The archive is catalogued by 'Economics', 'Politics', 'Mockingbird', 'And in other news' and 'Thoughts on other things' 

MarkGB 

"Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world" - Henry Kissinger

and yet...

"Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences" – Robert Louis Stevenson

A tale of two sociopaths

Within the past 48 hours we have had two global figures ‘cleared’ of any crime by two official enquiries. The Chilcot Enquiry into the Iraq War, and the FBI enquiry into State Department emails. Both enquiries, whilst they fell short of condemning the main subjects of the enquiry, made it abundantly clear that both of them were guilty of making very poor decisions. That's the formal bit...here's the informal bit...

Two pathological liars, two towering midgets of the global stage, were yesterday protected by a system too gutless to stand up for the values it preaches to the rest of the world, too corrupt to call a spade a spade.

In the red corner, from the eastern edge of the pond, the guy who just loved to have his belly tickled by the leader of the free world…

…in the blue corner, from the western edge of the pond, the gal who stopped enjoying having her belly tickled by the leader of the free world when she discovered where his hands had been…

…yes folks, none other than the guy who’d felt the hand of destiny on his shoulder at least once, and the gal who’d seen her husband’s hand on an intern’s knee one time too many…

…the guy who’d openly longed for power and secretly lusted after money, and the gal who’d always wanted both…

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton…

***

‘Chilcot report: Blair rebuked over Iraq invasion’ by Henry Mance

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8d697612-435f-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html#ixzz4Dd3lE9lM

Key findings:

- Tony Blair committed to an invasion almost eight months before receiving parliamentary and legal backing

- The invasion was based on “flawed intelligence and assessments” that went unchallenged

- The UK was “undermining” the UN Security Council’s authority in the absence of majority support for military action.

- The inquiry did not express a view on whether military action was legal but concluded: “The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory”.

At a separate press conference later, the former prime minister said: “I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you may ever know or can believe”...

...The former prime minister said the Chilcot report had made “serious criticisms and they require serious answers . . . I will take full responsibility for any mistakes without exception or excuse”.  

 

Promising a half-wit who is ruled by neo-cons that you will 'be with you whatever' is not a ‘mistake’.  Committing Britain to war without consultation with parliament was not a ‘mistake’.  Presenting false claims and evidence to parliament was not a ‘mistake’. Failing to insist staff spell out the exact nature of their assessment was not a ‘mistake’. Concentrating on the 'mission accomplished' killing part, whilst ignoring the aftermath was not a ‘mistake’.

A mistake is when you tell the truth about what you are up to, act in good faith with that truth, and cock-up the implementation. A mistake is when you 'own up' without having to be cross-examined for days to get anywhere near to the truth. 

These were not mistakes, they were the actions of a sociopathic liar who, contrary to what Alasdair Campbell claimed, was ‘doing God’ from number 10 Downing Street all along.

I’m with Douglas Adams on this one:

“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

Over 1 million Iraqis and heaven knows how many Brits, Americans, and others would probably have still been alive if little Tony Blair had carried on playing air guitar in front of his mirror, and Junior had been good at something other than swaggering around trying to outdo Daddy.

I’m told that there is no way of sending this odious little man to The Hague - Pity.

***

July 6, 2016 2:05 pm

‘Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is far from over’, by Jeremy Shapiro

The writer is research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former official in the US state department

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68a72120-436a-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html#ixzz4DiJkw1so

 Details do not matter. What does is that the constant drumbeat of scandal continues to feed the broader narrative that Mrs Clinton is untrustworthy.

After more than 25 years of this, it has had an effect: people do associate Mrs Clinton with corruption. Clearly, she has made mistakes and committed some transgressions. But given her long public career and the scandal-industrial complex that has dogged her, what is remarkable is how little has turned up.

The email scandal is a good example: she made mistakes but did nothing scandalous enough to concern voters. It will be hard to hear that message amid the din of meaningless accusations”

 

Yes of course, how silly of everyone. Never has a woman been so wronged.

I'm sure that all those folks who contributed to her foundation - you know - the ones who got government contracts - did so purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Also, the fact that she never made a losing trade is a sign of God's blessings on her worthiness. As for campaign contributions, I'm sure the reason that Goldman Sachs give her so much and so often is because they want her to be especially tough on them when she gets to the White House. They have never indulged in any wrongdoing either, and are keen to be held to a higher standard by a true saint.

Thanks Mr Shapiro - we should all be very grateful that someone who works for the Council on Foreign Relations, who was formerly an official in the State Department, appointed by Mrs Clinton, is prepared to take time out from meddling in the affairs of other nations, in order to give the FT readership such an objective account of the vicious lies told about her past.

It should also be clear to us all that Hillary Clinton could not possibly be guilty of any wrong doing on this occasion either. Clearly, the DNC would not have risked their chance at putting a Democrat in the White House if there had been any chance of the FBI indicting her. Neither would President Obama have been prepared to support her unless his confidence was equally boundless. No political party or sitting president would risk being on the wrong side of an FBI investigation unless they were totally confident...

...the only other explanation would be that the 'fix' has been in all the time...but of course that could never happen. As we all know, political dishonesty all finished with Watergate.

Anyway thanks for that. Now be a good chap and get back to your meddling.

***

And then this morning, right on cue, we get a predictable response from the establishment’s favourite six-form prefect, the guy who runs the tuck shop…Phillip Stephens

July 7, 2016 5:33 am

‘Chilcot report exposes Tony Blair’s sin of certitude’, by Philip Stephens

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8da14dcc-438b-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1.html#ixzz4Di5IYDBP

“Few adjectives, no hyperbole, no name-calling. Instead each sentence weighed in a sober narrative punctuated with forensic insights. Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues on Britain’s Iraq Inquiry have offered an admirable lesson in the force of English understatement

...Their report may not satisfy those who decided long ago that Tony Blair is a liar and a war criminal who invented intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in order to join George W Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq…

...To listen to these critics is to recast Saddam Hussein as a cuddly autocrat rather than the sectarian tyrant who had invaded Iran and Kuwait and used chemical weapons in the murder of tens of thousands of Kurds and Shia Iraqis”

 

No. It is not recasting Saddam Hussein as anything. You are conflating issues in order to make your point. Tony Blair saw what he wanted to see, to wage a war that he wanted to wage, and lied to parliament about his prior commitment to George Bush - in order to justify unseating a monster. In so doing he started a process that slaughtered over a million lives that were not his to spend, destabilised an entire region, and sowed the seeds for what is happening today.

Is that clear enough for you? Or would you prefer to carry on with your conflation of issues?

Secondly for someone who favours understatement I haven't noticed you cut down on your diet of abstract nouns recently, and the calorific value of your adjectives will not do your intellectual waistline any good either.

Personally, I like a good piece of cake every now and again so let me say this - a lecture from Tony Blair's former 'fawner-in-chief' is not the least bit appetizing now, any more than it was when your hero felt the hand of destiny on his shoulder, or the boot of Gordon Brown up his arse.

***

For anyone still wondering why an increasing number of ‘ordinary’ people are sick to their back teeth with ‘elites', what happened over the past 48 hours is a clue.

Dear 'John' - Go straight to jail - do not collect $700 billion

Brexit is symptomatic - the issue we face is fundamental