Saturday, March 26, 2005



How ill-mannered of me (and real journalists, thank goodnesss) to go on and on about Lord Goldsmith when the poor man probably just wants, like many others, - in Baghdad for example - to be left in peace.

The government wants us to move on. And no one wants to dwell on the fact that by Easter Saturday 2005, almost two months after the elections that were supposed to shut us all up, Iraq’s main parties have yet to form a government. Bloodshed on the streets in many parts of Iraq is as nasty as ever.

But I can't move on. I need to try to make sense of this - (just as I need to try to make sense of that holocaust of the innocent, the 2001 Foot and Mouth policy). I am not a journalist, nor a politician, not anybody of any clout whatsoever. I just want fully to grasp what is being perpetrated in our name. Even if very few people actually read this, writing it encourages me to try to follow what is going on.

Mr Simon Thomas MP Ceredigion has tabled a Parliamentary Question: "To ask the Solicitor General, on what date the legal advice from Professor Greenwood relating to the war in Iraq was received; and how much was paid for the advice."

Well. we already know from PA News that
Lord Goldsmith said so in a written reply to Baroness Miller in the House of Lords on March 21 2005.

March 13 2003 was four days before the Attorney General summarised, in a Lords written reply, his own views on the legality of the military action.

Exactly £46,000 was paid to Geoffrey Greenwood for this work.

On the subject of exact figures, a search on the internet and the Parliament website for the number of our own servicemen and women killed and wounded has not yet given me an up-to-date total. But off to Iraq they dutifully and uncomplainingly went as soon as Chief of Defence Staff General Boyce was reassured by our own Attorney General that there would be no legal come-back.

American Military deaths in Iraq now total 1525, with 11,344 wounded
Iraqi civilian deaths actually counted (minimum): 17233
(source: ) -

The government rejected the findings of the Lancet of 100.000 dead in Iraq since the invasion, but offered no comparable assessment of their own. A letter from many of the great and the good - including Elizabeth Wilmshurst - urged the Government to "commission a comprehensive, independent inquiry to determine with the greatest possible accuracy how many Iraqis have died or been injured since March 2003 - and the cause of those casualties." But nothing has happened.

However, when Washington made it clear to London that the UK Government needed therefore to "get another lawyer", Lord Goldsmith, it seems, looked around for some support for the war from another quarter. At the London School of Economics, Geoffrey Greenwood's views were known to be pro-war.

It seems an uncanny parallel of what happened in March 2001.
The chemistry trained Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir David King (not a Knight at that point), searched about for some scientific basis for a pre-election quick-fix for the already peaking Foot and Mouth outbreak - and found it in the Professor of Extermination, Professor Roy Anderson.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, the toll of the dead and murdered continues to rise. And the UK government is irritated by all the fuss. Just as it is about the continuing fuss about the millions of healthy livestock and their young who died to ensure that a pre-election government in 2001 could boast that it was "bearing down on the disease"

All this grief, anger and chaos ...

(Whatever the stated motives, whatever the given reasons, the bottom line does now seem to be that the UK - whether Mr Blair understands this or not - helped the Bush Administration to punish Iraq for its temerity in switching from the dollar to the euro to trade in oil - and to try to warn others such as Iran from doing the same. Venezuela has already done so and is in dire peril - and how can the US government justify what will happen in Venezuela - regime change - when it is already a popular and socially effective democracy? Well - it will accuse Venezuela of selling arms to terrorists and evil regimes - hoping that no one will make too much fuss about the fact that the US has been doing this for decades when it suited its political purposes.
It is doubtful whether even now, many of the politicians who voted for war, are aware of the economic calamity that faces the US if the dollar ceases to be the currency used globally in which to trade oil. The twin huge deficits of budget and trade are pretty much a closed book even to George W Bush, we understand. But the US trade deficit was $618 billion in 2004. His first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, described President Bush as ignorant of economic matters; at Cabinet Meetings he was like "a blind man in a room full of deaf people.")

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?