Shamik Das

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Wishy-washy DC: Soft on crime, soft on terrorism

Hoodie  Muppet  Terrorist

"Hoodies to the left of me, Mujahideen to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you!"

When David Cameron swept to power promising to create a "new Conservative Party" few could have imagined quite how dramatic the shift from Right to wrong would be.

Hot on the heels of Cameron's "hug a hoody" policy and wavering over terrorist detention, comes his disgraceful flip-flopping over Iraq.

The failed attempt of the Tories to force a fresh inquiry into the war, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Galloway and the Lib Dems, was breathtaking in its hypocrisy and opportunism.

Also chiming into the lobbies alongside the old Etonain were the SNP, led by the despicable, seditious miscreant Alex Salmond, a man who described the liberation of Kosovo as "an act of unpardonable folly" - something his Muslim backers should take note of.

Not only would an inquiry send all the wrong signals to the British troops out in Iraq, it would also be wholly unnecessary. There have already been FOUR INQUIRIES, all of which have cleared the Government of any wrongdoing.

1. Foreign Affairs Select Committee, July 2003, Inquiry into the intelligence leading up to war: CLEARED

2. Intelligence & Security Committee, September 2003, Investigation into the intelligence behind the Iraq dossier of September 2002: CLEARED

3. Hutton Report, January 2004, Inquiry into the death of weapons expert Dr. David Kelly: CLEARED

4. Butler Inquiry, July 2004, Inquiry into the accuracy of intelligence purporting to show Iraq's capacity to produce WMDs: CLEARED

Das    Saddam

Well, if DC and his pals really want an inquiry, they can have one, and I challenge anyone to disagree with the findings. I present The Das Report:

Conclusions - (i). Saddam was an evil dictator; (ii). The Iraqi people wanted him out; (iii). Tony Blair and George Bush should be praised for forcing him out; (iv). Democracy is better than dictatorship; (v). Those who supported the enemy, i.e. Galloway, should receive the treatment meted out to traitors in the old days ...


Blogger Phantom of the Labour Party said...

I have to say Sham, that pic of you next to Saddam does you no justice. It's like it's saying 'this is what happens when you don't wash' or 'old age: it happens to all of us'

31 October, 2006 20:48

Blogger marshajane said...

Urgh! Sham just when i think u couldn't get any worse.

needless to say I completly disgaree - someone I do agree with can be found here

31 October, 2006 21:02

Blogger Jon Rogers said...

how many more Iraqi dead will you be happy with then comrade? At what point will you join the increasing number of those who wrongly supported this misguided war and admit that you were wrong?

31 October, 2006 21:06

Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

Well said Sham. Unlike Jon and Marshajane the elected Iraqi government agrees with you.

31 October, 2006 21:30

Blogger Sham said...

Luke, spot on!

Marsha & Jon - I remember asking that very same question, to the opponents to the war, back in 2003: "how many more Iraqi dead [under Saddam's regime] will you be happy with then comrade?"

I asked a similar question in 1999: "how many more Kosovan dead [under Milosevic's genocide] will you be happy with then comrade?" and again in 2001: "how many more Afghani dead [under the Taleban's rule] will you be happy with then comrade?"

Phantom - I think we've all figured out who you are! ;)

01 November, 2006 00:38

Blogger stonysleep said...

I have no problem with them chucking saddam out
My problem is why saddam, why then and why lie about your intentions in the first place

Why Saddam over all the 100's of dictators around the world oppressing their peoples arguably just as much as saddam did
Why did they choose then after not finishing up in afghanistan which looks like the taliban are taking back control (or if you look at it another way taking back the capital because they'd never lost any of the rest of the country)
And why use a wishy washy reason about weapons of mass destruction when a commission who know all there is to know about WMDs had spent years looking and found nothing. I forget where the intelligence got their reasoning from about why there were weapons there but it wasn't particularly reliable.

I could be wrong, but if they'd gone out openly and said we're going into iraq to chuck saddam out because he's a bastard dictator (even though the american's put him in there to begin with but that's another issue) and we should've done it last time we were at war with iraq. We're going to remove him and his children from their oppressive regime - who's with us? I think there wouldn't be the stigma we have now and arguably I don't think there would be the reaction from the insurgents in iraq. The war would've finished 2 years ago and it would be done & dusted.

It's ok to say this in hindsight but I am strongly against dishonesty particularly in the political spectrum.
Don't get me started on this climate bill which is basically the Gordon Brown's got a £5 million hole in the budget so lets tax everyone who's using a car or likes cheap flights policy. But that's another story

01 November, 2006 08:35

Blogger Harry Perkins said...

Good to see more thoughtful and incisive comment from the self-described 'Blairite blogger'.

It defies belief how much this Government has got away with over Iraq - as I've described in detail on my own blog (plug...)

01 November, 2006 10:02

Blogger Sham said...

Good points. I'll be brief in my response.

Why not all the other dictators? Because under present international law "good" nations aren't allowed to topple tyrranical regimes now matter how heinous purely on principle, there needs to be a threat to one's country - as was perceived over Iraqi WMDs - the production of which nobody, including Saddam, disputed at the time; the question was how best to disarm him.

My view at the time was, whatever the reasons for the war, the overthrowing of Saddam and democratisation of Iraq justified the means. A little naive I know!

On the subject of international law, this is something the Prime Minister has spoken about many times in the past, look up "The Treaty of Westphalia" on google for more info.

Finally on climate change, I agree, the rich will still swan around, able to afford the congestion charge, petrol hikes and increased air fares, it's the rest of us who'll suffer! But I don't believe doing nothing is an option.

01 November, 2006 12:13


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home