innerhippy

Well done to Charles Kennedy for coming out with the stunning revelation that "Blair is costing lives". At last a British politician has done some plain speaking that attacks Bush's preposterous "War On Terror". He also makes the connection between the invasion and an increase in the threat of terrorism – a widely held view that Blair is belligerently refusing to accept. Kennedy should be applauded for making such a stance, but the guy's a twit so I'm not going to. Maybe that's a bit harsh, after all he's in charge of a party full of twits – despite having some of the most sensible and honest policies in the UK. Shame.

Would anyone like to comment on what we have seen over the past 2 weeks in the US? (does anyone read this drivel?)

Now that we have witnessed the melting pot of guns, poverty, race and anarchy, what does it say about the American culture?

As disgusted as I am (again) in the response of George W, I can't say that what I've seen is a huge surprise. It never was a winning combination.

Oh, and to the people who talk about the "cruelty of nature" and "nature taking revenge", I say get a life! Nature doesn't actually have a conscience, and that's precisely why we should respect it and not keep buggering about with it.

Michael Howard states that he would like to see the abortion limit reduced to 20 weeks from a ludicrous 24 weeks. The prime minister now accuses him of attempting to make an election issue out of it.

This is the same prime minister who opposes any kind of parliamentary debate on the abortion issue.

The same prime minister who has devoted so much parliament time to the fox hunting debate.

Poor foxes, poor Tony. Screw the humans.

BBC News Sunday 13th March 2005

Tebbit said: "Considering Blair is the man who let out of prison a whole battalion of murderers, including the man that crippled my wife, that nearly killed me and murdered my friends, I find it difficult to take his claims seriously."

"I feel a sensation of nausea that a man so detached from reality and truth could be the prime minister of this country."

In reaction, a Labour party spokesman said: "The government acts on the advice it receives from the police and the intelligence service, and the application of anti-terrorist law."

Oh, so that's ok then is it? At what stage does a home secretary intervene in an issue such as this? Is this the same intelligence service that told Blair about the WMD in Iraq?