Labour and Alastair Campbell: legacy & lies

BBC:" David Cameron is demanding a personal apology from Prime Minister Gordon Brown over e-mails sent by an adviser discussing smearing the Tories. The Tory leader is "absolutely furious" and is calling on Mr Brown to give a guarantee that such messages will not be sent again, a spokeswoman said.

Damian McBride quit after his unfounded claims about Mr Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne became known. Cabinet Office minister Liam Byrne says Mr Brown knew nothing of the e-mails. But Labour backbencher John McDonnell has called for an inquiry to find out who was involved. "

If you read this sorry story, it's just sickeningly ironic the way that former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell thinks the whole thing is somehow 'beneath' the standard of spin mechanics or indeed behaviour that Labour should be seen to uphold.

"Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's former spin doctor, wrote in his blog that he had been struck not just by the "unpleasantness" of the emails, but also by their "incompetence". "McBride will be thinking that was his big mistake - writing it all down. His really big mistake was thinking it might be effective," Mr Campbell added"

I really makes you wonder what he's thinking. What did Alastair Campbell then think about the great dossier, the 45 minutes and so on, and does he seriously think that compares favourably to now ?

I can't pretend I'm an expert of every single mechanic of the Blair government. I'm not. I don't know every little thing Alastair Campbell did or said, but I strongly think we know more than enough. And to summarise Alastair Campbell's role, I agree with Michael Howard in a Newsnight interview from a while back that Alastair Campbell was one of the main factors responsible for taking politics exactly into the loathsome gutter it is today. Howard reflects:

"I think that's the man who's responsible for what's changed [pointing at Campbell -j]. The way in which Alastair has conducted his operations, he was in Downing Street when he bullied and lied his way across our political life...consistently did more to lower the tone of our political life, our public life than anything else. And that was all of course done with Tony Blair's connivance and authority"

And I've never seen Michael Howard look as sincere and serious about anything actually.

It's the height irony, it's an insult to injury, for a lying murderous charlatan like Alastair Campbell to be slitheringly admonishing about a culture he was heavily involved in creating and normalizing, much to the delight of the Labor plebs.

Which bit doesn't he like, the fact that it may not be 'effective?' or their 'incompetence' ?, or just the fact this guy got found out ? Well I guess Campbell would know.

I just see this as just another sinister little drip drip way of trying to normalize, trying to exonerate Blair, Campbell and others for the catastrophe of the Iraq War and the monstrous pile of shocking lies they thought absolutely nothing of concocting and presenting to sell it.

It's as if to say that was normal, but this is abnormal. And that Alastair Campbell is still doing this years latter, tacitly supported by the BBC in this case, I find extraordinary.

And credit were it is due to Labour's John McDonnell for taking a stand on this topic which as he rightly says only reflects on Labour not anyone else:

"They drag the Labour Party into the gutter. They just add further to the undermining of the belief that Labour Party supporters have placed in our party"

Legacy of a monster and the Churchill hoax

It's perturbing to see this '24 hour global media' that Blair always justified his murderous personal spin machine with, now seek to construct a deliberate concoction of putrid lies to pour highly inappropriate reverence on perhaps the world's most putrid liar.

You don't really know where to start it's all so ridiculous, but let's just look at the BBC, who are today speculating about what Blair is going to do next. In the article, and consistent with our ongoing thesis here, former Tory cabinet minister Ken Clarke is reported as saying, "I think [Blair's next job] will be trying to govern the world and advise all the other political leaders how to run things"

And then there is:

"According to one of Blair's closest advisers: "Tony is obsessed with the idea of becoming a roving envoy who would seek to reconcile the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam"

More and more Blair's next job is becoming a terrifying check list of the New World Order; with Blair the head of the world government and trying to institute a one world religion.

Let's hope and pray that the world can put a stop to Mr. Blair once and for all.

Additionally, in this piece by Michael Cockerell, the BBC is trying to surreptitiously imply this new notion that well yes, we had this kind of a spat between this 'media' chattering class at the BBC over Iraq, but that isn't representative and Mr. Blair's place in history is somehow different to all that. And in doing so, they have dug up, incredibly, the Churchill hoax again, as if re-projecting this hopeless old piece of war-spin one more time, which didn't work when it was tried previously, will suddenly, magically rehabilitate all of Blair's atrocities, and the UK's insane support of this mess.

Now this page even has a link to a slightly older article where they somehow, out of millions of people in this country, managed to find three essentially pro-Blair perspectives to summarize for the plebling minds how they need to be thinking about their outgoing prime minister.

While ignoring virtually all of Blair's horrendous crimes against his own country, these 'experts' as the BBC describe them then proceed to cherry-pick their favorite worthless policies like the minimum wage and feebly criticize others to give a veneer of some kind of meaningful commentary and evaluation.

But it couldn't be more meaningless, and the article is replete with ridiculous passages like "Under the sincere impression that Saddam Hussein of Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - a view shared by the intelligence services of every major country in the world, (as well as by the United Nations' own weapons inspectors - he appreciated the importance of overthrowing the Baathist regime as soon as the Taleban regime was deposed in Afghanistan"

It makes you wonder, as back in the real world, outside of the fluffy unbiased Beeb; stuck in its awe of government, the state, 'multiculturalism' and its own Vicar of Dibley, there is now a red line of rational debate on this for everyone else as the evidence has amassed so fully to the contrary as to render this kind of hopeless bullshit not even worth the briefest of reflection anymore.

Look, on Afghanistan: I'm no fan of the Taliban, but the world's most advanced and powerful nation under the grip of murderous re-branded Trotskyites, with Mr. Blair desperately trying to attach himself to them, dropping bombs on one of the worlds poorest and most backward nations, then rewarding yourself with 'War on Terror' medals can hardly be re-spun as some kind of heroic accomplishment for mankind.

The funny thing is the Churchill Hoax (or rather the Churchill Deliberate Stumbling Block) in particular, that appeared immediately after Blair's speech on 9/11, was not coming from the shocked public who this latest digest of slops from the BBC is now aimed at as a final outrageous attempt to sell this sicko.

As I recall it was firmly coming from pundits at places like the BBC and Neoconservative opinionists in the global media, hungry to sell this war to the UK and cheered on by various well meaning, but gullible conservative elements who hadn't understood then what Neoconservatism was on either side of the Atlantic.

And that reminds us about Ian Duncan Smith, who was basically a good decent man, but naive and who took the bait about Bin Laden, the cave and the laptop like a fish on a hook and started croaking out terrible speeches about "terrorists skulking in caves" and so on.

Politically, it would have been difficult for him to do much else to be fair, but that shouldn't have been an excuse, especially in the light of the terrible public report (which a lot of people forgot about when it was later upstaged by the utterly breathtaking collection of hoaxes about Iraq) cooked up by Blair regarding Afghanistan (when the US couldn't do it themselves) but which had no intelligence in it at all, and was highly criticized by those with a clue and some courage at the time who spotted something awry.

But I think it's very telling about the unhealthy, cloistered detachment of the BBC from those forced to pay for its sickly propaganda, when they are trying so hard to resurrect the wrong and monstrous notion of Blair as some kind of wartime hero and make an analogy so ridiculous, so hopelessly wrong and upside down that it beggars belief that one would even try. And because of the timing and intensity of this crap in the article, it is not Afghanistan they are really trying to associate it with now, in presenting this nonsense today as he is about to go, it is as if it is trying to convert all of Blair's terrible crimes in retrospect into 'tough choices' in a righteous war.

Now Blair and the BBC are not the only ones to do this, inspired by Blair and presumably by the Bush criminals and Neoconservative Fifth Columnists in America, many others in the New Labour nightmare are guilty of this too: Gordon Brown with his 'Bletchely Park' garbage and John Reid in various speeches.

And when the entire rational world knows this man Blair is a war criminal and murderer as well as a traitor and monster, it speaks to a failure of the BBC to be able to deal with this topic at all.

And if we are talking about Blair's record on foreign policy, none of the three 'experts' (which include 1) a crackpot war fanatic, 2) Blair's own biographer and 3) a well known war historian who although does criticise Iraq, is only there to add weight to this misleading Churchill analogy) mention Blair's endorsement of the appalling attack on Lebanon endorsed by Blair which sickened the world last year, while ongoing Israel/Palestine catastrophe, supposedly once 'important to Blair' is condensed into a mention about the 'Arab-Israeli' conflict.

Nor do one of these 'experts' mention the crushing domestic police state created under Blair, and a brutal attempt to rewrite society at all, presumably they believe it won't affect them.

Now, I'm no expert on Churchill himself, but that isn't really so important in this context, as it's really all about trying to periodically and deliberately pour new life, legitimacy and gravitas into Britain's soiled role in this disaster, by falsely claiming that there is some sort of analogy between World War II and the 'War on Terror', and this constitutes a staggering failure by the BBC to regurgitate this rubbish.

Blair

Where can Blair be installed to do the most damage ?

Contrary to what some people may think, no one wants to make horrible predictions that seem to be edging towards the truth, especially in their more terrifying, more outlandish sounding, and more 'conspiracy'-themed moments.

Well, I hate to say I told you so, really I do, but for some time I've been effectively warning about this kind of scenario which is now being presented to the public re: Blair. It was utterly inevitable in my book.

"Tony Blair has been accused of 'knifing' Gordon Brown by holding secret discussions about a job as the first ever President of the European Union. The Prime Minister was entertained in Paris by new French president Nicolas Sarkozy at an upmarket restaurant called Thiou, where they agreed a joint agenda on Europe. French political sources have confirmed that President Sarkozy is keen for Mr Blair to take on a full-time paid role as the 'face' of the EU after he quits Downing Street

[..] Mr Blair's private dinner with Mr Sarkozy and his wife Cecilia at the Thai restaurant on the banks of the Seine has echoes of a previous restaurant encounter where Mr Brown was outmanoeuvred. In 1994, at Granita in Islington, Mr Blair is said to have made a deal to hand over power to Mr Brown during his second term, leading to later accusations of betrayal. The Paris meal, revealed here for the first time, took place on May 11, days after Mr Sarkozy's presidential victory and hours after Mr Blair publicly confirmed his retirement date" ^{(Daily Mail)}

As I've tried to say on my blog, and as far as I am concerned pretty much confirmed by this piece, and other stories from last year, I think it's best not to look at Mr Blair as an individual, but as a conduit or gateway for a set of inherently international interests that, to a greater or lesser extent, perhaps loosely or directly, manifest their will through him, or at least are in full agreement with him.

A lot of people believe, understandably, that Blair is a kind of poodle of Bush and US power, myself I just never quite believed that to be true. I don't believe Blair has any admiration of Bush, has any love or understanding of America at all, other than as, today, a vast military might under a neocon coup that has corrupted the country into destroying Iraq, trying to lay the groundwork to attack Iran, while creating some pretty horrendous dictatorship laws domestically and exporting torture globally.

And certainly, Blair's actions both foreign and domestic simply cannot be fully explained in the normal expectations and flow of British politics.

Instead, I always believed that there was a reward inferred for Blair if he did what he did, and that's what I think you are looking at here, and there is the possibility that Blair has effectively been told he can have a significant chunk of power, in a different future order.

And this would explain why there has been a great difficulty in directly trying to get rid of Blair, because he is essentially being protected and groomed. To put it simply they are not done with Mr Blair yet.

And the plan seems to be to try to fit Blair in where he can do the most damage as an effective President of the World figure. The Carlyle Group, speculated about early on, didn't really cut it properly and Blair has no understanding of business. The UN, which a lot of good people have many reservations and concerns about, is simply not enough under the control of whatever you want to call this trend or axis...indeed the UN has come under enormous criticism (including from Blair) that it simply isn't war-mongering enough and is too sympathetic to Palestinians...or too sympathetic to terrorist states etc, indeed, particularly in the US you may have read some other articles about 'how we need a new UN', 'how it's out of control'...now you understand those kind of articles.

But the EU presidency would be ideal, as apparently this is where a significant chunk of pretty horrific intention congeals itself, and would effectively allow the Blair-gateway to destroy the nations of Europe in a way they haven't been yet.

One would hope it would be fairly obvious that this Sarkozy character is seriously bad news. Sarkozy's endorsement of Blair who has feverishly been destroying his own country as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon should be an enormous warning to the French that they are now in serious trouble with Sarkozy.

And one would also hope this would finally put to rest the idea that the quango of the EU via Sarkozy, seeking to endorse a known war criminal and traitor and destroyer of society, utterly despised by his own UK population, as its new permanent leader, can ever be seen as some sort of world 'good cop'.

EU President Blair Sarkozy

The Lord Levy saga...

The Herald:

"Lord Levy last night claimed he was the victim of a smear campaign by unnamed figures who wanted him to be the fall-guy of Scotland Yard's cash-for-honours inquiry.

Tony Blair's chief fundraiser delivered an angry riposte to claims he had encouraged another suspect in the police investigation to change her evidence. As the 61-year-old peer was thrust yet again into the spotlight, he complained of being the victim of a "media-style trial".

The latest twist in what one MP dubbed "a soap opera of an investigation" came after the Guardian successfully defeated an attempt by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to halt a story in which it said detectives were investigating whether Lord Levy urged Ruth Turner, the Prime Minister's gatekeeper, to "shape the evidence" she gave to the police..."

No doubt about it there is a faction somewhere that sees Levy in particular as a deeply sinister and corrupting figure, and we must take a seriously grave view of someone who has been so intimately tied to Blair, who has been funding this vile party to create these wars, create this crushing police state, but I think we have to be realistic about this too.

You've got a whole range of characters in and associated with the Labour party who are nasty dangerous sick people: pro-war of agression, pro-Orewllian police state, pro-'big lie', pro-deconstruction of society, pro-seizing private assets through a kind of Fabian incrementalism and I'm not sure it is clear that they are all under the thumb of Lord Levy as is sometimes being implied with this scandal.

Look I've really laid into this character and he deserves anything he gets, but my take on this right now, right at this moment, is that Levy, important as he may be, may have been made expendable, possibly he's just not that important anymore and despite whatever trouble he could genuinely be facing, he may be being wielded within that by the regime and its supporters, as a kind of relase valve for the far more serious and multi-layered crisis going on in the UK and a way of keeping the crap game going. On the other hand it is a direct attempt to dismantle Blair and his vile government as well, so we'll see how this plays out....

Lord Levy cash-for-peerages New Labour Blair