He got trained up on current legislation by the taxpayer over the previous few weeks (which, I can kinda understand really as it’s one thing commiting suicide in public but another to take out staff). Hmm – hey ho

January 26, 2010

The Real News…

http://tinyurl.com/ylra69n

How would you compare his performance against Straws?

Just curious as he sounded as if it wasn’t rehearsed!

Goldsmith is doing what he can to salvage what’s left of his tattered reputation. It is an exercise in damage limitation. As we all know, the reputation of a lawyer is probably his most precious asset. Goldsmith was clearly out of his depth as Attorney General, as were the rest of the creepy little gang surrounding Blair in the conspiracy. Probably the most we can hope for is that all of the main actors will remain pariahs for the rest of their lives and beyond, even if they escape justice. That’s something I suppose.

Remember…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymvj5NURi-Q

I’ve been watching too, and while observing Goldsmith’s shifty hair-splitting, a revelation struck me. The whole of issue of security council resolutions was a smokescreen then and its a smokescreen now. The real issue is, as its always been, is whether or not Blair/Bush et al knew that Iraq had no WMDs and still went ahead with the attack. Questions over UN legality are genuinely irrelevant compared with the truth.

Fact is, Iraq was a nation on its knees after 12 years of sanctions; it had no WMDs and presented no threat to the West. Not even its neighbours thought that Saddam presented any kind of threat – I remember very clearly at the time that almost all Middle East countries were opposed to military action. Hundreds of thousands died for no good reason – I don’t give a damn about this or that security council resolution.

Spot on Writerman – as Craig pointed out a few threads ago – Goldsmith has bugger all training in international law and has done a Blair and whored himself in the investment banks – kkkkkeeerrrccchhhiiiinnggg!!!!

Goldsmith, is, I believe, exhibiting behaviour that conforms to my theory about the value of self-deception in nature, only here it is modified by the human need and desire for justification and legitimacy, and “goodness.”

In the following I’m simplifying a great deal.

Deception in nature, among “primative” species, is a valuble quality. It allows one to send out false signals and gain an advantage, hiding ones true nature until it is too late. Various predators are masters of deception.

But over time, evolution, the victims learn to read the signs and recognize the deceptions they are presented with. The take evasive action. They recognize the truth, as opposed to the lie.

Here nature steps in and goes a step further, moving into self-deception. This ability is even more effective and valuable, because, on this new level, the organism first successfully “deceives itself” and then sends out messages and signals that are far closer to the “truth”, that arguably appear to be “true” and accurate, compared to deceptive signals, and thereby gains a tactical advantage in the struggle that is life/nature.

Spiders, and other forms of insects master this art to perfection. I suppose I’m comparing Blair and his creepy gang, to these kind of creatures, masters of deception and self-deception. In nature there is a continual dynamic at work, or conflict, about the ability to read and interpret signs properly; just like modern politics really.

On the other hand it really didn’t work with everyone did it? The point is that it “worked” for long enough and with enough people to gain the temporary advantage and get what one wanted out of the situation before it was too late, and that was to successfully launch a war of agression against Iraq.

But are Blair and his minions really just incredibly cynical liars who never really believed a single word they were saying about Iraq in public, and in private were only concerned with their own self-advancement?

Or perhaps you’re just watching him with your mind already made up? The worst kind of juror.

And not only is he not an expert in international law, he’s looking particularly Jewish, ‘eh lads?

I think Alan Campbell is looking particularly trollish, ‘eh lads?

Watching Goldsmith now and he seems like a grovelling apologist for his own spineless behaviour.

I just don’t accept that the wording of a UN resolution can be “open to interpretation”!

@ alan campbell

Your first three observations are entirely valid. Your last one nauseating and offensive.

Alan,

You sir, are ‘out of order’ with your sly remarks.

I agree with writerman and Mike with their astute observations of Goldsmiths ‘testimony’ – I would go further and say, in my opinion, we are not hearing the full truth and Goldsmith is being very careful to preserve the British/American relationship. I did not say ‘friendship’ because my views on that are well known.

In my rather over-simplified assessment/analysis of the relevant security council resolutions involved in the precursors for war, one can see that for me the important point, was and is, exactly as Mike tells us – Iraq was NO THREAT – could NOT destroy our interests in 45minutes and therefore when we smashed, pillaged and murdered, we did so as thugs, barbarians and thoughtless criminals akin to the exact modus operandi of the very man we wanted rid of – Saddam Hussein.

I suppose what I mean in relation to Blair, in relation to the advantages of self-deception, and his psychopathic behaviour, is that to become a really successful liar, one has to first convince oneself of the veracity of ones utterances and the nobility of ones motives. Ones appatent selflessness becomes selfserving in the twinkle of an eye, and ones heartfelt convictions are only mere ripples on the surface.

I find it interesting that the attacks on Goldsmith are on his demeanour – rather than anything that he is saying. Perhaps those of us who disagree with what Craig says should in future just confine ourselves to comments about his demeanour – which even he doesn’t find too flattering.

writerman,

True,

That is exactly why I wrote to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor expressing my disgust that he should be allowed to take to the pulpit to preach on “Faith and Globalisation” in what I thought was a deluded attempt at redemption.

The man is a psychopath, and I struggle to prevent nausea when his image appears before me in any circumstance.

After weeping constantly throughout March 2003 to the point I was embarrassed, (and still do when viewing BBC archives of the Iraq war), I really dread Blair’s theatrical appearance tomorrow Friday – and I am sure I will have to rely on the kind reports of others here.

from the Guardian live blog:

“12.52. Goldsmith says that when he finally had to take a decision, he used a test that he often used as a lawyer. He asked which side of the argument he would rather be on. He decided he would rather argue the case that a second resolution was not necessary.”

If I ask a lawyer for advice or a ruling, I’d rather hear about the law than which side of the case the lawyer prefers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2010/jan/27/iraq-war-inquiry-iraq?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

@alan campbell.

Government sponsored troll! I hope you meet your maker, a.s.a.p.

Slick, very slick.

Some of you may be able to answer this question.

If Goldsmith had not been ‘fitting’ the law into a brief given to him by Tony Blair, why did he firmly disagree he could have contacted his French counterpart of their side of the story (after his visit to the US)?

Was Britain so committed to being part of the US’s objectives rather than be open minded to the opinions of other friendly nations?

Goldsmith’s demeanor, I might add, I haven’t seen him today, is important because whilst we can control our use of language, he’s a trained lawyer after all, it is far more difficult to control ones demeanor, or body language.

Often, in a courtroom situation our demeanor says more about what we are saying and the situation one finds oneself in than we are aware of.

George,

I remember – a powerful, succinct and impressive address by Galloway who as man I struggled to converse with, nevertheless was responsible for turning thousands of the ambivalent Americans in 2005 into powerful protesters of this disgusting, torturous and deforming war.

“America is lucky to have such an ally. The United States wants to go to war? The British follow along. The US needs more soldiers in Iraq? The British send them. With Tuesday’s publication of photos showing British soldiers torturing and sexually humiliating Iraqi prisoners in Basra, 10 Downing Street now has its own Abu Ghraib — and Washington has a new shoulder to cry on as both countries are now justly condemned in the court of world opinion for their soldiers’ outrageous treatment of prisoners in Iraq.” Spiegel’s Daily Take.

Mark

To think Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party for comments on the Iraq war on the grounds off…

“bringing the Labour Party into disrepute”.

You couldn’t make it up, but the New Labour party could.

I have a picture of Blairs God…

http://tinyurl.com/yc2x4an

Mark

Thought you might like to read this…

http://tinyurl.com/yuv62m

Tony Blair’s Judgement Day: Friday 29 January from 8.00am

Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Broad Sanctuary London SW1P 3EE

Nearest tube: Westminster

On Friday 29 January, Tony Blair will try to explain to the Iraq Inquiry the lies he used to take Britain into an illegal war.

Writers, musicians, relatives of the dead, Iraqi refugees, poets, human rights lawyers, comedians, actors, MPs and ordinary citizens will join a day of protest, politics and performance outside the Inquiry to demand that this should be Tony Blair’s judgement day.

There will be naming the dead ceremonies for the hundreds of thousand’s slaughtered in Blair’s war. Military families who lost loved ones in Iraq will read the names of the 179 British soldiers killed.

There must be no whitewash by the Iraq Inquiry. Join us from 8.00am onwards

——————————————————————————–

Timetable for all-day protest on Tony Blair’s Judgement Day

8.00: PROTEST STARTS AS BLAIR ARRIVES

A delegation including Iraqi citizens and grieving military families take the People’s Dossier of questions for Tony Blair to Sir John Chilcot.

9.00-10.00: NAMING OF THE DEAD CEREMONY

When Blair’s testimony begins, names of Iraqis killed in the war will be read by novelist A.L Kennedy, Musician Brian Eno, actor and director Sam West, actor and director Simon McBurney, playwright David Edgar, Lancet editor Richard Horton, former UK ambassador Craig Murray, Iraqi author Haifa Zangana, comedian and author Alexei Sayle, actor Miriam Margolyes, and more.

10.00-11.00: SPEECHES, READINGS AND PERFORMANCES

Including by many of those participating in the Naming the Dead ceremony.

12.00-13.00: PERFORMANCES

Lowkey, King Blues and other Musicians.

13.00-14.00: MILITARY FAMILIES NAMING OF THE DEAD

Members of military families who lost loved ones in the Iraq war will read the names of all 179 British soldiers who died.

16.00: PROTEST AS TONY BLAIR LEAVES THE INQUIRY

George,

Thanks mate appreciated – damn I have trouble with my internet connection – it keeps dropping out for unknown reasons – this and previous intinary via an encrypted connection.

George,

So much for Uncle Sam and ”greenbacks eh?

Another succinct example:

http://tinyurl.com/yuv62m

oops

should be:

http://tinyurl.com/yez8bfr

Mark

Some cannot be bought. They will find that out.

They think that ALL human beings are inherently evil like they are. They work on that as their template…Problem is there are too many that fit their template. They can’t cope when a Craig Murray comes along…

http://tinyurl.com/yzdoxmj

Breaking News…

http://tinyurl.com/ykhoe4h

Are you going to give it a try Craig?.

From the Woods thread:

– I predict Goldsmith will use the “Blackadder” defence tomorrow, “Opinion on Resolution 1441 was divided. Everyone else said war would be illegal, I said it wouldn’t.”

It turned out to be even more risible than that. “Initially everybody, including me, believed that war would be illegal without a second resolution. Then after protestations by Greenstock, Straw & Rice, I had some doubts and gave a non-committal response. Blair assumed this meant that legal opinion had become divided enough for him to conclude that war would be entirely legal, and had the backing of the top legal experts.”

This kind of warped justification puts the ‘pist’ in ‘epistemology’.

Looks to me as if it’s shaping up to be All The Fault Of Those Crude Yanks.

“Government sponsored troll! I hope you meet your maker, a.s.a.p.”

Have you met his parents, are they really that dreadful ?

“This kind of warped justification puts the ‘pist’ in ‘epistemology’” – logos

*big grin* Thanks for that.