52 former diplomats bash Blair in public letter.

[Agathon]

BTW - Galloway is suing the Telegraph for libel.

I don't know about you guys, but the claims are monstrously stupid. It's just a load of FUD to discredit prominent anti-war protesters. I think Scott Ritter was accused of this as well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
BTW - Galloway is suing the Telegraph for libel.

and that hasnt been settled, I take it?

[Agathon]

The story the CSM is referring to is an earlier one. There were supposed to be "more" documents found which is what the DT is referring to (they ran the original story too IIRC).

Still doesn't change the fact that it's a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


and that hasnt been settled, I take it?

We're talking British Justice here.

[lord of the mark]

"We also are deeply concerned by your April 14 endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral plan to reject the rights of three million Palestinians, to deny the right of refugees to return to their homeland, and to retain five large illegal settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank."


LOTM - all of which was part of the plan Clinton suggested at Camo David and at Taba.

This plan defies UN Security Council resolutions calling for Israel's return of occupied territories.


LOTM - which the US from 1967 on has interpretated as not requiring return of ALL territories. Youd think US diplomats would be aware of that.

It ignores international laws declaring Israeli settlements illegal.

LOTM - which has never been the position of the US govt, which these guys were at one time paid to represent.


It flouts UN Resolution 194, passed in 1948, which affirms the right of refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation for the loss of their property and assistance in resettling in a host country should they choose to do so.


LOTM - there is nothing in Bushs statement that eliminates there chance to receive compensation, etc. Again, it is an identical position to that pressed by Clinton at Camp David and Taba.



I will not argue the substance of these diplomats position - that has been well argued elsewhere - but they are not just taking issue with Bush, but with all US policy wrt to the Palestinians from 1967 onwards. So unless these are diplomats who served before 1967, there is something problematic in their statement NOW.

[lord of the mark]

perhaps Mr Galloway can sue the Guardian, as well.





http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...149796,00.html

[Agathon]

You should read more carefully.

These files do not implicate Mr Galloway in personal corruption. Nor do they suggest that Mr Dalyell and Mr Reynolds, who always paid their own way, had any knowledge of what was going on.

Mr Galloway said he was unaware that his financial sponsors were getting oil cash from the UN programme. But he accepts that he knew his supporters had links with Saddam's regime, and regarded that as an inevitable price to pay.

Despite their importance in the bitter Galloway controversy, the contract documents seem unlikely to surface in the pending libel trial.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Agathon
You should read more carefully.

well it does confirm that the Iraqi regime supported what Galloway was doing, whether he knew or not. And while they dont prove he knew, I dont know for sure that he didnt.

[Agathon]

Yeah, but there's no reason for him to sue the Guardian since they didn't attempt to slander him.

The Murdoch papers and the Torygraph are somewhat different. Both are mere political mouthpieces for the most repugnant people in our society.

Not one of Murdoch's papers opposed the war. What does that tell you?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah, but there's no reason for him to sue the Guardian since they didn't attempt to slander him.

The Murdoch papers and the Torygraph are somewhat different. Both are mere political mouthpieces for the most repugnant people in our society.

Not one of Murdoch's papers opposed the war. What does that tell you?

er, that Murdoch supported the war.

[Agathon]

And that editorial independence simply doesn't exist at his papers. They exist to make money and push Murdoch's political line (which is that whatever makes him money is good for everyone).

Murdoch is about the lowest, most despicable scumbag in existence. Saddam Hussein has a better character than he does. Ask any Liverpool FC supporter what they think of Murdoch.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Murdoch is about the lowest, most despicable scumbag in existence. Saddam Hussein has a better character than he does.

Res ipso loquitur.

[Agathon]

[pedant]I'm not a Latinist, but don't you mean ipsa. That doesn't appear to be an ablative to me.[/pedant]

Anyway, to me pragma legei hautoi, he de autou phone kake estin

[Az]

quasi-mastrubatorium est quod erad demonstrandum.

[Gibsie]

Thanks for helping to clear up my confusion, lotm.