Viewing Thread:
"Bugging the UN?"

Saw a snippet of a story yesterday live on Sky and the BBC about allegations that the British Government had bugged the offices of the UN Secretary General during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion.
And there was somebody from the UN saying if this proved to be true, then it would be considered illegal under 4 or 5 unilaterally signed agreements? (I'm a bit shaky on the details, only caught the tail end of it)

Anybody else see this or was my paranoid commie mind playing tricks on me?

Belldandy wrote:

>
> Because accusing her of lying is one of only many possible responses.
> It risks the situation being dragged out and by simply turning
> attention to her gives her credibility and the media coverage she
> wants.

Yup; media coverage on the fact that our glorious government have graduated from 'accused of being lying, self-serving cockwasps' to 'demonstratably lying, self-serving cockwasps'. Let's be honest here Bell; you know as well as anyone else that the reason she's not accused of lying is cos she's not lying. No amount of attempts to change the subject, or reduce it to "she's just bitter" (which she probably is, the loathsome little woman...) will change that.

>
> As it is Short's been knocked out of the headlines, ignored largely
> by the government, and had other ministers lining up to bad mouth her
> last weekend. She's out of the news cycle and that's undoubtedly
> where the government wants her.

Really? Out of the news eh? Well...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/ story/0,3605,1161542,00.html

There's one from the political left, and...


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/ 0,,1-2-1025190,00.html

Here's one from the right.

Bell, there are hundreds of articles about Short's revelations on there, and they still keep coming. I can post many many more. To say she's out of the news cycle is either wishful thinking on your part, or the naive belief that you're the kind of politically aware animal who is a cut about the plebs and so if you don't think she's important, others will take their cue from you.

On the plus side Bell, you seem to be making a lot more effort to make it clear that most of what you say is unsupported opinion. About time, but at least you're learning the rudiments of debate.

Skarra wrote:

>
> But if they did answer her alegations, every person in the world who
> made other allegations would need an answer.

2 things:

1 - She's an ex Cabinet Minister, not just some random yahoo. Don't you think that, bearing in mind her former position in government, it makes the government seem 100% guilty as charged when they refuse to say "She's lying", or even "She's wrong"?

2 - Blair and numerous Labour ministers have made official comments on Clare Short's fit of pique. So they've noted her allegations and found the time to comment on them (and not one, not a single one, has said "She's lying"). If they can find the time to comment, why not find the time to actually give an answer?

Edwards, has almost certainly done a deal with Kerry - he's going to be his runningmate for Vice President I'll bet.

Belldandy wrote:
> On to John Kerry...didn't see this Daily Mail hatchet job, but
> personally I'd say he's an intriguing prospect for President. He's
> going to have to walk a fine line if he goes after Bush on the war on
> terror and Iraq because he has to criticise the administration
> without criticising the military - if he insults the military then
> his chances are, I feel, considerably lessened.

I think there's some scope to do that. I've been surprised by the strenght of the undercurrent of disagreement between the Whitehouse and the military. The differences in reporting of casualty numbers is that most recent example that comes to mind (I know they largely justified the numbers' accuracy by excluding 'blue on blue' casualties and incidents which didn't occur in actual engagement with the enemy).
And the whitehouse seems to have been walking a fine line itself between blaming the military for any controversies and keeping them sweet.

It wouldn't surprise me to see Kerry pick at the hole to strengthen his 'war hero' image and discredit the whitehouse.


> Maybe I'm overstating, but I'd say this coming election is a vital
> moment in history.

I'd certainly agree with that. A Bush win extends US international intervention, a Kerry win.. well, I'd say that's still a bit of an unknown.

Maybe the rest of the world should qualify for a vote!

I liked Edwards. He seemed different. Oh well.

Light wrote:
> Okay; so if she's lying or wrong, how come the government haven't
> accused her of lying or of being wrong? All that has been said is
> that she's being vindictive. You'd think that she'd be castigated for
> lying if that was the case, no?

Because accusing her of lying is one of only many possible responses. It risks the situation being dragged out and by simply turning attention to her gives her credibility and the media coverage she wants.

As it is Short's been knocked out of the headlines, ignored largely by the government, and had other ministers lining up to bad mouth her last weekend. She's out of the news cycle and that's undoubtedly where the government wants her.

On to John Kerry...didn't see this Daily Mail hatchet job, but personally I'd say he's an intriguing prospect for President. He's going to have to walk a fine line if he goes after Bush on the war on terror and Iraq because he has to criticise the administration without criticising the military - if he insults the military then his chances are, I feel, considerably lessened.

The other thing is that whilst I have heard him on about Iraq I've heard little about how he intends to do what he says - it's easy to say "we're going to get security back etc" from Washington, but how about an actual plan?

One thing he does have going for him is that he's new. I think it is no understatement to say that the past 4 odd years have been long ones, and, for many people, very bleak and depressing. From what he says it certainly seems like he's offering change, but can he implement that change once in office?

Maybe I'm overstating, but I'd say this coming election is a vital moment in history.

Light wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
>
> ergo,
> according to this expert, she is probably either wrong, or telling
> lies.
>
> Okay; so if she's lying or wrong, how come the government haven't
> accused her of lying or of being wrong? All that has been said is
> that she's being vindictive. You'd think that she'd be castigated for
> lying if that was the case, no?

But if they did answer her alegations, every person in the world who made other allegations would need an answer.

I don't like Claire Short.

Yeah, thats about it.

Yeah but the problem there, what you're doing, is called "reading beyond the headlines".
It's dangerous to actually run your fingers underneath the words and take them in. Once you start to do that, you'll begin to question authority and not meekly accept the official version of events.
Of course, then you'll have to join the sinister cabal of communist smokers that run the BBC and Guardian etc etc.

Speaking of non-partisan reporting and clumsy opinion-swaying journalism - did anybody read yesterday's profile in The Daily Mail about John Kerry?
Talk about oafish attempts at discrediting a politician that doesn not fit in with your paper's idealogical views.
The Daily Mail, a supposedly "serious" paper was talking about Kerry's landslide on Super Tuesday.
Phrases like "droopy faced" "haggard visage" "ridiculously thick presidential hair" "craggy skull" etc, all little digs and attacks at a man's personal appearance.
Hardly anything to do with the policies or background, just a hatchet job on somebody that might pose a threat to Shrubby.

It's *almost* funny to read, except the pious middle-England fascists will nod and think "yes, what an evil ugly man" whilst they sip their morning tea and make sure the Asian paperboy isn't stealing their garden ornaments.

Skarra wrote:

ergo,
> according to this expert, she is probably either wrong, or telling
> lies.

Okay; so if she's lying or wrong, how come the government haven't accused her of lying or of being wrong? All that has been said is that she's being vindictive. You'd think that she'd be castigated for lying if that was the case, no?

Yup, pretty much the case.
Never thought it counted for diddly anyway except to provide an excuse for the partitioning and non-disclosure of information.
It seems to serve better as an excuse than a preventative measure.