Saturday, December 17, 2005

We've only just begun...

From the BBC
'Far from closing down questions about 7 July by ruling out a public inquiry, the home secretary may find they have only just begun

"There is no question of a cover-up of any kind," Mr Clarke assured Today listeners.
"As far as allegations about Iraq or foreign policy issues or motivations of the individuals concerned, those are being made the whole time, as we speak, by a whole range of different people, for a range of different motives and people are, of course, entitled to make those assertions."


Gee, thanks. Are we entitled to answers as well? Seems not.
Given that I'm not even allowed to sing carols in Parliament Square or read out the names of the dead killed in the latest Iraq war outside number 10, I'm surprised by his generosity in allowing me to make any 'assertions' at all. Assert while you can, people, whilst free speech stocks last!

'Mr Clarke admits ... apparent intelligence failure is an "issue".
But is it an issue that is likely to be addressed by the "narrative" account of the events leading up to 7 July, ordered by Mr Clarke?
The fact that the narrative will be written by a senior civil servant, rather than an independent figure, will lead to accusations that the government has something to hide.'


You don't say. Conspiracy theorists will have yet another tiresome field day for a start.

'There is also the question of the role the war in Iraq played in recruiting and motivating the bombers '

Yes, there is that question, and there is the total lack of answers from the Government. And so the question will be asked and asked and asked and asked and asked and asked and asked.
And every failure to address it will weaken your position, morally, and in the way you care about most Mr Blair, politically. With each refusal to answer it, you lose power. You shrink, you become shrill, you become despicable and laughable and embarrassing. And this is the way it will end for you, not with a bang, but a whimper.

A leader admits his mistakes. A leader takes responsibilty for his actions. A leader tries to put right what has gone wrong on his watch, putting what is right before what is personally comfortable.

Does failure stink in your nostrils yet, Mr Clarke, Mr Blair? And by the way, I know that before Christmas was meant to be a good time to 'bury' the news of the non-appearance of a Public Enquiry, but it's backfired, sunshine. There's any numbers of survivors being interviewed about 2005 as the year ends, reflective articles and TV programmes. I know. I get asked to appear in quite a few of them, and so do my fellow passengers. July 7th is going to be reflected upon no end between now and January 1st. What do you think we're reflecting about right now, Mr Blair, on TV, in print, in the Sunday Times this weekend? Your media advisers cocked up, and we're not shutting up. No answers? No peace then. See you front-of-voters'-mind.

http://www.petitiononline.com/July7th/petition.html - SIGN UP NOW
http://www.writetothem.com/ - OR WRITE A LETTER

1 Comments:

Blogger RW said...

*Applause*... D'you have any way of checking exactly who's reading your blog? I'll bet you'll be getting a few hits from the NL spin department pretty soon if you haven't already (!).

I saw this yesterday and was wondering what you thought about the issues it raises:

http://www.unite-against-terror.com/

I agree with much of what they say but stuff like this seems a bit troubling: "This terrorist violence is not a response by 'Muslims' to the injustices perpetrated upon them by 'the west'. Western democracies have been responsible for some of the ills of this world but not for the terrorist murders of these deluded Bin-Ladenists."

Seems to me there's a sleight-of-hand in this argument which goes from "one injustice cannot excuse another" - which I think many/most people would agree with -via "western democracies bear no responsibility for acts of terrorism committed against them" - again, not so difficult to disagree with, depending on how you interpet it - to "one injustice cannot cause [or partly cause] another" - which seems far less convincing to me.

My beef with a lot of this kind of rhetoric it seems to equate explaining terror with excusing it, and giving a "cause" with giving a "justification". This seems to leave no space for those who believe that terrorism is never justified (I lost a family member to Christian fundamentalist terrorism in Africa, so no ambiguity in my mind there - and hence my level of interest in all of this) but that it does have clear and comprehensible causes - and that understanding these causes could help us tackle the problem.

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on all of this.

Richard

December 17, 2005 12:34 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home