Blurring the truth
Dear Editor,
Many of us in the North have good reason to despise Tony Blair.
In 1997 we came to the end of 18 years of indirect rule by Home Counties Tories.
We had had taxation without representation for so long that we were entitled to a tea party in Whitehaven Harbour.
May 1997 was "a New dawn was it not" he chirruped? We had desperate hope lathered over tentative optimism by Blair's silver tongue.
On Friday 29 Jan 2010 all bets were off.
As I listened to 6 hours of slick, well-rehearsed ripostes to long-trailed questions I occasionally felt queasy with disgust. As he nudged aside the sycophantic interrogations of Laurence Freedman and Martin Gilbert it was hard not to get really angry. Why was Freedman allowed a free hand over the 45-minute issue? How the establishment succour their own. The questioning has been described as "having less cutting edge than month-old lettuce."
Surely 'Teflon Tony' wasn't going to get out of the political kitchen un-scorched.
Justice by establishment cabal is no longer sustainable.
Regime change is an offence under international law.
Aggression without substantive provocation is an offence under international law.
To my mind, the case against Blair rests on three pieces of evidence.
Firstly; the apparent failure to make it clear that the 45 minutes threat of attack did not refer to Weapons of Mass Destruction deliverable by inter-continental ballistic missile to the shores of Britain. They were talking about very short range battlefield weapons which in fact didn't exist either.
If these WMDs were your primary motivation for going to war why would you signally fail to give a detailed account of their true nature? Why would you leave out of the 'dodgy dossier' the words 'Battle-field'? Spin isn't just about inserting lies into a dossier, it is also about carefully removing words to allow Parliament, the British press and the British people to get hold of the wrong impression. They also fooled the French and the German premiers.
Secondly; Why would you wait seven years to come up with the 'calculus of risk after 9/11' justification for going to war? Are the algebra of ambivalence and the geometry of gobbledook also in play here?
It took Blair (aptly christened Blur) seven long years to meld together regime change and WMDs into one motive when throughout the years after 2002 they were separate and chronological. WMDs first and regime change second when WMDs became unviable. Mr Blur clearly thinks the British people are fools who can't remember last week never mind seven years ago.
Is it possible that Mr Blur had just thought of this weasel defence in concert with other members of what has been called "the illegal warmongers collective" (Lucy Mangan, Guardian, 30-1-10 page 46)
Thirdly, and possibly most damning; the legality question.
Elizabeth Wilmhurst's evidence to Chilcott was concise, transparent and clearly motivated by a professional regard for the truth. Such a marked contrast to the 'Blurred' contribution.
She compounded the evidence of many others including the Dutch Government that the war had no legal justification. It was therefore a pre-meditated war crime on the two counts I have mentioned.
Yes, I despise Blair for his sanctimony and his absurd arrogance. I despise him for destroying a once-great party that I held in high regard. I despise him for extending the 18 years of free market misery by ten more years with manifest effects on the lives of northerners.
I despise him for making this country a dangerous place to live in and for undermining our reputation abroad as a democratic country with respect for the sovereignty of other nation states.
I have axes to grind but I want him indicted on the evidence, not because I despise him.
His war led to over 100,000 direct deaths, countless severe injuries which is tantamount to the end of real life, and countless indirect deaths through disease and poverty caused by the war.
They are the reasons why making war without solid and incontrovertible evidence is a war crime and has been for many decades.
Foreign policy led by violent invasion is no longer sustainable.
Leadership by silver-tongued egomaniacs is no longer sustainable.
Only parties like the Green Party with genuine respect for national sovereignty can be trusted with our international relations.
If we fail to pursue proper accountability for the Iraq debacle with the full rigour of national and international law, this country's reputation for democracy and probity will be tainted in the eyes of the world for generations.
Alan Marsden, Penrith
Dear Editor,
Many of us in the North have good reason to despise Tony Blair.
In 1997 we came to the end of 18 years of indirect rule by Home Counties Tories.
We had had taxation without representation for so long that we were entitled to a tea party in Whitehaven Harbour.
May 1997 was "a New dawn was it not" he chirruped? We had desperate hope lathered over tentative optimism by Blair's silver tongue.
On Friday 29 Jan 2010 all bets were off.
As I listened to 6 hours of slick, well-rehearsed ripostes to long-trailed questions I occasionally felt queasy with disgust. As he nudged aside the sycophantic interrogations of Laurence Freedman and Martin Gilbert it was hard not to get really angry. Why was Freedman allowed a free hand over the 45-minute issue? How the establishment succour their own. The questioning has been described as "having less cutting edge than month-old lettuce."
Surely 'Teflon Tony' wasn't going to get out of the political kitchen un-scorched.
Justice by establishment cabal is no longer sustainable.
Regime change is an offence under international law.
Aggression without substantive provocation is an offence under international law.
To my mind, the case against Blair rests on three pieces of evidence.
Firstly; the apparent failure to make it clear that the 45 minutes threat of attack did not refer to Weapons of Mass Destruction deliverable by inter-continental ballistic missile to the shores of Britain. They were talking about very short range battlefield weapons which in fact didn't exist either.
If these WMDs were your primary motivation for going to war why would you signally fail to give a detailed account of their true nature? Why would you leave out of the 'dodgy dossier' the words 'Battle-field'? Spin isn't just about inserting lies into a dossier, it is also about carefully removing words to allow Parliament, the British press and the British people to get hold of the wrong impression. They also fooled the French and the German premiers.
Secondly; Why would you wait seven years to come up with the 'calculus of risk after 9/11' justification for going to war? Are the algebra of ambivalence and the geometry of gobbledook also in play here?
It took Blair (aptly christened Blur) seven long years to meld together regime change and WMDs into one motive when throughout the years after 2002 they were separate and chronological. WMDs first and regime change second when WMDs became unviable. Mr Blur clearly thinks the British people are fools who can't remember last week never mind seven years ago.
Is it possible that Mr Blur had just thought of this weasel defence in concert with other members of what has been called "the illegal warmongers collective" (Lucy Mangan, Guardian, 30-1-10 page 46)
Thirdly, and possibly most damning; the legality question.
Elizabeth Wilmhurst's evidence to Chilcott was concise, transparent and clearly motivated by a professional regard for the truth. Such a marked contrast to the 'Blurred' contribution.
She compounded the evidence of many others including the Dutch Government that the war had no legal justification. It was therefore a pre-meditated war crime on the two counts I have mentioned.
Yes, I despise Blair for his sanctimony and his absurd arrogance. I despise him for destroying a once-great party that I held in high regard. I despise him for extending the 18 years of free market misery by ten more years with manifest effects on the lives of northerners.
I despise him for making this country a dangerous place to live in and for undermining our reputation abroad as a democratic country with respect for the sovereignty of other nation states.
I have axes to grind but I want him indicted on the evidence, not because I despise him.
His war led to over 100,000 direct deaths, countless severe injuries which is tantamount to the end of real life, and countless indirect deaths through disease and poverty caused by the war.
They are the reasons why making war without solid and incontrovertible evidence is a war crime and has been for many decades.
Foreign policy led by violent invasion is no longer sustainable.
Leadership by silver-tongued egomaniacs is no longer sustainable.
Only parties like the Green Party with genuine respect for national sovereignty can be trusted with our international relations.
If we fail to pursue proper accountability for the Iraq debacle with the full rigour of national and international law, this country's reputation for democracy and probity will be tainted in the eyes of the world for generations.
Alan Marsden, Penrith
An image accord
Dear Editor,
First let me describe who I am to understand me better.
I am a member of Green Party, a vegetarian, "munching on tofu", 51, widowed, living on my own with one cat and one dog, both of them rescued and brought to UK from South Africa. I have one daughter who works as a film producer and after running my own businesses in South Africa I now work from home for an international medical devices company. I run 5 to 10km organised runs, go to gym 2-3 times a week and live in Surrey. I read constantly, like my not-too-many clothes, paint my nails, recycle religiously, support many animal charities, fly only for business and drive if I really have to.
I've decided to get actively involved with Green Party as I believe in many of your manifestos and went to two of your meetings locally with a totally open mind as I never heard what kind of people Greens are. I came out of there thinking exactly what Charlotte Dingle wrote about last issue (GW67) - "if they want to expand, they are in a desperate need of make over!". Unfortunately we are judged by the way we come across in this world and many members of the party have been ignoring it for far too long.
Anna Allen, Weybridge
Dear Editor,
First let me describe who I am to understand me better.
I am a member of Green Party, a vegetarian, "munching on tofu", 51, widowed, living on my own with one cat and one dog, both of them rescued and brought to UK from South Africa. I have one daughter who works as a film producer and after running my own businesses in South Africa I now work from home for an international medical devices company. I run 5 to 10km organised runs, go to gym 2-3 times a week and live in Surrey. I read constantly, like my not-too-many clothes, paint my nails, recycle religiously, support many animal charities, fly only for business and drive if I really have to.
I've decided to get actively involved with Green Party as I believe in many of your manifestos and went to two of your meetings locally with a totally open mind as I never heard what kind of people Greens are. I came out of there thinking exactly what Charlotte Dingle wrote about last issue (GW67) - "if they want to expand, they are in a desperate need of make over!". Unfortunately we are judged by the way we come across in this world and many members of the party have been ignoring it for far too long.
Anna Allen, Weybridge
In our stride
Dear Editor,
May I wish all members a prosperous new year and hope 2010 is better than 2009 which was one of doom and gloom.
The last four years have been a busy time for local Green Parties and members in which the party has more members, councillors and regional assembly representatives, and about which media and public awareness is greater than any other time. But we must not be complacent for there is still much to do to repair the damage major parties have inflicted.
Many suffered the consequences of twelve years of New Labour government with the loss of jobs, homes and financial ruin and the mismanagement to which the Tories encouraged their banker friends in the city to take advantage of Gordon Brown's lax rules. The two major parties have failed the people and the nation and while the money classes have become richer, most have become poorer. The two parties were only able to rule because they had rich friends in the city freezing out the Green Party, and now, because of Tory greed and New Labour incompetence, we have the greatest financial disaster since the 1930 depression.
We can make a difference in 2010 as there are two elections which could be held on the same day. Although some constituency and council wards are more important than others all those contested target seats are where, with effort and determination, greater support and numbers can be achieved.
The Green Party has never had so much coverage now the politicians have woken up so don't let the major parties take the credit. The nation and the people need the Green Party and we must not let them down.
J. Stride, Charlton
Dear Editor,
May I wish all members a prosperous new year and hope 2010 is better than 2009 which was one of doom and gloom.
The last four years have been a busy time for local Green Parties and members in which the party has more members, councillors and regional assembly representatives, and about which media and public awareness is greater than any other time. But we must not be complacent for there is still much to do to repair the damage major parties have inflicted.
Many suffered the consequences of twelve years of New Labour government with the loss of jobs, homes and financial ruin and the mismanagement to which the Tories encouraged their banker friends in the city to take advantage of Gordon Brown's lax rules. The two major parties have failed the people and the nation and while the money classes have become richer, most have become poorer. The two parties were only able to rule because they had rich friends in the city freezing out the Green Party, and now, because of Tory greed and New Labour incompetence, we have the greatest financial disaster since the 1930 depression.
We can make a difference in 2010 as there are two elections which could be held on the same day. Although some constituency and council wards are more important than others all those contested target seats are where, with effort and determination, greater support and numbers can be achieved.
The Green Party has never had so much coverage now the politicians have woken up so don't let the major parties take the credit. The nation and the people need the Green Party and we must not let them down.
J. Stride, Charlton
We'll go too
Dear Editor
We have been members of the Green Party for many years and appreciate the ethical stance in Green World.
However, we were very surprised to read letters about nuclear power and to discover that some members support it.
We receive information from Blackwater Against New Nuclear Power Group (BANNG). A major new nuclear complex may be built near to West Mersea, Maldon and Bradwell in Essex. There are many of us who oppose this.
We are sure that there are many Green Party members who agree with Anne Beirne of Newcastle-under-Lyme, who wrote an excellent letter to Green World, ending with a message to say that she will leave the Green Party if "...we allied ourselves with anything to do with nuclear power. And I don't think I would be the only one."
We share her point of view and will resign from the Green Party immediately if this happens. We just hope that the majority of Green Party members are aware of the dangers of nuclear power.
Hilda Taylor and Claire Mart, Colchester
Dear Editor
We have been members of the Green Party for many years and appreciate the ethical stance in Green World.
However, we were very surprised to read letters about nuclear power and to discover that some members support it.
We receive information from Blackwater Against New Nuclear Power Group (BANNG). A major new nuclear complex may be built near to West Mersea, Maldon and Bradwell in Essex. There are many of us who oppose this.
We are sure that there are many Green Party members who agree with Anne Beirne of Newcastle-under-Lyme, who wrote an excellent letter to Green World, ending with a message to say that she will leave the Green Party if "...we allied ourselves with anything to do with nuclear power. And I don't think I would be the only one."
We share her point of view and will resign from the Green Party immediately if this happens. We just hope that the majority of Green Party members are aware of the dangers of nuclear power.
Hilda Taylor and Claire Mart, Colchester
Plant. Trees. Now.
Dear Editor,
"Carbon Capture" is being touted as a way to allow the continued burning of fossil fuels to generate power without putting yet more greenhouse gas (as carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. The technology is now being employed on a small scale in pilot trials, though it is still regarded as a "mid-term" solution, whatever one of those is.
Here is a silly idea: a simple and cost-effective way to capture carbon.
Grow trees. Then bury them and grow some more, and bury them, and...so on down the generations. Coal working might be good places to start, where much of the fossil fuel came from in the first place.
Trees bring enormous benefits in so many ways - stimulating rainfall to give potable water, by transpiration, preventing soil erosion, enriching the ground with leaf fall. Wood is a valuable building and construction material, and can be used as a more or less carbon neutral fuel.
Perhaps it is not as silly an idea as it first seems.
Paul Grayshan, Bramley
Dear Editor,
"Carbon Capture" is being touted as a way to allow the continued burning of fossil fuels to generate power without putting yet more greenhouse gas (as carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. The technology is now being employed on a small scale in pilot trials, though it is still regarded as a "mid-term" solution, whatever one of those is.
Here is a silly idea: a simple and cost-effective way to capture carbon.
Grow trees. Then bury them and grow some more, and bury them, and...so on down the generations. Coal working might be good places to start, where much of the fossil fuel came from in the first place.
Trees bring enormous benefits in so many ways - stimulating rainfall to give potable water, by transpiration, preventing soil erosion, enriching the ground with leaf fall. Wood is a valuable building and construction material, and can be used as a more or less carbon neutral fuel.
Perhaps it is not as silly an idea as it first seems.
Paul Grayshan, Bramley
Crowded malls
Dear Editor,
I write regarding Erik Assadourian's article 'Consumable drift' in GW67.
Because I am old and can remember a time when there were less than half the people there are now, I cannot go to a city centre without intense discomfort.
I agree wholeheartedly with Erik Assadourian concerning socially engineered consumerism, which I find quite obscene. However, none of his answers to the problem can attain the desired reversal to sustainability unless, and until, the actual numbers of those requiring all the resources that they need are diminished to the sustainable number of 5 billion or less.
Those in power seem blind to the fact of exponential growth. We are the only animal which has lost the instinct to burn their numbers in times of shortage. If they have the power to engender large scale consumerism, surely they have the power to engender common sense family size. Then and only then, what a good quality of life all the species on this planet would have.
Jenny Hunt, Harrow
Dear Editor,
I write regarding Erik Assadourian's article 'Consumable drift' in GW67.
Because I am old and can remember a time when there were less than half the people there are now, I cannot go to a city centre without intense discomfort.
I agree wholeheartedly with Erik Assadourian concerning socially engineered consumerism, which I find quite obscene. However, none of his answers to the problem can attain the desired reversal to sustainability unless, and until, the actual numbers of those requiring all the resources that they need are diminished to the sustainable number of 5 billion or less.
Those in power seem blind to the fact of exponential growth. We are the only animal which has lost the instinct to burn their numbers in times of shortage. If they have the power to engender large scale consumerism, surely they have the power to engender common sense family size. Then and only then, what a good quality of life all the species on this planet would have.
Jenny Hunt, Harrow
Drawing growth
Dear Editor,
In response to Richard Lawson's feature 'Growing the economy', where it is suggested that there is a case for 0% economic growth. I am against this as 0% is like a draw in football. It is only one point. Whereas a positive growth, the larger the better, 5% would be welcome. Growth in the UK helps the fight against poverty and I would like to bring about that the Green Party, being the party of prosperity and wealth for everybody, rich or poor, in not only the UK and Europe, but across the world.
This would entail government investment in the country's economy and the support of the generals of British Industry. Support of the rich is not a dirty word but it helps in the production of wealth not only at home but internationally.
Graham Henry Miller, Bromsgrove
Dear Editor,
In response to Richard Lawson's feature 'Growing the economy', where it is suggested that there is a case for 0% economic growth. I am against this as 0% is like a draw in football. It is only one point. Whereas a positive growth, the larger the better, 5% would be welcome. Growth in the UK helps the fight against poverty and I would like to bring about that the Green Party, being the party of prosperity and wealth for everybody, rich or poor, in not only the UK and Europe, but across the world.
This would entail government investment in the country's economy and the support of the generals of British Industry. Support of the rich is not a dirty word but it helps in the production of wealth not only at home but internationally.
Graham Henry Miller, Bromsgrove
To doubt, perhaps?
Dear Editor,
Many thanks for the useful article by Dr Richard Lawson, Canvassing climate change deniers in GW68. I regularly meet some online, on message boards; only one of whom, to my knowledge, has any scientific qualifications, and other opinions of hers suggest that she is one of Dr Lawson's "free market fundamentalists".
As far what to call them: they don't like 'deniers', which is an echo of 'holocaust deniers', and of course they should not be compared with holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers are sinister anti-Semites, but what they deny is the unchangeable past. If we listen to the climate change deniers, we face future disaster.
However, there's no point in antagonising them unnecessarily, so maybe we should drop 'denier' when talking to them. On the other hand, I'm damned if I'm going to use their preferred term 'sceptic', which suggests, as it's intended to, a sturdy independent thinker speaking out against a stultifying orthodoxy. Therefore may I propose 'Climate change doubters' as a neutral and hopefully mutually acceptable term?
Stephen Horsfall, Hemel Hempstead
Dear Editor,
Many thanks for the useful article by Dr Richard Lawson, Canvassing climate change deniers in GW68. I regularly meet some online, on message boards; only one of whom, to my knowledge, has any scientific qualifications, and other opinions of hers suggest that she is one of Dr Lawson's "free market fundamentalists".
As far what to call them: they don't like 'deniers', which is an echo of 'holocaust deniers', and of course they should not be compared with holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers are sinister anti-Semites, but what they deny is the unchangeable past. If we listen to the climate change deniers, we face future disaster.
However, there's no point in antagonising them unnecessarily, so maybe we should drop 'denier' when talking to them. On the other hand, I'm damned if I'm going to use their preferred term 'sceptic', which suggests, as it's intended to, a sturdy independent thinker speaking out against a stultifying orthodoxy. Therefore may I propose 'Climate change doubters' as a neutral and hopefully mutually acceptable term?
Stephen Horsfall, Hemel Hempstead
▾
▾