I've disliked Clare Short for several years now, ever since I saw her on the BBC's Question Time. On that show, she was highly patronising and condescending to the foreign members of the audience who were asking her about Britain's policy on sending aid abroad. Considering her title was international development secretary she wasn't exactly giving the rest of the world a good impression of Britain!

Then she threatened to resign over the Iraq war and didn't.

Now she is desperately trying to keep in the media spotlight by coming up with a wild accusation that the US/UK spied on UN chief Kofi Annan. If this is true, why did she wait to jump on the bandwagon created by yesterday's ruling on the GCHQ leak?! Coincidence eh?!

Please Clare do us all a favour, and in the words of Robin Cook today - "Put up or shut up".

:mad: :mad:

Yep Clare Short is an idiot and a very annoying one at that. That doesn't mean it's not true though and to be honest I'd be very surprised if it wasn't. Supposedly Hans Blix had his mobile tapped as well in Iraq :rolleyes:

As I said in my first post, isn't it strange that Clare waits until now to tell us about this? Strange that the media just happen to be 'ripe' for this kind of story following yesterday's ruling over the GCHQ leak... ;)

Like I said she is indeed an idiot - I still reckon there's probably some truth behind it though - how could they resist?

If she keeps carrying the way she has been I suspect it might be the end for her soon. :o

I wonder what possible cover stories could be?

of course everyone wanted to know what kofi annan was saying to the parties involved.

but now that clare has spilled the beans, no one will own up to it, even though we expect as much of our secret services. That *is* what they were created for.

Unfortunately it doesn't tie in very well with robin cooks much vaunted fluffy foreign policy.

this is where realpolitik and public perception meet head on, and that it is going to be the cause of considerable cognitive dissonance in some quarters.

from phan
this is where realpolitik and public perception meet head on, and that it is going to be the cause of considerable cognitive dissonance in some quarters.


from me
can we have that in a way we can all understand please:loopy:

look it up

oh I'll save you the bother

Cognitive dissonance - Dissonance arises after a major purchase (e.g., a car) when alternatives are recommended and/or dislikes emerge with the choice. To eliminate the discomfort of dissonance, the consumer will seek to rationalize the original choice, in other words, find positive advantages and ignore the negative.

Realpolitik - politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations

Right, I'm going to drop both of those into general conversation at the pub tonight, i'm sure everyone will be impressed!

Mind you though, I suspect I might have a slight problem saying 'Cognitive dissonance' after about 10.30!

Originally posted by uniB
Right, I'm going to drop both of those into general conversation at the pub tonight, i'm sure everyone will be impressed!

Mind you though, I suspect I might have a slight problem saying 'Cognitive dissonance' after about 10.30!

Just say that you are now 'uncertain' or 'no-longer sure'.

The last few postings remind me of something I read years ago:

"It often does more harm than good to force definitions on things we don't understand. Besides, only in logic and mathematics do definitions ever capture concepts perfectly. The things we deal with in practical life are usually too complicated to be represented by neat, compact expressions. Especially when it comes to understanding minds, we still know so little that we can't be sure our ideas about psychology are even aimed in the right directions. In any case, one must not mistake defining things for knowing what they are."

-- Marvin Minsky, from The Society Of Mind, 1985

It also reminds me of one of the things that I’d do with a new (to me) class of kids when I was teaching. I’d ask them ‘What is a tree?’ – there would be several interpretations and descriptions, one child even drew a replica of one. To all the replies I received I answered ‘No, that is not a tree’ - then I’d go to a window and point to a tree.

Sorry for the ramblings but I tend to despair at the inculcation of unnecessary words when plain language will suffice.

Hope you see the irony within the last sentence Phan.

By the way, to keep within the thread, I wish that there were more ‘whistleblowers’ in this sycophantic corrupt government.

Keep up the good work Claire!

Originally posted by Geoff
I've disliked Clare Short for several years now, ever since I saw her on the BBC's Question Time. On that show, she was highly patronising and condescending to the foreign members of the audience who were asking her about Britain's policy on sending aid abroad. Considering her title was international development secretary she wasn't exactly giving the rest of the world a good impression of Britain!

Then she threatened to resign over the Iraq war and didn't.

Now she is desperately trying to keep in the media spotlight by coming up with a wild accusation that the US/UK spied on UN chief Kofi Annan. If this is true, why did she wait to jump on the bandwagon created by yesterday's ruling on the GCHQ leak?! Coincidence eh?!

Please Clare do us all a favour, and in the words of Robin Cook today - "Put up or shut up".

Sack this stupid bitch, she is neither use nor ornament!

:mad: :mad:

Originally posted by Geoff


Then she threatened to resign over the Iraq war and didn't.

She resigned her cabinet post,as she said she would.

Now she is desperately trying to keep in the media spotlight by coming up with a wild accusation that the US/UK spied on UN chief Kofi Annan.

Wild accusation. Hardly.

Of course the UK was trying to overhear the confidential conversations of Kofi Annan, because the UK/US needed to roll the UN into supporting the war.

No one is arguing whether they did or didn't, but that the government will not admit it.

This is what I mean about cognitive dissonance.

The gap between what the public thinks how Britain conducts herself in international relations and how Britain actually conducts herself in the international arena is becoming visible to lots of people, and causing some discomfort, as evidenced by Clare Short and Katherine Gun.

Let's not forget Katherine Gun, conscience driven whistleblower who has freely admitted that she broke the Official Secrets Act.

Yet after 8 months of being charged on bail, all charges against her were dropped. In spite of a full confession.....

Why? Because the central plank of her defence was the legality of the war in Iraq, which the government does not stand a cats chance in hell of proving in a court of law.

Why? Because the invasion of Iraq was illegal on virtually every count of national and international law.

Truth will out, even if it takes gobby fools like clare short to do it.

This is from the Guardian on Monday - http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1159241,00.html

Sir Andrew was said to be livid about Ms Short's decision to go public with the letter which she brandished in front of the cameras live on ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme. …

… Downing Street was also delighted when Ms Short was forced to backtrack on her claim about British agents bugging Mr Annan. In her interview, she admitted that the transcripts she saw of Mr Annan's private conversations might have related to Africa and not to Iraq.

Asked whether she could confirm that the transcripts related to Iraq, she said: "I can't, but there might well have been ... I cannot remember a specific transcript in relation, it doesn't mean it wasn't there."

Ms Short also admitted that her original claim, on Radio 4's Today programme last Thursday, that Britain had eavesdropped on Mr Annan may have been inaccurate.

Asked whether the material could have passed to the British by the Americans, she said: "It could. But it normally indicates that. But I can't remember that."

***

Asked whether she had been on the gin, she said "It normally indicates that but I cant remember"

GCHQ was eavesdropping according to Katherine Gun, presumably as part of a wider Echelon operation including the US and Australia.

Why do you think the UN have their own dedicated privacy and security directorate, and sweep offices regularly for listening device?

That Clare Short is confused isn't news, it's just an observation.

But Katherine is the smoking Gun.

I suppose I just dont get it

not the Clare Short thing, she is just a publicity seeking nutter, I get that

I mean I dont get why it is that anyone should think that we have people like MI5 and MI6 and the CIA who we know have spied on Trade Unionists, Communist Party members, anti-apartheid people, Ford workers, Jack Straw, the BNP, the NF etc etc, and then think that they [b/]wouldnt[b] be spying on the US, the UN, the French, MacDonalds and CocaCola and Clint Eastwood and Sean Bean, the Royals and their phone calls to various lovers........

Surely it is what these people DO!

And dont tell me the PM knows all about it, he is being spied on too, all the time, I am sure

I watched "A very British coup" even if no-one else did

Spying is what happens, by everyone on everyone else

Something ergo something