QUESTIONS ASKED OF THE PEACE MOVEMENT, NUMBER SEVENTY NINE IN A SERIES:
'Do you think Iraq would be destroying missiles now/ co-operating with the weapons inspectors/ doing anything if it wasn't because of the threat of force?'
Maybe that's the case. But then what would you think of a person who threatens you with a gun and says 'hand over your wallet', and then shoots you anyway?

 
WHERE THE BLEATS HAVE NO NAME: Bono very, very careful in his Iraq war remarks - careful to suggest that Tony's heart is in the right place, and bloody careful not to piss off his friend George by mentioning him at all.

 
NOW KORKY THE CAT IS LINKED TO AL-QAEDA: Birmingham bans The Dandy over fears its covermount - a bright red and yellow plastic toy - might present a 'security risk'

 
MORE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: Remember how by the middle of this year, the US had promised ten million of the population would have been vaccinated against the risk of smallpox? As of this week, they'd managed 5,000 - almost half the states in the US had seen no vaccinations at all. This is probably a good thing, as we've shown before, because the very act of a mass vaccination policy could be a far graver threat to public health than anything terrorists could cook up. Oh, and as the New Scientist also wryly notes, the smallpox experts are so busy trying to organise a vaccination scheme, if someone stumbled round DC with smallpox, it's unlikely anyone would be free to notice.

 
FILLS YOU FULL OF PRIDE: The interesting aspect of Radio 4 getting told the wrong numbers of planes in Kuwait is: the Ministry of Defence is able to have 18 planes it can "overlook." Is this really battle ready?

 
LIVING IN A COUNTRY AT WAR: ITV war plans: News At Ten to become News At Nine.

 
CLOSING THE LID ON SADDAM MIGHT OPEN THE DOOR FOR IDS: We think that the always amusingly odd Samizdata's Brian Micklethwait is being a little bit over-optimistic in his hopes that entering a "new era" (we presume he means of America bombing countries it doesn't agree with at the moment) might give the Tories hopes that they're not all over bar a few more years of shouting, although there are feelings of mounting panic that Blair might be about to go the way of Ramsay McDonald and save the Conservative party by accident. Brian's belief is that people in the UK will vote for whatever party is unified, which is, of course, totally wrong; but based on this, and his belief that the key issue now is Killing and Maiming Overseas (Tories - totally for; Labour - divided) rather than Europe (Tories - split; Labour - erm, actually split, which doesn't fit with his theory, really) will make the Tories seem altogether and, thus, tempt us into voting for them.
Brian, it's not that the Tories were split and divided at the last election that cost them victory. It was because they were being lead by a weird, off-putting man (since replaced by a much weirder, more off-putting man) and didn't have any discernable policies. If the electorate is forced to choose between a party who support America's War On Everything led by Blair, and a party who support America's War On Everything, led, sometimes, by the head on a stick, who do you think they'll back?
The Conservatives deserve to never rule again. At a time when this country needs a credible opposition, they've spent five years noodling about on backbenchers. I'm on the left, but would rather have seen the Tories able to muster some degree of moral authority, some ability to oppose, some voice that would be taken seriously against the Blair government than for them to just disappear in a puff, leaving an unchecked executive. The Tories have demonstrated they're not even capable of opposition; who is going to trust them to govern? Shameful that they should await the half a million casualties of war as the only way to boost their poll ratings. Shameful.

 
I'M SORRY, YOU HAVEN'T A CLUE: It's interesting that Andrew Sullivan and his mysterious email correspondent get so excited about "some reporter named Jeremy" and his "lack of respect" for a nation's leader, in their furore over the Newsnight Special. Sullivan suggests - ridiculously - "the abolition of the BBC is essential to any serious political reform in Britain." Why? Because it asks the politicians to justify themselves and their actions? And why is asking difficult questions on a serious issue a "lack of respect"? It's no wonder the US public whose opinion doesn't match with their leaders are so often ignored if the supposedly smart commentators in the US feel that it's somehow rude for journalists to challenge the elected represntatives of a nation. The abolition of Andrew Sullivan is essential to any serious democracy in the USA.

 
WE'RE SLIGHTLY UNDER OCCUPATION: RAF Lakenheath and two other British bases are almost unnoticed being 'patrolled' by American soldiers. Now, although the agreements which allow the US to station troops in Britain does allow for them to bring in their own soldiers without consultation, the fact that the Americans didn't even bother to go through a formal request to the UK authorities shows just where Britain is viewed in this partnership - jesus, it's not like the Blair government would have said "No", is it?
The Ministry of Defence is insisting that the troops won't be doing any law enforcement duties, and won't be doing any patrol work outside the bases' perimeter (we don't know if they have guns modified that won't shoot through the wire fences), although since they were out of the loop when the decision to bring troops in was made, we're not sure how they can be so certain. And if there is an incident outside the camps, are we really supposed to believe the American troops will stand idly by?
More to the point, three hundred soldiers to guard three small air bases? Isn't that rather a lot?

 
HOW, EXACTLY: The most curious thing about George Bush's latest speech on Iraq was his introduction. Considering he was keen to stress how much he loves democracy, how come he allowed himself to be introduced as "the leader of the free world"? Indeed, not only is it undemocratic for him to declare himself as leader of a world that has never had any chance to vote on this, wouldn't it also be unconstitutional for him to accept the title from other states anyway?
Leaving that aside, let's move onto the claim he made that dealing with Iraq would be a "good example for democracy" across the Middle East. Now, the White House tells us constantly that the use of force is the only way to change saddam's mind, and the few concessions coming from Baghdad have been made at the barrel of a gun. So, if the despoiling of Saddam's regime is to make the American friends in Kuwait and Saudi think about allowing some sort of democracy into their countries, presumably it would have to be because they, too, believed there was a very real risk of America (and Tony too) dropping bombs on them, if they didn't. So is Bush really claiming that he's going to start attacking his own allies if they don't order a few thousand ballot boxes, some string and stubby pencils? Because how else would the "example" work?

 
REBELLIENT: Like a small burst of spring rain, the rebellion came. The historic depth of the vote against the Government last night shouldn't be overstated - yes, no party in power has ever seen so many of its own members troop through the opposition lobby, but then it's been a long time since a landslided party has got itself in such a pickle. But 121 voting against you still makes you catch your breath.
No wonder Blair was so busy making it clear yesterday that the vote wasn't going to be about taking military action against Iraq, but on if the case for doing so had been proven.
John Reid, who clearly has got delighted with the idea of being Tony's man (you know he stands naked in front of a mirror every evening saying 'Prescott can't last forever'), buttered the results this morning: a quarter of Labour backbenchers (like the nation as a whole) will never accept military action under any circumstances; three quarters are willing to support the United Nations to disarm this dictator. That's as maybe, John, but the debate last night was - as Tony made clear - about whether people were convinced there was a case for action yet. The message was that, so far, nothing has been proven. And to imply that your figure of 75% support for UN-led action translates directly into support for Tony's current policy, which is supporting the US line and action whatever the UN decides is just horsefeathers.

 
I WANT YOUR PAX: "George Michael - Pop star" read the caption on last night's Hardtalk, although to be accurate and cruel, it's a while since he's been either pop or much of a star. But he was here to talk war.
The new BBC news studios ill-serve the format, by the way - those hideous IKEA plastic circular tables on the raised bistro-style stripped wood flooring look uncomfortable enough at the best of times, but the width of them left Tim Sebastian and Michael sat to the side, awkwardly twisted, like two men in a crowded bar.
The main meat of his opinion had already been floated through the news - that an anti-war Band Aid would be a bad idea. Perhaps a bit unfairly, the early reports had suggested George had dismissed the plan as being ill-judged because he thought the participants were young and stupid, but his point was actually a bit more subtle than that - the current crop of chart stars are known for singing anything that's put in front of them, so if they sang "No more war", it wouldn't have the same impact as if they were known for writing their own feelings and opinions into songs - which is a fair point. You also can't disagree with him when he snorts that Noel Gallagher is "not an intelligent man", and his reaction to Sebastian's suggestion that he should stick the time-honoured rock star subject of Just Say No was splendid - "I take drugs. I'm not a hypocrite."
The trouble is, of course, that George came off as a little too pleased with himself - he took the Shoot The Dog controv on the chin, but suggested that if he'd not made the record, it would have been another three weeks before the public would have heard about the Iraq conflict; and he also left himself totally exposed on the question anyone against the war should expect - "what's the other option? would you leave saddam in power?" Michael's response was curiously "Saddam must go in the way Saddam must go, but not now." Which is simultaneously lacking in the how, and - more curiously - suggesting that early March is a lousy time for freeing a people from the yoke of oppression, and maybe we should leave it until July?
There's a report on the meeting on the BBC News website - filed, you'll note, under entertainment and not politics.

 
HISTORY ISN'T AT AN END - BUT WE'VE STILL WON: There's a piece by Jonathan Freedland in today's Guardian which stresses the main difference between America and Britain, in that while we're still debating the pros and cons of the war, in the US the debate has already moved on to 'what next?', citing the New American Century group as evidence of the existence of a 'Today Baghdad, tommorow - Beijing' mentality at work in the top levels of the American body politic.
He isn't joking.
Back in 1997, this self-proclaimed 'educational' body set down its guiding principles. Reaganite and proud, they are:
• we [the US] need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles
There's no room, of course, for the possibility that America might choose to live side-by-side with nations that don't hold her worldview - the political freedoms they wish to promote can clearly only be allowed if they aren't hostile to 'American' values.
It's also interesting to read the letter to Clinton about Iraq on their site from 1998. Not a word about the people of Iraq, or the Kurds, or torture. Of course, there's not a mention of support for International Terrorism, as the figleaf cover provided by the deaths of New Yorkers hadn't happened along at that point. What they do worry about, though is "if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. Amongst the signatories? Donald Rumsfeld.

 
PMQ: While it was interesting to see the Tory MP for the Isle of Wight try and link Iraq and the lack of good dentists on the Island, the highlight of Prime Minister's Questions was that Tony Blair, asked what a British soldier should do if he got a human shield peace campaigner in his sights in Iraq, didn't actually give an answer, but just muttered about how although they thought they were helping, they weren't really. So, Tony: would they shoot?
Of course, the actual scenario is less likely to be soldier with a gun, more airplane with a bomb. And when Donald rumsfeld was talking about Saddam using human shields, he said "that would be murder" - clearly indicating even people who aren't willingly near the targets won't be deemed a obstacle to bombing. We're guessing the official advice would be: shoot.

 
WHY WE SHOULD TRUST THEM: The Derek Bond case gives just another shining example of why we should raise a curious eyebrow at American 'intelligence services' when they tell us they have hot information. For those of you who've missed it, a british OAP goes to South Africa, and gets flung in jail at the FBI's behest, because they believe him to be some sort of telemarketing scam-meister. The actual bloke has used his name as a pseudonym. Now, okay, everyone makes mistakes. So, does the OAP get swiftly released when it's clear he's not their man? Nope, he continues to be held in prison for twenty days, and its only when someone gives up the proper suspect - who's been sat in Las Vegas the whole time - that the Americans go 'whoops-a-daisy.' What makes it worse, it turns out the FBI have been watching the OAP for a while before he went out of the UK - so, let's see: not only did they have the wrong man, but if he had have been their man, they were quite happy for him to be jetting all round the world? And how can it take them so long to process the man they arrested anyway?
Mr. Bond was arrested in South Africa on the 6th. Because he knew he was innocent, he agreed to be extradited to the US to speed up the process on February 10th. On February 25th, he was still languishing in the SA prison - now, since the FBI believed him to be off their "Most Wanted" list, and since he'd agreed to go to the US, what was the delay here? Could it be that the FBI were deliberately dragging their feet in taking Mr Bond to America in a bid to loosen him up before interrogating him? And if that is the case, then is that so very different from using mild torture to extract a confession?
This is the FBI, of course, whose "intelligence" is helping set the level of terror alert in the US. Good work, fellas.

 
THAT'S ALL THE SUPPORT YOU NEED: Surely if Tony needed any further proof of just how terrible his current Iraq policy is, the sight of William 'did you know he was still an MP?' Hague standing up to offer support must have brought it home to him?

 
STUDENTS DEMANDING BLOODSHED: Actually, this bunch of Harvard types have called themselves 'Students For Protecting America.' They profess themselves to be sickened by the anti-war movement and want to do something to prove just how committed they are to Protecting America. Let's leave aside for a moment the question of whether America is at risk, shall we, and let's just look at how they're going to do this Protecting.
During the early days of the First World War, students were so determined to play their part in ensuring freedom thrived, they marched down to the recruitment office, and signed up to fight in the trenches. Conviction turned into action. And is this the tradition to which Students For Protecting America are allying themselves?
Erm... no. Nothing about putting their studies on hold to go and fight. They're not actually thinking of offering their services to help nurse the wounded, or to bring their minds to the tricky task of nation building once the war has been won. No, instead, SPA "is posting fliers around the Harvard campus.  It plans to disseminate educational fliers supporting the cause for war and addressing counter-arguments frequently made against it.  The group plans to contact other schools around the country to encourage similar forms of mobilization, and it is considering organizing a rally in the near future."
In other words, they're going to sit at home, eating donuts, watching CNN and applauding. And considering, if the worst happens, maybe holding some sort of a rally.
Not a word about putting their bodies where their mouth is.

 
IT'S ALL ABOUT NOT OIL: The main plank to most of the coverage of Tony's wonderful-but-will-never-happen pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by sixty percent has been "Oooh, the Americans won't like being told they must stick to Kyoto, and go beyond." Funny that Tony should suddenly get tough over something that's not much of a priority to the White House just as probably even Cherie has started to call him Bush's poodle, isn't it? Back when me and a flatmate were getting grief from the other people we shared with because they disliked and felt challenged by our friendship, we used to stage rows in order to stop them sneering at us for a while. I'm not sure why I recall those days right now.

 
I BELIEVE THIS IS WHAT FINANCIAL JOURNALISTS CALL 'THE MARKETS WERE UNCONVINCED':

 
HOME OF JACKASS, ISN'T IT?: Newsnight didn't work, so Blair's going to try and make the case for dropping bombs in Iraqi civilians on MTV - we could see this working, actually. They could have hidden cameras in Baghdad, and play it for laughs, couldn't they?

 
WHILE WE'VE GOT THE NEW STATESMAN OPEN: It's like what the pop papers say, only it's not about pop: Christina Odone was very sneering about Bianaca Jagger - is it really neccesary for a supposedly serious writer to treat someone who's been working for social causes for years now as if they were on a par with Geri Halliwell's short-lived flirtation with a conscience? "How Bianca Jagger (yes, the same) became the new Mother Teresa" is the headline on her piece - how long ago did she cease to be "Jagger's ex-wife" and how much has she done since? And in what way is she like the phoney nun, except for getting on Christopher Hitchen's shit list? As far as I know, Bianca's tireless work hasn't required anyone to convert to Catholicism before they receive help. So, yeah, maybe Odone might feel Jagger is "the world's most famous do-gooder", but since the only real reason she can find to sneer is that Jagger's had sex with Mick and went to Studio 54.

 
GEORGE BUSH SAYS: By next year, they'll be able to include Sundays on the 'they misunderestimated me' George Bush calendar - Andrew Stephen records this, asked about the protest marches: "Size of protest, it's like deciding 'Well, I'm going to decide policy based on a focus group.' The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security. In this case, security of the people. Democracy is a beautiful thing, and that people are allowed to express their opinion."

 
OUT OF THE DARK: The much-missed After Dark made a return to UK TV this weekend - you could probably call it the chat show as blog, if you wanted to. After months of seeing Tony Wilson trying to look interested in the local news on Granada - we don't expect all our newscasters to sit at ninety degrees, but his chair on Granada Reports looks like one of those beds British Airways boast about for their business class passengers - it was good to see him with something to get his teeth into. Unfortunately, we joined late and neither the website nor the EPG could tell us who the well dressed American woman was, but she was our favourite - she tried to deny that America had ever supplied Iraq with Anthrax, and when called on the point went into a long, meaningless waffle about how it was all perfectly legitimate. Even better, she seemed bemused why anyone would think that the Americans having supported Saddam was of any importance - "it was against the Iranians" she said, as if that made it alright.

 
TANKING: Exxon are hopping mad that Greenpeace has targetted them in an anti-war protest which has closed Esso forecourts and forced the closure of their UK HQ. It's true, actually, that it's ridiculous to attack ExxonMobil for encouraging the war in Iraq, when they've not been berated enough for their collusion in kidnapping, rape, murder and torture in Indonesia yet.
David Eglinton, Esso spokesperson, says it's not true that his company has been in conversations with the Bush administration about getting access to Iraqi oil after the war's over. Maybe the company memo reporting the meeting between Cheney and reps from Haliburton, Chevron Texaco, Conoco Philips and Exxon Mobil hasn't quite made it through the system yet. Perhaps its being held up by all those protesters dressed as tigers outside?

 
BREAKFAST WITH FROST... AND YOG: For some reason, Breakfast With Frost has dragged up george Michael for a hard-hitting interview. George warns that the West and "the fundamentalist world" are going to be at loggerheads for years. It's nice that George is standing up to be counted, but... Georgie, Bush starts all his meetings with prayers and invokes The Lord God all the time; Blair is desperate to keep the Pope onside while also trying to lead the Anglicans from the front. I wouldn't be too sure that the West isn't the fundamentalist team on this one.
He also says he still believes in the Prime Minister. Surely the problem is that his existence isn't in doubt?