Another Day, Another Lie as the war reporting continues in it's onlsaught against truth. We've just heard so many lies now we don't know what to believe.

I saw an interview with the soldier in charge of the Basra area saying about the much trumpeted humanitarian operation:

"If they co-operate and help our forces we'll give them humanitarian supplies. If they don't help us, they don't get them".

The deafening silence from the US about the market bombings continues. Thier line is that "We are investigating". Oh yes? well if you still don't know what happened, then I can only conclude that you don't know where your missiles are actually landing.

But listen up. You said it was anti-aircraft fire. well, how many rounds does it take to destroy a building? to make a fifteen foot deep crater? you said it was an anti-aircraft missile. Show me one AA missile that can make a crater that big. There aren't any.

But not all is silence. UK troops describe being hit by friendly fire.

"I can command my vehicle. I can keep it from being attacked. What I have not been trained to do is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me."

And Three soldiers are being sent home after protesting at the number of civillian deaths.

All is certainly not well. There was some night vision film of soldiers coming under attack near Basra last night. What was interesting was, for the whole of the firefight, the UK soldier on the left was trying to get his gun to fire after it jammed.

But the coalition forces are getting a reputation for brutality. I saw house to house searches on Uum Qasr that shocked me. I was amazed to see this on air. Soldiers were just bullying civillians.

And, in a story that has mysteriously vanished from the Times UK site, we get this: Fears Marines will shoot first, ask questions later

US marine, Corporal Ryan Dupre, surveying the scene by the bridge at An Nasiriyah, said: "The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy. I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin’ Iraqi. No I won’t get hold of one - I’ll kill him."

I'm taking a break from it by listening to Eddy Izzard.

How To Expand A Coalition Slovenia mistakenly offered huge wodge of cash for being part of the coalition of the willing.

One tiny problem, they aren't in the coalition:

"The United States mistakenly named Slovenia as a partner in its war against Iraq and even offered it a share of the money budgeted for the conflict, the tiny Alpine nation said on Thursday.

"When we asked for an explanation, the State Department told us we were named in the document by mistake as we are not a member of the coalition against Iraq," Rop told a hastily arranged news conference.

Slovenia was one of the states named in the $75 billion U.S. war budget which must be approved by Congress and includes grants to partners in the U.S.-led military action. Slovenia was slated to get $4.5 million from the budget, which Rop said will not be forthcoming.

"We are a part of no such coalition. We are a part of a coalition for peace," Rop said."

The Belgian Michael Jackson Emmanuel De Reyghere will have the last of nine operations to look like Michael Jackson. Well he was white to begin with so that was one fewer than Jacko. His explanation:

"Some people spend their money on golf. I just spend all my money on making my face look like him."

Tricia's Intellect This has to be one of the most annoying women on television. She has her own chat and confess TV show, very much a bargain basement Rikki Lake - yes, I know. The only entertainment in the show is watching the cameramen try not to show that she has an arse the size of a fridge freezer, an event that even extends to the show's website, where the main graphic has been resized vertically in an effort to hide it.

Anyway, the self styled "Queen of Chat" - who's show is on Norfolk's Anglia TV, deep in "Partridge Country" has this to say about Norfolk:

"It's much harder to get a level of intellectual stimulation here."

Even though she films her daily TV show in the area, she continued: "Unfortunately, when you go rural, intellect goes hand in hand with snobbery or elitism."


This, from a genuis who takes ecstasy for depression. But the portrayal of rural people as backward, thick and stupid is as wrong as it is offensive. I'm going to stop before I start ranting about the Vicar of Dibley, where everyone but Dawn French is portrayed as an imbicile.

A New Coat Of Paint I've redesigned the site. No mean feat after a night drinking grappa with the cartoonist. I wonder when Zoe is going to speak to me again.

Who Bombed Baghdad Market? According to US Central Command quoted here:

"One possibility and high probability is that it was caused from the fallout from the regime's anti-aircraft fire."

Yeah, right.

The Inevitable Happens Despite the arrogant assertions that the greatest of care is taken, and that we only use bombs that are so precise and surgical that they practically tidy up after themselves, the inevitable has happened with the bombing of a civilian market in Baghdad.

Attempting to explain this away the massive intellect of the US forces was visible:

"US general Vincent Brooks told reporters at a press briefing this afternoon that he could not be certain that coalition forces were responsible.

He said: "We don't have a report that corroborates that, so I can't confirm it. We do everything physically and scientifically possible to be precise in our targeting."

So, who else is firing missiles into central Baghdad? The North Koreans?

Great Media Interviews From UK's GMTV - an especially asinine breakfast news programme:

A military expert tells them about the difficulties of fighting in a desert
Eamonn: "I mean, think what it's like even when you're on the beach"
Ffiona: "Sand in your sandwiches!"
Military bloke: "Yes, well they're not very worried about their sandwiches"

Great Military Minds #2:

"I've never said this is going to be quick. I've always said this is going to take as long as it takes," said Air Marshall Brian Burridge.

I've Found A Bigger Idiot than Sgt Sprague. The Reverend Blair has just announced that the war is going exactly as planned.

Exactly? I beg to differ.

Great Military Minds #1 - True, when we're looking for cognitive powers, we don't automatically think "We need a squaddie", but Sgt Sprague, from White Sulphur Springs in West Virginia is spending his time in Iraq redefining the term idiot:

"I've been all the way through this desert from Basra to here and I ain't seen one shopping mall or fast food restaurant," he said. "These people got nothing. Even in a little town like ours of twenty five hundred people you got a McDonald's at one end and a Hardee's at the other."

But that is the essential quandry about the US military machine, and this is how friendly fire incidents are caused: smart bombs, dumb soldiers.

Groundhog Day - Once again I wake up to hear that Uum Qasr has been captured - for the ninth time in 5 days, and that there's fighting for control.

Once again I hear that Nasiriya has fallen, and that there is fighting for control.

Once again I hear that US soldiers are 100km from Baghdad, as they have been for several days now.

Once again I hear of the lighning advance through the desert. Christ Almighty, if it really was like that they'd have reached Istanbul yesterday.

I am also being told that the military strategy is fine, and that there are high level meetings to discuss changing the strategy.

I am also being told that the level of resistance is expected, and that it has suprised the military.

I am being told that a chemical weapons factory has been found, and that it isn't a chemical weapons factory.

I am being told that the Iraqi's are surrendering, and that they're not.

I am told that the Southern oil fields are secure, and that they are not.

I am told that British troops are advancing on Basra, when they are retreating.

I am sick and tired of all the lies. I expect outright lies from Blair and Bush - the Beevis and Butthead of international diplomacy, I expect evasions and gung-ho from the military, however their constant refrain of "We've got a job to do", is sickening. I last heard that one from an officer who was explaining the thinking behind mortaring Basra.

But I am so disappointed by the journalists. Never has the BBC been so craven, so unquestioning, so gutless. There's plenty of "Gosh it's jolly dangerous" reports, signifying nothing, being produced. But they never challenge what they're told. They accept everything at face value.

Equally sickening is their wholesale adoption of military parlance - as if they're throwing even the pretence of impartiality. There is something revolting about a journalist using phrases like 'taking out', especially in reference to human beings.

Recommended reads on the war:

Agonist - is providing fair coverage and is good at sorting the wheat from the chaff

Cyber Journalist - has lots of good stuff and useful links

Poynter Online - everything you need to be a better journalist

Propaganda, Lies and the Geneva Convention I'm getting to the point where I am just repulsed by our behaviour in this war. It was started because Bush and Blair just couldn't stop telling bare-faced lies, and they've got even worse.

On the orders of Donald Rumsfeld, footage of the dead US soldiers and the POW isn't being shown in the US or UK. He thinks the film of the captives is against the Geneva convention and is uttering vague threats against anyone who shows the footage. Of course it's fine to show Iraqi POW's and dead Iraqi's.

I've seen it, and it's not as distressing as the film of the interrogation of the 'Tornado Down' pilots in the first Gulf War. So, what is different? what has happened to the BBC? Their newsreader was taken to task by an analyist on air earlier today.

They were claiming that the battle for Uum Qasr is so that humanitarian aid can come in through the port. But this is a lie. They are capturing the port so that military supplies can come in, instead of flying them in via jordan. The situation is far too unstable for aid to be distributed.

Lise, lies, lies. Rumsfeld said Uum Qasr had been captured on Friday, but they're still fighting for it. Yesterday, we were told that Basra had fallen. Today we learn that they're besieging it and will not enter.

But do you want to see something? a breach of the Geneva convention? By British soldiers? British soldiers over the bodies of two Iraqi soldiers and their white flag.

A Right Wing New Labour? This is how I am beginning to think about the Bush administration. They seem to be all confident with the arrogant swagger of those who think they know what's best for everyone, punch drunk on newly aquired power. But are they as they seem?

I think not. Just as time showed New Labour to be all froth and no substance, I think the limitations of Bush's team are beginning to appear. To put it simply, they just don't know what they're doing. These people are CEO's not hardened in realpolitik, who believe an executive order is the war forward.

I saw Rumsfeld on Friday at his imperious best claiming to be in complete control of Uum Qasr. Sunday morning I can see soldiers on the outskirts fighting. So, either Rumsfeld doesn't know what's happening, or he is lying. Either way they don't look too good, do they?

They've got themselves into something they don't really understand - the world beyond America's border - and what looked good on paper to them, is not looking so good in the real world.

Simple things like the 'Shock and Awe' strategy, which certainly shocked the author of the strategy, comes across, not as US supremacy, but an appalling assault on a city of 5 million people.

And now, although there has been no reporting of casualties, they are beginning to mount up. Journalists and the RAF have been targets of 'friendly fire' and Tehran is investigating 3 missiles that landed in Iran.

Bush is promising a perpetual war against a whole series of nations. I think this doctrine will be a casualty of this conflict. If you're having so much trouble with a poor and demoralised Iraqi army, then you're not really in a good shape to assault states like, North Korea or Iran, states that will fight back, much harder that the Iraqi's are.

At The US Embassy I went to the anti war demo today, marching to the embassy. numbers were down on the last two marches, but I wasn't suprised as this was going to be different. It was. There was less festivity in the air and the arab demonstrators were raging.

It was obvious that it was going to kick off, and as we hung around outside the embassy it got more and more tense. Eventually some protestors began ripping up the pavement and concrete bollards, and throwing it at the line of police, and so the water cannons came out to play.

I thought the policing was good. They weren't provocative and were looking rather nonchalant, given the circumstances. We felt safe where we were and the demonstrators around us were older and more level headed.

As the riot police moved in we decided to take a brief exit, and headed home.

Photographs of the march and protest are here

Collateral Damage Last night a friend's son, who is a police officer in Oxford got stabbed. Usually officers patrol in groups of two or more, but they have been reduced to single man partols. Why? My friend explains:

Last night, to cover the whole of Oxford, a town of maybe 200,000 people, there were six police officers on duty, because the rest have been seconded to guard Heathrow and take part in other anti-terrorist activities. God help the victims of crime, expecially those who cannot fight back.

Informing Your Allies - Blair must be in with the Bush crowd. Reporters had to wake Alistair Campbell up and tell him the war has started. Meanwhile He's popping over to Brussels to ask the EU to fund reconstruction of Iraq. They may respond by saying "You broke it, you pay for it to be repaired". Koffie Annan was complaining that the UN has only got 35M of the 110M they asked for to cope with the refugees and humanitarian crisis the war will cause. So much for Bush and Blair's oh so sincere concern for the Iraqi people. There has been sod all planning for the crisis that is about to befall the Iraqi people.

The Belgian Sense Of Fun they're suing Powell, Cheney, Schwarzkopf and Bush snr:

Families of those who died in the US attack on the Amiriyah air raid shelter in Baghdad, which took place in the 1991 Gulf War, are to file a case against the former president under a law enabling Belgian courts to hear human rights cases.

Oh dear, our friends just don't understand us, as that nice Mr Powell said, when told of this:

"We have cautioned our Belgian colleagues that they need to be very careful about this kind of effort, this kind of legislation, because it makes it hard for us to go places that put you at such easy risk," said US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"If you show up, next thing you know you're being... Who knows?"

Who knows indeed, and wait till they get the backlash from placing bugging devices in the EU buildings. Now that's going to annoy a lot of people. Perhaps the Reverend will have an explanation.

Meanwhile the armies move into position. The Brits are as shambolic as ever, lacking uniforms, boots and food. It must be worrying for them, knowing that they're more likely to be killed by their allies rather than the Iraqis.

After The Debate my favorite moment was this:

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Prime Minister is making a powerful and compelling speech. Will he tell the House whether there has been any identification of the countries that have supplied these terrible biological materials? Such as anthrax and toxins to Iraq? Should those countries not be identified? Named by the Prime Minister and condemned?

The Prime Minister: Much of the production is in Iraq itself.

That's all he had to say on the matter. If we don't want people like Mr Hussain or The Bunker, Baghdad having WMD then we shouldn't sell him the bloody stuff.

Take a look at a satellite photo of Baghdad. This is a 'before' photo.

A Motley crew As the US proundly announce the full list of the coalition of the willing.

Here they are:
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Britain, Uzbekistan.

Ye Gods, is this the best they can do?

Resignations and Reputations Funny old world. Robin Cook's departure increased his stature, for this was one of the most intelligent politicians Labour have produced, speaking on a matter of real principle, read his resignation speech.

Let's see how that compares with Claire Short's squalid excuses for staying, and backing the government in tonight's vote. My prediction: she'll be dropped in a reshuffle after the May local elections.

Very Scary The Pentagon's New Map aka Why We Are Going To War, And Why We Will Keep Going To War.

Caution: The author, who runs the New Rulesets Project at the US Naval war College thinks this is a good thing.

The first Signs of War as journalists mass on the Turkish border begging, pleading and cadjoling thier way into Iraq. The main interest, for myself, was mention that Don McCullin is there. If this war needs a photographer it is him.

The photographer's role in wars - a Febuary interview with him. Please read it, it is an intelligent and humane perspective from a man, at enormous personal cost, goes there on our behalf:

If you are a decent human being, war is going to offend you because it has no purpose other than to satisfy someone's desire for power and profit. And it is the little people who suffer.

At the first whiff of trouble, the rich and the informed get into their Mercedes-Benzes and off-road vehicles and leave. The poor people, the very last of the dregs of society, can't escape. They get the bill.

Off-Road and Off Their HeadsFrom the people who brought you the Total Information Awareness Program and many other abuses of basic human rights, we have something too wierd for words - The DARPA Off-Road Challenge:

DARPA intends to conduct a challenge of autonomous ground vehicles between Los Angeles and Las Vegas in March of 2004. A cash award of $1 million will be granted to the team that fields the first vehicle to complete the designated route within a specified time limit.

The purpose of the challenge is to leverage American ingenuity to accelerate the development of autonomous vehicle technologies that can be applied to military requirements.

Blair's Other War, no, not the one with his own party, but the drugs war. How is that going? Not terribly well as the UK is approaching self-sufficiency in cannabis. I'm not sure if this is part of some anti-globalisation protest, but it certainly is 'green'. now, if only they could recycle the stuff.

Incoming Rapture As I decide to cover all the angles. I just don't know what happened in the Azores, but Bush looked calm and even spoke recognisable English. Although he kept pausing for effect I noticed he's lost that tiny smug smile he has whenever he talks about death, destruction and so on.

The Reverend and Manuel looked terrified, I know Manuel isn't used to such august company, but Blair was gripped by real terror. I genuinely expected him to break down in the middle of it. One of the strangest addresses by a head of state I have ever seen.

Anyway, the first deadline has been passed for no rational reason. There isn't a hope in Hell that the UN is going to pass a War Now resolution, so why is the diplomacy continuing? But they have been comprehensivly out manouvered by the French, the Russians and Chinese. They seem unable to come to terms with this, it has taken them all by suprise.

A big loser is Blair, who promised Bush that if he went to the UN he would deliver Europe's support. Oops. Then again, during the coalition building for Afghanistan, Blair was running around the Gulf states promising that 'this is about Afghanistan only' and that there was no plan to attack Iraq. The truth is that the Iraq war was decided on the evening of 11 September 2001, as quoted at length in Bush at War by Bob Woodward.

So, When Will The War Start? I don't know, I had heard that the UK media had been told it was this morning. I am sure it is not far off, possibly tonight, but there is something very strange going on behind the scenes.

It is at times like this I consult the Rapture Index which hasn't been updated for a week and is showing 172 - some ten points off the all-time high. I think it's closed whilst they recalibrate.

An Absolute Shambles Personally I think Bush and Blair are secretly running Blogger, who else could make such a mess of a once great public service. But the man who brought you the Millenium Dome is bringing that same sure touch to international diplomacy.

Bush was clear and gave a 'war now' speech whilst a pale and clammy Blair did a nervous version of his 'hey guys, we need to come to agreement' spiel. did anyone else notice how wired the Reverend is looking in the Azores?

I expected him to break down at any moment. He does seem to be dancing on the edge of a nervous breakdown. Or is the, ahem, medication he is taking 'for flu' just kicking in a bit too strong? Well, he's lost a lot of weight, is pale and sweating, has staring eyes and a very low blink rate and is just looking edgy and nervous. I'd put money on him taking amphetamines. Not good, especially if you nees sound judgement. When it comes to war, would you risk your soldiers lives for a speed freak? Check it out for yourself - Real Audio.

Meanwhile Powell has told Blix's inspectors to get out of Iraq. Hans Blix responded saying "Why are we hearing this through the media and not the usual channels?"

One thing is patently clear after recent days: Bush and Blair are out of their depth.

Signs And Wonders as a talking carp pronounces the end is nigh. Other signs include the fact that there is a new celebrity blogger - a Barbie doll; Terrifying.

Meanwhile I'm testing my knowledge of Europe by playing Swiss, Swedish, Danish or Dutch.

But there is one thing I know, that the US Congress doesn't: they're Belgian Fries you fools. Never, never get between a Flem and his frites.

But it does seem that the French are not taking this lying down as they demand the return of the Statue of Liberty:

"Finally, the Americans will feel the wrath of the French. We plan on putting the statue in Eurodisney, or giving it to a more freedom-loving country like North Korea."

Sick Of Blogger It is almost impossible to log into, and the two posts I made this morning have vanished into the ether.

It's down for long periods and is largely unuseable these days. I hope Google haven't handed over any hard cash for this junk.

Belgium Mourns the cancellation of Queen Elizabeth's visit to Belgium next week, due to, ahem, 'war fears'.

America and Liberty Given that in America, even the right of sensible think Ashcroft is to the right of sensible and they have re-named French fries as, and please don't snigger, freedom fries, we now hear that they're going kill Kate Adie any any other journalist who tries to report the massacre of Iraqi civillians victorious capture of Baghdad.

And, finally, they're planning to dig up the dead:

"I, along with many other Americans, do not feel that the French government appreciates the sacrifices men and women in uniform have made to defend the freedom that the French enjoy today," Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite said in introducing legislation providing financial help for the reburial of veterans from the two world wars.

Personally, I think the French should demand the return of the Statue of Liberty.

Set Your Alarm Clock

War Begins: Monday 17^th March. 4 a.m. GMT.

Don't be late.

Google and Blogger I thought this was good news, but since the buyout Blogger has been just appaling. It is down half the time, posts go missing, template edits get lost, in fact it is true to say that their service has never been this bad. And that's saying something.

Well you get what you pay for, but I wouldn't dream of handing over cash for the PRO, not with their record.

Unfortunately my host doesn't have php or sql otherwise I would be long gone. But it is time to take a very good look around and see what alternatives I can find.

The Reasonable Veto

Dear George and Tony,

By the time you read this, I'll be vetoing your resolution. I'm sorry to have to do this, but I think it's for the best. I know this will be a shock to you, but I've been trying to tell you how I feel for some time now, but you're just not listening to what I'm trying to tell you. I guess I left it till the last moment because I was hoping you would see the emotional pain you are causing me and change your warring ways.

this is so hard for me, I remember the good times which meant so much to me, to you, to both of us. The weekends at Camp David, the cozy evenings by the fireside. do you remember when I suprised you in your office? That was something special I shall never forget.

But, as I'm sure you know, if you look deep in your heart, we have been drifting apart. We want different things out of life and out of a relationship.

I hope you find someone special to be in your coalition of the willing, someone who can support you where I can't.

I'm sorry it has to end this way, but it is for the best and I hope we can be friends again one day.

I'm sorry to have caused you this pain, but I want you to respect my wishes and my veto.

With Fond Memories,
Jaques

X X X

Meeting NATO's Spin Doctor Jamie Shea at a briefing meeting today was enlightening, but left a few questions in my mind.

He argued that NATO had been very successful in preventing conflict in Europe, but the new threats come from outside of the EU. An area where NATO had a poor record (Suez, Vietnam etc). The future for the alliance was to adapt and become a global player, where it could be 'more efficient' than 'unilateral action or a coalition of the willing'.

This would require the EU to spend heavily to catch up with the US's technical superiority and to invest in intelligence, not only in spying, but more in the areas of research institutions and analysis. Not to do this would encourage the US to see NATO as a liability, or, as in the case of Afghanistan, an irrelevance in strict militarily terms. This shortfall is encouraging the US to act unilaterally.

However he did not talk on where this new improved NATO would be in relation to the UNSC. Is it an option for those who do not wish to go to the UN? Is it in competition with the UN? Should it act under UN resolutions, or unilaterally, like Kosovo?

He listed three main threats to NATO

1: Collapsing States - where NATO could make a contribution in terms of peace enforcement as it has the infrastructure and experience, as well as the ability to make alliances with NATO and non-NATO countries.

2: Terrorism - where NATO has more, and broader experience than the US

3: Rogue States - which are the 'toughest problem' as well as being politically risky. This led us onto the subject of Iraq.

So, what about Iraq?

There are 3 options for NATO:

1: No involvement, but deploy to protect allies, such as Turkey.

2: Backfill. In other words, to agree with the US, but because of technical shortfall/political risk, stick to assisting on preferments such as, guarding US assets/facilities allowing the US to transfer forces to the front. This also provides political support.

3: Toolbox. Although he dressed this up, it basically amounts to the Us rummaging through everything NATO has and using what they want, how they want.

He pointed out that option 2 and 3 was easier with UN support.

When asked about pre-emptive attack he said it was difficult to agree to on the grounds that it exposed home populations to attack, but mainly because NATO feels it needs absolute proof of wrongdoing before it feels it could, theoretically, initiate an armed conflict.

Finally he spoke about possible NATO roles. It seems that there could be a role for the alliance clearing up after the Americans supporting peacekeeping efforts by taking over ISAF4 in Afghanistan, which would be a big step, but would place them as operators on the global level that they aspire to.

It was also mentioned that NATO has been asked to be peacekeepers in Iraq but, Dr Shea made it very clear that this idea has not been discussed nor had any planning whatsoever been initiated in the alliance.

So there you have it. It does leave a lot of questions and there are some very serious implications of this view of NATO's future, not least where it fits in with the UN.

Inside Iraq there are some good journalists working to produce the independent Iraq Journal, which also has a Photo Journal of people who might be killed in order to liberate them in a weeks time. Also there, and writing for the UK Guardian, is Jo Wilding with some humane and thoughtful writing.

Shock Non-War Post I watched The Ipcress File yesterday and it remains as good as it ever was. It was partially concieved as a reposte to James Bond, with a determindly glamourless aesetic. Harry Palmer's name was chosen is it was the most boring one that came to mind. The opening is as low key as you can get and throughout, spying is portrayed as an endless formfilling, humdrum exercise.

Visually it is remarkable, with a detatched, almost disinterested eye on the story. What would be big scenes in a Bond movie, such as a fight with the baddie's bodyguard, are observed on the same emotional level as scenes of Palmer at his desk.

There is a great article on the film on, of all places, the Bond site. And of course, the book is even better

Blair's War Begins Not against Mr Hussain of The Bunker, Baghdad, but his own party. Up to 10 private secretaries to ministers may resign and the bets are on how many ministers will resign. If Blair gives the promised second debate in parliament 200 MP's could vote against, leaving the Reverend relying on the support of the Conservative party.....

Meanwhile other battles are looming on health, the euro, asylum, transport etc etc.

On Wednesday I was speculating on Blair's motives and psychology. In layman's terms I suspect he has lost the plot, partially because of his autocratic approach. I am not the only person to make this observation, as Andrew Rawnsley tells the Pm it's time to get some sleep:

A participant at last week's negotiations in Belfast, a witness who is usually admiring of the Prime Minister, was shocked by the drained, red-eyed Blair he saw. 'The first morning [of the talks] was a shambles. He just wasn't up to speed. Jonathan Powell [Blair's chief of staff] had his head down, frantically writing notes. Blair is completely worn out.'

One visitor to the Prime Minister's office reports seeing bottles of pills and an inhaler on the desk, medical crutches to keep the man on his feet. It's said that Tony Blair has been looking so strung out because he has got a nasty dose of the flu. I suspect that the reverse is the case. He can't shake off the flu because he is so utterly exhausted.

But it is not the flu that is causing this. It is his leadership style. He has to be everywhere, hosting every summit, meeting every delegation. He has portrayed himself as the government so well, and has sidelined ministers so completely, that if you're not dealing with him personally, you're not dealing with the government.

This style of leadership can only lead to disaster. And it does look worryingly familiar.

UN needed, Un respected and UN wanted As Hans Blix makes his report Beevis and Butthead have made it clear that they're going to war regardless of what he or anyone says. Regardless of votes or any democratic principle.

But the US build Saddam up and now he is no longer useful, he has to go. This is their approach to democracy. Take a look at the 'coalition of the willing', for there are some real despots in there. The democratic government of Turkey votes against, but that's not a problem, thanks to the Turkish military, with their appaling human rights record.

The US keeps on doing this, building up dictators - "He may be a S.O.B. but at least he's our S.O.B." - to get their will.

this is democracy? this is the free world? Of course not and as ex Conservative MP Mathew Parris writes:

" The Prime Minister is right. The whole credibility of the United Nations is at stake this week. If the Security Council buckles under the US blackmail to which it is now subject over Iraq, we can discount the organisation as an independent force for international order.

We find ourselves stumped for words at the cheating to which our Prime Minister and his new friends on the Right have stooped in their arguments for war. Nobody would call the hawk’s mind open, but the door of his intellect does seem to have been hospitably open to a bewildering series of opposing arguments. "

Indeed. The case for war has not been made, every attempt has floundered on the decietful methods used to concoct a flimsy arguement.

But this is not about Iraq. It's about usurping power, it's about making the Middle East cower before the US. It's about destroying institutions that can block the US's will from prevailing unquestioned.

So, our leaders have decided that they will go to war and have introduced a new concept into diplomacy - the unreasonable veto'.

Here's a list of occasions the US has vetoed UNSC resolutions. Of course vetoing a resolution condemming Iraq's invasion of Iran is the epitome of reasonable.

Here's a complete list of all UNSC vetoes

The Joy Of Message Boards I remember reading a great and extremely long thread on the straight dope bbs entitlesWhat if Lordof the Rings was written by Somebody Else and there were great contributions that either had me laughing out loud or speechless in admiration.

They have now been collected and indexed. Go and marvel.

We Must Remove This Dictator Yesterday the Reverend Blair was confident of UN backing for a resolution. Today Blair was looking for a compromise motion and This afternoon His Holiness announced to the masses that he will go to war regardless of how many nations veto the resolution.

I think it is fair to say that UK policy is in a complete shambles and Blair is reduced to making it up as he goes along.

Now, here's an important point. Did Blair announce this to parliament? The parliament he promised another vote on before war? No.

Did he announce this to his Cabinet? No.

So, how and where did the Reverend issue his edict? On MTV. This is an utter contempt for any kind of democratic practice.

Bush and Blair; Beavis and Butthead. ok, so it does make sense after all.

Words Fail Me right, we're about to go to war because of Iraq's chemical weapons. There is evidence of Iraqi WMD facilities, and the fact that they have used such weapons. How do we know this? Because the Bloody British built the bloody chemical weapons factories.

This situation is getting beyond farcical now: Britain's dirty secret

A chemical plant which the US says is a key component in Iraq's chemical warfare arsenal was secretly built by Britain in 1985 behind the backs of the Americans, the Guardian can disclose.

Documents show British ministers knew at the time that the Ł14m plant, called Falluja 2, was likely to be used for mustard and nerve gas production.

Senior officials recorded in writing that Saddam Hussein was actively gassing his opponents and that there was a "strong possibility" that the chlorine plant was intended by the Iraqis to make mustard gas. At the time Saddam was known to be gassing Iranian troops in their thousands in the Iran-Iraq war. More Analysis Here

But there are some unresolved questions that burn away at me. Why? is one of them.

Why is Blair blindly following the US? A total US domination of the world - a stated aim of many in the Bush administration - is not in Britain's interest. Why is Blair throwing all that away?

I have several themes in answer to this. There is the terrifying possibility that he actually believes in this war - which I discount, largely because Blair doesn't actually believe in anything, at least not anything specific. He is more comfortable with 'broad aims' rather than actual conviction.

Perhaps he is job hunting? About a year ago his aides were openly discussing what his next job would be. They were floating Blair as European President, an idea that provokes outright laughter now. Is it simply that he can't get a job in Europe, that his only option is in the States? It is only a couple of years away, so it wouldn't be too unfeasable for the Good Reverend to be swayed the the prospect of a tempting job? Perhaps Bush is promising him Koffie Annan's job?

Or has Blair simply lost the plot a la Thatcher. He has been a presidential leader, rarely making an appearance in the Commons or the den of plotting known as the House of Commons Tea Room. He doesn't regard the Cabinet as a forum, but as something work can be delegated to.

In addition to this, he has lost his closest political friends. Mandelson is banished to the wilderness known as Hartlepool, Anji Hunter left suddenly after being with the Reverend before he was an MP. Alistair Campbell is hardly speaking with him. No, it's lonely at the top for our Tony.

This style of leadership has it's price. Has he gone mad in office like Thatcher did? Will the men in grey suits knock on his door in an internal coup? Premiers like Major, who used the principle of consensus in Cabinet, seem, psychologically, to have survived better and have a happy retirement.

Will Blair end up like Maggie? A gibbering solitary drunk, whining on in mawkish self pity about what might have been?

Are we rushing to war because a Prime Minister, viewing the ashes of his health policy, his transport policy, his law and order policy want to risk everything on a last attempt for political immortality? Is this about one man's attempt to go down in history?

I think it's a mixture of all this, together with inherent weaknesses in our democratic process.

It is almost certain that Iraq will fall quickly and with a lowish loss of Christian blood. But the world will look very different afterwards. Dangerously different.

The US administration are playing with their power like neighbourhood bullies who have just nicked somebody else's trainset. Their swaggering, simplistic ignorance and arrogance is unsustainable. Eventually reality will dawn on them. And on the voters.

Reagan's philosophy could be summed up as 'My country, right or wrong'. Bush's is 'My country is always right'.

The arguements for war have been shown to be based on falsehoods, deception and outright lies.

War is Peace and Ignorance is Strengh.

Operation Ore And Labour It seems that there could soon be some arrests. Two Labour MP's are about to have their collars felt. I suspect that these are Scottish MP's, possibly even MSP's (Members of the Scotish Parliament) and not the Ex Ministers or 'leading Labour figure' that was talked about some time ago.

Here's the explanation, which sounds very plausible:

AT least two senior politicians and a sheriff are expected to be arrested as part of a crackdown on child porn.

The prominent trio have been caught up in Operation Ore, the nationwide police operation targeting perverts who used the internet to find sickening images.

Senior police sources have revealed that the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which was given the names of 7200 UK suspects by the FBI, held back details of the famous and powerful.

But individual police forces will soon be given the additional names after they complete the round- up of less high-profile suspects.

One source said: "Most forces have now dealt with the priority group, those who had access to children, and many have also visited the remainder of their suspects.

"But we understand that a smaller and final band of suspects is on its way and that this group will arouse the greatest interest.

What Threat? None Says Blair in his God wants war outporing, the Reverend Blair says:

Mr Blair acknowledged that there was no imminent danger of Saddam attacking a neighbouring state or a western capital like London.

"I am not saying that Saddam is about to launch an attack on London or Paris or New York," he said. I am not even saying he will immediately launch another attack on one of his neighbours, although everything in Saddam's history shows he will do once he thinks he can get away with it.

Rogue states like Iraq were "the most likely source" of WMD for terrorists, who were desperate to use them to inflict mass civilian casualties, said Mr Blair.

The Prime Minister said he still hoped the crisis could be resolved peacefully by Saddam voluntarily giving up his weapons.

So why the war? Iraq is destroying it's missiles and it is certain that a large Inspection Team with UN peacekeepers will achieve the aims of the Security Council. This is the French/German/Belgian proposal.

But we must doubt the sincerity when Jack Straw calls Iraqs destruction of it's missiles as 'a cynical ploy'. What planet is Straw on? If Iraq doesn't disarm it'll get bombed to buggery and if it does disarm it's cynical.

But there is a gaping hole in Blair's talk. The US has the clearly stated objective of regime change. Strangely there is no mention of this in the UN resolutions.

The arrogance of Bush and Blair needs no parliamentary debate, no democratic votes, no United Nations. The war has already started.

Where Is The Democracy? The Morality? The Decency? I have no desire to become a war blogger or a conspiracy nut. I just think that most conspiracy theries are utter tosh.

But, the more I read, the more intelligent, knowlegable people I talk to, the more I smell fish in the Iraq war plan. And I smell an assault on democratic values. Here's some more evidence:

Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members:

The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq.

Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.

The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input.

I wonder who leaked this.... It does look like the UK spooks did. They have leaked before, the last time was when Blair said there was intelligence that Iraq had nukes. The spooks 'let it be known' that they had no such information.

Could it be that that our spooks are against a war? What do they know that Blair isn't telling us? Certainly there is something he isn't talking about.

Here Is The Memo - Note the date it was sent:

To: [Recipients withheld]
From: FRANK KOZA@Chief of Staff (Regional Target) CIV/NSA
on 31/01/2003 0:16
Subject: Reflections of Iraq debate/votes at UN - RT actions and potential for related contributions
Importance: High
TOP SECRET/COMINT/XL

Meanwhile In Airstrip One The Reverend Blair issues moral guidance for the multitudes: My Christian concience is clear over war.

In other words, "As a Christian I don't give a damn about how many Muslims die and I take my moral instruction from George Bush, not any religious leader".

This is how we can defeat terrorism - by arresting them, not by declaring an agressive war on nations that Daddy doesn't like.

The Deciet And Hubris Of Blair In an excellent dissection of Blair's justification for war, and the lies and linguistic sumersaults he has performed are documented by Media Lens. The first two parts dissect his recent interview with Jeremy Paxman from Part One:

In a public debate, German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, spoke for millions of people around the world when he shouted his frustration at Donald Rumsfeld and his war plans:

"You have to make the case in a democracy. Excuse me, I'm not convinced."

By contrast, our prime minister has committed 40,000 troops to the Gulf region - more than were committed during Operation Desert Storm - and he is clearly set on waging war alongside Bush.

A leaked United Nations report suggests there could be as many as 500,000 direct and indirect Iraqi casualties as the result of a US/UK attack. Given that these half a million lives are at stake, it is surely reasonable to expect that our prime minister should have to defend his views against informed sceptical opinion.

From Part TwoBlair went on to claim that he and Bush have been merely responding to warnings from the intelligence services:

"I mean this is what our intelligence services are telling us and it's difficult because, you know, either they're simply making the whole thing up or this is what they are telling me, as the prime minister, and I've no doubt what the American intelligence are telling President Bush as well."

It was unfortunate for Blair that he ridiculed the idea that someone "might be making the whole thing up" - revelations the day after the interview showed that Downing Street, not the intelligence services, had been doing just that.

The Moral Case For War is the subject of the Third and final part:

In Parts 1 and 2 of this three-part Media Alert, we showed the dramatic extent to which Tony Blair has attempted to deceive the British public on Iraq. In an earlier Media Alert (February 3, 2003), we described how Blair had changed his stated justification for waging war on Iraq at least five times:

1. Proven Iraqi complicity in the September 11 attacks.
2. Iraqi refusal to readmit UN weapons inspectors.
3. Discovery of undeclared Iraqi WMD by weapons inspectors.
4. Proven Iraqi links with terrorist organisations.
5. Iraqi failure to be sufficiently 'proactive' in cooperating with UN weapons inspectors (regardless of whether WMD are found).

To this list must now be added a sixth, 'moral' argument.

Please read these articles, preferably before the bombs drop and we turn Baghdad into Stalingrad.