About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

May 14, 2005 10:54am by David Farrar

Responsible Government

Tom Paine at Silent Running has done this wonderful montage. Spread it far and wide people – it is very apt.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment27

Uncategorized

Comments (27)

Login to comment or vote

johnie

You will, of course, give equal billing to the soon to appear montage of national and act politicians…
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 11:06am
Jordan

The PM lied?

That’s a big call David – have you got good defamation lawyers? 🙂
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 11:09am
David Farrar

Johnie – if it is funny, quite possibly.

Jordan – you should be paying attention to the meeting 🙂 but regardless I think Lange vs Atkinson gives me qualified privilege!
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 11:15am
Graeme Edgeler

Well Jordan – the PM is quoted as saying she’s not responsible for lying about Doone…

As a Labour “insider” you’d be in the know on this one … it’s false is it?

You mean she is responsible?
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 11:59am
alma

HEY, LET’S REFER TO A CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT OCCURRENCE — (rather than mindlessly slinging trivia & petty gossip):
It’s a FACT that the sleazy, corrupt, “every man for himself” (at the expense of others, of society and of the public good) ludicrously incompetent & criminally irresponsible NATIONAL PARTY was RESPONSIBLE for the ELECTRICITY SYSTEM DEREGULATION / PRIVATIZATION FIASCO as notoriously epitomized in the TWO MONTH POWER OUTAGE OF A MAJOR METROPOLITAN CITY (AUCKLAND)!!!!!!
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 1:30pm
David Farrar

Wow that is so clever. Refer to events of a decade agao and SHOUT it out. Bet no one has ever thought of that before.

Could have sworn at the time the outage happened the company was owned by a public trust. And also that the years of neglect of the cables happened under public ownership.
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 1:43pm
rightkiwi

Jordan – of course she lied. Most Labour people have the sense to run the line “she lied, but all politicians lie so so what?” You don’t really expect anyone to believe she is telling the truth about this affair do you? Remember when it broke it was all “it was a long time ago, I don’t recall anything” … and then it transpired she had been working on the matter with her lawyers just days or weeks earlier! Get real.
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 2:05pm
Berend de Boer

Cool, the lefties are going nuts over this 🙂

One problem though: just checked with my wife, and she had a hard time explaining 75% of the references. It might be just her of course, but I’ll bet she is better informed than most.

DPF, could your polling company do a poll on how many people would find this funny, and do understand it demonstrated by being able to giving an account of the events referred to?
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 2:07pm
will o the wisp

A Great pamphlet can I order 10,000 for my early morning walks (a nice balance to State Radio’s MR) Perhaps their names above the pics might be helpful – like “sloth” “greed” etc. Afterall, some may have forgotten who Jonathan is.

The Lange Case provides journos with qualified privilage for political reportage. It recognises the chilling affect on political discourse of defamation law. Others suggests it stands for the proposition that politicians have no reputation that is worthy of legal protection 🙂

I doubt Ms Clark would want her reputation tested in any Court – the case might find its way to the Chief Justice (wouldn’t that be sweet revenge). It amazes me how quick lefties are to threaten legal action – very unwise. The question is whether she used her office and influence to encourage SST to run a story that was not a story and then use the media coverage as the justification to remove the Commissioner? While legal issues are involved, its primarily a matter of character.
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 3:24pm
baxter

What about the smarmy bloke wasn’t he not responsible for ncea or something
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 3:32pm
almaverdad

irresponsible National Party in bed with neocon war criminals, bloody-handed profiteers and CIA/Mossad international drug smugglers/money launderers/passport scammers/torture mongers…..
NATIONAL PARTY’s motto: We’ll do ANYTHING for a tax loophole; We’ll get in bed with ANYONE for a kickback or profitable payoff UBER ALLES……

rawstory.com

WAR CRIMES:
51 House members call on Gonzales to appoint special counsel on alleged U.S. ‘war crimes’

Congressman John Conyers will be issuing a letter cosigned by roughly 50 House members calling for a special prosecutor to investigate claims that the U.S. has violated the War Crimes Act at secret detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, RAW STORY has learned.

The following letter will be issued shortly.

###

May 12, 2005

The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

We are writing to request that you appoint a special counsel to investigate whether high-ranking officials within the Bush Administration violated the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 2441, or the Anti-Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. 2340 by allowing the use of torture techniques banned by domestic and international law at recognized and secret detention sites in Iraq, Afghanistan Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

One year and 10 investigations after we first learned about the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib, there has yet to be a comprehensive, neutral and objective investigation with prosecutorial authority of who is ultimately responsible for the abuses there and elsewhere. While more than 130 low-ranking officers and enlisted soldiers have been disciplined or face courts-martial for the abuses that occurred, there have been no criminal charges against high-ranking officials. Yet the pattern of abuse across several countries did not result from the acts of individual soldiers who broke the rules. It resulted from decisions made by senior U.S. officials to bend, ignore, or cast rules aside. If the United States is to wipe away the stain of Abu Ghraib, it needs to investigate those at the top who ordered or condoned torture. As a result, it is in our interest to finally show the world that we are taking these matters seriously and resolving them free of political taint.

Some of us previously asked Attorney General Ashcroft to appoint a special counsel to investigate these abuses on May 20, 2004. Unfortunately, we received no answer to our request. The need for a special counsel is now more important than ever as the Administration and military have repeatedly exonerated high-ranking officials, or declined to even investigate their actions, even as other official investigations linked the policy decisions by these officials to the crimes that occurred at Abu Ghraib. The Administration’s haphazard and disjointed approach to these investigations appears to have insulated those in command and prevented a full account of the actions and abuses from being determined.

As you know, under Department of Justice regulations, the Attorney General must appoint a special counsel when (1) a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted,” (2) the investigation “by a United States Attorney Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department,” and (3) “it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”1 In the present case, all three requirements have been met.

First, federal criminal laws are clearly implicated. The Anti-Torture Act criminalizes acts of torture – including attempts to commit torture and conspiracy to commit an act of torture – occurring outside the United States’ territorial jurisdiction regardless of the citizenship of the perpetrator or victim.2 The Geneva Conventions generally prohibit “violence to life and persons,” “outrages upon personal dignity,” and “humiliating and degrading treatment.”3 Violations of the Geneva Conventions also constitute a violation of U.S. federal criminal law under the War Crimes Act.4 The Administration has acknowledged on several occasions that the United States is bound by the Geneva Conventions with respect to Iraqi5 and Taliban prisoners,6 and that a violation of the Conventions would invite prosecution under the War Crimes Act.7 Numerous investigations have uncovered such violations. The Taguba report found instances of “sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses” of prisoners.8 The Army’s Inspector General’s report found 94 incidents of detainee abuse at detention sites in Afghanistan and Iraq.9 And, the Schlesinger report confirmed five instances in which detainees died as a result of abuse by U.S. personnel during interrogations.10 The repudiation of the August 2002 memorandum you wrote as White House Counsel in December of 2004 suggests even the Administration realizes its policies contributed to actions which violated federal criminal law.11

Therefore, given the Administration’s concession that the Geneva Conventions apply to Iraqi and Taliban prisoners, given its concession in the Gonzalez memo that a violation of the Conventions would also constitute a violation of federal criminal law, and given the flagrant violations of the Conventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay which have been confirmed by official investigations, it is clear that a prima facie violation of federal criminal law exists. It is also evident that high-ranking Administration officials, including the Defense Secretary, as well as high-ranking military officials, may have authorized these actions and are potentially subject to criminal prosecution as well.

Second, there is an obvious conflict of interest. A special counsel is necessary not only because high-ranking Administration officials, including Cabinet members, are implicated, but also because you personally, and the Department of Justice generally, may have participated in this conspiracy to violate the War Crimes Act. It has been confirmed that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, and you yourself as White House Counsel, encouraged the president to withhold Geneva Convention protections from Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay detainees. If the conflict of interest provisions in your regulations mean anything, it is that when the Attorney General may have contributed to the abuses that were committed, the Department of Justice has no business conducting the investigation and should instead turn to a special counsel.

Finally, there can be no doubt that the public interest will be served by a broad and independent investigation into both the allegations of abuse at U.S. detention sites as well as the role of high-ranking officials in authorizing and allowing these abuses. To date, a number of investigations into allegations of abuse at United States detention sites have been conducted, including ten official investigations. These investigations concluded that the leadership failure of officers such as Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, formerly the senior commander in Iraq, contributed to the prisoner abuse.

For example, the Army Inspector General and former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger found in separate reports that the policies issued by Lt. Gen. Sanchez and his subsequent actions once the abuses at Abu Ghraib were known contributed to the perpetration of these abuses. The Schlesinger investigation also found that other top military officials were responsible, concluding, “There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels.”12 Similarly, the Kern-Fay-Jones report concluded that the actions of Sanchez and his most senior deputies, such as Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, “did indirectly contribute” to some abuses.13 However, these inquiries were not empowered to impose punishments on those it found culpable, and they were not empowered to examine the role of high-ranking officials, including members of the Administration, in the perpetuation of these abuses.14 And, in spite of these findings, many of the reports refused to hold these high-ranking officials culpable. In fact, we recently learned the Army absolved four top officers, including Lt. Gen. Sanchez, of wrongdoing. To date, only one high-ranking military officer has been punished as a result of these inquiries, and many view her punishment as a mere slap on the wrist. As a result, it is not yet clear to the world that the United States is taking these abuses seriously.

The public interest demands we determine who is ultimately responsible for these abuses. While Private Lynndie England and other low-ranking officers have pled guilty, those who ordered and authorized their actions appear to have been protected by the military and this Administration. Because so many high level officials, including you, have been implicated in these events, the only way to ensure impartiality is through the appointment of a Special Counsel. Indeed, our nation’s integrity is at stake. We must reassure the world that we will fairly and independently pursue legal violations wherever they occur.

We await your response on this important matter. At no point during this Administration has a Special Counsel been appointed.15 Please contact us through Perry Apelbaum or Ted Kalo of the Judiciary Staff at 2142 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 if you have any questions about this request.

Sincerely,

1. Rep. Tammy Baldwin
2. Rep. Sanford Bishop
3. Rep. Earl Blumenauer
4. Rep. Corrine Brown
5. Rep. Julia Carson
6. Rep. John Conyers
7. Rep. Elijah Cummings
8. Rep. A. Davis
9. Rep. S. Davis
10. Rep. Diana DeGette
11. Rep. Anna Eshoo
12. Rep. Barney Frank
13. Rep. Raul Grijalva
14. Rep. Luis Guitierrez
15. Rep. Maurice Hinchey
16. Rep. Michael Honda
17. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
18. Rep. Ron Kind
19. Rep. Dennis Kucinich
20. Rep. Barbara Lee
21. Rep. Zoe Lofgren
22. Rep. Carolyn Maloney
23. Rep. Betty McCollum
24. Rep. Jim McDermott
25. Rep. James McGovern
26. Rep. Gregory Meeks
27. Rep. James Moran
28. Rep. Jerrold Nadler
29. Rep. James Oberstar
30. Rep. John Olver
31. Rep. Frank Pallone
32. Rep. Donald Payne
33. Rep. Tom Price
34. Rep. Martin Sabo
35. Rep. Linda Sanchez
36. Rep. Bernard Sanders
37. Rep. Janice Schakowsky
38. Rep. Bobby Scott
39. Rep. Jose Serrano
40. Rep. Louise Slaughter
41. Rep. Hilda Solis
42. Rep. Fortney Stark
43. Rep. Ellen Tauscher
44. Rep. Mark Udall
45. Rep. Chris VanHollen
46. Rep. Maxine Waters
47. Rep. Diane Watson
48. Rep. Melvin Watt
49. Rep. Robert Wexler
50. Rep. Lynn Woolsey
51. Rep. David Wu
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 5:39pm
alma

NZ National in bed with Bush Crime Dynasty…

rawstory.com

‘WAR CRIMES’
51 House members call on Gonzales
to appoint special counsel
on alleged U.S. ‘war crimes’

Congressman John Conyers will be issuing a letter cosigned by roughly 50 House members calling for a special prosecutor to investigate claims that the U.S. has violated the War Crimes Act at secret detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, RAW STORY has learned.

The following letter will be issued shortly.

###

May 12, 2005

The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

We are writing to request that you appoint a special counsel to investigate whether high-ranking officials within the Bush Administration violated the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 2441, or the Anti-Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. 2340 by allowing the use of torture techniques banned by domestic and international law at recognized and secret detention sites in Iraq, Afghanistan Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

One year and 10 investigations after we first learned about the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib, there has yet to be a comprehensive, neutral and objective investigation with prosecutorial authority of who is ultimately responsible for the abuses there and elsewhere. While more than 130 low-ranking officers and enlisted soldiers have been disciplined or face courts-martial for the abuses that occurred, there have been no criminal charges against high-ranking officials. Yet the pattern of abuse across several countries did not result from the acts of individual soldiers who broke the rules. It resulted from decisions made by senior U.S. officials to bend, ignore, or cast rules aside. If the United States is to wipe away the stain of Abu Ghraib, it needs to investigate those at the top who ordered or condoned torture. As a result, it is in our interest to finally show the world that we are taking these matters seriously and resolving them free of political taint.

Some of us previously asked Attorney General Ashcroft to appoint a special counsel to investigate these abuses on May 20, 2004. Unfortunately, we received no answer to our request. The need for a special counsel is now more important than ever as the Administration and military have repeatedly exonerated high-ranking officials, or declined to even investigate their actions, even as other official investigations linked the policy decisions by these officials to the crimes that occurred at Abu Ghraib. The Administration’s haphazard and disjointed approach to these investigations appears to have insulated those in command and prevented a full account of the actions and abuses from being determined.

As you know, under Department of Justice regulations, the Attorney General must appoint a special counsel when (1) a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted,” (2) the investigation “by a United States Attorney Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department,” and (3) “it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”1 In the present case, all three requirements have been met.

First, federal criminal laws are clearly implicated. The Anti-Torture Act criminalizes acts of torture – including attempts to commit torture and conspiracy to commit an act of torture – occurring outside the United States’ territorial jurisdiction regardless of the citizenship of the perpetrator or victim.2 The Geneva Conventions generally prohibit “violence to life and persons,” “outrages upon personal dignity,” and “humiliating and degrading treatment.”3 Violations of the Geneva Conventions also constitute a violation of U.S. federal criminal law under the War Crimes Act.4 The Administration has acknowledged on several occasions that the United States is bound by the Geneva Conventions with respect to Iraqi5 and Taliban prisoners,6 and that a violation of the Conventions would invite prosecution under the War Crimes Act.7 Numerous investigations have uncovered such violations. The Taguba report found instances of “sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses” of prisoners.8 The Army’s Inspector General’s report found 94 incidents of detainee abuse at detention sites in Afghanistan and Iraq.9 And, the Schlesinger report confirmed five instances in which detainees died as a result of abuse by U.S. personnel during interrogations.10 The repudiation of the August 2002 memorandum you wrote as White House Counsel in December of 2004 suggests even the Administration realizes its policies contributed to actions which violated federal criminal law.11

Therefore, given the Administration’s concession that the Geneva Conventions apply to Iraqi and Taliban prisoners, given its concession in the Gonzalez memo that a violation of the Conventions would also constitute a violation of federal criminal law, and given the flagrant violations of the Conventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay which have been confirmed by official investigations, it is clear that a prima facie violation of federal criminal law exists. It is also evident that high-ranking Administration officials, including the Defense Secretary, as well as high-ranking military officials, may have authorized these actions and are potentially subject to criminal prosecution as well.

Second, there is an obvious conflict of interest. A special counsel is necessary not only because high-ranking Administration officials, including Cabinet members, are implicated, but also because you personally, and the Department of Justice generally, may have participated in this conspiracy to violate the War Crimes Act. It has been confirmed that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, and you yourself as White House Counsel, encouraged the president to withhold Geneva Convention protections from Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay detainees. If the conflict of interest provisions in your regulations mean anything, it is that when the Attorney General may have contributed to the abuses that were committed, the Department of Justice has no business conducting the investigation and should instead turn to a special counsel.

Finally, there can be no doubt that the public interest will be served by a broad and independent investigation into both the allegations of abuse at U.S. detention sites as well as the role of high-ranking officials in authorizing and allowing these abuses. To date, a number of investigations into allegations of abuse at United States detention sites have been conducted, including ten official investigations. These investigations concluded that the leadership failure of officers such as Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, formerly the senior commander in Iraq, contributed to the prisoner abuse.

For example, the Army Inspector General and former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger found in separate reports that the policies issued by Lt. Gen. Sanchez and his subsequent actions once the abuses at Abu Ghraib were known contributed to the perpetration of these abuses. The Schlesinger investigation also found that other top military officials were responsible, concluding, “There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels.”12 Similarly, the Kern-Fay-Jones report concluded that the actions of Sanchez and his most senior deputies, such as Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, “did indirectly contribute” to some abuses.13 However, these inquiries were not empowered to impose punishments on those it found culpable, and they were not empowered to examine the role of high-ranking officials, including members of the Administration, in the perpetuation of these abuses.14 And, in spite of these findings, many of the reports refused to hold these high-ranking officials culpable. In fact, we recently learned the Army absolved four top officers, including Lt. Gen. Sanchez, of wrongdoing. To date, only one high-ranking military officer has been punished as a result of these inquiries, and many view her punishment as a mere slap on the wrist. As a result, it is not yet clear to the world that the United States is taking these abuses seriously.

The public interest demands we determine who is ultimately responsible for these abuses. While Private Lynndie England and other low-ranking officers have pled guilty, those who ordered and authorized their actions appear to have been protected by the military and this Administration. Because so many high level officials, including you, have been implicated in these events, the only way to ensure impartiality is through the appointment of a Special Counsel. Indeed, our nation’s integrity is at stake. We must reassure the world that we will fairly and independently pursue legal violations wherever they occur.

We await your response on this important matter. At no point during this Administration has a Special Counsel been appointed.15 Please contact us through Perry Apelbaum or Ted Kalo of the Judiciary Staff at 2142 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 if you have any questions about this request.

from website: rawstory.com
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 7:03pm
Murray

Get your own site for spewing your delusion crap.

Your freak filter is on the fritz David.
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 9:06pm
Charles

Jeez Alma, as I recall it was a Labour government that started the whole privatisation ball rolling. Watcha got ta say ’bout that?
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 10:10pm
Craig Ranapia

Alma –

Do you think you could learn some basic on-line etiquette? Such as: 1) DON’T SHOUT (it’s really not that hard to avoid the Caps Lock key), and 2) Don’t waste other people’s bandwidth by posting long, irrelevant screeds into comments.
0 0
Report
May 14, 2005 11:49pm
exocet

This ‘alma’ troll has been making a nuisance of itself on a number of sites. Could the managment please ban it?
0 0
Report
May 15, 2005 12:49am
alma

Dear howling Murray (AKA “coyote451” — some ranchers regard a rabid “coyote” as a nuisance),

Apparently, reading documentation of inconvenient facts makes you anxious. Should I apologize for stirring things up because you might not be able to handle the “verdad”?

During the 1990’s the National Party-led government wrecked New Zealand with a series of man-made disasters, including the ludicrous two-month power outage of a major city, which caused a huge economic toll to businesses and enterprises for which they were never sufficiently reimbursed.

The National Party does not have a holistic approach of useful policies for governing & enhancing society — but, rather, a reactionary one-track railroading to further stuff the pockets of the already wealthy & privileged, at the expense of the wellbeing and opportunities of the majority. The National Party also aligns itself with the bloody (and delusional!) policies of the British neo-imperialists and American neocons to foment staged terror and to hijack countries & resources (with no efforts at reasonable diplomacy or fair trade practices).

Sincerely,
almaverdad
0 0
Report
May 15, 2005 1:48am
Rodders

The enquiry into the 1998 Auckland Power failure found Mercury Energy at fault. Refer to http://www.med.govt.nz/inquiry
0 0
Report
May 15, 2005 7:40am
phil u.

whilst agreeing alms should superglue her capslock on lowercase..(and did we really need the names of all the signers)..but the last paragraph of her last post is a tidy summation of national, eh?

“..The National Party does not have a holistic approach of useful policies for governing & enhancing society — but, rather, a reactionary one-track railroading to further stuff the pockets of the already wealthy & privileged, at the expense of the wellbeing and opportunities of the majority. The National Party also aligns itself with the bloody (and delusional!) policies of the British neo-imperialists and American neocons to foment staged terror and to hijack countries & resources (with no efforts at reasonable diplomacy or fair trade practices)..”

not much to argue with there, eh?..all you neo-con american supplicants fully support usa foreign adventurism, and want more of it..you have self-avowed links/support of, the haves at the expense of the rest (big tax cuts for rich etc, etc)..as i say what’s to argue with..?

yinm (whoar.co.nz.)
0 0
Report
May 15, 2005 8:33am
Rodders

‘superglue the capslock on lowercase’ – Your secret is finally revealed, Phil 😉

ttfn
0 0
Report
May 15, 2005 9:24am
phil u

it all happened during a night/guerilla raid by the c.s.l (capital suppression league)..they are fighting the supression/oppression of the masses symbolised/reinforced by the use of the capital letter (y’know C.I.A. is much more aggressive/repressive than c.i.a., eh?)..

the c.s.l. make a.l.f. look like a bunch of pussys..i’m going to tell them to ‘get elms’..she wont be upper-casing for much longer..

yinm(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Report
May 15, 2005 10:32am
spector

Aren’t the “British neo-imperialists” Alma refers too… ummm…. in Iraq because of… ummm… the British Labour party!? I may have got my facts wrong… but i’m pretty sure it was Tony Blair who I’m pretty sure is Labour… who was so hot on sending troops to Iraq. Isn’t that the same Labour government that Helen Clark publicly congratulated for getting back into power?
0 0
Report
May 15, 2005 12:22pm
phil u.

“..but i’m pretty sure it was Tony Blair who I’m pretty sure is Labour..”

no, that’s where you are mistaken spector..bliar is actually a warmongering/american arse-kissing tory in drag..didn’t ya know?

and what welds bliar to our own clerk is that both a long time ago abandoned the traditional beliefs/ethos of labour values to both drag their parties to the right..both abandoned their traditional constituencies of the poor/needy in a successful attempt to woo the benificiary bashing rightwing/redkneck vote,(working for families? bah humbug!) with re-election (aka fear of defeat) being the driving/only force for both policians..

hope that helps clear up that misconception you had of bliar (and possibly clerk) being labour prime ministers in anything else but name…but as with here, what was/is the bloody alternative? (insert tui beer ad rejoinder)

btw remember all those years ago how bliar vowed to cancel third world debt and free the poorest countries in the world from usurous interest rates?..those rates that were grinding their faces in their poverty..that stopped/prevented attention to domestic problems..and debts that in many cases were entered into by dictators/despots, who just pocketed it..and succeeding generations pay, each and every day, with money, death, and disease..?

that particular feelgood ‘third way’ policy hasn’t really left the starting block yet, eh? oh, you know, there’s been a war and other stuff to do..it must have just slipped off the radar screen, eh?

yinm (whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Report
May 15, 2005 1:05pm
pundito

isn’t the key to improving 3rd world living conditions democracy and trade liberalisation. Wouldn’t forgiving the debts merely clear the decks to allow the dictators to rush out and buy on tick, more weapons (a significant amount of which are French, Russian and German) for the next round of oppresion of their respective or neighbours’ populaces?
There might be a justifiable argument for interest write off, but the principle is a different matter.
0 0
Report
May 15, 2005 2:11pm
phil u

a combination of both pundito..

yinm (whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Report
May 15, 2005 4:20pm
Baden

Doesn’t the phrasing of “I’m not responsible for letting in Iraqis” strike anyone else as slightly racist?
0 0
Report
May 15, 2005 11:34pm
Murray

Still no.

The answer remains the same no matter how many sites you troll.
0 0
Report
May 16, 2005 9:44am

« Blond Moment III

Cellphone Hacking »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Top Stories

General Debate 24 November 2024
General Debate 25 November 2024
Guest Post: Response to Max Harris
A $25 million glasshouse
Guest Post: Peter Ellis Case Blows Up New Zealand – Twice
Pennsylvania Democrats think they are above the law
Small but promising change
How annoyed would NZers be if NZ news media were no longer findable on search engines and social media?
Mallory Keaton joins Alex
RANZ Update

Recent Posts

Pennsylvania Democrats think they are above the law 25 November 2024
How annoyed would NZers be if NZ news media were no longer findable on search engines and social media? 25 November 2024
Mallory Keaton joins Alex 25 November 2024
General Debate 25 November 2024 25 November 2024
Guest Post: Peter Ellis Case Blows Up New Zealand – Twice 25 November 2024
Small but promising change 24 November 2024
A $25 million glasshouse 24 November 2024
General Debate 24 November 2024 24 November 2024
Guest Post: Response to Max Harris 24 November 2024
RANZ Update 23 November 2024
Who are the major emitters? 23 November 2024
A whale on a prediction market 23 November 2024

Recent Comments

Mallory Keaton joins Alex
pdm
Mallory Keaton joins Alex
pdm
Guest Post: Peter Ellis Case Blows Up New Zealand – Twice
NK
Pennsylvania Democrats think they are above the law
Don Beckett
General Debate 25 November 2024
cmm
General Debate 25 November 2024
cmm
General Debate 25 November 2024
Ian Boag
General Debate 24 November 2024
NZer In Exile
General Debate 25 November 2024
PurplePen
Guest Post: Response to Max Harris
wrightingright
General Debate 24 November 2024
NZer In Exile
Guest Post: Response to Max Harris
wrightingright
General Debate 25 November 2024
PurplePen
Guest Post: Peter Ellis Case Blows Up New Zealand – Twice
wrightingright
Guest Post: Peter Ellis Case Blows Up New Zealand – Twice
wrightingright

Links

Caleb Anderson: The Emergence of a New Religion and the Deification of the Treaty
Breaking Views
Property Rights for “Sesame Street”
Not PC
Daily review 25/11/2024
The Standard
Airstrip One Policing
No Minister
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Watts will be bracing for the cold in Antarctica while Luxon is bracing for a White House change (and Trump’s taste for tariffs)
Point of Order
Justice Department Indicts Alleged Swatters of Turley, Members of Congress, and Others
Utopia
BISHOP BRIAN TAMAKI
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Green Party out of the woke frying pan into the woke fire
The Daily Blog
Treaty Principles Debate
NZCPR
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d