still more socialist freakin’ control meddling | politics news at
abelard's home latest changes & additions at link to document abstracts link to short briefings documents quotations at, with source document where relevant click for abelard's child education zone economics and money zone at - government swindles and how to transfer money on the net latest news headlines at abelard's news and comment zone
socialism, sociology, supporting documents described Loud music and hearing damage Architectural wonders and joys at about abelard and visit abelard's gallery Energy - beyond fossil fuels France zone at - another France

news and comment

article archives at abelard's news and comment zone topic archives: politics

for previously archived news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button above)

New translation, the Magna Carta

site map

This page helpful?
Share it ! Like it !

still more socialist freakin’ control meddling

“[...] Rather than letting voters decide how their councils are doing, Whitehall monitors them through inspections and makes them report progress on over 1,000 performance indicators. The inspections alone cost £2.5 billion ($4.9 billion) a year, according to the Local Government Association, a lobby group. And the targets set in Whitehall reflect an attempt to micro-manage from the centre that can seem absurd. Councils must provide figures, for example, on how many mothers are breastfeeding after 17 weeks and the total length of footpaths deemed easy to use.”

And still the lunatics of the left refer to ‘Tory’ Bliar.

You couldn’t make it up. Well, actually you could if you were a lefty, even if you were Bliar and his clown sidekick.

Tell a big enough lie, it’s the invariable ambition of socialism.

You can fool some of the people all the time. Socialism depends on stupidity - at every level.

the web address for the article above is




on being the president of the united states of america

Fossil fuel use must be slowed and, in due course, stopped. The means and methods to do this will mostly come from business, science and technology, rather from being concocted by politicians.

Global warming, energy, the filth of fossil fuels and Iraq are not several problems, but are a highly interconnected, single problem. Science and technology are essential components of solving these problems, as is an advanced military and an educated population.

Unfortunately, most of the public do not easily comprehend the problems and position of the leader of the free world, and thereby the planet. It is necessary that capable leaders educate their populations.

I am increasingly impressed by George Bush’s growing grasp of the energy issues. Here he can be seen explaining much of the problems for the common man.

Bush goes into detail, obviously restraining his language to the point where even the moonbats may be able to follow, if that were their ambition.

Some people say that politicians are not part of the solution but, of course, they are. Part of their job is to teach/inform those of lesser ability, a job Bush does exceptionally well.

George Bush also has the job of facilitating negotiation between interests. Again, this is a job he is steadily and effectively managing in the background.

Meanwhile, he also has the prime responsibility of making the hard decisions that go with leadership, even when much of the public would much prefer to be handed sweeties and ‘easy answers’.

Again, Bush is making those decisions, and has done a fine job in the Middle East.

It is also clear that Bush is a most accomplished politician, well aware of the problems he faces, and he is dealing with those problems with dignity, calm and intelligence.

All this he must do, despite the dogs snapping at his heels and manoeuvering for position and advantage, and damn the country or the future.

Bush 2 is no mean or ‘small’ president. America and the free world are far better off for having him at the helm.

George Bush even has the great wisdom to enable change, while not attempting to micro-manage every detail in the manner of a socialist like our very own Brown the Clown. Here is a short (not very good) example of the minnow who would rule the UK.

For Americans:
In the United Kingdom,
we don’t have a president, we have an elected dictator.
We don’t have independent citizens, we have subjects.
We don’t have a free society, we have a part-socialist dead hand.

Do understand when speaking to the Brits, that these factors make it very hard for them to comprehend a seriously free society.

the web address for the article above is

the difference between gun control and crime control - the auroran sunset

First, here is Best of the Web noting the inevitable consequences of Blair’s disarmament of all of Britain’s potential crime victims:

“Have you ever noticed that journalists sometimes just make stuff up? If you don't believe us, consider this story from the Press Association, a British wire service:

“Labour has been accused of losing control of gun crime as new figures show a sharp rise in armed robberies.

“Guns were used in 4,120 robberies last year--a 10% jump--including a 9% rise to 1,439 in the number of street robberies where guns were used.

“There was also a rapid and unexplained increase in the number of times householders were confronted in their own homes by armed criminals. Residential firearms robberies show a 46% leap, a record 645 cases in England and Wales--up 204 on the previous year and four times the level recorded in 2000-01.

“This can't possibly be true. After all, guns are illegal in Britain!”

Meanwhile, Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds notes the consequences of keeping to more traditional ‘gun control’:

“Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency.

“Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw's crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove's did not.

“Experts don't think the Kennesaw ordinance, which has never actually been enforced, did much to change gun ownership rates among Kennesaw residents. And, given that Greenleaf's mayor has estimated that 80 percent of the town's residents already own guns, the new ordinance can't make all that much of a difference. But criminals are likely to suspect that towns with laws like these on the books will be unsympathetic to malefactors in general, and to conclude that they will do better elsewhere.”

Reynolds also mentions some of the legal history:

“Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for law enforcement, the ownership of firearms was widely mandated during Colonial times, and the second Congress passed a statute in 1792 requiring adult male citizens to own guns.”

You can read much more about that legal history in:

To Keep And Bear Arms by Joyce Lee MalcolmTo Keep And Bear Arms, The Origins of an Anglo-American Right by Joyce Lee Malcolm Five GoldenYak award
1994, Harvard University Press, 0674893077, 223pp.
$19.88 [] {advert} / £15.15 [] {advert}

To Keep And Bear Arms is an excellent and fascinating precis of the legal history of the individual weapon ownership, from Norman England to modern America and Britain. The book makes it very clear that modern ‘gun control’ is an abberation, and not a well thought out abberation:

“After World War II, the "international community" determined that the most important goal of the new international system created for the post-war era would be the prevention of genocide. "Never again," we were told, and nations signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in large numbers.

“Among the nations who signed were Cambodia (1950), the Congo (1962) and Rwanda (1975), though Rwanda was originally covered by Belgium's agreement in 1952, when Rwanda was a Trust Territory administered by Belgium.

“This has led some observers to suggest that genocide isn't something that can be addressed by international conventions or tribunals. A recent article in the Washington University Law Quarterly argues that the most important thing we can do to prevent genocide is to ensure that civilian populations are armed:

“Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered--one does not usually lead to the other--but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed.

“In fact, the human rights community has addressed the issue -- but from the wrong side. They seem generally supportive of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's effort to put in place a global gun control regime "including a prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms."

“In other words, in the face of evidence that an armed populace prevents genocide, the human rights community has largely gotten behind a campaign to ensure that there will be no armed populaces anywhere in the world.”

Individual gun ownership should be recognised and enforced as a basic human right. A UN that works to deliberately disarm innocent potential victims is clearly not serious about protecting anyone but criminals and dictators. In disarming the public, Blair’s ‘government’ show that they have no serious interest in protecting the innocent from criminals.

related material
a way to cut homicides?

the web address for the article above is

quagmire! we’re losing! run away! - the auroran sunset

Well, maybe not:

“Bringing democracy to Iraq has forced the Islamic world to confront the terrorism monster they have created. Before Saddam was taken down, the Gulf Arabs depended on Saddam, as loathsome as he was, to keep Iran busy. Since 1979, Shia radicals have been running Iran, and supporting Islamic terrorism. But most Islamic terrorists are Sunnis who, as a matter of pride and principle, despise Shias, and Iranians. But with Saddam gone, the Iranians have gotten more ambitious.

“With the Shia majority in Iraq now running the country, the Arabs now have to confront Iran directly. And that they are doing. Saudi Arabia is supporting the Palestinian Fatah organization against the Iranian supported Hamas. Saudi Arabia is also using its money to support Sunni Arab, and Christian, factions in Lebanon, against Hizbollah, the Shia minority and its Iranian backers. Saudi Arabia is also giving support to the Sunni Arab majority in Syria. For decades, the Saudis tolerated the Shia minority that ran Syria. No more. The situation has changed, especially with Iran gaining speed in its effort to build nuclear weapons.

“The Saudis are even, secretly, cooperating with the Israelis. Iran has always been seen as a greater danger to Israel than the surrounding Sunni Arab nations. Hizbollah, which is a Lebanese Shia organization, made a name for itself during its disastrous attack on Israel last Summer. Although Hizbollah lost by every measure, they won in the arena of public opinion. Both the Israelis and Saudi Arabs (and Sunni Arabs in general) hated that.

“The removal of Saddam has already crippled al Qaeda throughout the Islamic world. The sight of American troops in Iraq enraged al Qaeda, and Islamic radicals in general. This was the one thing these maniacs could not tolerate. They all flocked to Iraq, began killing lots of Moslems, and after a year or so of that, plummeted in the popularity ratings throughout the Moslem world. Now the Saudis are mobilizing against that other terrorist backer; Iran. The Saudis are committing over $100 billion to this battle, and doing it out of the purest of motives; self interest.”

Saudi Arabia has of course been one of the main funding and fundy sources for the Sunni killers.

Meanwhile, the legitimate Iraqi authorities continue to gain control and kill/capture the murderous gangs, with a little help from their friends. At the same time, politics is becoming surprisingly (if you have been listening to the fossil media) normal:

In Baghdad when it is suddenly quiet around you for any length of time you can expect someone nearby to turn to you and say suspiciously, "Isn't it quiet outside?"

By "quiet" the speaker means that there have been no sounds of explosions or gunfire for a few hours. Those sounds are now part of normal daily life in Baghdad while "quiet" is a state that invites amazement and suspicion. In this city it's usual to respond to the above question with "Let's hope it stays like this."

My Baghdad neighborhood today was "quiet" compared to the last few days; but Baghdad is a big city and a Baghdadi gets to hear about most incidents through TV or radio just like everybody elsewhere in the world. The difference is that for us Baghdad news is local news. For example, today I heard about fighting in Dora where 10 insurgents were arrested; I heard that 8 more were arrested in Latifiyah; I heard that Iraqi forces are now in control in Haifa street. I heard all of that but I saw or heard nothing about these incidents firsthand.

The news also said that many of the 35 suspects who were arrested yesterday in Haifa street are not Iraqis, but more significant than that was the discovery of a large weapons cache in al-Karkh high school, the very school Saddam went to back in the 1950s.

Away from the streets the biggest battle I saw today was aired live on TV - the latest session of the parliament that witnessed loud arguments between some of the MPs, during which the speaker decided to cut media transmission from the hall.

Before it was cut off, PM Maliki spoke to the parliament to explain the goals and strategy of his new plan and to hear their feedback, suggestions and reservations.

Maliki's speech was sharp and straightforward. He stressed that the Baghdad plan was not directed against one faction over the other. He called it a plan "enforce the law" and said it would use force to apply the law against those who kill Iraqis and displace them from their homes.

The above Iraqi blogger continues with a blow by blow of the oh-so-normal parliamentary proceedings, which ended with this:

The weird and ironic finale to the whole argument we witnessed is that - after all the tension we saw on TV - the state TV news line later reported that the parliament approved the Baghdad plan unanimously.

Now it is quiet again. Too quiet.

The ‘surge’, and the major Baghdad operations planned by the Iraqis, do not officially start until the beginning of next month. One could almost feel sorry for the Iranian-backed Shia Sadrists, and Sunni Al Qaeda-ites and Baathists... That is if they weren’t so busy murdering civilians in an attempt to gain the power to murder yet more civilians.

The only serious worry remains whether we will follow through. Recent Bush and Maliki words and behaviour make me optimistic. As does this:

Al Qaeda is extremely unpopular in Iraq (94% disapproval). There are signs that as the general populace become aware of the Iranian support for Al Qaeda, the Iraqis are dropping their support for Iranian pawns such as Sadr. Latest polls suggest 77% want "a strong government that would get rid of all militias".

Meanwhile, now that Saddam is gone, Iran remains the main problem/target.

related material
lefties struggle to spin the growing success of the bush iraq policy as a ‘disaster’

the web address for the article above is

some commentary on the 2007 state of the union speech

George Bush’s State of the Union speech now recognises the interconnections of most of the basics of global warming, energy and geo-politics. There remain difficulties of insufficient sophistication.

His actions on Iraq were correct in the situation current at the time. Those basics have not changed much yet. They are changing slowly as the situation becomes more widely understood.

Section 1:
In this current speech there is one major error, a lack of understanding of Jevons’ paradox. That is, the incorrect assumption that improving mileage will reduce usage, it is very probable that it will not. It may even do the opposite, encouraging more people to upgrade the power of their vehicles.

The second, lesser, problem is the over-confidence regarding bio-fuels. While bio-fuels may contribute to an improving energy situation, they will not come close to meeting the vast quantities required. There are also problems with bio-fuels, such as those discussed in land conservation and food production, particularly the Appendix.

Thirdly, Bush correctly identified the major requirement for nuclear power, but there, he has the political problem of public hysteria.

Section 2:
Even with those details sorted out, the problems in the Middle East will not be solved. Oil is likely to remain a strategic resource as long as the price remains so low. This means that ambitious loons could use cheap pumped oil as an economic advantage for war-mongering, while the producers could continue to trade oil for armaments.

Section 3:
I mostly trust the American system to correct errors. That is happening with the Democrat Party getting more realistic and steadily marginalising the moonbats, and balancing the efforts of President Bush. The rather unhealthy entanglement of the Bush administration with the oil industry is also being offset by the growing concern for the environment among the Republican Christianist lobby.

George Bush inherited the problems of 50 years, which focussed on prioritising the control of socialism. He has also inherited the weaknesses in previous American administrations in attending to the mess in the Middle East. Even Clinton has plenty of blame to gather on that area.

related material

Bush’s State of the Union speech, the section on energy:

“Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.

“It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power. (Applause.) We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. (Applause.) We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- (applause) -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

“We made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies here in Washington and the strong response of the market. And now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years. (Applause.) When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

“To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

“Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but it's not going to eliminate it. And so as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. (Applause.) And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. (Applause.)

“America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change. (Applause.)”

2007 State of the Union speech full transcript.

Bush discussing the energy problem in considerably more detail at the Dupont plant, the day following the State of the Union speech.

the web address for the article above is

is ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe on the wane?

Clearly, ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe may be hung out to dry without ending the attempts by the mullahs to get a nuclear bomb. Will policy become more rational, or will this end as just a PR exercise?

Summary worth a scan.

“The mounting criticism is fuelling speculation that Mr Ahmadinejad is politically doomed. Observers have even suggested he might be impeached and removed from office.”

“Signs of Mr Ahmadinejad's declining stock have emerged less than a month after a crushing defeat in local authority elections, when only a fifth of his supporters won seats. His most powerful political rival, Hashemi Rafsanjani, also topped the poll in elections to the expert's assembly, a body empowered to appoint and supervise the supreme leader. Mr Rafsanjani has been a vocal critic of the president's strident anti-western rhetoric and has urged compromise on the nuclear issue.”

the web address for the article above is

bliar/clown - first steal from uk pension funds, then move to dump responsibility

“Families face a growing burden of care for elderly and disabled relatives and most people will have to pay for their own support services in old age as the state's role shrinks, the government's care watchdog will warn today.”

This government is performing the miracle of stealing ever more money, while delivering ever less performance, through ever increasing meddling and interference to achieve ever less and less.

However, society is also becoming ever more wealthy; in my view, much more than sufficiently to offset longer life. Further, this longer life does not translate into longer decline. Therefore, there is little in the way of necessary greater costs. Further still, with longer active life there comes the ability to work/produce for longer, thus increasing national wealth.

the web address for the article above is

matthew d'ancona on tim congdon - a seriously excellent piece of political analysis

It is very unusual to see a writer seeing through the sound-bite surfaces that endemic to fossil media ‘reporting’. Important reading for old Tories who are not adjusting easily.

“The defection of an economist from one party to another would not normally make headlines. But Tim Congdon, who announced his transfer of allegiance from the Tories to the UK Independence Party in the Telegraph last week, is no ordinary economist. As one of the most articulate champions of monetarism, he has been a luminous presence in the world of conservative ideas for a quarter century. His decision to leave the Tory mainstream for a fringe party, therefore, cannot be dismissed as an irrelevance.”

“When Prof Congdon writes that he "was one of the foot soldiers" of the Thatcherite revolution, he betrays its spirit, replacing pulsing energy with curmudgeonly nostalgia: it is a sorry sight when an intellectual buccaneer becomes the curator of what he sees as immutable doctrinal verities; so defensive he leaves the only party with a chance of implementing the values he holds dear. True Thatcherism, that wave of change that saved and transformed the country, was never meant to be fossilised into stone tablets, protected by a jealous priesthood. It was certainly not meant to spawn Tories like Prof Congdon who would rather see the party lose than admit the need for it to change.

“I would simply ask this brilliant economist: who is more likely to lead a Eurosceptic government, to reduce the tax burden when the public finances allow, and to tame the centralised state? David Cameron or Gordon Brown? At least Prof Congdon will have plenty of time to mull over this question as he languishes on the margins of politics with his angry new friends.”

the web address for the article above is

UK government's new wheeze - force middle classes into bad schools by lottery

“Schools will be able to allocate places by "lottery" to ensure fairness between all applicants and to stop middle-class families from dominating the best secondaries, under a new admissions code for England.”

Of course, the UK government are lying with their claims that this policy will stop the poorer classes being kept out of the better schools.

Doubtless, such a wheeze would also increase bussing and, therefore, global warming.

But never are vouchers suggested, because then the power would go to the parents rather than to the producer cartel and their union-funded government.

Oh sorry, all schools are ‘equal’. There are not better or worse schools. Just state schools which are all treated ‘equally’.

House prices in the catchment areas of the more equal socialist schools tend to rise relative to those in the catchment areas of the less equal socialist schools. I trust that our wonderful socialist government is going to compensate the house owners of the more equal houses and, knowing them, do a bit of capital gains taxing on the less equal houses as they become more equal.

Such a tax could, no doubt, be applied to yet again increasing M.P.s salaries to make them equal enough to continue keeping their children away from the more equal schools

“Howls of outrage have greeted Ruth KellyÂ’s decision to send her son to a private school. Some would have us believe that it is the latest kick in the teeth for the egalitarian values that made old Labour great.” [Quoted from]

Ah, the convolutions of socialist cultists as they try to gain acceptance for their nonsense.

related material
if you want education, education, education - don’t go to tony bliar’s schools
vouchers and ‘equality’ of educational opportunity
vouchers and standards
david willets on vouchers

the web address for the article above is

on bush’s speech for sorting iraq

Some say that the West no longer has the stomach for robust dealing, as might have a general or politician:

“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.”

If the West does not stand here in Iraq, where they are strong, they will be forced to stand further down the road when they are much weakened.

After Bush’s speech, it looks to me like they’re going to take the gloves off. If that is so, it is most welcome.

Now there is a threat, but this is not a one-shot policy. Slowly and steadily, the pressure is growing. Hisbollox are much weakened in Lebanon. Hamas has just stepped back for the first time. Another battle group is now off Iran, and another mass of the bastards are on the run in Somalia and being headed off at the pass by Kenyans and American warships.

This is no localised game.

Bush has stated that Iraqi oil must be shared amongst the Shiia, the Kurds and the Sunnis.
Bush has stated that American support for the Iraqi government is conditional. It is the place of the Iraqi government to choose. They are choosing. That is what sovereign governments do, they make choices.

the web address for the article above is

putin again plays the unreliable supplier

When will the short-sighted in the Western governments catch on?

Independent energy supplies are a vital national interest and the best possible way of cutting the ground from under aggressive foreign suppliers.

Perhaps the West should start threatening not to deliver food supplies!

“EuropeÂ’s oil supplies from Russia were being held to ransom last night as the Kremlin fell into bitter dispute with a former Soviet satellite state.

“Moscow abruptly halted millions of barrels of oil destined for the EU via Belarus in an increasingly hostile wrangle with its neighbour.

“The move raised further questions over whether Western Europe can trust Mr Putin for its energy supply. Experts said that Russia had a deeply entrenched habit of manipulating oil and gas supplies as a substitute for diplomatic policy.”

Update: Belarus oil supplies to Europe have been resumed.

related material
nuclear power - is nuclear power really really dangerous? An investigation of the perceived problems

the web address for the article above is

summary of recent iran ‘embarrassments’ - the auroran sunset

Some of what the Iranian mullahs have been doing Iraq and elsewhere:

“[...] the Washington Post reported the two Iranian intelligence agents captured in Baghdad possessed "weapons lists, documents pertaining to shipments of weapons into Iraq, organizational charts, telephone records and maps, among other sensitive intelligence information... [and] information about importing modern, specially shaped explosive charges into Iraq." One was "the third-highest-ranking official of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds Brigade."

“ "The New York Sun described the documents as "the equivalent of Iran's Iraq Study Group" which "show how the Quds Force - the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads - is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," an intelligence official told the New York Sun.

“ "Iranian involvement with al-Qaeda and other Sunni jihadis groups is nothing new, however the conventional wisdom in media and some intelligence circles is Shia Iran could never cooperate with Sunni al-Qaeda due to ideological differences. This ignores a mountain of evidence to the contrary, such as Iran's sheltering of over 100 al-Qaeda leaders, including Said bin Laden, Osama's son, and Saif al-Adel, al-Qaeda's strategic planner, or Iranian support of Somalia's Sunni Islamic Courts by providing arms and training.”

“Iranian involvement in Iraq with the Sunni terrorists has been an open secret in military and intelligence circles since the Fallujah uprising in March of 2004. Iranian mines and weapons were funneled to Zarqawi's terrorists in Fallujah and elsewhere throughout Sunni dominated Anbar province.” [Quoted from]

In other words, the Iranian dictators have been arming, training and funding both sides of the so-called Iraqi ‘civil war’. [See also lefties struggle to spin the growing success of the bush iraq policy as a ‘disaster’ and interesting summary taking apart moonbat vanities]

Sunni Al Qaeda operatives blew up a top Shiite shrine in Sammara, with the stated aim of bringing on a Sunni/Shiite civil war. Iraqi Al Qaeda was and is getting Iranian backing (as incidentally is Somalian Al Qaeda).

Next the Iranian-backed Shiite militias - Sadr's being the biggest - used the Sammara bombing as an excuse to up their own violence.

Now both groups, both still backed by Iran, continue to blow each other up, along with copious civilians, as the opportunity occurs.

The obvious aim being to create enough mess for the ever-helpful fossil media cameras, such that the useful idiots in the West force a withdrawal. Once the American aegis is out of the way, the Iranians, and or Al Qaeda, can take over.

Al Qaeda is extremely unpopular in Iraq (94% disapproval). There are signs that as the general populace become aware of the Iranian support for Al Qaeda, the Iraqis are dropping their support for Iranian pawns such as Sadr. Latest polls suggest 77% want "a strong government that would get rid of all militias".

This gives other Shiite politicians greater ability to go after the likes of Sadr:

“Aided by multinational troops, the Iraqi forces "will hunt down all outlaws regardless of their sectarian and political affiliations," al-Maliki said at an Iraqi Army Day parade.

“ "We will also severely punish those [security forces] who do not carry out orders or operate in a partisan or sectarian way," he said.” [Quoted from]

the web address for the article above is

the pimple of iran is ripening

“The only sane course of action is the least worst option.”

Worth scanning - such items are appearing with increasing frequency.

“[...] It has now been discovered that - surprise, surprise - Iran is far more involved in Iraq than had been thought. The admirable Eli Lake reports in the New York Sun that secret Iranian documents, seized when the US captured Iranians last month in Iraq, have revealed that Iran is working closely with both Shi’ite and Sunni militias.

“The news that Iran’s elite Quds Force would be in contact, and clandestinely cooperating, with Sunni Jihadists who attacked the Golden Mosque in Samarra (one of the holiest shrines in She’s) on February 22, could shake the alliance Iraq’s ruling Shiites have forged in recent years with Tehran. Many Iraq analysts believe the bombing vaulted Iraq into the current stage of its civil war [...]

“Michael Ledeen, who says this is a good moment to exploit the power struggle going on in Iran through the illness and now (reported) death of President Khamenei, also reports that US officials have been shocked - shocked! - at the vast scale of Iranian activity in Iraq revealed by these documents.

“It seems that our misnamed Intelligence Community had grossly underestimated the sophistication and the enormity of the Iranian war campaign. I am told that this information has reached the President, and that it is part of the body of information he is digesting in order to formulate his strategy for Iraq... I am told that, at first, there was a concerted effort, primarily but by no means exclusively from the intel crowd, to sit on the evidence, to prevent it from reaching the highest levels. But the information was too explosive, and it is now circulating throughout the bureaucracy... We are in a big war, and we cannot fight it by playing defense in Iraq. That is a sucker’s game. And I hope the president realizes this at last, and that he finds himself some generals who also realize it, and finally demands a strategy for victory.” [Quoted from]

[Link from a source.]


“By a series of stumbles and lurches, we have come closer to a nuclear conflagration than at any time since the bombing of Nagasaki. Although Israel has - thank Heaven - disavowed reports that it is planning a direct strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, there can be little doubt that Tel Aviv would authorise such attacks if the only other option were a nuclear Iran.” [Quoted from]

No, not “by a series of stumbles”. This was clearly predictable for several years. Now, the will of the West will be tested. I look forward to the Bush statement in the coming week.

Planning the means
A useful summary worth study.

Israel will not tolerate Iran going nuclear
“If things go according to plan, a pilot will first launch a conventional laser-guided bomb to blow a shaft down through the layers of hardened concrete. Other pilots will then be ready to drop low-yield one kiloton nuclear weapons into the hole. The theory is that they will explode deep underground, both destroying the bunker and limiting the radioactive fallout.

“The other potential targets are Iran’s uranium conversion facility at Isfahan - uncomfortably near a metropolis of 4.5m people - and the heavy water power reactor at Arak, which might one day be able to produce enough plutonium to make a bomb. These will be hit with conventional bombs.

“In recent weeks Israeli pilots have been flying long-haul as far as Gibraltar to simulate the 2,000-mile round trip to Natanz. "There is no 99% success in this mission. It must be a perfect 100% or better not at all," one of the pilots expected to fly on the mission told The Sunday Times.” [Quoted from, page 1, page 2, page 3]

“Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former National War College professor who has wargamed airstrikes on Iran, believes an American attack remains a possibility. The current deployment of a second US aircraft carrier strike force to the Gulf region, as well as British minesweepers, is a "huge deal", he said. "It is only necessary to do that if you are planning to strike Iran and deal with the consequences" - including an attempt to shut the Strait of Hormuz, the sea route for much of the world’s oil from the Gulf states.”

“ [...] We don't see a peaceful future with the Iranians developing a nuclear weapon” George Bush

“United States President George W. Bush said on Thursday that there could not be peace in the world with a nuclear-armed Iran.

“ "The free world wants there to be a peaceful future. And we don't see a peaceful future with the Iranians developing a nuclear weapon", Bush told reporters following a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the White House.” [Quoted from]

the web address for the article above is

stop playing footsie in iraq

“At about the same time, Aristotle composed the work, now lost, On Kingship, in which he clearly distinguishes the function of the philosopher from that of the king. He alters Plato’s dictum - for the better, it is said - by teaching that it is not merely unnecessary for a king to be a philosopher, but even a disadvantage. Rather, a king should take the advice of true philosophers; then he would fill his reign with good deeds, not with good words.”

Bush, listen to this philosopher.

[Quoted from]

“So, yes, send more troops to Iraq - but only if they are going to be allowed to hunt down and kill the vicious and sectarians in a manner that they have not been allowed to previously.

“This surge should be not viewed in terms of manpower alone. Rather it should be planned as the corrective to past misguided laxity, in which no quarter will now be given to die-hard jihadists as we pursue victory, not better policing. We owe that assurance to the thousands more of young Americans who now will be sent into harm’s way.”


“The whole sorry affair illustrates not just incompetence but the ingrained intolerance and sectarianism of the Maliki government. It stands for Shiite unity and Shiite dominance above all else.

“We should not be surging American troops in defense of such a government. This governing coalition - Maliki's Dawa, Hakim's SCIRI, and Sadr's Mahdi Army - seems intent on crushing the Sunnis at all costs. Maliki should be made to know that if he insists on having this sectarian war, he can well have it without us.”

the web address for the article above is

posturing prescott - ritual state murder should be dignified and secret

“[...] Today programme this morning, the deputy prime minister said: "I think the manner was quite deplorable, really.

“"I don't think one can endorse in any way that, whatever your views about capital punishment."

“Presumably referring to videos of the execution now circulating on websites, Mr Prescott added: "Frankly, to get the kind of recorded messages coming out is totally unacceptable." ”


  1. You should murder people in a dignified manner.
  2. You should hide any evidence of the murder.

Ah, there goes the ‘intelligence’ of a genius, the United Kingdom’s very own deputy ‘leader’.

The state murder of Saddam Hessein is not about ‘closure’, or any other such PC puffery.

It’s about a message to the Sunnis that there is no road back.
It’s about a message to Iraqi society that the law will rule.
Iraqi society is a revenge society. The ‘message’ has to be crafted to the culture. It is essential that no space be left for moonbat claims that the mad murderer still lives.

I’m prepared to accept the judgement of the Iraqi elected leaders (unless I get pressing data to the contrary). That is why they were elected. That is their very heavy responsibility. I do not have the arrogance to second guess the reasons behind their decisions, nor do I judge that they deserve patronising.

Now mass murderer Madsam is dead - that was the objective. For those that label his going as a ‘fiasco’ - a ‘fiasco’ would have been if he were not dead.

I did not have to take the decision. However, on balance, I think it was a politically necessary act, but I didn’t like it.

I repeat, in a sane world, he’d be in Broadmoor.

Sometimes the world is not as I would wish, but it is as it is. The most I can hope is that it teaches the human monkeys a little more, and that tomorrow is better than today.

Some solve their problems by hiding under the blankets and living in a world of fantasy, I prefer to face reality and work to improve the planet.

the web address for the article above is

if you want education, education, education - don’t go to tony bliar’s schools

“ [...] Between 2000 and 2003, for instance, the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) showed the UK slipping from fourth to 11th in science and from eighth to 18th in maths. However, there was one dazzlingly good result: when Pisa divided state schools from the private sector in 31 developed countries, our independent schools came top of the 62 groups.”

In view of the dubious reasoning in the article, I shall clarify why Britain’s state education system is declining, and rapidly.

Mixed ability classes require teachers of very high quality, unfortunately there are few about. An able teacher with assistants could teach effectively a mixed class of 100.

Where will you get able teachers when most teachers are:

  • those who can’t really make it in the top courses at unis,
  • when teachers of any ability can earn 2 or 3 times the wage in industry,
  • when teachers dare hardly breathe out of tune because of the PC fashion and pressure,
  • where decent teachers are subject to regular interference by ‘heads’ and department time-servers who are less able than themselves.

No serious professional would accept such conditions.

Only when teachers are paid and expected to perform will the situation be changed.

Obviously we should be going to vouchers, but that will hardly be welcomed by the supplier cartel and their unions.

related material
Programme forInternational Student Assessment (Pisa)

the web address for the article above is

You are here: politics news from January 2007 < News < Home

latest abstracts briefings information   hearing damage memory France zone

email abelard email email_abelard [at]

© abelard, 2007, 02 january
all rights reserved

variable words
prints as increasing A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)