Monday, June 20, 2005

Where's PETA When You Need Them?

Because George Bush has been abusing his poodle, Mr Blair.

He's forcing a watered down version of the upcoming G8 summit proclamation on climate change, Tony Blair's baby with which he hopes to win back some political capital with his constituency:

A June 14th draft of the proposed G8 statement provided to The Associated Press has brackets around disputed language, including assertions that the impact of global warming already is being felt in Africa, small islands, the Arctic and other regions.

Bracketed portions include statements that the world is warming, human activity is mostly to blame and developed economies must lead the fight against the problem.

"While there will always be some uncertainty, inertia in the climate system means we cannot afford to postpone action if we are to manage the risk of irreversible change," reads one sentence in contention.

The political pressure to delete that language comes directly from Bush administration officials, say environmental advocates who have talked with G8 leaders' negotiators.

"All of the changes in the June 14 draft are the result of the White House refusing to be part of any statement that says that action on climate change is urgent, that impacts are already being felt, and that the science is strong," said Philip Clapp, president of National Environmental Trust.

"The president refuses still to acknowledge that reducing global warming pollution is urgent, and that the developed nations have a responsibility to take the lead in reducing it," he said Friday.

Blair needs a strong statement at G8, but Bush ain't about to let him have it.

Poor Brits, what saps! But then why should Bush be honest with them? They too are pawns in the Great Straussian Game of Vietnam Redux:

American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.

Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.

Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."

Ooops, huh.

Napalm. I suppose we should be thankful that Iraq is a desert and so unnecessary to defoliate with Agent Orange.

Anyway, Lies, Lies, Lies. And it's obvious that Bush, if he had a plan for reconstruction, didn't share it with the Brits:

On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.

"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq," Straw wrote. "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida."

He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: "We have also to answer the big question what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything."

So much for the "we wanted democracy all along" argument. But then I'm pretty sure that Bush wished to install Chalabi from the start. Small wonder Wolfy & Crew didn't share post-war plans with their faithful servants in Albion.