Saturday, July 30, 2005

Immediate Withdrawal from Iraq

Surprise, surprise, The Independent had the good taste to publish this letter on 1st August (wake up Guardian letters editor!). This was a response to Douglas Hurd's relatively honest column on Iraq in The Independent on 28th July.

Dear Editor,

In his otherwise interesting column in Thursday's Independent Douglas Hurd repeated a tired old piece of propaganda, i.e. `There is no case for immediate withdrawal of British and American troops'.

British and US politicians seemingly never tire of repeating this nonsense. The fact is that coalition troops make the situation worse in Iraq every day. It is also true that Sunnis and Shia got along without major problems before the invasion - the communities are intermarried and were certainly not at each others throats before the US interim administration under Paul Bremer began to use `divide and rule' as a tactic to govern the country. A tactic that has been continued and developed ever since.

The way to put a stop to this is to immediately withdraw all foreign troops. US and UK politicians claim there would be civil strife if troops were withdrawn, but this is not the real reason for their objections. They have shown us that they place little value on Iraqi lives, and civil strife would not bother them in the slightest. Their problem is that they want a pliable puppet regime in Baghdad, and they know that immediate withdrawal will undermine that aim.

As usual, our politicians are incapable of expressing their real motivations for their actions but hide them under the pretence of caring about human rights.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Torture / Suicide Bombs

This is an unpublished letter to The Guardian in response to A.L.Kennedy's column on torture on 26th July.

Dear Editor,

A.L.Kennedy's column on torture (Guardian, Tuesday) was grimly entertaining. But is true that torture doesn't work? Okay, if you want the truth, no it doesn't. But if all you want is any old rubbish you can use to justify your policies of imperialism it works just fine, thank you, as Craig Murray has shown us with Uzbekistan.

And while I'm at it, just a quick point about suicide bombs. Mr Blair has told us their use can never be justified. So let us just hope that the terrorists do not get hold of any cluster bombs. Blair has already used them against civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, so they must be a legitimate means to mass murder innocent people.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Roy Hattersley - Blithering Idiot

This is an unpublished letter to The Guardian in response to Roy Hattersley's column of 18th July, lauding
Tony Blair's response to the London bombs.

Dear Editor,

So Tony Blair has had "the two most impressive weeks of his political career" (Roy Hattersley 18th July). Furthermore, he is "universally acknowledged to have responded superbly to the threat of terror". Is there any chance of Mr Hattersley poking his head out of the Westminster bubble and having a look at the real world?

Although it isn't reflected in Parliament (with the honourable exception of George Galloway) and is only partially reflected in the media, many people would disagree with such sentiments. Tony Blair responded to the London bombings with his usual performance of sincerity. How can you tell? Because of the way he inserted...long...pauses...between...his...words for effect. He learnt this effect for Princess Diana's funeral and has been inflicting it on us ever since when ever `sincerity' is required.

Furthermore, he has continued to lie about Iraq. As telling the truth now would undermine all his past mendacities he maintains that our tailcoating of US neo-imperialism and involvement in war crimes has nothing to do with us being targets for terrorism. Roy Hattersley may have been born yesterday, most of us were not.

Far from having had a "golden 14 days", Tony Blair has continued to act without decency, honesty or integrity. In this, he insults us all.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

The Link Between Iraq and the London Bombings

This is an unpublished letter to The Independent on 14th July about Blair's attempt to suppress the link between his war crimes in Iraq and the London bombings.

Dear Editor,

In the wake of the London bombings Tony Blair lost no time in proclaiming that Iraq had nothing to do with it, choosing instead to echo George W.Bush's claim that the terrorists were bombing us because they hate our civilisation. One of the world's leading experts on suicide bombers does not agree with him.

Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has the world's largest database of information about suicide bombers. In answer to the question "How much weight would you put on a cultural rejection of the West and how much weight on the presence of American troops on Muslim territory [as the motivation for suicide bombing]?" he replied, "The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor". He also quotes from a captured Al-Qaeda planning document which shows the Madrid attack was a deliberate attempt to affect Aznar's support for George Bush. The lesson is clear - terrorist outrages against us are conducted as a strategic attempt to force our withdrawal from the illegal occupation of Iraq - not because they hate our civilisation. Otherwise how do we answer Osama bin Laden's question, "Why do we not bomb Sweden"?

There is a great deal more fascinating information in this interview which there is no space for here. Anyone who would like to read it can find it here. It is time for the Blairites to stop hurling personal abuse at those (such as George Galloway) who attempt to discuss the real causes of terrorism in this country. We need the truth to prevent terrorism, not US-inspired propaganda.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

How Representative is Parliament?

This is an unpublished letter to The Guardian on 14th July in response to Jackie Ashley's column, `Speak up, speak out' on the Parliamentary response to the London bombings of 7th July.

Dear Editor,

Jackie Ashley is quite right in her comments in today's Guardian about the importance of open debate about the London bombings in Parliament. If the issues are not openly debated there Parliament does just become a rubber-stamp for the Government.

But why does she think the Blairites are trying to suppress it (for instance, by the disgraceful slandering of George Galloway)? They are desperate to suppress the clear and evident link between Blair's slavish support for George W.Bush's criminal foreign policy - especially in the Middle East - and the criminal attacks on Londoners. The Guardian performs a vital service for democracy when it publishes articles such as Seumas Milne's in today's (Thursday's) issue which point out the facts.

Parliament failed us when the original invasion of Iraq was debated. Millions of us marched against that disaster but our voices were little represented in Parliament. Now our MPs are making the same mistake. Millions of us know not only that the bombers were criminals who were personally responsible for their crimes, but that also Goverment policy in the Middle East is making us targets for such people.

MPs must stand up to the disgraceful personal abuse of their critics by Blair and his coterie of docile, useless MPs and speak up for their constituents against our continuing involvement in American war crimes in Iraq.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

New Terrorism Laws

This is an unpublished letter to The Guardian on 13th July about Blair's announcement that new laws against terrorism are to be introduced after the London bombings of 7th July.

Dear Editor,

Tony Blair has announced that new laws will be introduced to fight terrorism in the wake of the London bombings. Is it too much to hope that the first of these will outlaw the invasion and occupation of other countries for political purposes, and ensure the speedy and efficient prosecution of those responsible for war crimes committed in any such invasion and occupation?

Yes, it is far too much to hope for.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

London Bombings and Galloway

This is an unpublished letter to The Guardian on the parliamentary reaction to the London bombings of 7th July.

Dear Editor,

Once again the British Parliament has failed the electorate. In the runup to the invasion of Iraq it was quite clear that Blair did not have majority support in the country for his policy. However, with the exception of some individual Labour MPs and the Liberal Democrats, MPs failed to represent the majority opinion. Now, after the appalling London bombings, Parliament has failed us again. Millions of people in this country know full well that British support for George W.Bush's neo-conservative project - especially over Iraq - has got us into this situation. What does Parliament do? If fawns on the man who is responsible for this atrocious situation. Blair the war criminal goes unchallenged yet again. Yet again our MPs prove themselves to be nothing but a bunch of lickspittles.

And what of the only MP who has the integrity and the courage to say what millions of us know to be true? The desperation of the Blairites to cover up Iraq as the cause of us being the target of terrorists is the personal abuse they resort to against George Galloway. I notice that David Winnick hid behind parliamentary privilege to slander Galloway as "making excuses for mass murderers". Anyone who saw Galloway interviewed on Newsnight knows that is totally untrue. Instead of holding Blair to account for his crimes spineless Blairites are still trying to cover up for him.

Our so-called parliamentary democracy is a complete joke. A very sick one at that. Only one man counts, and he isn't even British - George W.Bush.

Yours fairhfully,

Grouchy.

Steve Richards - `Useful Idiot'

This is an unpublished letter to The Independent on 8th July in response to Steve Richards column of 8th July headed `Those responsible for dealing with terror must be given the means to do so' (only the introduction to the article is free - the rest of it requires a fee. Don't pay, it's worthless).

Dear Editor,

In the 1930s British communists were regarded as `useful idiots' in their role of denying the crimes of Stalinism and propagandising on Stalin's behalf. Today we have a number of `useful idiots' in the media who perform the same service for Tony Blair. Of these, few exceed Steve Richards in his zeal for the Great Leader. (I remember a recent headline was `No-one can doubt Blair's integrity'. `No-one can doubt Corbett's tallness' and `No-one can doubt Winton's wedding' must be due any day now).

In his column on Friday he argued that Blair must be believed when he warns of terrorist threats, and the Government must be allowed draconian measures to prevent acts of terrorism. Fortunately, most people are not as credulous as Richards would like us to be. We remember Blair's lies about Iraq and WMD. We know that over 100,000 people have died as a result of those lies. No, we do not believe Blair on terrorism because he only uses it as a threat to get what he wants.

And what does he want? Only the abrogation of our civil liberties so that this country can continue to be a poodle to the New American Empire. Perhaps Richards can tell us how house arrest did so much to prevent the bombings in London this week? No, of course he can't, because it was no help at all. Perhaps some `useful idiot' or other can tell us how ID cards would have prevented it, when they didn't prevent the Madrid bombings. Blair wants these measures to cripple the domestic opposition to his warmongering, not to stop terrorism - because they won't stop terrorism.

To stop terrorism we have to tackle the causes. And what were the causes of last week's crimes? The war crimes inflicted on the innocent people of Iraq by Blair and Bush. How do we stop them? We do two things: first, we withdraw British troops from Iraq immediately; second, we expel the war criminals from our Government.

In the meantime, perhaps Steve Richards could withdraw his head from Tony Blair's bottom and start facing reality.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Letter on the London Bombings of 7th July

This unpublished letter to The Guardian (dated 8th July) was my response to the London bombings of the day before.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Osama bin Laden has been quoted as saying, "If you bomb our cities, we'll bomb yours". War crimes visited upon innocent Iraqis have now been inflicted on innocent Londoners. The majority of Londoners opposed the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and do not deserve to suffer this - no more than do the Iraqis.

Now we face the grotesque probability that those responsible for this situation - the British Government - will try to use these crimes to force through measures to abrogate our civil liberties, thus further compounding their original crimes against humanity. Such measures will do absolutely nothing to stop terrorists. They will however make it more difficult to oppose the criminal activities of our own government - the real aim.

The only way to fight this terrorism is to deal with our own crimes. British troops in Iraq must be withdrawn immediately; and the war criminals in the British Government must be kicked out. Nothing else will stop these attacks, and put an end to the mass murder of civilians carried out in our name in Iraq.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

The IRA and Al-Qaeda

Are there any similarities between these two? This interesting post makes some points that are worth considering.

The `Decent Left' Songbook

I hate the term `decent left' because it's complete bullshit. As I have posted before, `war criminal left' is a far more accurate term. So, for the leading proponents of mass-murdering civilians in the interests of US neo-imperialism I would like to suggest the following apposite theme tunes:

David Aaronovitch (Mr Big Fat Fraud) `Art For Art's Sake' (Money For God's Sake)
Nick Cohen (Does he come from Barking?) `They're Coming To Take Me Away Ha-haaa' (Napoleon XIV 1966)
Christopher Hitchens (Popinjay) `Deck Of Cards' (Max Bygraves version, natch)
Johann Hari (Mr Originality) `Second Hand Rose'

I suggest that if you ever have the misfortune to read anything by these idiots, just have that individual's theme tune tinkling away in the back of your mind. `They're coming to take me away ha-haaa' is particularly relevant to Cohen's recent bilge.

Grouchy.

David Aaronovitch

Unpublished letter to The Observer (otherwise known as the Liberal Bomber) on May the 8th. David Aaronovitch wrote a column entitled `If the PM's really listening, he'll go'.

Dear Editor,

Congratulations to David Aaronovitch on his very funny column (8th May). He tells us about the fat bloke in the stand at the football match who knows nothing but who is always shouting ignorant advice at the manager. Only on this one occasion, Mr Aaronovitch says, the fat bloke has got it right - Blair must go. Does it not occur at all to Mr Aaronovitch that he is the fat bloke he is writing about? His columns are nothing but ignorant shouting - at all of us rather than the manager - but just for once in his life `fat bloke' is right, Tony Blair must indeed go. Congratulations to Mr Aaronovitch on being right for once. Is there any chance at all that he might go at the same time so that we no longer have to listen to his ravings?

Yours faithfully,

The Grouch.

Blair's Mandate to Govern

As threatened, the first in a series of unpublished letters to The Guardian and The Independent. This was e-mailed to The Guardian on May 7th, just after the UK general election.

Dear Editor,

As your leader of 7/5/05 pointed out, only 22% of the electorate as a whole (including non-voters) supported Labour in the election. However, what proportion of the 22% were `holding their noses' as they voted Labour? Enthusiasts for Mr Blair's policies of further privatisation in health and education, assualts on civil liberties, and tailending US neoconservatives in foreign policy (to mention just a few examples) must be considerably below 20%. This is not a mandate for Mr Blair's particular form of extremism. He claimed yesterday that he had `listened and learned' from the electorate. But he also `took full responsibility' for the Iraq debacle - with no noticeable results whatsoever. I would bet all the tea in China that Mr Blair's listening and learning produces the same result. Only a reduced majority and the hope that MPs in general have listened and learned stand between us and a whole raft of legislation which is not supported by more than 80% of the electorate.

Yours faithfully,

Monsieur Grouchy

Why didn't the bastards publish it?

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

So this guy walks into a bar ...

... and orders a pint. "Cor, that was great", he said as he knocked back his pint of Adnams. He looked over at the TV in the corner. The news was on, with Tony Blair denouncing terrorism.

"What a hypocrite", the man exclaimed. "Blair has killed more innocent civilians than all those terorists put together. He's a real slimy maggot". The barman reached across the bar and punched him in the face.

As the man dragged himself up from the floor he said, "I didn't know this was Blair country".

"It ain't", said the barman. "It's maggot country".

Hitchenofascists

So what is it with this term `Decent Left'. This is, apparently, a descriptive term for those (allegedly) on the Left who support US neo-imperialism (you know, the mass murder of civilians in Afghanistan, Iran, and elsewhere so the USA can control oil, etc in its own interests). What exactly is decent about that?

So, in the interests of transparency I propose we call them the War Criminal Left. That is a far more accurate description of their politics. Or, if that's too unwieldy, how about `hitchenofascists'. Que? Well, a prime representative of the War Criminal Left is of course Christopher Hitchens. He coined the term `islamofascists' for the islamic jihadists. This term has a spuriously analytical ring to it. In fact, it's just a term of abuse.

So my term of abuse for Hitchens, Aaronovich, Hari, Nick Cohen and all the other supporters of war crimes on `the Left' is Hitchenofascists. Well, that's the printable version, anyway.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Just What The World Needs ...

...another blog. So here it is. Why `tendence grouchy'? Because of the graffiti that went up on the walls of Paris in May '68 - Je suis Marxiste, tendence Groucho. It turns out that I'm more grouch-y than Grouch-o, hence the slight adaptation.

What will I be wittering about? Politics, undoubtedly. I have to have some outlet for my rage against what Blair and Bush are doing to the world. And the media, too. Yes, I know blogs are constantly criticised for adding another layer of commentary to that already produced by the media. But, hey, if media comment wasn't so lacklustre and spineless we wouldn't have to do it. Also, since the Guardian and Independent seem to choose not to publish my letters (we have an agreement - they don't publish my letters, I don't buy their papers), I guess they'll turn up here.

But I might also blog about non-current affairs stuff, like my love of the Sixties, and old television programmes (they don't make 'em like that anymore you know).

Of course, whether anyone out there will read it is another matter.