a picture of a conniving, lying, Prime Minister; who builds a case for war which he knows to be completely false. He builds that case to deceive parliament, to deceive the country, to get his own way. The guy is a war criminal and stand down to free himself for trial in The Hague.

Islam and Free Speech

Is anybody under the illusion that I am an apologist for Islamic extremists? If anybody said yes, go to the bottom of the class: I despise most of everything Islam stands for. I hate bullies, I hate restrictions in freedoms and human rights, and therefore I hate Bush, Blair and Islam. And if any of the above want a fight with me about that, bring them on. Oh yes.

This web link is currently hosting the images, for anyone interested. I can't see anything particularly offensive or even amusing about them myself, but if any group wants to prevent something being published, whether it's a posse of sleezy politicians or a clutch of self-righteous clerics, that's reason enough in itself to publish.