01.31.04
Dullest blog in the world
Dullest blog in the world
This is masterful.
Note on the backlash
Note on the backlash
Ok lads, don’t go tooooo far. Otherwise the backlash might backlash.
Guardian sample, More Guardian.
01.30.04
Those damned elusive WMD
Those damned elusive WMD
Favourite reason for failure to find WMD: “The bastard: He tricked us!”
Backlash city!!!
Backlash city!!
Hohoho; I think Blair et al must now realise that Hutton did them no favours. On a technical legalistic point Hutton is correct but the BBC story is blatantly correct in every other regard; principally that Campbell did recommend changes to the dossier which increased the level of threat. More importantly, the intelligence has proved to be totally wrong: the people will not forgive Blair so easily. Great editorial in the Guardian.
01.29.04
Hijab
Hijab
I have been asked to comment on the ban on religious symbols in French schools. As John Waters points out its an issue where feminism and liberalism meet and have fallen apart. Here’s where I stand:
- The fundamentalism of some should not be used against the moderation of others, i.e. comparing the hijab to the burqa is not fair
- Naturally it appalls me that the reason the hijab is required is because men are not expected to control their lust or anger and it is the responsibility of women to cover themselves so that they do not accidentally tempt men. Clearly this is medieval and the burqa is practical torture. (Except perhaps if you live in Afghanistan where there is no law or order, the place has been bombed back to the stone age, and war lords and tribes rule the day)
- I also acknowledge that even within Islam the hijab is hugely controversial and is for instance banned in Tunisia and Turkey.
- Further, I am aware that Islamic women who don’t feel the need to wear the Hijab can come under a lot of pressure to do so
- but that is the crucial point. The hijab is a matter for Islam – it’s something which they need to sort out and one would hope that the moderates prevail
- it is not an issue for the state and they have no business telling people what they can and cannot wear. Prohibiting certain dress seems to be as intolerant as proscribing it. Provided basic human rights are not being infringed, people should be let do what they want.
I think that the ban will only provide amunition to fundamentalists and make life harder for the moderate wing of Islam. It will probably result in girls being kept back from school which will make their lives harder. It will result in the alienation of Islamic society from ‘western’ society rather than promoting co-existence. In short, the ‘west’ will have to stop viewing Islam as the Moors coming over the hills to conquer all before them. The roots of Islam are extremely tolerant and we should be helping the moderates; not excluding them.
01.28.04
Wow! Hutton..
Wow! Hutton….
must love Blair. While one might accept that they can get away with saying that they didn’t know that the 45 minute claim was incorrect, I ask this: why were they the only ones who actually thought it was true? Blix and the other inspectors said that all they could say was that a tiny percentage of the WMD were unaccounted for. They repeatedly stressed that that was not saying that they existed; merely that they could not definitively say they had been destroyed.
It was absolutely clear from Susan Watts’s tape of Kelly that he did credit Campbell with putting on pressure to come up with more ‘evidence’ for the dossier. That’s sexing up in my world. To me it is absolutely clear that no.10 cast around looking desperately for any evidence which would back-up their previously devised policy of regime-change. Gilligan screwed it up in his terminology and the governors screwed it up by not making a qualified withdrawal earlier but this much is true:
- Campbell did make changes to the dossier which emphasised the threat
- the 45 minute claim was incorrect
- Kelly (based on the Watts tapes) was briefing journalists of this
If Gilligan had said that that no.10 had inserted the claim even tho’ intelligence officers had warned that it was unreliable then everything would be ok. Instead Gilligan said that they had inserted knowing it was probably wrong. He also credited his source with using the term ’sexed up’. That’s the screw up and on these specific issues Hutton is correct.
However, it still doesn’t excuse the following:
– THERE ARE NO WMD
- they should have accepted Blix’s view of the above instead of one dodgy intelligence report of their own
- they went to war on a false premise
- the post de facto justification of war on humanitarian grounds is not acceptable since that is not the case they made to the world.
They cannot claim that they were duped by bad intelligence when Blix, France and Germany said there wasn’t sufficient evidence. They went looking for anything which would back up their case and wrote a dossier which would include this so-called evidence in an attempt to persuade the British public. Hopefully the BBC will conduct some kind of fight back on the substantive issue and not allow their management f***up to destroy their confidence in pursuing this issue.
Given that Blair is never likely to admit his fault, the question now is: what weasly words will he employ years from now to explain the mystery of the WMD. Will he die claiming that they are there, somewhere underneath that desert?
Some rest
Some rest
After my Tribunal stresses and recent TV performance, physical collapse has ensued and I am taking to my bed today. However, am listening to Hutton report and will comment tomorrow. New readers have been getting in touch. Welcome all.
01.27.04
More Moriarty Allegations
More Moriarty Allegations
Allegation No. 2
Communicorp, DOB’s holding company did not have sufficient funds to back a mobile phone company. Given this financial weakness they should never have been awarded the licence.
The Truth
Communicorp couldn’t really afford its share of the funds at the time. Their share of the bid was underwritten but there were weaknesses. But everyone knew that once the licence was awarded the money would come rolling in. I witnessed this personally when the day after the licence winner was announced, Denis picked up a congratulatory fax from a financial institution offering an opportunity to discuss funding. Before scrunching it up and firing it in the bin he said “these f***ers wouldn’t take our calls last week”. To that extent the money didn’t really matter. Whoever won the licence would have no problem getting funding. This state of affairs was recognised by Andersen Management who assessed the bids; (source)
“The evaluators have concluded having regard to the level of interest in the Irish competition for the GSM licence and the high profitability of mobile communications generally throughout Europe that the project is fundamental!y robust and, after a licence has been awarded, an attractive opportunity for corporate debt financiers, The evaluators have therefore formed the view that, subject to at least one of ‘the principals having sufficient financial strength at this stage to ensure completion of the project, a potential financial weakness of one consortia member should not have a negative impact on the ranking of applications. It is important, nevertheless, to draw attention to the need to deal with this factor where relevant in the context of licence negotiations ”
AMI further state in their submission to the Tribunal (this document being on the Tribunal website but strangely never sourced by journalists reporting the issue)
“In AMI’s opinion the evaluation result nominating Esat Digifone as the winner thus was and is the right result”
and further
“The quality and consistency of ESAT Digifone’s application with regard to the extent and content of the information provided is among the absolute [my emphasis] best that AMI have seen during the many evaluations that AMI at that time and since then has participated in.”
Now these are the quotes from the bid assessor Michael Andersen. He has backed up all this in private sessions with the Tribunal but refuses to appear as a witness because:
- The Tribunal behaved so aggressively with him in private he does not want to expose himself to that aggression in public (it being in the Tribunal’s interest to find fault with him). The Tribunal want to assess the assessor.
- Telenor now own his management company with whom he no longer works and hold a lot of the documentation and surprise surprise don’t want to help him out
- He is well aware that Persona, the second ranked bidder have two reps at the Tribunal and have a long list of people to sue and without an indemnity from the state he would be stone mad to appear.
However the Tribunal, taking as one journo has said a Mastermind approach to the investigation (I’ve started so I’ll finish) are free to pursue their agenda. I still have a gripe with journalists who consistently refuse to refer to documents like those above when constructing their various conspiracy theories.
01.23.04
More Moriarty
More Moriarty
Here’s an example of some of the questioning I underwent.
Telenor claim that they knew absolutely nothing about political donations to FG and if they had known, they would have disapproved. Of course their motive is that they hate Denis because he managed to get 40% of the consortium even tho’ he had no money and then sold Esat Telecom to BT for $100 a share instead of Telenor’s offer of $70something. The only problem with their line is that a donation was made to FG from the joint venture account. The donation (of 4k; you could definitely buy a licence with that, couldn’t you?) was made by way of a draft however, it appears as a donation to FG in the accounts of the company (which Telenor would have seen and signed off on ) and the signature of one of their executives Hans Mhyre was required on the cheque which purchased the draft. Hans has said he has no recollection whatsoever of signing such a cheque and as I was the person who requisitioned the cheque and purchased the draft I was examined by both Tribunal counsel and Telenor’s counsel (Eoghan FitzSimmons, a former AG no less) on the subject of his signature. Their questioning was very forensic and made reference to the fact that they had compared my handwriting with the writing on the cheque. The implications were obvious. Either I had forged Hans’ signature or I had filled out the cheque after he had signed it or I had lied to him about the purpose of the cheque. As this all took place nearly 9 years ago, I have no idea whether or not I sought his signature at all or whether the cheque was simply handed to me by the financial controller (who can’t remember either).
Now of course none of this has anything to do with whether or not Michael Lowry was bribed by DOB to help get the licence, but my reputation still gets to be trashed in public!