Prince Andrew Not Solely Despicable 60


The problem with the wikileaks method of releasing the documents through mainstream media outlets, is that they are then interpreted for the public by a lazy and incompetent group of “Journalists” whose arses have grown plump on the rewards of retailing spoonfed propaganda.

So the mainstream missed the underlying stories and context, simply because they are too lazy and stupid to know the facts. The Prince Andrew story is a typical example. The Guardian reports that the US Ambassador disapprovingly notes his jolly (and stupid) remarks about corruption:

“In an astonishing display of candour in a public hotel where the brunch was taking place, all of the businessmen then chorused that nothing gets done in Kyrgyzstan if President [Kurmanbek] Bakiyev’s son Maxim does not get ‘his cut’.

“Prince Andrew took up the topic with gusto, saying that he keeps hearing Maxim’s name ‘over and over again’ whenever he discusses doing business in this country. Emboldened, one businessman said that doing business here is ‘like doing business in the Yukon’ in the 19th century, ie only those willing to participate in local corrupt practices are able to make any money … At this point the Duke of York laughed uproariously, saying that: ‘All of this sounds exactly like France.'”

But the delicious irony of this, as regular readers of this blog will know, is that the US government was, fully knowingly, the greatest source by far of corrupt funds straight into the pocket of Maksim Bakiyev. He was awarded the supply contracts for the US base in Manas, Kyrgyzstan, and he ripped off more than US $60 million from the fuel supply alone.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/06/afghan_war_spre.html

This is part of a deliberate US government policy of bribing and propping up Central Asia’s corrupt and dictatorial regimes in order to secure their support for US troops in neighbouring Agfhanistan. Indeed, the monies taken by Maksim Bakiyev from the Pentagon pale in comparison with the huge sums funnelled by the Pentagon to dictator’s daughter Gulnara Karimova in Uzbekistan for ground supply services to US troops.

None of which detracts from the boorish stupidity of Andrew’s remarks. It is a fascinating glimpse into the world in which Blair gave our biggest weapons company BAE immunity from prosecution for massive corruption. To the senior establishment, the idea of the rule of law is simply to be laughed down when they feel far away and unobserved, or gravely put aside in the public interest when they are on the record at home.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/jack_straws_cor.html

You can learn more about Kyrgyzstan than the entire staff of the Guardian has ever known in my brief posting here:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/06/kyrgyzstan_hund.html


60 thoughts on “Prince Andrew Not Solely Despicable

1 2
  • Larry from St. Louis

    Steelback, you mean the Jew-hating blogosphere.

    Suhayl, don’t bother thanking Steelback for the link – he already knows that you’re grateful.

  • tony_opmoc

    Well this is really encouraging. Could it be that the UK justice system has just designated the US as a Terrorist State and is applying Export Sanctions? Maybe the wikileaks have seriously pissed someone off…

    Extract from The Wall Street Journal

    “U.K. Limits Execution Drug’s Export”

    By NATHAN KOPPEL And JEANNE WHALEN

    The U.K., in a decision to underscore its “moral opposition to the death penalty,” plans to limit the export of a drug used widely in U.S. executions.

    The U.K. government said Monday in a London court that it would issue an order requiring anyone supplying the anesthetic thiopental sodium to the U.S. to first obtain an export license.

    Licenses will be denied if a risk exists that thiopental will be used in executions, said a government spokesman.

    The decision follows a lawsuit filed this month in U.K’s High Court on behalf of condemned Tennessee inmate Edmund Zagorski. The suit was prompted by the state’s alleged ordering of thiopental from a foreign source, possibly in the U.K., to carry out Mr. Zagorski’s execution. The suit sought a U.K. ban on thiopental exports.

    The move could complicate future executions, as the sole U.S. supplier of thiopental announced earlier this year it won’t have a new batch ready until the first quarter of 2011, at the earliest.

    The shortage of the drug has sent states scrambling for alternative sources?”or alternative drugs. Last week, Oklahoma received a judge’s approval to use pentobarbital, which has been used in animal euthanasia, for human executions.

    Arizona executed inmate Jeffrey Landrigan last month using thiopental from the U.K.

    The U.K.’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announced the export controls in a court filing responding to the Zagorski suit, stating that the export controls on thiopental serve “to underline the United Kingdom’s moral opposition to the death penalty.”

    The agency also said it will seek European Union-wide limits on thiopental exports.”

    Tony

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “The numbers are growing all the time, from what I can see on the net.”

    dreoilin, if there’s any uptick in the number of people who believe in alien visitation (which happened in the 1980s), it doesn’t increase the likelihood that aliens are visiting us.

    How’s that Third World economy of yours working out? Do you wish you had listened to your masters in Rome more often or less often?

  • Alfred

    WTF has this got to do with Prince Andrew. Oh, I see, just Craig venting some spleen.

    Tony_Opmoc seems to say it all:

    “some people will believe anything.”

    Larry’s virulent intervention confirms it. Trikileaks must be a Neocon operation.

    As noted elsewhere:

    The strange Assange seems now entirely deranged. He is claiming that (a) he was responsible for the Climategate emails release, which is certainly a lie, and (b) the Climategate emails are all bollocks and don’t mean a thing. LOL

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/30/assange-on-climategate/

  • Alfred

    Below is a link to Malcolm Muggeridge’s 1957 Saturday Evening Post article “Does England Really Need a Queen?,” which got him excluded from the BBC for a decade. In fact, the ban was only lifted, so it has been said, because Willie Whitelaw, while dining with the Queen, observed “Malcolm Muggeridge is really not such a bad chap.”

    Compare that article, which speaks of the Queen’s personal merits and charm and of the important constitutional role of the monarchy, with comments Craig Murray routinely makes about the royal family and it is not hard to see why Murray has been banned by the BBC.

    Almost certainly the ban is, at some level, official and for Craig to row back, if he is so inclined, will likely take at least a decade as well as a word on his behalf by someone very influential.

    http://www.malcolmmuggeridge.org/gargoyle/gargoyle-16-200710.pdf

    It’s a brilliant article nothwithstanding that Muggeridge was a supposedly less than normally intelligent conservative.

  • writerman

    Why is Craig seen as ‘radioactive’? Because he might, and probably would, say something unscripted, honest and true.

    Honest and true, what quaint, old-fashioned concepts they are today.

    Truth. Gimme some truth. In a political culture, in a culture, that is increasingly built on a foundation of lies, for example almost the entire financial system, a gigantic ponzi scheme, yet we are supposed to deny this, if we wish to maintain credibility. The banks are all bust, with collosal debts as the value of their assets vanishes into thin air, yet we are pressured and forced into denying realty and truth.

    A culture that is increasingly enveloping itself in un-reality and not-truth, is ultimately doomed to decay and eventually fall down.

    Our society has a powerful and huge apparatus, institutions, that are engaged in a process that turns lies into ‘truth.’ Sometimes this is called conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom stated not so long ago, that witchcraft existed and was real. That superstition and the supernatural were real and clear, clear as the fact that the earth was the centre of the universe.

    Much of what passes for conventional wisdom today, isn’t that far from a belief in witchcraft and demonic possession. Those, like Craig, who attempt to examine the nature of our illusions and world of lies, are deemed to be guilty of a kind of heresy.

  • Alfred

    @Writerman

    “Why is Craig seen as ‘radioactive’? Because he might, and probably would, say something unscripted, honest and true.”

    Something honest and true, would be bad enough. But pointless insults aimed at the family of the head of state place anyone beyond the pale of the mainstream media. It is foolishness to think that the power structure will not defend itself or that those who engage in wild and insulting criticism ought to be invited to share the public platform.

    Criticism of one of the basic institutions of the state is bad enough. To do it rudely and often with little wit or purpose is sheer craziness for anyone wishing to be taken seriously by the media.

  • Duncan McFarlane

    The monarchy is hardly one of the “basic institutions of the state”. It’s just a hangover from the medieval period that’s tolerated as long as it remains neutral between the main parties.

    There is also a clear purpose to Craig calling ‘prince’ Andrew ‘despicable’ – to put public pressure on the royal family and politicians to stop selling their own people and foreigners alike down the river for the benefit of the management of British Aerospace.

  • Alfred

    @ Duncan

    “The monarchy is hardly one of the “basic institutions of the state”. It’s just a hangover from the medieval period that’s tolerated as long as it remains neutral between the main parties.”

    Of course the monarchy is a basic institution. The monarch is Head of State, Head of the Armed Forces and Head of the Church of England, to mention a few important roles. True, these are symbolic positions, but the important thing about them is that they deny those positions, the palaces, the prestige the adulation that would otherwise be focused by the simple-minded majority on politicians, soldiers and bishops. That is the vital role of monarchy. Also the Queen saves the politicians a great deal of time by undertaking the boring show-the-flag trips to boring places like Canada and Australia, Botswana and God-knows where else.

    “There is also a clear purpose to Craig calling ‘prince’ Andrew ‘despicable’ – to put public pressure …”

    That may be but if so he totally fails to make the argument clear, or effective.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Personally, I’d feed ’em all eels from The Wash, like that clever woman did with King John. But first, I’d make sure I’d got the Crown Jewels!

    Craig’s main point, concerns the systemic mis-use of the central institutions of the state for nefarious and corrupt purposes; I think that comes across very clearly.

    I agree about the establishment hitting back hard; I think that Craig’s own story exemplifies just that. And I think that some members of the UK’s Royalty are very much part of that ‘hard-hitting’ Establishment. In with an oar, in with the eels, as it were.

  • Alfred

    “Craig’s main point, concerns the systemic mis-use of the central institutions of the state for nefarious and corrupt purposes; I think that comes across very clearly.”

    Comes across very clearly? How so? He just calls Andrew a jerk because of some vacuous and entirely casual remarks.

    If you’re trying to make a point that will be unwelcome to the powers that be, it seems advisable to be both to the point and polite? But if, like Assange, you want to paint yourself as some kind of a heroic victim, then go ahead and insult the family of the head of state by all means.

    “And I think that some members of the UK’s Royalty are very much part of that ‘hard-hitting’ Establishment…”

    That may be, but where’s your evidence?

    Incidentally, Duncan, there’s nothing Mediaeval about Britain’s constitutional monarchy. Absolute monarchy goes back to the dawn of history. But Britain’s constitutional monarchy was a creation of the 17th century — a fortunate result of the general dumbness of the Stuarts and in particular the pusillanimity of James II who abdicated the throne rather than risk the fate of Charles I. As a result, an understanding was reached between king and Parliament that recognized Parliament as an independent authority in the land.

  • CheebaCow

    Alfred:

    First the link to AlexJonesChannel on youtube and now the breathless article desperate to paint Assange in the worst light possible….. If you actually watch the youtube video linked in the recent article you posted, Assange never says WL was responsible for the release, only that WL published the docs, which is true. They also attack WL as being biased against climate sceptics while ignoring the fact that WL was happy to publish a limited selection of docs which was used by sceptics to cast doubt on climate science. The article also says how the question put to Assange made him very nervous, but anyone who has spent time with computer geeks can see that his behaviour is typical geek behaviour when they are on a public stage and the centre of attention (Assange even puts his hand up for his turn to speak, if that ain’t geek I don’t know what is).

    Your rabid defence of the monarchy is actually kind of cute. It’s funny that you feel the need to be the protector of the crown, like they aren’t big enough to take care of themselves. It also strikes me that you have a wilful misunderstanding of Craig’s posts when you cannot comprehend the obvious argument he is putting forward.

  • somebody

    CheebaCow – don’t waste your breath on (Canadian) dinosaurs. He probably watches the Christmas Day Queen’s Speech in a standing position with his thumbs in line with his trouser seams. He seems to possess no recognition of the royals’ part in the promotion of the evil wars carried out by the coalition of the willing. The flag, the medals, the anthem, the trumpets all have played a large part, and continue to so do.

  • Alfred

    @CC:

    “Your rabid defence of the monarchy is actually kind of cute”

    Do try to use your intelligence, girl. I explained the function of the constitutional monarchy and is origins. What was rabid about that. Nothing, obviously.

    It is those who seek to destroy the constition of the country and put David Cameron in Buckingham Palace, make David Cameron head of the Armed Forces and make David Cameron head of the Church of England, who are rabid.

    @Somebody:

    “He seems to possess no recognition of the royals’ part in the promotion of the evil wars carried out by the coalition of the willing. The flag, the medals, the anthem, the trumpets ”

    You’re a bit confused, young fella. The royals promote nothing of their own volition. You’d soon be yelping if the Queen started to dictate national policy, to demand war or peace contrary to the dictates of the elected government. Or would you rather see everyone in the military, the police and in every other hierarchy on which the nation depends act just as they see fit? It’s call anarchy.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    I’d rather have anarchy than monarchy but actually I think it’s perfectly possible, and sane, to have neither.

  • Alfred

    KofWN,

    I think it’s perfectly possible, and sane, to have neither [monarcy or anarchy].

    You may well be right, but systems of government are rarely changed without bloodshed and turmoil. Is it wise, therefore, to seek to destroy a central component of Britain’s present system of government — a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch as head of state, the model for first real democracy of the modern world — without an explicit account of the new system of government you wish to create?

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Alfred, it is absolutely diamond-clear that Craig is saying that the MSM reported the Prince Andrew “gaffe” as a typical Royal story redolent of those concerning Prince Philip (aka ‘Ole Slanty Eyes’), while the real story resides in UK state-BAE et al systemic corruption in relation to some of the worst regimes in the world, including those in Central Asia and of course, Saudi Arabia. This is absolutely clear from his post.

    You, in again reflexively focussing on the trivial ‘Royal’ aspect to the seeming exclusion of everything else, are doing precisely what the MSM media has done, but in reverse – which is exactly what Craig is criticising in this post. Your approach to this matter and that of the MSM are simply two sides of the same coin: Both serve to obscure the truth.

    First you say that attacking the Royals will bring hard retribution, then you say that I have no evidence that the Royals are close of the sources from which the supposed retribution will arise. You can’t have it both ways, Alfred.

    Incidentally, Craig is not blacklisted or oppressed because he allegedly disparages some members of the Royal Family. He is blacklisted and his website is filled with a cacophony of trolls at various stages of evolution, because he is a whistleblower in relation to precisely the sort of corruption which he has elucidated very clearly in this, and many other, posts. Part of the systemic corruption comprises the attitude towards torture – something which I thought you were against.

    I’m afraid the system, the Establishment, whatever you want to call it, is rotten to the core. Craig and others like him have exposed this. And that is why he has enemies.

  • Alfred

    Suhayl,

    My point was that calling any member of the Royal family “boorish and stupid,” however justified that description may be, is likely a banning matter as far as the BBC is concerned. And I am inclined to think that the BBC is correct, since however boorish and stupid royalty may in fact be, the effectiveness of Baghot’s “dignified part of the constitution” depends on it being held in high regard.

    I would readily agree that if a member of the Royal family engaged in egregiously immoral or criminal conduct then they should suffer the consequences. However, no evidence has been presented here to justify attacking Andrew for gross immorality or any kind of criminality.

    As indicated on another thread, I think it is a disastrous mistake to involve any member of the royal family in a dirty business such as the arms trade, which if it is to be engaged in at all should be left to the likes of known corruptionists such as Mark Thatcher. That Andrew is involved in the arms trade is indicative of the incompetence of the advisers to the royal family.

    “He is blacklisted … because he is a whistleblower in relation to precisely the sort of corruption which he has elucidated very clearly in this, and many other, posts.”

    Well that may be a factor, but I rather doubt it. Britain still has a tradition of free speech in politics — or do you deny that that tradition continues?

  • MTB shoes

    Street products,” said Naders. While investors think they are diversifying by buying a variety of stocks and funds, history shows that when the stock market goes down, all sectors of the market go down. The better option, he explains, is to get off Wall

  • CheebaCow

    Alfred said: “Do try to use your intelligence, girl.”

    What a classy guy you are, using the word ‘girl’ to speak down to someone. Your sexism is shining through. I don’t know why you think I am female, I have never stated my sex. I don’t think my writing style is particularly feminine, but whatever, it ain’t important.

    “It is those who seek to destroy the constition of the country and put David Cameron in Buckingham Palace, make David Cameron head of the Armed Forces and make David Cameron head of the Church of England, who are rabid. ”

    Yeah that is exactly what Craig is calling for……… Like I said before, a wilful misunderstanding of his position.

  • CheebaCow

    Alfred:

    I also find it amusing that you do not even try to defend the god awful links you provided to advance your argument. Is it because you are embarrassed and know that you can’t?

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Alfred, I posted links on the ‘Blacklisting’ thread to sites which render precise examples of where blacklisting – formal blacklisting, not word-of-mouth- was applied in the UK in relation to both state and private sectors, namely, the BBC and the construction industry. So, yes, there is supposedly free speech in this country. But there is also de jure and de facto covert censorship, as illustrated in these examples. There was an entire book written on the subject, as I indicated.

  • Jaded.

    Ingo, I don’t know exactly what you say online, away from this blog, and to what extent. However, I can tell you it is a cast iron fact that the powers that be do mess with websites and personal computers. It is by no means just well known dissidents that are targeted. Whether that is what has happened in your case or not who knows. I think that these insidious activities, along with other examples of state harassment, need to be brought into the light and fully exposed.

1 2

Comments are closed.