So Big Brother Bush spied on Blood Brother Blair. So What?

Here's a short & sweet intelligence test.

Question:

Is the following statement a total waste of time and space?

... under a long-standing agreement, the US and Britain have pledged “not to collect on each other,” former US intelligence officials said.

Answer:

Are you a wacko or what? Of course it's complete crap.

They do it every damned day.

They always have and always will.

The truth is that neither dare not do.

This header's taken from today's (London) 'Times'.

US intelligence file was held on Tony Blair while he was Prime Minister

Now read the rest.



*(Cross posted across at 'appletree'.)

US Courts Calmly Claim Kidnapping Brits (And Anyone Else In The World) Is OK ...

*

This is a first for us.

We're speechless.

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they
are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

(snip)

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Read the rest of this intolerable revelation.



Special relationship?

Don't sodding start us.

Special relationship, our arses!

* (Cross posted at Appletree)

Iraq Invader Occupiers: What Coalition? Willing Or Otherwise ...

It looks like the latest flurry of finger pointing and fallings out among 'friends' means the blame game's already begun -- in earnest.

Iraq war wise, that is.




See below for some snips from Sunday edition shown above.

Senior military commanders have told the Government that Britain can achieve "nothing more" in south-east Iraq, and that the 5,500 British troops still deployed there should move towards withdrawal without further delay.

(snip)

Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, "We've done what we can in the south [of Iraq]". Commanders want to hand over Basra Palace – where 500 British troops are subjected to up to 60 rocket and mortar strikes a day, and resupply convoys have been described as "nightly suicide missions" – by the end of August.

Before the invasion in 2003, officers were told that the Army's war aims were to bring stability and democracy to Iraq and to the Middle East as a whole. Those ambitions have been drastically revised, the IoS understands. The priorities now are an orderly withdrawal, with the reputation and capability of the Army "reasonably intact", and for Britain to remain a "credible ally".

The final phrase appears to refer to tensions with the US, which has more troops in Iraq than at any other time, including the invasion, as it seeks to impose order in Baghdad and neighbouring provinces.

Tensions? Tut-tut. Who would ever have thought it, eh?

American criticism of Britain's desire to pull back in southern Iraq has recently become public, with a US intelligence official telling The Washington Post this month that "the British have basically been defeated in the south".

A senior British commander countered, "That's to miss the point. It was never that kind of battle, in which we set out to defeat an enemy."

(snip)

Immediate American discontent is said to centre on the CIA's reluctance to leave Basra Palace, an important base for watching Iran, which may explain why Britain has held on to the complex until now.

But last week it was reported that US intelligence operatives were in the process of pulling out.

Really? Already?

Further ahead, the US is concerned over the security of its vital supply line from Kuwait, with some American commanders saying that if the British withdraw, American troops will have to be sent south to replace them.

The UK and US 'Special Relationship'?

It sounds to us that it's more a case of a (bloody well and truly), 'broken down' relationship -- and that's putting it mildly.

Here's today's Independent's relevant report in it's entirety.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown - Child Prodigy Of Renown ...

Bloody brilliant! Not.

Blogger's been buggering us about all afternoon as we've tried to write about child prodigy Gordon Brown.

So, let's see if this pic and link are 'disappeared' - as all our copy has been - several sodding times.

For further enlightenment, bright-spark-Brown-wise, see some startling stuff at this link.

*

UK-US Special Relationship; Recent Surprising Revelations ...

By jingo, Gordo, you've actually managed make us wonder whether there may be at least a tiny bit of truth in the slogan so prominently emblazoned across the background in your photo shown below.





When we initially learned that one of the first cabinet ministers you appointed was Jack Straw, we thought 'hmm'.

Especially, since Straw was so unceremoniously sacked by your pathetic predecessor, Blair - widely believed, btw, to have been at the behest of his best bosom buddy, Dumbya - so soon after Condoleezza Rice came calling on Jack.

And, so soon after she reported to her master how she absolutely couldn't believe the massive number of Muslims in his parliamentary constituency.

Incidentally, can anyone enlighten us as to the current wheres, whats, whys and whens with regard to creepy Condi?

Regardless - preamble ends.

'Cut to the chase' time has come.

The subtle shift in British foreign policy

Analysis -- By Paul Reynolds

World Affairs correspondent BBC News website

A speech in Washington by the British cabinet minister Douglas Alexander is part of a distancing of the new British government from the Bush administration, but there will not be a decisive break.

There was another instance of the distancing on Saturday when a new foreign office minister Mark Malloch Brown, a critic of US policy when he was at the UN, said that the US and UK would no longer be "joined at the hip".

The Prime Minister Gordon Brown reacted by trying to stop the impression of a break with the US. Cabinet ministers have been reminded of the importance of the relationship.

However, it is difficult not to conclude that there is a change of atmosphere.

Read the rest of this report right here.

Then when you're done with that one, there's this one.

US and UK 'no longer inseparable'

Lord Malloch Brown wants a more impartial foreign policy

One of Gordon Brown's new ministers has said the UK and the United States would no longer be "joined at the hip" on foreign policy.

Lord Mark Malloch Brown told the Daily Telegraph it was time for a more "impartial" foreign policy and to build relationships with European leaders.

Some analysts may consider the Foreign Office minister's remarks evidence of Labour distancing itself from the US.

Earlier, Downing Street denied another minister had criticised the US.

International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander warned in a speech against unilateralism and called for an "internationalist approach" to global problems.

Lord Malloch Brown's newspaper interview was his first since being appointed Foreign Office minister.

See this full story for yourself.

Well, whadaya know?

And, whadaya think?

*