Jack Straw hits the road! 6

Jack Straw has finally hit the road and been forced out of his job as Foreign Secretary.

Straw has been removed from his post just eighteen months after Craig Murray began his high-profile campaign to expose the Foreign Secretary’s complicity in torture, and almost exactly a year after Craig’s audacious challenge in Blackburn. The move has come as a shock to many in the media, but will be less of a surprise to those familiar with the growing scandals over extraordinary rendition and torture.

Update (08/05/06): Speculation about the reasons for Straw’s removal is spreading in the media with briefings from different quarters.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

6 thoughts on “Jack Straw hits the road!

  • Chuck Unsworth

    Let's be candid, Craig's campign – commendable though it is/was – is not the sole cause for Straw's ejection, more's the pity. But it is a blessing and a boon to men that Straw has gone, (let us assume not to return like some of his former colleagues).

    Sadly, his departure is more related to his relationship with Blair and Blair's personal intentions than anything else. In any event, the matters which Craig raised and which he has continued to pursue since his departure from FCO remain unresolved.

    One wonders whether Straw will be as persistent in following his stated positions………

  • underblog

    Or does it have more to do with Straw's view that he doesn't "see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop."

    Perhaps condoning torture in Uzbekistan and support for the Iraq invasion just wasn't enough for Blair.

  • Richard II

    Straw is gone – so what? Blair is still in bed with a maniac, and Labour MPs are as supine as ever:

    "Bush Says War on Terror is 'World War III'

    "US President George W. Bush said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of 'World War III.'

    "In an interview with the financial news network CNBC, Bush said he had yet to see the recently released film of the uprising, a dramatic portrayal of events on the United Airlines plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

    "But he said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it 'our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war — World War III'.

    "Bush said: 'I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.'"

  • Richard II

    In a matter of a few years, it's gone from "The War on Terror" to "The Long War" to "World War III".

    The NPT treaty is now dead. When the president of the only superpower in the world declares World War III, it's a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction!) scramble to stockpile nukes.

    Iran must now acquire nukes, no matter what.

    China and Russia must add to their stockpiles. Pakistan and India, also. North Korea must follow suit; therefore, Japan had better acquire a nuclear deterrent. And, if Japan has nukes, South Korea will need some, also.

    It's WORLD WAR III, folks.

    It is the start. A world war has been declared by the President of America.

    Bush and Blair stand firm.

    "We must not show any sign of weakness," Blair declares. "I AM prepared to kill billions of innocent people. Don't tempt me, terrorists. DON'T! TEMPT! ME!"

    These are our world "leaders". It's a bloody joke! A 6-year-old child couldn't be more irresponsible or idiotic.

    The electorate – albeit, a minority – voted the Labour Party to run the government, not Blair. The entire Labour Party must take the blame for the unpopular policies, corruption and sleaze, not just Blair.

    Labour MPs, like Tory MPs, are out for number one, and screw everyone else.

    Blair has blood on his hands.

    And so do Labour MPs.

  • Richard II

    "Asked whether she would believed a military strike on Iran was inconceivable – a word used repeatedly by Straw – [Margaret] Beckett said she would express it in another way: 'No one has the intention to take military action,' she said.

    "'It's not the intention, it's not anybody's intention to take the course of military action. That … is simple and straightforward and clear,' she said."

    About as clear as mud, Ms Beckett:

    "I didn't have the intention of quitting the committee, but I did."

    "I didn't have the intention of sacking him, but my hand was forced."

    "I didn't have the intention of becoming a project manager for a software company, but that's how it turned out."

    "I didn't have the intention of not supporting Labour, but voting for such a vile political party is now out of the question."

    Margaret Beckett evades the truth as skillfully as any other politician.

    She's got a nice job, a good salary, and a secure pension. She feels important. She's going to do what Blair tells her, like a good little girl.

    Until Britain knows precisely what America's position is over Iran, Britain will continue to sit on the fence.

    Blair's role, as the British prime minister, is to spread propaganda in support of America's position – a job he's doing that very well!

    Margaret Beckett's we-have-no-intention-to-attack-Iran talk is much closer to Bush's rhetoric than Jack Straw's was.

    If Margaret Beckett wanted to be explicit, wanted to show everyone that she thinks for herself, she would have said: "Military action against Iran would be illegal under international law. I would not tolerate such action. If Blair or my government comes out in favour of attacking Iran, I will do all I can to stop them."

    But Beckett chose to prevaricate instead.

  • Richard II

    Alternatively, she could have said something like:

    "If Iran doesn't abide by the conditions America lays out for it, regarding its nuclear programme, then there is a very strong likelihood military action will be taken.

    "Iran may be allowed to enrich uranium under the NPT treaty, but these IAEA regulations are too lax as far as Britain and America are concerned; they create a loophole that countries can exploit. Therefore, military action is a very real possibility if the Iranian regime cannot assure us that it has no secret nuclear weapons programme.

    "Iran knows what it must do to prevent an attack. America and Britain will sign a security agreement with Iran if it agrees to our conditions, which we will lay out in black and white. We will not attack Iran if these conditions are met.

    "Iran says it is not developing a nuclear weapon, therefore it should have no quarrel with this."

    At least, then, everyone would know where the British government stands regarding military action.

    But this is politics, and in politics, everyone plays games, including the Iranians.

Comments are closed.